I wondered how long it would be before someone would pick up on the big picture point made on that SSNL thread. By definition marginal decisions aren't hugely important to winrate. The consensus of people more skilled than I seems to be that this is a marginal decision.

i call and hope he he has qq's not aa's
also checking turn just means you auto call a river bet which he does with hands that beat you and you cant really thin v-b on the river too.
people who are sayin check the turn are just seeing the results to much.

Well, yes, but the point is that against this sort of opponent inducing a bluff is likely to be profitable. That depends on the basic assumption, which some obviously reject, that your opponent isn't likely to bluff with a hand beaten by KK unless you check the turn.

Incidentally, if he bluffs with some wild overbet on the river and you have a tough decision, then slowplaying all sets or better (preferable with the same line: bet flop, check turn) against this opponent becomes VERY profitable.

I know I'm late to the party, but my 2 cents would be that he turns over 10 7. I know picking an exact hand is never ideal, but I've seen it before. Honestly, I think his range is tighter than everyone makes it out to be, he was calling before with what I assume to be a one pair hand (probably a 10 with a weak kicker) and the river improved his hand. The only other variation I see would be a slow played hand from the start, but the bottom line is I think he check calls with hands we beat and goes to value town like he did with hands that beat us.

If there was a specific read to say that he donks the riv with air I'd snap call, but given the line he took through the hand I'm going to have to fold this on the river. I mean who really bluffs in this spot, sure there is the possibility he's trying to save face with a hand that has no showdown value, but I think the overwhelming amount of the time he's taking us to value town. I'm saying he's got 2 pr, maybe a set like 90% of the time.

Against villians with a wide range I'm not a huge fan of stoving things because I think it is inherently flawed. if he's bluffing nh, but we're just too deep to stack off here. obv if this is 100bbs deep I'm loving it when it gets allin.

@billp (Devil's Advocate):

Once you get to the river, though, the starting stacks don't matter (except to recreate hand ranges, etc.). You're getting the odds you're getting, about 3:1, whether you started with $100 or $100K. So that would imply to me that, if calling on a 25% proposition for the rest of your stack "feels" wrong, then any problem with that approach was before the river.

I really need to think through the theory of building big pots against wild opponents. Seems to me that making decisions like this for your stack is precisely what you're aiming for. Then again, seems to me that you might well be beat ~75% of the time here. But given the pot odds and V's stats it's probably a marginal call.

The reason that I mention the deep stacks is not because I"m more concerned about the money, but that we're given alot more information as the hand plays through. The point being at any point prior to the river I'd have been happy to stack off, but because of the deep stacks we didn't. Now, the additional information gained has led me to believe it's a fold.

I play alot of wild opponents on prima (50% of the site are certifiable) and I agree with building big pots with much more marginal holdings. I've actually snap called with AJos all in preflop against people (he ending up having K10). bottom line tho, it's not that I'm advocating not getting it all in as a rule, this situaiton just seems like we're beat.

This is such a thought-provoking thread. Thanks pokey.

On first read, every instinct told me to fold. I kept reading, read everything a couple of times, did some range calculations - and I know everyone says call, but I am definitely finding a fold here. I know disagreeing with pokey is a sin, but here goes: =P

The first thing that scared me was this: as maniacal as these guys get, they tend to pick a street (usually the turn, and then maybe the flop) at some point where the get trappy, even nitty. There was a total of 5 big bets in this, so I'm a little wary of it being a genius bluff. But...

1) but of course we shouldn't be playing by blanket rules like "durrrr only play one-pair for 100bb" and such nonsense. The above was just something that prodded my gut instinct. So let's look at the ranges: after the flop, the villain could seriously have any two, especially given your read. Every two low cards give a pair or a gutshot, and every two high cards is an overcard or TP.
2) The turn gives us a bit more information - after the turn, I think he only has AJ, TJ, JQ, 89, QK, a set, or picked up a flush draw. If he's really loose he may still just have AT. He may also be still drawing to his OESD, but I really doubt it (also, it doesn't matter much because one of hte OESD just got there). Also, pf action, the turn picking up draws, and his 2.3 aggro factor is making me rule out overpairs, like QQ, KK, and AA. The only other overpair JJ which hit a set on the turn. The river is very bad since all of those hands are still strong except for QK, whose probability is lessened because you have 2 Ks!!
3) But most of all, the point is not that he GOT TO the river with a wide range (I would actually think it isn't all that wide after the turn, but anyway). You guys already calculated that. The point is that he BET OUT. I think this totally destroys the J part of his range (and any pair, really, even if he's putting hero on AK or something, he is c/c-ing), and is what changes this from an instacall (in the case where even if we still get a 7, but with a different suit) to an "ugh" fold. Also, of the three "big" pairs that might bet out for some reason (QQ-AA), you are exactly in the middle so we don't have to even consider them.

I think what angry hobo said earlier is important - this line (c/c, c/c, bet out) is just too strong (although one minor point - hobo phrased it in terms of it not being math-related, but I think you can find this fold through math - it is all conditional probabilities, anyway).

------------------

Now I'll answer to Pokey's excellent follow-up thoughts(this is point by point to one of his posts later in the thread) :
1) I agree. the decision is close. But I think the lean toward fold is nontrivial.
2) Yes. But I don't see why you have to always stick with a static strategy if things change. You can always optimize it dynamically. You can argue that a solid static strategy will win in the long run, but we can also squeeze out value in the later time periods, like the fact taht we are worrying about this part right now. The idea that you make a strategy desiging to get the hand all-in should be interpreted as: "if I make these early decisions, it will allow me to in most cases carry out a big profit playing the later streets." It doesn't mean you are really "committed" in any concrete sense.
3) Metagame is important, but there are several other factors at stake:
a) This is not MS/HSNL - unless people are really paying attention, I don't think you lose anything in metagame. Most people even if they are tricky will probably still not adjust adequately. And if they adjust, you can always lose one pot and re-adjust, right? Furthermore, they might adjust to you (even if you WIN this pot) by valuing you to death because they see you calling with one pair when you are most likely behind or something!
b) This is a big pot. I think metagame is more important if you show in smaller/medium sized pots so you can win big pots later (like THIS one). I think you are going in the wrong direction if you want to use a very big pot to metagame future medium-sized pots. In big pots, the imortant part is EV.
4) yes. I totally agree. But the fact that it gives a flush is a really big part, IMO. Since even the really ****ty cards that call on the flpo for no reason could find themselves a call on the turn - and they just hit.
5) hehe. This is a fun concept.
6) see #2. I think the concepts in the book are great, but you never want 3 streets of later decisions to be all "inveitable results". If you are short and there is a PSB after the flop, then whatever. You lose a lot of EV if you turn a 4-betting round game (when you are this deep) into a pf game.
7) well, if your arguments are all right, then I totally agree. I showed you where I disagree, and hopefully we can agree somehwere in the middle.
Spoiler: Grr. Damn you. =)

Sorry for the tl-ness of this post.

So I left out the final range given he bet. I'm thinking random two pairs (most likely 46, 67, JT), sets, 89, 35 (less likely), and flushes. You are beating QQ (but losing to AA), rarely a small pair that turns into a bluff, and maybe QK as a no-pair hand, though I find it really unlikely.

I mean what else is he bluffing with? Maybe small pairs? A J? Most of those he is going to be c/c-ing if he decides to continue, and probably not betting for value.

Just read this for the first time, its kind of a no-brainer fold. No missed leftover draws from flop to bluff, dry board, etc etc. This is just such a strong line from an unknown.

On another point, could you elaborate as to why you are still playing .50/1.00? For all the detailed posts I would have thought you would have been well beyond this level by now.

I know what you mean about Prima, I had 2 hands recently like this (facing river bets anyway)

Villain in the first is 37.86/20.29/2.4 and has infinite river aggression but hadn't played many hands vs him at this point. I double barrelled as he was betting a lot of turns that were checked to him. He showed the bluff because I typed "nice river" or something, but useful free info, especially when I obviously couldn't call. What do you make of his play though? I don't think he is making a read here really as I don't double barrell that often, it's kinda reckless imo.

- Hero sitting in seat 1 with $30.06
- Button sitting in seat 2 with $20.81 [Dealer]
- SB sitting in seat 5 with $6.12
- Villain sitting in seat 6 with $16.44

SB posted the small blind - $0.10
Villain posted the big blind - $0.20
** Dealing card to str1: Ace of Hearts, King of Diamonds
Hero raised - $0.80
Button folded
SB folded
Villain called - $0.80

** Dealing the flop: 2 of Hearts, Queen of Clubs, 5 of Clubs
Villain checked
Hero bet - $1.40
Villain called - $1.40

** Dealing the turn: 3 of Spades
Villain checked
Hero bet - $3.00
Villain called - $3.00

** Dealing the river: Jack of Clubs
Villain bet - $6.50
Hero folded
Villain shows: Ace of Clubs, 8 of Diamonds
Villain wins $16.48 from the main pot

And then another, this villain is 24.64/14.49/2.47. The villains aggression stats didn't really make this call, rather the fact that I had seen him raise draws before and I didn't believe he was calling down draws with the bad odds I'd given him. My bet on the river, was meant to be a blocker bet, but was probably to weak and as I'd seen him push over someone with 33 before (an underpair to the board) I decided to make the call. I'm not sure it was +EV and maybe a bit tilt induced from having to fold KK just before when the board was 478 and after a pot sized flop bet a 6 hit the turn and my villain pushed. Anyway here's the hand:

- UTG sitting in seat 1 with $38.73
- Hero sitting in seat 3 with $20.22
- Villain sitting in seat 4 with $20.63 [Dealer]
- SB sitting in seat 5 with $10.05
- BB sitting in seat 6 with $19.00

SB posted the small blind - $0.10
BB posted the big blind - $0.20
Hero posted to play - $0.10
** Dealing card to str1: Ace of Spades, Queen of Diamonds
UTG folded
Hero raised - $0.80
Villain called - $0.80
SB folded
BB folded

** Dealing the flop: 5 of Hearts, 3 of Diamonds, 6 of Diamonds
Hero bet - $1.40
Villain called - $1.40

** Dealing the turn: Ace of Hearts
Hero bet - $3.50
Villain called - $3.50

** Dealing the river: King of Diamonds
Hero bet - $5.00
Villain went all-in - $14.93
Hero went all-in - $9.62
Hero shows: Ace of Spades, Queen of Diamonds
Villain mucks:
Hero wins $38.90 from the main pot

Sorry if this is too off topic/a highjack or anything, just thought it related a bit. And apologies for the HH format, couldn't manage to conver my Prima HH.

I just read the beginning of thread but its a fold, theres no need to give him a range he only bets the river like that with better hands

The only hands i can put him on that you have beat are AJ or a complete bluff.

My first instinct when I read the OP was to call, and after thinking about it a lot more and reading most or all of the replies I'm pretty sure that's what I'd end up doing. Partially because of the metagame pokey mentioned. If we make bad calls here we don't give up a ton of EV IMO, but if we make bad folds we're hugely exploitable. Sure, that's gonig to be fine against most opponents, but against either players that pick up on it or bad players who just happens to exploit it accidentaly it's a disaster.

I also think that the river shove is simply a result of villain thinking something like "Oh ****, I only have a pretty small bet left, I might as well just shove it in the pot now" quite often. There's another thing making me want to call as well that I don't think was mentioned in any of the posts about weighting villain's range. That he won't take this line with the hands in his range that we beat anywhere near 100% of the time is largely compensated by the fact that the same thing is true to some degree for all the hands that beat us. Even with the hands that picked up a spade draw on the turn, which I think are the ones he'll take this line with closest to 100% of the time by far, he'll get aggressive at some point earlier in the hand fairly often. Either because he had a ten on the flop that he thought it was best to checkraise with, or because he thought picking up extra outs on the turn made it a good idea to semi-bluff.

In addition to the above, a villain with ******ed stats taking a ******ed line greatly increases the chances of being up against some ******ed unexpected hand. So many bad players seem to turn hands into bluffs when the board gets scary simply to avoid the tough decision they'd have if they checked and their opponent bet. There's also the small but far from insignificant chance that his thought process went along the lines of:

PF: Hey, this is a good hand, I raise. He's not gonna push me around before we've even seen a flop, I call.
Flop: Nice try, but I know you have AK, I call.
Turn: See flop.
River: Hey, this card is scary, I should bluff. All-in.

or something equally nonsensical. Something that I've seen a lot of, especially in uNL players, is that people fail to account for all the times when a bad player will be doing that's really bad and seemingly completely random. They often use their own weird kind of logic and not accounting for that tends to lead to overly pessimistic equity estimations. As I mentioned earlier, I think this possibility needs to be weighted more heavily than normal because of what we know about villain and his line. It's probably still a pretty small part of his overall range, but it can easily be the deciding factor in a close decision.

pokey,

results or ban

kthx

I've read the thread several times now and don't have much to add but this:

Is this really a situation where we want to play for SPR/committment? With stacks this deep even Pokey's massive betting leaves deep enough stacks for villian to make an overbet on the river, which is pretty much the SPR situation we want to avoid with an overpair hand. I agree that once we get there it is hard to find a fold but I can't really see us being good here often enough.

If the answer is "yes, we want to play for committment" then I don't think posting results would hurt because a call should be almost automatic.

[QUOTE=PrinceBustya;1957309]I know what you mean about Prima, I had 2 hands recently like this (facing river bets anyway)

[QUOTE]

lol I've been in these exact spots too. I'd agree with the line through both hands and I think this proves my point to a degree. I'd be more than willing to stack off with 100bbs. 100% of the time, I'd probably throw a fist pump in.

ZOMG! BANZOR?!? Okies, here's the results -- but only because you asked so nicely.

I call, villain flips over T 8 and I scoop up a 464.5 BB pot (after rake). Afterwards, villain goes on three-fisted monkey tilt and steams away another two buyins or so.

A few comments:

1. I was very hesitant to post the results for a few reasons. First, I think the results COMPLETELY kill the discussion. I doubt we would have had 165 responses in this thread if my original post had included that as a spoiler. Also, I think the results SKEW the discussion: I'm thinking that we wouldn't have seen so very many people suggesting that this hand is an easy fold if I'd included the results in the OP. It may be a deeply subconscious factor, but the results WILL skew the feedback. You really can't get honest responses if you give away the ending.

2. The results are very polarizing. When you make a "huge play" like this, the results will either make you look like a genius or a dolt, when the reality is that you were playing the percentages. I think that most of the time I lose this pot; the fact that this was one of the times where villain was bluffing doesn't make this a slam-dunk super-easy instacall. It just means that this particular time I was facing the friendly side of his range.

3. People who folded this hand would have walked away happy that they had saved money. They never would have realized that they'd given up over three buyins (-100 BB instead of +233 BB) because villain was on a bluff. Villain's play is extremely effective here because it DOES get so many people to lay down the best hand.

4. I think that the vast majority of us would not have put T8s in villain's range, here. Lesson to be learned: YOU ARE NOT A DONK. Don't assume that villain could never make such-and-such a play because "that wouldn't make any sense," or "it's not a +EV move," or "it turns a made hand into a bluff," or similar arguments; sometimes they just do things. Meaningless things. Scary things. -EV things. If the play doesn't make sense, it's not always strategy....

5. The river card was a great bluffing opportunity for villain. Maybe he planned it through from the beginning, but I highly doubt it. My best guess is that he was hunting for a straight, trips, or two pair and stumbled into a scary-looking board and said "wow, I'll bet a bluff would work here!" It almost did, and against many people it would have worked. Just because we plan multiple streets in advance doesn't mean that THEY do. Sometimes a scare card induces a bluff-of-opportunity, regardless of how likely or unlikely it is to work.

bump for all to see results

Lol, almost sensed a bad beat tone in your first reply.
Was it a snap call?

Nice read spotted! Ship it!

Mm.. No? DUCY?

Rofl, my drunk self didn't realize last night that T9 spades was a flush...but I would have made the call too (hence the comment about taking frequent poker breaks), I'm a river calling station.

grunched:

after 180 hands I probably would have figured out if he frequently puts in big bets on later streets. I can't think of many worse river cards except the Ks, which would be probably the worst.

Both his bet size and the card make me really nervous. He also played the hand a lot like a draw. If he doesn't have the cojones to bluff with a busted draw I definitely fold. If he has a tendency to bluff I may just snap call. I know I've done both in this situation and I usually make the right choice. This is a very difficult hand to comment on though without actually watching the hand play out and observing how the villian plays.

holla.

fwiw, I lean way way more towards a fold than a call. I think calling even if he bluffs missed draws sometimes is very ballsy and probably not that great of an idea. And the fact you have a one paired hand doesn't matter at all. I'm just as likely to call/fold with AA as I am with two pair/set here.

wow I just missed that it was a 3bet pot, which changes things quite a bit. It would lean me more towards a call whereas in a single-raised pot (realizing the pot isn't as big but whatever), I'd tend to be more likely to fold.

Sorry to bump this thread but I found it really interesting and I have a couple questions for any experienced player that reads this.

-Why not consider folding River to a couple of cards that improve villain's range in multiple ways? I am mostly thinking about 7s,8s,9s that improve villain's range alot.

-Also why consider J as a scare River card? It improves villain's Jx holdings (not a lot of his range IMO: JT and maybe other Jx brodways but these are strange after the flop) but counterfeit 2pair hands that he might have before such as 64 and it decrease the number of possible combo for JT. The same for a Ks that kills TT,66 and 44.

About the hand I would have called for pot odds and the fact that he might have made a bigger mistake on Turn that my possible mistake on River and I want to reward him for that bad of a play. I don't think that were gonna win this hand enough to make the call EV+ though but given the hard time to find the right answer, this must be close to EV neutral.