UTG 1 is fish

BTN is kinda laggy, 16/14 over 110, no real history with him, ft3b 66% (small sample), AF is 9

Pre I kind of think I should have raised a tad more.

Poker Stars $0.25/$0.50 No Limit Hold'em - 9 players - View hand 1586958
DeucesCracked Poker Videos Hand History Converter

UTG+1: $33.75
UTG+2: $46.65
MP1: $113.65
MP2: $49.50
CO: $59.70
BTN: $19.25
Hero (SB): $57.75
BB: $50.00
UTG: $22.70

Pre Flop: ($0.75) Hero is SB with A A
1 fold, UTG+1 raises to $1, 3 folds, CO calls $1, 1 fold, Hero raises to $4.50, 2 folds, CO calls $3.50

Flop: ($10.50) 9 2 J (2 players)
Hero bets $7, CO calls $7

Turn: ($24.50) 3

Turn line? B/f, B/c, X/c, X/shove

(2 players)
Hero bets $17, CO raises to $48.20 all in, Hero calls

U agrees?

I'd rather not have the A here, but I still just don't fold AA here... I think you can see enough AJ or QQ type hands here which figure they're calling a shove on the river anyways, so they might as well not let you see the river for free.

But I don't play enough to have a good sense of villans ranges here.

I don't know man, we're repping exactly what we have. I don't think some guy with solid stats and just 110 hands is just going to up and say "I'm gonna try to get this guy to fold aces." Also he can never say "**** it I shove" with QQ or KK here because he would have raised those pre. He shouldn't be turning a hand like 77 into a bluff either. Also we can rule out some club draws cause we hold the Ac. There aren't many hands that beat you (99,22, J9s maybe sometimes) cause he should have raised JJ pre as well, but I can't see how we're ahead here. Bet/calling seems bad.

I agree that this was not threadyworthy.

standard, but since when is 115bb deep considered deep? i would also bet smaller on all streets aside from pre.

Bet/f smaller on the turn. Pre sizing is fine IMO.

+1

And alolt of other things. Kinda depends on how fishy the UTG was.

Fwiw, I don't have a 3-bet range against EP raisers... of course this is different if the UTG raiser is a fish, so it kinda depends on what kind of fish. But it also kind of begs the question which hands is he calling the 3-bet with that he flatted with preflop. I could see alot of different arguments made for different ranges. But you're point is somewhat valid... but I don't think we can rule those hands out completely.

And as far as hands he can bluff with, I think KQ makes up a reasonable portion of his range on the turn, and I think it's one of those hands which you hate to fold on the turn, but you can't call, and so you...

Also, if you're folding here. What are you calling with? Are you calling with bottom set? And if so, why is it so much different than AA outside of the blockers.

We don't need much equity to call the turn shove? We're getting like 3 to 1 on a call so we need around 25% equity. So let's assume that he's flatting JJ (a little optimistic since you insist he's 3-betting QQ), and he never raises a set on the flop, he can also have J9s, and he calls the 3-bet with 22 which not a lot of players do. More or less, we're trying to come up with the perfect opponent which we should easily fold against. So on the turn, he's going to have the following value range:

VALUE RAISING RANGE:
Sets (JJ, 99, 22) = 9 combos
2 Pair (J9s) = 2 combos
---------------------------
TOTAL COMBOS = 11 combos

So we're going to assume that his bluffs and our 2 outs have the same amount of equity (which isn't quite right, but if he's ever value cutting himself than it's probably very close).

So with his value range in mind, then he only needs to be raising around 3-4 combos of any normal bluff or worse value hand.

POSSIBLE BLUFF HANDS:
QK = 16 combos
Flushes and Straight draws = 14 combos
Gut shot (87s... bad end a little bit but who knows) = 4 combos

POSSIBLE VALUE CUT HANDS:
AJ = 6 combos
QQ = 6 combos

TOTAL POSSIBLE BLUFFS OR VALUE CUT HANDS = 46 combos

So we need less than 10% of these hands to raise the turn(of course we don't get to the turn with 100% of these hands, so you could say 20% if you want to think that we raise half the hands on the flop)... and that doesn't even count the random spazzes people do sometimes.

I think the sizes are fine. It's not like he's a reg, so we're worried about him catching onto our different bet sizes when we have a good hand (and we could also have two different balanced ranges for two different flop bet sizes). But the flop hits Villain's range pretty hard, so we might as well get as much value out of the hand as early as possible.

Just skimmed that real quick but giving him 16 combos of KQ is very optimistic

EDIT: including all 6 combos of QQ is also a little too optimistic, as well as all 4 combos of 87s

Why not? There are lots of regs that play extremely straight forward and almost always give you credit for a big hand here and it makes it a pretty good spot to bluff.

how about you read it before you reply then...

yeah, if i feel i can out level them that way I would.

i'm just saying as a default I don't, just because I would only be 3-betting AA for value which I could balance, but I'd rather just have it in my calling range then. If I could 3-bet for value wider, then I would have a default 3-bet for value range.

i'm guessing you'd b/f turn then?

no i'm b/c all day

^ that´s why betting smaller is better. it doesn´t look as strong as 3/4 pot bets and gives villain more room to spazz out

What makes you think that the Villain's range is made up of mediocre hands which will fold to 3/4 size bets?

If the best way to maximize our EV is to bet small so the Villain spazz's out then why don't we just bet $1? Or is that what you were implying? If you were implying that we bet something closer to half-pot, what makes you think that the Villain will spazz out when our bet size will be "standard" in today's game?

I don't think I have or ever will fold AA in a 3-bet pot on J923 board with two clubs 115 bbs deep. b/c

would you fold if there were two diamonds?

im for b/c also fwiw dont really see many other reasonable options here

maybe but probably not. and yeah i don't think anything else makes much sense unless you're just the biggest nit ever and from what i remember you aren't

why doesn't anybody agree with this? best logic in thread. there's no reason to ever b/f here...you can check sometimes if you know villain is a station I suppose but b/c turn mostly.

The spazzing-out factor is just one reason for betting smaller. Let´s say 6$ otf and 12,5$ on a totally blank turn. Why should we bet bigger? We still can ship it otr with smaller sizing. Also we aren´t afraif of many cards. Either he has us beat otf or we´re in front otr for the very most times.


Also, IF we have a bluff-range in this spot (I think we def should!!) and if we are going for a db it´s obv better to bet smaller.

$5 pre, smaller on flop. would take at least 2 crowbars to get me to fold AA on 90% of boards in a 3b pot in todays games

Your argument for smaller bet sizing on the flop is that with it we can get in all the money by the river, and we're never folding so it's not like we need to protect our hand.

I agree with everything that you say, but I disagree that it means we should bet smaller. Since both of our bet sizes get all the money in by the river, yours doesn't provide an advantage. However, I'm just going to assume that you also mean that by betting smaller that the Villain will call with a wider range of hands. And it is on this point that I disagree. I think the Villain has a made hand here alot and that he's going to call with it even if our bet size is bigger. And hands he's going to fold like low pocket pairs are going to fold regardless of our bet size. There might be an argument on your side that the Villain would be more likely to float against a smaller bet -- but I don't think we can be sure either way.

I also agree that we don't need to protect our hand, but this once again is not my argument for betting bigger. My argument for betting bigger is that the Villain is not going to be able to continue on alot of turns. Just because we can, doesn't mean the Villain is not going to fold when a flush comes on the turn or one of the many straights complete. And similarly, you might feel that we are never folding, but on a really really bad run out, it's going to kind of suck on the river. If the Villani's calling range is inelastic, why don't we try and make our bet size as large as possible at the beginning before the board gets bad and the Villain folds.

I don't really get this. I've heard really good players say it as well, but I think it relys on the assumption that the Villain's calling's range is inelastic. (I know I kind of made the same assumptions above). But the idea that in theory that Villain's ranges are inelastic relative to bet sizes is false. In other words, the LARGER our bet size, the MORE bluffs we can use. If the Villain is going to fold or call regardless of our bet size, then we should of course bet smaller if we want to have more bluffs. So I don't really understand your logic.

But even though the Villain's calling range is inelastic, this is still not a reason to bet smaller for more bluffs UNLESS you can bet small enough relative to his actual calling range. In other words, since the villain is never folding on this flop, it doesn't matter that you're betting smaller as a bluff, since you don't get enough folds. For example, you propose $6 into the $10.50 pot. Therefore, your bluff needs to work 37% of the time for it to be immediately profitable. I think the Villain's range hits the flop hard and I'm not sure it's going to work enough to be profitable with any two cards at least. But even if it was we need to balance that with the value we're losing against his calling range. The fact of the matter is that we don't have a bluffing hand, we have a value hand and there's a lot of value to be had, yet there are quite a few turn cards which might dry up our action (but who knows they might also help alot of his calling range, so I might be wrong there... not really sure.).

But as a whole, people tend to just go with default bet sizes without much thought into why they make them. I think there's ton of opportunities to be made with different bet sizes that get overlooked all the time.

Just how the games nowadays have evolved or what, or do you have a specific range in mind that he flats flop and overshoves turn with (not that I disagree with your statement).