Overpair In 3BP On Bad Runout

    • Overpair In 3BP On Bad Runout

      Hello guys,

      have another hand that i wanted to share with you :)

      Playing regular 50NL 6-max on MG, anonymous. HERO is SB with K :spade: K :heart: , 115BBs effective.

      UT raises to 3BB
      MP folds
      CO folds
      BU folds
      SB HERO raises to 10BB
      BB folds
      UT calls.

      FLOP (21BB) : 4 :spade: T :spade: Q :diamond: . SB HERO bets 8.5BB, UT calls.
      TURN (38BB) : 9 :spade: . SB HERO checks, UT bets 34.5BB, SB HERO...???

      Linecheck?

      Was the hand played well up until the turn and what do we do now...??? Looking to hear your thoughts :)

      As always, thank you for responses :)
    • miserry wrote:

      Don't think it's too good to 2street that against UT c3 range, unless it is not normal range.
      a) but why specifically? We are only behind TT/QQ basically and it's a really wet board, so getting it in ASAP seems fine

      b) what boards do we want to 2 street it then? On dry boards we preffer small small jam type of line i suppose as we don't need protection and we put villain's range in tougher spots.

      miserry wrote:

      Turn i agree with bet again, there is still value and some protection in our bet and i don't expect too many jams.
      I think i get where you're coming from with a turn bet - we can still get value from worse by betting while by checking we either give villain a free card or will most likely only get bet into by a stronger hand so that's not the most efficient line, but if we do bet:
      a) what size do we prefer?
      b) i suppose where planning to jam blank rivers. What cards we wouldn't want to jam? I don't really see actual scare cards apart Q or A...
      c) what do we do if we get jammed on after the bet on the turn?
      _
      |hank You :) :) :)
    • TT and QQ are not that small part of his range, since he's UT and not BU.
      There are way more less weaker hands that can call now.
      He can't fold a ton of equity, he couldn't also make a huge mistake against such a plan. At all, UT c3 range is really tight.

      I wouldn't 2 street any board against UT.

      "a) what size do we prefer?"

      Just put him on a range and you easily can figure that out, imo.
      - we bet against AQ, KQs, QJs, AsKx for value, my size would be something that makes me sure those hands are calling and i am still value betting.
      Even if i bet a bit bigger, it is still a value bet, since not too many better hands in his range.

      You can never jam blank river, since it's not for value anymore.
      You don't even have 45% vs normal river calling range imo.
      QJs now folds, KQs folds, not sure about AQ, but it's maybe 30/70 fold, as long as he doesn't raise all his nuts on every street.

      If we face a jam OTT, well once again, put him on a range.
      I would put him on a flush, straight, maybe QTs. I don't think most ppl are jamming AsKx here. Quite easy fold.
    • @miserry - hey, i will do a manual calldown for UT on the flop and turn streets (assuming we have 0 raises, since it's 3bet pot, but also UT is IP) later, once i'm home and post the results here, but before that have a few questions still (have mixed feelings, so hopefully you could clear things up for me :) ) :

      1.

      miserry wrote:

      TT and QQ are not that small part of his range, since he's UT and not BU.
      There are way more less weaker hands that can call now.
      He can't fold a ton of equity, he couldn't also make a huge mistake against such a plan. At all, UT c3 range is really tight.

      I wouldn't 2 street any board against UT.
      I get that you recommend not having 2 street plan vs UT at all, but could you explain your thoughts in any other way? Hate to admit, but don't really understand this part :/

      2.

      miserry wrote:

      "a) what size do we prefer?"

      Just put him on a range and you easily can figure that out, imo.
      - we bet against AQ, KQs, QJs, AsKx for value, my size would be something that makes me sure those hands are calling and i am still value betting.
      Even if i bet a bit bigger, it is still a value bet, since not too many better hands in his range.
      Again, i'm i missing something here...? Sure i can put villain on a range, but how that helps me determine the actual BET SIZE? Just let me know if that's correct - we want to use such sizing that even vs villain's calling range (after calling) has less than 50% equity vs our hand (assuming no raises, then even more equity needed for us to have a valuebet) and if we chose too big sizing, villain's calling range will have more than 50% vs our hand and subsequently that means that we didn't have a valuebet on the previous street FOR THAT SIZE at all, right? Basically, as you mentioned as much as it still means we're valuebetting?

      3.

      miserry wrote:

      You can never jam blank river, since it's not for value anymore.
      You don't even have 45% vs normal river calling range imo.
      QJs now folds, KQs folds, not sure about AQ, but it's maybe 30/70 fold, as long as he doesn't raise all his nuts on every street.
      Won't touch the last paragraph (about facing a jam), yes it sux to b/f all the equity with KK here, but given the ranges there's not much if anything that jams that KK is in good shape against, so i should stop being results-oriented and make folds where folds are due (will post another deepstacked hand later where again couldn't find fold button and i'm still feeling the effects of tilt i put myself on :D ), but this:

      Again, i might be results oriented here (or something else affecting/influencing that understanding of theory here), but even thought we sorta have a valuebet vs the range that calls us on the turn (again, depends on our turn sizing) if we get to a point on the river where we can't valuebet anymore what are our river options? Are we hoping it goes x/x or are we planning to x/f everything vs river jam, that's not QQ or Nut flush, not to mention that we are betting these hands ourselves, so our checking range on the river looks at best as a 1P type of hand, BUT if we fold everything vs jam then it looks like UT has a +EV jam with everything (we might not have 50% vs the RANGE, but there are still clearly weaker hands than KK in UTs range, right?) and so that again leads me to question our turn bet as it seems that we mostly prefer to get folds actually? Seems like, by betting the turn we are building the pot, which subsequently will be harder to win for us....

      Hope the questions are clear, looking to hear your thoughts and as i said, will post the calldown results here later :)

      Thank you for responses :)
    • My calldown version for the spot:

      1. Initial ranges i'm using (1st SBvUT 3bet - 69 combos ; 2nd UTvSB c3b 63 combos ) :


      2. Did the 50/50 stuff and a flop calldown scenario vs 40% like my bet was here - the range that calls the flop looks like this : QQ,TT,AQs,KJs+,QJs,AQo,AsKs,AdJd,AsJs,AdKd - 32 combos. VS this range KhKs has 62.2%.

      3. Did insert turn 9s and tried another calldown for 40% turn bet and so the range that calls the turn bet looks like this : QQ,TT,AQs,KJs+,QJs,AsQd,AsQh,AsQc,AsJs,AsKs - 23 combos. Vs this range KhKs only has 46.6% even though i used small sizing, so looks like we don't have a clear bet on the turn here, unless my ranges are too tight / calldown is wrong.

      Thank you for feedback:)
    • painlezz wrote:

      Normally you defend IP mire than MDF.
      You mean mOre, right?

      painlezz wrote:

      As UT is IP in this spot you dont need to do any 50/50 ashis EQ realization is over 50%
      I really really had this thought in the back of my mind as well, but since i've always done this way... @painlezz - this means, will redo the calldown without 50/50 and post the new results below, just 2Q before:

      1. With 50/50 i suppose it's either we DO IT or we DON'T DO IT, it's not like IP we bring equities 'just a bit closer' or whatever, but then if you could - WHEN WE DO IT and WHEN WE DON'T DO IT? ONLY DEPENDING ON POS? (VERY BROADLY - just a continuation of the first quote in this post where you said IP we defend more - how MUCH more - so basically no 50/50, right?)

      2. No 50/50 will make valuebetting turn a bit more clear i suppose, but still, it doesn't make much sense to bet the turn for too smallish size again, i suppose we want to bet at least 1/2...? Basically if we barely have a valuebet for a small sizing (just an example for question sake) then it's probably a spot where we shouldn't generally have a value bet, right?

      TY TY TY :)
    • Yeah more

      1) Normally I wouldnt do it because OOP EQ realization is so much better and that already bumps EQ up to 50/50 or range advantage for IP. I havent heard of a rule on which boards you dont do it and if it depends on something.

      2) Well sometimes its better to bet urself even if you're behind in EQ, this might be one of those spots. As missery and me mentioned we'd bet ourself to keep somekind of control of the potsize (we'd call most turn bets anyways) and we have some protection in a bet. I dont wanna say it's a clear spot, will post a solve in few minutes.



      As I thought, betting big doesnt make sense here! The bet is close, checking is totally fine, but betting is the easier way to approach this spot.
      "Spiele nl100/200/500 Zoom agressives Konzept"