SBvBU 3bet Pot Spot

    • SBvBU 3bet Pot Spot

      Hello guys,

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

      Hero (SB): $56.43 (112.9 bb)
      BB: $51.37 (102.7 bb)
      MP: $33.01 (66 bb)
      CO: $78.24 (156.5 bb)
      BTN: $76.74 (153.5 bb)

      Preflop: Hero is SB with :ad :9d
      2 folds, BTN raises to $1.25, Hero raises to $3.75, BB folds, BTN calls $2.50

      Flop: ($8) :3d :td :3s (2 players)
      Hero bets $2.75, BTN raises to $8.25, Hero calls $5.50

      Turn: ($24.50) :5h (2 players)
      Hero checks, BTN bets $17, Hero folds

      Linecheck???

      After x/calling the flop I was thinking about x/jamming the turn, does that make sense (Should i maybe 3bet the flop right away??? Most likely not IMO)? However, once i saw the size of villain's turn barrel i assumed there's no fold equity at this point and it prob would be -EV to jam... Still i'm not really sure what's villain can actually be raising for value on such board IP, given the texture of the flop. Is there any scenario where he's going crazy with a FD (i can't really see what else would take such line though and that's not much when i have 2 diamonds myself :D ) trying to commit himself to the pot IF he gets jammed? I shouldn't really be folding an overpair where it's pretty much only a few combos of TT/33/A3s possible, (but why would those even raise at any point) and so not sure what to make of it, JJ+ should be 4betting pre, 3xAA....? :D

      Thank you for responses! :)
    • chitz wrote:

      Flop looks weird imo, I don't see him raising with boat or Trips. Maybe Tx and some FD or maybe just some junk?
      That's the thing - ingame i was so quick to bet/call flop with my NFD, but only some time after the hand i started to think that there's something weird going on :D on one hand, prob a good indicator that i my focus wasn't on point, on the other, good that this still wasn't left unidentified :)

      chitz wrote:

      I like jamming vs his raise for Equity deny.
      At first sounded like an "easy" way out, but to be honest, can't really find arguments against it. Given the fact that i wasn't even able to realize my own equity, 3bet jamming flop actually sounds attractive :)
    • So trying to wrap my head around this hand and getting hung up on it. So we are talking about jamming flop. I know this is something people do with NFD, but having a hard time understanding it. This can't be for value as I we are never getting worse hands to call us. Is K high FD calling a jam or just some random bluff raise. I don't think so. I can't see it being as a bluff as I don't think we get any better hands to fold. Does TP+ ever fold to a jam on the flop, after they opted to raise. A 3 is never folding, JJ QQ and slowplayed KK and AA are never folding. Maybe like a JTs or something that decided to go for raise on flop. Maybe they fold that. IDK.

      So I guess that is where we are saying we are using it to deny equity, which essentially is for protection, so we are probably folding out hands that we already beat, to save being put in tough spots on the turn, like you are, but if we get called we are always behind but we have really good equity/outs. So not seeing this as a spot where we have to figure out arguments for or against, but trying to figure out what is the best play and if 2 plays have similar EVs than we can mix.

      I guess the other thing is, I don't see turn as such a clear cut fold. I think it is super close between fold and call. We need ~29% equity to call the turn. We have 9 potential outs to the nut flush and we have 3 outs to an A and 3 outs to a 9. I think this is where realization factor comes in and we have to look at all these scenarios and add up the equities to see where we land. So the 9 flush outs gives us ~18% equity, however, even though we are OOP we are going to realize more of this equity. If we hit we can donk rivers or can maybe even check and get bet into and call and win. I don't think we realize a ton more than our equity, but lets say we realize at 1.2 to 1.3 that puts us at ~ 22%-23%. 3 outs to the ace we have ~6% to hit. We aren't going to realize this equity very well as we prob won't be leading rivers with this but checking and then deciding whether to xc or xf and on check backs we will probably win, so I think this might realize at around .7 so we might realize 4% of the 6% to hit. So now we are up to ~26%-27%. The 9 has same chance to hit but we will probably win rarely on that and maybe only realize 1%-2% of this so that puts us at 27-28% equity. There will be the rare occasion that another card hits and villain has a worse flush draw or some air and gives up and it goes check/check and we win. So this might be give us another 1 or 2%. So as you can see this is putting us right on the cusp of being able to call this turn bet. I know it is not a fist pump call on the turn and maybe folding is the better play. I am not entirely sure. I think it depends on villain and how capable they are of bluffing here and what you think chances are of getting paid more than your fair share of equity from the turn when the flush hits. There are some bad diamonds that will give him boats, so I am not sure maybe the 1.2-1.3 RF is too generous and if so then it is a clear fold, but I think in game I would not be so quick to fold this.
    • I just ran this spot through the solver:

      Flop jamming is possible, solver does it with 8,3%, I also gave the option of minraising (thought it might be a cool move here) it is done with 46,4%. Rest is obviously a call. For value we mainly jam AT, JJ, and QQ.
      Contrary to what I thought, BU raises trips quiteoften. Boats are just a call, as expected.

      Turn we x/jam all A high flush with an undercard to T. If we have 2 Overcards, we call.
    • Thank you for feedback guys!

      fawltyfelix wrote:

      however, even though we are OOP we are going to realize more of this equity. If we hit we can donk rivers or can maybe even check and get bet into and call and win. I don't think we realize a ton more than our equity, but lets say we realize at 1.2 to 1.3
      How the money that's left behind affects the RF - say we'd be calling an all on on the turn from villain vs the same range that's betting (so bluffs too) so with no additional potential money to gain (implied odds) i guess we would realize 100% (RF 1) of our equity that we had vs the supposed turn shoving range, so in that case we wouldn't have different RFs for different made hands on the river (1.2 for flush, 0.7 for A, etc), is that right? If that's so, how much of an impact does money left behind have, in a sense that it probably can't be the same (that's my guess and a question for you guys) for having less than 1/2PSB vs say more than 3/4PSB, or at even more polar comparisons?

      Hope my question make sense, looking forward to hear your thoughts, thank you! :)
    • motiejus wrote:

      Thank you for feedback guys!How the money that's left behind affects the RF - say we'd be calling an all on on the turn from villain vs the same range that's betting (so bluffs too) so with no additional potential money to gain (implied odds) i guess we would realize 100% (RF 1) of our equity that we had vs the supposed turn shoving range,

      So far it is correct.

      so in that case we wouldn't have different RFs for different made hands on the river (1.2 for flush, 0.7 for A, etc), is that right?

      Not sure what you are trying to say here.
      If we are All In on the Turn, we don't care about RF on the river, besides that, RF stays 1, because neither player has the opportunity to make the other one fold or can get the other to invest more money.
      If you meant the case, that we just call the initial (no All In) bet on the Turn, then different made hands have different RF, because we might fold A to another bet, which decreases our RF. If we are always calling, then RF is ofc 1, but we also have the option to raise (probably not in this hand) which would increase our RF.

      If that's so, how much of an impact does money left behind have, in a sense that it probably can't be the same (that's my guess and a question for you guys) for having less than 1/2PSB vs say more than 3/4PSB, or at even more polar comparisons?

      If we have nut potential, then having a bigger effective stack is increasing our RF. You could try to write it out as an equation and you will see it.
      For other hands I think the effect is not as obvious, but I my guess is, that RF doesn't change too much in most cases.
    • motiejus wrote:

      Thank you for feedback guys!
      How the money that's left behind affects the RF - say we'd be calling an all on on the turn from villain vs the same range that's betting (so bluffs too) so with no additional potential money to gain (implied odds) i guess we would realize 100% (RF 1) of our equity that we had vs the supposed turn shoving range, so in that case we wouldn't have different RFs for different made hands on the river (1.2 for flush, 0.7 for A, etc), is that right? If that's so, how much of an impact does money left behind have, in a sense that it probably can't be the same (that's my guess and a question for you guys) for having less than 1/2PSB vs say more than 3/4PSB, or at even more polar comparisons?
      Hope my question make sense, looking forward to hear your thoughts, thank you! :)
      Yeah so I think you would be correct. If villain goes all in on the turn and you are going to call you will always have X% equity vs villain's hand. So for example, lets say you call the all in and have 40% equity and when you call the pot is $200. If you run this hand 1 million times, over the long term you will only ever win $80 from this pot or 100% of your 40% equity. An RF of 1

      Where it changes is if there is still play on future streets. So lets say you have 35% equity on the turn when you call, versus the range of hands that villain will bet turn with, and pot is $100. So if we just checked down this spot 1 million times, no matter what the river card is, then you would just win your $35 over the long term and your RF would be 1, much like the turn all in. However, what happens when the river card comes and more money starts going in. So like with the flush example, if you hit your flush and you can lead and get villian to call, then you just earned more than your 35% equity from the turn. Or maybe villain has a worse flush and you check and he bets and you can go all in or just call and again earn more. Things like position play a huge role. That's why people always talk about being able to realize their equity better when they are IP. When you are IP, you can always make sure more money goes in. OOP it is more difficult, unless you start implementing leading strategies.

      Not sure, the exact effect of having more money behind. I am not an expert, maybe @lnternet will chime in as he is more of an expert.
    • To me he represents AT/JJ with a flop raise here, as well a few bluffs. Since it's NL50 I don't think AT or other Tx raise too often, so you should be seeing a good amount of bluffs. Including some random raises like 44 or AQ I think (where 3b jam flop does make sense suddendly)


      Turn just call. Well his size is very big, so maybe not. Not sure what going on. What do you think he has here betting the turn so big? Surely not Tx? 3x also tends to go smaller..