3bP BUvSB flopped Set on monoboard

    • 3bP BUvSB flopped Set on monoboard

      SB: $109.83 (109.8 bb)
      BB: $100 (100 bb)
      UTG: $185.72 (185.7 bb)
      MP: $101.93 (101.9 bb)
      CO: $226.78 (226.8 bb)
      Hero (BTN): $170.37 (170.4 bb)

      Preflop: Hero is BTN with :8h :8c
      3 folds, Hero raises to $3, SB raises to $12, BB folds, Hero calls $9

      Flop: ($25) :8d :jd :9d (2 players)
      SB checks, Hero checks

      Turn: ($25) :9c (2 players)
      SB checks, Hero bets $7.83, SB calls $7.83

      River: ($40.66) :2c (2 players)
      SB checks, Hero bets $12.74, SB raises to $60.82, Hero ?, SB calls $29.18

      Villain is reg.

      Linecheck?

      Flop dunno if I should stab here.
      Turn is obviously a nice card, bet for sure, what about the size?
      River given the action on Flop and Turn I don't think villain has flushes, so I just go for a small bet to get calls from overpairs and AJ. What is villain raising vs my bet? For Value I can only see boats and quads that play this way (can he have flushes here??). Bluffs are probably just Ad hands.
      Since villains range should just be nuts/air, I don't like my raise. probably just a call. Since I only have a bluffcatcher here, would it be crazy to fold? According to certain forum members this is never a bluff ;)
    • I think i like a bet on the flop for protection vs naked Qx and Tx and value vs everything else that would continue. IMO it's very unlikely villain is checking a better hand that yours and even if so, you have decent equity and can continue IP. In other words, not really sure what checking back accomplishes here - sure it gives you some unlikely strong hands on some runouts, but do you expect villain to go nuts after your x/back so it makes you more money than betting right away?

      Turn, yep, clear value, though i think i would like a bigger bet size - villain will continue vs 1/3 with pretty much same range as he would vs 2/3 here (can't really see how it changes in any major way) and you'd just be setting it up properly to get the money in by the river .

      River, had it been played in the bet flop/bet turn scenario as HERO, i would just be jamming it myself :D As played, i'm never folding the river vs villain's x/r, because from villain's POV HERO with this line pretty much has 9x as his strongest hand and so i suppose it's possible villain is raising worse than 88 for value (some flushes/QT). You're beat by unlikely, but possible 3xJJ/1x99/2xJ9s/1xQdTd, so 3betting river is quite ambitious in a sense that's it's not like flushes or even QT are likely to fold with so little behind after x/r, but would they make more money than all the better hands that aren't folding to your 3bet jam either? In other words, you would likely just value-own yourself at this point, so i'd stick with calling :)
    • Flop check is interesting. I think that's quite reasonable as it's more thin value than clear value. However, you have some FH outs as well, with which you do want all-in. I would just 1/3 stab flop to keep the stack off option on the table.

      Turn you have almost the nuts, I think 1/3 is almost certainly losing value here.

      Unless you are trying to entice a check raise from him when he holds thin value like AA-QQ, AJ, KJ or a bluff XR when he holds like 77. Neither of which seems likely at all. Just bet normal - big!

      River same thing. I'm a fan of consistency, 1/3 - 1/3 makes sense for many hands. But it's still just bluntly losing tons of value. Very bad actually to not bomb river when he is a on bluffcatch range.

      Tough vs raise. I think a jam is possible. Maximum of #8 beat you (#3 JJ, #1 99, #2 J9s, #1 98s, #1 QTdd), so we'd need some similar amount of at least possible hands that could call a jam. He might have some 9x here, maybe some QQ-AA. Nah I don't think you can jam. While I could see QQ-AA playing this line, I don't think you see it often enough.
    • lnternet wrote:

      Flop check check takes most straights/flushes out of IP range.
      Turn check/call vs 1/3 takes most straights/flushes out of OOP range.
      River 1/3 looks like Jx from IP, so OOP could thin value raise QQ-AA.
      Agree with the idea that both ranges are quite capped. Not that it's an argument against, rather my own theory, but even though it's true that OOP might see IP's 1/3 river bet as a thin value from capped range mostly containing Jx type of hands and therefore thinly x/r river with QQ-AA, from IPs perspective a river x/raising range can be somewhat clearly defined as we've established (QQ-AA), but is OOP ever bluffing or x/raising anything worse AND that he won't bet (or raise) it on any street before in the first place - if not, IP can't really bet > call river with a Jx or so, which makes QQ-AA hardly a value-raise and if it's ever getting called (or apparently jammed on :D ) by better as well (possibly 9x), just calling looks like a decision where HERO should be winning a fair amount whereas thin raising if not being -EV, could still overall be a worse option than calling...

      Of course, this can all be countered by saying that OOP actually does have ENOUGH potential bluff candidates (and not like JTs trying to fold out KJs type of stuff... though IDK, maybe???) with such line + would play it this way and therefore IP can't just auto fold to the river x/r, SO 4 example hands like T :spade: T :heart: , A :club: K :diamond: ...?
    • On the flop I don't expect to have 3 streets for value too often, thats why I think both checking and betting is ok. I am not sure, but I think solver likes a more polarized strategy. Dunno if this is a spot where we can just bet small with a wide range as an exploit?

      Turn+River I agree, betting much bigger is better.


      lnternet wrote:


      Flop check check takes most straights/flushes out of IP range.
      Turn check/call vs 1/3 takes most straights/flushes out of OOP range.
      River 1/3 looks like Jx from IP, so OOP could thin value raise QQ-AA.

      If he starts raising those hands+bluffs wouldn't it actually be good to bet River small?
    • chitz wrote:

      On the flop I don't expect to have 3 streets for value too often, thats why I think both checking and betting is ok.

      True, but FH is ~30% to come in, so that's a good shot.

      chitz wrote:


      If he starts raising those hands+bluffs wouldn't it actually be good to bet River small?

      Yes.

      The exploit cycle here is

      If he never thin value raises, your exploit is to only bet small for thin value.
      If you only bet small for thin value, his exploit is to raise for thin value always.
      If he raises for thin value always, your exploit is to bet all nuts small.
      If you bet all nuts small, his exploit is to never thin value raise.
    • lnternet wrote:

      The exploit cycle here is

      lnternet wrote:

      River 1/3 looks like Jx from IP, so OOP could thin value raise QQ-AA.
      But so you meant OOPs river x/r for thinner value with QQ-AA is rather an exploit, given what range is IP playing this way? I'm not sure how theoretically correct approach would look like in this spot, as, well, if IP is indeed Jx type of hands-heavy, thin raising makes sense (of course, then it's about getting called), but it's not like in this same spot, exploit would say "thin x/r" while theoretically correct/optimal play would say "x/c river"...? ?(
    • The way I use the term "exploit cycle" doesn't mean it's not GTO. In fact, it is exactly GTO to mix the exploit cycle options at some perfect frequency.

      Basic exploit cycle:

      Player 1 bluffs all bluffs
      Player 2 calls all bluffcatchers
      Player 1 bluffs zero bluffs
      Player 2 calls no bluffcatchers

      The GTO play then is to bluff some of bluffs as P1, and to call some of the bluffcatchers as P2.