3BP. BBvBU Misplayed AK?

    • 3BP. BBvBU Misplayed AK?

      Hello guys,

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

      Playing regular 100NL 6-max on microgaming, 5-handed, anonymous. HERO is BB with A :spade: K :diamond: , 126.5BBs effective.

      MP folds
      CO folds
      BU raises to 2.5BB
      SB folds
      BB HERO raises to 9BB
      BU calls.

      FLOP (18.5BB) : J :club: 4 :heart: 8 :spade: . BB HERO bets 6.5BB, BU calls.
      TURN (31.5BB) : K :spade: . BB HERO checks, BU bets 14.75BB, BB HERO calls.
      RIVER (61BB) : Q :diamond: . BB HERO checks, BU bets 35BB, BB HERO folds.

      Linecheck???

      Pre - STD.

      Flop - STD again - range-bet? Don't really love the bet on this board texture, but the same can be said about AK on other textures too...?

      Turn - the most interesting street for me - looking back it seems like i've missed a STD value-bet, with no strong enough reasons to check, what do you guys think? As played - x/c STD IMO.

      River - would be looking to calldown on blanks, but this is one of the worst possible run-outs plus having A :spade: doesn't do us any good either, so an annoying fold is best?

      Thank you for responses! :)
    • pre flop fine.

      Flop any option is ok. Bet small fine.

      Turn I don't like your check very much, and the reason is i don't expect people to thin value bet Jx and even good draws like T9s or QTs i can see people check back that sometimes. As for weaker hands, on this board i suspect BU doesn't need to call flop too many back door hands since the board is connected enough, so hands like AT should be in villain range too much, and it's not guaranteed that he will bet them turn anyway.

      Once you check turn and villain bets, i feel very compelled to raise. I think you have room to improve here, in a sense that you should realize that your hand is quite strong. There are no straights possible. No off suit 2pair, besides maybe KJo, which you block and villain might not even call pre flop everytime. So you don't lose to many hands. Now, for calling to be better than raising villains bluffs have to be weak, I guess hands like Q9s, 65s, 76s, 75s are only gutshots, but T9s and QTs are open enders. Overall this seems to me that XR is better than XC. Specially against average reg. If villais is sticky aggro then XC may be best.

      As played, river card is bad yeah, T9s gets there, QT usually doesn not bluff. Maybe villain has some KQo for calling flop. I guess fold is good.

      EDIT: for calling to be better than raising villains bluffs have to be weak,

      The post was edited 1 time, last by poop_scoop ().

    • poop_scoop wrote:

      pre flop fine.

      Flop any option is ok. Bet small fine.

      Turn I don't like your check very much, and the reason is i don't expect people to thin value bet Jx and even good draws like T9s or QTs i can see people check back that sometimes. As for weaker hands, on this board i suspect BU doesn't need to call flop too many back door hands since the board is connected enough, so hands like AT should be in villain range too much, and it's not guaranteed that he will bet them turn anyway.

      Once you check turn and villain bets, i feel very compelled to raise. I think you have room to improve here, in a sense that you should realize that your hand is quite strong. There are no straights possible. No off suit 2pair, besides maybe KJo, which you block and villain might not even call pre flop everytime. So you don't lose to many hands. Now, for raising to be better than calling villains bluffs have to be weak, I guess hands like Q9s, 65s, 76s, 75s are only gutshots, but T9s and QTs are open enders. Overall this seems to me that XR is better than XC. Specially against average reg. If villais is sticky aggro then XC may be best.

      As played, river card is bad yeah, T9s gets there, QT usually doesn not bluff. Maybe villain has some KQo for calling flop. I guess fold is good.
      Wtf... First u wrote, Villain doesn't bet much worse hands and draws, but then u want to check raise vs?

      Btt: checking flop is good
      But @turn, I would bet big, maybe pot.
      River is difficult, just x/f here
    • poop_scoop wrote:

      for raising to be better than calling villains bluffs have to be weak, I guess hands like Q9s, 65s, 76s, 75s are only gutshots, but T9s and QTs are open enders. Overall this seems to me that XR is better than XC. Specially against average reg. If villais is sticky aggro then XC may be best.
      Villain's bluffs have to be weak, it's about making them not get odds to continue vs the x/r, that T9s/QTs likely would have given implied odds as they are IP?

      Why it's not as good if villain is indeed sticky / aggro? Isn't it good for us if they continue vs our x/r even while not having the right odds to do so?

      it'sjustabluff wrote:

      Wtf... First u wrote, Villain doesn't bet much worse hands and draws, but then u want to check raise vs?
      At first @poop_scoop was talking about whether betting or checking the turn is better and why - there's no option to raise yet as we are first to act. Between the two choices betting is most likely better, he explained why - it's about hands that would continue vs our turn bet, but most likely won't be betting themselves once checked to. Once that decision is made, then decision goes to villain who indeed decides to bet and action is back to us where now we are figuring is calling or raising better and since the board does have quite a few draws possible and we are rarely behind it's just a raise for value - villain either folds his equity which we don't mind or is putting more money in the pot while behind/drawing, that's better than allowing him to realize his equity and chose to bet the river if he wants and check back if he doesn't.
    • motiejus wrote:

      poop_scoop wrote:

      for raising to be better than calling villains bluffs have to be weak, I guess hands like Q9s, 65s, 76s, 75s are only gutshots, but T9s and QTs are open enders. Overall this seems to me that XR is better than XC. Specially against average reg. If villais is sticky aggro then XC may be best.
      Villain's bluffs have to be weak, it's about making them not get odds to continue vs the x/r, that T9s/QTs likely would have given implied odds as they are IP?
      Why it's not as good if villain is indeed sticky / aggro? Isn't it good for us if they continue vs our x/r even while not having the right odds to do so?
      The idea is this: if villain actual hand has 0% equity against your AK, would you rather XC or XR? Answer is obvious right? You prefer XC and let him put more money in the pot later. In this hand, the more villain has low equity hands like naked gustshots the more you should be incited to XC instead of XR, because protection gets less important and you give villain the option to bluff river.

      In the same line of thought, if villain is aggro, then he will be more inclined to bluff off those hands on the river, therefore, more incentivized you should be to give him the option to do so by only calling turn.

      Calling our turn jam with T9s without the right odds is not "aggro" or "sticky", it is more like "bad" :). It's an important distinction.
    • poop_scoop wrote:

      The idea is this: if villain actual hand has 0% equity against your AK, would you rather XC or XR? Answer is obvious right? You prefer XC and let him put more money in the pot later. In this hand, the more villain has low equity hands like naked gustshots the more you should be incited to XC instead of XR, because protection gets less important and you give villain the option to bluff river.

      In the same line of thought, if villain is aggro, then he will be more inclined to bluff off those hands on the river, therefore, more incentivized you should be to give him the option to do so by only calling turn.
      So, i can see 3 types of people we might encounter:
      1) if villain is sticky-aggro we just let him blast off with whatever he want to > XC line is just moreEV than raising where we expect to get folds instead of more money in the pot.
      2) if villain is rather avg. reg we would raise if we believe villain will mostly unload on the river if he improves and give up if not, in that case, turn is the only street where we CAN still get more value or deny villain seeing the river, both scenarios are better than XC then.
      3) if villain is a nit that we WON'T EVEN HAVE an option to raise FOR VALUE as his turn betting range should already be a couple of infrequent draw combos and then only KJ+ and therefore XR is just bad, and XC (or even XF with a dead read) is most logical option here?

      poop_scoop wrote:

      Calling our turn jam with T9s without the right odds is not "aggro" or "sticky", it is more like "bad" :). It's an important distinction
      Amm... Yeah :D I was under the impression that we have more x/r size options than just x/j here on the turn or is that not the case here? Of course x/r smaller than AI would leave a very weird SPR for the river, not to mention that we already would be more or less commited to call of a jam after our x/r, if anything, x/j is also on the bigger size, particularly since we started 126BBs effective?

      Thank you!!! :)