3BP. SBvBB Bluff Linecheck

    • 3BP. SBvBB Bluff Linecheck

      Hello guys,

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

      Playing regular 50NL 6-max on microgaming, 5-handed. HERO is SB with A :heart: Q :spade: , 100BBs effective. BB - not well known regular.

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

      FLOP (20BB) : 9 :diamond: J :diamond: T :club: . SB HERO checks, BB checks.
      TURN (20BB) : 7 :heart: . SB HERO bets 23.25BB, BB calls.
      RIVER (66.5BB) : J :spade: . SB HERO bets 67BB and is all in.

      Linecheck??? Pre / Flop - STD. Turn - weird sizing from me, but overall, what do you think of the idea to go for it? HERO as SB here should have so many nutted hands, from straights, to houses, to even Jx, so it can't be that bad, unblocking diamonds and blocking QQ as one of the more likely BC...?

      Thank you for responses! :)
    • dean wrote:

      Problem here with J on the river after we OB turn is that we end up not having any other value hand than KQ and that might lead to BB call off with most bluffcatchers like trips and OP.

      You can also use a smaller size on the turn then OB jam river might also include your FH in line. Now he has more trouble calling off as light
      So essentially it's too thin to bet this size on the turn with anything weaker than 8x+ and so i can't credibly rep houses (from sets to J9s-JTs) on the river?

      1) What size would be reasonable on the turn for HERO to bet thinner than 8x+ value hands (so those sets and 2Ps - i guess i don't even mind betting QJs/KJs on the turn as it does have straight outs too, AJ seems to be thin)?
      1.1) it also then just makes sense to be betting the whole range that wants to bet (so both thinner value and 8x+) for the same, smaller size?
      2) On the river houses are certainly value jams, even if it's 1.5x overbet, but how thin can we go with worse? KQ IMO is still strong enough, but what about 8x?

      Thank you!!! :)
    • dean wrote:

      You have polarized size usually for nuts and bluffs (potential nuts) and it’s a little non standard to use on 4-card straight board. It’s ok. Not necessarily bad.

      2) i like going big with nuts on the river. Down to probably KQ although it blocks calling range a lot. But then to have FH - do you overbet JT/99 on the turn?
      Overall i don't really remember why did i use this particular size, might have been just random size due to timer going down, at the same time IT COULD HAVE BEEN the case that i wanted to have a more "reasonable" size to GII on the river, as my nutted hands would want it to be (at least i thought so).

      However, what i do know is that ingame i hardly discounted any potential strong hand from villain's range, since he did check back the flop and i therefore figured that i could use this size with most of the hands, even thinner ones on the 4 card straight board. That's likely fundamentally wrong (the essesment of BBs range), but if he actually doesn't have stronger hands than JT himself in this line, it still would just be correct to bet those hands with smaller size?

      TY :)
    • I also thought that we could play turn like this with JT+, since villain checked Flop. In theory I think villain should checkback quite often, but I think most regs are cbetting their 8x and value hands more frequently than they should in this spot.


      motiejus wrote:

      Overall i don't really remember why did i use this particular size, might have been just random size due to timer going down, at the same time IT COULD HAVE BEEN the case that i wanted to have a more "reasonable" size to GII on the river, as my nutted hands would want it to be (at least i thought so).

      I wouldn't worry too much about overbet-jam river, solver likes doing this and mid-highstakes regs do this all the time. Can't be too bad, just get comfortable with those lines :)