nl100 88 on QT4 5 IP

    • nl100 88 on QT4 5 IP

      $0.50/$1 No Limit Holdem
      4 Players
      Hand Conversion Powered by WeakTight Poker Hand History Converter

      Stacks:
      CO Hero ($115.94BB) 116bb
      BTN Player6 ($100BB) 100bb
      SB Player1 ($100BB) 100bb
      BB Player3 ($96.03BB) 96bb

      Pre-Flop: (1.5BB, 4 players) Hero is CO :8c :8h
      Hero raises to 2.5BB, 2 folds, Player3 calls 1.5BB
      Flop: :qs :4d :tc ($5.5BB, 2 players)

      Player3 checks, Hero checks

      Turn: :5h ($5.5BB, 2)
      Player3 bets 5.25BB, Hero ?

      Vs unkown.

      Small spot but do you like cbet better here ?
      Call turn standard ?
    • Don't like CB too much because it's too thin for value and we don't gain much protection either (the only two overcard hands which fold are like A9, the rest have straight draws).

      Turn defense depends on your flop range but in my case I definitely have enough Tx+ to cover 55-60% or more of my range. (Still have a few weaker Qx, JJ, 99, 55, and a few AK, AJ and potential 5x hands also). Although maybe 88 should be preferred over 99 due to not blocking straight draws.

      So with that in mind I feel that I won't be exploited by random pot leads if I fold 88 here. But the main concern is of course what the most profitable play is and not whether we will be exploited by random pots if we fold.

      I would be more inclined to call a smaller lead not only due to odds but because my current assumption is that the player type which pots the turn will be aggressive enough that they continue on the river a lot (and we don't have a comfortable calldown with this hand mostly). But that is a vague assumption and not necessarily backed by a significant sample. I feel more confident in saying that the player type that bets a smaller size (<70% and especially <50%) will more often do it with weaker pairs or random stabs and then give up or block bet again, in my experience. But against smaller sizes it's of course an even more clear call and not worth discussing.

      Anyhow, if we expect to see enough random pot | give-ups or scenarios where we can pick one off on the river also, then call.

      And conclusively, I would still call. The chance of this being a random aggressive player who is overbluffing now and could have anything from worse draws to pure air seems good enough based on stack size and bet size for us to call and see what happens. It's probably not a mistake to call here against the population of potential fun players which pot probe, to put it like that. But I wouldn't fault you for folding either simply based on the assumption that you will have enough better hands to call with in order to not allow random pot probe bluffs to be profitable.
    • Actually, on second thought I'm not so sure about the call (although I'm okay with the rest of my analysis).

      In short, I view it like this:

      Calling here would be overdefending. (I doubt 88 is a "GTO" call vs pot).

      For us to overdefend villain has to be overbluffing.

      Can we make the read that villain is overbluffing? Not really. And since we can't make the read maybe we should maybe default to folding.

      Especially coupled with the fact that we'll be unsure what to do against a bet even on good rivers. (Of course we will see give-ups at times but will it be enough?) Calling twice would lead to us basically calling 100% of our turn calling on brick rivers (if we call 88 we obviously call Tx or better also). Which again relies on villain overbluffing, twice.

      So it kind of comes down to whether or not we have a population read on less than full stacked players which pot probe dry boards? I.e. do we just call because we expect so much bluffs from a random?

      But since my range can comfortably defend vs this bet without calling 88 I don't feel I'm making a mistake folding against an unknown strategy.

      I'm curious to hear other opinions about it. If you think it's a standard call it has to be because you expect too much bluffs basically? And/or that you will see give-ups on the river enough? And/or that you can call river bricks as well?

      Sorry for the long-winded sort of incoherent posts, just about to go to bed. ^^