€400 NL HE Full Ring: Debating a Hero call

[kdmeteor]

Game

Hold'em

Game Format

No Limit

Stakes

$2/$4

Table Format

Full (8-10 seats)

Currency

€

This was a hand played in a casino against an Asian regular (actually the same guy from the first hand I posted here). He has the typical weaknesses; plays too many hands, doesn't look enough at position, doesn't like folding, etc., but nothing extreme. Hand is reconstructed from memory

Hero has on the BN with a stack of about 700. Villain is in the HJ with a gigantic stack, over 1000. (All of those are in €.)

Preflop there are three limpers, including Villain. Hero raises to 22 (5.5BB). Everyone except Villain folds; Villain calls. (Pot = 58)

Flop comes . Villain checks. I don't have an overpair and Villain could have an Ace, so I check. (Pot = 58)

Turn comes . Villain checks. I think I likely have the best hand now, so I value bet 30. Villain calls. (Pot = 118)

River comes . Villain bets 80.

What now? On first glance, seems like an obvious fold -- I have a middle pair and there's an overcard and a flush draw and a straight draw. But thinking more about this---

- Given how the hand went and the board texture, I don't think Villain has the Ace here. (Like, yes, I probably don't have the straight or flush but I don't think Villain thinks that far; I think they see a dangerous board here and wouldn't value bet an Ace.)
- The 7 looks scary but does not actually help with the straight; you need the 4 either way. How many 4s does Villain have here?
- Villain could probably have a flush, but there aren't that many combinations. And I'm not even sure they'd play a flushdraw so passively. (I should know this given how many hands I've played with him, but alas I don't.)

So, I reasoned at the time, they actually have a lot of combinations of one pair (each of which is 15 combinations rather than just 1 from the flush draw)? Then I made the mistake of not actually counting them. Looking at it now, actually there aren't that many, but there's 65, 76, maybe 87, plus various pocket pairs. A lot of two pairs, which also beat me. So maybe it is a fold, But even then, I need to be right less than 1/3 of the time here, so if there twice as many combinations that I lose to than combinations that I beat, it's still a narrow call.

Also, wouldn't a straight or flush bet larger? If we discount them, do we then have the odds for a call?
Idk, it was difficult, but I decided to make the call. What do you think; is this justifiable or did I overthink it? Villain had

Spoiler

a set with

.

 

[fundiver199]

Preflop
Obviously you need to raise it up with JJ, but I think, your sizing is to small with 3 limpers, especially when you are almost 200BB deep, and people likely call way to much. I would go to at least 7BB here, and even larger sizing could also work.

Flop
Your hand is not strong enough to go bet, bet, bet, and it also does not need to much protection, and for those reasons I like checking back.

Turn
I think, this one is close. Because of the 1-liner he might check an ace here, but its probably still fine to bet for thin value.

River
He is mostly representing a flush, when he leads out (AKA donk bet) on this river. For that reason its good to have Jd, since that block hands like KdJd, QdJd, JdTd and Jd9d making it more likely, he is bluffing. However what are his bluffs, when every single draw got there or paired up? Unless he check-called turn out of position with absolutely nothing, he has to be turning a made hand into a bluff like maybe 76s, which paired up at the end. I think, a lot depends on, what you know about this opponent, and possibly even live reads, if you had any. I dont think, calling or folding here is a significant mistake.

Spoiler
So he flopped a set. Kind of weirdly played by him, since he was basically slowplaying on the turn on a very wet board, and then when even more draws got here, he decided to finally "spring the trap". You started by calling him a regular, and maybe he play in the game regularly, but after seeing this hand, I definitely dont think, he is a strong winning player. In fact if I see someone play like this online, they instantly get a "fish" tag. So for me I would just take a mental note, that this player love to "trap" even in spots, where its bad strategy, and then look to use that information against him in future hands. And for that reason I would also not beat myself up over the failed hero call, since you at least got valuable information from seeing his hand, if he is playing regularly in your game.

 

[kdmeteor]

Spoiler
So he flopped a set. Kind of weirdly played by him, since he was basically slowplaying on the turn on a very wet board, and then when even more draws got here, he decided to finally "spring the trap". You started by calling him a regular, and maybe he play in the game regularly, but after seeing this hand, I definitely dont think, he is a strong winning player. In fact if I see someone play like this online, they instantly get a "fish" tag. So for me I would just take a mental note, that this player love to "trap" even in spots, where its bad strategy, and then look to use that information against him in future hands. And for that reason I would also not beat myself up over the failed hero call, since you at least got valuable information from seeing his hand, if he is playing regularly in your game.

He's a fish for sure; regular doesn't mean good. There's a lot of regulars who are big losers in the casino. When I said "typical weaknesses" in the OP I meant typical weaknesses for weak players. I do think he's one of the smaller fish since he's like, not crazy in any way, but I'd be shocked if he were a winning player.

The way he played the set didn't surprise me; people love to trap with sets even if it's not good. The sizing makes perfect sense as well; he likely recognized that his set wasn't amazing here, but he can't bring himself not to value bet with a set, so he bet on the small side.

Also good point on blockers for the flush, that's something I didn't think about, either.

 

[fundiver199]

He's a fish for sure; regular doesn't mean good.

Maybe the terminology is different in live poker. But in online poker the term "regular" or "reg" is used for someone, who is playing a lot and also doing some studying with their main goal being profit rather than fun. So to avoid confusion maybe its better to use terms like "for profit player" or "fun player" when discussing hands, with this opponent clearly falling in the latter category

 

[kdmeteor]

Maybe the terminology is different in live poker.

Probably not; I don't know what the terminology is, so it's probably the same in both. I just used "regular" literally; he's regularly there, i.e., often there. Will clarify in the future

 

[Station_Master]

'Bad reg' is probably the best term.

On the hand fundiver has broken it down so not too much to add. I prefer checking turn but bet is OK. River is close i probably fold but i dont think its a massively losing call.