€400 NL HE Full Ring: Terribly Played Hand on All Streets

[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 vs. a questionable reg. (I think he's someone who is a professional player but has gotten worse over time, or at least not better; doesn't bluff nearly enough (though he is capable of betting draws), doesn't bet nearly enough in general, slowplays sets on wet boards, calls too much with strong vs. premium hands & other dubious things. I honestly wouldn't expect him to make money with this game, but I'm told by others that he does.)

Hero has on the BB with a stack of about 400 (all in €). Villain opens 14 from the CO (with a huge stack of over >1000). I think Villain's flaws as I read them make this a good 3betting hand, also I think the chances for a fold here are decent, so I make it 52 . Villain calls.

Flop comes (Pot = 106). I think there's good chance I'm good here but my hand is highly vulnerable, so I bet 50. Villain calls.

Turn comes (Pot = 206). I consider another bet but because I think Villain is reasonably likely to check back a hand like AK, I decide to check. Unfortunately, Villain bets 54. I make the dubious decision to call.

River comes (Pot = 314). I check, Villain bets 110, and I fold.

Another reg (who is definitely a winning player) noticed me writing down the hand on the phone so I asked him for his input, and he very nonchalantly was like "bad hand to 3bet, also you can't call the turn, and if you do you have to bluff the River", (hence the thread title). In general, I think that reg plays the closest to GTO out of everyone in the casino (and imo doesn't adjust nearly enough), so i'm not surprised he doesn't like the 3bet since this is a hand that I think the solver calls preflop 100% of the time. Nonetheless, I think he might have been right about the Turn and River. If I trust my own reads on Villain, I'm almost always behind on the Turn. But I'm not sure, actually a really difficult hand imo.

Also, should you play the River differently? A call seems quite bad. A bluff... maybe in GTO world a bluff makes sense here because the Q is better for my range, but I think against Villain, they're too slanted toward value hands here. If they have a flush, and I think the chances for that are quite high, then it doesn't matter whether you rep the Queen or not. So I don't think I like the River bluff.

I think I like the preflop and flop play, but then a fold on the Turn. But very unsure. Could also be convinced that pocket pairs don't make good 3betting hands even against passive players. I've only 3bet medium pairs from the BB a few times live so far, it's something new I'm experimenting with.

 

[Station_Master]

Bad hand to 3bet a good hand to call. It's to middling and often you will have a marginal hand out of position.

As played flop is fine.

Turn I don't think you can fold to 25% given you have flush and boat outs.

River
The bet is like 1/3rd pot. If you call you need to be good 20% of the time. It's quite villain dependent but it's such a wierd line I might call. It feels alot like thin value with an overpair like TT or JJ, he could also have floating some offsuit Broadways that are bluffing (if he is sticky, tho should fold pre or on flop). It's close, I think fold is fine but don't hate call.
Could you turn it into a bluff? Maybe , but your line would not be very credible, so I think best to call or fold, leaning to fold.

 

[fundiver199]

Preflop
I am not a big fan of this 3-bet, and especially not since you are relatively shallow compared to his large open. But 3-betting you are creating a low SPR, which your hand is very tough to play out of position.

Flop
As played a C-bet for value / equity denial seems ok.

Turn
Pot is 200, and you have 300 left behind. At this point you can either turn your hand into a bluff or give up, and personally I would do the latter. You do have a club in your hand, but drawing to a 1-liner on a paired board with 7 of clubs does not seem like an appealing proposition to me. So I would check-fold here, even though its annoying, that he bet so small.

River
As played I think, its fine to check-fold. What are you representing, if you come out swinging with a donk bet here, and apparently suggested? Like exactly QQ, that rivered a boat? Its not very believable, so a decent opponent should get curious a lot of the time.

 

[kdmeteor]

Thanks; will rethink the 3betting. It's possible I'm trying too hard to be creative, it's definitely something I'm prone to doing.

Turn I don't think you can fold to 25% given you have flush and boat outs.

I think this was my reasoning at the moment as well, but looking at it now, I'm not at all confident that the clubs are proper outs. If the River were, say, the and Villain still bets 110, I think I'm... well, I'm either making a super exploitative fold, or I'm reluctantly putting 110 into the pot while feeling like a loser who does "correct" calls that are always losing money.

 

[kdmeteor]

Preflop
I am not a big fan of this 3-bet, and especially not since you are relatively shallow compared to his large open. But 3-betting you are creating a low SPR, which your hand is very tough to play out of position.

To talk more about this, do you think this remains true regardless of player type? What if opponent is the super straight-forward type who virtually never bluffs? Is there any read that would make you go for this 3bet, or are there always better hands to 3bet bluff?

 

[fundiver199]

Is there any read that would make you go for this 3bet, or are there always better hands to 3bet bluff?

I think, there are always better hands for a light 3-bet in this situation. Hands that block some of the calling range, and hands, that play better postflop. A hand like A5s block AA, AK, AQ, and a hand like KJs can flop a decent top pair or a draw.

 

[kdmeteor]

I know the solver loves to 3bet bluff with A5s (or even A4s, A3s, etc. if it's looking for more bluffs) but I'm (stubbornly?) still of the belief that this is a bad idea against the field because they overcall with weak Aces. So you 3bet A5s, Villain calls you OOP with AJo, and you flop the Ace. This is just an awful situation (especially if you add that people aren't good at folding top pairs when they should), and it's on the back of what should be a blunder by the opponent. Basically any hand that has a high chance of being dominated once the opponent calls, including A5s, KJs, and KQo, is a hand that I'm currently almost never 3betting. I'm only going to 3bet KJs if the opponent's range is so wide that my top pairs are probably good.

I get that these hands have blockers, but does that matter that much? You're only reducing the number of AJo combinations from 16 to 12 by having A5s. The combinations of AA go from 6 to 3, but so what if we lose to Ax?

I would be intersted in playing around with a solver to see whether A5s remains a better 3betting hand than 77 if you tweak the opponent's strategy to call wider and with more hands like AJo rather than speculative hands (and maybe also fold less on subsequent streets). Don't have access to one right now unfortunately.

 

[Aballinamion]

doesn't bluff nearly enough (though he is capable of betting draws), doesn't bet nearly enough in general, slowplays sets on wet boards, calls too much with strong vs. premium hands

So we do know our opponent which is pretty good for us. Considering that he doesn't bluff enough, doesn't bet enough, slowplays on wet boards and other things you mentioned, calling preflop would be better than 3-betting.

Hero has on the BB with a stack of about 400 (all in €). Villain opens 14 from the CO (with a huge stack of over >1000). I think Villain's flaws as I read them make this a good 3betting hand, also I think the chances for a fold here are decent, so I make it 52 . Villain calls.

Why are we trying to 3-bet in a situation where we have some medium value? I would like to 3-bet this guy when I own KJ, QJ, AJ or hands that at least contains some blockers and removal, because 77 has a decent equity to play a postflop game against this one.

Flop comes (Pot = 106). I think there's good chance I'm good here but my hand is highly vulnerable, so I bet 50. Villain calls.

Now consider this: we do not own many 44 and 66 when we 3-bet here. Just a couple of 99 combos and TT+ (value range). Our bluffing range might include some flush draws of clubs and back door flushes of spades which isn't that much. If we had, for example, hands like 99 or TT would we be betting half pot here? If we had some flush draw of clubs we would be betting half pot here? Consider these things.

Turn comes (Pot = 206). I consider another bet but because I think Villain is reasonably likely to check back a hand like AK, I decide to check. Unfortunately, Villain bets 54. I make the dubious decision to call.

I think this hand is good for our bluffing range, because now we own a gutshot and we can complete a flush on the river, so our equity still stands and here is where we should try to bet to make our opponent give up. But given the description you provided on the beginning, he is not going to fold, so checking is an option is we decided to check with hands like 99 and TT+. Would we be playing the same?

River comes (Pot = 314). I check, Villain bets 110, and I fold.

I think we have enough showdown value here to call. If villain has a queen good for it but he will be bet a lot of rivers and the sizing isn't scary.