nl$100 FR. TPTK OOP vs Aggression.

[tenbob]

Fairly standard situation we find ourselves in. Im new to the table around 3 orbits and villian is new to me playing 6/6/0 over 25 or so hands. Ive been playing my usual TAG game and this is the first hand that that Ive been involved in.

Like/hate the flop line ?

pokerstars Game #16940593765: Hold'em No Limit ($0.50/$1.00) - 2008/04/23 - 15:06:44 (ET)
Table 'Geographos III' 9-max Seat #1 is the button
Seat 1: EMolskis ($98.85 in chips)
Seat 2: Dammn_Deuces ($102.30 in chips)
Seat 3: Senecady ($20 in chips)
Seat 4: Keev2K ($101.75 in chips)
Seat 5: superficelle ($18.30 in chips)
Seat 6: tenbob ($100 in chips)
Seat 7: wazawskiHH ($97.90 in chips)
Seat 8: theAlchemizt ($103.35 in chips)
Seat 9: bausl1 ($104.90 in chips)
Dammn_Deuces: posts small blind $0.50
Senecady: posts big blind $1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to tenbob [Ks As]
Keev2K: folds
superficelle: folds
tenbob: raises $3 to $4
wazawskiHH: folds
theAlchemizt: folds
bausl1: folds
EMolskis: calls $4
Dammn_Deuces: folds
Senecady: folds
*** FLOP *** [5h 2c Kh]
tenbob: bets $7
EMolskis: raises $14 to $21
tenbob: calls $14
*** TURN *** [5h 2c Kh] [6d]
tenbob: checks
EMolskis: bets $26
tenbob:

 

[Jagsti]

Without reads or decent stats, I think I lay this hand down. This smacks of set more often than not. If he's flushing then he's doing a really agrro job of it, and with just tptk, I just wouldnt pay the price to find out.

 

[widowmaker89]

If you call do you commit your stack if he fires again? A 1/2 pot bet puts you all in. I agree with Jag, this looks like a set and I would probably let it go. As for the flop line it was great until the reraise haha.

 

[ChuckTs]

Yep, this is a committing bet on the turn here, so we're stacking if we call this (unless he checks behind riv). Against this type of opponent I really don't want to stack TPTK on a board like this. I guess it's a little bit of an inaccurate assumption considering we have very such a small sample size on him, but this type of player won't raise a FD/KQ/bluff, so we're basically looking at sets/slowplayed AK/AA here.

 

[widowmaker89]

Not to Hijack the thread here but I was wondering what the difference between this hand and the other TPTK thread is.

Is it the 6/6 with 25 hands vs the LAG player? The turn cant really be your reasoning so it has to be the player correct?

 

[ChuckTs]

Mostly.

Re: the players, a 6/6 player is basically one who won't raise without TPTK or better here.

The board texture is also important. A jack-high flop is much less likely to have hit emp's range in that other thread than a king is to hit tenbob's range here. The flush draw actually helps the stacking argument here - if villain is more aggressive he could easily be doing this with a flush draw (among other hands), and we'd be much happier to get it in. The fact that he's such a nit that he'd probably just call down with a FD negates that problem though.

Also add in the fact that it's full ring vs 6-max. Players go bonkers in 6-max while they generally nut peddle in FR.

 

[widowmaker89]

Makes sense, although is 25 hands really enough to peg someone such a nit? Any information should be used I guess. and while im sure there is a correlation between hand selection and post flop agression, who says he doesnt wait for big hands and just lets loose after the flop even if they miss?

Full Ring vs 6max is also something I didnt really take much consideration, starting ranges obviously are much larger, but are there also more plays? I guess it would makes sense as would someone being more agressive with TPGK.

 

[ChuckTs]

Makes sense, although is 25 hands really enough to peg someone such a nit?

Probably not, but in my experience at 100nl the average player will be a nit after that many hands of tight play. It's not enough to say he'll always have a set/overpair here, but on average an unknown player won't raise a weaker TP or a FD here so I'm making a pretty big assumption that we're beat.

Any information should be used I guess. and while im sure there is a correlation between hand selection and post flop agression, who says he doesnt wait for big hands and just lets loose after the flop even if they miss?

Because usually people don't go nuts with AQ or QQ here. It just doesn't happen as often as someone going nuts with a set or AA.

Full Ring vs 6max is also something I didnt really take much consideration, starting ranges obviously are much larger, but are there also more plays? I guess it would makes sense as would someone being more agressive with TPGK.

Had you asked me a month or two ago I'd say no, but with more experience it's taught me it's a VERY different game. People go absolutely nuts in 6-max.

 

[F Paulsson]

Can someone briefly go through why calling the turn and check/folding the river isn't an option? I realize that that tendency might get exploited if we do it too often, but against unknowns?

 

[Munchrs]

Can someone briefly go through why calling the turn and check/folding the river isn't an option? I realize that that tendency might get exploited if we do it too often, but against unknowns?

because our flop bet has been raised indicating strength, and then villian has followed it up with a big juicy turn bet indicating more strength and willingness to get into a big pot. From both these actions we can safely assume that a very large % of the time we will be behind with TPTK now and at showdown and that villian will bet the river which would mean we would of called $26 to fold alot of times on the river. Effectively i feel that villian wont check behind often enough to warrant calling the $26 on the turn.

Also if we call we will have roughly $50 left with the pot being $100 and if villian bets we are getting at worst 3:1 on our money which are pretty good odds to be calling with TPTK.

So if we call the turn bet we are commited to calling a river bet. Professional No limit by ed miller and co. covers this very extensively.

If we call the turn bet and c/f we are wasting money and making an overall loosing play.

IMO we have 2 options shove or fold. Calling will get most of our money in anyway most of the time so why not try to get some fold equity out of it.

I like fold.

 

[F Paulsson]

because our flop bet has been raised indicating strength, and then villian has followed it up with a big juicy turn bet indicating more strength and willingness to get into a big pot. From both these actions we can safely assume that a very large % of the time we will be behind with TPTK now and at showdown and that villian will bet the river which would mean we would of called $26 to fold alot of times on the river. Effectively i feel that villian wont check behind often enough to warrant calling the $26 on the turn.

Also if we call we will have roughly $50 left with the pot being $100 and if villian bets we are getting at worst 3:1 on our money which are pretty good odds to be calling with TPTK.

So if we call the turn bet we are commited to calling a river bet. Professional No limit by ed miller and co. covers this very extensively.

If we call the turn bet and c/f we are wasting money and making an overall loosing play.

I disagree with PNL extensively claiming that we're committed to calling a river bet. We will get 3:1 or something similar, but what I'm suggesting is that we're not ahead 25% of the time on the river, so we can't call a river bet, because if a decent player bets in position on the river, his range is polarized towards strong hands and bluffs, and it sort of ends up being a "I know that you know that I know" where because we called the turn, he might not dare to bluff the river. And I definitely don't expect him to bet KJ or KQ too often.

Throwing in some ranges and our respective equity on the turn:

Tight range: KK+,55,22,AKs,KQs,AKo,KQo - 44%

Wider range: 55+,22,AKs,KJs+,AKo,KJo+ - 73%

The idea that he'd follow up the turn with another bet with 77+ is not that far-fetched, if someone thought so, btw. It's a decent protection/bluff bet. He might be able to fold out higher PPs on a K-high board, while simultaneously denying high-card hands the chance of a free card. And if nothing else, our "gain" in equity for those hands is at least somewhat offset by the fact that I added AA and KK to his range, which seems unlikely given preflop action.

Either way, presuming that he's somewhere in between 44% and 73%, giving up on the turn is expensive, but the reason we give up on the turn is because we don't want to commit on the river, right? And my question remains: Unless he will bluff three barrels "often" (or "enough"), why are we afraid to call a turn bet with good equity and simply read his hand for stronger than ours the times he bets the river as well?

Let me put it differently:

If he bets the turn, and god stops time and tells us that if we call, he - god - will stop time again and turn over our opponent's cards before the river, then it seems to me that we have a clear call because we will be able to fold and call the river perfectly, depending on what hand our opponent has. And we already know we can call the turn profitably as long as we don't screw up on the river.

So when we check the river and our opponent bets, do we ever have the best hand? What part of the respective ranges that I posted (unless you disagree with them) does he bet on the river that we beat? We don't have to call the river just because we have TPTK and get 3:1; that's nonsense. We can fold, if we think he's very unlikely to bet a worse hand.

Against semi-unknowns, this could be difficult, because we don't know whether or not he'd bet three barrels with KQ, but then again, with at least some notion of tight/lag (and the stats were 6/6/0) we should be able to make a good estimation.

Minimum EV of calling if we play the river perfectly (the god scenario):
50% of the time, we lose $26.
50% of the time, we win $77.

EV = 0.5 * (-26 + 77) = $25.5.

Stepping away from god for a moment, then, it's clear that if we are to lose money from calling the turn, we have to make a $25.50 mistake or worse on the river. The pot is going to be ~$100 if we call. If our plan is to always fold when he bets, he needs to be betting the river with a worse hand 25% of the time.

Differently put, unless our friend bluffs the river very frequently, we win money by calling the turn.

Or where am I going wrong?

 

[F Paulsson]

I'm sorry for the monster post, btw, here's the cliffnotes:

With my assumption of his range when he bets the turn, we have > 50% equity. If we call the turn, he needs to make us make a $25 mistake or worse on the river in order for the turn call to be -EV.

I contend that he will not bluff more than the requisite 25% on the river, therefore calling the turn and folding the river if he bets is OK.

 

[tenbob]

I
With my assumption of his range when he bets the turn, we have > 50% equity. If we call the turn, he needs to make us make a $25 mistake or worse on the river in order for the turn call to be -EV.

I contend that he will not bluff more than the requisite 25% on the river, therefore calling the turn and folding the river if he bets is OK.

OK OK, I get it. His line is extremly strong though and suggests that he's capable of betting the river here most of the time. I also feel that against a 6/6/0 especially in full ring that his range is much much narrower than you suggest. Personally unless he's made a total arse of KQ we don't see anything less than AA/KK/AK or a set there, with the set line looking the strongest here, and should be weighted.

Flop min-raise, largish turn bet and looks to me like hes trying to get his stack in here, so from his line I think we can expect a $50 river bet if I call that turn. While sometimes its easy to plug numbers in and get out a result, if we take this line as a standard one here we will be very exploitable to big hands on the turn and river lots. If he has a set he is playing it optimally against a TPTK or an over-pair type hand, and his line screams strength here.

I'm folding AA here lots as well.

 

[F Paulsson]

OK OK, I get it. His line is extremly strong though and suggests that he's capable of betting the river here most of the time. I also feel that against a 6/6/0 especially in full ring that his range is much much narrower than you suggest. Personally unless he's made a total arse of KQ we don't see anything less than AA/KK/AK or a set there, with the set line looking the strongest here, and should be weighted.

Flop min-raise, largish turn bet and looks to me like hes trying to get his stack in here, so from his line I think we can expect a $50 river bet if I call that turn. While sometimes its easy to plug numbers in and get out a result, if we take this line as a standard one here we will be very exploitable to big hands on the turn and river lots. If he has a set he is playing it optimally against a TPTK or an over-pair type hand, and his line screams strength here.

I'm folding AA here lots as well.

Yeah, if his range is much much tighter (which it well might be) then folding the turn is clearly OK. I kinda hijacked a little with something I've been wondering about, which is the "calling turn, folding river" line with made hands. It's something I - strangely enough, you might think - picked up in limit. In limit, it's done much the same way, but with much weaker hands (given the large pot odds being offered on the river) and I was itching for a discussion as to why it couldn't work the same in no-limit. The play itself is based on the idea that we have sufficient equity to continue past the turn, but not the river. So if he's a rock, and our equity sucks already on the turn, it's a moot point.

 

[c9h13no3]

Flop min-raise, largish turn bet and looks to me like hes trying to get his stack in here

He also just called behind PF. I'd think a 6/6 player would 3-bet A's or K's. So yeah, villain's range is air, KQ, 22, 55. And it'd be pretty cracked out for KQ, and nits don't bluff so much. So its not going to be air or KQ often enough for us to call even 1 more bet.

 

[widowmaker89]

While we should take all information we have, why exactly is he such a huge nit? he was played 25 hands (or 33). Maybe he just hasnt been getting any cards. After this hand he will be a 9/6 maybe in 5 more hands he picks up a few more playable hands.

 

[Dr_Dick]

Widowmaker,

As with Emperors TPTK post, I agree with you. Once again we are relying on basically no information and making a read based on what the computer says based on hand ranges you put your opponent on after having a 25 hand history. There is ABSOLUTELY no way after 25 hands we have any clue about this villain. He could be 8 tabling, or maybe he just got off his phone while eating a sandwich and so he has been basically folding every hand. He is done with his sandwich, told his boss he is sick and is calling off for the day and is going back to being a LAG.

To me this is an easy fold. TPTK is not the hand I want to get involved with out of position into a raise and a strong bet.

 

[Munchrs]

If we call the turn, he needs to make us make a $25 mistake or worse on the river in order for the turn call to be -EV.

FP i see what your getting at but lets look at this from villians side.

If villian bets the turn we know that if we call the pot is $100 with $50 efective stacks behind right.

So this is where it is confusing, with only $50 left and $100 in the pot with having played an agressive line, would it not be optimal for you to shove all of your range(ill ge to his range in a sec) on the river. You are risking $50 to win $100 assuming that oppenent folds the river.

Lets assume that we loose 100% of the time we get called(obv not realistic but keeps it simple)
when you win you win $100 when you get caled you loose $50 so you need him to call less than 2/3 of the time to make shoving profitable.

Why would you not shove here? You in actual fact will probably only need to make villian fold less than 1/3 because somtimes you will have the best hand at showdown. So it would probably be negative EV to not shove this river if we were villian here.

Getting back to why it would be incorect to call the turn and fold the river, because unless we expect villian to make the mistake of not shoving the river often you are commited to calling the all in simply because it would be negative EV for villian to not shove the river so but if you call the shove 100% of the time it now means that you have made the play -EV for villian and +EV for you by taking away his fold equity when he bluffs.

THe only issue is that i doubt villian ever bluffs the river so just fold the turn.

 

[soonerdel]

looks like set mining to me.. i would fold

 

[F Paulsson]

THe only issue is that i doubt villian ever bluffs the river so just fold the turn.

What? No! If he never bluffs the river, we're golden. Call now and check/fold the river. It's only if he bluffs often on the river that calling the turn can be wrong, is what I said. Or what I thought I said.

Edit: The $25 that I spoke of was not the mistake of calling the river and lose more money that way, but to fold too often in a $100 pot. The only way we can fold "too often" on the river is if he bluffs more than 25% of the time (i.e. makes us lose the $100 25% of time when we shouldn't have = $25 mistake).

 

[ChuckTs]

I'm so lost now. You and your beautiful LHE maths (that's my excuse for not understanding).

 

[F Paulsson]

Heh, okay, I'll try to explain it in a different way:

There are two kinds of mistakes one can make in hold 'em: Putting in money with the worst hand, or folding with the best hand. There's a middle ground here, too, with "draws," but the mistakes made with draws are at their core actually one of the first two. Either you pay too much to draw (money in with worst hand) or you fold when you had odds to continue (folding best hand).

So.

Let's start with the easiest case: We believe we have > 50% equity on the turn, and let's say that our opponent's bet forces him to be all-in on the turn. This, of course, is a clear call, then.

Now we take the same situation, but now our opponent has $50 behind BUT we're dead certain our opponent will never bluff the river. Here, the call is just as easy. We're putting in the exact same amount of money as in the scenario above, and we're winning just as often! The only difference is psychological, because we don't get to see a showdown when we lose. But if we trust him to bet the river only when he has it, him betting is for all intents and purposes directly equal to him turning up a winning hand, so we muck. The EV has not changed from that of the all-in scenario.

However, if he's capable of bluffing, of putting in a third bet with a hand weaker than ours, then we're suddenly in trouble, if our strategy is to always check/fold the river. But as I showed above, it's not just enough for him to bluff "sometimes," he has to bluff as often as one time in four on the river for us to lose money, because we need to make the "folding best hand"-mistake often enough to make it worth $25.

See what I mean?

 

[ChuckTs]

Ah ok, makes a lot more sense to me now. I'd ask where that $25 came from but I see you explained it in another post.

tbh I skimmed through the replies earlier and it was just pure brain asplosion for me, so I'll have to reread it and give some legitimate input some time tomorrow. 3am here and I need sleep.

Thanks for the explanation.

 

[F Paulsson]

By the way, and this is directed to no one in particular, I need to reiterate that my curiousity about calling turn/folding river isn't tied directly to the hand TB posted. Against a nit, it might well be better to just fold the turn. I'm talking about the general situations where we have positive equity on the turn, which may or may not be the case in this hand.

 

[Munchrs]

However, if he's capable of bluffing, of putting in a third bet with a hand weaker than ours, then we're suddenly in trouble, if our strategy is to always check/fold the river. But as I showed above, it's not just enough for him to bluff "sometimes," he has to bluff as often as one time in four on the river for us to lose money, because we need to make the "folding best hand"-mistake often enough to make it worth $25.

See what I mean?

i thought this was what i said? atleast what i was trying to get across.

did my point about why villian should shove the river all the time make sense?