You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Check the nuts?
LARSON7
Member Posts: 4,491
I posted a hand last week, where i flopped the almost nut flush and checked it. And was unanimously told i need to bet in that spot. Which i agree with cause there was nothing in the pot.
This hand here, i bet massive on the flop, which i think is a mistake. There is nothing my opponent can really call with, with the exception of AK which is unlikely me sitting with 2 aces.
It is a regular cash player. His range here is really narrow. KK, QQ, JJ, AK.
Is there any justification to just shove pre/ make the 3 bet bigger? And given the flop, i think i would have been better checking this on the flop.
This hand here, i bet massive on the flop, which i think is a mistake. There is nothing my opponent can really call with, with the exception of AK which is unlikely me sitting with 2 aces.
It is a regular cash player. His range here is really narrow. KK, QQ, JJ, AK.
Is there any justification to just shove pre/ make the 3 bet bigger? And given the flop, i think i would have been better checking this on the flop.
| x | Small blind | £0.02 | £0.02 | £3.79 | |
| LARSON7 | Big blind | £0.04 | £0.06 | £6.47 | |
| Your hole cards |
| ||||
| gottalent | Fold | ||||
| Barbydoll | Call | £0.04 | £0.10 | £3.21 | |
| Pittlepott | Fold | ||||
| AKalex47 | Call | £0.04 | £0.14 | £2.97 | |
| x | Raise | £0.28 | £0.42 | £3.51 | |
| LARSON7 | Raise | £0.78 | £1.20 | £5.69 | |
| Barbydoll | Fold | ||||
| AKalex47 | Fold | ||||
| x | Call | £0.52 | £1.72 | £2.99 | |
| Flop | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||
| x | Check | ||||
| LARSON7 | Bet | ? | |||
Comments
Wherever you play, it is a tight regular (with the preflop raise) he is not set miniing, so we know pre he has a big starting hand the fact he's called this bet.
Would you always bet this flop?
You say you 'bet massive'.
How big? And why?
This is different to your last hand because it's a 3bet pot, therefore there's alot more in the middle and we don't need to do as much work to build the pot and eventually get all the stacks in.
Also on this kind of board, as you say, there are alot fewer hands that your opponent can call with.
The pot is £1.72 and you have 3 streets to get in £2.99 more.
If you're going to bet, as little as 50p is fine. This leaves £2.49 behind and a pot of £2.72 on the turn.
Same 50p on the turn leaves a comfortable half pot £1.99 to shove into £3.72 on the river.
Really is no need to bet 'big' with that pot to stack size ratio, always be thinking about this kinda thing when sizing your bets. They build really fast!
Checking back is an option also, as you can afford to lose a street and easily get it in by the river betting turn and river.
I doubt there's much point in checking back though, unless he's the type to either overvalue hands or bluff when you take passive lines.
Checking back is fine, betting small is fine, betting big is the worst option imo!
Agree with Geldy btw, fine so far.
Like you say plenty of time, and the flush draw is not even an issue.
I bet pot. If he had a hand it was getting shoved.
Spoke to player afterwards, he said he was folding to any bet. Pocket Queens
with nl4 I don't think it makes much difference weather you check or bet because TBH the reason for the check is so that the villain will maybe attempt a bluff thinking you hold QQ but most villain on the nl4 table will only do the tiniest of bets when they try a bluff and if they get called they will probably give up on the river.
so although a check would normally be quite good with nl4 it doesn't improve much really other than give him a chance of hitting his card because he will probably just check again on the turn and with him being a tight villain it is even more unlikely that he will attempt a bluff.
That's his range once he's called the cold 3? Not when he simply isos the limpers? He's isolating loads wider?
Or are we assuming that he folds everything else (even if 1/2 of the fish call?), never 4b shoves, limpers always fold, and therefore we might as well shove ourselves?
Not sure about that
Also even if the 'reg' folds everything but the above to our 75p cold 3, the limpers can still play. Often will.
The reason I wouldn't check is that, even though we know he never should have any flush or straight draws in his range, he might not think the same of us. So I wouldn't check on the off chance that he's sat on KK or AK and the board runs out in a way that allows him to convince himself to fold.
You haven't said anything about your image at the table and what he will perceive as your 3-betting range. If you're sure he only continues to a 3-bet with premium hands, then how often are you 3-betting him? How are you changing your play against this guy compared to the weaker players?
Your line of "big pre-flop 3-bet, full-pot on the flop" looks pretty much like you're not adapting at all between this tight reg and the loose-passive recs. Which other hands might your opponent think you could have when you do this?
Btw, are you sure he doesn't 4-bet KK, QQ or AK against you?
He would 4 bet KK, but against my range (given the action) my range is really narrow here.
Don't know about your comment about adapting. The problem in this hand is it is hard for opponent to continue without AK or KK. I do adapt everytime i'm playing depending on table dynamics players etc. I was either betting big or checking. If i check, and oppo checks turn the gig would be up, i would know he couldn't continue.
I really like Dohhhh's post about betting small given stack sizes. That would have been the correct play on the flop.
My image was aggressive, 1 guy thought i was pretty loose in the box!
That said, with the action in this hand both players ranges are quite narrow. You will not really see action like this with 2 regs, with one making a move, cetainly not at 4nl, i would imagine at any of the lower levels.
If i showed this hand and i am sitting with 7 2off and post the exact same action. It would be shouted down as bad play.
This hand here is an example where making a move is fine. Blind on blind, it's a good player who plays at higher levels, at this table is LAG, and is making moves a lot. He 3 bets to just win the pot, he is doing this with anything. The little more than min raise looks pretty strong (in his eyes).
If he can only continue with a small number of hands, then he's obviously folding quite a lot of other hands to your 3-bets. If that's the case then why not 3-bet him a lot, especially if he currently perceives you as only 3-betting narrow? If he perceives you to only 3-bet a narrow range and you actually do only 3-bet a narrow range, then it's really easy for him to play against you.
3-bet him light occasionally and you also will find it much easier to get paid in spots like this when you actually do have a hand. If he believes you can have a wide range he's less likely to believe that you've flopped a big hand.
If he perceives your range to be narrow, you want it to be wide and vice versa.
If you do that and people tell you that it's bad play, why are you going to listen? Lots of people will say "Don't 3-bet wide at NL4" as if all the players at NL4 are the same; loose and passive. We know that they're not all the same, so why would you listen to advice that suggests they are?
As it happens I don't like Dohhhhhhh's suggestion of betting less than a third of the pot. I'd like it if Dohhhhhhh was playing the hand or if I was, but since your pre-flop 3-betting range is so tight I think your hand is face-up when you bet so small. It's difficult to think of a line you could take, given your pre-flop ranges, that wouldn't make your hand face-up (which is why I say you need to have coolered your opponent). I would probably bet just a little less than half-pot, hoping that I can look like I'm trying a desperate, last-ditch attempt to pinch the pot. 50p just looks like a desperate attempt for value with your range. Neither bet size is likely to be much better than the other, really. I'm just being picky but I want you to think about how your bets look to your opponent.
Open up your own range pre-flop and you can open up your opponent's post-flop continuing range.
The one question I'd have about that hand is whether you really think it's a good idea in the long-term to raise against a limper from the small blind with a junk hand. In position, I'd say it's fine. Out of position may be another story, especially if the big blind comes along too. It might be alright but it depends what you think this opponent does post-flop. You want him to be able to fold to a single c-bet because if he's going to call light or float, it's going to be very difficult to fire two barrels with a hand that's unlikely to pick up much equity.
I like the principal of what you are saying 3 bet light sometimes, but in this instance imo it's not the type of thing to be doing.
You are saying instead of betting 50p bet half pot, that screams a bit more of strength than a smaller bet. Whatever way, in this hand given the flop it has just killed the action.
I definitely wasn't suggesting 4-betting such an opponent light, btw. That would be madness. lol
On the bolded portion: I'd say that, since I imagine that your general approach is to bet pretty big for value post-flop (as you did in this hand) then suddenly betting really small on a flop that smashes your range after you've 3-bet pre-flop looks stronger than betting slightly bigger. Considering the range our opponent is likely to perceive us as having, we want to make a bet that looks like it's designed to take the pot down without risking too much of our stack. Betting really small with these stacks and so much in the middle just never looks weak, in my opinion. It looks like you're crying out to be called.
So I'd go a bit bigger, but an amount that looks like I'm trying not to commit too much of my stack. As I say, it makes very little difference but I think that's marginally better.