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.
Thoughts?
gazza127
Member Posts: 2,156
Ok.
Not sure reads have tooooo much to say in this. Although I've noticed villain can be relatively aggressive with non-nutmaking hands, but has folded to raises on a number of previous occassions. This is the first time ive seen them min-raise the turn like this so tbh I havent got a clue what it means.
Question is the turn here... Do we flat the bet and let him bluff a river if he has nothing? Do we reraise to charge Kx hands... but risk losing our customer or secret option number 3 - fold. It looks like a higher set.
Thoughts on a postcard please!
Not sure reads have tooooo much to say in this. Although I've noticed villain can be relatively aggressive with non-nutmaking hands, but has folded to raises on a number of previous occassions. This is the first time ive seen them min-raise the turn like this so tbh I havent got a clue what it means.
Question is the turn here... Do we flat the bet and let him bluff a river if he has nothing? Do we reraise to charge Kx hands... but risk losing our customer or secret option number 3 - fold. It looks like a higher set.
Thoughts on a postcard please!
| JJ0001 | Small blind | £0.50 | £0.50 | £92.50 | |
| sikas | Big blind | £1.00 | £1.50 | £253.34 | |
| Your hole cards |
| ||||
| gazza127 | Raise | £3.00 | £4.50 | £279.84 | |
| jimmynoleg | Fold | ||||
| XX | Call | £3.00 | £7.50 | £308.07 | |
| varney | Call | £3.00 | £10.50 | £183.43 | |
| JJ0001 | Fold | ||||
| sikas | Fold | ||||
| Flop | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||
| gazza127 | Bet | £6.00 | £16.50 | £273.84 | |
| XX | Call | £6.00 | £22.50 | £302.07 | |
| varney | Fold | ||||
| Turn | |||||
| |||||
| gazza127 | Bet | £13.00 | £35.50 | £260.84 | |
| XX | Raise | £26.00 | £61.50 | £276.07 | |
| gazza127 | |||||
Comments
I am inclined to let my 2s go at this point, because calling only gives us a similarly difficult decision to make on the river, only it will cost us more at that point to find out. I don't think re-raising is an option either.
He could, of course, be raising here to throw you out of your comfort zone, but it seems like an odd card to do this on.
I think you fold here.
I'm no expert by any means, but they are just my initial thoughts
Hope this is of use to you.
100bb deep obviously just getting it in here. This deep I dunno - I think my standard would be to 3bet/fold to without any more reads. I want to 3-bet to get value from their draws/weaker 2 pair hands. But I think if villain reshoves I think we'll be against a better set far too often.
The line was strong but I was never folding. Just surprised he popped up with KQ. Would donk leading the river with a small bet be really bad in these kinds of positions?
u gotta have specific reads on villian that they bluff or play draws or even Kx this way
raising just folds out a lot you beat
river is always a c/c and u want them to continue the bluff or bluff the missed draws or overvalue Kx like on turn even though it one of those silly info/protection raises that always checks behind on rivers :S
yes we have a set but we dont know villan has KQ at this point - this line is soo bluffy aswel.
you said OTT your standard here would be to 3bet fold but this to me is by far the worst play when theres no value in raising and fold out everysingle worst hand, and also force us to fold a set?? how can that be good ?
i think we may veiw poker in a different way in some spots but your statndard lines are not standard to me.
So I agree that 3-betting the turn is bad, especially if we're just hoping that someone now stations us down. A second ago we were saying that they've min-raised because they want us to stop putting money in. How does that lead us to 3-betting? We just make them fold, surely?
Anyway, if he's bluffing we don't want him to fold and if he's value-raising better, we don't want to pay him more than we need to. Until we have specific reads I think call turn, check-call river is best.
When we do have specific reads that the min-raise on the turn is someone trying to stop us betting, then calling turn and donking river is good. I think that really does require a specific read on a villain and we shouldn't be assuming that this is more likely than the alternatives.
We also have the problem that if the villain is min-raising with worse value hands on the turn that he's happy with, there's a good chance that he's overvaluing those hands and may 4-bet jam his two-pairs. If we're 3-bet-folding against an unknown, this is going to be the situation a fair proportion of the time.
So I agree with Lnarin00. Call turn and check-call river. I don't like 3-bet-folding the turn.
When he min-raises the turn, if we're thinking he's trying keep us from betting the river because he's marginal, then we don't want to 3-bet because he just folds. If that's the argument we're giving, we can't justify 3-betting as a value raise because we have a read suggesting that he doesn't want to put more money in. If that's the read we have, then we should call turn and donk river. However, I don't think that's the assumption we should make of randoms because this line, to my mind, means a hand they're happy with, not a hand that is marginal. I'd usually expect to be called down or to see folds here or on the river from marginal value hands, not raises. (Edited that sentence because it made no sense.)
Do I think most villains are raise-folding the turn with two-pairs? No. However, if we do 3-bet we give them a great chance to get away from any marginal holdings and bluffs. Why do that? If he's holding two-pair there's a great chance he bets the river anyway.
As for it being scared poker because we don't have any reads... well if it is scared poker we're only going to be doing it for one hand. After this hand we're going to have some of those reads, so won't be playing "scared" next time. As it happens, I don't think it is playing scared because I think we should be making different assumptions, readless, about that turn min-raise than the assumptions you seem to think we should be making. The fact you play much higher volume than me suggests you're more likely to be right about those assumptions but I can only speak from my experience on it. I'm sure Lnarin00 will have his own thoughts.
It's again a question of your experience how often you think that will be the case versus a random. Maybe it won't happen a large proportion of the time, maybe it will. It's definitely worth considering, though.
The thing is, if we make their range for raising the turn:
i) marginal hands and bluffs that will fold to a 3-bet but may bet river (if we're lucky)
ii) two-pair hands that will call a 3-bet (that we expect to bet river)
iii) sets that beat us and will shove or call turn and call river,
Then how high a proportion of the time do they have to overvalue their two-pairs and shove the turn to make 3-bet-folding a worse option than flat-calling the raise?
My thoughts are probably heavily skewed by only playing micro-stakes where a min-raise nearly always means the nuts.
If we donk the river it can only be with the specific belief that the villain is more likely to min-raise the turn to stop us betting the river than he is to be min-raising for value or as a bluff. It's easy to see how this min-raise to stifle the betting could become unbalanced - would you really min-raise a bluff? - but, as I say, I'm used to it being the nuts in less experienced players' hands.
This whole playing "scared" thing is a load of nonsense anyway. Once we're making decisions because we think they're the most +EV available, it makes no difference whether we're wetting ourselves. It's just making those +EV decisions that's sometimes the difficult bit.