$10 NLHE 6-max: is that right to bluff a fish

viilian 47/38 crazy aggressive af 42 wtsd 33
normally I will not 3bet, here I just hope to get more money in.
But after flop I should bet the flop, my question is if I bet the flop he called, should I bet again or c/f

Hero (SB): $10 (100 bb)
BB: $16.59 (165.9 bb)
MP: $10 (100 bb)
CO: $10.55 (105.5 bb)
BTN: $9.46 (94.6 bb)

Preflop: Hero is SB with Kc Qc
2 folds, BTN raises to $0.30, Hero raises to $1, BB folds, BTN calls $0.70

Flop: ($2.10) 6s As 5d (2 players)
Hero checks, BTN checks

Turn: ($2.10) 3d (2 players)
Hero checks, BTN bets $1.10

$10 NLHE 6-max: is that right to bluff a fish

3 betting here is fine, actually I would recommend it against such a loose player, your just so far ahead of his button opening range. KQ doesn't play so well OOP and your going to struggle to maximise value here without the betting lead so I don't like a call.

What's his fold to 3 bet? I'm guessing pretty low? Which means his range is still real wide.

I am betting this board however, he is not going to showdown all too often, so he is capable of finding foods and it still misses a large enough portion of his range and you can easily rep a big A here.

If raised its an easy fold, if called you can re evaluate the turn and decide to either barrel or check fold. I'm not giving up the betting lead on this flop though.

In regards to whether to barrel or c/f what are his fold to c bet stats? Fold to turn c bet? Is he likely to float pretty wide? Is he capable of pitching weaker Ax hands or under pairs to aggression on later streets? I think there are enough draws here to barrel the turn however, but this would have to be player dependant. What sort of hands does he show down?

I know the general rule is never to bluff a fish but

ConDeck pretty much just killed this thread and I have to agree 100%

I'm down with just calling pre if his fold to cbet is low (which I bet it is). Against maniacal players, you want to get equity before creating a big pot, and you'll flop overs plus a draw or a pair pretty often.

Raise on preflop was so fkin bad, KQs can be very good after flop, but usually its just pair or nothing. The only hands you can beat here is KJs or QJs, with other he wouldnt 3bet and called on preflop. Ur mistake is raise on preflop.

c9h13no3 said:

I'm down with just calling pre if his fold to cbet is low (which I bet it is). Against maniacal players, you want to get equity before creating a big pot, and you'll flop overs plus a draw or a pair pretty often.

Click to expand...

I can see the reasoning behind this, however i still think 3 betting is better and calling is lower EV. You are entering a pot OOP without the initiative and even given a skill edge, the fact your ahead almost always and Villains stats I don't like it... (In position completely different story). You are mostly reduced to a check call line even when you hit by flatting and even if you decide to donk or CR on later streets your gonna struggle to get his stack this way when your ahead.

As you say we flop overs/pairs/SD/FD often enough with this hand giving us the equity you say we need a large percentage of the time and if we 3 bet we can steal the pot another significant percentage of the time (that we couldn't by flatting) so I still think it's the more profitable move.

Also I question the sample size as maintaining an aggression factor this high is difficult even if you wanted to.

Ozzzzy said:

Raise on preflop was so fkin bad, KQs can be very good after flop, but usually its just pair or nothing. The only hands you can beat here is KJs or QJs, with other he wouldnt 3bet and called on preflop. Ur mistake is raise on preflop.

Click to expand...

Totally disagree with almost everything you say here and more so in the way you say it, this is for constructive criticism not insulting someone's play ... Even if you disagree with the raise and prefer a flat it definitely isn't "so fkin bad". Also only hands we beat are KJs and QJs against a super loose aggro fish?! Not the case at all...

Think of the hand this way: if your opponent doesn't fold often enough, why are you trying to make him fold with a cbet?

You exploit maniacs by waiting til you have good equity, and then shoving the money in. If this guy'S fold to cbet is around 60%, then by all means 3-bet/cbet. But usually when guys are nutty pre, they're nutty post flop as well.

Ozzzzy said:

Raise on preflop was so fkin bad, KQs can be very good after flop, but usually its just pair or nothing. The only hands you can beat here is KJs or QJs, with other he wouldnt 3bet and called on preflop. Ur mistake is raise on preflop.

Click to expand...

Not only is this not helpful at all but it is completely wrong.

c9h13no3 said:

Think of the hand this way: if your opponent doesn't fold often enough, why are you trying to make him fold with a cbet?

You exploit maniacs by waiting til you have good equity, and then shoving the money in. If this guy'S fold to cbet is around 60%, then by all means 3-bet/cbet. But usually when guys are nutty pre, they're nutty post flop as well.

Click to expand...

You have to assume that a 47/38 villain is probably opening the button almost every time it is folded to him and KQs actually has GREAT equity vs that range. This is a value 3 bet all day erry day and I wouldn't even think twice about this. Adjusting to a maniac by waiting for the top 8% of your range is not the way to do it at all, you are suppose to open your value range which includes your 3 bet range. If villain is not folding to 3 bets it makes 3 betting EVEN BETTER! Just think of all the KJ, K10, Any Kx suited, QJ, Q10, Q9 that he is calling with that you dominate. Think of all the other junk he will call with that misses and how many flops he needs to fold. Even a maniac is folding flop in a 3 bet pot when they completely miss.

Flatting just puts you in bad spots and if the BB is paying any attention at all he would recognize a flat here as a slam dunk squeeze spot vs a button that is opening extremely wide and a SB that is passive with a hand that was not even strong enough to 3 bet vs the maniac. Also, what happens when you hit your hand? Are you check raising if you flop top pair? Are you going to trap with KQ and hope he barrels off when you flop top pair? Are you going to flop a draw and check call and fold when you miss? Bet when you hit and have him fold? I just don't see the value in flatting KQ here, sure it might be slight +EV but 3 betting is just better in every single way.

I really don't get why you are not continuing on this flop because it really is a great flop to cbet and should generate a lot of folds. As played I actually think the turn is a call and you should expect to have the best hand here some of the time after you check to a maniac twice as he is betting almost his whole range in this spot. You may have nothing but you have the nut nothing and there is actually some value there.

Is this the "GREAT equity"?

ProPokerTools Hold'em Simulation
3,034,202,688 trials (Exhaustive)
38% 47.14% (1,378,271,222 wins, 104,291,790 ties)
KQs 52.86% (1,551,639,676 wins, 104,291,790 ties)

c9h13no3 said:

Is this the "GREAT equity"?

ProPokerTools Hold'em Simulation
3,034,202,688 trials (Exhaustive)
38% 47.14% (1,378,271,222 wins, 104,291,790 ties)
KQs 52.86% (1,551,639,676 wins, 104,291,790 ties)

Click to expand...

Why do you feel the need to be so negative everytime someone has a different opinion than you?

On to your point, you are once again contorting numbers to try and prove your point. Villain is raising 38% of hands, yes. Correct! In this spot though he is raising more then that because it was folded to him on the button so his range is much wider then 38% because people a lot of the times are just tryint to steal the blinds here. Especially a maniac. A AtS stat would be nice here but considering his maniac status alone I would say he is raising ATLEAST 50% of hands here. Lets not forget that the calculation you posted does not factor in fold equity. Don't get me wrong, flatting here is sill +EV but 3 bettint is far more profitable. Flatting vs 3 betting here is the difference between someone that beats the game and someone who crushes the game. A passive weak tight reg vs a TAG reg.

IPlay said:

I would say he is raising ATLEAST 50% of hands here. Lets not forget that the calculation you posted does not factor in fold equity.

Click to expand...

If he raises 50% of hands, and folds to a 3-bet 35% of the time, you get... 35% of hands. I can reduce his range by 3% if you like...

You can quibble about his range all you want, point being is there's not a shit-ton of preflop equity to push here.

c9h13no3 said:

If he raises 50% of hands, and folds to a 3-bet 35% of the time, you get... 35% of hands. I can reduce his range by 3% if you like...

You can quibble about his range all you want, point being is there's not a shit-ton of preflop equity to push here.

Click to expand...

Where does it say/what makes you think he is folding to 3 bet 35%? Also we are 3 betting not pushing and would fold to a 4 bet.

IPlay said:

Where does it say/what makes you think he is folding to 3 bet 35%? Also we are 3 betting not pushing and would fold to a 4 bet.

Click to expand...

1) Sometimes players fold to a 3-bet. Most players fold around 60% of the time. I supposed 35% is about right for a maniacal guy.

Also, folding to a 4-bet is a reason *not* to 3-bet, since this player will be 4-betting lighter than usual.

I don't see why this hand is complex. You don't beat maniacs by also getting crazy. You beat them by tightening up, and then funneling the money in when you can beat them at showdown.

c9h13no3 said:

1) Sometimes players fold to a 3-bet. Most players fold around 60% of the time. I supposed 35% is about right for a maniacal guy.

Also, folding to a 4-bet is a reason *not* to 3-bet, since this player will be 4-betting lighter than usual.

I don't see why this hand is complex. You don't beat maniacs by also getting crazy. You beat them by tightening up, and then funneling the money in when you can beat them at showdown.

Click to expand...

I think this is solid reasoning, Any time there's a crazy player at my table I tighten up, wait for a great spot (75%+?), and get the money in.

c9h13no3 said:

1) Sometimes players fold to a 3-bet. Most players fold around 60% of the time. I supposed 35% is about right for a maniacal guy.

Click to expand...

Good, so you agree we generate fold equity by 3 betting AND are ahead of his range when he calls. That is great for us!

c9h13no3 said:

Also, folding to a 4-bet is a reason *not* to 3-bet, since this player will be 4-betting lighter than usual.

Click to expand...

You can't be serious? You only 3 bet hands you are willing to get it in with? True this player will be 4 betting lighter but you are really stretching here....

c9h13no3 said:

I don't see why this hand is complex. You don't beat maniacs by also getting crazy. You beat them by tightening up, and then funneling the money in when you can beat them at showdown.

Click to expand...

It really is not complex and 3 betting here is FAR from "getting crazy", 3 betting a hand like KQs in 6 max against a button steal, ESPECIALLY when we are in the SB since you are not closing action, is pretty standard. In 6 max you can't just "tighten up and funnel money" vs a maniac since blinds are coming quick and you don't make big hands often so you need to squeeze every edge you can, which includes widening your 3 bet value range. I would not 3 bet this player light with a hand like A3s though. If you sit around and wait for 1010+ AK to play a hand against these players the money is going to be long gone and just because they are a maniac does not mean they are retarded and not going to notice when the nit playing 16/12 at 6 max wakes up with a hand. This approach may work in a full ring setting but just is not very effective in 6 max. I would actually agree with flatting if we were on the button and he opened from the HJ but this is a Button Vs Blind situation.

atlantafalcons0 said:

I think this is solid reasoning, Any time there's a crazy player at my table I tighten up, wait for a great spot (75%+?), and get the money in.

Click to expand...

75%+ Equity??? So you are waiting to get JJ+ or to flop 2 pair or better? Wow, enjoy folding to this guy while I scoop medium to large size pots by stacking him with top pair or even less when I bluff catch against him. I should say I agree with tightening up against a player like this but there is a fine line between tightening up and nut peddling.

iPlay's word count to good advice ratio is HUGE!

I think this is solid reasoning, Any time there's a crazy player at my table I tighten up, wait for a great spot (75%+?), and get the money in.

Click to expand...

75%+ Equity??? So you are waiting to get JJ+ or to flop 2 pair or better? Wow, enjoy folding to this guy while I scoop medium to large size pots by stacking him with top pair or even less when I bluff catch against him. I should say I agree with tightening up against a player like this but there is a fine line between tightening up and nut peddling.

Click to expand...

That (75%+?) part is a question in disguise for c9. I'm asking because 54% is way too low, and anything above 75% seems to high to "wait" for.

I think the only thing worse than 3betting this OOP vs a crazy player would be to donk bet the flop on an ace high board?

Yeah, if villain would 4-bet shove over our 3-bet with his whole range, we'd show a profit 4-betting KQs. It's just that he's offering us a bigger edge by allowing us to call and see a flop. We can get it in when we hit as big favorites because this player is so often willing, fold easily when we miss. And it's not like we're set mining, "hit" is flopping a gutshot with two overs, flush draw with overs, a pair ect.

When we 3-bet, villain will 4-bet, call and do crazy stuff vs. our flop c-bet, and generally be willing to beat us in a game of bluffing chicken. Just take the edge he's giving you.

That said, you can prolly stack AQ+/99+ preflop for value.

If we are PFR we are not donk betting, we are continuing. You could tell villain did not like flop due to checkback and I would bet a bet would of got through.

I agree with your preflop GII range but I disagree if that is your 3 bet range in a btn vs blind spot, ESPECIALLY sb against thisb guy. I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree.

Thanks for everyone, it is great to get lots of discussion here.
I think everyone offer some good value piece.
No time to quote everything. Just like to collect every piece together.

First I will post hands against fish continuely, because the major problem is I found it is easy to spew against this type. As fish can be different, when we have +EV to fight to the end is important. We probably should give up a lot to balance. This case maybe is a special one so that it induces a lot conflict.

1. why should I 3bet?
here we have 50/50 different opinion. I think they both right in different angle. people who said do not 3bet, against most fish it is the right way to control spew, even their AF is 5-10, it maybe dangerous to 3bet.
But here is a special case, as the villia AF is 42(45 hands), I think it is still +EV 3bet, when hit the flop, check to induce bluff. The only problem is I am not sure if his AF is still high if he is not the raiser, his cbet is 78%.
So in conculsion, normally the opinion do not 3bet is right I think, even against fish.like someone said, You don't beat maniacs by also getting crazy. That is what I will try to prevent in the long run.
But here I think it is the rare case that I can 3bet.

2. bet the flop
Normally I should bet the flop, it is a good place to bluff, the odd villian has ace is still small. But maybe I calculate too much I thought he will bluff bet and I will call if I hit on turn, he bluff turn and river, I can get more.Now I am not sure it is +EV strategy.

Besides his wtsd 33% is high especially his vpip is 43. I am not sure if the fold equity is big,maybe I am worng here.

3. bet the turn
Now I think I should bet the turn. the fold equity on turn should be larger than on flop. Besides even I want to induce bluff, I can bet here and when I hit the river I check, the aggressive villian will bluff a lot.I still can get same pot when I check call.

By the way I called it like I planed so that when I hit river I maybe get another extra bluff bet, do you think it is still spew.

Lol im going to say preflop play raise more to 4bb or 5bb itll help you get stacks in. Bad players if they call 3bb they will call 4 or 5bb lets exploit them.

We get a fold pre its free money and if we play we raise any flop except extremely well connected boards n bad players love to call when they hit hence most cases we want to bet for value