$10 NLHE Full Ring: Would you call?

G

gkh

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 26, 2009
Total posts
52
Chips
0
$10 NL HE Full Ring: Would you call?

Villian Stats (VPIP/PFR/AF): 48/2.5/1.38

pokerstars Game #28205508004: Hold'em No Limit ($0.05/$0.10) -
Table 'Palamedes VIII' 9-max Seat #5 is the button
Seat 1: ($13.15 in chips)
Seat 2: Villain ($5.85 in chips)
Seat 4: ($2 in chips)
Seat 5: ($0.50 in chips)
Seat 6: ($10.20 in chips)
Seat 7: Hero ($7.55 in chips)
Seat 8: ($5.20 in chips)
Seat 9: ($3.05 in chips)
SB: posts small blind $0.05
Hero: posts big blind $0.10
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero [Js Jd]
Seat 8: folds
Seat 9: folds
Seat 1: folds
Villiain: calls $0.10
Seat 3: folds
Seat 4: calls $0.10
Seat 5: folds
Hero: raises $0.20 to $0.30
Villain: calls $0.20
Seat 6: folds
*** FLOP *** [Qc 6s 4h]
Hero: bets $0.40
Villiain: calls $0.40
*** TURN *** [Qc 6s 4h] 9♠
Hero: bets $0.80
Villain: calls $0.80
*** RIVER *** [Qc 6s 4h 9s] 4♠
Hero: bets $1.50
Villain: raises $2.85 to $4.35 and is all-in (pot is $9)
Hero: folds.
Villain wins $5.85.

Did I make the correct decision? I'm starting to feel he was on a open ended and tried to bluff me out on the end. He has tried to bluff me out once by betting on the river with a draw. But the All-in caught me off guard. would the 3:1 pot odds warrant a call? The queen in the end made me fold.
 
PattyR

PattyR

Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Total posts
7,111
Chips
0
well all in all i would have to say u made a "correct laydown".
guess you will never know what he really had, but im thinkin u may have saved yourself some money on this one.
look at this this way he "could have played" and Q, trip 6's or 9's, hell he could of had the flippin 4, let alone a flush.
all these hands could have potentially beat ya so yea id say ya made a correct decision here mate.
 
dufferdevon

dufferdevon

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Total posts
1,663
Chips
0
Villian Stats (VPIP/PFR/AF): 48/2.5/1.38

PokerStars Game #28205508004: Hold'em No Limit ($0.05/$0.10) -
Table 'Palamedes VIII' 9-max Seat #5 is the button
Seat 1: ($13.15 in chips)
Seat 2: Villain ($5.85 in chips)
Seat 4: ($2 in chips)
Seat 5: ($0.50 in chips)
Seat 6: ($10.20 in chips)
Seat 7: Hero ($7.55 in chips)
Seat 8: ($5.20 in chips)
Seat 9: ($3.05 in chips)
SB: posts small blind $0.05
Hero: posts big blind $0.10
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero [Js Jd]
Seat 8: folds
Seat 9: folds
Seat 1: folds
Villiain: calls $0.10
Seat 3: folds
Seat 4: calls $0.10
Seat 5: folds
Hero: raises $0.20 to $0.30 -------> To small a raise pre-flop, I'd make it .50 - .60 to go with two limpers ahead of me
Villain: calls $0.20
Seat 6: folds
*** FLOP *** [Qc 6s 4h]
Hero: bets $0.40 ------> a pot size bet here is good
Villiain: calls $0.40 -----> uh oh he likes his hand, better shut it down
*** TURN *** [Qc 6s 4h] 9♠
Hero: bets $0.80 ------> time to check it down
Villain: calls $0.80
*** RIVER *** [Qc 6s 4h 9s] 4♠
Hero: bets $1.50 ------> frustration bet of all time, I had JJ, how dare the flop come a Q and villain actually have one
Villain: raises $2.85 to $4.35 and is all-in (pot is $9)
Hero: folds. ------> Don't show us what you decided, it skews the responses
Villain wins $5.85.

quote]

Just my two cents :)
 
c9h13no3

c9h13no3

Is drawing with AK
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 2, 2007
Total posts
8,819
Chips
0
Make it 40-50c preflop. 30c isn't even potsized.

I'd prefer checking this flop, but betting for 3/4ths pot is fine as well. You can get more value than 40c here, if you choose to bet it.

If you bet the flop, you really have to check most turns against non-stations. Otherwise, you're just bloating the pot too much with a mediocre hand.

Basically, we need to look to get a check in somewhere. This really isn't a 3-streets of value type of hand unless villain is a complete station. I think you murdered this hand in a pretty big way. We really shouldn't have put ourselves in a situation where we have to make a decision for our stack with second pair.

So in short, what you do on this river doesn't matter a whole lot. You screwed up your decisions on the streets before the river, and that's what's causing you to have such a tough decision.
 
dufferdevon

dufferdevon

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Total posts
1,663
Chips
0
I like the way C9 explained it better. But I do like the fact that we're thinking alike.
 
G

gkh

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 26, 2009
Total posts
52
Chips
0
Thanks for the responses. I actually didn't think anything was wrong with my aggression. But its good to know. I can make too many big pots with medium hands. The reason for my second bet was because I would assume he would raised if he had queen. I was putting him on a open ended but I can be pretty closed minded.

Which bet was worse? The river or the turn?

What am I looking for if I check on the turn? Is it mainly to see what he would do, or to slow down. My main worry was showing weakness.

This is what I would do on the turn If I checked.
-If he checks I'll know he'll mostly likely have a draw. Good to bet on river then?

-He low bets, I'd mostly likely raise.
-1/2 pot I'll call
-pot or over bet I'll fold.
 
BelgoSuisse

BelgoSuisse

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Total posts
9,218
Chips
0
Wow, when c9 says you're too aggressive, you must really be an aggro spewmonkey... :D
 
Stu_Ungar

Stu_Ungar

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
May 14, 2008
Total posts
6,236
Chips
0
Thanks for the responses. I actually didn't think anything was wrong with my aggression. But its good to know. I can make too many big pots with medium hands. The reason for my second bet was because I would assume he would raised if he had queen. I was putting him on a open ended but I can be pretty closed minded.

Which bet was worse? The river or the turn?

What am I looking for if I check on the turn? Is it mainly to see what he would do, or to slow down. My main worry was showing weakness.

This is what I would do on the turn If I checked.
-If he checks I'll know he'll mostly likely have a draw. Good to bet on river then?

-He low bets, I'd mostly likely raise.
-1/2 pot I'll call
-pot or over bet I'll fold.

With his stats of V$IP of almost 50% his Q is most likely a Q6s type hand. I would imagine that he is playing a lot of suited high cards so he is unlikely to be raising here as his kicker is low.

Personally I think he held TP on the flop and completed his flush on the river.

Had you checked the flop then the pot would be smaller, but also you are inducing a bluff.

When you bet this flop, he should fold virtually everything but a Q, when you check, he may check also.. but even if he bets it may be a bluff, so you can call and be ahead more often. Betting it means that you should be behind if its called more often.. even though the money in the pot is exactly the same in either case!!
 
Steveg1976

Steveg1976

...
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Total posts
2,516
Awards
1
Chips
0
The reason for my second bet was because I would assume he would raised if he had queen.


This is wrong considering you posted he had a low aggression and high VPIP. Which like Stu said he is playing a lot of bad Q's that he won't bet but will call.

Edit: Read this post it applies to this hand very well WA/WB
 
BelgoSuisse

BelgoSuisse

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Total posts
9,218
Chips
0
Edit: Read this post it applies to this hand very well WA/WB

it applies, but not very well, because we're out of position and playing oop sucks.

Which is why you should raise much bigger preflop. Playing oop sucks less when stack to pot ratios are much smaller on the flop.
 
Stu_Ungar

Stu_Ungar

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
May 14, 2008
Total posts
6,236
Chips
0
it applies, but not very well, because we're out of position and playing oop sucks.

Which is why you should raise much bigger preflop. Playing oop sucks less when stack to pot ratios are much smaller on the flop.


You are probably right, but could you please elaborate on that a bit because right now when I look at a situation like this I see WA/WB
 
BelgoSuisse

BelgoSuisse

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Total posts
9,218
Chips
0
You are probably right, but could you please elaborate on that a bit because right now when I look at a situation like this I see WA/WB

We are WA/WB, but the classic passive line that you take in position when WA/WB kind of sucks when you're oop, because it becomes quite transparent that you're trying to control the pot size, and you can't if villain wants to fire multiple barrels. So the proper line becomes very villain specific, while in position you nearly always play the WA/WB situations the same way.
 
Stu_Ungar

Stu_Ungar

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
May 14, 2008
Total posts
6,236
Chips
0
We are WA/WB, but the classic passive line that you take in position when WA/WB kind of sucks when you're oop, because it becomes quite transparent that you're trying to control the pot size, and you can't if villain wants to fire multiple barrels. So the proper line becomes very villain specific, while in position you nearly always play the WA/WB situations the same way.

So ... 3 bet the flop and then run??
 
Steveg1976

Steveg1976

...
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Total posts
2,516
Awards
1
Chips
0
We are WA/WB, but the classic passive line that you take in position when WA/WB kind of sucks when you're oop, because it becomes quite transparent that you're trying to control the pot size, and you can't if villain wants to fire multiple barrels. So the proper line becomes very villain specific, while in position you nearly always play the WA/WB situations the same way.

Not to most of the drooling monkeys at the micro's. By checking oop, It looks like you missed or are afraid of the Q and will induce them to bluff the Q more often. I am not sure "Pot control" at the micros has ever been heard of by most of these guys. It is just check=weak. Villian specific of course as again this guy is not very aggressive but that also implies he won't bet Q's with weak kickers.
 
Steveg1976

Steveg1976

...
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Total posts
2,516
Awards
1
Chips
0
Not to most of the drooling monkeys at the micro's. By checking oop, It looks like you missed or are afraid of the Q and will induce them to bluff the Q more often. I am not sure "Pot control" at the micros has ever been heard of by most of these guys. It is just check=weak. Villian specific of course as again this guy is not very aggressive but that also implies he won't bet Q's with weak kickers.

Self Qoute FTW.

This is a question as much as it is a statement. Am I wrong in this thinking?
 
c9h13no3

c9h13no3

Is drawing with AK
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 2, 2007
Total posts
8,819
Chips
0
At microstakes, you'll see a lot more super passive villains, so I check/fold this flop quite often. Usually with more passive players, this will get checked through, accomplishing the pseudo pot control that we want (and sometimes dropping some more draws out there).

Obviously, the less bluffs that we'll induce, the more inclined we should be to just c-bet, or check/fold. And I think you induce more bluffs at higher stakes. So down here, I c-bet if the board is reasonably drawy, or there are more hands that villain could call with than just top pair. I check/fold if villain plays fairly tight/passive postflop. And I check/call the bluffy ones. Not rocket science, but it certainly depends on the player type. When you have close decisions like this, you need to take into account more information other than just the cards & the board to get it right.
 
Top