Originally Posted by feitr
First of all it is highly highly unlikely he'd raise 5% on the turn, given that his cbet raise % is only 5% (which is lkely to be much greater than turn raise%)
You're going to need to back this up.
In fact, you're going to have to explain how you arrive at your conclusion about how villains like this play at all, because I can't find any evidence for your statements when going through my HEM database.
Now, you're not going to believe that I didn't just cherry pick and sat through two hours looking for a single hand in HEM that fits, but I didn't. I took the first guy in the list that had matching stats, then filtered for hands where he raised the turn c-bet, and here's what came up:
$1/$2 No Limit Hold'em Cash Game, 6 Players
Poker Tools (http://www.stoxpoker.com/pokertools/) by Stoxpoker (http://www.stoxpoker.com/) - Hand Details (http://www.stoxpoker.com/pokertools/hand/43205/)
UTG: $221.45 (110.7 bb)
MP: $100 (50 bb)
CO: $347.50 (173.8 bb)
BTN: $230.45 (115.2 bb)
SB: $198 (99 bb)
BB: $200 (100 bb)
MP posts BB OOP, UTG folds, MP checks, CO folds, BTN raises to $10
, SB calls $9, 2 folds
: ($24) 6
7 (2 players)
SB checks, BTN bets $18
, SB calls $18
: ($60) 5 (2 players)
SB checks, BTN bets $48
, SB raises to $170 and is all-in
, BTN calls $122
: ($400) 3 (2 players, 1 is all-in)
$400 pot ($3 rake)
BTN showed A
(two pairs, Aces and Sixes) and won $397 ($199 net)
SB showed 8
(two pairs, Eights and Sixes) and lost (-$198 net)
Yeah, there's differences between this hand and the one we're looking at, for sure. And if this were a debate (and not a learning experience) I'd be thrilled about the fact that I got "lucky" in that the first hand I found happened to be this one, but I'm not trying to "win" an argument. The key point here is that villain is 19/15, with a raise-flop-cbet of 8%, a check-raise turn of 2%
and a fold-to-flop-cbet of 68%. His agg is 29% total.
I've spent 20 minutes going through hands with known holecards for players like this where they flat preflop, flat flop and raise turn, and it's really hard to find any indication that this is "never" bluffs. About half the time, they're showing down losers. Case in point - and this has some similarities texture-wise to the hand we're looking at, at least, even if it's BvB and not 3-way:
Villain is 18/14/2.2 (27%), raises cbet 9% (it's so hard to find someone who raises less than that, that I'm wondering if Chuck has a sample size issue). Turn raise c-bet is 8%.
$1/$2 No Limit Hold'em Cash Game, 5 Players
Poker Tools (http://www.stoxpoker.com/pokertools/) by Stoxpoker (http://www.stoxpoker.com/) - Hand Details (http://www.stoxpoker.com/pokertools/hand/43206/)
BTN: $278.40 (139.2 bb)
SB: $224.85 (112.4 bb)
BB: $164.35 (82.2 bb)
MP: $201.10 (100.6 bb)
CO: $378.80 (189.4 bb)
3 folds, SB raises to $4
, BB calls $2
: ($8) 3
T (2 players)
SB bets $6
, BB calls $6
: ($20) Q (2 players)
SB bets $10
, BB raises to $28
, SB calls $18
: ($76) 3 (2 players)
SB checks, BB bets $60
, SB calls $60
$196 pot ($2 rake)
SB showed Q
(two pairs, Queens and Threes) and won $194 ($96 net)
BB showed 6
(two pairs, Sixes and Threes) and lost (-$98 net)
As I said before, anecdotal evidence sucks because it can be cherry-picked. To avoid discussions regarding any potential cherry-picking:
I went through 18 players with close-to-matching stats (19/15, and the first 18 I could find that had low raise-flop-cbet%) and tried to find spots where they raised turn with known holecards. Also worth pointing out that I'm NOT including good regs who are valuetowning 60+VPIP players with stuff like TPTK because I don't think that's indicative of what we're talking about here. There's quite a few hands like that, but I think it would be a bit dishonest of me to include those, despite the fact that it would statistically help my argument (since a passive 19/15 is provenly capable of making a baluga raise on the turn with AJ on a J-high board, even if it was versus a 40/33 rather than a 27/25 opponent).
In total, among those with known holecards, I only found 9 hands where the conditions matched. Five of them were with some kind of monster (set or better), and four with decidedly non nut-hands (besides the two above, one top pair + straightdraw, one T8s on a J-8-5-5 twotone turn).
Anyway, I expect to get challenged about how the board textures and situations in the hands I have don't match what we're looking at in this hand, and that's fine. But if after 20 minutes of sorting and filtering I couldn't find more than a handful of turn-raise hands on comparable villains, there's a pretty good chance that no one else in this thread could have a vast amount of experience with how 19/15 players play in these situations, and the assumption that they only show up with nut-hands on dry boards is false.
As for whether or not I'd get it in with 98o in this spot: no. I've never said that I think his range is polarized, I've said that I think he can have a draw, but I also think he can be doing this with a hand that he thinks is best, like JJ+. If you say that he "can't" have that, then we're back to what you assume and what I find when I filter. My database doesn't agree with your assumption.
Anyway, I don't think I have much more to add to this thread except to reiterate my point one last time and make one final sweeping statement:
Sets are combinatorically unlikely. Everyone occasionally bluffs. Assuming that a 19/15 somewhat passive player can't raise dry turns with less than a set is a mistake.
The problem with trying to find big laydowns in spots like this is that we're creating the bad habit of folding big hands in big pots. For the very few players where folding may be correct - which I would argue is more like a 32/7 with a 0.6% aggression factor - we're most likely folding much too often in spots where we shouldn't. Like this one.