$100 NLHE 6-max: Turned 2 pair gets baluga raised

$100 NL HE 6-max: Turned 2 pair gets baluga raised

Villain is 19/15/3(%26), 3bets 5, so I believe he can flat some big pairs pf, but this is definitely set-mining territory for him too. He raises cbets around %5, big-ish sample.

I have a very aggro 27/25 image on this site (small player pool) but I'm not sure guys like this adjust at all.

party poker, $0.50/$1 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 5 Players
Hand History Converter by Stoxpoker

SB: $22.47 (22.5 bb)
BB: $122.38 (122.4 bb)
Hero (MP1): $193.44 (193.4 bb)
MP2: $106.29 (106.3 bb)
CO: $125.64 (125.6 bb)

Pre-Flop: Hero is MP1 with 8♣ T♣
Hero raises to $4, MP2 calls $4, CO calls $4, 2 folds

Flop: ($13.50) 8♦ 2♥ 4♣ (3 players)
Hero bets $8.50, MP2 calls $8.50, CO folds

Turn: ($30.50) T♥ (2 players)
Hero bets $21, MP2 raises to $60, Hero ...

Call me a nit but I fold here.
were hoping on JJ or QQ to decide the flop weren't worth a raise but the turn certainly is?

Villain's line suggests either an overpair or a set that's slowplayed the flop to me. Both of them probably see that turn card as being pretty safe.

His bet sizing on the turn is weird too - he's only got about $33 behind, so why didn't he just shove? It's saying to me he really wants a call and thought the extra might fold you out... again though, I think both overpairs and sets play this way against you.

IDK, I probably ship it on account of there's a lot more combos of overpairs than there are sets (24 vs 8 or something?), we crush the overpairs and if we do run into 22/44 we've still got a small four outs.

What OzExorcist said.

Well put, but I think I disagree that overpairs are more likely. We're relying on both the assumption that he'll flat them PF and that he'll baluga that board, which imo is less likely than him playing a set this way.

I could be wrong. I do agree it's pretty much exclusively sets/overpairs though.

ChuckTs said:

Well put, but I think I disagree that overpairs are more likely. We're relying on both the assumption that he'll flat them PF and that he'll baluga that board, which imo is less likely than him playing a set this way.

I could be wrong. I do agree it's pretty much exclusively sets/overpairs though.

Click to expand...

ye thats what i was thinking.
Sets are commonly played this way.
Overpairs being played like this are a much rarer site.

Highly doubt anybody plays a hand like JJ/QQ like this. It makes no sense, overrepping your hand and only get it in vs better, etc. He can't be semi bluffing with a draw. I think a fold is fine coz there is absolutely no reason for him to be raising a set on the flop since he has position on you and could get stacks in if you were to c/c both streets (and you'll definitely value cut yourself with an overpair on the turn), and more importantly probably, is that he'll flat a set trying to keep MP in the pot. No worse 2 pair hands in his range, overpairs should never do this, so a fold is fine.

feitr said:

He can't be semi bluffing with a draw.

Click to expand...

Uh. Why not? The strongest of which is Ah2h, Ah3h, Ah4h, Ah5h, but throw in a few other combos of heart-overcards (and 7h6h, 6h5h) that decide to take one off on the flop and you have a healthy amount of combos that might try to win without showdown. I don't think it's necessarily just overpairs and sets, but I think that it's sets rarely enough for us to continue.

Question: Is it ever a stone cold bluff? I mean, personally I don't peel flops without at least some way of improving on the turn (even if it's a backdoor draw) but if there's some chance he can have air on this board then that's a compelling argument for continuing as well.

As a corollary to that, if I decided to peel here with, say, Tc9c, I'd likely raise this turn like he did (with roughly the same sizing) with the intention of checking back the river.

I just don't think this type of player floats/raises turn with a backdoor draw. He raises cbets %5 flop and turn, ie he's extremely straight-forward.

Raising turn with T9 is extremely thin and I seriously doubt he raises that too, assuming he even floats it with CO behind him.

CO is a kinda fishy player who folds too often to cbets btw.

I don't really buy into the whole "oh well he might have just randomly decided to peel the flop w/J9h and may be semi bluffing". Pretty tiny part of villain's range and a very good chunk of the time villain is going to just call with those hands on the turn if he somehow has them. This isn't a loose passive guy who is going to float the flop with totally random hands that might have picked up big draws on the turn nor do i imagine that there are any of the Ah3h sort of hands that are even in his preflop range let along flop floating range. Floating flop with T9c and raising this turn is absolutely awful IMO unless you have an incredibly aggro dynamic.

If I was your opponent I would be raising you all day here with a wide range because you'd have a lot of 8x/air hands that perceive this as a good barrel card so I wouldn't think twice before stacking. Against this guy it's a snapfold though imo.

By the way, who's villain? Might be that I've played him.

feitr said:

I don't really buy into the whole "oh well he might have just randomly decided to peel the flop w/J9h and may be semi bluffing". Pretty tiny part of villain's range and a very good chunk of the time villain is going to just call with those hands on the turn if he somehow has them. This isn't a loose passive guy who is going to float the flop with totally random hands that might have picked up big draws on the turn nor do i imagine that there are any of the Ah3h sort of hands that are even in his preflop range let along flop floating range. Floating flop with T9c and raising this turn is absolutely awful IMO unless you have an incredibly aggro dynamic.

Click to expand...

Randomly decided? Totally random?

I don't know where this randomness comes from. I don't think it's far-fetched (or random!) to think that he'd peel this flop with 76h or 65h or A3h or occasionally slowplays aces or kings preflop. I'm saying that we need him to have very few combos of draws (played this way) and overpairs in order to make folding bad, and I don't think those are particularly difficult to come up with unless he never, ever plays anything but monsters this way.

His stats mirror mine. While that doesn't mean that he has to play like me postflop, I can at least definitely say that it doesn't have to mean that he can't bluff this turn.

As a side note, if he does flat Ah3h preflop (or any of the given AXs) then him floating the flop in position with an ace overcard, a gutshot and a backdoor flushdraw is certainly not strange.

But if you're folding T8 on this turn, I have to ask: Are you also folding 22?

This is gnuf (micro), FP.

I still think if he's the type to float something that picks up a draw on the turn that he's not the type to raise it. He basically only raises the nuts; %5 is nut territory, and I'm sure it's even more narrow given the baluga line.

I've raised in EP, cbet the flop into two people, and cbet a completely blank turn. This looks a lot to me like an overpair in his eyes, and I can't see him thinking he has any FE over me.

v good question with 22. It's almost the same hand, but on one hand T8 is now in villain's range and 22 is now out of it. Honestly I have no idea if that's enough to ship it.

I should probably point out that I don't hate folding by any means. I think it's a mistake (unless you have very good reasons to believe he'd never do this without a set) but it's not a significant mistake. I expect him to show up with a set the majority of the time, just not so often that calling won't be profitable.

Another thing to note is that he raised turn small instead of jamming. I'd think if he was raising a backdoor draw he'd jam instead of making a small inducing raise, no?

I dunno, I understand he doesn't have to be doing it very often for it to be profitable for us to ship it here, I just feel like he's never doing it.

Folding here is showing a ridiculous amount of respect for villain. It's possible that he deserves it, but i hate it. I'm with FP here and i do see a lot of draws in villain's range (if i was villain).

ok I understand you guys think there are draws in his range, but I've yet to hear your reasoning for it.

He's a pretty big nit who only raises cbets %5 of the time, and just beluga'd me in a 3-way raised pot after I've barreled twice, and he's raising a tiny enticing amount. I fail to see how there are 'lots' of draws in his range.

I think it's a pretty big mistake to fold here. I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the crucial fact that we are getting 2:1 on shoving here. Also, many have mentioned that it is more likely that he played a set this way than AA or KK, but let's not forget that combinatorially, AA and KK is twice as likely a holding for him to have as a set. And there is some chance of him having QQ or JJ. And there is some chance that he has 7h8h, 8h9h, or maybe Ah5h. And of course there's a small percentage chance that he's doing something completely out of character, like a complete pre-meditated bluff, or a float that improved on the turn, or a draw that doesn't seem like it should be in his preflop range. Statistics don't give you a set of rules that the guy plays by as if he were a computer program. They're just a generalization of his play, so the unexpected is always a factor.

I just don't see how a set would be a large enough portion of that range so that you don't have at least 34% equity. I think it's a close decision if you were getting 1:1 pot odds, but I say getting 2:1 it's a must-shove.

F Paulsson said:

By the way, who's villain? Might be that I've played him.



Randomly decided? Totally random?

I don't know where this randomness comes from. I don't think it's far-fetched (or random!) to think that he'd peel this flop with 76h or 65h or A3h or occasionally slowplays aces or kings preflop. I'm saying that we need him to have very few combos of draws (played this way) and overpairs in order to make folding bad, and I don't think those are particularly difficult to come up with unless he never, ever plays anything but monsters this way.

His stats mirror mine. While that doesn't mean that he has to play like me postflop, I can at least definitely say that it doesn't have to mean that he can't bluff this turn.

As a side note, if he does flat Ah3h preflop (or any of the given AXs) then him floating the flop in position with an ace overcard, a gutshot and a backdoor flushdraw is certainly not strange.

But if you're folding T8 on this turn, I have to ask: Are you also folding 22?

Click to expand...

Even if he does have the odd xhxh in his range, each one is only a single combo and this doesn't seem like the type of guy who would raise on the turn with a combo draw in position. fwiw, i'd probably never actually manage to fold this, but i think it is probably correct vs this villain unless you have seen something like this before to indicate that 1. his range may not be completely polarized to the nuts/air and 2. he is likely to have some air in his hand. The fact that it is 3 way on the flop is important IMO, since it means he should always flat a nut-type hand. I think the fact that it is 3 way also means his peeling range is likely to be tighter on the flop and i don't think you can give him credit for an overpair that often give the fact that it is highly unlikely a villain would play an overpair like this (as it is basically overrepping his hand - something the tighter villain's don't like to do unless they are bluffing) and the fact that there was no 3B preflop (flat pre, flat flop, raise turn is so odd for an overpair).

So basically, i don't think there are many combo draws in this guy's range because 1. don't think he peels flop that lightly given he is tight and given 3 way pot 2. the draws make up a tiny portion of overall combos given they have to be hxhx 3. i think a guy like this floats with a combo draw rather than raises in position and if he raises he probably ships coz he doesn't want to be left w/ money behind on a missed river and having no idea what to do - 5% raise cbet is tiny which indicates that he isn't doing much semi bluff raising on the flop - and raise turn cbet is typically lower than raise flop cbet, especially with draws since your equity is drastically lower.

Btw, i don't really think folding or calling is that bad/wrong in this situation since it is close - but the whole point of hand analysis is to outline and justify the conditions under which a given line is correct and frankly i would be highly highly highly suprised to see villain show up with a combo draw or overpair here and all that leaves is air which is even less likely IMO. Seems alot more straight foward to put the weight towards sets when a set is consistent with every single street of action given this player/the circumstances and an overpair/combo draw is consistent with no street at all. So that fact that there are 2x the number of combos of a given overpair to a set doesn't mean shit when it is probably like 20x more likely that a set would take this line over an overpair.

Just read chuck's posts in the thread and i agree. I fail to see any justification for overpairs/combo draws other than conjecture about what *could* happen, even though it makes absolutely no sense given the line/type of player in this hand whereas a villain like this probably plays a set like this 100% of the time (only other line is flat turn shove river but a TAG will probably raise this turn given the fact that there are now a few draws).

And as a final point - against a more aggro/looser player (who will peel wider and therefore be more likely to pick up a combo draw on the turn, and, since he peels wider, he has more air on the turn making pure bluffing more likely) i'd never fold here - but this isn't villain. I'd also be less inclined to fold if the action was 2 way since i think villain will peel wider (see above) because more likely to try to pure float and villain would be more likely to raise a set on the flop in a 2 way pot - same goes if hero was in position since a set will probably raise flop in that case.

Before I give a longer reply to this post (I'm headed for bed right now) I want to know if Chuck has any reason to call him a nit other than that he's tight preflop and doesn't raise much postflop, i.e. does he go to showdown ridiculously rarely or folds a whole lot to c-bets?

Otherwise calling him a "nit" is really only applicable to preflop. Like I said, my preflop stats mirror his, and while I probably qualify for being a nit, folding top-two on this turn versus me is a mistake. I think this is where we're not really seeing eye-to-eye. And the greater point here is that making assumptions about how tight or loose someone is postflop based on their preflop stats is treading on thin ice.

5% raise cbet tells a shitload about postflop play, as does 25 agg% (quite low presuming this is the HEM stat). I raise like 20-25% cbets in HU play, i'm inclined to float flops fairly wide, in addition to the fact that your range is way wider in HU anyways, and make plays and if it was me playing this hand instead of villain i'd be very suprised if combo draws made up much of my range at all.

Making assumptions about a "standard TAG" on the postflop stats given is a hell of a lot more solid than making random assumptions about how this player is a LAG postflop because you want to justify why you should be shoving in this spot. You're trying to paint the picture of a person who is floating wide in a 3 way pot and then hitting the magic combo draw card and then raising in position even tho he probably doesn't raise any draws on the flop or is taking the most bizzare line possible with an overpair.

It's like looking into the eyes of a grizzly bear and pointing out to your terrified companion that you better be careful of the depression in the ground in front of you because you might twist an ankle if you were to step into it. Hand reading is about looking for the obvious and things that tend to be typical of a given player type as well as the things that are consistent with a given line instead of trying to justify a position you already want to believe (ie. that one should never fold top 2 here).

And FP, if you do write a longer post, i really think you have to address the following things:

Why do we think that villain is likely to flat overpairs preflop (top 5% is 88+,AJs+,KQs,AKo, so even if you add light 3Bing w/ scs or whatnot it is still a pretty wide range of value hands)? Why do we think that villain would then flat flop with the overpair and choose to raise turn - how can you justify such an odd line? Regarding combo draws - what makes us think that hands like A3hh or A5hh are even necessarily in his preflop range (might be i'm not that sure as i'm too used to wider ranges from playing HU), and if they are why do we think it is likely he would peel with a gutshot and backdoor hearts? 5h6h will peel for sure with double gutter and 7h6h i could see peeling one on the flop then also hitting a 15 out draw. But those are 2 combos - even less than one set. Then to the main concern with the backdoor draws - while i agree that he could have the odd combo draw on the turn, although again, very few combos - why would a guy who only raises 5% of cbets on the flop make a 3x raise on the turn with a 15 out draw when he is in position and is w/ 5% is cleary a guy who does not tend to raise draws on the flop let alone the turn. To me, it seems that the most obvious tendency for a player like this (low agg% and low raise cbet%) is that he would just peel in position, and shove river if he hits his draw/maybe bluff if checked to.
Finally, i think you have to address the issue of a 3 way pot and how that influences peeling range (i'd argue it tightens it up, since it is much harder to float when you have no idea what the guy to act is going to do) as well as how it impacts on the line and how you think he is playing the various types of hands that we beat/crush.

The fact is, you must account for both combinations AND the likelihood of a given hand/combo taking that line. So it doesn't matter if there are maybe 4 combos of what became "combo draws" on the turn, if it is less likely that they would even call the flop (gutshots) and less likely that they would raise the turn than sets. Same for overpairs - the large number of combos has to be lessened by the fact that it is so unlikely that an overpair would ever take this line.

What feitr said. I think the problem that we all do way too much is try to put ourselves in villain's shoes. That's great if you understand how he plays but sometimes we try to think about what we'd do. That doesn't work so well when they play nothing like us. Like I said earlier, if this was me as an opponent, or FP, or Belgo, or Chuck I'm sure it would be a snap-ship. But nits just don't do that. I've begun focusing more and more on these spots lately because I'm always like **** it I have a set/2-pair/other strong hand I can't fold it'd be super-exploitable oh right nits don't try to exploit you they just try to make the nuts and get money in.

The first time this happened was I was talking over a FR hand with another non-CC reg and wanted to confirm that my play in getting a combo draw with overs/FD was terrible because he never raises the flop with less than a set. Now I expected it to be "yeah you're never good here and you have no FE so just fold to raise", but the surprising response was "yeah it'd be more interesting if you had bottom set". Now normally I just snap-ship hands like sets/straights/etc. and if they overset me or something like that I just call it a cooler, but more and more I've been looking at these kinds of spots where either passive fish or nits raise and it's just plain always the nuts.

I think most of us have a decent grasp of hand ranges and comparative strength but there's another level that at least I need to work on more. At every point in the hand we want to be looking at our opponent's range. Instead of thinking "omg we flopped the nuts on a dry board how to get money out of it" we should be thinking more about what our opponent has and the best way to get value out of specific segments of their range. Instead of just seeing a set or other strong hand and thinking omg let's get it in we need to be thinking at each point in the hand what our opponent's range is. There are spots where you have such a clear value bet but when raised his range is just way stronger than your hand, and this seems like one of those spots. It's a very easy value bet, he's calling you very light on this turn and I would 100% value bet the river if he just called the turn. But when he raises the turn if we think about a legitimate range we are basically never good here, and even if once in a while we are we certainly aren't good enough of the time to justify a call.

So yeah I'm with Chuck/feitr on this one and honestly I don't even think this is that hard of a fold assuming we are correct in him being a nit postflop. In fact call me crazy but I think having 22 here may even be a fold although I would never be able to find a fold during the hand with 22.

I don't even know where to begin, so I'll just start at the top, I guess:

feitr said:

5% raise cbet tells a shitload about postflop play, as does 25 agg% (quite low presuming this is the HEM stat).

Click to expand...

So how often does he fold to c-bets? I don't see Chuck telling us, and I certainly don't think you can claim that you know that based on how often he raised. This is really the key point in all of this: You give him a very tight range based on stats that do not help us much in discerning what his range is in this spot. He raises 5% of c-bets? So what? He didn't raise the c-bet, so unless he has an infinite flop aggression factor, that doesn't tell us how often he calls.

Now, the most blatant misunderstanding in much of the rest of what you wrote is this:

12 combos of draws =/= 12 combo draws. The only one talking about combo draws is you, and the reason I mentioned specifically 7h6h is because you said he "can't" have a draw, and I just wanted to show that not only can he have a draw, he can have a pretty big one. My argument of calling does not hinge on him easily having a combo draw. More on that further down.

Making assumptions about a "standard TAG" on the postflop stats given is a hell of a lot more solid than making random assumptions about how this player is a LAG postflop because you want to justify why you should be shoving in this spot. You're trying to paint the picture of a person who is floating wide in a 3 way pot and then hitting the magic combo draw card and then raising in position even tho he probably doesn't raise any draws on the flop or is taking the most bizzare line possible with an overpair.

It's like looking into the eyes of a grizzly bear and pointing out to your terrified companion that you better be careful of the depression in the ground in front of you because you might twist an ankle if you were to step into it. Hand reading is about looking for the obvious and things that tend to be typical of a given player type as well as the things that are consistent with a given line instead of trying to justify a position you already want to believe (ie. that one should never fold top 2 here).

Click to expand...

What the hell?

You may score points with the debate team for those paragraphs, but you fail to impress me. Give me a break.

feitr said:

Why do we think that villain is likely to flat overpairs preflop (top 5% is 88+,AJs+,KQs,AKo, so even if you add light 3Bing w/ scs or whatnot it is still a pretty wide range of value hands)? Why do we think that villain would then flat flop with the overpair and choose to raise turn - how can you justify such an odd line?

Click to expand...

I don't think it's likely. I think it's possible.

Regarding combo draws

Click to expand...

Skipping the rest of this; I think we've successfully covered the difference between combo draws and combos of draws by now.

Finally, i think you have to address the issue of a 3 way pot and how that influences peeling range (i'd argue it tightens it up, since it is much harder to float when you have no idea what the guy to act is going to do) as well as how it impacts on the line and how you think he is playing the various types of hands that we beat/crush.

Click to expand...

After this, you go back to talking about combo draws again, so I'll just focus on this and address Zach's points while I'm at it:

First thing first, though: Tightens his peeling range up from what? I don't know what his fold-to-flop-cbet% is. And that's the key point here: we don't know how loose he is on the flop.

Zach says that we (I assume he's talking about me) might be projecting my own style of play onto our opponent. But I'm not - no really, I'm not.

I'm saying, and this is my entire argument in a nutshell, that if you want to fold top-two getting 2:1 (or whatever it is) on the turn, you have to be really, really sure that your opponent cannot be doing it with weaker or as a bluff. Like, completely convinced. And with the one-line description given about villain, you can absolutely not be convinced of anything like that. No way. The reason I bring up that his preflop stats mirror mine is specifically to point that out: That he's a preflop nit and doesn't raise a lot of flops (I'm at about 11%, for comparison) doesn't translate into postflop tightness.

Now, as for who's guilty of assuming that villain plays like ourself, I'd argue that it's not me. I don't need him to play like me in order to make folding wrong. I just need to show that we can't know that he never bluffs, and his stats are certainly not indicative of this.

Is this a bad turn to bluff, in your opinion? Because we have several respectable player who talk about folding a SET on this turn! It's clearly a great turn to bluff! I think this is a great spot to do this with 7s6s, for instance. No combo draw needed.

But, ah, I may not be allowed to assume that our opponent is smart enough to realize that this is a good turn to bluff and be doing some advanced float. Sure. But I have to be able to take one of two routes:

1. Villain is good. In that case, we can't fold.
2. Villain is bad. In that case, how can you tell me he can't show up on the turn with weird hands? Your entire argument is that it "doesn't make sense" for him to have certain hands, and then we have to move villain back up to #1: good player. Otherwise what makes sense to us doesn't matter.

So, to just make sure to drive the point home one last time:

If we want to make a fold with top two on the turn getting 2:1, we need to be almost completely certain that villain would never, ever, bluff or think he has the best hand when he doesn't. With the limited read given on this guy, I claim that we can't possibly know that and we really can't fold. If I look through my database of people with stats roughly matching his, I don't think I'd find a fold versus any of them.

FP wins thread, imo.