100nl, QQ on interesting flop

What's our plan for the hand? Villain one ($77) is a relative unknown, and villain two ($103) is a 9/0/inf over a small sample size. We've been tag as usual.

Dealt to ChuckTs [Qc Qd]
Villain 1: calls $1
Villain 2: calls $1
EvilGiuGi: folds
ChuckTs: raises $4.50 to $5.50
mikebroms: folds
SUB/HUM/MAN: folds
Stevey Ray V: folds
Swtwtr25: folds
Villain 1: calls $4.50
Villain 2: calls $4.50
*** FLOP *** [2d Kd 2c]
Villain 1: checks
Villain 2: checks
ChuckTs: ...

Our plan if we bet and get called? What if we check behind? Are we planning to call turn+river bets if that's the case?

I think cb this 2/3rds pot is best here. You have a strong hand and you want to find out if they have a K. There are no draws so if someone calls they more than likely have the K.

There is an argument to check behind just to see how they act on the turn card. If they check again then I'll bet it to try to take it down there. But I cb this 100% of the time.

Hmmm, tough spot. WA/WB with a 2 opponent + flush draw twist.

Flush draw is out there, we're crushed by any K and any 2, and we're against 2 opponents, with wide ranges.

Points in favor of betting:

1) We reduce the number of opponents that we're against. This will increase our odds of winning the pot by up to ~15% (by the river).

2) There are flush draws we may be able to get value out of.

3) We *may* fold out weaker kings like KT if we represent something like AK here. But I think it will take at least 2-barrels to fold away KT in this situation.

4) We take down a small pot, or we easily get out of the way. It makes decisions easy.

Points against betting:

1) This is a check-raiser's paradise. Lower pocket-pairs may check/raise us out of this pot. Any 2 or any K is likely to check-raise or at least slowplay this flop. Checking gets us closer to showdown.

2) Flush draws will be wary about drawing to a flush on a paired board. They may fold if we show strength this early. Or worse, check-raise us.

3) Pot control. We can't play QQ for a large pot with a K on the board.

4) Any King or maybe a 2 is probably a larger part of villain's range, than flush draws.

I say check. The only issue is that there are a lot of scare cards that can come on the turn that make getting this to showdown difficult, and it will be hard to figure out a slow-played KJ from a bluff.

c9h13no3 said:

3) We *may* fold out weaker kings like KT if we represent something like AK here. But I think it will take at least 2-barrels to fold away KT in this situation.

KT doesn't call pf, especially if he's going to fold on this perfect board.

4) Any King or maybe a 2 is probably a larger part of villain's range, than flush draws.

A 2 isn't calling the raise pf unless it's 22 .

Click to expand...

There is no hand here (apart from slowplaying 22) that will not c/r our c-bet (or fold obv.) Seems to me like a classic example of reverse implied odds if we bet. I check behind on the flop and if it's checked to me again on turn I probs bet to protect against any sort of draws/aces most likely but with two realess opponents it's difficult to say.

JT said:

KT doesn't call pf, especially if he's going to fold on this perfect board.

Click to expand...

Loose players exist at 100$NL I could see As2s or possibly 2s3s type hands sneaking into the unknown's range. But you're right, if they called with KT preflop, they prolly wouldn't fold it postflop either. I was just trying to think of any arguement for betting. I did put asterisks around the "may" in "may fold" ^_^

And would you agree that between 2 villains there is more likely to be a K or 2, than two diamonds?

When people limp-call bets from EP they usually have smallish-med suited connectors, big cards, small-med pairs and occasionally other weird hands if they're loose enough.

KT and 2x are possible, but really not that probable. I'd say we're most likely up against KQ/Axs/med pair type hands here.

c9h13no3 said:

And would you agree that between 2 villains there is more likely to be a K or 2, than two diamonds?

Click to expand...

If we made the rash and completely silly assumption that the two vils could have any to broadway cards then there's a 36/132 chance that each has a king given flop, and this is about 27%, meaning that there is a bit over 54% chance one or both has a king (it's over due to bunkching factor of kings if 2 other broadways are burned ie in the otha guy's hand.) This is defo more than probability of 2 diamonds PROOF lolo

jaketrevvor said:

This is defo more than probability of 2 diamonds PROOF lolo

Click to expand...

So obviously checking is more profitable, since more often we'll be ramming into a K or 2, than pulling value out of draws. (not to mention the other reasons we've stated).

I think its getting to be pretty obvious that checking behind is the standard play here. Unless there's any further arguments I say give us another street Chuck.

Alright, fair enough.

I'm still on the fence with checking vs betting because although we are wa/wb, there still is a draw out there with an added overcard to scare us, so we aren't really always way ahead with that many outs.

I do agree that a FD is less probable than Kx/med pair (I still don't think we see a deuce here very often), but vs two opponents it scared me enough to bet it. Another thing is that if we check this, see, say a Jr turn, and villain 1 bets, it's much less likely he's got something like 88 or AQ since he'd be betting these much less frequently than had we been HU.

I was actually recording during the hand (botched the vid though), and said that were I HU I'd be checking there, though 3-way I wanted to bet since a FD was a definite possibility.

Anyways, the turn:

*** FLOP *** [2d Kd 2c]
villain 1: checks
villain 2: checks
ChuckTs: bets $12.50
villain 1: calls $12.50
villain 2: folds
*** TURN *** [2d Kd 2c] [Td]
villain 1: checks
ChuckTs: ...

for whatever reason the hand converter doesn't work with this hand...anyways...

Well, there's the 3-flush. We've got a couple ways we can use it.

1) Check, because he might have a flush and keep the pot small.
2) Semi-Bluff with it to push out the KX hands & lower pairs.

The unknown called us, and if it was the tighter player calling us, I may go with option #2. However, in this case, since we've got a possible calling station against us, and a decent flush draw, I say take the free card, keep the pot small, and head for the river.

/me opts for check

c9h13no3 said:

2) Semi-Bluff with it to push out the KX hands & lower pairs.

Click to expand...

egh, gotta disagree here. For one, if KT+ is limp-calling preflop, they most probably aren't going to fold TP here postflop. Especially the tag - he's definitely not doing this with KQ/KJ or anything worse, but might do it with AK, though we can't possibly fold that out with a turn bet here.

I do agree with the rest of your reasoning though.

ChuckTs said:

egh, gotta disagree here.

Click to expand...

I'm just spewing all our options out there. But lets evaluate this option for a minute, even if it is wrong.

If we could see his cards & we knew he was holding KJ with no diamond, wouldn't this be a great place to rep [AdKx]? We bet the flop, and if we fire out a pot sized bet on the turn, we may be able to fold out a hand like KJ if we're up against an opponent who has the ability to make a smart fold & our table image is right. And if they don't fold, we always have that 22% to fall back on. KJ may fold especially if we 3-barrel him on the river with all the junk that's out there that has him beat. Sure these options are expensive, and most likely going to end in losses, but I think if this were a tournament situation, and we were looking to make the final table, I might shove or 3 barrel him here with the right reads.

I'm a pretty laggy guy, and this villain might be as well. Whenever I play K4s, or 9Ts, and I flop top pair, I immediately go into kicker alert mode, and can usually be convinced to put it down if there's enough action.

So yeah, in this situation, I'm checking almost everytime, but would a semi-bluff really be that horrible if we were against the right opponent?

Well a player who's smart enough to fold KJ to a double barrel there on the turn is also smart enough to fold preflop. Limp-calling OOP is terrible with that hand.

So yes, I think unless you find someone who's got an odd enough style to limp-call KJ in EP for that much, a semibluff probably would be that horrible imo. I guess it has it's merits, but they only really apply if we know he's got KJ and only KJ - we scare out worse hands (ie pairs) and give money to the better hands (ie non-folding kings, 2x, flushes).

Basically we're doing the opposite of what we all agreed was the best option - keeping the pot small

I know, I know, just a theoretical question, but I don't like betting.

Anyways I agree a check is the best option here...now an interesting river:

*** FLOP *** [2d Kd 2c]
villain 1: checks
villain 2: checks
ChuckTs: bets $12.50
villain 1: calls $12.50
villain 2: folds
*** TURN *** [2d Kd 2c] [Td]
villain 1: checks
ChuckTs: checks
*** RIVER *** [2d Kd 2c Td] 8♦
villain 1: bets $12
ChuckTs: ...

ChuckTs said:

*** RIVER *** [2d Kd 2c Td] 8♦
villain 1: bets $12
ChuckTs: ...

Click to expand...

Obviously we're contemplating a raise, and we'd be raising for value out of the hands we beat, since anything that beats us certainly isn't going away at this point. So what hands we beat calls a raise?

KQ, KxJd, JxJd. I think AK would have raised preflop, KT & A2 are still possible but very unlikely (since they'd likely bet the turn). All the pocket pairs that didn't fill up are folding to aggression.

This bet looks an awful lot like a blocking bet. $12 into a $41 pot just seems so small. Also, his range only contains one ace hand (AdJd). AK would probably raise preflop, and AdQx wouldn't stick through your flop bet.

So with the information we've got our villain's range likely looks like so:

AdJd
KQ
KJ
JJ
66-TT

3 of these hands beat us. KQ, KxJd, JxJd might make a crying call if we raise small here, but not every time.

I think there might be enough times when our opponent will call with one of the hands we beat to validate a min-raise here. But a min-raise here is barely +EV if it is +EV at all.

Idk, I could go either way. I'd probably be ballsy and raise it to 30$ here, since there are more combinations of hands that could make a crying call than there are AdJd, 88, and TT. Given the size of his bet, it really looks like a blocking bet, and we could probably coax some more $ out of him. However, there's definitely an argument for just calling behind. Flip a coin or something

What hands that we beat are calling a raise on a 4-flush board here?

ChuckTs said:

What hands that we beat are calling a raise on a 4-flush board here?

Click to expand...

Heh, I'm assuming you're typing this because you're saying that KQ or a jack of diamonds isn't calling a raise on the river. But if we offer them good pot odds, wouldn't they be likely to make a crying call ~25% of the time? Its a perfect board to bluff on, and our villain could be making this move with KJ or something hoping that his bet will prevent us from bluffing this river. Or maybe since he's holding the jack of diamonds, he's afraid we won't be able to call a bet that's any bigger than 12$ since the 4 flush is out there.

And while I get your point, I just don't feel like we're up against the ace of diamonds, or TT/88 here. That is such a small river bet. Its either blocking in nature, or is actually what villain values his weaker hand at. Thus, I'd consider a raise looking for a crying call. Wouldn't you bet more along the lines of half the pot with the ace high flush or a full house?

Like I said in my previous post, I'm definitely far from certain that I'd raise.

C9 said:

But a min-raise here is barely +EV if it is +EV at all.

Click to expand...

I just think its just slightly +EV enough to warrant this move. People get attached to hands by the river, and they'll often make calls they shouldn't make. Maybe this isn't true at 100$ NL. But the way the hand was played, we're assuming villain is bad enough to limp with KJ, maybe he's bad enough to make a call like this on the river.

I agree, that if all of this play was taken in a vacuum, the standard play would be to call. If we were up against an opponent we had a better read on, the play would be to call unless we know he's bad.

But this villain is playing without a full stack, he's unknown, his river bet looks like a blocking bet, and there are many more combinations of hands that we beat than there are AdJd, TT, and 88.

c9h13no3 said:

But if we offer them good pot odds, wouldn't they be likely to make a crying call ~25% of the time?

Click to expand...

Something I'm learning from better, more experienced players than me is that as you move up in stakes, you should be assuming that an unknown is a sane player rather than a maniac.

If villain is a sane player here, he won't be calling with anything we have beat. Maybe trip 2s, but that's unlikely anyways. Anyways - by raising, what do we represent? Basically a flush or better, right? We couldn't possibly be valuebetting AK, nor would we play the hand this way.

So if we're raising with nothing worse than a Q-high flush (I assume we're calling/folding w/J-high flush), then he's not calling with anything worse than that unless he's a maniac - and we can't assume that.

c9h13no3 said:

Its a perfect board to bluff on, and our villain could be making this move with KJ or something hoping that his bet will prevent us from bluffing this river.

Click to expand...

What good does raising a bluff do?

c9h13no3 said:

And while I get your point, I just don't feel like we're up against the ace of diamonds, or TT/88 here. That is such a small river bet. Its either blocking in nature, or is actually what villain values his weaker hand at. Thus, I'd consider a raise looking for a crying call. Wouldn't you bet more along the lines of half the pot with the ace high flush or a full house?

Click to expand...

Probably, but what you could look at it the other way too - if he's got a full house or the nut flush, he doesn't expect to get too much action on a 4-flush board, and is probably betting small to induce calls from hands exactly like mine - JdJx and QdQx.

There's also the small possibility of getting rebluffed on the river by say trip deuces that can't let go of their hand. That's a minute little possibility, but just another downside to raising the riv.

I called, he showed [Ad][5d].

I think you played it perfectly. He could've probably value bet you more on the river with your holding since he's not likely to put you on a boat (nor are you likely to have one). You made him pay for the draw and you paid off the minimum when he outdrew you. That's a very near impossible fold for you on the river.

I'd make a note that villain is an idiot for calling such a large PF bet OOP with a suited baby ace.

Hmm, apparently I need to give opponents a bit more credit at 100$ NL. ^_^

And I suppose I was reading too much into his stack only being at 75% capacity, and his passive play on the flop & turn.

Not bad chuck, if you could see his cards, you play it the same until the river call (which we pretty much have to make).

His actions all the way through look like nut flush (apart from the flop where his range is wider obv). He's passively hoping you're going to fire again on the turn and when you don't he figures you were c-betting with air and so scaredily bets out a quarter of the pot hoping AQ/99 will look him up for funsies. The only vil hands I could possibly imagine otherwise would be 22 or TT (which I can definately see calling a flop c-bet) both of which got ya crushed anyway bien sur. But for 5 to 1 you call there