$2 NLHE Full Ring: AA Vs. Calling Station that Shoves River

  • Thread starter Creepy Jackalope
  • Start date
Creepy Jackalope

Creepy Jackalope

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Total posts
214
Chips
0
Only had a couple dozen hands on villain, but he was 40/0 over that limited sample.

It's really hard for me to give him credit for much here until the river. Such a passive player isn't bluffing here often I don't think, but is he doing this with just a paired queen often enough to make this a call?



BB ($0.80)
Hero (UTG) ($3.56)
UTG+1 ($2.05)
MP1 ($2.63)
MP2 ($2.46)
CO ($2.06)
Button ($1.08)
SB ($2)

Preflop: Hero is UTG with A
club.gif
, A
spade.gif

1 fold, Hero raises to $0.07, 1 fold, MP1 calls $0.07, 1 fold, CO calls $0.07, Button calls $0.06, 1 fold

Flop: ($0.30) 8
diamond.gif
, 2
heart.gif
, Q
club.gif
(4 players)
Button checks, Hero bets $0.24, MP1 calls $0.24, 2 folds

Turn: ($0.78) 6
heart.gif
(2 players)
Hero bets $0.57, MP1 calls $0.57

River: ($1.92) J
diamond.gif
(2 players)
Hero checks, MP1 bets $1.75 (All-In), Hero ??
 
W

Wardy88

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Total posts
110
Chips
0
I like the pre flop raise from UTG, an argument could be to make it larger, I'm completely unbalanced at theses stakes, I'd be making it like .10c here.

Bet on the flop is good.

When villain calls you on that super dry flop they are telling you something. In this case we would have to believe that they have either a marginal hand or exactly 9 10 or J 10. considering that their drawing range is so small I would be leaning towards the marginal hand end of the range for our value target. I think .57c is good here, sets up a river sized bet for all of villains money.

I can't understand why you checked the river? If we are value targeting say a Q and we know villain is loose passive then why would we think that they would raise at any previous point in the hand? We wouldn't and thus I believe a Q is a huge part of villains range, I also believe that villain would put in a substantial portion of their stack if not all of it in the middle with a bare Q, I would have put villain in fully expecting a call.

Now, what I believe you were thinking and please correct me if I'm wrong is that villain has shown that they like their hand, we know that our hand is good the majority of the time and we don't have to risk any money if we check and villain checks back with say a Q or a lower pocket pair. So checking is a low risk proposition.

At these levels we need to be value betting our opponents constantly as they are always check calling way too light.

As played I think it's a fold on the river tho. Villain has completely polarised their range to a monster (flopped sets, QJ or 910) or nothing and in this case if villain was to have nothing we would have to give them credit for being able to float the flop with Ax of hearts, flatting when they turn the nut flush draw and having the balls to bluff shove the river into someone who has shown nothing but strength until this point, I don't think a player with 40/0 stats even over a small sample would understand the concept of "bluff shove".
 
OldschoolSteinhausen

OldschoolSteinhausen

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Total posts
73
Chips
0
I like the pre flop raise from UTG, an argument could be to make it larger, I'm completely unbalanced at theses stakes, I'd be making it like .10c here.

Bet on the flop is good.

When villain calls you on that super dry flop they are telling you something. In this case we would have to believe that they have either a marginal hand or exactly 9 10 or J 10. considering that their drawing range is so small I would be leaning towards the marginal hand end of the range for our value target. I think .57c is good here, sets up a river sized bet for all of villains money.

I can't understand why you checked the river? If we are value targeting say a Q and we know villain is loose passive then why would we think that they would raise at any previous point in the hand? We wouldn't and thus I believe a Q is a huge part of villains range, I also believe that villain would put in a substantial portion of their stack if not all of it in the middle with a bare Q, I would have put villain in fully expecting a call.

Now, what I believe you were thinking and please correct me if I'm wrong is that villain has shown that they like their hand, we know that our hand is good the majority of the time and we don't have to risk any money if we check and villain checks back with say a Q or a lower pocket pair. So checking is a low risk proposition.

At these levels we need to be value betting our opponents constantly as they are always check calling way too light.

As played I think it's a fold on the river tho. Villain has completely polarised their range to a monster (flopped sets, QJ or 910) or nothing and in this case if villain was to have nothing we would have to give them credit for being able to float the flop with Ax of hearts, flatting when they turn the nut flush draw and having the balls to bluff shove the river into someone who has shown nothing but strength until this point, I don't think a player with 40/0 stats even over a small sample would understand the concept of "bluff shove".

You are very right.

Also, I am with OP on the fear that top pair over values his hand and shoves. However, overall folding does seem to be a fairly reasonable thing to do on limited information.
 
G

General3Bet

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Total posts
116
Chips
0
When I saw this hand posted I felt like giving my input for what it's worth.

Wardy worded it pretty spot on however.

But U played the hand standard, the way it should be played. As he said you should be shoving the river to try to get value. Crappy thing is the pot size is a little awkward for his stack size left and it's hard for him to call with worse than aces, only TPTK and other high kicker queens. And the check might have been your instinct you got beat at some point and it might have been correct and saved you money imo.

Because on the river there, I would be worried he picked up two pair by now because he would easily call here with QJ with the backdoor draw on flop, I feel as if i would expect a check back with a one pair hand in that spot from him. It looks like he has you beat, idc what others think, I say the fold is good. He has 2 pair, a set, or picked up a double gutter on turn, continued with 10-9 maybe he had backdoor flush to justify bad pot odds call and shoved the river with the nuts. Whatever the case, he very likely had you beat in that spot.
 
Arjonius

Arjonius

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Total posts
3,167
Chips
0
Villain has completely polarised their range to a monster (flopped sets, QJ or 910) or nothing and in this case if villain was to have nothing we would have to give them credit for being able to float the flop with Ax of hearts, flatting when they turn the nut flush draw and having the balls to bluff shove the river into someone who has shown nothing but strength until this point, I don't think a player with 40/0 stats even over a small sample would understand the concept of "bluff shove".
And what do you have to credit villain with doing with T9? Call pre- with 4 players still to act, call a sizable flop bet with only a gutshot, and call another sizable bet on the turn with a double gutter. Sure, anything is possible, but how likely is this holding based on his series of actions?
 
John A

John A

Poker Zion Coach
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Total posts
6,492
Awards
3
Chips
37
He's a fish, he's going to show up with a lot of stuff you'll be surprise about. It's a pretty big mistake not to shove the river here. You allow him to check behind all his Qx, 8x, and who knows what else second best hands.

As played, call. It sucks that he shoved, and he'll probably flop over QJ a good amount of the time, but still over 2:1 against a fish here and you have to call.
 
hugomito

hugomito

Rising Star
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 20, 2014
Total posts
18
Chips
0
if i'm the hero, in this limit, i call
 
U

Ubercroz

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Total posts
653
Chips
0
It seems like this could be a lot of hands given his fishy play.

We have no real information to act on preflop, we raised and he called, everything is fine there.

The flop is uncoordinated and has a Q high, this is a great spot to bet - you hope he calls. His range here (40%) includes a lot of Q's, it also includes pocket pairs - even KK (which he could be slow playing) as well as AQ, QT, QJ... there are a lot of cards that call here. I would be a little suprised with Q8 or Q2, more likely 22 or 88, but its all possible. He likely has a pocket pair or a Qx here.

Turn. This cards doesn't really do anything to hurt us, at least not on its face. Its always possible he spiked a set here, but betting is again our best move against a call station here. The bet size was fine too.

The river shouldn't hurt us most of the time, so when this cards hits we should likely bet for value again. Lets make sure it is not a huge bet - we want the worse hands to call us. .80-1.00 is probably fine, I think it is a good value that will get called by all of those Q's. When we check and he bets, god only knows what is going on in his head. There is always the chance that someone - even a super passive fish - will go spew tardy and just dump his stack. Given what we have seen there are several hands that can beat us. But none of them are all that likely. It could possibly be KK even, that hand makes sense here from a fish, AQ makes sense here, KQ, and several others that we still beat. Even a strange AJ that thinks we have been bluffing. I don't like it tremendously, but I think you have to call.
 
sam1chips

sam1chips

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Total posts
800
Chips
0
Yeah i don't think it's T9, it definitely has a QJ feel to it...but getting 2-1 on a call I feel like I would call.

I'd also bet probably 1/2 pot on the river
 
Creepy Jackalope

Creepy Jackalope

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Total posts
214
Chips
0
Ok, I'm not disputing at all that I probably should bet river in this spot. But my logic at the time was check-call to avoid a bet-raise situation.

Obviously in this situation that worked against me.
 
W

Wardy88

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Total posts
110
Chips
0
And what do you have to credit villain with doing with T9? Call pre- with 4 players still to act, call a sizable flop bet with only a gutshot, and call another sizable bet on the turn with a double gutter. Sure, anything is possible, but how likely is this holding based on his series of actions?

This is exactly right, we have to credit him for calling twice with T9, but in my opinion I think its more likely for villain to be doing this with stats of 40/0, than it is for villain to have say KQ and shove the river for value here? I don't think players at this level have the ability to say put hero on a lower pair that barrelled 2 streets and then decide they are going to shove the river for value?

I mean if villain flops top pair and likes it so much by the river to shove, why don't they raise the flop? or the turn? Does villain ever slow play top pair like this?

I understand you guys are saying its 2-1 on the river but that doesn't automatically justify the call, we have to be correct something like 33% of the time here for it to be profitable. In my opinion the only hand that I can think of that bluffs this way is exactly Ax of hearts, that's a big leap to think that villain has the capability to be bad enough to get to the river with Ax but then be good enough to jam it against villain as a bluff. I think we can remove Qx from his range as surely that checks back so often.

I don't know if I'm just bad but I can't see a call here.
 
U

Ubercroz

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Total posts
653
Chips
0
This is exactly right, we have to credit him for calling twice with T9, but in my opinion I think its more likely for villain to be doing this with stats of 40/0, than it is for villain to have say KQ and shove the river for value here? I don't think players at this level have the ability to say put hero on a lower pair that barrelled 2 streets and then decide they are going to shove the river for value?

I mean if villain flops top pair and likes it so much by the river to shove, why don't they raise the flop? or the turn? Does villain ever slow play top pair like this?

I understand you guys are saying its 2-1 on the river but that doesn't automatically justify the call, we have to be correct something like 33% of the time here for it to be profitable. In my opinion the only hand that I can think of that bluffs this way is exactly Ax of hearts, that's a big leap to think that villain has the capability to be bad enough to get to the river with Ax but then be good enough to jam it against villain as a bluff. I think we can remove Qx from his range as surely that checks back so often.

I don't know if I'm just bad but I can't see a call here.

So I decided to analyze this using technology.

What hands could this guy have in this spot? It really MUST be wider than T9.

I really tried to pair this down as much as I reasonably could, given what we know about the villain.

Possible hands that are still here and shove :
JJ+
AQ,AJs,A8s
KQ,QJ, QT,Q8
J8
T9
88,66

If that is his range showing up to the flop, which I think might actually be a little tight, then we are ~49% to win this hand at showdown.

That means calling this river (2.1/1) is a profitable call. I think you can actually broaden his range and we become a bigger favorite, but it doesn't matter.

You can tighten his range - and you have to tighten it down A LOT to get it so this is not a profitable play. You have to reduce this down to almost only hands that beat us and never a bluff (I included no bluffs in his range just bad choices).

This is a pretty easy call. There are too many hands that this could be that we beat, and you are giving this villain credit too much credit.
 
T

tohos

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Jun 30, 2013
Total posts
269
Chips
0
For me I would just trust in the preflop equity against calling stations(and bad unpredictable players) and 3 barrel get all the chips in. Over the long run you are going to profit since they call so much crap.
 
Arjonius

Arjonius

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Total posts
3,167
Chips
0
This is exactly right, we have to credit him for calling twice with T9, but in my opinion I think its more likely for villain to be doing this with stats of 40/0, than it is for villain to have say KQ and shove the river for value here?
If you're going to credit villain with this series of plays holding T9, then how can you not also credit him with having made sub-optimal decisions with other holdings that you beat?

It seems curious to assume he'll only take a poor line when it happens to work out.
 
W

Wardy88

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Total posts
110
Chips
0
If you're going to credit villain with this series of plays holding T9, then how can you not also credit him with having made sub-optimal decisions with other holdings that you beat?

It seems curious to assume he'll only take a poor line when it happens to work out.

The reason we don't credit him with having other holdings that we beat is because villain has shown a tendency towards passiveness thus leading me to conclude that it is unlikely that villain would be shoving anything worse for value on the river, they would be checking back the majority of that range.

The only drawing hands I can think of that make it to the river are T9, J10, 79 or the backdoor flush draw. My argument is that it is less likely that a passive opponent is going to be able to make a bluff on the river. Not impossible, just less likely based on what we know of villain, and two of those holdings make something by the river.

I believe the single piece of information that makes this a fold for me is the 40/0 stats, I may be reading too much into it but someone that plays 40% of hands pre but hasn't raised over 24 hands tells you something about their play. Either they are a nit that is getting cards or they're loose passive, both these types of players are less likely to be bluff shoving rivers, and are almost always checking back their medium strength hands. IMO anyway.
 
S

Scrover

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 26, 2014
Total posts
198
Chips
0
I am for a fold here, but you can always call because you have an over pair to the board.Hands I can think of are T9, flush of some sort, KK or the other two aces, QJ or JJ. Calling stations are meant to call, so when they all of a sudden bet or raise, they are saying to you that their hand is big.
 
H

hffjd2000

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 6, 2014
Total posts
2,329
Chips
0
I think Im beat, but with 2:1, Ill call.
I invested almost $1 so I can call likewise the remaining $1.5.
My hand is even live.
It really depends on table read, but 60% of the time, Ill call here.
 
Arjonius

Arjonius

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Total posts
3,167
Chips
0
The reason we don't credit him with having other holdings that we beat is because villain has shown a tendency towards passiveness thus leading me to conclude that it is unlikely that villain would be shoving anything worse for value on the river, they would be checking back the majority of that range.
It seems we'll have to agree to disagree. You're saying he made three mediocre to poor calls then properly shoved the river. But he's a fish. I'm saying that I won't rule out the possibility he made three passive but not truly bad calls then made a poor river shove, maybe mistakenly for value but also maybe because he's a fish.
 
U

Ubercroz

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Total posts
653
Chips
0
The reason we don't credit him with having other holdings that we beat is because villain has shown a tendency towards passiveness thus leading me to conclude that it is unlikely that villain would be shoving anything worse for value on the river, they would be checking back the majority of that range....

[T]hey're loose passive...these types of players are less likely to be bluff shoving rivers, and are almost always checking back their medium strength hands. IMO anyway.

What you are doing is making assumptions about what the villain here thinks is a play for value. I don't think anyone is making a strong argument for this guy to be bluffing most of the time. I think in fact the villain is NOT bluffing.

You agree that he has made some bad plays, in fact to get here with a hand that beats us he would have to be an idiot, because anyone else would have folded.

So in the scenario where the villain is an idiot, the kind of guy who has made it to the river with a hand that beats us (that isn't a set). We should also give the idiot credit for maybe OVERESTIMATING the value of his hands that DON'T beat us.

I find very very little room in my brain for assuming a guy is bad enough to be beating me with random cards but NOT bad enough to be value shoving with a worse hand. The guy who does one of these likely does the other.

Additionally, I think (especially against a bad player) we must assume that they will be doing this some percentage of the time for no reason we can think of. Maybe 5-10% of the time this kind of action will happen because of something we cannot think of. Even very good players will once-in-a-while make a move that is boneheaded. Maybe .05% of the time, but it happens. It happens more often with less skilled and less disciplined villains.

Because we have to figure that a bad player will sometimes do this for no reason, and because he is likely (at least 25% of the time) to do this with holdings that we beat, this is a must call.

If you think this is a fold you need to reconsider what you are doing, I would bet that you are over estimating the holdings of your opponents and are losing money as a result.
 
M

MadAdo

Rising Star
Bronze Level
Joined
Feb 4, 2014
Total posts
4
Chips
0
Yeah, you do NOT be sure if it is bluff or somehow he got 'puzzled' the hand. Hardly to say generally I would maybe stick for fold here ... why risk half stack for single top pair combination ?
 
W

Wardy88

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Total posts
110
Chips
0
I think that you guys might have a point here, I may be weighting to much value to the statement that villain is a 40/0 player.

I do believe that villain is checking back a Q here often, but maybe not as often as I should expect at these stakes.

Another point I have been considering is the fact that if we call this off then we will get the necessary information from the hand to make better decisions against villain for the rest of the session, if we fold then we are left in ignorance. I don't know how much this information may be worth with respect to EV but probably worth thinking about.

I just want to get my point across that yes the player is bad, but there are types of bad players, and they will make different types of mistakes, a super agro fish will never check back a mediocre hand here and thus a call is obvious, whereas a passive fish who rarely enters the pot with a raise is more likely to be checking the river with a mediocre hand, and thus we should adjust accordingly.

The problem being that identifying villain as a passive fish after only 24 hands may be somewhat premature.
 
S

swingro

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Total posts
1,634
Chips
0
I raise 4x from UTG at 6-max . But this is FR 2NL. I would probably make it 5x or even 6x. PPL are so clueless at 2NL.
 
frozensprx

frozensprx

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Total posts
271
Chips
0
Snap it off. This is low stakes, people will frequently spew off enough to make this call profitable.
 
Top