$25NL 6-max: Large River bet vs. Reg in smallish pot

Villain is a 21/16/34% over 832 hands
C-bet = 72%

Notes:Flats AA to 3-bet preflop. Pretty nitty.
Bets his draws for ~pot.
Gives me no credit, calls light on river.
Checks behind on drawy board for PC /w TP.


Hero (BB): $35.96 (143.8 bb)
MP: $26.74 (107 bb)
CO: $32.45 (129.8 bb)
BTN: $53.32 (213.3 bb)
SB: $27.42 (109.7 bb)

Pre-Flop: Hero is BB with Q K
2 folds, BTN raises to $0.85, SB folds, Hero calls $0.60

Flop: ($1.80) Q 8 6 (2 players)
Hero checks, BTN bets $1.25, Hero calls $1.25

Turn: ($4.30) A (2 players)
Hero checks, BTN checks

River: ($4.30) T (2 players)
Hero checks, BTN bets $4.30

Am I being value-towned here on the river? The flop c-bet size was pretty conventional, but full pot on the riv? I suppose my hand is pretty under-repped, so this is probably a call. But I hate calling big bets from nits.

Also, comments on the rest of my line?

Well, villain's range up to the river could just be ATC here with all the action being a BTN raise and a cbet.

On the river, I don't think you'll see a weaker Q here. Mostly two pairs, straights, TT or total air. But I don't think total air shows up enough to justify the call. The problem is that if villain plays connectors and one-gapers, his only possible holdings on this board are either 2 pairs and straights that crush you, or one pair bad kicker that should just like getting to showdown cheap. It's really hard to make up a total air hand that he would like to bluff with.

I think I would 3bet preflop. But as played, on the river, given the above analysis, I'd bet $2 for thin value and fold to a raise.

BelgoSuisse said:

I think I would 3bet preflop.

Click to expand...

Isn't this a worse hands fold to a 3-bet, better hands call scenario? Plus, I'm s00ted, and I'm pretty comfortably ahead of his range. I've always thought the default play here was a call.

c9h13no3 said:

Isn't this a worse hands fold to a 3-bet, better hands call scenario? Plus, I'm s00ted, and I'm pretty comfortably ahead of his range. I've always thought the default play here was a call.

Click to expand...

Well, if you get a fold, it's fine. It's not like you were way ahead of many hands anyway. And you will get calls by a ton of small pairs, suited connectors and so on for which there's value in 3betting, imo.

Yep Im value 3betting pf here, as played flop and turn lines are fine. I bet/fold this river a lot of the time. Fold river as played.

It's not like you were way ahead of many hands anyway.

Click to expand...

KJ, KT, K9, QJ, QT, Q9, Q8, lower diamonds, other random trash he raises OTB with a 35% to steal rate.

How do I fare in a 3-bet pot? Well since he folds all but AQ+/TT+ my hand plays like trash in a 3-bet pot (31% equity to be precise). I really see no reason to go wrecking my hand's equity and spewing reverse implied odds everywhere by 3-betting. 3-betting a balanced range against this player is BAD! There's an article somewhere on 2+2 about the dynamic required between two players for 3-betting KQ to become profitable....

Att. to steal %? Unless very high I think this is a fold preflop. Even though you're ahead of his range he's going to take the pot a lot of the time when neither of you improve and you'll have trouble extracting value/knowing when you're ahead when you hit. If you're IP you can call but I absolutely hate calling with hands like this in the blinds unless he's stealing a ton and also 4-bet bluffing you a ton (assuming he's not 4-bet bluffing to the point where you can comfortably get it in, but that would be super-wide).

zachvac said:

Att. to steal %? Unless very high I think this is a fold preflop.

Click to expand...

he raises OTB with a 35% to steal rate.

Click to expand...

I thought preflop was like the most textbook part of this hand... I thought playing TP2K like a pussy might actually generate some discussion.

c9h13no3 said:

KJ, KT, K9, QJ, QT, Q9, Q8, lower diamonds, other random trash he raises OTB with a 35% to steal rate.

How do I fare in a 3-bet pot? Well since he folds all but AQ+/TT+

Click to expand...

If you are correct about those ranges (you're not imo), he calls 3bets with 5% of all hands while he raises OTB with 35% of all hands, so he folds to your 3bet 86% of the time (30/35). In that case, 3betting is immediately hugely profitable thanks to fold equity alone.

BelgoSuisse said:

If you are correct about those ranges (you're not imo), he calls 3bets with 5% of all hands while he raises OTB with 35% of all hands, so he folds to your 3bet 86% of the time (30/35). In that case, 3betting is immediately hugely profitable thanks to fold equity alone.

Click to expand...

Immediately profitable is the key word. What happens when some of the time I get stacked because I put a truckload of money in against a range that beats me.

Also, if you want his exact range... 35*(1-0.67) = 11.55% of hands, which KQs has exactly 43% equity against. The situation didn't get a whole lot better.... Add in the fact that I'm building a giant pot out of position, and well..... I think 3-betting here is pretty bad.

Doesn't this fall under ABCD theorum as well?

A = Hands in our value raising range (AQ+, 99/TT+)
B = Decent hands strong enough to play, but not strong enough to raise, call (AT+, KJ+, JTs, QJs, 88)
C = Weak hands with some equity, are raised as bluffs (9Ts, 89s, A4s, 22)
D = Trash, foldy moldy.

I think this pretty firmly falls into category B....

c9h13no3 said:

Immediately profitable is the key word. What happens when some of the time I get stacked because I put a truckload of money in against a range that beats me.

Click to expand...

The definition of immediately profitable is that if you simply fold every time he calls/4-bets you will show a profit. So even if you have 0% equity in this situation you should be 3-betting just to show an immediate profit. Any profit you gain from a KKK flop vs. AA is purely additional. Now of course if you spew in the 3-bet pot when you flop a pair it's not good, but the point is you show a profit simply 3-bet/folding. Now if you think calling will give you MORE ev that's another story, but I don't believe it does. Playing KQ oop sucks.

c9h13no3 said:

Also, if you want his exact range... 35*(1-0.67) = 11.55% of hands,

Click to expand...

where does the 0.67 come from? Fold to 3bet I guess?

OK, so let's look at equity using that number: when we call $0.85, we have 55% equity in a pot of $1.8 for a net gain of 0.55*1.8-0.85 = 0.14

When we 3bet pot to $2.65, we win the pot 67% of the time and if he calls the rest we have 43% equity in a pot of $5.4, so our net gain is 0.67*0.95+0.33*(0.43*5.4-2.65) = 0.53

From an pure preflop equity point of view, 3betting is very much +EV. The computations are a bit more tricky when he 4bets part of his range, but it's not really a problem when he 4bets his monsters, as this is the part of his 3bet calling range above against which we have very little equity anyway, so our folding to 4bet doesn't change much to the equity. We do run into problems when he 4bet bluffs, but that doesn't happen much at 25NL.

BelgoSuisse said:

it's not really a problem when he 4bets his monsters, as this is the part of his 3bet calling range above against which we have very little equity anyway

Click to expand...

Notes:Flats AA to 3-bet preflop.

Click to expand...

Too bad he doesn't do that...

So you guys are advocating turning our hand into a bluff? Zach made that point that "any profit you make from a KKK flop against AA is extra" or something like that. But are you guys honestly not going to play KQ for top pair against a villain with a very aggressive aggression frequency?

c9h13no3 said:

So you guys are advocating turning our hand into a bluff?

Click to expand...

No, we told you to 3bet for value because KQs is way ahead of his BTN raising range.

Then you answered that he would fold hands that we beat and call with hands that beat us, presenting a ridiculously tight calling range that crushed you, and only then did we tell you that if he called 3bet so stupidly tight, then you would profit anyway from fold equity.

Then you answered that his calling range actually more like top 11% of hands instead of top 5% as previously suggested, and I made the maths to show you that it didn't matter, 3betting was still +EV compared to flatting.

The bottom line is that your hand is good enough to 3bet. If your opponent folds too much, you'll profit from FE. If he calls too much you'll profit from playing a bigger pot with good equity. If he calls just right you still end up +EV compared to flatting. The only good defense villain could have is 4bet bluffing, and nits don't do that.

c9, if this guy would actually only call 3 bets with the ridiculously tight range you describe, then you should be 3 betting like 1/2 of his button openings until he adapts and widens his range.

As soon as you say somebody is going to fold 90% of their hands to a blind resteal, it is an incredibly immediately profitable situation even if you c/f every time he calls. Where 3 betting KQs for value comes into play is when somebody's 3 bet flatting range is sufficiently wide that KQs has very good equity vs that range. So now that i look at BS's post above me, exactly what he says.

Anyways this is probably an ace going for value, but folding seems so weak as played since your hand is pretty underrepped. c/cing flop with tptk then checking two streets and folding is ultra weak. I think i'd prefer the bet/fold approach as at least you can set your price since so few nl25 players will ever try to raise river thinly.

fwiw, in response to what you said about better hands calling worse hands folding:

If this was a CO raise and you were otb, then for sure this is a flat call because you are in position and KQs flops very well in position. But not only that, the CO raiser will be OOP and therefore his/her 3 bet calling range is much much tighter than button vs blind resteal (since button will be in position). Therefore, KQs has much better 3B equity as a blind resteal than as a button 3B. But if the button is going to fold all non premium hands then it really doesn't matter, as turning your hand into a "bluff" is a more +EV situation than flatting and having better equity vs button's range.

Another point is that when you 3bet, even if villain has a decent calling range, you will fold a lot hands that are ahead of you, namely A-rag hands that he really can't play in a 3bet pot. And he'll be tempted to call with small pairs and such that you will get to fold with a cbet and clearly don't have the proper implied odds as with KQ you mostly won't pay off when they hit. So villain has two very clear ways to lose Slansky bucks there.

How is this hand different from AJ? Given that's at full ring, but the dynamic & reasons behind not 3-betting are basically the same. AK/AQ crush AJ/KQ postflop...

c9h13no3 said:

How is this hand different from AJ? Given that's at full ring, but the dynamic & reasons behind not 3-betting are basically the same. AK/AQ crush AJ/KQ postflop...

Click to expand...

Huge difference in opening range for villain between CO at FR and BTN at 6max. Profitability of 3betting a hand is directly related to villain's opening range.

Also, when you 3bet preflop, you tend to fold Ace-raggy hands. When you have KQ, that's a great result. When you have AJ, you just folded the part of villain's range that should provide you most profit postflop.

With this player I'm going with the 3bet, I think everyone else has pointed it out better than I could, but I do understand some of your reasoning.

Just wondering about your flop play though. If you are flat calling from the sb with KQs to the raise, what kind of flop are you hoping to hit? I really don't understand such weak play post flop (pot control?). What were you hoping the flop to look like if you were just going to call and play the hand through?

Q 8 6 rainbow flop is pretty decent, so are you checking to try to induce a bluff, pot control?

And if this player does raise preflop with such a high ATS and a relatively large c-bet percentage, why not go with the check raise? At least if you are planning on checking and continuing with the hand?


By the time 5th street arrives there are so many hands that he could possibly have that this bet cannot be called, I think a decision has to be made before you get to this point.

I just reread this and it sounds like I'm calling you out or something, but honestly I'm just trying to pick the better player's brain...

regadless of the three bet you never defined your hand and now have no idea where you stand i think the right play is to come out betting on the turn. you gain the most information because what hands are we worried about any A, KJ, and two pair, the check check turn screams draw to me and it wouldn't be imipossible for him to have KJ and hit broadway. bottom line is you never defined your hand you never knew where you stood in the hand, me i dont personally like playing a guessing game which check calling is exactly that.

Likminutz said:

I really don't understand such weak play post flop (pot control?).

Click to expand...

I think this is a pretty cut & dry check call on the flop. Villain is c-betting this flop even more than the 72% average he has since its a dry flop. I don't want to lose out on that c-bet, so betting out is pretty bad. Check/raising is an option, but if I do that, I will likely have to be all in by the river. And I'd prefer not to stack off on the flop. There's no draws to charge either. So yeah, I'm check/calling flop for pot control + to get a c-bet.

Once again, I didn't check/raise the flop for the same reason I didn't 3-bet preflop. I have a medium strength hand. By raising, I fold away all the hands I can get value from, and likely get stacked by the ones I'm a large underdog to. 3-betting preflop is a little different in that I likely have more equity than say if I'm up against AQ on the flop, but the idea is much the same. And while I think 3-betting isn't a bad move (although, I prefer calling), I think check/raising this flop is pretty bad.

On the turn, the ace falls, which is an obviously bad card for me. A large portion of his range jumps ahead of me. Leading out here might actually get him to fold a hand like QJ/QT, but I'd obviously be called by any and every ace.

The river, is a tough decision, but that's what playing pots out of position is all about. But we do know that the T was another bad card. At this point, we can beat QJ, 9T, JT, Q9, KT. I can't really think of many other hands in his range that would call a bet here, and even then the tens may still fold. Betting the river for value is pretty darn thin. However, since I'm out of position, I can check to an opponent with a high aggression frequency, and make a judgement based on his timing, bet size, and how often he bluffs the river. This way, I'll get value from bluffs, as well as hands like QJ, ect. that v-bet that I can beat.

Rounder_D said:

me i dont personally like playing a guessing game which check calling is exactly that.

Click to expand...

I may be playing a guessing game, however, its a cheap guessing game. I'm forgoing a bit of information, in favor of keeping the pot small. Bloating the pot by check/raising, leading unfavorable turn cards, and in general playing this position aggressively might give me some information, but it will cost me money. And my goal in poker is to win money, not information.

you claim a check raise is costing you money, i disagree 100% cause i never said check raise on river. i said lead out on turn you could have led for $2 and saved a crying call of $4 on the river, bottom line if he calls on turn you are beat by the river, the draw gets their as well as weak Ace.

Also poker is a game of incomplete information he has has more information will come out ahead in the long run. you did nothing to define your hand and by the river he has a range of ATC which is in no means a way to play profitable poker narrowing his hand range is! like batista said "i dont calculate the math but i rather have a hand range for my opponents and based on my actions and their reactions by the river i am able to narrow their range to only a few hands which is why i do so well" kinda hard to disagree with one of the best players in the world and he never finished the 8th grade