$5 NLHE 6-max: Flopped bottom set on monotone flop

RogueRivered

RogueRivered

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Total posts
957
Chips
0
$5 NL HE 6-max: Flopped bottom set on monotone flop

Villian Stats (VPIP/PFR/AF): 16/10/2.3

I played this all wrong, I think. Maybe a donk bet would be better here. I think a call is correct after the villain's c-bet instead of the raise I made. After that, I guess I'm committed, getting over 3-1.

poker stars $0.02/$0.05 No Limit Hold'em - 6 players - View hand 296847
The Official DeucesCracked.com Hand History Converter

BTN: $7.92
SB: $7.43
BB: $4.34
UTG: $3.54
Hero (MP): $5.30
CO: $5.00

Pre Flop: ($0.07) Hero is MP with 6
club.gif
6
spade.gif

1 fold, Hero calls $0.05, CO raises to $0.25, 3 folds, Hero calls $0.20

Flop: ($0.57) 6
diamond.gif
T
diamond.gif
9
diamond.gif
(2 players)
Hero checks, CO bets $0.35, Hero raises to $1.30, CO raises to $2.60, Hero raises to $5.05 all in, CO calls $2.15 all in
 
Dorkus Malorkus

Dorkus Malorkus

HELLO INTERNET
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Total posts
12,422
Chips
0
Nonono, calling flop would be horrible. Why would you want to play a hand OOP when so much bad stuff can happen on the turn? Let's say you call flop, what's your plan if the turn is

(a) 8c?
(b) Ks?
(c) 2d?

Just a few hypotheticals to think about. Here, we've got a villain who's range is still pretty wide on a flop where your hand is strong but vulnerable. So much bad stuff can happen on the turn, we're OOP, we most likely have the best hand on the flop and even if behind we have plenty of outs with 2 cards to come - why would we not want to get it in here? You flop a set on a draw-heavy board and you're not ridiculously deep - you stack off.

Sorry that villain had AdQd or something. ;)
 
slycbnew

slycbnew

Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 8, 2008
Total posts
2,876
Chips
0
Calling the flop raise is def bad, you should be pushing like you did.

Donk bet vs. ch/r - meh, since I think the ch/r looks stronger, I prefer the ch/r on a monotone board, but looks like here it's a moot point, you should be getting your stack in, and looks like villain's happy to get his stack in. You're not nec behind, this could be a few hands in addition to a made flush (incl overpairs w a flush draw, Ax w a nut fd, and maybe straight draws, though I don't think he's aggressive enough to keep raising a straight draw), and if you are behind (unless it's set over set) you've got outs.

pf, I open the 66's in MP to $0.20 and fold to a 3bet without a read that he 3bets light.
 
mattzan

mattzan

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Total posts
91
Chips
0
well.. for me you played well... you shouldn't call the raise.. you don't want him to see another card like flush,straight.
Tell me the what happened, I'm curious =)
 
RogueRivered

RogueRivered

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Total posts
957
Chips
0
How do you resolve the conflict between Sklansky's Fundamental Theory of Poker and playing against your opponent's range? If you knew what your opponent had, there should only be one best way to play it.

Here, my problem is that I'm looking for any excuse to fold, but I have at least 1/3 equity in the pot, so I don't see how raising helps preserve your equity, other than by adding some fold equity. After I was reraised, it's clear the stack are going in. I don't like to gamble like that -- it makes me feel uncomfortable. If I call and make a Full House on the turn, then I can try to extract more from the hand, but if another diamond comes, or a straight card, I can decide what to do based on the opponent's bet sizing and get away from the hand without risking the whole stack. Again, I don't think you can improve your all-in odds by raising. If you're behind to a made straight or flush, calling has to be better. (Of course, I know what he had, after the fact, so maybe that's clouding my vision.)
 
slycbnew

slycbnew

Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 8, 2008
Total posts
2,876
Chips
0
RogueRivered said:
How do you resolve the conflict between Sklansky's Fundamental Theory of Poker and playing against your opponent's range? If you knew what your opponent had, there should only be one best way to play it.

Here, my problem is that I'm looking for any excuse to fold, but I have at least 1/3 equity in the pot, so I don't see how raising helps preserve your equity, other than by adding some fold equity. After I was reraised, it's clear the stack are going in. I don't like to gamble like that -- it makes me feel uncomfortable. If I call and make a Full House on the turn, then I can try to extract more from the hand, but if another diamond comes, or a straight card, I can decide what to do based on the opponent's bet sizing and get away from the hand without risking the whole stack. Again, I don't think you can improve your all-in odds by raising. If you're behind to a made straight or flush, calling has to be better. (Of course, I know what he had, after the fact, so maybe that's clouding my vision.)
Click to expand...

Yeah, don't be results oriented. :D

The problem w calling - you'll put more money in the pot only to be forced to fold to a bunch of turn cards that may have improved Villain's hand (Ks, 8c, any diamond), and may be tempted to fold a bunch of turn cards that almost certainly didn't improve Villain's hand but is also a blank for you (2c).

If you call and the turn is the 2c, are you folding to Villain's inevitable turn shove? If not, why are we reluctant to get it in on the flop? If we are folding, why did we call on the flop?

That's the point Dorkus makes above.
 
slycbnew

slycbnew

Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 8, 2008
Total posts
2,876
Chips
0
Oh, and a problem w using Sklansky to review your hands - you don't know what he has while you're playing, you can only put Villain on a range of hands while you're playing. It's really difficult to pin Villain very specifically on a flush or a straight - I'm ignoring oversets - and good players are going to be betting like this w hands other than made hands. This is why you use G bucks (Phil Galfond's revision to Sklansky, sort of) rather than Slansky bucks while you're playing.

We also have pot equity against even these made hands - we're certainly not a favorite, but w dead money in the pot combined w the cost of shoving here I believe the math works out (though I'm not good at math, so I'll leave it to someone else to demonstrate).

I believe you could get all in w every set you ever hit in micro, no matter if you're a dog, and make more money than occasionally folding coordinated flops.
 
Dorkus Malorkus

Dorkus Malorkus

HELLO INTERNET
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Total posts
12,422
Chips
0
^ What he said.

It's easy to look at the hand afterwards and say "Oh god Sklansky's FToP says if I played differently than I would have if I'd known villain's hole cards I lose and vilain had AdQd here so I must have played it badly!", but the simple matter is that it is impossible to play perfect poker. As sly said you deal with ranges and we want to get it in on this flop because we're ahead of villain's range and there are a lot of draws and made hand/draw combos in hs range that he will go to the felt with.

If you're uncomfortable 'gambling' like this, poker may not be for you. In truth you're not 'gambling' at all - over many iterations of the same hand if you get your stack in on the flop with >50% equity you're ultimately going to profit.
 
RogueRivered

RogueRivered

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Total posts
957
Chips
0
Thanks for the explanations. I think you are both saying that you can't really look at your play based on the FToP -- I was really confused by that, since I had accepted the theory as gospel. I'm going to have to look up "G bucks." Hadn't heard of that before.
 
slycbnew

slycbnew

Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 8, 2008
Total posts
2,876
Chips
0
RogueRivered said:
Thanks for the explanations. I think you are both saying that you can't really look at your play based on the FToP -- I was really confused by that, since I had accepted the theory as gospel. I'm going to have to look up "G bucks." Hadn't heard of that before.
Click to expand...

Here's the link: http://www.bluffmagazine.com/magazine/'G-Bucks'-Conceptualizing-Money-Matters.-Phil-Galfond-985.htm#

which is found in c9's excellent reading list here: https://www.cardschat.com/forum/cash-games-11/ring-game-hand-analysis-required-reading-144488/

I take FTP as gospel, but there's a key qualifier - the mistake you want villain to make is IF he could see your hole cards - which of course he can't. A lot of the HA threads really come down to "how much can I narrow villain's range based on his prior actions in this hand and in other hands I've seen him play?", which is more or less a discussion of G bucks.
 
L

leedsfc08

Rising Star
Bronze Level
Joined
Sep 2, 2009
Total posts
12
Chips
0
I don't like smooth calling the pfr oop with 6s. Your either going to c/f the flop or turn your hand into a bluff on any flop that doesn't contain a 6.
 
Top