$5 NLHE 6-max: OTR Full house on the board - should I bluff river?

B

braveslice

Pull-ups!
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Total posts
1,988
Chips
0
Is this good place on the river to raise as a bluff?

PokerStars - $0.05 NL FAST (6 max) - Holdem - 6 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4

BTN: 246.2 BB (VPIP: 50.00, PFR: 33.33, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, hands: 6)
SB: 173 BB
Hero (BB): 144.6 BB
UTG: 267 BB (VPIP: 15.85, PFR: 10.98, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 86)
MP: 39.6 BB
CO: 85.4 BB

SB posts SB 0.4 BB, Hero posts BB 1 BB

Pre Flop: (pot: 1.4 BB) Hero has T J

fold, MP raises to 2 BB, fold, BTN calls 2 BB, fold, Hero calls 1 BB

Flop: (6.4 BB, 3 players) 3 3 6
Hero checks, MP checks, BTN checks

Turn: (6.4 BB, 3 players) 3
Hero checks, MP checks, BTN checks

River: (6.4 BB, 3 players) 6
Hero checks, MP checks, BTN bets 3 BB,
 
B

baxre

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 24, 2014
Total posts
267
Chips
0
Why you want to raise river? You dont beat any hads but he can beat your hand, call for sure.
 
B

braveslice

Pull-ups!
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Total posts
1,988
Chips
0
He should have nothing, but calling chops the pot. Betting might fold some of his hands. Nittier player should fold almost always too, he though might have a hand here.
 
M

MinhANguyen

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Total posts
695
Chips
0
Not really. You really rep nothing but the absolute nuts (quads). You would play quads this way, but he's going to try to hero call hands with SDV pretty often. Or call hoping to split.
 
B

braveslice

Pull-ups!
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Total posts
1,988
Chips
0
But any % of folds is good for me, even 2% right? Also nittier guy is looking excuses to fold.
 
Matt Vaughan

Matt Vaughan

King of Moody Rants
Bronze Level
Joined
Feb 20, 2008
Total posts
7,150
Awards
5
Chips
6
Bet the turn. It seems likely we'll get folds, and if not we can barrel most rivers. As played I would just call - I don't trust players at this level to be folding when there's a full house on the board, so we just chop most of the time and put more money in the very small amount of the time that we're not chopping.
 
J

Jreece18

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 13, 2015
Total posts
306
Chips
0
Feel like Zeebos theorem would hold true even if the full house were community cards - you'd have to bet pretty big to get a fold and that's just going to increase the rake?
 
TimovieMan

TimovieMan

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 16, 2016
Total posts
2,264
Chips
0
Fold.

You're hoping for a chop which will cost you 0.5bb in rake, and on the off-chance that you are beat, you're losing an additional 3bb.

Raising doesn't get any folds, costs you even more in rake, and costs you even more when behind.

It's a tiny pot where the best-case-scenario is a chop. We've invested 2bb (and 1bb of that was mandatory). Check/fold - it's not worth it.
 
B

braveslice

Pull-ups!
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Total posts
1,988
Chips
0
Ok thx guys, it seems raising is not an option.
Here is the whole hand:
PokerStars - $0.05 NL FAST (6 max) - Holdem - 6 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4

BTN: 246.2 BB (VPIP: 50.00, PFR: 33.33, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 6)
SB: 173 BB
Hero (BB): 144.6 BB
UTG: 267 BB (VPIP: 15.85, PFR: 10.98, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 86)
MP: 39.6 BB
CO: 85.4 BB

SB posts SB 0.4 BB, Hero posts BB 1 BB

Pre Flop: (pot: 1.4 BB) Hero has T:heart: J:club:

fold, MP raises to 2 BB, fold, BTN calls 2 BB, fold, Hero calls 1 BB

Flop: (6.4 BB, 3 players) 3:club: 3:spade: 6:spade:
Hero checks, MP checks, BTN checks

Turn: (6.4 BB, 3 players) 3:heart:
Hero checks, MP checks, BTN checks

River: (6.4 BB, 3 players) 6:heart:
Hero checks, MP checks, BTN bets 3 BB, Hero calls 3 BB, MP calls 3 BB

BTN shows A:club: 5:spade: (Full House, Threes full of Sixes)
(Pre 44%, Flop 69%, Turn 76%)
Hero shows T:heart: J:club: (Full House, Threes full of Sixes)
(Pre 29%, Flop 18%, Turn 12%)
MP shows 9:diamond: T:diamond: (Full House, Threes full of Sixes)
(Pre 27%, Flop 14%, Turn 12%)
BTN wins 4.8 BB
Hero wins 5 BB
MP wins 5 BB
 
Matt Vaughan

Matt Vaughan

King of Moody Rants
Bronze Level
Joined
Feb 20, 2008
Total posts
7,150
Awards
5
Chips
6
Fold.

You're hoping for a chop which will cost you 0.5bb in rake, and on the off-chance that you are beat, you're losing an additional 3bb.

Raising doesn't get any folds, costs you even more in rake, and costs you even more when behind.

It's a tiny pot where the best-case-scenario is a chop. We've invested 2bb (and 1bb of that was mandatory). Check/fold - it's not worth it.

I just want to call out one thing from Tim's post. The bolded part is not relevant. Past investment in the hand does not affect the current decision/marginal EV. We should strive to consider the EV of an entire line when playing a hand, but once we've gotten to the river as we have, we're there.

The money in the pot is in the pot for us to win, regardless of who put it there, and whether we've invested 1bb and are facing 3:1 odds or 1,000bb and facing 3:1 odds, the probabilities don't change.

The concept of something being "worth it" only comes into play if we are severely over- or under-rolled, leading to increased or decreased utility of the dollar amount of a BB to our life. (Example: If I'm a billionaire playing 1c/2c, it might be "worth it" to me to call, just to see what he had. But in that case I probably wouldn't be posting here. :) )
 
TimovieMan

TimovieMan

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 16, 2016
Total posts
2,264
Chips
0
I was talking more from a "don't be too eager to fight for tiny tiny pots" point of view. Is there really a lot of EV in calling when the best case scenario is a chop, and where the simple act of raising and calling only heightens the rake, so even if you chop, at least one of you loses?

Had BTN checked through in this example, the pot would have been 6.4bb, with 0.2bb in rake taken out.
BTN put in 2bb, gets 2bb - breakeven.
Hero put in 2bb, gets 2.2bb - you win 0.2bb or 0.01$.
MP put in 2bb, gets 2bb - breakeven.

In this particular case, after having raised, the pot is 15.4bb but the rake is 0.6bb.
BTN put in 5bb, gets only 4.8bb - loses 0.2bb or 0.01$.
Hero put in 5bb, gets 5bb - breakeven.
MP put in 5bb, gets 5bb - breakeven.

Prime example of why you shouldn't be fighting for tiny pots. Even if you get one player to fold, what do you gain, really? Less than 1bb.

I don't mind giving up a tiny pot like this to avoid the chance of looking silly when BTN somehow does show up with 3x, 6x or 77+.

I prefer fighting for tiny pots in better-looking spots (blind-stealing nits, 3-bet or 4-bet bluffing light raisers, etc.).


The -EV of making a nitty fold in a spot like this is going to be pretty insignificant (especially if there's a % chance that BTN does in fact have 3x, 6x or 77+), and it might change your table image a bit so that you could later be bluff-catching a far bigger pot to compensate for the -EV now.


In other words: "meh". :)
 
N

nkat

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
May 31, 2016
Total posts
155
Chips
0
yeah close spot between raising, calling and folding. Maybe calling is best at these stakes. dont mind a raise though
 
Matt Vaughan

Matt Vaughan

King of Moody Rants
Bronze Level
Joined
Feb 20, 2008
Total posts
7,150
Awards
5
Chips
6
I was talking more from a "don't be too eager to fight for tiny tiny pots" point of view. Is there really a lot of EV in calling when the best case scenario is a chop, and where the simple act of raising and calling only heightens the rake, so even if you chop, at least one of you loses?

Had BTN checked through in this example, the pot would have been 6.4bb, with 0.2bb in rake taken out.
BTN put in 2bb, gets 2bb - breakeven.
Hero put in 2bb, gets 2.2bb - you win 0.2bb or 0.01$.
MP put in 2bb, gets 2bb - breakeven.

In this particular case, after having raised, the pot is 15.4bb but the rake is 0.6bb.
BTN put in 5bb, gets only 4.8bb - loses 0.2bb or 0.01$.
Hero put in 5bb, gets 5bb - breakeven.
MP put in 5bb, gets 5bb - breakeven.

Prime example of why you shouldn't be fighting for tiny pots. Even if you get one player to fold, what do you gain, really? Less than 1bb.

I don't mind giving up a tiny pot like this to avoid the chance of looking silly when BTN somehow does show up with 3x, 6x or 77+.

I prefer fighting for tiny pots in better-looking spots (blind-stealing nits, 3-bet or 4-bet bluffing light raisers, etc.).


The -EV of making a nitty fold in a spot like this is going to be pretty insignificant (especially if there's a % chance that BTN does in fact have 3x, 6x or 77+), and it might change your table image a bit so that you could later be bluff-catching a far bigger pot to compensate for the -EV now.


In other words: "meh". :)

Still talking about this in terms of the entire hand - you're not calling right now for a breakeven proposition (risking X to win 0), you're calling 3bb to win either ~3.2bb or ~2.1bb (sorry but I'm not going to nit-pick the math). We know we're always chopping if we call and are correct, but it doesn't mean we breakeven when we call. It means we win a portion of the pot that we have no chance at if we fold.

Let's just assume that the 3rd player always calls, so we are risking 3bb to win 2.1bb. So this needs to be a bluff 60% of the time or more for us to be able to call profitably. With the given line, that seems pretty damn reasonable to me. In fact, the vast majority of players are betting 3x OTF if they are last to act (if they somehow have one of the very few semi-reasonable 3x combos pre) when the board is this wet.

Let's just say that somehow, villain has 3x here 20% of the time. (I think that's absolutely outrageous btw - he is going to bet his entire range OTR here to fold us off obvious chops. No way does 3x take up 20% of his range.) So...

EV(call) = 20%(-3bb) + 80%(2.1bb)
EV(call) = -0.6bb + 1.68
EV(call) = 1.08bb

Are you telling me you don't want to take a play that is guaranteed at ABSOLUTE minimum 1bb of EV? Please don't "poo-poo" small edges. They are pretty much all we got these days. :( But this is most definitely not a small EV decision. Any time you can make a decision that is worth a bb or more, it's a pretty big deal. If you pass on this or a similar spot once every hundred or so hands, it's gonna cut substantially into your WR.

Edit: If your premise is that villain can't be bluffing here, okay, but I've yet to see you mention villain's possible range here. Any talk about rake is sort of silly when we're chopping this often against villain's likely range.
 
N

nkat

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
May 31, 2016
Total posts
155
Chips
0
^^^ yeah

"They are pretty much all we got these days." - except that part :)
 
TimovieMan

TimovieMan

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 16, 2016
Total posts
2,264
Chips
0
Edit: If your premise is that villain can't be bluffing here, okay, but I've yet to see you mention villain's possible range here. Any talk about rake is sort of silly when we're chopping this often against villain's likely range.
My premise is mainly that he shouldn't be bluffing here. If nobody folds (and nobody will fold on this board - not even me), he's going to be the one affected most by the rake.



Should I be rethinking my "I'm check/folding anything less than TP when SB open-limps and I'm in the BB with a hand I would've folded to a min-raise" strategy as well?
Is the "don't fight for tiny pots" thing is terribly outdated?
 
Matt Vaughan

Matt Vaughan

King of Moody Rants
Bronze Level
Joined
Feb 20, 2008
Total posts
7,150
Awards
5
Chips
6
My premise is mainly that he shouldn't be bluffing here. If nobody folds (and nobody will fold on this board - not even me), he's going to be the one affected most by the rake.



Should I be rethinking my "I'm check/folding anything less than TP when SB open-limps and I'm in the BB with a hand I would've folded to a min-raise" strategy as well?
Is the "don't fight for tiny pots" thing is terribly outdated?

It's debatable whether he "should" be bluffing here. If he's ever getting rebluffed and going to fold then it's probably horrendous, but that won't happen often at these stakes. If he gets even one player to fold there's a pretty big incentive to him and it doesn't need to work that often.

But whether he should is different from whether he will. And I think in general people will try here a pretty decent amount of the time.

Not fighting for tiny pots is an okay premise I guess in a lot of contexts, but I don't even think of things like that. Everything should be in the context of ranges, odds, and how to achieve the maximum EV. If those factors lead you toward not fighting for a small pot, well fine. But I wouldn't try to take it from the other direction and assume we shouldn't ever fight for small pots.

That was super rambling but I hope you get what I mean. :)
 
Top