$5 NLHE Full Ring: Middle pair (PP) on 3-flush paired turn, checked to me IP (5NL, FR)

rowhousepd

rowhousepd

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Total posts
282
Awards
1
Chips
1
$5 NLHE Full Ring: Middle pair (PP) on 3-flush paired turn, checked to me IP (5NL, FR)

Villian Stats (VPIP/PFR/AF): 18/12/2.1

I open raise limpers w/ 88 in MP, and I cbet the flop w/ an my middle pair. (Yes, I should have cbet more. Bad move.) The turn pairs the board and makes a 3-flush which I have a piece of, and the villain checks to me. I know it's a dangerous board, but I do have a hand and a draw. He is tight (18/12/2.1), and I don't have many reads other than I've seen him limp/call low & medium PP, and he's folded a few times on the flop after 3 & 4betting PF.

Do I check back and see the river, or do I put in a bet in now and be prepared to fold a c/r or a bet on the river?

Full Tilt, $0.02/$0.05 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 9 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter

Hero (MP1): $5.61
MP2: $1.63
CO: $4.85
BTN: $2.77
SB: $6.48
BB: $5.12
UTG: $5.17
UTG+1: $4.97
UTG+2: $6.66

Pre-Flop: 8
heart.gif
8
diamond.gif
dealt to Hero (MP1)

UTG folds, UTG+1 calls $0.05, UTG+2 calls $0.05, Hero raises to $0.25, 5 folds, UTG+1 calls $0.20, UTG+2 calls $0.20

Flop: ($0.82) T
spade.gif
2
heart.gif
4
heart.gif
(3 Players)

UTG+1 checks, UTG+2 checks, Hero bets $0.25, UTG+1 folds, UTG+2 calls $0.25

Turn: ($1.32) T
heart.gif
(2 Players)

UTG+2 checks

Hero???
 
No Brainer

No Brainer

Losing keeps me sane
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Total posts
1,853
Chips
0
Check it back. What hands do you think call a bet here that you beat? Maybe Ah2 - Ah5, not much else really. There is a decent chunk of his range that has us crushed here so if we bet we would have to fold to a raise.

Would like to know what others think about the showdown value of our hand on a brick river and would we call a river bet?
 
C

ComplexPlaya

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Total posts
1,347
Chips
0
The flop cbet was silly since they can call with any two it was so small.

If you bet now you're turning your head into a bluff basically, you have SD value there is no need, just check it back
 
T

titan72offsuit

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 24, 2010
Total posts
39
Chips
0
Contribute to my education here - why is a bet not good? Are we not ahead of everything that UTG+2 could be limping and flatting with here besides maybe A10 or 99. I feel that he probably would have least lead out with A10 after the flop with TPTK right? Don't know that I could have put him on that.

As played I think that UTG+2 probably has A4, A2, or calling down a FD and he received good pot odds to do that after the small post flop bet.

I bet into this hand. Am I way off here?
 
BelgoSuisse

BelgoSuisse

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Total posts
9,218
Chips
0
The flop cbet was silly

no it's not. you do fold quite a few hands with overcards that still have non negligible equity in the hand and that's good. You also still charge a few second pair/underpair hands that won't fold. And of course you lose some money to TP hands, but that's really not that much compared to the amount of dead money you collect from folding hand that are not that much behind and value you get from hands that are way behind.
 
BelgoSuisse

BelgoSuisse

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Total posts
9,218
Chips
0
Turn is a check, though, obviously.
 
C

ComplexPlaya

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Total posts
1,347
Chips
0
no it's not. you do fold quite a few hands with overcards that still have non negligible equity in the hand and that's good. You also still charge a few second pair/underpair hands that won't fold. And of course you lose some money to TP hands, but that's really not that much compared to the amount of dead money you collect from folding hand that are not that much behind and value you get from hands that are way behind.

I concur, I meant it was silly because of the sizing - .25 into .82
 
BelgoSuisse

BelgoSuisse

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Total posts
9,218
Chips
0
I concur, I meant it was silly because of the sizing - .25 into .82

It's hard to comment on sizing until you also know about frequency.

Well, this may not apply to 5nl. But then again honestly I don't think it's horrible. We're never folding a better hand here, we don't want to set up a bet sizing that allows us to play for stacks either, so a somewhat small bet is fine for our purpose, which is to get called by worse hands and fold marginal hands with overcards. Maybe .35 is better than .25, but is it that important?
 
C

ComplexPlaya

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Total posts
1,347
Chips
0
It's hard to comment on sizing until you also know about frequency.

Well, this may not apply to 5nl. But then again honestly I don't think it's horrible. We're never folding a better hand here, we don't want to set up a bet sizing that allows us to play for stacks either, so a somewhat small bet is fine for our purpose, which is to get called by worse hands and fold marginal hands with overcards. Maybe .35 is better than .25, but is it that important?

Do you actually see those marginal hands with overcards folding to a .25 ? I don't... and I wouldn't fold them in villain's shoes either, had to think I was getting implied odds without a read that my opponent value bets good hands really small
 
BelgoSuisse

BelgoSuisse

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Total posts
9,218
Chips
0
Do you actually see those marginal hands with overcards folding to a .25 ? I don't... and I wouldn't fold them in villain's shoes either, had to think I was getting implied odds without a read that my opponent value bets good hands really small

overcards have about 27% equity against us, so we don't really care if they call or fold, but either way betting against them is +EV.
 
rowhousepd

rowhousepd

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Total posts
282
Awards
1
Chips
1
The flop cbet was silly since they can call with any two it was so small.

I'd normally rarely bet less than half the pot unless I was convinced I had someone crushed and thought they'd call a small bet. Just a mistake this time.

We're never folding a better hand here, we don't want to set up a bet sizing that allows us to play for stacks either, so a somewhat small bet is fine for our purpose, which is to get called by worse hands and fold marginal hands with overcards.

I'm pretty sure it was just a mis-click this hand, but I think I do this occasionally (bet small-ish, though not necessarily this small) because essentially I'm afraid of the pot getting huge and being pot-committed on the next street when a non-scary card comes and I'm still feeling ok about my hand. I think this is kind of fishy thinking though ... or am I wrong? (Keep in mind fellas, this is 5NL, and I'm trying to be one step above the very primitive micro mindset.)
 
No Brainer

No Brainer

Losing keeps me sane
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Total posts
1,853
Chips
0
It's hard to comment on sizing until you also know about frequency.

Well, this may not apply to 5nl. But then again honestly I don't think it's horrible. We're never folding a better hand here, we don't want to set up a bet sizing that allows us to play for stacks either, so a somewhat small bet is fine for our purpose, which is to get called by worse hands and fold marginal hands with overcards. Maybe .35 is better than .25, but is it that important?


It is not really bad because of the reasons mentioned but it could be better as we would rather be pricing out heart draws/ getting value from heart draws. Making the flop ~55c does this as well as not setting us up to play for stacks.
 
BelgoSuisse

BelgoSuisse

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Total posts
9,218
Chips
0
we are not getting any value from heart draws on the flop since the huge majority of them also have overcards and therefore have about as much equity in the hand as we do.
 
C

ComplexPlaya

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Total posts
1,347
Chips
0
overcards have about 27% equity against us, so we don't really care if they call or fold, but either way betting against them is +EV.

It's +EV for the villain too to call with pretty much everything when he doesn't even need implied odds. So we're not letting him make any mistakes, hence we don't make money with the .25 bet.

The most important part though to me is it gives away our strength being an incredibly weak bet and allows any half-twit to take it away later. So I stand by the bet being silly :D
 
BelgoSuisse

BelgoSuisse

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Total posts
9,218
Chips
0
It's +EV for the villain too to call with pretty much everything when he doesn't even need implied odds. So we're not letting him make any mistakes, hence we don't make money with the .25 bet.

That's just silly. If we have 73% equity in a pot, we bet $.25, villain calls $.25, the pot just got $.50 bigger and we own 73% of that $.50, i.e. $0.365. That means by betting and getting called, we earn $0.115 more than by checking, even if villain is correct to call.

The most important part though to me is it gives away our strength being an incredibly weak bet and allows any half-twit to take it away later. So I stand by the bet being silly :D

This assumes we never bet small with strong hands, that villain is observant, that we will always fold when villain tries to bluff us out, ... Too many assumptions to make your argument solid, imo.
 
C

ComplexPlaya

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Total posts
1,347
Chips
0
That's just silly. If we have 73% equity in a pot, we bet $.25, villain calls $.25, the pot just got $.50 bigger and we own 73% of that $.50, i.e. $0.365. That means by betting and getting called, we earn $0.115 more than by checking, even if villain is correct to call.

I'm thinking from the reciprocal point of view, which is all that matters in the end. The concept is : if the same situation was reversed and villain wins/loses the same amount we do in a hand we don't make any money in the long run. This is where edge and profit in poker comes from, playing the same situation differently than villains, if everyone played a given situation the same way, although profitably, nobody would make any money (but the rake taker). It's a summary of the concept Tommy Angelo came up with, and I'm sure you can see how it's true

This assumes we never bet small with strong hands, that villain is observant, that we will always fold when villain tries to bluff us out, ... Too many assumptions to make your argument solid, imo.

If we bet small for value sometimes at 5nl we have a huge leak and are losing tons. Yes there might be the odd 1/1000 hand where you flop quads and nothing can call and you want to check or bet small to induce or whatever but this is far from it. Anyway, enough ramble, you know all that, the point is even lots of fish will take a really small bet as weakness imo, and for a reg we can assume he does
 
BelgoSuisse

BelgoSuisse

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Total posts
9,218
Chips
0
I'm thinking from the reciprocal point of view, which is all that matters in the end.

Well, if we bet the flop while villain would check in the same situation, we make money because betting is good.

Betting somewhat bigger would be better indeed, and if we bet too small and villain would bet just the right amount in the same situation, then we lose money indeed.

So in the end, betting the flop is definitely not silly. Betting bigger may be better, but even betting small is way better than checking.
 
C

ComplexPlaya

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Total posts
1,347
Chips
0
Well, if we bet the flop while villain would check in the same situation, we make money because betting is good.

Betting somewhat bigger would be better indeed, and if we bet too small and villain would bet just the right amount in the same situation, then we lose money indeed.

So in the end, betting the flop is definitely not silly. Betting bigger may be better, but even betting small is way better than checking.

Glad we can somewhat agree now :) I never advocated checking, just thought it was silly to bet that small...

I still think it is to an extent even after your demonstration, just because we are giving implied odds to loads of hands. Say villain has J9o and calls the small bet, a 9 comes on the turn and he min-bets the turn if we check or calls if we bet, the flop bet becomes unprofitable because of implied odds then, we can't really fold to a min-bet on the turn.

Not saying it's likely to happen but we are giving him the opportunity to play perfectly
 
J

JMcCabe

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Total posts
226
Chips
0
I still think it is to an extent even after your demonstration, just because we are giving implied odds to loads of hands. Say villain has J9o and calls the small bet, a 9 comes on the turn and he min-bets the turn if we check or calls if we bet, the flop bet becomes unprofitable because of implied odds then, we can't really fold to a min-bet on the turn.

We have position in the hand, so your analysis is somewhat flawed.

I like the small cBet to be honest. Keeps in a lot of hands we have crushed (smaller pocket pairs), folds out hands that can outdraw us (overcards), gives you an idea of your opponent's hand cheaply (flush draws will mostly just call, big hands will check-raise), and sets us up to check behind on the turn to get to a cheap showdown with a hand with showdown value.

As played, check behind turn and call pretty much any bet on the river.
 
LizaBuv

LizaBuv

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Total posts
164
Chips
0
Check

The small CB on the flop kind of puts us in no mans land. Did they call because it was cheap or did they have something have way decent. Under the circumstances I am prepared to check the turn. If I dont catch an 8 or a 10 I probably cant call the river facing any significant action.
 
Full Flush Poker
Top