$5 NLHE Full Ring: TP + nut FD against a flop raise from a shortie

Button ($5.05)
SB ($1.04)
BB ($4.82)
UTG ($3.74)
UTG+1 ($9.24)
MP1 ($5.29)
MP2 ($5.18)
Hero (MP3) ($10.32)
CO ($5.55)

Preflop: Hero is MP3 with Q , A
1 fold, UTG+1 calls $0.05, 1 fold, MP2 calls $0.05, Hero bets $0.20, 2 folds, SB calls $0.18, 1 fold, UTG+1 calls $0.15, 1 fold

Flop: ($0.70) Q , 9 , 5 (3 players)
SB checks, UTG+1 checks, Hero bets $0.35, SB raises to $0.84 (All-In), 1 fold, Hero calls $0.49

Turn: ($2.38) 4 (2 players, 1 all-in)

River: ($2.38) 7 (2 players, 1 all-in)

Total pot: $2.38 | Rake: $0.11

This guy is 33/0 over less than 10 hands, no reads but looks fishy.

I think he shoves a lot of stuff here including all Queens and all flush draws.

1. Correct?
2. Cbet size?
3. At which stack size this becomes a bad call?

Results below:

Seems standard. C-bet size is fine because you're not exactly protecting here.
Without (more) reliable stats/read I have to put a lot of single club hands into the guy's range when he shoves here, also AQ, K(c)Q, Q9, AA, KK.

it doesn't matter what his range is, you're not folding TPTK+NFD for for 10 BBs ever.

Sure, so where is the cutoff where this call becomes bad?

What I was getting at with my second sentence is that I doubt the call is ever bad.

LD1977 said:

Sure, so where is the cutoff where this call becomes bad?

Click to expand...

It only becomes bad if you know this guy is never shoving this flop with less than a set or the made flush. If he's shoving pairs and lower flush draws as well, you're pretty much even money (or better) here.

So, the question becomes, at what stack size do I believe he stops shoving hands like or ? I think there are a lot of -x hands that shove here. A lot of Q-Xc hands obviously shove. There are a lot of hands that aren't going to worry about playing for stacks. Basically, my cut-off would be stacks 4-times the pot. So, here I would fold if he was willing to put in $2.81 or more. It's kind of an arbitrary point (not completely, that's a pot-sized-bet followed by a pot-sized-raise ... any hand willing to go higher than that would have to be near the top of the range). At that point, I have to assume it's almost always a made-flush and maybe top or middle set.

Since he started with less than $3.00, I would never be folding to him with this hand, on this flop.

Thanks guys.

vinnie - Why not lower set? You think people fear set-over-set situations? Those are pretty rare, no?

I don't think they fear set-over-set here. I also think you'll occasionally see bottom set turn up. I guess I just drop bottom set to balance the percentages a bit. I don't think all players will want to get in (on the flop) with a set. I don't think many will ever fold, but most will just call. That means, I think made flushes are a higher part of the "get a lot of money in on the flop" range. I discount the sets, just a little, by reducing them to 6 of the 9 combos. Saying they don't do this with "bottom set" is the same as saying they don't try to get big stacks in on the flop with a set 33% of the time.

Got it, sounds logical.

I call this all day against anyone, ever. It's literally correct to fold this precisely 0% of the time.

vinnie said:

It only becomes bad if you know this guy is never shoving this flop with less than a set or the made flush.

Click to expand...

It STILL isn't bad because we're getting something like 2.3:1 and we have 9 outs (vs set) or 7 (vs flush).

I was referring to situations where we are much deeper. Trying to answer the 3rd question from OP about how deep stacks need to be to fold. Like if this flop gets overbet shoved by a big stack. Obviously, this deep we never fold even if he shows us his flush/set.

But, if he overbet shoves (and we know he always has a set or better) we can't call.

I realize that I wasn't clear about that. Basically, if the stacks are deep enough that he only is shoving better hands and we are getting 2:1 or worse, we should be folding. At low stack depths, say he shoved for $2, I still have to find a call even getting less than 2:1 simply because he is too shallow to narrow his range enough to find a fold.


Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Also, we should only count 7 outs against both the sets and the flush because we need to discount our outs for when we hit our flush but the villain fills up. So we want 2.4:1 or better in this spot, if we know opponent always has one of those hands.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

LD1977 said:

Sure, so where is the cutoff where this call becomes bad?

Click to expand...

Pretty much never... unless you can soul read.

I'd probably bet slightly smaller on the flop also.

vinnie said:

Also, we should only count 7 outs against both the sets and the flush because we need to discount our outs for when we hit our flush but the villain fills up.

Click to expand...

That'd be more like 7.5 outs then since one out is only bad on the river.

But that's a great point. Basically yeah, fold exploitatively if he only ever has sets/flushes. That's gonna be like almost never though, I don't think.