$109 NLHE MTT: Backdoor flush re-raised all-in

I'd put villan on two pairs or maybe a set. How 'bout you?


No Limit Hold'em Tournament T150/T300
Buy-in: $100+$9 USD Hold'em No Limit
PokerStars
9 players
Formatted by SharkScope.com - Track your poker statistics and avoid the sharks

Stacks:
UTG - UTG (T9,661)
UTG+1 - UTG+1 (T8,049)
UTG+2 - Hero (T29,773)
MP - MP (T14,243)
MP2 - MP2 (T1,667)
CO - CO (T11,428)
BTN - BTN (T16,348)
SB - SB (T5,759)
BB - BB (T27,268)

Preflop: (T720, 9 players) Hero is UTG+2 with 9♠ T♠2 folds, Hero raises to T750, 5 folds, BB calls T450

Flop: K♠ 8♦ 3♣ (T1,920, 2 players - BB: T26,488, Hero: T28,993)
BB checks, Hero bets T1,056, BB calls T1,056

Turn: A♠ (T4,032, 2 players - BB: T25,432, Hero: T27,937)
BB checks, Hero checks

River: 4♠ (T4,032, 2 players - BB: T25,432, Hero: T27,937)BB bets T1,479, Hero raises to T11,100, BB raises to T25,432 (all-in), Hero ??

If we throw every flash we hit. Counting that the subscriber’s flash is older. Then we will be in the ass. Well, I would either play a count raise. Or the first put all in

I would have bet the turn, when I picked up equity and a perfect "scare card". On the river I would have raised smaller. His 3-bet on the river is representing pretty much only the nut flush, which mean your hand is a bluff catcher. The hands, he is supposed to bluff with, would be some, which contain Q of spades for the nut blocker. I guess, this is probably a call, since you block QT and Q9 of spades, and some players might think, you can never have a flush, because you checked the turn.

fundiver199 said:

I would have bet the turn, when I picked up equity and a perfect "scare card". On the river I would have raised smaller. His 3-bet on the river is representing pretty much only the nut flush, which mean your hand is a bluff catcher. The hands, he is supposed to bluff with, would be some, which contain Q of spades for the nut blocker. I guess, this is probably a call, since you block QT and Q9 of spades, and some players might think, you can never have a flush, because you checked the turn.

Click to expand...

I do not bet the turn here after c-bet I would be overbetting my hand. I was ready to give up cause most of the time villain has Kx or set.

Villain called the c-bet so they must’ve had some equity at that point, right? And with a monster made hand they would be more aggressive wouldn’t they? At that SPR they would be much more eager to build the pot.

Seems so gross for them to 3bet jam on us on this river....I'm not sure what to do in this spot. What combos of Qx or Jx suited play the hand this way and get there on the river? Q8 or J8? The only that really make much sense. This is a really gross spot for sure and I dont like it whatsoever but I think we may HAVE to call...we only lose to 2 hands and we block some value combos if those hands by holding the Ts - as much as I dont love it I think we just call and see what our fate is. Spots like this are why we should practice good roll management

Jon Poker said:

Seems so gross for them to 3bet jam on us on this river....I'm not sure what to do in this spot. What combos of Qx or Jx suited play the hand this way and get there on the river? Q8 or J8? The only that really make much sense. This is a really gross spot for sure and I dont like it whatsoever but I think we may HAVE to call...we only lose to 2 hands and we block some value combos if those hands by holding the Ts - as much as I dont love it I think we just call and see what our fate is. Spots like this are why we should practice good roll management

Click to expand...

I think I must bet the turn even if it overvalues the hand. I’m not sure if I lose more from not keeping the worse hands in, since the backdoor flash can extract value on river more frequently.

I also think overbetting the river was a bad idea. It seems that each time I get big with non-nuts hands I lose though my goal is to protect my bluffs. Is frustrating that I never get paid simply because no one else is doing that when I have the nuts :sigh. However, I do get to steal plenty of pots when I don’t bust

Hi there,

I have no experience on that kind of buy-ins, they are expensive for what I can afford but I love the game and I play lots of tournaments and would like to share my opinion on the hand .

I like the cbet on the flop, pretty standard (representing your range), but I believe that a more standard bet size is 1/3 of the pot with that board texture.

I really like that you don't bet the *turn because now you have some outs and you can take a free card so no need for fancy stuff, although the turn is a good scare card but since you already bet the flop and you picked up some equity with the spades I still prefer checking back with 10 high.

The river action is very weird. I'm saying this because his bet sizing is really weird.
If he has a flush does he bet that small? This is my main read here, that sizing does not show strength. Looks like a blocking bet.
And then you raise pretty big. I believe that 7-8k it would have been a more appropriate size.
And then he shoves.. oh man, what's going on here?
His small bet and then his shove after your oversized raise do not really make any sense to me.
I really don't know, his move looks really powerful but I don't think that we can fold here.
I guess it depends on the villain too, some people are just overly aggressive without realizing the situation. Is he a good player? Tough spot but we just can't fold.

moulan7 said:

The river action is very weird. I'm saying this because his bet sizing is really weird. If he has a flush does he bet that small? This is my main read here, that sizing does not show strength. Looks like a blocking bet.

Click to expand...

Hero checked back turn, which indicate, he is either giving up or has some kind of marginal showdown value. AX with a bad kicker, KX, 99-QQ, 8X. And if you are trying to get value from that kind of hand, it makes sense to pick a small size. So I dont nessesarely read this as particularly weak, and when its followed up by a 3-bet jam, it is in fact an extremely strong line.

I still feel, we kind of have to call though, because as Jon Poker say, how many better flushes does he even have, that get to the river this way? Q8 and J8 makes sense, but that is just about it. So if there is any chance, he is ever turning a hand like KQ with the nut flush blocker into a bluff, we have to call and hope to catch that big bluff.

teebahnoo said:

I think I must bet the turn even if it overvalues the hand. I’m not sure if I lose more from not keeping the worse hands in, since the backdoor flash can extract value on river more frequently.

I also think overbetting the river was a bad idea. It seems that each time I get big with non-nuts hands I lose though my goal is to protect my bluffs. Is frustrating that I never get paid simply because no one else is doing that when I have the nuts :sigh. However, I do get to steal plenty of pots when I don’t bust

Click to expand...

What do you mean with overvaluing the hand on the turn? What exactly are we overvaluing when we bet ten high? Don't get me wrong it's a perfect candidate for a second barrel once we pick up equity, but it's important that you know why you are betting. It's a good semi-bluff but thats about it. Also I'd size down on the flop to about 20-30% if we want to bet a big part of our range (which I think would be completely fine on this flop).

I reckon we want to be betting this turn a bunch (but ofc checking at some frequency is probably fine, but lean towards betting, especially on this hand).

River is grose, but I think you kinda get yourself in that spot with a 7.5x raise. Size that down a bit then call his 3bet. As played with this weird sizing probably fine to fold to the jam vs an unknown. Yes maybe theoretically this could be a call, but I don't think V is ever pulling enough rabbits out of his hat as a bluff facing a 7.5x there to make this profitable.

Edit: I just noticed the second alinea; you do this to balance your bluffs, you say. But are you sure you take this line AND sizing with so many bluffs that you even need to be making this huge reraise with T9s here (ie that your Qsxs and Jsxs don't cut it)? Tbh I don't think you'd be even close. Also, the goal with a flush here shouldn't be to steal pots but to get paid for value.

teebahnoo said:

I do not bet the turn here after c-bet I would be overbetting my hand. I was ready to give up cause most of the time villain has Kx or set.

Villain called the c-bet so they must’ve had some equity at that point, right? And with a monster made hand they would be more aggressive wouldn’t they? At that SPR they would be much more eager to build the pot.

Click to expand...

Just saying I'm not nitpicking just trying to help out here

But your statement that V has Kx or a set here most of the time is far from true. As far as Kx goes, yes you will get plenty of calls from that (though also some raises for value). KK shouldn't be in his range, so all we got left is 88 and 44 for sets.

Meanwhile, any 8x is calling your bet, a bunch of 4x (though not all at a half pot bet). Some Ace high, literally any backdoor straight and flush combo (Tc9c just to name one). And some other random floats. A bunch of which we can get rid of with a second barrel. For which our hand is an excellent candidate since we have little to no SDV and we picked up equity on the turn.

As a bit of honest advice. The way you talk about the game makes me think you're in over your head. I'd move down in stakes (and by a lot). Nothing wrong with getting some practice there, study a lot, build up a roll and then get ready to crush the higher stakes.

I'm not sure if I can beat the >$100 MTTs comfortably myself tbh (probably not, and I'm certainly not rolled for it). Then again, if money is no object who cares ofcourse. Either way good luck mate

Nr98 said:

As a bit of honest advice. The way you talk about the game makes me think you're in over your head. I'd move down in stakes (and by a lot). Nothing wrong with getting some practice there, study a lot, build up a roll and then get ready to crush the higher stakes.

Click to expand...

Here is an article about, why every online player should start in the micro stakes:

https://www.blackrain79.com/

fundiver199 said:

Hero checked back turn, which indicate, he is either giving up or has some kind of marginal showdown value. AX with a bad kicker, KX, 99-QQ, 8X. And if you are trying to get value from that kind of hand, it makes sense to pick a small size. So I dont nessesarely read this as particularly weak, and when its followed up by a 3-bet jam, it is in fact an extremely strong line.

I still feel, we kind of have to call though, because as Jon Poker say, how many better flushes does he even have, that get to the river this way? Q8 and J8 makes sense, but that is just about it. So if there is any chance, he is ever turning a hand like KQ with the nut flush blocker into a bluff, we have to call and hope to catch that big bluff.

Click to expand...

Yeah I see what you say, maybe this is the case.
But less than half pot? And the pot is small too. This villain is weird for sure.
The check back on flop can indicate pot control with a hand like K10/KJ.
Even a hand like A10 (which called the flop for some reason) could bet bigger on the river for value.
It's that 3bet jam in combination with the small bet that lags my brain completely.
If I can compare it with real life emotions, I would say that villain looks like he 's angry lol.
I'm really curious about the results on this hand.

Nr98 said:

What do you mean with overvaluing the hand on the turn? What exactly are we overvaluing when we bet ten high?

Click to expand...

I don't bet the T high there but the range. At flop the entire range has some equity but the effective hand not so much. I think in this spot we lose very often to Ax and Kx but in the same time we want the BB (which has the second stack size btw) to fold junks on flop, therefore the bet size. Yes turn is a scare card but what hands would call 3/4 flop bet? It's scarier for us than them

teebahnoo said:

I don't bet the T high there but the range. At flop the entire range has some equity but the effective hand not so much. I think in this spot we lose very often to Ax and Kx but in the same time we want the BB (which has the second stack size btw) to fold junks on flop, therefore the bet size. Yes turn is a scare card but what hands would call 3/4 flop bet? It's scarier for us than them

Click to expand...

We have a decent amount of Ax that wants to be betting flop too, as well as some Kx that wants to go for a second street of value and check back river IP.

And if you're going for a range bet on the flop I'd size down on such a static flop IP, 55% is a bit of an awkward size imo.

Still, as played, this deepstacked he should have plenty of floats if he is a decent player. We fold a big portion of those hands out. Plus if we get some Kx to fold on this turn that's a massive win. This is about as good of a second barrel hand as you'll ever get.

But hey we can agree to have a different perspective on this, either way always good to hear someone else's view. I can learn a thing or two myself as well from discussing this.

Nr98 said:

Just saying I'm not nitpicking just trying to help out here

But your statement that V has Kx or a set here most of the time is far from true. As far as Kx goes, yes you will get plenty of calls from that (though also some raises for value). KK shouldn't be in his range, so all we got left is 88 and 44 for sets.

Meanwhile, any 8x is calling your bet, a bunch of 4x (though not all at a half pot bet). Some Ace high, literally any backdoor straight and flush combo (Tc9c just to name one). And some other random floats. A bunch of which we can get rid of with a second barrel. For which our hand is an excellent candidate since we have little to no SDV and we picked up equity on the turn.

As a bit of honest advice. The way you talk about the game makes me think you're in over your head. I'd move down in stakes (and by a lot). Nothing wrong with getting some practice there, study a lot, build up a roll and then get ready to crush the higher stakes.

I'm not sure if I can beat the >$100 MTTs comfortably myself tbh (probably not, and I'm certainly not rolled for it). Then again, if money is no object who cares ofcourse. Either way good luck mate

Click to expand...

No offense taken, your advice is well received! This is the Sunday Million on pokerstars and this particular game was from a satellite into which I got after winning a ticket on spin & go. I actually have a bunch of Sunday Millions tickets won this way (spins and then satellite), including one for the big event this weekend. As for results, I recently placed 3d for $15k on a 109 bounty builder in winter series (also through satellite). I have more caches in medium and high buyins than the lower ones, simply because there's no poker down there.

I posted this hand because the villain's line is so weird. I do not seek to change mine, except for the minor adjustments I mention in the other posts.

About the other stuff you say, I favor population tendencies over the theoretical approach. I stick to my opinion that villain has a lot of Kx on the flop and all the sets on the river, including the Ks because this is what they usually show. But again, I'm coming here for different opinions and I thank you very much for yours

teebahnoo said:

No offense taken, your advice is well received! This is the Sunday Million on PokerStars and this particular game was from a satellite into which I got after winning a ticket on spin & go. I actually have a bunch of Sunday Millions tickets won this way (spins and then satellite), including one for the big event this weekend. As for results, I recently placed 3d for $15k on a 109 bounty builder in winter series (also through satellite). I have more caches in medium and high buyins than the lower ones, simply because there's no poker down there.

I posted this hand because the villain's line is so weird. I do not seek to change mine, except for the minor adjustments I mention in the other posts.

About the other stuff you say, I favor population tendencies over the theoretical approach. I stick to my opinion that villain has a lot of Kx on the flop and all the sets on the river, including the Ks because this is what they usually show. But again, I'm coming here for different opinions and I thank you very much for yours

Click to expand...

Completely agree on the last statement. If you have a good database to back that up that ofcourse trumps pure theory. I doubt your average $109 Mtt reg only floats with Kx and sets there (some of his value hands that could take this specific line are definitely Qs8s, Js8s, QsJs just to name a few).

Though don't get me wrong I think that you're totally right that V has a plenty of Kx on the flop. But I can't imagine the population being bad enough to be folding all 8x and reasonable floats on the flop in a tourney of this buyin. But if you do have a solid database that says otherwise, oufcourse I can't argue with that as I don't have that yet at this stage.

moulan7 said:

It's that 3bet jam in combination with the small bet that lags my brain completely.
If I can compare it with real life emotions, I would say that villain looks like he 's angry lol.
I'm really curious about the results on this hand.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's what hit me as well. They showed the nuts Q high flush.

Yesterday I faced a similar odd line from a boat, me with the straight. For some reason, they just don't go for value in an obvious way when deep stacked, choosing to lose value often but to hit big sometimes. I guess if you think from a tournament perspective, this strategy makes sense so I'm inclined to scale down the value of the second-best hand and just call in this spots.

Nr98 said:

I doubt your average $109 Mtt reg only floats with Kx and sets there (some of his value hands that could take this specific line are definitely Qs8s, Js8s, QsJs just to name a few).

Click to expand...

Yes, that's what actually happened - Qxs. But when we talk about the line, the piece that's so very confusing is what happened on the river. So, if I just call in this spots, wouldn't it be better? They definitely look to check-raise except they replace "check" with "bet small to look weak".

teebahnoo said:

Yes, that's what actually happened - Qxs. But when we talk about the line, the piece that's so very confusing is what happened on the river. So, if I just call in this spots, wouldn't it be better? They definitely look to check-raise except they replace "check" with "bet small to look weak".

Click to expand...

I actually really like V's bet. On one hand a lot of weaker hands that may check back are calling the bet, whereas the occasional flushes/ set of 44 etc. are raising you for sure (plus it also induces a lot of bluffs).

As for the correct river play for you I'm not too sure. I'd like to see a solver on that one. We definitely want to be raising, but probably a smaller sizing (not 7.5x). As for if to call a 3bet after a normal sized bet idk. As played we should be folding for sure imo (no way we're good here often enough against a 3bet jam to a 7.5x).

teebahnoo said:

Yes, that's what hit me as well. They showed the nuts Q high flush.

Yesterday I faced a similar odd line from a boat, me with the straight. For some reason, they just don't go for value in an obvious way when deep stacked, choosing to lose value often but to hit big sometimes. I guess if you think from a tournament perspective, this strategy makes sense so I'm inclined to scale down the value of the second-best hand and just call in this spots.

Click to expand...

That's tough and still weird.

Hmm interesting what you have observed, I 'll keep that in mind.
Still I think that we have to raise with nut type hands (like in this hand) and if they go for reraise we have a tough decision to make (or an easy one).
In any case you were in a spot where you can't fold, I guess you have to pay that almost everytime it happens. Sometimes they will have it, sometimes they won't.

Nr98 said:

(no way we're good here often enough against a 3bet jam to a 7.5x).

Click to expand...

Yeah that's the awkward part of this hand, his shove after the large bet.
But is very hard to find the fold button with the 3rd nut backdoor flush.

moulan7 said:

Yeah that's the awkward part of this hand, his shove after the large bet.
But is very hard to find the fold button with the 3rd nut backdoor flush.

Click to expand...

Good quote that I heard recently: "That we're betting a hand for value doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to lay it down facing aggression" don't remember from whom (may have been BenCB) but it's such a mental mistake that a lot of players got.

Facing the jam we have to call 14332 to win 40564 which means we need to win about 26% of the time to break even. Do I see Villain rock up here with more then 25% of bluffs as a 3bet river jam if he's facing such a weird line? Probably not imo.

Nr98 said:

Good quote that I heard recently: "That we're betting a hand for value doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to lay it down facing aggression" don't remember from whom (may have been BenCB but it's such a mental mistake that a lot of players got.

Facing the jam we have to call 14332 to win 40564 which means we need to win about 26% of the time to break even. Do I see Villain rock up here with more then 25% of bluffs as a 3bet river jam if he's facing such a weird line? Probably not imo.

Click to expand...

I have to agree, very true.

Nr98 said:

As for the correct river play for you I'm not too sure. I'd like to see a solver on that one. We definitely want to be raising, but probably a smaller sizing (not 7.5x).

Click to expand...

I think, a raise to around 5k insted of 11k would have been fine. We dont have the nuts here, so no point in using a polarizing overbet. We want him to make a hero call with KQ, which he was betting for thin value etc. When he then 3-bet, we can base our decision on his sizing. If he push all in, maybe we can find a fold, but its pretty rough. If he choose a smaller sizing, we probably have to call, but at least we lose less. At the end of the day this is a huge cooler, and there is no way, we can avoid losing a lot of chips in this hand.