$10 NL HE 6-max: 10$ NLHE 6max - miss play vs check raise allin on the river?

[valduer]

Game

Hold'em

Game Format

No Limit

Stakes

$.05/$.10

Table Format

6-max (6 seats)

VP$IP

34

PFR

18

AF

44

Currency

$

Villain Stats (VPIP/PFR/AF): 34/18/44
Im curious how you would have reacted vs this CR on the river and whether you would have folded. Or whether you would have played it differently on the previous streets. Any input is appreciated

GGPoker HH NL Hold'em $0.05 / $0.10 -#HD1214342105

PokerCraft ValDuer Hand History

gg.gl

 

[Station_Master]

I think the hand was played fine up until the river call.

When villains take this trappy line and suddenly put in a huge river raise it's almost always the nuts, so I would make an exploitative fold here, even though I hate folding flushes

 

[fundiver199]

Preflop
Standard defend.

Flop
You could lead out here, but going for a check-raise is also fine, if that was your plan. Unfortunately he check back.

Turn
You have to start building this pot now, so leading out is fine. The good news is, this looks much weaker than, if you lead on the flop. Sizing wise I would go a bit larger though. It might seem insignificant, but if you bet 4BB instead of 3BB, then pot will be 13,5BB instead of 11BB, and this allow you to put in a larger bet on the river.

River
Clearly betting for value again, and now I am ok with your sizing. It does not look like, he has much, so you want to lay a price, he can convince himself to call. Now he jam, and this is frankly just bizarre. You are only getting around 1,5:1, so need to be good 40% of the time. I am not thrilled, he jammed, because obviously he could have a K or Q high flush. But he did not even start with a full 100 BB stack, and ultimately I think, this hand is just to high in your range to fold.

Results
This hand was pretty weird, because the opponent slowplayed until the river and then put in a huge raise. But if he dont play his hand like a moron, all the money goes in on the earlier streets. So its not like, he won anything extra by taking this weird line. And for that reason this is not a hand, I would beat myself up over.

 

[valduer]

Thanks for the in depth analyses!
I was pretty close to folding, but I feel like I generally do that too much vs donk bluff bets otr and as fundiver mentioned he wasn't 100bb deep.
I guess for a full stack CRAI there I would have to make the fold.

Also I think this slow play until the river from villain does make little sense. Its unlikely but he still could.be outdrawn by a full house

 

[Station_Master]

Also bear in mind as he is opening from Button he should have all the suited Kx so that's 8 nut combos you lose to and probably about 6 Qx combos. I can see the argument for being high up in range and not wanting to fold, but if so I would favour you Q high flushes (and K high of course)

 

[fundiver199]

Also bear in mind as he is opening from Button he should have all the suited Kx so that's 8 nut combos you lose to and probably about 6 Qx combos. I can see the argument for being high up in range and not wanting to fold, but if so I would favour you Q high flushes (and K high of course)

Actually there are only 7 combos of KXs, because 5 flush cards are spoken for. And not everyone will open K3s or K2s even from BTN. As for QXs it makes even less sense to take this line, than it does for KXs, and here we should mostly be looking at QT and Q9 so only two more combos. Regardless of the exact number of combos, we lose to, its not many, and the opponent did not even start with a full stack. So folding a J high flush here is a very big exploit, which I would be hesitant to make. If someone is bad enough to play the nut flush like this, they are typically also bad enough to do other silly things. Like getting to the river with 22 and then massively overvalue it, when they river a set.

 

[Station_Master]

Actually there are only 7 combos of KXs, because 5 flush cards are spoken for. And not everyone will open K3s or K2s even from BTN. As for QXs it makes even less sense to take this line, than it does for KXs, and here we should mostly be looking at QT and Q9 so only two more combos. Regardless of the exact number of combos, we lose to, its not many, and the opponent did not even start with a full stack. So folding a J high flush here is a very big exploit, which I would be hesitant to make. If someone is bad enough to play the nut flush like this, they are typically also bad enough to do other silly things. Like getting to the river with 22 and then massively overvalue it, when they river a set.

Good point I mis counted it's only 7 combos. K2s and K3s are meant to be opens from button (as is Q3s+) but its certainly possible not all players will. And you are right Qx might not take this line, but then neither would sets.

I still lean to an exploitative fold as I think few villains will take off suit K spades hands and bluff them for a huge shove, especially as many have showdown value.

 

[Aballinamion]

Villain Stats (VPIP/PFR/AF): 34/18/44
Im curious how you would have reacted vs this CR on the river and whether you would have folded. Or whether you would have played it differently on the previous streets. Any input is appreciated

GGPoker HH NL Hold'em $0.05 / $0.10 -#HD1214342105

PokerCraft ValDuer Hand History

gg.gl

View attachment 330669

Thanks for sharing your hand. I would love to recommend CardsChat hand converter, it turns reading easier.
Considering this is still a micro-stakes game I’m not on board with the preflop action: sure, we can be calling versus BU with good hands such as J7s, Q8s, T6s, etc but these are complicated combos and hard to play, for they will miss the flop often.
I would like more to 3-bet preflop and fold to 4-bet just in case.
As played, fine, we also should be defending our blinds from time to time.
On the flop is fine to check because we flopped the third nut flush and we would love villain to bluff it. However leading is also a good move, to try to extract value of losing hands and potential draws.
On the turn we bet... 3 blinds??? I think this is too small, we haven’t build the pot OTF so here we could’ve bet more to try to extract more value on the river.
OTR we bet small again and villain pushed right off the bat: now we must only consider which hands could be have playing like these and consider the power of our own range before calling.
It’s hard to fold this jam because villain is loose and could have worst flushes in his range, plus another chunk of dominated hands. Calling is fine, but suspicious: we’ve bet too small on the turn and river and villain could simply be calling with hands that are not the best for this board configuration.
That being said, at the micros, I would’ve 3-bet preflop, c-bet on the flop to 1/3, 1/2 pot, and double barrel the turn for a larger sizing as well:
I like to be the one jamming on the turn/river, not calling jams.

 

[valduer]

Thanks for sharing your hand. I would love to recommend CardsChat hand converter, it turns reading easier.
Considering this is still a micro-stakes game I’m not on board with the preflop action: sure, we can be calling versus BU with good hands such as J7s, Q8s, T6s, etc but these are complicated combos and hard to play, for they will miss the flop often.
I would like more to 3-bet preflop and fold to 4-bet just in case.
As played, fine, we also should be defending our blinds from time to time.
On the flop is fine to check because we flopped the third nut flush and we would love villain to bluff it. However leading is also a good move, to try to extract value of losing hands and potential draws.
On the turn we bet... 3 blinds??? I think this is too small, we haven’t build the pot OTF so here we could’ve bet more to try to extract more value on the river.
OTR we bet small again and villain pushed right off the bat: now we must only consider which hands could be have playing like these and consider the power of our own range before calling.
It’s hard to fold this jam because villain is loose and could have worst flushes in his range, plus another chunk of dominated hands. Calling is fine, but suspicious: we’ve bet too small on the turn and river and villain could simply be calling with hands that are not the best for this board configuration.
That being said, at the micros, I would’ve 3-bet preflop, c-bet on the flop to 1/3, 1/2 pot, and double barrel the turn for a larger sizing as well:
I like to be the one jamming on the turn/river, not calling jams.

thanks alot for your insights and the pointer regarding the hand converter. I'll use it for the next posts

 

[Station_Master]

Thanks for sharing your hand. I would love to recommend CardsChat hand converter, it turns reading easier.
Considering this is still a micro-stakes game I’m not on board with the preflop action: sure, we can be calling versus BU with good hands such as J7s, Q8s, T6s, etc but these are complicated combos and hard to play, for they will miss the flop often.
I would like more to 3-bet preflop and fold to 4-bet just in case.
As played, fine, we also should be defending our blinds from time to time.
On the flop is fine to check because we flopped the third nut flush and we would love villain to bluff it. However leading is also a good move, to try to extract value of losing hands and potential draws.
On the turn we bet... 3 blinds??? I think this is too small, we haven’t build the pot OTF so here we could’ve bet more to try to extract more value on the river.
OTR we bet small again and villain pushed right off the bat: now we must only consider which hands could be have playing like these and consider the power of our own range before calling.
It’s hard to fold this jam because villain is loose and could have worst flushes in his range, plus another chunk of dominated hands. Calling is fine, but suspicious: we’ve bet too small on the turn and river and villain could simply be calling with hands that are not the best for this board configuration.
That being said, at the micros, I would’ve 3-bet preflop, c-bet on the flop to 1/3, 1/2 pot, and double barrel the turn for a larger sizing as well:
I like to be the one jamming on the turn/river, not calling jams.

Good point about 3 betting pre, which is actual what GTO charts say to do most of the time with this hand. It's easy to forget this type of hand should be 3bet (and I bet most people dont)

 

[fundiver199]

K2s and K3s are meant to be opens from button (as is Q3s+) but its certainly possible not all players will.

There are many different preflop charts flowing around on the internet, and some are for other situations than a 100BB non-ante cash game. I think, its fair to say, that some players will open these hands, and some will fold them, and neither are making any real mistake. The EV is so close to zero, it simply does not matter. So when assigning an opponent a range, its probably most fair to give them a reduced weight like 50%, because we have no idea, if they are in there or not.

And you are right Qx might not take this line, but then neither would sets.

When the opponent massively turns up his aggression on the river, he is saying, that the river card improved his hand. The hands, that improved, are 22 and 53, so those are the only hands, where his line make any sort of sense. A flush should never play this way, because the flush was there already on the flop, and by playing it like this he get as little value as possible. However if a flush slowplay, its usually the nut flush, since other flushes need to be more concerned about a fourth flush card rolling off. So I think, its fair to say, this is either a poorly played nut flush, an equally poorly played 22 or 53, or some wild bluff. Its probably never the Q high flush but also not a T high or lower flush.

I still lean to an exploitative fold as I think few villains will take off suit K spades hands and bluff them for a huge shove, especially as many have showdown value.

I kind of agree, that we likely wont see many bluffs here. But I do think, we will see some bluffs and also some overplayed stuff like the 22 or 53, which just "got there". Ultimately its difficult to completely abstract from the results, when they are shared. So OP should consider to find the hand history and use CCs hand history converter next time rather than posted these screenshots from GG Poker. Or if its possible maybe edit out the result?

 

[puzzlefish]

For some reason it's almost universal that nobody bets the flop when it is a monotone board. Ok, maybe this helps disguise the strength of made flushes because all those players know it's highly unlikely for two players to flop a flush together so they don't want to scare off any action and are trying to convince that they don't actually have a flush.

Then there is action on the turn and again it's probably unwise for your villain to raise the bet which would scare off any weak hands that think they have equity that may still bet on the river.

The whole point of villain's play here is to confuse you on the river after missing out on most of the value of the nuts from the flop and turn. But it only works when it's a cooler situation or a super fishy opponent that calls this jam with a set or maybe two pairs that just can't get away. As mentioned before, chips could have already been in on previous streets if the hand was played correctly. It's just a cooler we get ourselves into when we play for stacks without having the best flush.

 

[John A]

General rule, if you lose to a flush over flush at micro stakes, don't sweat it. Meaning, there's probably 20 or more hands in this same session that are more important to analyze and understand than this one. You had a reasonably high flush, it's strange that your opponent waited until the river and then jammed... with some info you could make an exploitable fold, but calling isn't the worst thing here.

 

[fundiver199]

I have never worked with solvers before, but just for fun I plugged this hand into GTO Wizard, which gives you a few free hands per day. And the solver does actually check back the nut flush on this flop around 1/3 of the time. And when it does this, it mostly (85%) just call the turn bet and nearly always (98%) jam over the river bet. So while it seems like a strange line from Villain, it is actually "solver approved".

Also the solver does a lot of turn and river checking with Heros hand, even after the flop goes check-check. I guess, its because, its concerned about protecting its checking range, and because checking is supposed to induce bluffs. The solver does not fold to a river jam though. Not even though it calculates with 100BB stacks, whereas in this hand it was only 60BB effective. So from a GTO point of view at least the result is just a standard cooler. But the way, these flopped flushes are played by the solver, involve an amount of slowplaying from both players, which at least to me is a bit surpricing

 

[valduer]

I have never worked with solvers before, but just for fun I plugged this hand into GTO Wizard, which gives you a few free hands per day. And the solver does actually check back the nut flush on this flop around 1/3 of the time. And when it does this, it mostly (85%) just call the turn bet and nearly always (98%) jam over the river bet. So while it seems like a strange line from Villain, it is actually "solver approved".

Also the solver does a lot of turn and river checking with Heros hand, even after the flop goes check-check. I guess, its because, its concerned about protecting its checking range, and because checking is supposed to induce bluffs. The solver does not fold to a river jam though. Not even though it calculates with 100BB stacks, whereas in this hand it was only 60BB effective. So from a GTO point of view at least the result is just a standard cooler. But the way, these flopped flushes are played by the solver, involve an amount of slowplaying from both players, which at least to me is a bit surpricing

Yeah I wouldn't have expected that either, guess this line is solver and result approved

 

[puzzlefish]

I have never worked with solvers before, but just for fun I plugged this hand into GTO Wizard, which gives you a few free hands per day. And the solver does actually check back the nut flush on this flop around 1/3 of the time. And when it does this, it mostly (85%) just call the turn bet and nearly always (98%) jam over the river bet. So while it seems like a strange line from Villain, it is actually "solver approved".

Also the solver does a lot of turn and river checking with Heros hand, even after the flop goes check-check. I guess, its because, its concerned about protecting its checking range, and because checking is supposed to induce bluffs. The solver does not fold to a river jam though. Not even though it calculates with 100BB stacks, whereas in this hand it was only 60BB effective. So from a GTO point of view at least the result is just a standard cooler. But the way, these flopped flushes are played by the solver, involve an amount of slowplaying from both players, which at least to me is a bit surpricing

Kind of makes you wonder how many players are simultaneously running a solver while playing.

 

[Aballinamion]

Kind of makes you wonder how many players are simultaneously running a solver while playing.

This is cheating. And there are ways to know if a player is using a solver or any third party softwares. The same way chess rooms know if players are using engines such as Stockfish.

 

[puzzlefish]

This is cheating. And there are ways to know if a player is using a solver or any third party softwares. The same way chess rooms know if players are using engines such as Stockfish.

How would you know if they use a separate device to plug in the hand as they play?

 

[Aballinamion]

How would you know if they use a separate device to plug in the hand as they play?

I have no idea mate! But if some player starts to play close to perfection, the software will identify this behavior, even if the cheater is using some unplugged device.
Why don’t you try yourself to use an unplugged solver device while running online tables? just a joke here, don’t get me wrong, no offense given.

 

[puzzlefish]

I have no idea mate! But if some player starts to play close to perfection, the software will identify this behavior, even if the cheater is using some unplugged device.
Why don’t you try yourself to use an unplugged solver device while running online tables? just a joke here, don’t get me wrong, no offense given.

That's fine and no offense taken. I just doubt that it's as easy to catch as you think.

 

[fundiver199]

I dought the Villain in this hand is using solvers at all, since he is playing 10NL and did not even start with a full stack. The GG Poker build in HUD also show, that he is playing more hands than recommended and with a much to wide gap between VPIP and PFR. So this is a recreational player, who just happened to take a line, which most regs at these stakes wont take, but which a solver will actually take some percentage of the time.

RTA is clearly an issue in online poker, but in my opinion not at stakes like 10NL. At these stakes all serious players multitable, and then you dont have time to sit and plug in hands in solvers or other software while playing them. Also a program like this does not directly tell you what to do. It can tell you what to not do (like folding the J high flush on the river), but if more options are given, you still need to choose between them. And if you always choose the most common one, you are not actually playing GTO, since randomization is a big part of GTO.

If this case for instance Hero is supposed to check 85% on the turn, and when he does bet, the preferred sizing is somewhat larger than, what he used. So if Hero always check, this is closer to the GTO strategy, but its still not GTO, and Heros betting range will likely not contain enough strong hands. So for RTA to be really usefull, it would need to directly tell you, what to do in this exact hand. Which is basically the same as a "bot" with the only difference being, the human player manually takes the action at the table.