$10 NLHE 6-max: TPTK vs aggression

[Noroma]

Pretty aggressive table but didn't have too much info on villain.

fold around
btn Hero (As Qc): Raises 2.5 BB
Sb fold
BB Calls

Flop (5.5BB) ** Qh 10h 7d **
BB Checks
hero bets 3.9BB
bb calls 3.9BB


Turn (13.3BB) ** Qh 10h 7d 2d **
Hero bets 9.5BB
Villain raises to 25.3BB
Hero ??

 

[fundiver199]

Preflop and flop
Pretty standard not much to say here.

Turn
Betting here is a pretty standard TAG strategy, but I would not be surpriced, if solvers wanted us to check TPTK a decent amount of the time. The reason is, it sucks getting raised, which is exactly, what happen. We did bet though, and I would also do that as a default, we did get raised, and now we need to make a decision.

Its a classic Baluga theorem spot: "If you are heads up and facing a raise on the turn, you should reevaluate the strenght of any one pair hand." However in this particular situation, its very unlikely, 2d made him a hand stronger than one pair. Did he call us on the flop with 22, probably not. And even if he did, its only 3 combos. Call us preflop with Q2 or T2, also probably not. And if he did, probably only the suited combos, which again are not very many.

So he is really saying, that he sandbagged two pair or a set on the flop. And on such a drawheavy board I think, most people would fastplay their big hands and raise right there on the flop. So what this looks most like to me is a draw, most likely backdoor diamonds. And therefore I am calling this all day and also calling again on most river cards, that dont complete the backdoor flush.

I quoted the Baluga theorem, because I think, its an important one, but I also think, online games have gotten much more aggressive, since it was written. And I think, that if you bet-fold TPTK on the turn, you are just bet-folding way to much, especially since he is also giving you a pretty good price of more than 3:1.

 

[Hermus]

I see "solvers check back the turn", I click solve.

GTO+ actually bets the turn at a 100% frequency with AQo (the flop strategy is mixed so this amounts to about half of the available combos), but only because the 2d is a huge blank for the range that GTO+ assumes for the OOP player. Because the OOP player in the solved solution check-raises the flop with sets, two-pair, overpairs, and a lot of flush draws, the flop action going check, bet, call gives the OOP a super poor range. For reference, if the IP player bets the turn, OOP only check-raises 2% of its range.

If all the super-value combos and the flushdraw semi-bluff combos survive in the OOP range to the turn, the solver likes checking back a little more, but still bets the majority of the time, and plays a mixed strategy (+- 70/30 call/fold) when facing a check-raise.


All in all, I don't really see the GTO solution having huge value here. It all comes down to if villain slowplays sets and two-pair and if villain is showing up with bluffs on the turn (mostly flush draws maybe 98 I would think). Against an overly tight player, I would probably fold. Against an overly aggressive player, I would call it down. Pretty weird spot because in both cases villain played the flop suboptimally making it difficult to pin him down to a specific range.

 

[fundiver199]

I see "solvers check back the turn", I click solve.

GTO+ actually bets the turn at a 100% frequency with AQo (the flop strategy is mixed so this amounts to about half of the available combos), but only because the 2d is a huge blank for the range that GTO+ assumes for the OOP player. Because the OOP player in the solved solution check-raises the flop with sets, two-pair, overpairs, and a lot of flush draws, the flop action going check, bet, call gives the OOP a super poor range. For reference, if the IP player bets the turn, OOP only check-raises 2% of its range.

If all the super-value combos and the flushdraw semi-bluff combos survive in the OOP range to the turn, the solver likes checking back a little more, but still bets the majority of the time, and plays a mixed strategy (+- 70/30 call/fold) when facing a check-raise.


All in all, I don't really see the GTO solution having huge value here. It all comes down to if villain slowplays sets and two-pair and if villain is showing up with bluffs on the turn (mostly flush draws maybe 98 I would think). Against an overly tight player, I would probably fold. Against an overly aggressive player, I would call it down. Pretty weird spot because in both cases villain played the flop suboptimally making it difficult to pin him down to a specific range.

Thanks for providing us with the solved solution, and it makes sense, that TPTK is strong enough to bet for value on this complete brick turn. I think, the key take-away from the solve is, that Villain is not supposed to ever check-raise the turn. Which leave two different options:

1) He is over slowplaying the flop
2) He is over bluffing the turn

This is basically, what I wrote in my analysis already, and I feel, the solver confirm it. Most nits are panicking about getting drawn out on and will often miss value by fastplaying to much on wet boards. So even if this opponent was a nit, I dont think, he would have check-called the flop with TT, 77 or QT, which are his most likely nut hands. I think, we would have heard from those hands in the form of a very large raise.

In top of that this is 10NL 6-max, and Hero describe the table dynamics as "aggressive". Which brings me back to option number 2, which is draws. And there are just a million of them. Hearts, diamonds, KJ, J9, 98. These can all be in his range, and we dont even block a single of them with AsQc.

So I am definitely not folding here, and depending on the effective stack, which Hero did not give information about, I can even see this being a spot, where we simply jam it in his face and let him decide, if he wants to chase his draw with no implied odds on the river or fold and leave his equity in the pot.

 

[fundiver199]

Just one more quick addition. Hero said already, he had limited information on Villain, but if we do have information, ideally from HUD-stats, then this is a situation, where they would really matter. If the opponent is on the LAG or even maniac side of the spectrum with numbers like VPIP 28 / PFR 24 or maybe something even higher than that playing 4-handed, then I did the range analysis already.

This will often be a player, who have graduated from 2NL and 5NL and in the process learned, that draws can be played aggressively. But he have not yet learned the importance of balance, or it does not really matter at 10NL, because most opponents are not smart enough to figure it out, when he is overbluffing.

However if the opponent is on the more passive and fishy side of the spectrum with numbers like VPIP 42 / PFR 5, then its much more likely, he made a bad call pre with some ridiculous hand and sucked out on us by binking two pair on the turn. Like maybe T2 is his favourite hand, because its the "Doyle Brunson". Or he is playing 72 for LOLs, because he has seen the 72 game on TV poker.

Its also more likely, that he would check-call rather than check-raise his draws. So against that kind of opponent we are back to the Baluga theorem, where maybe we are not folding the turn getting such a great price, but we are not raising either, and we might lean more towards folding on the river, unless we improve.

 

[Noroma]

Great replies, thanks for the insight.
I’m not home right now, but I called and x of hearts fell on the river, and he bet something like 1/3 og 1/2 pot ehoch i called knowing I was probably beat. He slowplayed 77



EDIT: His effective stack was higher than mine, and mine was 100BB.
So I called the turn
River pot was 63BB: Qh 10h 7d 2d 9h
He bet 22BB
I called, he had 7s 7h

 

[fundiver199]

Thats definitely not one, I would beat myself up over. When I ranged him, I was even kind to give him TT, because in an aggressive shorthanded game against a BTN open, that hand will get 3-bet preflop the vast majority of the time. So you ran into pretty much the only set, he could have, on an extremely draw heavy board. If he only bet 22BB on the river, I would say, you lost the minimum in this hand.

 

[Noroma]

I remember almost laughing because the flush draw that I kind of put him on ended up being the one kind of saving me a lot of money. But thanks for the evaluation, you and hermus gave me some very insightful answers.