C
c0rnBr34d
Visionary
Silver Level
PokerStars - $1 NL (6 max) - Holdem - 6 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4
Hero (BB): 112.55 BB
UTG: 116.68 BB
MP: 100 BB
CO: 62.5 BB
BTN: 234.89 BB
SB: 112.03 BB
SB posts SB 0.5 BB, Hero posts BB 1 BB
Pre Flop: (pot: 1.5 BB) Hero has A♣ K♠
fold, MP raises to 2.25 BB, fold, fold, SB raises to 5.7 BB, Hero raises to 17 BB, fold, SB calls 11.3 BB
Flop: (36.25 BB, 2 players) 3♥ 5♣ 9♥
SB bets 17.22 BB, Hero calls 17.22 BB
Turn: (70.69 BB, 2 players) 4♦
SB checks, Hero bets 35 BB, SB calls 35 BB
River: (140.69 BB, 2 players) 8♣
SB checks, Hero bets 43.33 BB and is all-in, SB calls 42.81 BB and is all-in
Ok, so Hero looks fishy at this table because we have two regs that 3 bet a ton and have adjusted to 4 betting wider but have not shown down any light 4 bets. Also have been set mining quite a bit in the small 88 hand sample so this could effect how V plays. V is also looking fishy over an even smaller sample of 24 hands.
I'm not happy with my post flop line, particularly bet sizing. I can see going smaller flop and turn to jam river or slightly larger flop and jamming turn but the middle of the road line seems bad with no fold equity on the river. I WOULD do this with KK+ though.
From a fundamental theorem of poker perspective, if we can see V's hand, aren't we playing it in similar fashion? I'd be fine if we got shown TT here but how does this guy stack off with bottom pair in a cold 4 bet pot over 3 streets? I've never in my life called a cold 4 bet OOP with A3o, and I've had some pretty spewy hands. V was legit in the tank every street post flop and it obviously wasn't Hollywood. I may have given up if we got flatted more quickly.
H - VP 29 / PR 20 / 3B 6 / AF 2 / 4B 33 (88 hands, so may look a bit more drastic to V)
V - VP 54 / PR 25 / 3B 0 / AF 4 (24 hands)
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4
Hero (BB): 112.55 BB
UTG: 116.68 BB
MP: 100 BB
CO: 62.5 BB
BTN: 234.89 BB
SB: 112.03 BB
SB posts SB 0.5 BB, Hero posts BB 1 BB
Pre Flop: (pot: 1.5 BB) Hero has A♣ K♠
fold, MP raises to 2.25 BB, fold, fold, SB raises to 5.7 BB, Hero raises to 17 BB, fold, SB calls 11.3 BB
Flop: (36.25 BB, 2 players) 3♥ 5♣ 9♥
SB bets 17.22 BB, Hero calls 17.22 BB
Turn: (70.69 BB, 2 players) 4♦
SB checks, Hero bets 35 BB, SB calls 35 BB
River: (140.69 BB, 2 players) 8♣
SB checks, Hero bets 43.33 BB and is all-in, SB calls 42.81 BB and is all-in
Hero shows A♣ K♠ (High Card, Ace)
(Pre 74%, Flop 15%, Turn 11%)
SB shows 3♣ A♦ (One Pair, Threes)
(Pre 26%, Flop 85%, Turn 89%)
SB wins 223.31 BB
Rake paid 3 BB
(Pre 74%, Flop 15%, Turn 11%)
SB shows 3♣ A♦ (One Pair, Threes)
(Pre 26%, Flop 85%, Turn 89%)
SB wins 223.31 BB
Rake paid 3 BB
Ok, so Hero looks fishy at this table because we have two regs that 3 bet a ton and have adjusted to 4 betting wider but have not shown down any light 4 bets. Also have been set mining quite a bit in the small 88 hand sample so this could effect how V plays. V is also looking fishy over an even smaller sample of 24 hands.
I'm not happy with my post flop line, particularly bet sizing. I can see going smaller flop and turn to jam river or slightly larger flop and jamming turn but the middle of the road line seems bad with no fold equity on the river. I WOULD do this with KK+ though.
From a fundamental theorem of poker perspective, if we can see V's hand, aren't we playing it in similar fashion? I'd be fine if we got shown TT here but how does this guy stack off with bottom pair in a cold 4 bet pot over 3 streets? I've never in my life called a cold 4 bet OOP with A3o, and I've had some pretty spewy hands. V was legit in the tank every street post flop and it obviously wasn't Hollywood. I may have given up if we got flatted more quickly.
H - VP 29 / PR 20 / 3B 6 / AF 2 / 4B 33 (88 hands, so may look a bit more drastic to V)
V - VP 54 / PR 25 / 3B 0 / AF 4 (24 hands)