Villain is 19/15/3(%26), 3bets 5, so I believe he can flat some big pairs pf, but this is definitely set-mining territory for him too. He raises cbets around %5, big-ish sample.

I have a very aggro 27/25 image on this site (small player pool) but I'm not sure guys like this adjust at all.

Party Poker, $0.50/$1 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 5 Players
Hand History Converter by http://www.stoxpoker.com/

SB: $22.47 (22.5 bb)
BB: $122.38 (122.4 bb)
Hero (MP1): $193.44 (193.4 bb)
MP2: $106.29 (106.3 bb)
CO: $125.64 (125.6 bb)

Pre-Flop: Hero is MP1 with 8♣ T♣
Hero raises to $4, MP2 calls $4, CO calls $4, 2 folds

Flop: ($13.50) 8♦ 2♥ 4♣ (3 players)
Hero bets $8.50, MP2 calls $8.50, CO folds

Turn: ($30.50) T♥ (2 players)
Hero bets $21, MP2 raises to $60, Hero ...

Call me a nit but I fold here.
were hoping on JJ or QQ to decide the flop weren't worth a raise but the turn certainly is?

Villain's line suggests either an overpair or a set that's slowplayed the flop to me. Both of them probably see that turn card as being pretty safe.

His bet sizing on the turn is weird too - he's only got about $33 behind, so why didn't he just shove? It's saying to me he really wants a call and thought the extra might fold you out... again though, I think both overpairs and sets play this way against you.

IDK, I probably ship it on account of there's a lot more combos of overpairs than there are sets (24 vs 8 or something?), we crush the overpairs and if we do run into 22/44 we've still got a small four outs.

What OzExorcist said.

Well put, but I think I disagree that overpairs are more likely. We're relying on both the assumption that he'll flat them PF and that he'll baluga that board, which imo is less likely than him playing a set this way.

I could be wrong. I do agree it's pretty much exclusively sets/overpairs though.

Originally Posted by ChuckTs

Well put, but I think I disagree that overpairs are more likely. We're relying on both the assumption that he'll flat them PF and that he'll baluga that board, which imo is less likely than him playing a set this way.

I could be wrong. I do agree it's pretty much exclusively sets/overpairs though.

ye thats what i was thinking.
Sets are commonly played this way.
Overpairs being played like this are a much rarer site.

Highly doubt anybody plays a hand like JJ/QQ like this. It makes no sense, overrepping your hand and only get it in vs better, etc. He can't be semi bluffing with a draw. I think a fold is fine coz there is absolutely no reason for him to be raising a set on the flop since he has position on you and could get stacks in if you were to c/c both streets (and you'll definitely value cut yourself with an overpair on the turn), and more importantly probably, is that he'll flat a set trying to keep MP in the pot. No worse 2 pair hands in his range, overpairs should never do this, so a fold is fine.

Originally Posted by feitr

He can't be semi bluffing with a draw.

Uh. Why not? The strongest of which is Ah2h, Ah3h, Ah4h, Ah5h, but throw in a few other combos of heart-overcards (and 7h6h, 6h5h) that decide to take one off on the flop and you have a healthy amount of combos that might try to win without showdown. I don't think it's necessarily just overpairs and sets, but I think that it's sets rarely enough for us to continue.

Question: Is it ever a stone cold bluff? I mean, personally I don't peel flops without at least some way of improving on the turn (even if it's a backdoor draw) but if there's some chance he can have air on this board then that's a compelling argument for continuing as well.

As a corollary to that, if I decided to peel here with, say, Tc9c, I'd likely raise this turn like he did (with roughly the same sizing) with the intention of checking back the river.

I just don't think this type of player floats/raises turn with a backdoor draw. He raises cbets %5 flop and turn, ie he's extremely straight-forward.

Raising turn with T9 is extremely thin and I seriously doubt he raises that too, assuming he even floats it with CO behind him.

CO is a kinda fishy player who folds too often to cbets btw.

I don't really buy into the whole "oh well he might have just randomly decided to peel the flop w/J9h and may be semi bluffing". Pretty tiny part of villain's range and a very good chunk of the time villain is going to just call with those hands on the turn if he somehow has them. This isn't a loose passive guy who is going to float the flop with totally random hands that might have picked up big draws on the turn nor do i imagine that there are any of the Ah3h sort of hands that are even in his preflop range let along flop floating range. Floating flop with T9c and raising this turn is absolutely awful IMO unless you have an incredibly aggro dynamic.

If I was your opponent I would be raising you all day here with a wide range because you'd have a lot of 8x/air hands that perceive this as a good barrel card so I wouldn't think twice before stacking. Against this guy it's a snapfold though imo.

By the way, who's villain? Might be that I've played him.

Originally Posted by feitr

I don't really buy into the whole "oh well he might have just randomly decided to peel the flop w/J9h and may be semi bluffing". Pretty tiny part of villain's range and a very good chunk of the time villain is going to just call with those hands on the turn if he somehow has them. This isn't a loose passive guy who is going to float the flop with totally random hands that might have picked up big draws on the turn nor do i imagine that there are any of the Ah3h sort of hands that are even in his preflop range let along flop floating range. Floating flop with T9c and raising this turn is absolutely awful IMO unless you have an incredibly aggro dynamic.

Randomly decided? Totally random?

I don't know where this randomness comes from. I don't think it's far-fetched (or random!) to think that he'd peel this flop with 76h or 65h or A3h or occasionally slowplays aces or kings preflop. I'm saying that we need him to have very few combos of draws (played this way) and overpairs in order to make folding bad, and I don't think those are particularly difficult to come up with unless he never, ever plays anything but monsters this way.

His stats mirror mine. While that doesn't mean that he has to play like me postflop, I can at least definitely say that it doesn't have to mean that he can't bluff this turn.

As a side note, if he does flat Ah3h preflop (or any of the given AXs) then him floating the flop in position with an ace overcard, a gutshot and a backdoor flushdraw is certainly not strange.

But if you're folding T8 on this turn, I have to ask: Are you also folding 22?

This is gnuf (micro), FP.

I still think if he's the type to float something that picks up a draw on the turn that he's not the type to raise it. He basically only raises the nuts; %5 is nut territory, and I'm sure it's even more narrow given the baluga line.

I've raised in EP, cbet the flop into two people, and cbet a completely blank turn. This looks a lot to me like an overpair in his eyes, and I can't see him thinking he has any FE over me.

v good question with 22. It's almost the same hand, but on one hand T8 is now in villain's range and 22 is now out of it. Honestly I have no idea if that's enough to ship it.

I should probably point out that I don't hate folding by any means. I think it's a mistake (unless you have very good reasons to believe he'd never do this without a set) but it's not a significant mistake. I expect him to show up with a set the majority of the time, just not so often that calling won't be profitable.

Another thing to note is that he raised turn small instead of jamming. I'd think if he was raising a backdoor draw he'd jam instead of making a small inducing raise, no?

I dunno, I understand he doesn't have to be doing it very often for it to be profitable for us to ship it here, I just feel like he's never doing it.

Folding here is showing a ridiculous amount of respect for villain. It's possible that he deserves it, but i hate it. I'm with FP here and i do see a lot of draws in villain's range (if i was villain).

ok I understand you guys think there are draws in his range, but I've yet to hear your reasoning for it.

He's a pretty big nit who only raises cbets %5 of the time, and just beluga'd me in a 3-way raised pot after I've barreled twice, and he's raising a tiny enticing amount. I fail to see how there are 'lots' of draws in his range.

I think it's a pretty big mistake to fold here. I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the crucial fact that we are getting 2:1 on shoving here. Also, many have mentioned that it is more likely that he played a set this way than AA or KK, but let's not forget that combinatorially, AA and KK is twice as likely a holding for him to have as a set. And there is some chance of him having QQ or JJ. And there is some chance that he has 7h8h, 8h9h, or maybe Ah5h. And of course there's a small percentage chance that he's doing something completely out of character, like a complete pre-meditated bluff, or a float that improved on the turn, or a draw that doesn't seem like it should be in his preflop range. Statistics don't give you a set of rules that the guy plays by as if he were a computer program. They're just a generalization of his play, so the unexpected is always a factor.

I just don't see how a set would be a large enough portion of that range so that you don't have at least 34% equity. I think it's a close decision if you were getting 1:1 pot odds, but I say getting 2:1 it's a must-shove.

Originally Posted by F Paulsson

By the way, who's villain? Might be that I've played him.



Randomly decided? Totally random?

I don't know where this randomness comes from. I don't think it's far-fetched (or random!) to think that he'd peel this flop with 76h or 65h or A3h or occasionally slowplays aces or kings preflop. I'm saying that we need him to have very few combos of draws (played this way) and overpairs in order to make folding bad, and I don't think those are particularly difficult to come up with unless he never, ever plays anything but monsters this way.

His stats mirror mine. While that doesn't mean that he has to play like me postflop, I can at least definitely say that it doesn't have to mean that he can't bluff this turn.

As a side note, if he does flat Ah3h preflop (or any of the given AXs) then him floating the flop in position with an ace overcard, a gutshot and a backdoor flushdraw is certainly not strange.

But if you're folding T8 on this turn, I have to ask: Are you also folding 22?

Even if he does have the odd xhxh in his range, each one is only a single combo and this doesn't seem like the type of guy who would raise on the turn with a combo draw in position. fwiw, i'd probably never actually manage to fold this, but i think it is probably correct vs this villain unless you have seen something like this before to indicate that 1. his range may not be completely polarized to the nuts/air and 2. he is likely to have some air in his hand. The fact that it is 3 way on the flop is important IMO, since it means he should always flat a nut-type hand. I think the fact that it is 3 way also means his peeling range is likely to be tighter on the flop and i don't think you can give him credit for an overpair that often give the fact that it is highly unlikely a villain would play an overpair like this (as it is basically overrepping his hand - something the tighter villain's don't like to do unless they are bluffing) and the fact that there was no 3B preflop (flat pre, flat flop, raise turn is so odd for an overpair).

So basically, i don't think there are many combo draws in this guy's range because 1. don't think he peels flop that lightly given he is tight and given 3 way pot 2. the draws make up a tiny portion of overall combos given they have to be hxhx 3. i think a guy like this floats with a combo draw rather than raises in position and if he raises he probably ships coz he doesn't want to be left w/ money behind on a missed river and having no idea what to do - 5% raise cbet is tiny which indicates that he isn't doing much semi bluff raising on the flop - and raise turn cbet is typically lower than raise flop cbet, especially with draws since your equity is drastically lower.

Btw, i don't really think folding or calling is that bad/wrong in this situation since it is close - but the whole point of hand analysis is to outline and justify the conditions under which a given line is correct and frankly i would be highly highly highly suprised to see villain show up with a combo draw or overpair here and all that leaves is air which is even less likely IMO. Seems alot more straight foward to put the weight towards sets when a set is consistent with every single street of action given this player/the circumstances and an overpair/combo draw is consistent with no street at all. So that fact that there are 2x the number of combos of a given overpair to a set doesn't mean shit when it is probably like 20x more likely that a set would take this line over an overpair.

Just read chuck's posts in the thread and i agree. I fail to see any justification for overpairs/combo draws other than conjecture about what *could* happen, even though it makes absolutely no sense given the line/type of player in this hand whereas a villain like this probably plays a set like this 100% of the time (only other line is flat turn shove river but a TAG will probably raise this turn given the fact that there are now a few draws).

And as a final point - against a more aggro/looser player (who will peel wider and therefore be more likely to pick up a combo draw on the turn, and, since he peels wider, he has more air on the turn making pure bluffing more likely) i'd never fold here - but this isn't villain. I'd also be less inclined to fold if the action was 2 way since i think villain will peel wider (see above) because more likely to try to pure float and villain would be more likely to raise a set on the flop in a 2 way pot - same goes if hero was in position since a set will probably raise flop in that case.

Before I give a longer reply to this post (I'm headed for bed right now) I want to know if Chuck has any reason to call him a nit other than that he's tight preflop and doesn't raise much postflop, i.e. does he go to showdown ridiculously rarely or folds a whole lot to c-bets?

Otherwise calling him a "nit" is really only applicable to preflop. Like I said, my preflop stats mirror his, and while I probably qualify for being a nit, folding top-two on this turn versus me is a mistake. I think this is where we're not really seeing eye-to-eye. And the greater point here is that making assumptions about how tight or loose someone is postflop based on their preflop stats is treading on thin ice.

5% raise cbet tells a shitload about postflop play, as does 25 agg% (quite low presuming this is the HEM stat). I raise like 20-25% cbets in HU play, i'm inclined to float flops fairly wide, in addition to the fact that your range is way wider in HU anyways, and make plays and if it was me playing this hand instead of villain i'd be very suprised if combo draws made up much of my range at all.

Making assumptions about a "standard TAG" on the postflop stats given is a hell of a lot more solid than making random assumptions about how this player is a LAG postflop because you want to justify why you should be shoving in this spot. You're trying to paint the picture of a person who is floating wide in a 3 way pot and then hitting the magic combo draw card and then raising in position even tho he probably doesn't raise any draws on the flop or is taking the most bizzare line possible with an overpair.

It's like looking into the eyes of a grizzly bear and pointing out to your terrified companion that you better be careful of the depression in the ground in front of you because you might twist an ankle if you were to step into it. Hand reading is about looking for the obvious and things that tend to be typical of a given player type as well as the things that are consistent with a given line instead of trying to justify a position you already want to believe (ie. that one should never fold top 2 here).

And FP, if you do write a longer post, i really think you have to address the following things:

Why do we think that villain is likely to flat overpairs preflop (top 5% is 88+,AJs+,KQs,AKo, so even if you add light 3Bing w/ scs or whatnot it is still a pretty wide range of value hands)? Why do we think that villain would then flat flop with the overpair and choose to raise turn - how can you justify such an odd line? Regarding combo draws - what makes us think that hands like A3hh or A5hh are even necessarily in his preflop range (might be i'm not that sure as i'm too used to wider ranges from playing HU), and if they are why do we think it is likely he would peel with a gutshot and backdoor hearts? 5h6h will peel for sure with double gutter and 7h6h i could see peeling one on the flop then also hitting a 15 out draw. But those are 2 combos - even less than one set. Then to the main concern with the backdoor draws - while i agree that he could have the odd combo draw on the turn, although again, very few combos - why would a guy who only raises 5% of cbets on the flop make a 3x raise on the turn with a 15 out draw when he is in position and is w/ 5% is cleary a guy who does not tend to raise draws on the flop let alone the turn. To me, it seems that the most obvious tendency for a player like this (low agg% and low raise cbet%) is that he would just peel in position, and shove river if he hits his draw/maybe bluff if checked to.
Finally, i think you have to address the issue of a 3 way pot and how that influences peeling range (i'd argue it tightens it up, since it is much harder to float when you have no idea what the guy to act is going to do) as well as how it impacts on the line and how you think he is playing the various types of hands that we beat/crush.

The fact is, you must account for both combinations AND the likelihood of a given hand/combo taking that line. So it doesn't matter if there are maybe 4 combos of what became "combo draws" on the turn, if it is less likely that they would even call the flop (gutshots) and less likely that they would raise the turn than sets. Same for overpairs - the large number of combos has to be lessened by the fact that it is so unlikely that an overpair would ever take this line.

What feitr said. I think the problem that we all do way too much is try to put ourselves in villain's shoes. That's great if you understand how he plays but sometimes we try to think about what we'd do. That doesn't work so well when they play nothing like us. Like I said earlier, if this was me as an opponent, or FP, or Belgo, or Chuck I'm sure it would be a snap-ship. But nits just don't do that. I've begun focusing more and more on these spots lately because I'm always like **** it I have a set/2-pair/other strong hand I can't fold it'd be super-exploitable oh right nits don't try to exploit you they just try to make the nuts and get money in.

The first time this happened was I was talking over a FR hand with another non-CC reg and wanted to confirm that my play in getting a combo draw with overs/FD was terrible because he never raises the flop with less than a set. Now I expected it to be "yeah you're never good here and you have no FE so just fold to raise", but the surprising response was "yeah it'd be more interesting if you had bottom set". Now normally I just snap-ship hands like sets/straights/etc. and if they overset me or something like that I just call it a cooler, but more and more I've been looking at these kinds of spots where either passive fish or nits raise and it's just plain always the nuts.

I think most of us have a decent grasp of hand ranges and comparative strength but there's another level that at least I need to work on more. At every point in the hand we want to be looking at our opponent's range. Instead of thinking "omg we flopped the nuts on a dry board how to get money out of it" we should be thinking more about what our opponent has and the best way to get value out of specific segments of their range. Instead of just seeing a set or other strong hand and thinking omg let's get it in we need to be thinking at each point in the hand what our opponent's range is. There are spots where you have such a clear value bet but when raised his range is just way stronger than your hand, and this seems like one of those spots. It's a very easy value bet, he's calling you very light on this turn and I would 100% value bet the river if he just called the turn. But when he raises the turn if we think about a legitimate range we are basically never good here, and even if once in a while we are we certainly aren't good enough of the time to justify a call.

So yeah I'm with Chuck/feitr on this one and honestly I don't even think this is that hard of a fold assuming we are correct in him being a nit postflop. In fact call me crazy but I think having 22 here may even be a fold although I would never be able to find a fold during the hand with 22.

I don't even know where to begin, so I'll just start at the top, I guess:

Originally Posted by feitr

5% raise cbet tells a shitload about postflop play, as does 25 agg% (quite low presuming this is the HEM stat).

So how often does he fold to c-bets? I don't see Chuck telling us, and I certainly don't think you can claim that you know that based on how often he raised. This is really the key point in all of this: You give him a very tight range based on stats that do not help us much in discerning what his range is in this spot. He raises 5% of c-bets? So what? He didn't raise the c-bet, so unless he has an infinite flop aggression factor, that doesn't tell us how often he calls.

Now, the most blatant misunderstanding in much of the rest of what you wrote is this:

12 combos of draws =/= 12 combo draws. The only one talking about combo draws is you, and the reason I mentioned specifically 7h6h is because you said he "can't" have a draw, and I just wanted to show that not only can he have a draw, he can have a pretty big one. My argument of calling does not hinge on him easily having a combo draw. More on that further down.

Making assumptions about a "standard TAG" on the postflop stats given is a hell of a lot more solid than making random assumptions about how this player is a LAG postflop because you want to justify why you should be shoving in this spot. You're trying to paint the picture of a person who is floating wide in a 3 way pot and then hitting the magic combo draw card and then raising in position even tho he probably doesn't raise any draws on the flop or is taking the most bizzare line possible with an overpair.

It's like looking into the eyes of a grizzly bear and pointing out to your terrified companion that you better be careful of the depression in the ground in front of you because you might twist an ankle if you were to step into it. Hand reading is about looking for the obvious and things that tend to be typical of a given player type as well as the things that are consistent with a given line instead of trying to justify a position you already want to believe (ie. that one should never fold top 2 here).

What the hell?

You may score points with the debate team for those paragraphs, but you fail to impress me. Give me a break.

Originally Posted by feitr

Why do we think that villain is likely to flat overpairs preflop (top 5% is 88+,AJs+,KQs,AKo, so even if you add light 3Bing w/ scs or whatnot it is still a pretty wide range of value hands)? Why do we think that villain would then flat flop with the overpair and choose to raise turn - how can you justify such an odd line?

I don't think it's likely. I think it's possible.

Regarding combo draws

Skipping the rest of this; I think we've successfully covered the difference between combo draws and combos of draws by now.

Finally, i think you have to address the issue of a 3 way pot and how that influences peeling range (i'd argue it tightens it up, since it is much harder to float when you have no idea what the guy to act is going to do) as well as how it impacts on the line and how you think he is playing the various types of hands that we beat/crush.

After this, you go back to talking about combo draws again, so I'll just focus on this and address Zach's points while I'm at it:

First thing first, though: Tightens his peeling range up from what? I don't know what his fold-to-flop-cbet% is. And that's the key point here: we don't know how loose he is on the flop.

Zach says that we (I assume he's talking about me) might be projecting my own style of play onto our opponent. But I'm not - no really, I'm not.

I'm saying, and this is my entire argument in a nutshell, that if you want to fold top-two getting 2:1 (or whatever it is) on the turn, you have to be really, really sure that your opponent cannot be doing it with weaker or as a bluff. Like, completely convinced. And with the one-line description given about villain, you can absolutely not be convinced of anything like that. No way. The reason I bring up that his preflop stats mirror mine is specifically to point that out: That he's a preflop nit and doesn't raise a lot of flops (I'm at about 11%, for comparison) doesn't translate into postflop tightness.

Now, as for who's guilty of assuming that villain plays like ourself, I'd argue that it's not me. I don't need him to play like me in order to make folding wrong. I just need to show that we can't know that he never bluffs, and his stats are certainly not indicative of this.

Is this a bad turn to bluff, in your opinion? Because we have several respectable player who talk about folding a SET on this turn! It's clearly a great turn to bluff! I think this is a great spot to do this with 7s6s, for instance. No combo draw needed.

But, ah, I may not be allowed to assume that our opponent is smart enough to realize that this is a good turn to bluff and be doing some advanced float. Sure. But I have to be able to take one of two routes:

1. Villain is good. In that case, we can't fold.
2. Villain is bad. In that case, how can you tell me he can't show up on the turn with weird hands? Your entire argument is that it "doesn't make sense" for him to have certain hands, and then we have to move villain back up to #1: good player. Otherwise what makes sense to us doesn't matter.

So, to just make sure to drive the point home one last time:

If we want to make a fold with top two on the turn getting 2:1, we need to be almost completely certain that villain would never, ever, bluff or think he has the best hand when he doesn't. With the limited read given on this guy, I claim that we can't possibly know that and we really can't fold. If I look through my database of people with stats roughly matching his, I don't think I'd find a fold versus any of them.

FP wins thread, imo.

Originally Posted by F Paulsson

I'm saying, and this is my entire argument in a nutshell, that if you want to fold top-two getting 2:1 (or whatever it is) on the turn, you have to be really, really sure that your opponent cannot be doing it with weaker or as a bluff. Like, completely convinced.

This is my biggest problem. You do not need to be completely convinced. You need to know that he does it with a bluff or weaker less than 1/3 of the time. Do I think it's possible a bluff/worse once in a while? Sure. 1/3 of the time? Not in a million years. That's the biggest thing, our hand doesn't matter at all, it's all about our hand compared to his range. Does our hand have at least 33% equity against his range. If yes then ship it, if not it's a fold. Just because we have 2 pair doesn't make it magical. The average player does not make this move with worse (including bluffs) 1/3 of the time, they just plain don't imo. So I think it's the other way around, that you need some stats/proof that he DOES show up with worse over 1/3 of the time here. Whether we have 2 pair or bottom pair, it means nothing unless we compare it to the hand range of our opponent. Our opponent basically can't have many lower 2 pairs in this spot and unless he's dumb enough to go crazy with top pair, we're just plain never good here. Like I said I'd need a read to stack off in this spot (although that's kinda misleading because if I have no hands on them I'll assume they're a fish and stack too light and never fold here, but I mean against regs), not the other way around.

Originally Posted by zachvac

This is my biggest problem. You do not need to be completely convinced. You need to know that he does it with a bluff or weaker less than 1/3 of the time. Do I think it's possible a bluff/worse once in a while? Sure. 1/3 of the time? Not in a million years. That's the biggest thing, our hand doesn't matter at all, it's all about our hand compared to his range. Does our hand have at least 33% equity against his range. If yes then ship it, if not it's a fold. Just because we have 2 pair doesn't make it magical. The average player does not make this move with worse (including bluffs) 1/3 of the time, they just plain don't imo. So I think it's the other way around, that you need some stats/proof that he DOES show up with worse over 1/3 of the time here. Whether we have 2 pair or bottom pair, it means nothing unless we compare it to the hand range of our opponent. Our opponent basically can't have many lower 2 pairs in this spot and unless he's dumb enough to go crazy with top pair, we're just plain never good here. Like I said I'd need a read to stack off in this spot (although that's kinda misleading because if I have no hands on them I'll assume they're a fish and stack too light and never fold here, but I mean against regs), not the other way around.

I agree with you, in principle. But here's where we part ways:

I pulled up players with 19/15 stats in HEM. The average fold-to-flop-cbet was 55% for the first 10 of those. If his preflop flatting range is, say, 10% of hands (might well be higher, but going with a low number here) and he folds 80% of hands on the flop instead of just 55% on account of there being another player yet to act behind him, he still shows up on the turn with 106 combos. If he raises even 5% of the time when he shows up on this turn without a set, we can't fold. And that's probably counting low on how often he'll see a turn.

Returning to the hand at hand, as it were, it's not that I have a problem folding top-two. I've done it many times. I have a problem folding top-two on a ragged board because sets are combinatorically rare and there are hands - not many, but enough - that may wrongly think they're ahead when raising this turn. Add to that that I've yet to come across players - especially regs - that never bluff, and I really can't find a fold here.

I was going to pull up hands where I've been raised on ragged boards by preflop nits who are passive postflop and have less than a set, but anecdotal evidence is mostly useless anyway, and I think I've made my point already.

FP i really think you are way way off here. Regarding combo draws - this was completely intentional and i was talking about the combos of combo draws. Why the hell do you think that a player who raises 5% of cbets (ie. he is highly unlikely to raise even big draws on the flop) is going to raise the turn with an 8 or 9 out draw? It simply is not going to happen. These guys (ie. low agg% and low flop cbet raise %) simply do not do this ever, so the amount of combos doesn't mean shit when he plays 0% of those combos with that line. You are also ignoring the fact that villain is in position which GREATLY increases the chance that he would float the turn with a draw instead of raise. Another reason why it shoudl be obvious that the only draws that really matter are combo draws is the fact that most draws that might peel the flop that weren't hearts didn't improve (double gutters and whatnot) and it makes no sense to flat a double gutter on the flop then raise it on teh turn.

Fold to cbet% would be nice; however, it is a small piece of info and you are completely blowing it out of proportion. The fact is that villain's preflop range is tight and we have no reason to believe that he peels wide especially in a 3 way pot, which as with many other things, you are completely ignoring in this hand. I am basing my reads on what info we have been given (that villain is tight preflop and pretty passive post flop). You, however, are simply making assumptions about how we could be playing vs a wide peeling, floaty, bluffing postflop player and we are given absolutely no indications to believe that this is even remotely the case. I like to keep it simple and to assume that the same things that are characteristic of similar players is probably the case in this situation.

The average fold-to-flop-cbet was 55% for the first 10 of those. If his preflop flatting range is, say, 10% of hands (might well be higher, but going with a low number here) and he folds 80% of hands on the flop instead of just 55% on account of there being another player yet to act behind him, he still shows up on the turn with 106 combos. If he raises even 5% of the time when he shows up on this turn without a set, we can't fold. And that's probably counting low on how often he'll see a turn.

First of all it is highly highly unlikely he'd raise 5% on the turn, given that his cbet raise % is only 5% (which is lkely to be much greater than turn raise%) and this flop cbet raise % includes his monsters like sets/2 pair/TPTK hands, to which his raise% is greatly biased, which you have removed from his turn range by saying there are no sets and 8sTs being the only 2 pair combo in his range). But if he raises 5% of those 106 combos that gives him only 5 combos he is raising on the turn. If those combos have only 20% equity vs us and we have little equity vs the 8 combos of sets (so i'll ignore it, since it changes depending on the specific set), it would be pretty close to neutral EV (ie. we are about a 1:2 dog). And you also have to consider how dry the board is and how that greatly reduces his peeling range - if the board was JT9ss he might peel with the vast majority of his range - there isn't much he can peel with here and be able to raise the turn. Most hands that he would peel the flop with would be pps, 8x, etc. and these hands aren't going to raise turn. I highly doubt that villain could even show up with 5 combos that he would raise on the turn. Clearly you are believing that this 5% of hands are either picked up draws or bluffs - and as i have explained in detail in previous posts i do not believe that these are realistically in villain's range. So IMO, the semi bluff/pure bluff: set ratio would greatly favour the sets since this line from this player is 100% consistent with a set and absolutely inconsistent for the many reasons i've explained earlier with a draw/bluff given this player type.

Is this a bad turn to bluff, in your opinion? Because we have several respectable player who talk about folding a SET on this turn! It's clearly a great turn to bluff! I think this is a great spot to do this with 7s6s, for instance. No combo draw needed.

But, ah, I may not be allowed to assume that our opponent is smart enough to realize that this is a good turn to bluff and be doing some advanced float. Sure. But I have to be able to take one of two routes:

1. Villain is good. In that case, we can't fold.
2. Villain is bad. In that case, how can you tell me he can't show up on the turn with weird hands? Your entire argument is that it "doesn't make sense" for him to have certain hands, and then we have to move villain back up to #1: good player. Otherwise what makes sense to us doesn't matter.

Zach touched on this earlier - this is not an issue of us being exploited. It doesn't matter how good a spot this is to bluff - the ONLY reason we are considering making a big fold here is because villain is not aggro and is almost certainly never bluffing in this spot. Therefore, it should be clear that we are not at risk of being exploitable because our fold is based on a read that villain isnt' bluffing, rather than villain bluffing because he believes that we can make a big fold. Saying that it would be a great spot to bluff with 7s6s is irrelevant because this type of villain would never make a play like this. For a villain who is inclined to make a bluff with 7s6s, this would turn out to be a horrible spot to choose to bluff because we would obviously snap fist pump shove.

Regarding the rest - this is just silly. This is just a false dichotomy and not a logical argument at all. There are far more options than "villain being good" and us having to call coz villain can bluff in this spot, or "villain being bad" and us having to call because he is probably playing an overpair like a ****ing moron. The 3rd option could be something like "villain is a straight foward player that isn't particularily aggro" and therefore in that case we can fold because he probably has what he is representing.

Anyways in all your posts you have failed to explain why you think that a player who is pretty passive and doesn`t raise cbets often would show up in this spot with a turned draw that he now wants to raise even tho he is in position and is unlikely even to raise big draws on the flop or why he decided to flat a big pair preflop, flat on the flop, then suddenly believe his hand was the stone cold nuts on the turn. I really believe that this just comes down to you trying to justify why you should never fold a hand like top 2 on this board - and in this sense i completely agree with zach in that absolute hand strength is irrelevant and the only thing that matters is our relative hand strength, which IMO is not great vs what villain is repping in this hand.

I almost certainly couldn't find a fold here, but it doesn't change the fact that in a theoretical mode i think a fold is probably correct. At least i'm justifying my position - you aren't providing any backing for your position and all other than saying things about how all regs tend to bluff (sure this is true - but there are tons of spots where ppl are never ever bluffing - and IMO this is one where this villain is probably never bluffing/semi bluffing) and giving random combos for peeling range and a totally random turn raise % while completely ignoring the relevant info (board texture, what types of hands villain would peel and how many/what types of this could be raising turn, etc. etc.) You place way to great an emphasis on combinations and far too little emphasis on the degree to which certain groups of combinations are consistent with what we know about villain and what his line indicates.

I don't know why you think this guy is über-passive. His AF is 3, which is is just about the same as mine, and i'm not passive. Low raise cbet% could simply means he prefers floating flops and fighting on the turns rather than raising the flops.

AF of 3 could just mean he tends to fold alot - 26% agg is quite low which means he doesn't tend to bet alot. I don't believe that he is uber passive at all, but i do think that a 5% raise cbet % means it is very unlikely he is raising a turn light. You think it is more logical to assume that a 5% raise cbet% means that he is raising turn with a multitude of draws/bluffs when he almost certainly doesn't raise the flop with many (much stronger equity wise) draws/whiffed hands?

The low raise cbet% is the selling point for me and probably where me and you/FP differ. If villain raised cbets like 15%, i'd ship it in on the turn without a second of thought, because that indicates a much greater propensity that raising a strong lead could be a bluff/semi bluff.

Originally Posted by F Paulsson

If his preflop flatting range is, say, 10% of hands (might well be higher, but going with a low number here) and he folds 80% of hands on the flop instead of just 55% on account of there being another player yet to act behind him, he still shows up on the turn with 106 combos. If he raises even 5% of the time when he shows up on this turn without a set, we can't fold. And that's probably counting low on how often he'll see a turn.

Just want to touch on this again, because this is not a sound argument at all. Ignoring the fact that they are just random %s/combos that don't take into account the relevant information in this hand:

Say we were to take overpairs out of his range, given the flat preflop and the flat on the flop then treating the hand like the nuts. The only overpair that makes sense postflop is AA - since he might view it as "nut-like" - but i still can't see why we think villain is flatting it preflop. JJ/QQ surely aren't raising the turn, since the only reason they wouldn't 3B pre would be that they are scared of getting it in vs worse or something and KK shouldn't flat nor raise turn either - it doesn't make sense for any non-huge fish player and definitely not for a player w/ a low raise % who is unlikely to overplay/horribly misplay bigger pps. Therefore, in this case we shove becasue we think villain is semi-bluffing and/or occasionally bluffing in this spot. If we accept this, then we should never be folding 89o in this spot. And this is where the argument between absolute and relative hand strength is key. If our justification for shoving the turn is that villain has semi bluff/bluffs in his range and a value range of sets, then 89o has extremely close equity to top 2 here.

Now, FP, if hero had 89o in this spot, would you be making the same arguments? The fact is that if you are to encounter a polarized raise spot (ie. big hands and semi/bluffs but not thin value) and place a huge amount of emphasis on semi-bluffing with draws/pure bluffing then you should rarely be folding any pair. Therefore, such logic can justify shoving very light in a given situation, but i don't think anybody would argue we should shove 2nd pair here. I think you have made this far far too much about absolute hand strength and have failed to tie in your position about this hand to what we can roughly assume about villain's tendencies and the many specific circumstances in this hand that you never seem to touch upon (why we think villain has a good number of draws on such a super dry board in a 3 way pot, why we think he would raise a draw in position on the turn when this seems completely inconsistent with his tendencies, why we think he might have an overpair when it is horribly inconsistent with every street, etc, etc.)

As a side note, it should be pretty clear from the postflop stats we have been given that villain is not one to peel light in a normal situation, let alone in a 3 way pot on a dry flop. 3 AF indicates a high bet/call ratio. 26 agg% indicates that he doesn't bet with a particularily high freq. Low raise cbet% indicates that he doesn't tend to raise all that much and it is likely much lower on the turn/river. It should be clear that for one to have an AF of 3 and to be raising/betting fairly infrequently, one cannot be calling very light. Anyways, last post in this thread, as i can't be bothered constantly repeating myself, which is all that would happen.

For the record, villains stats are similar to mine, (19/16/2.8/29%) and there's a lot more than just sets in my turn raising range especially vs. someone this aggro. But then again, I generally don't flat 22 or 44 vs. someone raising this wide who isn't spewing money postflop.

That said, I rarely see players that play similarly to me that are thinking on a relatively high level. Most players like this tend to be very ABC basic TAG and just plain aren't capable of doing things like flatting with air and bluff raising the turn. I hate folding when someone is repping such a tiny range, but I think this is a fold.

Originally Posted by feitr

First of all it is highly highly unlikely he'd raise 5% on the turn, given that his cbet raise % is only 5% (which is lkely to be much greater than turn raise%)

You're going to need to back this up.

In fact, you're going to have to explain how you arrive at your conclusion about how villains like this play at all, because I can't find any evidence for your statements when going through my HEM database.

Now, you're not going to believe that I didn't just cherry pick and sat through two hours looking for a single hand in HEM that fits, but I didn't. I took the first guy in the list that had matching stats, then filtered for hands where he raised the turn c-bet, and here's what came up:

--------------------
HAND 1
--------------------

$1/$2 No Limit Hold'em Cash Game, 6 Players
http://www.stoxpoker.com/pokertools/ by http://www.stoxpoker.com/ - http://www.stoxpoker.com/pokertools/hand/43205/
http://www.stoxpoker.com/pokertools/hand/43205/replay/

UTG: $221.45 (110.7 bb)
MP: $100 (50 bb)
CO: $347.50 (173.8 bb)
BTN: $230.45 (115.2 bb)
SB: $198 (99 bb)
BB: $200 (100 bb)

Pre-Flop:
MP posts BB OOP, UTG folds, MP checks, CO folds, BTN raises to $10, SB calls $9, 2 folds

Flop: ($24) 6 6 7 (2 players)
SB checks, BTN bets $18, SB calls $18

Turn: ($60) 5 (2 players)
SB checks, BTN bets $48, SB raises to $170 and is all-in, BTN calls $122

River: ($400) 3 (2 players, 1 is all-in)

Results: $400 pot ($3 rake)
BTN showed A A (two pairs, Aces and Sixes) and won $397 ($199 net)
SB showed 8 8 (two pairs, Eights and Sixes) and lost (-$198 net)

Yeah, there's differences between this hand and the one we're looking at, for sure. And if this were a debate (and not a learning experience) I'd be thrilled about the fact that I got "lucky" in that the first hand I found happened to be this one, but I'm not trying to "win" an argument. The key point here is that villain is 19/15, with a raise-flop-cbet of 8%, a check-raise turn of 2% and a fold-to-flop-cbet of 68%. His agg is 29% total.

I've spent 20 minutes going through hands with known holecards for players like this where they flat preflop, flat flop and raise turn, and it's really hard to find any indication that this is "never" bluffs. About half the time, they're showing down losers. Case in point - and this has some similarities texture-wise to the hand we're looking at, at least, even if it's BvB and not 3-way:

Villain is 18/14/2.2 (27%), raises cbet 9% (it's so hard to find someone who raises less than that, that I'm wondering if Chuck has a sample size issue). Turn raise c-bet is 8%.

--------------------
HAND 1
--------------------

$1/$2 No Limit Hold'em Cash Game, 5 Players
http://www.stoxpoker.com/pokertools/ by http://www.stoxpoker.com/ - http://www.stoxpoker.com/pokertools/hand/43206/
http://www.stoxpoker.com/pokertools/hand/43206/replay/

BTN: $278.40 (139.2 bb)
SB: $224.85 (112.4 bb)
BB: $164.35 (82.2 bb)
MP: $201.10 (100.6 bb)
CO: $378.80 (189.4 bb)

Pre-Flop:
3 folds, SB raises to $4, BB calls $2

Flop: ($8) 3 6 T (2 players)
SB bets $6, BB calls $6

Turn: ($20) Q (2 players)
SB bets $10, BB raises to $28, SB calls $18

River: ($76) 3 (2 players)
SB checks, BB bets $60, SB calls $60

Results: $196 pot ($2 rake)
SB showed Q 9 (two pairs, Queens and Threes) and won $194 ($96 net)
BB showed 6 5 (two pairs, Sixes and Threes) and lost (-$98 net)

As I said before, anecdotal evidence sucks because it can be cherry-picked. To avoid discussions regarding any potential cherry-picking:

I went through 18 players with close-to-matching stats (19/15, and the first 18 I could find that had low raise-flop-cbet%) and tried to find spots where they raised turn with known holecards. Also worth pointing out that I'm NOT including good regs who are valuetowning 60+VPIP players with stuff like TPTK because I don't think that's indicative of what we're talking about here. There's quite a few hands like that, but I think it would be a bit dishonest of me to include those, despite the fact that it would statistically help my argument (since a passive 19/15 is provenly capable of making a baluga raise on the turn with AJ on a J-high board, even if it was versus a 40/33 rather than a 27/25 opponent).

In total, among those with known holecards, I only found 9 hands where the conditions matched. Five of them were with some kind of monster (set or better), and four with decidedly non nut-hands (besides the two above, one top pair + straightdraw, one T8s on a J-8-5-5 twotone turn).

Anyway, I expect to get challenged about how the board textures and situations in the hands I have don't match what we're looking at in this hand, and that's fine. But if after 20 minutes of sorting and filtering I couldn't find more than a handful of turn-raise hands on comparable villains, there's a pretty good chance that no one else in this thread could have a vast amount of experience with how 19/15 players play in these situations, and the assumption that they only show up with nut-hands on dry boards is false.

As for whether or not I'd get it in with 98o in this spot: no. I've never said that I think his range is polarized, I've said that I think he can have a draw, but I also think he can be doing this with a hand that he thinks is best, like JJ+. If you say that he "can't" have that, then we're back to what you assume and what I find when I filter. My database doesn't agree with your assumption.

Anyway, I don't think I have much more to add to this thread except to reiterate my point one last time and make one final sweeping statement:

Sets are combinatorically unlikely. Everyone occasionally bluffs. Assuming that a 19/15 somewhat passive player can't raise dry turns with less than a set is a mistake.

The problem with trying to find big laydowns in spots like this is that we're creating the bad habit of folding big hands in big pots. For the very few players where folding may be correct - which I would argue is more like a 32/7 with a 0.6% aggression factor - we're most likely folding much too often in spots where we shouldn't. Like this one.

FP wins thread again.

Ok i'll make my final post (i promise). I wouldn't consider folding in either of those 2 spost you posted for exactly the same reasons that you wouldn't. They aren't even remotely close to what we have here. In hand 1, btn is probably liable to barrel fairly light given board and villain can EASILY have a combo draw of sorts here (he has 10 outs, but he could easily have a stronger draw) given flop and the sort of hands he`d peel. In hand number 2 the board isn`t that dry at all. There are many many many more combos of hands that will peel this flop than the hand in question and some of them improve draws on the turn card. There are tons more 6x hands in a TAGs range that would realise they are not good here than 4x or 2x. ie. peeling range should be much muhc higher in hand 2 since much more of villain`s hand connects in some way. They are also quite different in terms of a 3 way pot and other factors, such as being in position - being in position in a 3 way pot COMPLETELY changes this hand because it means that villain isnt' going to be raising flop with a big hand as i have already noted. In hand 1, villain is out of position and would therefore probably raise his big hands on the flop and is therefore unlikely to have big hands to raise on the turn. Not to mention that you can't isolate a hand from metagame or whatever - for all we know villain's were simply tilted in the examples. You also make the point that it is almost impossible to find somebody with a 5% c/r and automatically assume that there must be a problem with sample size, although it was stated in the OP that the sample size was quite large, instead of assuming, as i have done, that the fact that his raise % is only 5 indicates that this guy is far far less likely to be raising than your typical person with TAG stats. Anyways, i won't check this thread again so have fun w/ it.

lol FP are you kidding? Those hands and specifically board textures are really nothing like the hand in question.

i don't think FP is ever "kidding"

i still agree with feitr though

Also FP I don't think you ever answered but do you stack 98 in this spot as well? Your logic seems to indicate this should be a yes. I guess we have slightly less equity vs. a few random draws plus in the real situation we have 4 outs even against lower sets but in general we're only losing to sets and we're beating draws/air and I'm not sure those slight changes are enough to change it from call to fold if we call with top 2 in this spot. So are you claiming we fold 98 here?

Originally Posted by zachvac

Also FP I don't think you ever answered but do you stack 98 in this spot as well? Your logic seems to indicate this should be a yes. I guess we have slightly less equity vs. a few random draws plus in the real situation we have 4 outs even against lower sets but in general we're only losing to sets and we're beating draws/air and I'm not sure those slight changes are enough to change it from call to fold if we call with top 2 in this spot. So are you claiming we fold 98 here?

I did.

Originally Posted by F Paulsson

As for whether or not I'd get it in with 98o in this spot: no. I've never said that I think his range is polarized, I've said that I think he can have a draw, but I also think he can be doing this with a hand that he thinks is best, like JJ+. If you say that he "can't" have that, then we're back to what you assume and what I find when I filter. My database doesn't agree with your assumption.

Originally Posted by zachvac

lol FP are you kidding? Those hands and specifically board textures are really nothing like the hand in question.

I think I may even have mentioned that myself. Did you only look at the hand histories in the post?

What an interesting thread.
Keep it up I guess ?

chuck is it time for results or not yet ?

i folded

i had 2k hands on this guy fwiw Fredrik.

Ok. Lowest guy I could find was 7%, but I didn't spend a ton of time looking, either.

And just because I suspect that my Big Post wasn't read very carefully, I'll state the reason behind those hand histories one more time: I was answering the argument that,

Originally Posted by zachvac

nits don't try to exploit you they just try to make the nuts and get money in