$2 NL HE Full Ring: Double Barrel Bluff Against Villian w/ 83% C-Bet

[PockerGod]

I think you are calling too much from the blinds versus EP. Villain having 83% c-bet flop doesn't mean a lot if we don't own a respectable volume of hands played against it.
If we are bluffing a back door flush like this we are bluffing almost anything. And once you elected to raise flop and bet turn, why did you check river? You should've continued your bluffing, because specially on the river your hand has little showdown value and unless you are very lucky there's no way to get this pot if villain checks back or if villain bets after we checked.
Could you please explain your line of thinkinghow pop

I think you are calling too much from the blinds versus EP. Villain having 83% c-bet flop doesn't mean a lot if we don't own a respectable volume of hands played against it.
If we are bluffing a back door flush like this we are bluffing almost anything. And once you elected to raise flop and bet turn, why did you check river? You should've continued your bluffing, because specially on the river your hand has little showdown value and unless you are very lucky there's no way to get this pot if villain checks back or if villain bets after we checked.
Could you please explain your line of thinking?

Also, what range would you use from the BB against UTG?

I think, opponent type is more important than stakes. 24/17 is a LAG, and a LAG should be able to fold some hands on the river. If we bet and get called by something worse than top pair, then we can take a note and not bluff him again. On a side note its kind of depressing to find LAGs even at 2NL. But it could be a new (most likely russian) player building up his bankroll. Or maybe a bot user? Whatever the reason, this person is playing 2NL, he is not a fish

I think, opponent type is more important than stakes. 24/17 is a LAG, and a LAG should be able to fold some hands on the river. If we bet and get called by something worse than top pair, then we can take a note and not bluff him again. On a side note its kind of depressing to find LAGs even at 2NL. But it could be a new (most likely russian) player building up his bankroll. Or maybe a bot user? Whatever the reason, this person is playing 2NL, he is not a fish

How come you think he might russian?

 

[Station_Master]

I think, opponent type is more important than stakes. 24/17 is a LAG, and a LAG should be able to fold some hands on the river. If we bet and get called by something worse than top pair, then we can take a note and not bluff him again. On a side note its kind of depressing to find LAGs even at 2NL. But it could be a new (most likely russian) player building up his bankroll. Or maybe a bot user? Whatever the reason, this person is playing 2NL, he is not a fish

I play 9max mostly so not sure the 6max stats, but 24/17 struck me as fairly GTO rather than LAG, it doesnt seem particularly loose at 6max.

Rereading the first post it is actually a 9max game rather than 6 max but there were only 6 players. So it also depends when those stats were obtained and also the number of hands (which isn't specified).

I dont hate bluffing river but I still think you will get called slightly too often to make it profitable (at 2NL)

 

[fundiver199]

I play 9max mostly so not sure the 6max stats, but 24/17 struck me as fairly GTO rather than LAG, it doesnt seem particularly loose at 6max.

That is true, but a TAG will normally have stats more like 20/16 even at 6-max. And GTO does have us open some hands for board coverage, even though they are slightly negative EV in themselfes. So maybe the conclusion is, that LAG is actually much closer to GTO than TAG, even though people did not think about it in this way, when the terms were invented. Anyway the main point is, that this player is not a fish. And that is why, I would not shy away from running a full tripple barrel bluff against him, regardless if its 2NL or 25NL.

Also I do think, its a bit of a myth, that people never fold on the river in the micros. I mean.... when you bet the river for value, are you really always getting action? And if the answer to that is "no", then per definition bluffing is not insane. I am not saying, we should go overboard with it, or that I personally bluff at anywhere near the GTO frequenzy. But never bluffing is not exactly a novel idea, and it also dont prepare us to eventually move up. Which I guess is the whole point of playing 2NL and sharings hands to a poker forum

 

[PockerGod]

I play 9max mostly so not sure the 6max stats, but 24/17 struck me as fairly GTO rather than LAG, it doesnt seem particularly loose at 6max.

Rereading the first post it is actually a 9max game rather than 6 max but there were only 6 players. So it also depends when those stats were obtained and also the number of hands (which isn't specified).

I dont hate bluffing river but I still think you will get called slightly too often to make it profitable (at 2NL)

That is true, but a TAG will normally have stats more like 20/16 even at 6-max. And GTO does have us open some hands for board coverage, even though they are slightly negative EV in themselfes. So maybe the conclusion is, that LAG is actually much closer to GTO than TAG, even though people did not think about it in this way, when the terms were invented. Anyway the main point is, that this player is not a fish. And that is why, I would not shy away from running a full tripple barrel bluff against him, regardless if its 2NL or 25NL.

Also I do think, its a bit of a myth, that people never fold on the river in the micros. I mean.... when you bet the river for value, are you really always getting action? And if the answer to that is "no", then per definition bluffing is not insane. I am not saying, we should go overboard with it, or that I personally bluff at anywhere near the GTO frequenzy. But never bluffing is not exactly a novel idea, and it also dont prepare us to eventually move up. Which I guess is the whole point of playing 2NL and sharings hands to a poker forum

Yeah, players at micro are definitely capable of folding on the river. A lot of calling stations will call flop and turn with draws than fold out to a river bet.

 

[fundiver199]

Yeah, players at micro are definitely capable of folding on the river. A lot of calling stations will call flop and turn with draws than fold out to a river bet.

Exactly. Which mean, you can still bluff the river, but you should only do it, when you have no showdown value. Like maybe with 9 high but not with A high, if your A high beat a lot of busted draws. And you dont have to make a huge bet, since the busted draws are probably going to fold even to a moderate bet.

 

[canbora]

Thank you for your opinion, it is 100% valued by me. I was worried that taking that kind of line would be a bit spewy, mainly because it is at 2NL. I do plan on moving up in stakes once my bankroll always it. I am trying not to get too caught up in it being 2NL players and try my best to play good fundamental/exploitative poker. I did and up betting the river and used a 2/3 pot raise. Do you think that is too small?

Do I think it was too small? No. It was just right. I'd say half to 2/3 shows "I have a hand and I'm OK with a call or a fold" Less than that attracts a call but at the same time looks suspicious. A pot or oversized bet says, I don't want a call and bluffy. Which if it works, fine. Who cares, right?

This whole thing is so borderline, again, which is why its here. I think ya did fine. it simplly just didnt work this time. It happens.

 

[canbora]

Yeah, players at micro are definitely capable of folding on the river. A lot of calling stations will call flop and turn with draws than fold out to a river bet.

Oh they can, they can. For sure. But don't "bet" on it. lol.

Like, you really gotta be sure they're going to fold here. More often than not, if they have ANYTHING, they're calling.

 

[Vallet]

I watched a replay of this hand. You are defending the big blind with a wide range. No raise - no premium hands on the preflop.
The flop turned out to be low. What do you demonstrate when you check-raise? 67 hand or maybe a set. But players with large stacks often raise the preflop with any pocket pair.
The 65% bet on the turn is similar to the value. But the ace is more suited to the opponent's range and he could easily not give up on the flop and catch a pair now.
The river is a check/ check. I wouldn't understand which hand you're drawing if I hadn't seen your cards. It would be unfair because you bet all the streets for the sake of bluffing, and suddenly you collected a flush on the river.
If I were in the opponent's place, I didn't quite understand which hand you were acting so aggressively with. Therefore, I would protect my pair.

 

[PockerGod]

Do I think it was too small? No. It was just right. I'd say half to 2/3 shows "I have a hand and I'm OK with a call or a fold" Less than that attracts a call but at the same time looks suspicious. A pot or oversized bet says, I don't want a call and bluffy. Which if it works, fine. Who cares, right?

This whole thing is so borderline, again, which is why its here. I think ya did fine. it simplly just didnt work this time. It happens.

I never said it didn't work haha

 

[PockerGod]

I watched a replay of this hand. You are defending the big blind with a wide range. No raise - no premium hands on the preflop.
The flop turned out to be low. What do you demonstrate when you check-raise? 67 hand or maybe a set. But players with large stacks often raise the preflop with any pocket pair.
The 65% bet on the turn is similar to the value. But the ace is more suited to the opponent's range and he could easily not give up on the flop and catch a pair now.
The river is a check/ check. I wouldn't understand which hand you're drawing if I hadn't seen your cards. It would be unfair because you bet all the streets for the sake of bluffing, and suddenly you collected a flush on the river.
If I were in the opponent's place, I didn't quite understand which hand you were acting so aggressively with. Therefore, I would protect my pair.

Makes total sense but I didn't bluff for the sake of bluffing! I bluffed on the flop due to his cbet stat being too high, also 3 middle cards are bad for the PF raiser. He might be raising with some pairs but I have all those pairs in my range as well, plus they make up a much higher percentage of my calling range. I bluffed on the turn only because of the flush draw hit. I bluffed the river because it is the only way to win that hand and I had little to no show down value w/ a K. What range would you defend the BB with? Also, would you consider the triple barrel bluff in higher stakes?

 

[Vallet]

I understand your train of thought. I probably wouldn't bluff because I don't like the board. Let's say I'm in the big blind instead of you. The opponent is aggressive and often bets. Then I call the preflop, just a call on the flop and when the turn card falls, a responsible decision comes. We look at the actions of the villain and the size of the bet. A flash draw is on the board and it's time to check if the villain has an ace. We win the pot now thanks to a raise if he folds the cards and there is no ace. Or we can win on the river if our combination closes.
I am not an aggressive player, so my actions may be radically different from yours, even when I start looking for an opportunity to bluff.

 

[canbora]

Makes total sense but I didn't bluff for the sake of bluffing! I bluffed on the flop due to his cbet stat being too high, also 3 middle cards are bad for the PF raiser. He might be raising with some pairs but I have all those pairs in my range as well, plus they make up a much higher percentage of my calling range. I bluffed on the turn only because of the flush draw hit. I bluffed the river because it is the only way to win that hand and I had little to no show down value w/ a K. What range would you defend the BB with? Also, would you consider the triple barrel bluff in higher stakes?

Go look up suited king's in the BB in the solver

"what you find, may shock you"

Youre actually suppose to be 3 betting with that hand.

And when that second club came up, you shove (large re-raise not stacks) . You had the nut flush draw.

 

[blueskies]

Don't overthink at 2NL. Whatever hand you're looking to rep is just gonna fly over his head.

Play ABC poker. Don't mess with the GTO stuff at 2NL. You are likely gonna lose money using GTO.

Keep track of how often your check raise/three barrel bluff works. You will see.

 

[PockerGod]

I understand your train of thought. I probably wouldn't bluff because I don't like the board. Let's say I'm in the big blind instead of you. The opponent is aggressive and often bets. Then I call the preflop, just a call on the flop and when the turn card falls, a responsible decision comes. We look at the actions of the villain and the size of the bet. A flash draw is on the board and it's time to check if the villain has an ace. We win the pot now thanks to a raise if he folds the cards and there is no ace. Or we can win on the river if our combination closes.
I am not an aggressive player, so my actions may be radically different from yours, even when I start looking for an opportunity to bluff.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense as well. Thank you

 

[PockerGod]

Go look up suited king's in the BB in the solver

"what you find, may shock you"

Youre actually suppose to be 3 betting with that hand.

And when that second club came up, you shove (large re-raise not stacks) . You had the nut flush draw

That is shocking. I could see why you would 3-bet in the BB with a suited King but seems like you will be dominated by a lot of better hands and be put in tricky spots. Also are you shoving because you have value with the nut flush draw? I would think that you would shove if a 3rd club came up, so you could try and represent a flush if you didn't have one.

 

[PockerGod]

Don't overthink at 2NL. Whatever hand you're looking to rep is just gonna fly over his head.

Play ABC poker. Don't mess with the GTO stuff at 2NL. You are likely gonna lose money using GTO.

Keep track of how often your check raise/three barrel bluff works. You will see.

I try not to focus on it being 2NL and focus on playing good fundamental poker that could stay relevant as I go to higher stakes. But yeah, I do tend to try and stick to ABC poker except sometimes I try to get fancy and heavily exploit someone. I have poker tracker to keep track of my stats, but it would probably be a good idea to keep track of those 2 stats on top of the software. How do you track your stats?