$2 NLHE 6-max: 3bet squeeze vs tight utg

[PaxMundi]

no info on the mp but Villain playing utg started the session on a shorter stack but is playing 16/13//0 over 64 hands.so i guess the two questions are do you squeeze pre in this spot and do you call the shove.

cheers.

BTN: $4.38 (219 bb)
Hero (SB): $5.18 (259 bb)
BB: $3.35 (167.5 bb)
UTG: $1.88 (94 bb)
MP: $2.03 (101.5 bb)
CO: $1.62 (81 bb)

Hero posts SB $0.01, BB posts $0.02

Pre Flop: (pot: $0.03) Hero has Q:club: A:club:
UTG raises to $0.06, MP calls $0.06, 2 folds, Hero raises to $0.30, fold, UTG calls $0.24, MP calls $0.24

Flop: ($0.92, 3 players) T:heart: A:spade: 2:spade:
Hero bets $0.27, UTG raises to $1.58 and is all-in, fold, Hero ?

 

[pentazepam]

If he really is that tight I'm not 3-betting AQ from SB when he raise UTG.

And if he is tight also post flop I would fold to the raise. Can he really do this with AJ or worse? A good combo-draw like KJ of spades?

This kind of players usually has it when the raise this big. But you need more hands, especially post flop to know his tendencies.

 

[LevySystem]

Interesting spot. Preflop is fine in my opinion. If we knew hes playing 16//13/? over a decent samplesize im with Pentazepam, we shouldnt 3bet, but even than its close. AQs is a pretty strong hand for a Squeeze in that spot. All we know at this point is that hes playing on the tighter side. He could easly be playing 24/18/?... Also hes a broke-stack wich usually is a indicator for a weaker opponent.

Cbet on the Flop is also well played in my opinion, problem comes when he overbet-shoves the flop. We need roughly 75% equity vs his range. So even if we give this guy every offsuit-gutshot combo every spade-flushdraw a decent amout of backdoor heartdraws with TP, every offsuit TP, every Combodraw+BDCD vs all the 2pair+ value hands he actually has we end up having smth like 70/30 for us.

If we assume that hes actually playing tight his range should crush us very hard here. Best szenario for us i give him like 66% equity playing around with equilab. More realistic is smth like 80/20 for him. So given the sizing we have to fold.

Edit: Just checked it with snowie as i have the testversion still availeble, call would be -0.90$ ev, and snowie is somewhat balanced...

 

[PaxMundi]

We need roughly 75% equity vs his range.

How do you get 75% equity i make it 33% equity for a profitable call as im calling $1.31 to win a total pot of $4.08
equity x total pot - call = ev
.33 x $4.08 - $1.31 = +ev 0.0364

Possibly the equasion is without my call it's been so long i dont remember so it could be 48% needed.
.48 x $2.77 - $1.31 = +ev 0.0196

Maybe someone can jump in and point out which math equasion is correct.

 

[Sidetracked]

3 betting an UTG raiser who's preflop stats are 16/13 is optimistic at best. As played, I would fold to the shove.

 

[LevySystem]

How do you get 75% equity i make it 33% equity for a profitable call as im calling $1.31 to win a total pot of $4.08
equity x total pot - call = ev
.33 x $4.08 - $1.31 = +ev 0.0364

Possibly the equasion is without my call it's been so long i dont remember so it could be 48% needed.
.48 x $2.77 - $1.31 = +ev 0.0196

Maybe someone can jump in and point out which math equasion is correct.

You are right, dont know what I calcuted there. Was wondering myself that i could assign villain basically every hand

Pot after his jam 2.5$ we need to pay 1.31 so 1.31/2.5= 0,524 -> 52,4%

Edit: Oh and we need to keep rake in mind wich is 3.5% at nl 2 so 3.5% of 2.5$ = 0.0875
Thus 2.5-0.0875 = 2.4125 -> 1.31/2.4125 = 0.543 -> 54,3%

 

[PaxMundi]

Pot after his jam 2.5$

Pots 2.77 after the jam so i work it out as .48 x $2.77 - $1.31 = +ev 0.0196 so 48% equity

 

[LevySystem]

Pots 2.77 after the jam.

No wonder i suck at this game...

right, so 2.77-0.097 = 2.673 -> 1.31/2.673 = 0.49001 -> 49% after rake

 

[PaxMundi]

No wonder i suck at this game...

right, so 2.77-0.097 = 2.673 -> 1.31/2.673 = 0.49001 -> 49% after rake

Im not even 100% sure the math in that equasion is correct because i think we might even have to add the $1.31 to the total pot as well im very rusty on all this it's been so long since ive done any poker equasions.For some reason im thinking it's total pot including the call is the correct equasion which would mean 33% equity.But that equasion without the call added might be correct at 48% or 49% incluing rake ill have to knuckle down and do some work away from the tables again.

 

[LevySystem]

Im not even 100% sure the math in that equasion is correct because i think we might even have to add the $1.31 to the total pot as well im very rusty on all this it's been so long since ive done any poker equasions.For some reason im thinking it's total pot including the call is the correct equasion which would mean 33% equity.But that equasion without the call added might be correct at 48% or 49% incluing rake ill have to knuckle down and do some work away from the tables again.

Same, this is what happens if you get used to HUDs....
https://www.cardschat.com/odds-for-dummies.php


right so lets make this correct:
Total Pot = 4.08$ so we need to rake the entire pot, wich would be 3.5% from 4.08$ = 0.1428 so 14 cents rake

Thus we need to pay 1.31$ to win 3.94$ wich is 0.332 -> 33.2%

 

[PaxMundi]

Same, this is what happens if you get used to HUDs....
https://www.cardschat.com/odds-for-dummies.php


right so lets make this correct:
Total Pott = 4.08$ so we need to rake the entire pott, wich would be 3.5% from 4.08$ = 0.1428 so 14 cents rake

Thus we need to pay 1.31$ to win 3.94$ wich is 0.332 -> 33.2%

I make it 33% equity for a profitable call as im calling $1.31 to win a total pot of $4.08
equity x total pot - call = ev
.33 x $4.08 - $1.31 = +ev 0.0364

Well done me :aetsch::bootyshak

 

[LevySystem]

Well done me :aetsch::bootyshak

Results dont change tho. Still a fold imo. Would you give him a jamming range wider than this?

https://gyazo.com/7410b491fe3fdf4f24d3ea857c3b0f2c

this is 72/28 for him

 

[PaxMundi]

Results dont change tho. Still a fold imo. Would you give him a jamming range wider than this?

https://gyazo.com/7410b491fe3fdf4f24d3ea857c3b0f2c

this is 72/28 for him

Ye quite a bit wider id read more into villain being at least a bad reg if not a fish with the shorter stack at this point before reading to much in to 64 hands.Even if it's not as wide as most fish you can definately start adding in some suited connector combos from like 78s up to broadway flush draws.Villains stats preflop dont tell us anything about villains tendencies postflop either so villain might play more loose aggressive postflop or be prone to postflop mistakes with the 3bet calling range.

 

[LevySystem]

Ye quite a bit wider id read more into villain being at least a bad reg if not a fish with the short stack at this point before reading to much in to 64 hands.Even if it's not as wide as most fish you can definately start adding in some suited connector combos from like 78s up to broadway flush draws.

Right so if we take out AA, 22 and A2 + we add all broadwayflushdraws + gutters, and all gutters with BDFD we get 32.72%

https://gyazo.com/643eec668065baf0aa6891969e25c50b

If he jams anything more than this we have a profitable call.

Edit: lets be resultsorientated... What did he show?

 

[fundiver199]

In this situation I would put more emphasis on the HUD-stats than the fact, he only started with 94BB. Maybe he just forgot to enable auto top-up, or he is to new to have even found it. With that in mind preflop is a little bit rough. I guess, the squeeze is ok, but realistically we are not happy, when he give us action. Maybe this is one of those rare times, we could just call from SB?

Even on a flop like this there is not much upside for us. If he missed with a hand like QQ, JJ or 99, he is not going to play a big pot, and if he hit, its rather likely, he has us beat. A weak reg like this might not always 4-bet AK, especially not when our 3-bet was so big. So the only hand, we coolered, is pretty much AJ, which might actually have folded to our 3-bet.

So I actually dont even hate checking this board, but I guess the small bet is ok as well. But like in the other hand you sort of got the information, you needed, and even though it sucks, this is a fold, as other people already suggested. Being a weak tight reg, the same hand as ours is probably the absolute bottom of his range here, and he will have a near zero bluffing frequenzy.

 

[PaxMundi]

In this situation I would put more emphasis on the HUD-stats than the fact, he only started with 94BB. .

They started shorter than 90 something around 70

 

[fundiver199]

They started shorter than 90 something around 70

The hand history, you posted, said 94BB.

 

[fundiver199]

By the way an additional thing to consider here is the fact, it was 3-ways. When UTG shoved all in on the flop, he still had MP left to act behind him. This makes it even more unlikely, he is bluffing or shoving light. At the bare minimum he would need a strong combo draw like KsQs to justify this move.

 

[PaxMundi]

The hand history, you posted, said 94BB.

64 hands on villain so their stack wouldn't be a stationary 94bb stack if they dont have auto top up on and i also pointed out in the op that villain started with a shorter stack.

 

[fundiver199]

64 hands on villain so their stack wouldn't be a stationary 94bb stack if they dont have auto top up on and i also pointed out in the op that villain started with a shorter stack.

Ok I get it now. That might further identify him as a bad reg, but I still dont think, a bad reg is particularly likely to massively overplay AJ in a spot like this, or bluff for his entire stack into two other players. If he was some crazy maniac fish, like a 78/54 with an aggression factor of 6, that's a different story, but he is not.