$2 NLHE 6-max: AA Vs Nit

[PaxMundi]

Villain 12/5/0
44 hands , so shaping up pretty nitty although this sample size is still somewhat unreliable as to the exact player type. It's probably enough to assume villain isn't an aggressive fish. It's quite a hefty raise on the turn so villain thinks he has the best hand here and the river shove leaves little doubt. But a nit with 3x ? Villain could have Quads or turned 5's full or do you put them on AK KQ or possibly a split with AA i was somewhat confused would you play it any differently ?

Cheers.

Hero (MP): $2.00 (100 bb)
CO: $2.00 (100 bb)
BTN: $2.39 (119.5 bb)
SB: $2.30 (115 bb)
BB: $2.37 (118.5 bb)
UTG: $5.56 (278 bb)

SB posts $0.01, BB posts $0.02

Pre Flop: (pot: $0.03) Hero has A♦ A♥
fold, Hero raises to $0.06, 3 folds, BB calls $0.04

Flop: ($0.13, 2 players) 3♣ 3♦ K♣
BB checks, Hero bets $0.09, BB calls $0.09

Turn: ($0.31, 2 players) 5♠
BB checks, Hero bets $0.20, BB raises to $0.63, Hero calls $0.43

River: ($1.57, 2 players) 8♠
BB bets $1.59 and is all-in, Hero calls $1.22 and is all-in

 

[quant1986]

Sample size is probably too small but I think villian could defend with K3s,A3s. The bet size is quite polarised on the turn/river so I don't expect to see AK/KQ.

But I do see some players check raise AK,KQ on flop like this

 

[ketsung1]

i call that
off corse

 

[Topodemar]

I don't see such a nit defending K3, but maybe defending 33, 55, 88 or A3s.

Against such nit I would check behind the Turn and call any river bet less than the pot. I was playing NL2 until last week and any river bet with pot size or over bet means 100% the nuts in this case-scenario. This way you save your Turn bet, control the pot and save yourself from the difficult river decision.

Of course if the player stats were different I'd play the hand different as I described.

 

[PaxMundi]

I don't see such a nit defending K3, but maybe defending 33, 55, 88 or A3s.

Against such nit I would check behind the Turn and call any river bet less than the pot. I was playing NL2 until last week and any river bet with pot size or over bet means 100% the nuts in this case-scenario. This way you save your Turn bet, control the pot and save yourself from the difficult river decision.

Of course if the player stats were different I'd play the hand different as I described.

Ye i think i like your line of checking behind the turn thinking about it. And that's what puzzled me a little as i usually just discount quads from ranges and sobeit if they do have that it happens to infrequently to worry about. And i didnt see a nit defending 3x vs an MP open so it kind of left me putting them on 55 or AK possibly a split with AA. And there are far more combos of AK making it a clear call if my thinking was correct.

 

[mrgupta]

I think that the nit comments are way premature, that sample size is tiny, you can't learn much from it... 1 orbit of great hands, the nit would transform into lag by your standards. You're making big assumptions that might not be true, even with his calling range vs a 3x sizing. AK is an easy 3bet for most people, even at NL2.

As for the way you've played it, fold or at least reconsider all 1 pair hands facing a raise on the turn at the micros (google the Baluga Theorem, an old concept, that still works perfectly at the micro limits). That is unless the villain is some sort of a maniac or a huge fish who doesn't understand relative hand strength.

Checking behind the turn is just results-oriented thinking, you're only saying this now because you got raised. Had there not been a raise, it wouldn't come across as an idea. Not only do I bet easily OTT, I even value bet the river. There are plenty of sticky villains that will call Kx for 3barrels on NL2.

Hypothetically, say you are correct in your assumption, that the guy really is a nit. He should have only 1 combo of A3s (spades, you block the hearts), 1 quad combo (33) and 3 combos of 55. That's 5 combos in total that beat you, seems like a pretty clear value bet.

 

[PaxMundi]

I think that the nit comments are way premature, that sample size is tiny, you can't learn much from it... 1 orbit of great hands, the nit would transform into lag by your standards. You're making big assumptions that might not be true, even with his calling range vs a 3x sizing. AK is an easy 3bet for most people, even at NL2.

As for the way you've played it, fold or at least reconsider all 1 pair hands facing a raise on the turn at the micros (google the Baluga Theorem, an old concept, that still works perfectly at the micro limits). That is unless the villain is some sort of a maniac or a huge fish who doesn't understand relative hand strength.

Checking behind the turn is just results-oriented thinking, you're only saying this now because you got raised. Had there not been a raise, it wouldn't come across as an idea. Not only do I bet easily OTT, I even value bet the river. There are plenty of sticky villains that will call Kx for 3barrels on NL2.

Hypothetically, say you are correct in your assumption, that the guy really is a nit. He should have only 1 combo of A3s (spades, you block the hearts), 1 quad combo (33) and 3 combos of 55. That's 5 combos in total that beat you, seems like a pretty clear value bet.

That's why i said the sample is somewhat unreliable to exact player type. As Nits can turn out to be tag or lag and vise versa but im using the sample i have. It's also not often a 65/5 or 65/45 over 50 hands turns out to be anything other than a passive or aggressive fish. So you can mark them very early on usually which is why i mentioned ruling aggressive fish out. And im familier with the Baluga Theorem which was aimed specifically at top pair type hands. It was stated that a hand like AK on A579 type boards is a fold vs a turn raise whereas AA on K335 type boards isn't. But in poker terms the theory is ageing a bit like me "gracefully but still of some use" But i havent really played in 4 or 5 years. So i need to brush up on how the games are playing and check some basics again.

 

[c0rnBr34d]

That's pretty nasty. Agree, with sample but it's all we have so lets try to use it. Even a nit is 3 betting KK here vs a MP raise heads up and OOP. It's possible maybe they flat AK. 33 is only one combo. With those frequencies I would be surprised if 55 is floating the flop against an uncapped range. Another thing to consider is YOUR stats over these 50 hands. Have you been raising and 3 betting a lot? If V perceives you as a LAG then they may be more apt to make a stand with Kx. I'm not sure I can get away here. Small sample but it seems very unlikely that we are facing KK or 55 here as we sized 3/4 pot on the flop. Did he instacall flop? Are there any timing tells? I think there are just as many combos of AK, and AcQc, AcJc hands to offset the one combo of 33 and 3 combos of 55 that somehow found a flop float. I think we are being results oriented if we suggest checking this blank turn card. We have no reason to suspect we are behind here and should be getting value. When we get raised and then jammed on I'm just finding it really hard to fold to only 4 combos of value hands when we are near the top of our calling range. If this was a 1000 hand sample size I could get behind a fold. But since it's not, I'm going broke just like you did. NH.

 

[PaxMundi]

That's pretty nasty. Agree, with sample but it's all we have so lets try to use it. Even a nit is 3 betting KK here vs a MP raise heads up and OOP. It's possible maybe they flat AK. 33 is only one combo. With those frequencies I would be surprised if 55 is floating the flop against an uncapped range. Another thing to consider is YOUR stats over these 50 hands. Have you been raising and 3 betting a lot? If V perceives you as a LAG then they may be more apt to make a stand with Kx. I'm not sure I can get away here. Small sample but it seems very unlikely that we are facing KK or 55 here as we sized 3/4 pot on the flop. Did he instacall flop? Are there any timing tells? I think there are just as many combos of AK, and AcQc, AcJc hands to offset the one combo of 33 and 3 combos of 55 that somehow found a flop float. I think we are being results oriented if we suggest checking this blank turn card. We have no reason to suspect we are behind here and should be getting value. When we get raised and then jammed on I'm just finding it really hard to fold to only 4 combos of value hands when we are near the top of our calling range. If this was a 1000 hand sample size I could get behind a fold. But since it's not, I'm going broke just like you did. NH.

The sample villain has of me im running 33/26/5.6 so nothing out of the ordinary for this sort of sample size. You talked me back into thinking the turn bet was good with the flush draw out there though. And villain can have turn bluffs that missed the river with the flush draws which was a consideration at the time. Im just not sure if villain is choosing this commiting raise size as a bluff. It's usually a show of strengh with this sizing while aggro fish usually just jam the turn here.

 

[mrgupta]

That's why i said the sample is somewhat unreliable to exact player type. As Nits can turn out to be tag or lag and vise versa but im using the sample i have. It's also not often a 65/5 or 65/45 over 50 hands turns out to be anything other than a passive or aggressive fish. So you can mark them very early on usually which is why i mentioned ruling aggressive fish out. And im familier with the Baluga Theorem which was aimed specifically at top pair type hands. It was stated that a hand like AK on A579 type boards is a fold vs a turn raise whereas AA on K335 type boards isn't. But in poker terms the theory is ageing a bit like me "gracefully but still of some use" But i havent really played in 4 or 5 years. So i need to brush up on how the games are playing and check some basics again.

In that case, when you have an unreliable sample size, you should use a simpler marking system. Like you, I always mark my villains but I do use the simple basic marks first fish/reg/maniac, etc. You cannot mark someone as a nit this early, because the assumptions you're gonna make are gonna be mostly incorrect. You can then switch your tag for a specific villain over time when you have better reads on the guy.

Baluga theorem applies here too mate, it applies with every top pair and overpair situation...

This is the exact quote:

“You should strongly re-evaluate the strength of one-pair hands in the face of a raise on the turn.”​

The only difference in your specific case would be that you could expect a raise from a hand like K5s by your villain on the turn as well, but that hand he shouldn't have in his range anyway so you can disregard it.


When thinking in terms of his range:
- What is the worst value hand he can raise you with (do you beat it)? - Discussed this in the previous post.
- Does he have any bluffs? - There should be no bluffs on that board.

If you think your villain could raise this turn with a Kx type of hand, then yes, the call is fine. If not, which I believe is true, simply because people do not raise turns with just a top pair kind of hand, then it's not a good call.

 

[PaxMundi]

In that case, when you have an unreliable sample size, you should use a simpler marking system. Like you, I always mark my villains but I do use the simple basic marks first fish/reg/maniac, etc. You cannot mark someone as a nit this early, because the assumptions you're gonna make are gonna be mostly incorrect. You can then switch your tag for a specific villain over time when you have better reads on the guy.

Baluga theorem applies here too mate, it applies with every top pair and overpair situation...

This is the exact quote:

“You should strongly re-evaluate the strength of one-pair hands in the face of a raise on the turn.”​

The only difference in your specific case would be that you could expect a raise from a hand like K5s by your villain on the turn as well, but that hand he shouldn't have in his range anyway so you can disregard it.


When thinking in terms of his range:
- What is the worst value hand he can raise you with (do you beat it)? - Discussed this in the previous post.
- Does he have any bluffs? - There should be no bluffs on that board.

If you think your villain could raise this turn with a Kx type of hand, then yes, the call is fine. If not, which I believe is true, simply because people do not raise turns with just a top pair kind of hand, then it's not a good call.

Im not better off ignoring my stats over 44 hands and labeling them a Tag that's just exacerbating the margin of error . Also here's some further discussion on the beluga therom which is linked in the page your quoting from. I do appreciate the feedback though you may well be correct that this is a fold.
http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=ssplnlpoker&Number=6605819&f

 

[redwards92]

If we're going to fold, fold turn. I play it exactly the same way you did though.

His most likely value combo here is a turned boat and we need to know if he just super over values Kx here imo. I've seen nits and passive players do the most random things at 2nl and I hate folding. We don't block clubs which is great for us.