$2 NLHE 6-max: Line Check, do you check anywhere? River bet too thin? or tough luck?

[Casey55]

$2 NLHE 6-max: Line Check, do you check anywhere? River bet too thin? or tough luck?

pokerstars, Hold'em No Limit - $0.01/$0.02 - 5 players
Hand delivered by Upswing Poker

UTG: $2.52 (126 bb)
CO: $1.51 (76 bb)
BU: $2.91 (146 bb)
SB: $4.26 (213 bb)
BB (Hero): $2.14 (107 bb)

Pre-Flop: ($0.03) Hero is BB with Q♠ K♥
1 fold, CO raises to $0.06, BTN calls $0.06, 1 fold, Hero 3-bets to $0.26, 1 fold, BTN calls $0.20

Flop: ($0.59) 2♥ Q♣ 2♣ (2 players)
Hero bets $0.22, BTN calls $0.22

Turn: ($1.03) 8♠ (2 players)
Hero bets $0.50, BTN calls $0.50

River: ($2.03) 7♦ (2 players)
Hero bets $0.98, BTN raises to $1.93 (all-in), Hero calls $0.18 (all-in)

Total pot: $4.35 (Rake: $0.15)

Spoiler

Showdown:
BU shows 8♦ 8♥ (a full house, Eights full of Twos)
(Equity - Pre-Flop: 54%, Flop: 8%, Turn: 95%, River: 100%)

BB (Hero) shows Q♠ K♥ (two pair, Queens and Twos)
(Equity - Pre-Flop: 46%, Flop: 92%, Turn: 5%, River: 0%)

BU wins $4.20

 

[300HPGOD]

I dont like the 3 bet pre flop personally unless I know I am going against opponents that fold. At 2NL it just seems to me many players in the population do not fold to 3 bets often so if that is the case we are making ourselves play a big pot out of position with a hand that is not hopeless by any means and does flop well but we can also be in some trouble with it as well. I prefer with this hand to just call, see the flop and then play accordingly.

As I like the bet on the flop and would have picked a sizing similar to yours except I would have a little larger (something like 26 to 28 cents) but your bet is in the ballpark. I just think we can squeeze a few more pennies out of flush draws there and also pocket pair hands. If villain has nothing they are folding to a 22 cent bet just as they would probably a 17 cent bet or a 27 cent bet.

On the turn I like the sizing and I think we should be betting again for the same reasons we bet on the flop which is to get value from some sticky pocket pairs and also a flush draw that may call.

River card would not scare me but it would hit the pocket pair part of villains range. I think you can play this two ways which is to either just jam it in (I dont get your bet leaving yourself 18 cents behind as if villain is going to call then you could get them to call 18 cents more as well) or check with the intention of bluff catching. I prefer checking and bluff catching as all missed draws will fold to our jam and pocket pairs that arent sets should fold as well to a jam. Checking gives them a chance to not have to call a triple barrel after a 3 bet pre and allows them to bluff the missed draws they got here with. Jamming just probably doesnt get called by enough hands that are beating us to make it more profitable then checking and hoping villain bluffs imo.

 

[mktpppr]

P: readless it's easy flat. Readless almost never 3bet like this in nl2. Reasons explained in post above. Also, CO is a weak player (76bb) and very good chance he doesn't fold vs our 3bet.

F: as played, bet much bigger to 67-75% pot for max pressure on A-highs, low-mid pocket pairs and flush draws.

T: as played, bet bigger to 67-75% pot, same reasoning as flop.

R: as played, we have to slow down, check/evaluate is best because we can't go for 3 streets of value with only top pair.

We're praying that villain checks behind with low-mid pocket pair (showdown value) or stationing A-high. We might even get some draws checking back.

We're often check/folding, because even weak players realize they can't bet small on river, and population isn't bluff jamming enough to bluff catch.

 

[Hermus]

P: readless it's easy flat. Readless almost never 3bet like this in nl2. Reasons explained in post above. Also, CO is a weak player (76bb) and very good chance he doesn't fold vs our 3bet.

Readless it's an easy squeeze. Still calling against the likely recreational and NL2 in general though, but those are both reads. Flatting KQo as your baseline strategy is a mistake imo.

F: as played, bet much bigger to 67-75% pot for max pressure on A-highs, low-mid pocket pairs and flush draws.

This line of reasoning is also slightly inaccurate. Betting super big to put hands we're ahead of in a tough spot is achieving the exact opposite. Our goal is to put the marginal combo's in villain's range in a tough spot and bet sizing plays a huge role in how much villain should bluff catch. If we bet too big the answer to that question turns out to be never, and villain calls with only value hands that beat us and profitably folds the rest. That's not applying max pressure to bluff catchers, that's giving difficult to play hands an easy out. Not to say that's exactly the case here, but sizing down when you have a significant range advantage with an uncapped range betting into a capped range is usually best because that puts a huge chunk of villain's range in a difficult spot.

That being said, I like betting bigger into fishy players that are prone to making calling mistakes so I do actually agree with your advice.

 

[braun_kan]

What is a good squeezing range against 2NL unknowns here? I use around AQo+ and JJ+ just as pure value.

 

[KKillerss]

Readless it's an easy squeeze. Still calling against the likely recreational and NL2 in general though, but those are both reads. Flatting KQo as your baseline strategy is a mistake imo.



This line of reasoning is also slightly inaccurate. Betting super big to put hands we're ahead of in a tough spot is achieving the exact opposite. Our goal is to put the marginal combo's in villain's range in a tough spot and bet sizing plays a huge role in how much villain should bluff catch. If we bet too big the answer to that question turns out to be never, and villain calls with only value hands that beat us and profitably folds the rest. That's not applying max pressure to bluff catchers, that's giving difficult to play hands an easy out. Not to say that's exactly the case here, but sizing down when you have a significant range advantage with an uncapped range betting into a capped range is usually best because that puts a huge chunk of villain's range in a difficult spot.

That being said, I like betting bigger into fishy players that are prone to making calling mistakes so I do actually agree with your advice.

I understand that QK can/should be defended most of the time, specially against one aggressor. Depending on table dynamics, and havin CO and BTN I can see the flat calling merit in some % of hands. But if there is not a palpable reason against Id 3-bet, but with 3x size. I think fold/call/4bet would be quite the same.

On flop I certainly would lead, but with bigger size, 2/3, 3/4 of pot. OOP, many things to go wrong, I will be glad to get that pot, or make the flush chaser pay higher.

Turn was just bad Karma. Depending on the size of stack and pot I might shove there. In the end the size of the river bet was really strange.

 

[JessTee]

very good chance he doesn't fold vs our 3bet.

Surely this is a reason to 3bet here? Why are we wanting folds when he calls with worse Kx and Qx? This is a 3bet for value vs the avg 2nl player imo

As played I think I c/c the river rather than bet out here, I'm not folding at any point otr as its a 3bet pot and we have got there with 1/2 a pot bet left, but I feel like c/c'ing makes it slightly more likely that we take it down maybe.