$2 NLHE 6-max: Theeway chop

[Dobbler1]

Wondering if I should have tried to bluff the board. In hindsight I feel like there's a bigger chance that I could have caught a fold than run into a slow-played diamond.

Thoughts?

pokerstars Zoom, Hold'em No Limit - $0.01/$0.02 - 6 players
Replay this hand on CardsChat

SpeeedOfSound (UTG): $2.63 (132 bb)
J Do zer0 (MP): $2.03 (102 bb)
Iwanb4 (CO): $1.96 (98 bb)
dobbler1 (BU): $5.84 (292 bb)
FlorianHeuer (SB): $1.28 (64 bb)
guguni (BB): $5.68 (284 bb)

Pre-Flop: ($0.03) Hero (dobbler1) is BTN with 6♣ 6♥
2 players fold, Iwanb4 (CO) raises to $0.06, dobbler1 (BU) calls $0.06, FlorianHeuer (SB) calls $0.05, 1 fold

Flop: ($0.20) T♦ 9♦ J♦ (3 players)
FlorianHeuer (SB) checks, Iwanb4 (CO) checks, dobbler1 (BU) checks

Turn: ($0.20) 3♦ (3 players)
FlorianHeuer (SB) checks, Iwanb4 (CO) checks, dobbler1 (BU) checks

River: ($0.20) Q♦ (3 players)
FlorianHeuer (SB) checks, Iwanb4 (CO) checks, dobbler1 (BU) checks

Total pot: $0.19 (Rake: $0)

Showdown:
Iwanb4 (CO) shows J♣ Q♣ (a flush, Queen high)
(Equity - Pre-Flop: 47%, Flop: 87%, Turn: 74%, River: 33%)

FlorianHeuer (SB) shows 3♠ 4♣ (a flush, Queen high)
(Equity - Pre-Flop: 13%, Flop: 4%, Turn: 17%, River: 33%)

dobbler1 (BU) shows 6♣ 6♥ (a flush, Queen high)
(Equity - Pre-Flop: 40%, Flop: 9%, Turn: 10%, River: 33%)

Iwanb4 (CO) wins $0.06
FlorianHeuer (SB) wins $0.07
dobbler1 (BU) wins $0.06

 

[gustav197poker]

You played well since preflop. Btn has a wide calling range and it is correct to use all that range, when the opener of the hand is the previous position. When Sb calls and it's 3-MWB there is no additional merit to attempting a bluff on this one-color texture, as our perceived range is wide.
The reasons to play cautiously increase when we have the best position at the table. In fact the sequence was quite passive of actions and everything that has happened is fine, from your perspective. The actions of your villains are of course debatable: opener could have made a continuation bet on the flop and SB should never have played that crap combination.
Greetings.

 

[Dobbler1]

You played well since preflop. Btn has a wide calling range and it is correct to use all that range, when the opener of the hand is the previous position. When Sb calls and it's 3-MWB there is no additional merit to attempting a bluff on this one-color texture, as our perceived range is wide.
The reasons to play cautiously increase when we have the best position at the table. In fact the sequence was quite passive of actions and everything that has happened is fine, from your perspective. The actions of your villains are of course debatable: opener could have made a continuation bet on the flop and SB should never have played that crap combination.
Greetings.

I should have been more specific. I'm wondering if there's merit to bluffing the board on the river. I think the chances of loosing chips to a better hand is extremely small, and the chances of getting one or two folds, while also very small, is much higher. That's specifically what I'm asking. Am I thinking about this wrong, or was it a missed opportunity?

 

[gustav197poker]

I should have been more specific. I'm wondering if there's merit to bluffing the board on the river. I think the chances of loosing chips to a better hand is extremely small, and the chances of getting one or two folds, while also very small, is much higher. That's specifically what I'm asking. Am I thinking about this wrong, or was it a missed opportunity?

When the board is heavy and you have a wide perceived range there is no need to river bluff 2 players. Maybe you can do better in HU, but this isn't the right texture to do it anyway, since if you had Ad or Kd you would have somehow tried to get some value on previus streets, maybe from preflop in BTN.

 

[Dobbler1]

When the board is heavy and you have a wide perceived range there is no need to river bluff 2 players. Maybe you can do better in HU, but this isn't the right texture to do it anyway, since if you had Ad or Kd you would have somehow tried to get some value on previus streets, maybe from preflop in BTN.

I'm not trying to debate you, but just understand the problem with my reasoning if there is one. I can't see many hands with a diamond that would check to me on both the turn and river. As I see it, I'd be telling the story that I had a mid diamond (pocket 4/5/6). Checking the river, I get my third of the pot most of the time, and very rarely get beat and get nothing. If I bet I get 3x more chips sometimes, get 2x more chips a little more often (not sure I can say how often I get folds... it's zoom, so I have no reads on these players), often I get the same amount, and I loose a little extra on the rare occasion. The only hands I can think that might call and beat me are pocket 4/5's or I guess 6's with a diamond, and I'm blocking the 6's pretty well. Isn't my fold equity higher than the chances of running into one those 3 hands (especially against micro-stakes players, some of whom might fold the lower diamond)? If I get reraised either I'm behind or... good for them, nice bluff and they get the pot.

Is it a question that is open to debate/judgement and different playing styles, or am I just way out in left field with my reasoning? If I am, I'm not seeing it.

 

[gustav197poker]

I'm not trying to debate you, but just understand the problem with my reasoning if there is one. I can't see many hands with a diamond that would check to me on both the turn and river. As I see it, I'd be telling the story that I had a mid diamond (pocket 4/5/6). Checking the river, I get my third of the pot most of the time, and very rarely get beat and get nothing. If I bet I get 3x more chips sometimes, get 2x more chips a little more often (not sure I can say how often I get folds... it's zoom, so I have no reads on these players), often I get the same amount, and I loose a little extra on the rare occasion. The only hands I can think that might call and beat me are pocket 4/5's or I guess 6's with a diamond, and I'm blocking the 6's pretty well. Isn't my fold equity higher than the chances of running into one those 3 hands (especially against micro-stakes players, some of whom might fold the lower diamond)? If I get reraised either I'm behind or... good for them, nice bluff and they get the pot.

Is it a question that is open to debate/judgement and different playing styles, or am I just way out in left field with my reasoning? If I am, I'm not seeing it.

I honestly don't think it's worth it but if your idea is to bluff the river you should make a size big enough to balance the times you're ahead of your opponent and want to polarize your range. You shouldn't make a 1/3 bet when your opponent knows you're more likely to bluff.
But you can't have this logic when there is another opponent, the SB. Naturally now we know that this is practically a duel against CO. But here the SB range should not help you most of the time to try your river bluff.

 

[Dobbler1]

I honestly don't think it's worth it but if your idea is to bluff the river you should make a size big enough to balance the times you're ahead of your opponent and want to polarize your range. You shouldn't make a 1/3 bet when your opponent knows you're more likely to bluff.
But you can't have this logic when there is another opponent, the SB. Naturally now we know that this is practically a duel against CO. But here the SB range should not help you most of the time to try your river bluff.

I see how this reasoning works as a general practice, but not in this specific situation. Mostly when we bluff, we're worried about being called (or raised) by better hands. In this case, the vast majority of times I'm called is by a hand that I don't lose to, just chop with. The fact that it's a three-way pot makes me think it's a better idea, because even if I get one fold I'm ahead. Do you see what I'm saying? Am I missing something?

 

[Dobbler1]

To put it in terms of the math (and I'm not a math guy, so my numbers are just guestimations), my pot equity is slightly less than 33% on the river (I think that's how you'd describe a high likelihood of a threeway chop. Let's say it's 31%. Doesn't that mean that it's a good play if my fold equity is greater than 2%? That's not many folds needed to make it a net profitable play.

 

[gustav197poker]

I see how this reasoning works as a general practice, but not in this specific situation. Mostly when we bluff, we're worried about being called (or raised) by better hands. In this case, the vast majority of times I'm called is by a hand that I don't lose to, just chop with. The fact that it's a three-way pot makes me think it's a better idea, because even if I get one fold I'm ahead. Do you see what I'm saying? Am I missing something?

You don't consider other possibilities. The V could have any type of hand that you lose with. His game could be with A-4d; K-4d; A-5d; K-5d; A-6d; K-6d;.....There are really a lot of hands you could lose with. And you need to make a big bet size to win the pot and beat a better hand. Otherwise the check line OTR is the standard.

 

[Dobbler1]

You don't consider other possibilities. The V could have any type of hand that you lose with. His game could be with A-4d; K-4d; A-5d; K-5d; A-6d; K-6d;.....There are really a lot of hands you could lose with. And you need to make a big bet size to win the pot and beat a better hand. Otherwise the check line OTR is the standard.

I'm saying that I can discount those combos almost to zero, because they would almost never check all streets (and the king/low combos fold preflop more often than not). Do you think that's not correct?

 

[gustav197poker]

I'm saying that I can discount those combos almost to zero, because they would almost never check all streets (and the king/low combos fold preflop more often than not). Do you think that's not correct?

On a super dangerous board you shouldn't discount those combos. They can easily induce small bets and check monotonous structures like this, since they basically got lucky against your range of bluffs because now they work as a bluffs catcher on the river, in the times that they passive played.

 

[Dobbler1]

On a super dangerous board you shouldn't discount those combos. They can easily induce small bets and check monotonous structures like this, since they basically got lucky against your range of bluffs because now they work as a bluffs catcher on the river, in the times that they passive played.

Hmm. I would've thought that level of passivity on a board like this would be exceedingly rare. I'll take your word for it that it isn't. Thanks for the feedback. It was helpful.