€4 NLHE 6-max: What villain (aggressive fish) could have?

[poker_bro]

Villian Stats (VPIP/PFR/AF): 63/26/6

Some hand reading exercise. Share your thought process about what this villain could possibly have by this aggressive action?



iPoker - €0.04 NL (6 max) - Holdem - 6 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4

Hero (UTG): 141.75 BB
MP: 142.5 BB (VPIP: 20.83, PFR: 18.33, 3Bet Preflop: 9.09, hands: 121)
CO: 75 BB (VPIP: 50.00, PFR: 0.00, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 44)
BTN: 183.5 BB (VPIP: 56.82, PFR: 25.00, 3Bet Preflop: 26.67, Hands: 44)
SB: 97.5 BB (VPIP: 62.96, PFR: 25.93, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 28)
BB: 25 BB (VPIP: 12.20, PFR: 12.20, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 41)

SB posts SB 0.5 BB, BB posts BB 1 BB, CO posts penalty blind 1 BB

Pre Flop: (pot: 2.5 BB) Hero has Q♦ K♦

Hero raises to 4 BB, fold, fold, BTN calls 4 BB, SB calls 3.5 BB, fold

Flop: (14 BB, 3 players) K♠ 9♦ 2♦
SB bets 4 BB, Hero raises to 12 BB, fold, SB calls 8 BB

Turn: (38 BB, 2 players) 3♣
SB bets 81.5 BB, Hero calls 81.5 BB

River: (201 BB, 2 players) 6♥

 

[fundiver199]

Its difficult to put maniacs like this on a hand, because they play almost anything. His line is representing a hand, that improved on the turn. So maybe something like 33 or K3s. Or just a random bluff, especially if there was history between you. Against this kind of player I am reluctantly calling with top pair and a flushdraw.

 

[maxi_j]

Readless vs average oponent Here I expecting 33, maybe Ad5d Ad4d K9


I gues he donks with 9T, 98, A9, A2s, XXdd, JT,QT, QJ maybe 32s, PP (bacacaly whole caling range exept -KX, 99, 22.


On turn Depends how agresive he is :
1) Tends to overplay hands I think:
JdTd, 32s, 33,

2)Likes to bluf (means slowplay also)
32s,, JT, 8Ts, QJ, QT, A2, A9, Ad3d, 33 +at least 10% of time random card.

 

[Andrew Popov]

A maniac is not predictable, because he is called a maniac. I am ready to assume that he had in his hands a pair of jacks or queens. This is very similar to the maniac's style - after receiving the finished pair, he will play it to the end. Moreover, the board structure does not seem too dangerous to him.

 

[Matt Vaughan]

To echo what others have said here another way: we're never going to have our villain "perfectly" narrowed here to a tight range. Even though his line is very odd and unusual, this turn overbet jam out of flow doesn't have to be a nutted hand, nor necessarily one that improved on turn.

However that's certainly possible, and I'd expect it to include a lot of like 3Xdd holdings where he picks up a pair and just goes for it. Some two pairs are out there for sure, but we even have a ton of equity vs those, so I'm just never finding the fold here, expecting to get shown some very weird holdings a very non-zero amount of the time.

 

[John A]

I'd raise a little more on the flop. On the whole, maniacs will show up with some random holdings, that calling here is EV. It's more a matter of swings for you. Because calling in these spots will obviously increase your variance. If you have no issue w/ that, then this is a call.

 

[teh_colonel_saigon]

I'd raise a little more on the flop. On the whole, maniacs will show up with some random holdings, that calling here is EV. It's more a matter of swings for you. Because calling in these spots will obviously increase your variance. If you have no issue w/ that, then this is a call.

Yea I agree. Raise pot on the flop, having top pair with a draw.

Here there are over pairs and sets that would make up the upper end of his range. I actually don't ever think you are ahead all that much when he shoves turn. Draws would be more aggro on flop. This looks like 2 pair or better.

You have 56% equity if he's shoving with 33, 22, 99, JJ+, AKo, KJ+, and suited aces. Makes it an OK call, but as mentioned, not happy about it.

 

[poker_bro]

Thank you for all the great answers, I learned a lot. I am glad that I made the right decision in your opinion. Unfortunately, almost all of your answers were wrong. He had JhQs. So, that shove was some kind of semi-bluff about straight. Mathematical disaster

 

[fundiver199]

To echo what others have said here another way: we're never going to have our villain "perfectly" narrowed here to a tight range. Even though his line is very odd and unusual, this turn overbet jam out of flow doesn't have to be a nutted hand, nor necessarily one that improved on turn.


However that's certainly possible, and I'd expect it to include a lot of like 3Xdd holdings where he picks up a pair and just goes for it. Some two pairs are out there for sure, but we even have a ton of equity vs those, so I'm just never finding the fold here, expecting to get shown some very weird holdings a very non-zero amount of the time.

Agree that we can never fold this against a maniac. Other than sets and K9s this is one of the absolute best hands, we can have to call him with, because as you say, we have equity, even when he have 2 pair or better. We are probably never looking at a hand like AK here, so its better to call with KdQd, KdJd or KdTd than a hand like AA.

 

[fundiver199]

Thank you for all the great answers, I learned a lot. I am glad that I made the right decision in your opinion. Unfortunately, almost all of your answers were wrong. He had JhQs. So, that shove was some kind of semi-bluff about straight. Mathematical disaster

Several of us tried to make the point, that we are not really trying to guess his hand here, because its impossible. Words like "random bluffs" or "very weird holdings" were used, and this hand certainly qualify for both.

 

[Gohaku94]

Going with your questions.. he could have 22 99 K9 K2 and 92 that beats you on flop (if he is not just calling AA and KK) so this is your answer.
Now when you raise on flop you have to ask yourself. Are you value raising or raising as a semi-bluff? If you are value raising on flop then call the turn, else fold it. Easy

 

[fundiver199]

Now when you raise on flop you have to ask yourself. Are you value raising or raising as a semi-bluff? If you are value raising on flop then call the turn, else fold it. Easy

I think, its pretty clear, we are raising for value against a player like this, when he lead out (donk bet) for less than 30% of the pot. However if we always call raises or big donk bets, when we are betting for value, we risk getting value owned.

He could have had a hand like K3, 33, 93 or even 32, which we were ahead of on the flop, so our flop raise was completely fine. But that does not mean, we have to pay him an entire stack, when he improve on the turn.

So if for instance we had KQ with no flush draw, I think, its fine to let him bluff us here. I would then watch his play, and if he does something like this very regularly, I would look for spots to call him later. But if this is the first time, we see him do something "crazy", we dont really know, how often he is bluffing.