$5 NLHE 6-max: Flopped set 3 bet pot

[GreenDaddy1]

Villain 3 bet at least AQ+, only 93 hands, 22/18.

I take control Turn to get some money in the pot. I take note he doesnt raise me, unlikely to have a monster.

I check River because only better calls me imo. I'm playing my set as a bluff catcher now and shove over the bet when it comes. I'm dead to a flush but I think that is much less than 50% of the time. Reckon he has a lot of AK, maybe AJ, KQ, AA. Not sure what else 3 bets, checks flop, calls turn and then bets river.

Probably a bit of variance in this line with a non nut set, but it felt right. Thoughts?

Pacific Poker - $0.05 NL FAST (6 max) - Holdem - 6 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4

BTN: 54.4 BB
SB: 83.4 BB
BB: 107.6 BB
UTG: 96.4 BB
Hero (MP): 100 BB
CO: 104.8 BB

SB posts SB 0.4 BB, BB posts BB 1 BB

Pre Flop: (pot: 1.4 BB) Hero has 9♥ 9♠

fold, Hero raises to 3 BB, CO raises to 10 BB, fold, fold, BB calls 9 BB, Hero calls 7 BB

Flop: (30.4 BB, 3 players) 9♣ K♦ J♣
BB checks, Hero checks, CO checks

Turn: (30.4 BB, 3 players) 2♠
BB checks, Hero bets 15.6 BB, CO calls 15.6 BB, fold

River: (61.6 BB, 2 players) 5♣
Hero checks, CO bets 42.6 BB, Hero raises to 74.4 BB and is all-in, fold

Hero wins 138.2 BB

 

[GreenDaddy1]

Reading back over with a fresh mind, clearly QQ & AQ could have taken this line too. Was a bit late when I was posting this and I was super tired

 

[MidnightSleepless]

I'm just intrigued as to the raise on the river. If you consider your hand a bluff catcher now and only better will call the raise then why raise? What are you expecting to get value from with the raise? You clearly beat all his single pair hands and bluffs.

Your raise just makes him fold all his bluffs and possibly most of his 1 pair type hands.

What calls you that you still beat - KJs(2 combos) , AxAc (3 combos of those) maybe that's probably about it. You may argue that AK or any AA would call here I think it's debatable and potentially very villain dependent

What do you lose to (that 3 bet you from the CO) that may consider a call even when the flush draw completes
QTs (He may not have this in his Co vs MP 3 bet range), 4 combos of those
JJ,KK, 3 combos of each of those
AcKc, AcQc, AcTc - Possibly some AcXc if that's in his 3 betting range.

That's 5 combos you beat and 10 combos you loose too.

Just my 2 cents

 

[jaworek1405]

Yes, I agree in the large part with hero. I think that in this situation check on the flop is a standard, because aggressor usually will continue on the flop. When aggressor play check on the flop I play like hero, bet on the turn for value. Check on the flop from the opponent seems that he afraid of something with against hero and player from the big blind. I don't suppose that aggressor pre flop has many suited connector hands, not many suited connector hands AKs, AQs and maybe sometimes Ajs, so I think that on the river we can risk and we can go allin with set. For me in this situation set is a strong hand and for me it isn't bluff catcher. GL

 

[DevaCat]

Yes, I agree in the large part with hero. I think that in this situation check on the flop is a standard, because aggressor usually will continue on the flop. When aggressor play check on the flop I play like hero, bet on the turn for value. Check on the flop from the opponent seems that he afraid of something with against hero and player from the big blind. I don't suppose that aggressor pre flop has many suited connector hands, not many suited connector hands AKs, AQs and maybe sometimes Ajs, so I think that on the river we can risk and we can go allin with set. For me in this situation set is a strong hand and for me it isn't bluff catcher. GL

Not sure I agree that aggressor will usually cbet this pot.

(1)It's a multiway pot, which tends to make everyone play more vanilla.

(2) I just don't see the value in villain cbetting this board for folds, rather than value betting. If CO has JJ+, AQ+ 3-bet range, then he's value betting AK, AA, KK, JJ. Which of these hands does he fold to a lead out? At NL5, very hard for villains to lay down TPTK+ on the flop, so all of this range calls the donkbet, and we have 69% equity against it. AQ he probably checks behind- this is a draw heavy board, you have four outs to a monster, and you're unlikely to get two folds given the texture. So you're hoping to snap off a cbet from QQ (which is only about 13% of his pre-flop range).

I think there's a lot to be said for donking into him:

(1) You don't fold out much of CO's range that would give us any value at any point.
(2) You don't allow the club flush draws and broadway straight draws to get a free card, which can crush our value and is more important multiway.
(3) You build the pot with the aim of getting AA, AK to be pot-committed before the river. SPR is only 3.3 on the flop, so an 18bb donkbet can get SPR to 1.1 for the turn, even with only one caller.
(4) If we're lucky, CO calls and then BB feels priced in to continue to draw with two cards left.

Don't think I have a 100% donkbet range here, but I definitely don't think this is an automatic check (as it would be on a KJ4 rainbow heads-up).

 

[freddydr87]

I dont think vilain has QTs or offsuit 3beting in this stake, so hands for value that would X flop could be the Tsets that he block most off AK and KQ who could potentially call their bets, and a lot off medium hands like TT,QQ,AQ, when you bet turn he could call you with his weak poket pairs and with the gutter, and iff he is holding the A off clubs he has a very good bluff river.
I wouldnt have played X/Jam river u didnt have any clubs to bluff catch with,so i wonth spect to be called by a worse hand when jam river, i would have bet 3/4 pot and nevr folding or would have bet 1/3pot or smaller iff i pretend to fold his raises.

 

[freddydr87]

Not sure I agree that aggressor will usually cbet this pot.

(1)It's a multiway pot, which tends to make everyone play more vanilla.

(2) I just don't see the value in villain cbetting this board for folds, rather than value betting. If CO has JJ+, AQ+ 3-bet range, then he's value betting AK, AA, KK, JJ. Which of these hands does he fold to a lead out? At NL5, very hard for villains to lay down TPTK+ on the flop, so all of this range calls the donkbet, and we have 69% equity against it. AQ he probably checks behind- this is a draw heavy board, you have four outs to a monster, and you're unlikely to get two folds given the texture. So you're hoping to snap off a cbet from QQ (which is only about 13% of his pre-flop range).

I think there's a lot to be said for donking into him:

(1) You don't fold out much of CO's range that would give us any value at any point.
(2) You don't allow the club flush draws and broadway straight draws to get a free card, which can crush our value and is more important multiway.
(3) You build the pot with the aim of getting AA, AK to be pot-committed before the river. SPR is only 3.3 on the flop, so an 18bb donkbet can get SPR to 1.1 for the turn, even with only one caller.
(4) If we're lucky, CO calls and then BB feels priced in to continue to draw with two cards left.

Don't think I have a 100% donkbet range here, but I definitely don't think this is an automatic check (as it would be on a KJ4 rainbow heads-up).

That line iff fine but totally unvalanced, wath would you have when you X flop them?

 

[DevaCat]

That line iff fine but totally unvalanced, wath would you have when you X flop them?

Firstly, we're playing NL5 here, and I think exploitative play is much better than going for some GTO type approach which can't be exploited.

More importantly, we're in a slightly unusual position- how many times are we oop on a dripping wet board having flopped a set multiway? If you see every flop with every pocket pair, you have a set every 128 hands or so; a board that wet, with all cards 9+ is 7.8% of the time (ignoring the two tone nature of the board); in my database at micros on stars, 14% of pots are multiway to the flop. That's less than 1/10000 hands, before considering our position. You just won't see the same villain twice in this spot, so there's no scope to learn from it (even if villains are paying attention, and the hand goes to showdown, neither of which is certain, particularly at NL5).

One other thing- I think that whether you donkbet or go for a check/ raise (which I also like here to get villain to put in money when he's behind) depends upon the CO villain's cbet %. If you have a villain who is cbet happy (and I have plenty in my database who run at 90%+, and have cbet as a basic stat on my HUD) then feel free to go for a c/r. But I'm still not feeling good about giving free cards on this board.

 

[freddydr87]

Firstly, we're playing NL5 here, and I think exploitative play is much better than going for some GTO type approach which can't be exploited.

More importantly, we're in a slightly unusual position- how many times are we oop on a dripping wet board having flopped a set multiway? If you see every flop with every pocket pair, you have a set every 128 hands or so; a board that wet, with all cards 9+ is 7.8% of the time (ignoring the two tone nature of the board); in my database at micros on stars, 14% of pots are multiway to the flop. That's less than 1/10000 hands, before considering our position. You just won't see the same villain twice in this spot, so there's no scope to learn from it (even if villains are paying attention, and the hand goes to showdown, neither of which is certain, particularly at NL5).

One other thing- I think that whether you donkbet or go for a check/ raise (which I also like here to get villain to put in money when he's behind) depends upon the CO villain's cbet %. If you have a villain who is cbet happy (and I have plenty in my database who run at 90%+, and have cbet as a basic stat on my HUD) then feel free to go for a c/r. But I'm still not feeling good about giving free cards on this board.

Who says that gto can be exploited? U play gto but vulains make a lot off mistakes on thouse stakes that u can take advantage off it. I have seen a lot off peaple saying the same thing, i learn gto in higuer stakes, ges wath u will be exploited there untill u learn and you will have to get some stakes donw in the prosses. As you say u have a database and use hud, some regs use them too and that tendencie off donking out off position could be exploited either to fold or to raise you iff you are donking to much.
At the end didnt answere my question wath do you x with? Like the date you will be oop facing 3bets like 30% off time u opr so yea that a lot off oop chances and no u are totally wrong u will be hiting your set 11times out off 100 in the flop. And there are more tham 1k flop run out so peaple tent to agroup them in like 12 to 20 tipes to simplify the study off the spots.

 

[DevaCat]

Who says that gto can be exploited? U play gto but vulains make a lot off mistakes on thouse stakes that u can take advantage off it. I have seen a lot off peaple saying the same thing, i learn gto in higuer stakes, ges wath u will be exploited there untill u learn and you will have to get some stakes donw in the prosses. As you say u have a database and use hud, some regs use them too and that tendencie off donking out off position could be exploited either to fold or to raise you iff you are donking to much.
At the end didnt answere my question wath do you x with? Like the date you will be oop facing 3bets like 30% off time u opr so yea that a lot off oop chances and no u are totally wrong u will be hiting your set 11times out off 100 in the flop. And there are more tham 1k flop run out so peaple tent to agroup them in like 12 to 20 tipes to simplify the study off the spots.

Think we might be misunderstanding each other here, as I said "GTO... can't be exploited" in my earlier post. Definitionally, GTO cannot be exploited (Nash is the clearest example of this, but that's only really solved for heads up, as it's too computationally complex otherwise). I'm saying that GTO cannot be exploited, but as such by definition it's not exploitative. I certainly don't play GTO, as I think GTO is suboptimal in the micros.

I'm well aware that most villains will be using a HUD- in fact, my working presumption is that most competent players would be doing so, and CO's stats would lead me to think that he would have one. That's not the same as catching all tendencies, as NoteTracker certainly isn't used as heavily (and isn't available in every HUD if I recall correctly). And if the hand doesn't go to showdown, he wouldn't be able to define a donkbet range. You seem to have a concern that I advocate donkbetting regularly; I certainly don't (there's a reason that it's called a donkbet). But in this specific situation I think it has some merit.

I'm confused by your comment that we hit a set 11.8% when we have a pocket pair. That's obviously right. But as we only have a pocket pair 5.88% of the time, then it's 0.83% (=11.8%*5.88%) of hands that we are dealt a pocket pair and then subsequently spike the set. That is every 120 hands. The maths in my earlier post holds up.

My point here is that the NL5 field finds it very difficult to ditch TPTK+ on the flop. And generic 22/18 villain's 3-betting range looks something like JJ+, AQ+. Which absolutely smacks into this flop. The entirety of his range is either a set (JJ, KK); a pair + gutshot (QQ); an overpair (AA); TPTK (AK) or a gutshot (AQ). There is literally nothing which has completely missed the flop, and plenty worse calls us (AA, AK, probably QQ).

As for what I check with-- that varies by board texture. But on this flop, I'd check at least AK, QQ, AcQc, TT. AK is check/ call; QQ, TT is check/ fold; AcQc is an all-in check/ raise as I block the hands I'm worried about checking behind (AQ, QQ).

I'm not entirely sure what the last bit of your post means, but my opens are certainly not getting 3-bet 30% of the time- it's actually about half that often. Might be a difference between short-handed and full-ring driving that result?