$50 NLHE 6-max: $50 NLHE 6-max: $50 NLHE 6-max: $50 NLHE 6-max: Two Pair Called Shove on the Turn

[gustav197poker]

If you put yourself in the shoes of the BB he sees two fishy looking stack sizes in CO and BTN and raises large with his AK for value. He does indeed pick up a call from a worse hand making his preflop play correct (ergo the button play is incorrect).
BB sizing on flop is fine, he will usually fold out BTN whiffs and still has overcard/ gutter equity. He hits his ace and shoves for value on the SPR v a fishy looking player who likely calls with plenty worse.
Fron BTN point of view the preflop call of the 3bet is questionable and you are going to be dominated often with this trouble hand. QT is one of the worst of the broadway combos because if you hit top pair you never know if you are good. Imo even a loose player wont be making it 12bb here with much worse than QT. With a shorter stack the BTN should be playing tighter exactly because the spr is lower and there is less room for manoeuvre.

So having hit 2pair versus a loose aggressive player then calling down is the standard play to keep in all the bluffs. BTN should only raise flop against a tight opponent who will have much more AA KK AQ in this spot that won't likely fold on this board and will probably gii on the flop v BTN stack size.

QTs is very strong for a maniac since bb. A maniac could play much more open than a 35% of dominated range OOP. There are no set limits and much less when there are several short stacks. I agree with your reasoning in general. The call range on the flop is closer to villains looser than tight, to keep their bluffs. The reverse applies when we believe that the structure of rank v is smaller. That is x / jam and b / jam in the flop for more closed ranges.

 

[Kmason531]

I think the call on the turn is a questionable decision against a maniac. Because you're not in good shape to catch bluffs here. By blocking double pairs larger than yours, now the wide range of a v has 9 free (A-8) combos, which could induce IP calls. Maybe against a player of more closed rank I could try to catch here. But against a maniac, we probably have little capacity available with the bottom of our range.
Greetings.

Are you rationalizing that we should call with a tighter range vs a player that has a wider range than we would vs a player with tighter range? I'm sorry to say but this is really bad logic.

Turn call is perfectly fine here.

 

[gustav197poker]

Are you rationalizing that we should call with a tighter range vs a player that has a wider range than we would vs a player with tighter range? I'm sorry to say but this is really bad logic.

Turn call is perfectly fine here.

No. I say that if we put the villain with a very wide range and we believe that his polarization came on the turn, with a hand that crushes us. If we really consider that, it's not wrong to fold on the turn. Otherwise this situation is a standard call on the turn.