$500 NL HE 6-max: On this river, I don't believe he can fold. BUvSB 4bet

[Mr_Kk13]

Game

Hold'em

Game Format

No Limit

Stakes

$2/$5

Table Format

6-max (6 seats)

Currency

$

I believe that SB pre-flop 3bet sizing is bad.
A concept you can use in lower stakes, even if villain is underbluffing, you have to call sometimes when you are at the top of your range, especially when your hand is under-represented. Yes, SB can have some flushes, but still, on the river he has a very well disguised set and he beats some Ax two pair combos that could have played like that.

 

[Station_Master]

This hand is wierd. I dont understand the SB 2x 3bet or donk call of river. He probably should have folded turn. I am not sure he is really top of range as who knows what he is taking this line with but maybe QQ is in there and some flushes. SB got himself into mess by 2x 3betting as it's difficult to the say what range BU 4bets, but he must expect AA and QQ at some frequency.

I think this was badly played by SB and well/standard play by BU

 

[Mr_Kk13]

This hand is wierd. I dont understand the SB 2x 3bet or donk call of river. He probably should have folded turn. I am not sure he is really top of range as who knows what he is taking this line with but maybe QQ is in there and some flushes. SB got himself into mess by 2x 3betting as it's difficult to the say what range BU 4bets, but he must expect AA and QQ at some frequency.

I think this was badly played by SB and well/standard play by BU

I honestly believe that SB is a recreational, given his 3bet size pre and his line overal in the hand, but I play 5nl zoom on stars, so.

 

[Station_Master]

I honestly believe that SB is a recreational, given his 3bet size pre and his line overal in the hand, but I play 5nl zoom on stars, so.

Agreed. I am pretty sure a 2x 3bet isn't a thing oop, even at 500z

 

[Aballinamion]

I believe that SB pre-flop 3bet sizing is bad.
A concept you can use in lower stakes, even if villain is underbluffing, you have to call sometimes when you are at the top of your range, especially when your hand is under-represented. Yes, SB can have some flushes, but still, on the river he has a very well disguised set and he beats some Ax two pair combos that could have played like that.

Yes, from time to time is good to be calling from the blinds when we are on the top of our range, but from the SB it can get complicated, because there’s still the Big Blind to speak.
As a rule of thumb we are 3-betting more from the SB and calling more from the BB when it comes in fold and we are on the top of our range: nothing new here, we are just mixing our strategy preflop, sometimes calling and sometimes 3-betting.
When we do call from the SB our range becomes kinda capped to some hands that aren’t good enough to 3-bet and also aren’t bad enough to fold.

Yes, SB’s 3-bet sizing is weird and BU took note of that and made a polarized 4-bet to 2.9x versus SB’s 3-bet.
On the flop, considering SB is a recreational, I don’t love BU checking with its entire 4-bet range, though I don’t think it’s wrong, we could consider some calling aces on SB’s range and hands that will not fold so easily, also taking into consideration that 4-bet’s range of BU x SB can be very wide.
If BU had the ace of diamond on its range, the check will work better. Because in a situation like this, SB had all the combos of diamonds and BU had none, so a c-bet of 1/4, 1/3 of the pot would do the work of protecting BU’s range: A2s-A5s, A9s, ATs-AKs, sometimes QQ, KK, KQs, KJs.
On the turn I continue not loving BU’s 1/3 of the pot sizing, this choice of sizing makes harder to put SB into an all-in pot on the river: so if BU begins to build the pot OTF betting 1/3, it continues to bet 1/2 pot on the turn and a jam becomes easier OTR.
On the river there’s no point on SB’s lead/donkey bet: it should be checking more than betting, but it’s quite clear that SB is playing the hand (set of jacks) and not the range: considering that SB doesn’t own the combos of diamonds, which turns the bet even more loose/fishy/out of the way.
When SB donkeys river, which hands it would be expecting to be ahead? Sure there are some AK and AQ that could call but why not simply check-call a fair bet OTR? Because it would be harder for BU to shove river straight off the bat and hope to get calls, BECAUSE BU haven’t build the pot from the flop.
Lucky for BU, SB had done the job itself.
BU had played better than SB. This hand wasn’t a cooler for the SB, it was poor played OTR.

 

[Mr_Kk13]

Yes, from time to time is good to be calling from the blinds when we are on the top of our range, but from the SB it can get complicated, because there’s still the Big Blind to speak.
As a rule of thumb we are 3-betting more from the SB and calling more from the BB when it comes in fold and we are on the top of our range: nothing new here, we are just mixing our strategy preflop, sometimes calling and sometimes 3-betting.
When we do call from the SB our range becomes kinda capped to some hands that aren’t good enough to 3-bet and also aren’t bad enough to fold.

Yes, SB’s 3-bet sizing is weird and BU took note of that and made a polarized 4-bet to 2.9x versus SB’s 3-bet.
On the flop, considering SB is a recreational, I don’t love BU checking with its entire 4-bet range, though I don’t think it’s wrong, we could consider some calling aces on SB’s range and hands that will not fold so easily, also taking into consideration that 4-bet’s range of BU x SB can be very wide.
If BU had the ace of diamond on its range, the check will work better. Because in a situation like this, SB had all the combos of diamonds and BU had none, so a c-bet of 1/4, 1/3 of the pot would do the work of protecting BU’s range: A2s-A5s, A9s, ATs-AKs, sometimes QQ, KK, KQs, KJs.
On the turn I continue not loving BU’s 1/3 of the pot sizing, this choice of sizing makes harder to put SB into an all-in pot on the river: so if BU begins to build the pot OTF betting 1/3, it continues to bet 1/2 pot on the turn and a jam becomes easier OTR.
On the river there’s no point on SB’s lead/donkey bet: it should be checking more than betting, but it’s quite clear that SB is playing the hand (set of jacks) and not the range: considering that SB doesn’t own the combos of diamonds, which turns the bet even more loose/fishy/out of the way.
When SB donkeys river, which hands it would be expecting to be ahead? Sure there are some AK and AQ that could call but why not simply check-call a fair bet OTR? Because it would be harder for BU to shove river straight off the bat and hope to get calls, BECAUSE BU haven’t build the pot from the flop.
Lucky for BU, SB had done the job itself.
BU had played better than SB. This hand wasn’t a cooler for the SB, it was poor played OTR.

Yes, this is a bias that affects several poker players. They think they were coolered, but actually they did not play the hand well(I am referring to the last sentence mostly, I agree with the rest of the analysis)

 

[jonaselloco]

Hello brother.
As our friend says above, I think it's a strange hand.
Possibly a recreational player.
Possibly we suppose that the raise 2 bet in preflop could be logical to see the reaction of BN, but I estimate that seeing that BN does a reraise 3 bet, it seems to me that SB already has to estimate minimally that the range of this is between AA KK QQ or an AKs, less than that no.
Sb makes the theoretical call to see the miracle of the J and the set. If you ask me, with those JJs before BN's strong reraise I would have retired with a lot of pain because I love J hahahaha
But when you see the flop A9 diamonds and 3, look at the ranges AA AK KK QQ they are winning, and even a possible diamond KQs is added for example that although it does not beat, you could already consider it as a project against a possible BN semibluff .
I think BN's check was fine, and SB also checked.
Now the SB's call on the turn was really stupid for me.
Because there the BN range was opened even more, even one could imagine a supposed K10s that if SB got the J on the river it would be a possible BN straight.
In other words, he had been losing anyway and SB insisted that he had to get the J.
And well, fate gave it to him on the river but it was already very, very late.
If you ask me how I would have played with those JJ from SB ???
Given BN's 2.5 Bet miniraise, I would have only called, I wouldn't mind if I had also called BB, I wanted to see my J on the flop.
Of course, if when I saw the flop everything was check, I would have checked too.
Seeing the turn and BN's bet I would have folded. There was a lot of game in which he was surely losing.
My regards, brother

 

[subluchuk]

I believe that SB pre-flop 3bet sizing is bad.
A concept you can use in lower stakes, even if villain is underbluffing, you have to call sometimes when you are at the top of your range, especially when your hand is under-represented. Yes, SB can have some flushes, but still, on the river he has a very well disguised set and he beats some Ax two pair combos that could have played like

 

[subluchuk]

Not very well played buy th SB.The 3 bet pre flop is too small.And in my opinion he shouldnt see the river at all after the betting lines at all.On River we can discuss the call.Hard to fold but he cant be too surprised to find himself beat there

 

[makisaa]

Generally sb here is calling the big bets of the villain, while on the board there is an A and a Q. He started an aggression, he did a rerise, but he got another rerise from the villain more impressive. When the villain started betting again so much the sb should fold.

 

[fundiver199]

Preflop
As you say, SBs 3-bet sizing is way to small. 4-bet from BTN (knowing his cards since they showed down) is obviously fine and standard. Calling the 4-bet is also fine, I guess, since its BTN vs. SB.

Flop
SB should check all his hands, and when BTN check back the flop, he should actually be a bit suspicious. Normally people C-bet their entire range on an A-high board and even more so in a 4-bet pot. So this does actually smell a bit like some sort of slowplay. Which is exactly, what it was. From BTNs perspective I am not a huge fan of the slowplay. Yes he does block top pair a lot, but there are other hands, that can call, and he can just go small. If he does not want to C-bet 100%, then top set is a nice hand to have in his check-back range. Of course their might also be some dynamics, where maybe BTN thought, SB was a spewfish and would bluff a lot on the turn.

Turn
SB should check again, and BTN now has to bet and start building the pot. From SBs perspecitive this is actually a somewhat tough spot, because what does he even beat now, that 4-bet preflop? Like exactly KJs or KTs, which for some odd reason checked back the flop? I can actually see a fold here, but he did pick up a gutshot, which makes it a bit better to continue.

River
Even though SB made a set, I am not a big fan of this donk lead. Flush- and straightdraws got there, and BTN can of course also have the better sets, as in fact he did. So I think, this is more of a check-call spot. Maybe BTN will value own himself with a hand like AQ if checked to. From BTNs perspective its fairly optimistic to put in a raise now, when straight- and flushdraws got there. So I think, I just call, and that BTN got a bit lucky to run into pretty much the only hand, that might lead the river and then also call a raise. And from SBs perspective I kind of think, he need to fold to this raise. Ranges are tight in a 4-bet pot, and its difficult to find a lot of bluffs, that play this way. Yes bet-folding is probably a little exploitable, but SB can avoid that by not leading in the first place.

Results
Obviously set over set is always a big cooler, but I think, SB could have played this hand better and gotten away cheaper. As others have said, he seem to be a recreational player, who just happen to have enough money to play 500NL. I also think, BTNs slowplay on the flop and then raise on a river card, that completed draws, is a bit questionable. But obviously it worked out perfect for him this time.