Villain (24/15) opens for 2.5bb from MP (Full Ring), Hero has AcAs and 3bets to 8bb from CO. Villain calls. Pot is around 17bb. Flop comes Td 9s 6c. Villain checks, Hero bets 13bb, Villain calls (pot is around 43bb). Turn comes 5h, Villain checks, Hero bets 25bb, Villain check raises all in for 75bb effective.

My question is whether to go with reads or math here. Plugging in Villain's range as something like TT, 99, 66, T9s, 87s and JJ (maybe QQ), Hero only needs around 30% equity to make the call - that's assuming that Villain does check-raise all in with JJ. On the other hand, at the micros, a check-raise like this is so often a made hand. It's so often sets, two pairs or straights. But if he is ever doing it with JJ, the call is still mathematically correct.

I know there is no easy answer, but how do you know whether to go with reads or math? Some people advocate to always go with reads at the micros - big raise = big hand most of the time. But I worry I'll just be folding too often.

The two are directly related.

In other words, if your read is that your opponent is on a very tight range here, then you should put him on that super-tight range when you're doing the math. If it still says to call, i.e. that you're getting good enough odds that it's correct to call even with relatively low equity, then go with the math

Here in this case, I agree we're going to be shown a set a lot of the time, but I would still stack off considering it's a 3-bet pot and our opponent isn't particularly tight.

well, in this spot you have to go with reading
question is here that might be he shoving with? After putting some thoughts in it I can think only of top pair or overpair, any other hand would go for river to get max valuy from use, because you are not going to do 2 bets with 77 or 88, any other 2 pairs or sets are not afraid of the board and will let you to hang yourself in
I may be wrong though

Originally Posted by Collin Moshman

The two are directly related.

In other words, if your read is that your opponent is on a very tight range here, then you should put him on that super-tight range when you're doing the math. If it still says to call, i.e. that you're getting good enough odds that it's correct to call even with relatively low equity, then go with the math

Here in this case, I agree we're going to be shown a set a lot of the time, but I would still stack off considering it's a 3-bet pot and our opponent isn't particularly tight.

Interesting. Do you mean that the factor of it being a 3bet pot makes the ranges easier to predict? Or that there's just so much money in the pot already that folding is too -EV?

Originally Posted by Mahdi

well, in this spot you have to go with reading
question is here that might be he shoving with? After putting some thoughts in it I can think only of top pair or overpair, any other hand would go for river to get max valuy from use, because you are not going to do 2 bets with 77 or 88, any other 2 pairs or sets are not afraid of the board and will let you to hang yourself in
I may be wrong though

I think any straight, set or two pair would play like this too, given stack sizes. And maybe an overpair like JJ. I assumed he would 4bet QQ/KK preflop so JJ is the only overpair I was putting him on. And the tricky thing is that if JJ is in his check-shove range, a call is correct. But if he's never check-shoving JJ, the call is bad.

Originally Posted by johnnythemoss

Villain (24/15) opens for 2.5bb from MP (Full Ring), Hero has AcAs and 3bets to 8bb from CO. Villain calls. Pot is around 17bb. Flop comes Td 9s 6c. Villain checks, Hero bets 13bb, Villain calls (pot is around 43bb). Turn comes 5h, Villain checks, Hero bets 25bb, Villain check raises all in for 75bb effective.

[. . .] Hero only needs around 30% equity to make the call [. . .]

I really wish you would post actual hand histories, because I feel like this is the second time that I am misreading your hand description. What was your starting stack and what was Villains? Was the effective stack 121-bb or 96-bb? The 30% equity number you give suggests the stacks were 121-bb but the way you described the hand makes it seem like they were 96-bb.

It doesn't make a difference here, as one requires 25.9% equity and the other 30.9% equity, and you won't have it if the person is raising as tightly as you assume. It does make a difference in other hands.

I would probably call. The pot is pretty big and the villain has a wide enough gap that I think he could bet/call pre-flop with QQ and JJ. But, I also play 6-max most of the time.

Originally Posted by vinnie

I really wish you would post actual hand histories

What's the best way to do that? Is there a hand converter tool on this forum? Or export from HoldemManager or something? I'm new to this forum and not sure of the usual formats yet.

Is this the usual format?


***** Hand History for Game 1111111111 ***** (Poker Stars)
$2.00 USD NL Texas Hold'em - Saturday, August 22, 05:41:09 ET 2020
Table McNaught (Real Money)
Seat 1 is the button
Seat 1: Player1 ( $0.79 USD ) - VPIP: 29, PFR: 5, 3B: 0, AF: 3.0, Hands: 21
Seat 2: Player2 ( $1.76 USD ) - VPIP: 20, PFR: 7, 3B: 0, AF: 0.0, Hands: 15
Seat 3: Player3 ( $2.00 USD ) - VPIP: 15, PFR: 12, 3B: 7, AF: 3.0, Hands: 2651
Seat 4: Player4 ( $2.00 USD ) - VPIP: 19, PFR: 17, 3B: 8, AF: 5.0, Hands: 2163
Seat 5: Player5 ( $3.35 USD ) - VPIP: 17, PFR: 11, 3B: 4, AF: 1.8, Hands: 360
Seat 6: Player6 ( $2.00 USD ) - VPIP: 23, PFR: 14, 3B: 4, AF: 2.3, Hands: 728
Seat 7: Hero ( $2.41 USD ) - VPIP: 20, PFR: 13, 3B: 6, AF: 2.2, Hands: 99941
Seat 8: Player8 ( $2.52 USD ) - VPIP: 22, PFR: 15, 3B: 0, AF: 3.6, Hands: 109
Seat 9: Player9 ( $0.68 USD ) - VPIP: 17, PFR: 5, 3B: 0, AF: 2.1, Hands: 750
Player2 posts small blind [$0.01 USD].
Player3 posts big blind [$0.02 USD].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to Hero [ Ac As ]
Player4 folds
Player5 folds
Player6 raises [$0.05 USD]
Hero raises [$0.16 USD]
Player8 folds
Player9 folds
Player1 folds
Player2 folds
Player3 folds
Player6 calls [$0.11 USD]
** Dealing Flop ** [ 6c, 9s, Td ]
Player6 checks
Hero bets [$0.26 USD]
Player6 calls [$0.26 USD]
** Dealing Turn ** [ 5h ]
Player6 checks
Hero bets [$0.50 USD]
Player6 raises [$1.58 USD]

https://www.cardschat.com/hand-converter.php -- paste the raw hand history there.
There's a link at the top of the page to it. Look for "Hand Converter"

It allows you to convert it to a replayer (where we can watch it) or a history that you can post in the forum.

The format you used isn't ideal, although it is good enough and most people will be happy with it.

It does answer my question. And the way you described the hand was accurate, but I'm not sure where the 30% came from.

Effective stacks were $2.00 or 100-bb. You have to call $1.08 (54-bb) and there is $2.95 out there after he shoves (147.5-bb). 2.7-1 odds or 26.8% needed. So, you're getting a slightly better price than the 30%. Although, there's going to be some rake (3.5% if I recall about PokerStars) so you do want a little better 27.8% in this case.

There's also another hand converter in the cash-game hand discussion area.

If you use the converter and select Forum Code, you end up with a nice condensed colorful hand history like this and a link to a replayer in it:

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

UTG: $2.09 (105 bb)
MP: $2.54 (127 bb)
CO (Hero): $2.00 (100 bb)
BU: $2.23 (112 bb)
SB: $2.00 (100 bb)
BB: $2.04 (102 bb)

Pre-Flop: ($0.03) Hero is CO with 8♦ 8♣
UTG calls $0.02, 1 fold, Hero raises to $0.07, BTN calls $0.07, 2 players fold, UTG calls $0.05

Flop: ($0.24) 8♥ 2♣ Q♠ (3 players)
UTG bets $0.24, Hero calls $0.24, BU folds

Turn: ($0.72) 6♦ (2 players)
UTG checks, Hero bets $0.36, UTG calls $0.36

River: ($1.44) T♥ (2 players)
UTG checks, Hero bets $1.33 (all-in), UTG calls $1.33

It makes it a lot easier to see what is going on, who is involved, the stacks and pots, etc. It's not required, but it's strongly encouraged. You will also get more people responding to your hand questions, because people are lazy and often skip the posts where they have trouble understanding the action.

When the villain bet on MP usually will use the range 88+, QJs+, AQ, AK, sometimes 9Ts+, 55+... From the CO the range will be more wide, and are normal the Cbet. So the villain can have two pairs, set, and some straight draw on the flop... Depending of the villain strategy, he can raise with top pair, overpair, set, two pair, straight draw, and some overcard bluff, like AQ, AK, or any card that will block your hand power, like any pair that will make more harder to you complete any draw...

In the PS we have the opportunity to withdraw the bet, I don't remember the exact name in English... Because this he can bet allin before the river and get paid by him percentage of victory. I usually do this to win the pot, or at least take back a part of my money, it's a valid strategy on cash game.

You have AA in a 3-bet pot with 100BB effective stacks. In this spot your goal is to get all the money in, unless the runout is really bad. This runout is not really bad, it is in fact one of the better ones, you can hope for with no paired board, no flush available, and only a few unlikely hands making a straight or two pair.

If Villain had called again, you would almost certainly have jammed the river, so the only thing sending you for a loop here is the fact, that Villain helped you get it in by check-jamming the turn. This makes you think, that "oh no maybe I am beat".

But when you bet the turn, you put in nearly half the effective stack, and in that situation it makes no sense for Villain to call and then fold on the river, unless he has a busted draw. So from his perspective check-calling makes no sense. He should either fold or check-jam, so that he dont allow you to check behind on the river with a busted draw.

So this move should not come as a surprice for you, and in fact you should be happy about it. You should beat him into the pot. Sure he will have a set from time to time, but he have way more overpairs than sets, and if he can have 87s, he can also have a hand like QJs, which is bluffing with, and maybe he can have a lot of top pair as well.

Originally Posted by johnnythemoss

Interesting. Do you mean that the factor of it being a 3bet pot makes the ranges easier to predict? Or that there's just so much money in the pot already that folding is too -EV?

The pot being so large, since the lower the stack-to-pot ratio, the more inclined we should be to stack off post-flop.

The main point I wanted to make though was that there isn't a difference here between the math and the reads. Unless you're making a game theory argument for needing to call, the way you're approaching this hand (correctly!) is whether it's profitable to call given the odds and Villain's range.

The read gives us the range, which allows us to do the math. So it's not a question of whether to use reads or math: we're using both.

You most likely are folding too often and playing too much, Good luck LOL

Micros can't be readed xDD

I guess, the real question here is, if Hero can make a nitty fold, because he has perfect information, that people never check-jam the turn in a 3-bet pot without at least two pair. And the answer is no. Even in the micros we dont have that perfect information. If Hero fold here, then some percentage of the time Villain will proudly flip over KK to show, that he was not bluffing

My personal opinion here is that you made a tight fold here as it is so boarderline at the micro stakes on what they could have. Looking at it as if I was the other player, an overall loose player who is in the MP, his range could look a bit wider (given additional plays) unless he has been showing his hands: JT, 96suited, 65suited. But as you can see not many additional hands to be played there doing this but as mentioned, KK, QQ or even some lower pairs based on his loose style could appear in trying to buy the pot. The only reason a set might jam in this spot is to avoid the straight that is building up but even then would normally have it go to the river.

There is the read on the player from your perspective based on playing previous hands that I would follow when it is so close to call or fold here.