This is a discussion on over pair vs. small pair plus straight draw on flop within the online poker forums, in the Cash Games section; $1/2 NLH
action folds to villain in cutoff, who raises to $6
hero on button raises to $18 w/ Q♣Q♠
Villain checks; hero raises to
my answers for what worth (probably little given level of response to initial question [I admit I was surprised & disappointed; likely my last post here]):
1. Did hero make correct decisions at various points, given decisions of villain?
I think I played this okay. Preflop re-raise seems right to me (I've got premium hand, better than what many cutoffs will open with).
The flop is not ideal; given calling range in situation, could give villain a made straight or set. But drawing hand or missed hand are still more likely & I'd like to get the pot now.
Villain's reaise is just weird. If he or she has a set or made straight, then villain should check here & let me keep leading or alternatively blast me all in right there, hoping I'll call a strong 2nd best hand. I think it is more likely villain is "probing" or "semi-bluffing" & hoping I'll fold a missed flop.
All-in seems like a good bet to me to get pot now & avoid hard decisions if a card that makes a straight comes out on turn.
2. 2. Did villain, given decisions of hero?
I think Villain made a good call on my 3 bet: the 5s could strike gold with right flop & are easy to get away from if they whiff.
The min check raise, it seems to me, was idiotic b/c it invited me to do exactly what I did & put him or her in a hard spot. Villain has about 35% equity assuming I have the overpair; not enough to justify a call. If he or she assumes I'd go all in only with overpair or overcards, the equity is closer to 50%. But he or she has no information about which situation -- these or any other -- he or she is in.
A better play by villain, I think, would have been to check-raise me all in. Then, on top of the value equity discussed, he or she would have had considerable fold equity -- I'd have to take seriously the possibility of a set or made straight.
3. If villain didn't play "perfectly" but had done so, what would have been correct decisions by hero?
Perfectly in my view would have been the check-raise shove I just described.
I'm not sure what the right answer is, even on reflection. I know nothing about the player's tendencies, so that doesn't help.
The answer, I guess, depends on what I think the probability is that a "typical" player would shove a draw. I'd be handicapped, too, in not knowing whether the draw is a simple straight draw or a straight draw with a pair.
My intuition would be that a player in this sort of game is more likely to shove on a draw than on a made hand, since on a made hand a check seems more likely to extract value from me on later streets. The all-in giving me slightly better than 1:1 odds, I think I'm calling ....
1. His check raise shows great strength. On the flop here I think borderline solution. 50/50 - Fold or push. Such limits should take into account the dynamics of the game. Perhaps you were dropped on raise-continuation bet flop - it caused him to balance on the line of a check-raise push with blefovat hand.
2. I think I took it into account, because from the point of view of an ordinary player his check raise looked very stupid. Even a small Donk-bet would look better or the call would have looked better, as in his hand a huge Shodan value. You have shown the strength of his 3-bet preflop and he was trying to show ready street (perhaps not the strongest), sets (cutting off escape routes with an overpair), and an over pair (AA and KK, although the likelihood of this is low).
3. I think if you knew for sure that the villain is playing a half-bluff on the pair and the street draw, your call of this push was more obvious. But you have to proceed from the information how a typical player of your limit plays, and I don't think all players on the NL 200 play that way.