Did my line make sense?

[budess]

full ring 2/3 table

5 way limp pot I was at SB

Flop A25 all diamond pot15

I check UTG bet 10 MP call I call

Turn 5 h pot 45

I check UTG bet 15 MP call I raise 65

Both call

River T c pot 240

I check UTG bet 100 with 350 behind

MP snap call with 1200 behind

I check raise allin 675

UTG fold

MP tank 2mins call with 83dd

I have A3o

I was repping a full house like 22 A5 25 or any weird combo full houses or any big flush as my range is very wide at SB in a limp pot

I reckon my line is ok with a full house or big flush playing the same way

MP looks like a 5 or A which I am trying to push off even a small flush would only become a bluff catcher here

What do you guys reckon?

 

[YKCaiTLH1314]

MP looks like a 5 or A which I am trying to push off even a small flush would only become a bluff catcher here

Why did you try to bluff MP when you already put him on A5, Ax or baby flush?
You should have just go on and call the 100 to showdown.
Even if you told your story right, will you fold A5, Ax or baby flush if you are in his shoe?
His odds is 1:2, he put you on 5x, Ax or 34 and he might be thinking UTG folded the when you shove all in.
So the only hand he will lose you is A5.
You should have just call instead of shoving.
bluffing is an OPTION and it's even harder to bluff multiple players.

 

[c0rnBr34d]

Pre flop is fine I guess over limping and seeing a cheap flop with A3o as long as we don't think the BB will raise much. I could also get behind squeezing all the limpers with capped ranges and making it $25-30 to go to pick up dead money. In this case we probably get the 83dd to fold and flop the Ace and win with a cbet. Otherwise we likely chop anyways unless they call with AT+.

Flop is close for me between call and fold. We have no diamond and kicker problems and 2 people showing interest in the hand. If the Vs are passives I fold since they aren't betting their draws often and likely have at least top pair to bet into 5 players. If the Vs are more aggressive and are betting the Kd and pair plus gut shot draws then we can call and evaluate. It doesn't seem like this has been considered or any type of plan for future streets is there though. Against stronger hands we will be drawing to runner runner boat or to a one card straight when someone may already have a flush. Betting players off hands as strong as 2 pair or better is a bad plan in general, especially live. Unless we know they fold too much we are just lighting money on fire. I think fold is best on the flop but if these guys routinely bet and call with drawing hands and weak middle pair then calling for this price can be fine also.

The raise on the turn after two players are still showing some strength is really bad. Any time we have to rep a full house to win, we have made a mistake somewhere along the way. It's a 5 way limped pot so players can already have straights and flushes and full houses. The BB could have had 25 for all we know. Very bad spot to bluff. Again, for this price if Vs are aggressive and bluff we can call the tiny $15 bet to try to fill up on the river. Even if something like a K or Q hit the river it would give us Aces up with a good kicker in a limped pot and maybe we can call another tiny river bet. Raising here this weak, repping this then into two players though, I can't get behind it.

After they both call our turn bluff, the x/r river all in just doesn't make sense. Why would we check a full house on the river after x/r turn? What if they believe us and check behind? Our sets and two pair hands also likely bet flop instead of check / call. I can't think of any hand that wants to x/r turn and then x/r river again 3 ways with this run out. Your sizing and aggression is strong but the story is all over the place. I think you should give more consideration to being out of position in a 5 way limped pot.

 

[budess]

Pre flop is fine I guess over limping and seeing a cheap flop with A3o as long as we don't think the BB will raise much. I could also get behind squeezing all the limpers with capped ranges and making it $25-30 to go to pick up dead money. In this case we probably get the 83dd to fold and flop the Ace and win with a cbet. Otherwise we likely chop anyways unless they call with AT+.

Flop is close for me between call and fold. We have no diamond and kicker problems and 2 people showing interest in the hand. If the Vs are passives I fold since they aren't betting their draws often and likely have at least top pair to bet into 5 players. If the Vs are more aggressive and are betting the Kd and pair plus gut shot draws then we can call and evaluate. It doesn't seem like this has been considered or any type of plan for future streets is there though. Against stronger hands we will be drawing to runner runner boat or to a one card straight when someone may already have a flush. Betting players off hands as strong as 2 pair or better is a bad plan in general, especially live. Unless we know they fold too much we are just lighting money on fire. I think fold is best on the flop but if these guys routinely bet and call with drawing hands and weak middle pair then calling for this price can be fine also.

The raise on the turn after two players are still showing some strength is really bad. Any time we have to rep a full house to win, we have made a mistake somewhere along the way. It's a 5 way limped pot so players can already have straights and flushes and full houses. The BB could have had 25 for all we know. Very bad spot to bluff. Again, for this price if Vs are aggressive and bluff we can call the tiny $15 bet to try to fill up on the river. Even if something like a K or Q hit the river it would give us Aces up with a good kicker in a limped pot and maybe we can call another tiny river bet. Raising here this weak, repping this then into two players though, I can't get behind it.

After they both call our turn bluff, the x/r river all in just doesn't make sense. Why would we check a full house on the river after x/r turn? What if they believe us and check behind? Our sets and two pair hands also likely bet flop instead of check / call. I can't think of any hand that wants to x/r turn and then x/r river again 3 ways with this run out. Your sizing and aggression is strong but the story is all over the place. I think you should give more consideration to being out of position in a 5 way limped pot.

Thanks for your reply,I probably made a mistake. Fold on the flop might be better.

But if I opt to continue my line,I think I made a wrong size on the turn, 65 is a big raise ,also on the river , shoving 675 into 440 pot is really polarising .If I made 45 on the turn and 3-4x on the river will made him fold more often I reckon

 

[eetenor]

Thanks for your reply,I probably made a mistake. Fold on the flop might be better.

But if I opt to continue my line,I think I made a wrong size on the turn, 65 is a big raise ,also on the river , shoving 675 into 440 pot is really polarising .If I made 45 on the turn and 3-4x on the river will made him fold more often I reckon

Thank U 4 Posting.

I think it would be very valuable for you to reread what corn posted and really think about all of the reasons "c0rn" suggested we should not be bluffing here.

Your response of changing your bluff sizes seems to ignore some important data points that "c0rn" shared with you.

Getting called by 8d3d on the river should ring alarm bells about our player pool and their perception of strength vis a vis folding to aggression.

We cannot win every pot and once our villains hit it as hard as flopping a flush we are better off knowing not to bluff than trying to find a 1% of the time action that will get them
to fold.

Hope this helps

 

[Criminal Bizzy]

I am going to start out by answering your question, no your line doesn't make sense and its very clear on the turn bet that your perceived strength is not believed.

Pre-flop I can get behind the call because your range should be pretty wide and you do have a one gapper. No matter what the flop is we need to think carefully on how to play. In your post you mention that its all diamonds, I think this is where you miss your first opportunity to build the pot to sell your bluff. If your intention is to bluff and try to steal the pot then it is very important that you take control of the pot on a wet board like this. There is two pair, a set, a made flush, flush draw, straight, straight draw, straight flush, and straight flush draw on the board that you could represent but by checking you let go of some of these holdings and villain begins to narrow your range down. There is an interesting concept that I have been studying where it says that you should bet on a made flush board. Nothing big, but something for value to see where you are on the hand and possibly get weaker holdings to fold. The strategy behind this is that you can get thin value for two pairs that could turn into a full house or possibly get baby flushes to fold when the perception is that you have the nuts.

The turn check raise is odd in that there was no leading out from you on the flop. Check raising is a powerful tool that can be used to build pots but should be used sparingly because it is always possible to miss value. Checking is like saying you give up and when playing against other players they may just take advantage of the check. Honestly I think if you are going to bluff I would have made a bet on the flop and then continued to bet the turn to show one of two things to our villain, either we flopped the nuts or we had a mediocre holding on the flop that has now improved on the turn.

The river shove is very bold. Especially considering that you checked and then shoved... You checked all three streets, this is not the typical behavior of a nut hand. Even if you always check the flop you should be taking control of the pot on the turn and leading out to set up your bet for the river.

I think cornbread makes some very good points about the fact that there were 5 limpers pre-flop. This will diminish the value of your holdings as well. I would strongly recommend that you take another look at the way this hand was played but instead of looking for a way to bluff think about why villain called you and if you would call.

 

[mrT]

well i think its only a bluf when you have no showdown value but you had that so i would try to get to showdown as cheap as possible

 

[quartz]

It's really dangerous to reraise the turn on such a coordinated board hitting soooo many of your opponents limping hands, sure the 5 changes what the best hand is on the turn but made flushes are not folding to $65 if they put you on the ace of diamond still drawing to the flush or 5x or 66.

Of course the line would have worked profitably with A5 or a high flush here so you're in a decent game apparently and UTG committed a third of his stack only to fold which seems pretty awful...

I would say you should have called flop (even possibly folded) and check folded turn instead of repping a nutted hand. Your stack to pot ratio I think was less than 2-1 before you went all in though you may have gotten folds if you had 4 or 5 times (closer to the MP's stack) by just raising big and folding to a jam

 

[JBGoode]

full ring 2/3 table

5 way limp pot I was at SB

Flop A25 all diamond pot15

I check UTG bet 10 MP call I call

Turn 5 h pot 45

I check UTG bet 15 MP call I raise 65

Both call

River T c pot 240

I check UTG bet 100 with 350 behind

MP snap call with 1200 behind

I check raise allin 675

UTG fold

MP tank 2mins call with 83dd

I have A3o

I was repping a full house like 22 A5 25 or any weird combo full houses or any big flush as my range is very wide at SB in a limp pot

I reckon my line is ok with a full house or big flush playing the same way

MP looks like a 5 or A which I am trying to push off even a small flush would only become a bluff catcher here

What do you guys reckon?

If you are gonna check raise the turn you have to bet river to maximize fold equity. Might get a better A to fold. If you are not prepared to bet the river dont raise the turn. Just call and try to get to showdown.

 

[Andy S]

The reraise was indeed a bit risky, I agree with the previous commenter.