$109 NLHE MTT: Can the hero pull a triple barrel bluff here?

[lonenlynobita]

There is a hand from the Anniversary Sunday Millions that caught my attention.

The coverage of the final table just started so no particular read. Nobody is exactly on "push or fold" mode.

Our hero is UTG + 1 with and had 60 Big Blinds. He raised 3 Big Blinds. Cut off with an effective stack of 32 Big Blinds called. We go into the pot.

Flop : Effective stack : 29 Big Blinds Pot : 8.5 Big Blinds



check check

Turn:



check check


River:



check check

---

Now, it's obvious that our Hero is way too passive. The question is how aggressive should we be? If it's up to me :

+ Flop

I feel like the Hero should have made a small continuation bet. Say 3 Big Blinds. I think the villain has a range advantage and he benefits from making some kind of a protection bet to get the villain to fold some of his wonky hand. I don't think the villain will raise us?

+ Turn

I think this card is a disaster for us. Our villain has A2, A7, and K7 in his range while we don't. However, I will argue that we should fire another bullet. Maybe 5 BB into a pot of 14.5 BB, because..

(i) If we check and they bet, we will be in a miserable spot. Even if we call and then the river is a blank, now what?
(ii) If we bet, we will be representing two over cards. Our villain will be calling only with Broadway, made straight, strong flush draw, and small pair. and If our villain has a small pair and the river is a T, Q, K--we can happily fire a third bullet and put them on a miserable spot. In addition to that, I don't think they will raise.

+ River

Assuming a bet and call, we have a pot of 24.5 BB and an effective stack of 21 BB. I really think the hero should shove all in here. I think it will be believable that we have suited club of AK, AQ, AJ, KQ, KJ and there are a lot of hands in the villain's range they will be folding. Even if we check-check the turn (pot : 14.5 BB, effective stack 26 BB), I still believe we should over bet the pot.

My question are:

(1) Is the aggression that I suggested above is reasonable?

(2) What should have we done if the river has been a or a ? (Wrong suit)

(3) In the suggestion above, if the turn has been a TQK, I suggested that we should fire a third barrel to get small pair to fold. However, what is the appropriate bet size, assuming the card doesn't complete a flush draw, because I don't think we will shove all in with just a pair--but I don't think small bet will do the job.

 

[eetenor]

Range advantage

There is a hand from the Anniversary Sunday Millions that caught my attention.

The coverage of the final table just started so no particular read. Nobody is exactly on "push or fold" mode.

Our hero is UTG + 1 with and had 60 Big Blinds. He raised 3 Big Blinds. Cut off with an effective stack of 32 Big Blinds called. We go into the pot.

Flop : Effective stack : 29 Big Blinds Pot : 8.5 Big Blinds



check check

Turn:



check check


River:



check check

---

Now, it's obvious that our Hero is way too passive. The question is how aggressive should we be? If it's up to me :

+ Flop

I feel like the Hero should have made a small continuation bet. Say 3 Big Blinds. I think the villain has a range advantage and he benefits from making some kind of a protection bet to get the villain to fold some of his wonky hand. I don't think the villain will raise us?

+ Turn

I think this card is a disaster for us. Our villain has A2, A7, and K7 in his range while we don't. However, I will argue that we should fire another bullet. Maybe 5 BB into a pot of 14.5 BB, because..

(i) If we check and they bet, we will be in a miserable spot. Even if we call and then the river is a blank, now what?
(ii) If we bet, we will be representing two over cards. Our villain will be calling only with Broadway, made straight, strong flush draw, and small pair. and If our villain has a small pair and the river is a T, Q, K--we can happily fire a third bullet and put them on a miserable spot. In addition to that, I don't think they will raise.

+ River

Assuming a bet and call, we have a pot of 24.5 BB and an effective stack of 21 BB. I really think the hero should shove all in here. I think it will be believable that we have suited club of AK, AQ, AJ, KQ, KJ and there are a lot of hands in the villain's range they will be folding. Even if we check-check the turn (pot : 14.5 BB, effective stack 26 BB), I still believe we should over bet the pot.

My question are:

(1) Is the aggression that I suggested above is reasonable?

(2) What should have we done if the river has been a or a ? (Wrong suit)

(3) In the suggestion above, if the turn has been a TQK, I suggested that we should fire a third barrel to get small pair to fold. However, what is the appropriate bet size, assuming the card doesn't complete a flush draw, because I don't think we will shove all in with just a pair--but I don't think small bet will do the job.

Thanks for posting.

1 If you know villain has the range advantage why then conclude no raise is likely? But three bluffs should win?
2 If we do bet flop and get called is the range advantage still not on villains side?
If so why would villain not bluff shove that range advantage. We have to fold so many hands if villain does?
3 We bet turn and get called. What does a good player think we are betting for value here?

So we had AK and bet that flop when everybody in the hand knows the villain has the range advantage and can raise us setting up two barrels. We now pick up flush outs and bet again when the villain can shove and force a fold.
We now shove river and villain thinks we went for value with what on 3 streets and expect to be called by what? A good player asks that question and thinks more bluffs than value.

We have to assume villain may be an advanced player with range and bet reading skills.
If so villain has the ability to risk their stack on turn and river bets with bluffs and value.

Villain in your scenario would never need to do anything but call your bets with a flopped set or turned straight. How can we estimate villain is calling with a hand they would fold on the river?

You may be right your play might work. The above also could happen? It depends on the villain. By the final table that is what we would need to know.

Hope this helps

 

[lonenlynobita]

1 If you know villain has the range advantage why then conclude no raise is likely? If so why would villain not bluff shove that range advantage? We have to fold so many hands if the villain does?

I feel like the villain's stack is too shallow that the only likely raise is a raise all-in [on the turn, the villain has a 26 BB facing a 5 BB bet with 19.5 BB pot] but (i) If they have a straight, do you really want to re-raise all in on the turn for value? It's easier to just call the turn and raise/bet the river. (ii) Ergo, a shove all in on the turn will be more bluff heavy and I don't think the villain can rule out us hero calling with strong pockets or AK AQ--especially since our range is narrow since we're raising from really early position.

If the villain wants to bluff, he would have an easier time to shove on the river.

Villain in your scenario would never need to do anything but call your bets with a flopped set or turned straight. How can we estimate villain is calling with a hand they would fold on the river?

I don't think the villain will be that tight.

On the flop, the villain will happily call with straight draws, flush draws, probably A3, A4, A6 and most Broadway. In fact, our hand beats a lot of the villain's range.

Also, do the villain actually have sets on his range? Do people call a raise from early position with 33, 44 or 66 on a tournament setting with a shallow stack? I feel like if they do, they would have re-raised it pre-flop instead of calling?

I'm going to concede that I am not sure about the turn, hence why I ask this question, but I am not sold that they will only call the turn with only sets and straight. I think the villain will be more than happy to continue with flush draws and two overcards especially when we don't have a straight on our range.

 

[eetenor]

Good Villains.

I feel like the villain's stack is too shallow that the only likely raise is a raise all-in [on the turn, the villain has a 26 BB facing a 5 BB bet with 19.5 BB pot] but (i) If they have a straight, do you really want to re-raise all in on the turn for value? It's easier to just call the turn and raise/bet the river. (ii) Ergo, a shove all in on the turn will be more bluff heavy and I don't think the villain can rule out us hero calling with strong pockets or AK AQ--especially since our range is narrow since we're raising from really early position.

If the villain wants to bluff, he would have an easier time to shove on the river.

[/FONT][/COLOR]

I don't think the villain will be that tight.

On the flop, the villain will happily call with straight draws, flush draws, probably A3, A4, A6 and most Broadway. In fact, our hand beats a lot of the villain's range.

Also, do the villain actually have sets on his range? Do people call a raise from early position with 33, 44 or 66 on a tournament setting with a shallow stack? I feel like if they do, they would have re-raised it pre-flop instead of calling?

I'm going to concede that I am not sure about the turn, hence why I ask this question, but I am not sold that they will only call the turn with only sets and straight. I think the villain will be more than happy to continue with flush draws and two overcards especially when we don't have a straight on our range.

Thanks for responding.

I did not range the villain. My examples were merely possibilities not ranges. I did mention that villain could play bluffs and value the same on the turn and we could never know which it would be. You used the AJ as an example I was not discussing hero's range just AJ.

I mentioned only sets and straights to point out the top of villains range, not a full ranging of villain.

You are removing sets but in games vs good opponents when you 3 bet 44 are you calling off the 4 bet which could be a wide range that we are at best 50% vs. Good players can call with 44 66 in these situations because they have position and are not just set mining. Not always just sometimes.
There are a lot of two pair hands the villain could have as well.

Again as I said you may be right but you keep implying villain will play in a straight forward manner. That they will give us credit for a 3 street value hand that is not worried about being raised off our value at any time on that 4 straight all low 3 flush board.

Remember the hand strength of hero changes with every card on this board. Yet we bet it like none of the cards changed our strength. Good players know when something does not make sense. That would make no sense.

Your bluffing story is inconsistent with 3 bets. Two streets could be semi bluff then value. The river shove would have to be polarized. Which you could do. The problem is the turn bet could be a polarized shove by villain. Which we cannot call with AJ the hand we are talking about not a hero range. The board smashes a good villains calling range. Remember villain if good is not just using their cards they are reading boards and using pressure to steal in position. Any bet on this board opens us up for attack. We are crushing all the paint the villain has and are crushed by any suited connectors villain has.

Once again you could be right.
Villain might not be good, they may fold, but what % of villain's flop made hand range did not get better on the turn or was not already strong or would not become a great semi bluff candidate?

Why would you think after we showed strength on 2 streets that villain would only shove bluffs when we have AA. If villain has a turned straight they are hoping you have a set so you call. They would love after they value shove you show them AA.

Look at the stack sizes of course it can be a value shove on the turn, it isn't even 2x pot.

My point is you are trying to make your belief fit the data not use the data to dictate your actions.

The winning hand strength on that board changed with every card. We bet flop saying we had AA. We bet 4 straight saying we had AA and we are calling all bets?. We bet river saying aha we had AKs or AQs or AJs the whole time. Please call us. Remember a bluff should scream please call us.

Again you might be right...... but if you want to win vs good, thinking, brave, bluffing, range reading villains. You have to think about how THEY might think not how you want them to think.

Think deeply about why a player good enough to make it to that final table might play a hand passively if that player was good. That will improve your strategy game immensely.

Hope this helps.

 

[SirYivx]

Very bad board to triple barrel bluff in my opinion. What does Hero represent? Overpairs and heart draws, and that's it. Sets are very unlikely, and even more unlikely that Hero would triple barrel a set for value here. Also very unlikely that Hero would triple barrel an overpair for value on such a draw heavy board. A double barrel bluff on the clubs MIGHT work when flop goes check-check, but a triple barrel seems like ICM suicide here.

 

[Matt Vaughan]

This is a truly horrendous board to triple barrel bluff on as the preflop aggressor, and not even a good board to cbet on - not to mention our hand itself is a bad hand to CHOOSE to cbet bluff WITH.

I think hero in the hand played it fine, though opening to 3x pre is probably unnecessary. Anywhere from 2-2.5x is likely better.

The issue on textures like this (especially when we have no flush card blockers of any kind) is that we have often very little equity when called from an "our hand" perspective. And from an "our range" perspective, we have almost none of the strongest hands in our range, whereas villain may have ALL of them. MAYBE we open every pocket pair, and yes we have most of the overpairs for sure, but villain has all sets, likely some combo draws too. I just don't see this being a good board to go for it on.

At LEAST let's have the Ah or Axcc or SOMETHING going on here.

As others have mentioned, if we do find the hero bet on flop, a turn bet is basically out of the question without having any relevant blockers imo.