$Freeroll NLHE MTT: Extracting value in this kind of situation?

[EnigmaTTO]

Winning Poker, Hold'em No Limit - 150/300 (30 ante) - 6 players
Replay this hand on CardsChat

UTG: 4,157 (14 bb)
MP: 4,208 (14 bb)
CO: 6,091 (20 bb)
BU (Hero): 7,920 (26 bb)
SB: 18,101 (60 bb)
BB: 2,851 (10 bb)

Pre-Flop: (630) Hero is BTN with T♠ A♥
3 players fold, Hero raises to 900, SB calls 750, 1 fold

Flop: (2,280) A♠ 7♥ A♣ (2 players)
SB checks, Hero checks

Turn: (2,280) 7♦ (2 players)
SB checks, Hero checks

River: (2,280) 5♦ (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets 600, SB folds

I'm wondering how I should be playing hands like this in order to get more value from them. In the moment, I was thinking checking back both the flop and turn was my best option to make it seem like I didn't have anything and to give Villain a chance to hit some part of his hand and potentially be more willing to bet/call on the river.

Should I be playing this differently to get more value from these spots on average?

 

[300HPGOD]

I think you should be playing differently in these types of spots. The flop check I like as I think we crush the board almost too heavy in these spots where if we bet we are relying on villain to assume it is a bluff. If they dont think it is a bluff too often they will have little to nothing and just fold. Also since we are not really afraid of any turn card I like checking to allow villain to possibly catch up.

On the turn though, imo you have to bet. Villain has already checked twice and eventually you want to start getting some money into this pot. You have given villain a chance to catch up and if they didnt here then we have to just accept the fold. If they fold that usually means they have nothing and you werent probably going to get anything anyway. I like betting there around the 1/3rd to 40% pot range to see if we can get villain to believe it is a bluff and we are a player who will always bet when we are checked to twice. If they fold they fold but there is an adage that "you start to get busy by the turn" when you have a big hand.

If you are going to go the route you go as played then I would suggest a more "normal" bet sizing on the river. The small bet on the river just screams that you are begging for a call. I would still advise to bet on the turn but if you wait to the river as you did here at least bet half pot here and maybe even go big. These are the type of spots where you can be creative and sometimes bet half pot and sometimes overbet the pot in hopes of villain thinking that it is a bluff. Of those two though I prefer the half pot sizing instead of going super small.

 

[Collin Moshman]

As a small point, I would raise slightly smaller pre-flop with your entire opening range.

At the flop, checking back is nice, particularly against a recreational opponent who isn't likely to be suspicious of a slowplay. As 300 says, go ahead and bet the turn though to start building a pot. He could call with worse hands including king-high.

As played, bet much bigger at the river to try to get paid. He could always think you're even more likely to be bluffing if you suddenly fire 2/3 pot here

 

[Collin Moshman]

By the way, while you could've played this hand slightly different, sometimes it doesn't matter what you do with your biggest hands -- your opponent just isn't putting more money in the pot. Here he probably would have folded if you bet flop or turn, or used different sizing on the river.

 

[fundiver199]

I largely agree with, what has been said already. Raise smaller preflop, check back flop for deception, bet turn when checked to again, bet larger on the river. But as Collin say, sometimes you just need your opponent to have connected with the board to get paid, and apparantly this time he had absolutely nothing.

By the way I would make a note about the fact, he folded to such a small river bet, after flop and turn got checked through. Of course its possible, that he had a hand with absolutely no showdown value like 98s, but then he should probably have turned it into a bluff, when you showed weakness by checking back twice. So this is not someone, I would consider to be very good, and I would look for chances to exploit this player in future hands.

 

[Collin Moshman]

I largely agree with, what has been said already. Raise smaller preflop, check back flop for deception, bet turn when checked to again, bet larger on the river. But as Collin say, sometimes you just need your opponent to have connected with the board to get paid, and apparantly this time he had absolutely nothing.

By the way I would make a note about the fact, he folded to such a small river bet, after flop and turn got checked through. Of course its possible, that he had a hand with absolutely no showdown value like 98s, but then he should probably have turned it into a bluff, when you showed weakness by checking back twice. So this is not someone, I would consider to be very good, and I would look for chances to exploit this player in future hands.

I think this is normally just the type of analysis you should be making, but one possibility here is that Villain is a good hand-reader who's concerned to bluff to in this spot. I.e. When the board is so dry at the turn, and you both haven't c-bet and then haven't stabbed the turn, he reasons your range is rich in showdown-value hands (JJ, KQ, etc) and decides to give up for that reason.

 

[thehangdude]

One thing you might consider is checking all three streets. In freerolls and micro stakes, some villains can't help themselves when checked to all three streets. I have had players shove a bluff after the third check, while even the smallest bet would cause them to fold.

Yes, it is embarrassing when your fh gets checked back, but even that might cause villain to miss play later hands vs you.