$ NL HE MTT: Two mistakes I made with AK, due to lack of attention.

[Gritz18]

Game

Hold'em

Game Format

No Limit

Table Format

MTT

Freeroll

1. Freeroll

Currency

$

That hand took place in the $100 Cardschat freeroll on partypoker on 04/09.

My first mistake was not making a higher king with AK after the villain had limped in.

Second mistake of mine, when I make a near-pot bet on the tuner, and fold to the villain's allin, and I would have to pay only 9bb, I think this was the most serious mistake, maybe because of my distraction at the time of the event.

But I think despite my mistakes, I saved 9bb, I think villain had 7.

What is your analysis for this hand?🤔

Grateful Cesar.🙂

partypoker, Hold'em No Limit - 500/1,000 (125 ante) - 8 players
Replay this hand on CardsChat

UTG: 16,221 (16 bb)
UTG+1: 26,343 (26 bb)
MP: 47,452 (47 bb)
MP+1 (Hero): 62,954 (63 bb)
CO: 88,535 (89 bb)
BU: 54,233 (54 bb)
SB: 125,837 (126 bb)
BB: 39,705 (40 bb)

Pre-Flop: (2,500) Hero is MP+1 with K♥ A♣
1 fold, UTG+1 calls 1,000, 1 fold, Hero raises to 2,000, 3 players fold, BB calls 1,000, UTG+1 calls 1,000

Flop: (7,500) K♣ 7♥ A♦ (3 players)
BB checks, UTG+1 checks, Hero bets 3,750, BB folds, UTG+1 calls 3,750

Turn: (15,000) 7♠ (2 players)
UTG+1 checks, Hero bets 11,250, UTG+1 raises to 20,468 (all-in), MP+1 (Hero) folds

Total pot: 37,500
UTG+1 wins 37,500

 

[300HPGOD]

I think you already hit on this in your post but yes you need to raise larger or a limper there. They have a 25 BB stack so we want to corner them a bit with a raise and see how they react. Depending on villain we are not or should not be worried about a 4 bet jam by them as we would be calling it off due to it being 25 BBs. So yes not making it 3.5x or larger is a mistake.

On the flop you monopolize the board so I wouldnt go as large as you did but I don't think its a mistake really to bet the size you did. A lot of Ax will still call this bet so its not bad but imo its better to bet like 35-40% pot here and possibly get some floats.

Turn is large mistake by you. Calling villain has a less likely chance of having Ax or Kx since we can account for two each and they of course could have some 7x here. Your sizing commits them so villain would never just flat here but would go all in and with the amount you put in the middle you are committing yourself to the pot. Given that the board is badugi I think its best to check back here as you could induce some bluffs on the river and if you are behind to 7x you will lose less. The times you are up against Ax you are losing some value by checking back turn but the river will be bet either by villain leading or you betting if they were to check so you wouldn't get their whole stack but you would get a decent chunk of it. Its a small price to pay imo for the times you lose less when villain has 7x or just will fold turn when they floated flop.

Now if you really don't believe villain or aren't that scared of 7x when it turns then I think its fine to bet the turn IF you are going to call it off. Its not my preferred way of playing the hand but I think it can be fine especially against certain types of villains. However, as you already know you cant bet the turn for any kind of decent sizing with the intention of folding to a jam.

 

[Gritz18]

Turn is large mistake by you.

I would say it was a third mistake of mine, having bet so big on the tuner, when the 7 doubles, should I have checked and evaluated villain's action on the river, or not?

 

[eetenor]

That hand took place in the $100 Cardschat freeroll on PartyPoker on 04/09.

My first mistake was not making a higher king with AK after the villain had limped in.

Second mistake of mine, when I make a near-pot bet on the tuner, and fold to the villain's allin, and I would have to pay only 9bb, I think this was the most serious mistake, maybe because of my distraction at the time of the event.

But I think despite my mistakes, I saved 9bb, I think villain had 7.

What is your analysis for this hand?🤔

Grateful Cesar.🙂

partypoker, Hold'em No Limit - 500/1,000 (125 ante) - 8 players
Replay this hand on CardsChat

UTG: 16,221 (16 bb)
UTG+1: 26,343 (26 bb)
MP: 47,452 (47 bb)
MP+1 (Hero): 62,954 (63 bb)
CO: 88,535 (89 bb)
BU: 54,233 (54 bb)
SB: 125,837 (126 bb)
BB: 39,705 (40 bb)

Pre-Flop: (2,500) Hero is MP+1 with K♥ A♣
1 fold, UTG+1 calls 1,000, 1 fold, Hero raises to 2,000, 3 players fold, BB calls 1,000, UTG+1 calls 1,000

Flop: (7,500) K♣ 7♥ A♦ (3 players)
BB checks, UTG+1 checks, Hero bets 3,750, BB folds, UTG+1 calls 3,750

Turn: (15,000) 7♠ (2 players)
UTG+1 checks, Hero bets 11,250, UTG+1 raises to 20,468 (all-in), MP+1 (Hero) folds

Total pot: 37,500
UTG+1 wins 37,500

Yes you need to make your raise larger preflop as we are playing for UTG stack if they shove

Flop we are crushing this board 3 ways -a standard bet size is 33% pot we are fine if our V XR or chase with a K or gut shots as we can redraw to a full house. This also makes our bluffs cheaper

Turn as played what are we targeting for value with this sizing? What 7 does the V have on this turn after we bet large on flop? What does the V do with A7 K7 77 on flop?
Would the V check raise an Ax hand?

When we bet half of the V's stack on turn are we not pot committing ourselves? If the V has a seven we are not dead so can we not call?

 

[fundiver199]

Preflop
As you already know, you need to isolate larger. Since the opponent only started with 26BB, you dont need to go huge, but at least 3BB. They are still going to call this most of the time, but you build a larger pot, and you have a better chance of getting it heads up.

Flop
On such a dry flop with only some gutshots and also blocking both top pair and second pair, you can bet a bit less than half pot.

Turn
The 7 is not the best card, since it could have given him trips. But even so the plan here is absolutely still to stack off. However you do not want to do it by committing him already here on the turn. Its still a very dry board, so there is no need to focus on pricing out draws. He only has 20k left behind, so I would bet 5k with the intention to jam almost any river, and to call it off, if he jam now. Bet-folding here getting 5:1 is a complete disaster. You only need to win the hand 1 in 6 times, and even if he has a 7, you have 4 outs to make a boat, which will beat his boat. Even more importantly you are ahead here more often, than you are behind. His range contain more AX than 7X, and he not folding top pair. So its highly likely, you folded the best hand.

 

[fundiver199]

But I think despite my mistakes, I saved 9bb, I think villain had 7.

As I said already, its far more likely, he had an A. A limping range is typically not any two cards. Its much more common, that at least some hand selection takes place. And for that reason he is likely to have hands like A2, A3, A4, AT or AJ but not 72, 73, 74, T7 or J7. Maybe he play a few suited combos of the latter but not the offsuit combos. On the turn all AX hands other than A7 or AK chop. For that reason he is never folding AX, and he is also not just calling, when you bet more than half his remaining chips. And if he is a level 2 thinker, he dont put you on a 7, when you raised preflop. He think, you are far more likely to have a hand like AQ, AJ or AT, and since his A2 now chop with those hands, he check-jam rather than check-fold.

 

[fundiver199]

Given that the board is badugi I think its best to check back here as you could induce some bluffs on the river and if you are behind to 7x you will lose less. The times you are up against Ax you are losing some value by checking back turn but the river will be bet either by villain leading or you betting if they were to check so you wouldn't get their whole stack but you would get a decent chunk of it. Its a small price to pay imo for the times you lose less when villain has 7x or just will fold turn when they floated flop.

I think, AK is way to strong to check back turn, but bet sizing should be smaller, when Villain has so little left behind. The turn pairing the 7 also makes it less likely, Villain has a 7 (now AX, KX and 7X are all equially blocked), and there is even an argument, that 7X might not always call the flop bet. It was a 3-way pot, and the board absolutely smashes Heros range, plus he went for a relatively large size. So while its usually GTO strategy to continue on the flop with any hand, that flopped a pair, this is absolutely a situation, where it could be reasonable to fold a 7, especially if it dont have a BDFD attached to it.

Not saying that Villain is a GTO type player (then he would not have limped), or that he would actually fold a 7. But it would certainly not be crazy by him, given that Hero has a ton of AX and KX in his range, and unless Hero is bluffing, 7X has very poor equity and will often end up folding on a later street. What we absolutely can not assume, is that Villain will make a somewhat loose call on the flop with a 7 but then at the same time make a very tight fold with top pair on the later streets, when all AX chop the pot with the board counterfeiting the kicker. And for that reason AK absolutely has to go for stacks here, while AQ and worse become 2 street hands.

 

[ADRI7HO]

On the turn, I would have given the little that his all-in meant and I would have been in pain that his probably set of 7 would have beaten my hand.
What could have been done differently is perhaps the size of the pre-flop raise, it could have been up to, say, 3000-3500 and then maybe he wouldn't call after the flop raise, or rather go all-in, but the end would have been the same.

 

[Gritz18]

Thank you everyone for the analysis, it only helps to improve my game.

Grateful Cesar.🙂

 

[300HPGOD]

I think, AK is way to strong to check back turn, but bet sizing should be smaller, when Villain has so little left behind. The turn pairing the 7 also makes it less likely, Villain has a 7 (now AX, KX and 7X are all equially blocked), and there is even an argument, that 7X might not always call the flop bet. It was a 3-way pot, and the board absolutely smashes Heros range, plus he went for a relatively large size. So while its usually GTO strategy to continue on the flop with any hand, that flopped a pair, this is absolutely a situation, where it could be reasonable to fold a 7, especially if it dont have a BDFD attached to it.

Not saying that Villain is a GTO type player (then he would not have limped), or that he would actually fold a 7. But it would certainly not be crazy by him, given that Hero has a ton of AX and KX in his range, and unless Hero is bluffing, 7X has very poor equity and will often end up folding on a later street. What we absolutely can not assume, is that Villain will make a somewhat loose call on the flop with a 7 but then at the same time make a very tight fold with top pair on the later streets, when all AX chop the pot with the board counterfeiting the kicker. And for that reason AK absolutely has to go for stacks here, while AQ and worse become 2 street hands.

Depends on villain on how often they float flop or not. If they are a floater than I think they are more likely to bluff river after we check than to go ahead and call another bet on turn and that might include all Kx hands as well. Flop bet is too large but its not insane where no one would ever float there as hero is probably c betting a lot of their range since its an easy flop to rep after raising pre (even if it was a small raise pre). Therefore, I am not thinking about the strength of our hand when I say check back turn I am thinking about the strength of the villains hand. Their smaller pairs like 88-JJ arent probably calling a double barrel but arent always folding to a half pot flop bet either. So, yes we lose some value when we are up against another Ax but in all other scenarios, imo anyway including Kx, we will get more if we check turn than if we were to bet turn. If we check turn and villain happens to check river we are still in position and then can fire a bet at that point. I just think the only hands that are calling a double barrel turn bet would be Ax and 7x and even though Ax is more likely, we then fold out all the other stuff that we might have been able to induce a bluff if we bet turn. All of this might be a moot point though as we dont know what kind of villain we are playing since we were not in the hand, nor know them.

 

[pentazepam]

Just to play the devil's advocate: Do you really think the preflop aggressor has any bluffs or weaker hands than Ax that he bets three streets with?

It's sure is exploitable to fold an Ax but to call the turn and river just to split or bluff-catch when there almost never are any bluffs?

 

[fundiver199]

Just to play the devil's advocate: Do you really think the preflop aggressor has any bluffs or weaker hands than Ax that he bets three streets with?

It's sure is exploitable to fold an Ax but to call the turn and river just to split or bluff-catch when there almost never are any bluffs?

There are two different questions here. The first is, what would be a good strategy for the Villain, and the second is, what Villain is likely to actually do. To begin with the first, Villain should obviously not limp, so he should never be in this situation to begin with. But if we change it slightly, so that Hero min-raise, someone else call, and Villain also call in the blinds, then a good player could end up in this situation.

And while very exploitable it would not be totally crazy to fold AX on the turn facing a committing bet. If Hero never has any bluffs, stacking off is neutral EV only, if its a chop 75% of the time. Which might be a bit optimistic. But this is part of the reason, why Hero should bet much smaller on the turn. Then Villain can never fold an A, and if he get away on the river, at least Hero win that extra turn bet.

In this hand Villain did in fact limp, so he is not a particularly good player. And fishy players dont make huge folds in a freeroll, when they start the hand with only 26BB. They especially dont fold an A, when its top pair. This is why, we can often get max value from them for even more than 26BB, when they have some kind of rag ace, that makes top pair, and which they just cant fold. And this is also why, we dont try to bluff them off such a hand.

 

[Gritz18]

@fundiver199 ,@300HPGOD ,@eetenor ,@pentazepam ,@ADRI7HO ,@Andyreas

I would like the opinion of everyone who kindly in some way was interested in doing an analysis of this hand and say in your opinion what were the cards that you think the villain had.🤔

In my opinion, based on how quickly the villain performed his actions, I think he had a 7.

 

[Andyreas]

I would like the opinion of everyone who kindly in some way was interested in doing an analysis of this hand and say in your opinion what were the cards that you think the villain had.🤔

Well, this is a tricky question.

It would mostly depend on my notes/read of the player. As fundiver said, a decent player would not limp in first. But since he limped from UTG+1, we can assume he has some sort of decent hand at least but can scrap of the top range as well (except if he's a player who never raises).

Hands in the above range containing a 7 would be: 77, A7, 87 and maybe K7 or 97, so not that many.
he might also be limping with other weak aces, maybe suited kings, weaker Broadways, connectors or low PPs.

Since he check-raises on turn, I would also assume he has a 7 but still call because of my investment.

Depending on his play type, he indeed might have done it with a weaker ace, trying to win the full pot instead of a half one.

 

[Gritz18]

It would mostly depend on my notes/read of the player.

I know the villain well, on pokerstars alone I have 1,500 hands played against him, he limps almost most of the hands, and he usually does this with high pairs like AA and KK.

 

[Andyreas]

he limps almost most of the hands, and he usually does this with high pairs like AA and KK.

Well those exist in our freerolls. 😅

But is he limping with a reasonable range where we would raise in first or also limping with a wider range? 🤔

 

[300HPGOD]

I would like the opinion of everyone who kindly in some way was interested in doing an analysis of this hand and say in your opinion what were the cards that you think the villain had.🤔

In my opinion, based on how quickly the villain performed his actions, I think he had a 7.

You say that you have 1500 hands on villain and they limp a lot including big pairs (which I would not be afraid of AA or KK due to blockers and board) so you are saying they are a 60/10 player or are they a 40/5 player... 85/5 player? I dont need to know but am only bringing this up as you would know since you have the HUD on them and there are reasons for against why I could say a 85/5 player could or wouldnt have a 7 and could make similar arguments as well for players who are involved in less hands than that (the 40/10 players).

Here though, I think we have to think about this hand, like every hand, in a collective fashion. We cant just ask did they have the 7 or not but more be thinking along the lines with if we bet 11k on turn against that stack and that pot are we ever folding including even if we think there is a chance of them having 77? We just cant be folding here so its a moot point whether they have the 7 based on your bet sizing. Your question comes into pay if we had checked the turn or bet smaller on the turn and then got jammed on. Let's not forget either that UTG started the hand with 16 BBs and we flop top two pair... we should not be looking to fold in this scenario as the effective stack is small and we flop such a strong hand. Its a little bad to say but we should not be concerned with whether villain has a 7 or not but more concerned with whats the best way to get the most chips in the middle by the end as this is a hand that we are going with off of 16 BBs effective.

As far as my guess goes, I dont know villain on whether they are 85/5 or 35/6 as I mentioned before but I think off their stack they are not folding any Ax here especially if they realize on the turn they chop with all large Ax besides AK and A7. In the 1500 hands you have played against them they may have seen you do what you did here, bet large on turn and then snap fold so they figured any Ax is good to go with for stack depth reasons and what they think they know about you. I am not convinced they had a 7 and would make them have a 7 if I have top two pair (that still plays here) and only 16 BBs effective. Could they have it and were beat... sure but they could have Ax here as well. So my final answer is because of stack size I wouldnt care and would be getting the chips in but I give a greater likelihood they didnt have it.

One more point, if you knew villain was so wide then you should have had a plan on the turn instead of betting large and then folding. If you think they have it (which is what you thought cause you folded) why did you bet so large? Why not just check back and then bluff catch river or if your really feel they have it fold? At least folding in that scenario would save you 11k in chips vs the actual outcome.

 

[Gritz18]

One more point, if you knew villain was so wide then you should have had a plan on the turn instead of betting large and then folding. If you think they have it (which is what you thought cause you folded) why did you bet so large? Why not just check back and then bluff catch river or if your really feel they have it fold? At least folding in that scenario would save you 11k in chips vs the actual outcome.

I agree with your thought, but in my defense and as I mentioned above in the main topic, it was my lack of attention, I should have calculated how many chips the villain would be left behind, something that went unnoticed at the time.

 

[fundiver199]

I would like the opinion of everyone who kindly in some way was interested in doing an analysis of this hand and say in your opinion what were the cards that you think the villain had.🤔

In my opinion, based on how quickly the villain performed his actions, I think he had a 7.

In poker we never try to put our opponents on a hand, we try to put them on a range of hands. So a statement like "I think he had a 7" is flawed. The correct statement is "I think, his range was 70% trips or better, 25% Ax and 5% random stuff". Or something similar. As for timing tells they can be relevant, but we never want to base our decision entirely on a perceived timing tell. The most important is, what do we think, the Villain would do with different parts of their range (call, fold, raise), and only THEN do we make small adjustments based on timing tells.

Taking the timing tell into account I think, the Villains range was 30% trips or better, 65% AX and 5% random stuff. I still find AX hands way more likely than nut hands based on preflop and flop action. And even also the fact, he checked to you on the turn. On turn cards, that pair the bottom or middle card, solvers actually do a fair amount of leading, and so do human players. Its a bad card for the preflop raiser, and it makes a ton of sense for 7X to lead to prevent AX from checking back and taking a free card. So the fact, he checked to you on the turn, further reduce the amount of 7X in his range.

 

[Andyreas]

I agree with your thought, but in my defense and as I mentioned above in the main topic, it was my lack of attention, I should have calculated how many chips the villain would be left behind, something that went unnoticed at the time.

Yeah, I think that's the main point here. Not paying full attention opens room for mistakes.

Happens to all of us at some point. ☺️

 

[fundiver199]

Yeah, I think that's the main point here. Not paying full attention opens room for mistakes.

Its absolutely true, that not paying full attention will lead to mistake like the ones made preflop and on the turn in this hand. And if we find many of such mistakes when reviewing our hands later, maybe we should consider reducing our table count. Or end our session early, if we find ourselfes multitasking and not being properly focused.

However I also think, there are some other important lessons to take away from the turn play in this hand. The first is to avoid the "monsters under the bed" syndrom. When there are 3 cards of the same suit on the board, our opponent could have a flush, but this does not mean, they always have it. And in the same fashion when the board is paired, our opponent could have trips, but that does not mean, they always have it. They still have a range, and often the nut part of that range is much smaller, than the fearfull part of our brain tends to assume.

The second important lesson from the turn in this hand is to understand, when a bet will commit us to the pot. And in general we do not want to make a committing bet before the river without actually going all-in. So the first mistake on the turn is Heros bet sizing, which unintentionally committed him to the pot. But the second and larger mistake was to then not understand, what this does to Villains range for calling, folding or raising. Since the turn bet was committing, and Villain was out of position, the only situation, where Villain should ever call, is, if he is getting the right pot odds to draw. In that case Villain can just call and then give up on the river, if he miss.

But in this case no hands were getting the odds to draw. So if Villain react correctly to this turn bet, he will not have any calling range at all. He will either fold or jam, and his range for jamming is going to be the same as his range for calling, if Hero had made an actual all-in instead of a committing bet. Or as Collin Moshman call it: a "non all-in all-in". So unless we think, Villain would fold AX to a turn jam, then we should fully expect, that he will check-jam it when facing this "non all-in all-in" from Hero.

The reason, why Villain should never call on the turn, is the fact, that then he is just allowing Hero to freeroll him on the river, if Hero is somehow bluffing. Lets say Hero has a gutshot draw like QJ. If Villain call with an ace, he cant fold on the river getting 5:1. So he still get stacked, if Hero nail his gutshot, or if Hero had him beat all the time with a hand like AK. But if Hero miss, he is not going to bluff giving his opponent 5:1, or for that matter call a donk bet. So Hero will play the river 100% perfect, and this is why, Villain has to either jam or fold an AX hand on the turn, when Hero makes a committing bet like this.

I am harping on a little about this, because I think, we have seen many hand histories shared, where people have made a similar mistake and failed to understand, that it takes away the option from their opponent to have a calling range. And that a turn raise is therefore not the same kind of strong move, which it is, when stacks are deeper, and the turn bet is not committing. Or for that matter when people accidentally makes a committing C-bet on the flop and then misintrepret it as very strong, when their opponent jam on them instead of just calling.