1/3 NL with AA - interesting spot on the river

It's less than a hp bet vs someone who might be making a blocker bet with a lower over pair or perhaps bluffing a board that doesn't hit your range and I think we would of already hurd from him if he had a set or two pair.

I call

Why are we betting so small on the turn? Isn’t the pot something like 260? I’d rather jam than bet so small. I’d also rather check back than bet so small.

Fair, i could have bet 1/2 pot at least. my turn bet was a little small

easy call

Stack sizes on each street always help. I'd size up the flop and the turn, but flop is OK.

I might actually find a nitty fold here vs. this player, but I don't mind a call. He must know you have an over-pair, and I doubt he thinks you'll fold it, but maybe he is bluffing.

PRE - I like the larger >4x 3B size against this specific V.

FLOP - HU, I probably c-bet larger, like 2/3 pot, given the description of V and his stack depth. We can get value from all his worse 1P hands and draws. Betting half-pot here, on this wet board, is asking for trouble on future streets.

TURN - When he just check-calls this semi-wet, low-midding, dynamic flop that hits his range more than ours, it's unlikely he connected in a big way, so the 8 only improves him if he has 98s (two combos) or 88 (three combos).

We can target TT-JJ, 9x, 77, 6x and all his draws for value, and bet larger. If we bet 2/3 pot on flop, I'd be betting pot, at least, if not over-betting.

As played, after only betting 1/2 pot on flop, I think we should be checking back a lot.

RIVER - Gross. Because we took the smaller sizing on flop and turn, he gets here with all his 7x, 65, and possibly some 43cc.

What worse hands is he block-betting for value here when he didn't 4B pre? JJ or TT? Maybe QQ?

I don't know what his bluffs would be here, and he doesn't sound like the type to donk out with TT-QQ, so I think we need to fold. It looks like he's nutted, and trying to induce a jam.

Preflop: standard. I assume H is on the BTN.

Flop: c-bet is standard here I think with FD on board. Sizing seems fine to me .4PSB. We have plenty of vulnerable pairs we are c-betting (TT/JJ/QQ)

Turn: it's not like V can float wide oop here. So I think it's safe to say that V has either flopped some equity or turned some/more equity. I'm ranging him on hands he could open from HJ as LAG: 77, T9s, 98s, 87s, 54s, 65s, A8s, A9s, and the other pairs/sets.

That said, I agree with CMVernon above that H is approaching a commitment spot given the pot size. I think we are either jamming turn or checking and trying to get to showdown cheaply given that V has the range advantage here.

AP River: we get ~3-1 on river on our call. We are probably too high in our range to fold against a V that is capable of making moves. It's a cry-call because V has every two-pair combo and the flopped SD has hit too. This is probably a solver call and a "live read" fold here, as so many of these tough spots are.

I didn't really consider the possibility he might block bet some 9x or worse 1P hands, when we have so many over-pairs in our range. When he could have a straight, as well as a lot of 2P or better, block-betting a worse 1P hand is basically bluffing.

If we think he's capable of doing that, and if he's got enough combos of hands we beat to balance all the possible hands that beat us, and give us the right odds to call, then, yeah, I guess we have to call.

It just seems to me that he'd be checking to bluff-catch with some of those worse 1P hands, at least some of the time, knowing we'll just be checking back or continuing to bluff with some of the hands we've barreled some of the time, like AK. He'll win when it goes check-check, and sometimes win when he check-calls, though usually he can just check-fold when we barrel off.

When this V takes this check-call, check-call, donk-lead line, I think it heavily weights him towards strong value hands, especially when we've taken smaller bet sizing on flop and turn, and he could have a lot of very strong hands. Block-betting weak value or turning weak value into a bluff doesn't make a ton of sense to me here, on this runout, as played.

If we bet larger on earlier streets, I'd think he'd arrive with fewer draws that made straights. It would be more likely he could be block betting some worse 1P holding, and I'd feel better calling. His line on the river just screams value to me.

I think bigger bet on the flop and turn.

As played I think you should put in the crying call.

It's a bit unpleasant but x/c x/c lead with a missed FD but scary straight board out there and you only got to win what, 20-25% of the time, call.

I think it's 77.

I agree with nearly all of your excellent analysis. I would just offer that it's pretty hard to balance large flop bets here. We want this type of V to continue too wide on flop I think, right?

I think the decision point is the turn. You suggested a check I think. I agree that it's either check or jam. H's bet here accomplishes nothing. V really only has 2 combos of 98s we have to fear. If he has a set against our Aces we're probably going broke. A lot of the combos V can call flop with have turned more equity. So I favor a jam. But if we check, we have to be prepared to fade half the deck on river and we will invite aggression.

I agree with you that on river V is weighted to value. And yet, here we are leveling ourselves into a fold potentially, given the gross runout. So it's an intriguing strategy by V. It's almost easier to call a more polar sizing. I still lean call because I think V is just repping the straight and levering the gross runout which strongly favors his range.

Only to clarify my earlier post - I would have liked a big bet on flop, followed by a big bet on turn. As played, because of the smaller flop bet, I think the turn should be checked back a lot.

I prefer larger flop bets in spots like this - heads-up, in position against a deep-stacked opponent who raised and called a 3B pre, with a strong but vulnerable hand that isn't likely to improve, on a fairly wet board that could easily get worse for us, when we won't block any of the thick value our opponents may have by the river.

I don't worry too much about being balanced at 1/2 or 1/3, but if we wanted to be balanced, we could also do this with hands like A9s, 98s, T9s, and 76s.

The check back on turn is basically for pot-control, after our smaller flop bet allows V to continue with some hands that have now improved, accepting that we're probably going to make a sigh-call if V bets a brick on the river, or fold to a big bet on another scare card.

OP described V as nut-hunting, and not getting out of line. Doesn't sound like a guy who's going to dust off $440 turning a weak value hand into a bluff at 1/3.

We've all been in these spots, facing a big bet on an ugly board, and trying to find a reason to make a hero call with a big pocket pair. Calling is almost always wrong when we're searching hard for bluffs and the closest thing we can find is some weak value.

All that said - typing the above reminded me that V called a large (>4x) 3B pre, from OOP.

We may be losing to all of V's straights, all his sets, and all his 2P. And our small bet sizing on flop and turn let him get to the river with all those hands. But I'm not sure how many of those hands he has in his 3B-calling range pre. And I wonder how often he'd be donk-betting those hands on the river, rather than going for a check-raise.

If we call, I would expect V to have been block-betting with JJ or TT more often than some 9x or 8x type holding. Otherwise, I'm expecting to see 2P or better.

Results:

You guys are really spot on.

When he called the turn, i really put him on TT or JJ, being sticky. I think this player 4! with better, and we big time block AK.

Then when he bets the river, i put him on a missed flush draw so i snap called.

He had A9cc.. Top pair, nut flush draw. He said he knew i had an overpair and thought the valuish donk bet could get me off it.

Lots of good analysis. Much appreciated.

Welp, I was wrong. Almost feels like I owe Spanish Moon money.

Surprised he turned A9cc into a weird value-bluff. Busted flush draw but still TPTK.

Not really the hand we'd expect him to have when he opens and calls a big 3B OOP. And not the hand you'd want when making this move. Too much showdown value, and it blocks the busted flush draws hero might continue to bluff.

We may need to downgrade our opinion of this V.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

Fun hand. Preflop I would just make 50-55.

Flop I would generally agree that you can go bigger here although it's also not a bad spot for a standard small cbet. I'm not a fan of the half pot size, you want to be able to define the opponent's continuing range more easily. (For example, it's hard to know how many hands like 76s and 77 are still in there).

Despite this I would still go bigger on the turn.

River looks like a 7 (and there are a good few of those) or nothing (and there are a good few of those as well). This may be nothing more than a "I can make a cheap bluff on this one-liner and get more folds than I deserve" so I would call. You might well have heard from a set or two pair by now (although in fairness it would be logical for these hands to bet the river, scared of your overpairs checking back) and there's no way he's rivered any kind of hand that's not a straight. I call.

It is a fun hand. Thanks for posting, OP.

One of the things I've noticed as a result of working to improve my game is the increased tendency I have to discount the possibility that someone I think is a competent V might be doing something he shouldn't be doing, at least according to theory.

Like, theory says:

1. A6s-A9s are the worst AXs combos, in general, which I would think means we shouldn't be flat-calling 3B's with those hands OOP.

2. We shouldn't be bluffing our missed flush draws on the river.

3. We should only be block-betting when we can get called by a worse hand.

4. We should have some stronger hands (like TPTK on this 4-straight board) in our river checking range when OOP.

5. We shouldn't turn decent bluff-catchers or thin value (like TPTK) into bluffs.

6. Our river x/r bluffing range has to have some showdown value in case it goes check-check. TPTK with a busted flush draw would seem to fit the bill as a reasonable check-raise candidate here.

Our V here took a line that flies in the face of all that. He really shouldn't show up here with A9cc, at least not according to theory. If anything, he should be checking it, and occasionally check-raising, if he wants to rep thick value.

This is not at all how I would have played A9cc in V's spot.

I think it can just overcomplicate things and create doubts in your mind when you're trying to come up with a fairly simple ballpark for whether you should call/fold/raise in any given spot.

In this hand for example you can ask yourself "what are the value hands?" and you might come up with just straights, or you might come up with straights + sets, or you might come up with straights + sets + 2 pair; that's your hand reading judgement and you might be right or wrong but you come up with how many you think there are. Then you count the logical bluffs which make sense throughout the hand. Then you ask yourself "are there any hands which make sense to turn into bluffs and would this particular player do that?" and assign those as well. Maybe do some simple weighting. Hopefully you should have a clear idea of what the right play is. If you make adjustments they are probably going to be based on what you've seen so far (wild bluffs, very thin value, etc) but if you start thinking too hard "but what if...........?" then you can talk yourself out of making what would otherwise be a solid decision. Of course there are going to be lots of outlandish plays but on the whole if you stick to what's logical (and recognising where there are obvious spots eg check-call, check-check, bet is a green light for a bluff) then you can just make your life simpler.

I get all that. It just seems that in spots like this, if we're always giving V top pair, we'd be calling down too often. Obviously, if we're only giving him 2P or better, we'd be folding too often. I would think the goal is to find a reasonable, if not optimal equilibrium point that discounts the least likely scenarios.

Perhaps the deciding factor here should have been that hero didn't have the Ac in his hand. Even at that, it's hard to put V on exactly Ac9c, the one combo of TPTK with the flopped nut flush draw. Difficult to think V would get here and take this line with many worse top pairs.

OP obviously made a good call on the river. For me, the takeaway in this thread, like so many others, is to look at how we got there, and see if we could have found a path which would have made our river decision easier. In this case, I think betting larger on flop and turn would have led me to think V could donk out on river with more TP holdings.

This is perhaps why God invented the MDF concept. Arguably, H and V have both made some mistakes on earlier streets and we get to the river knowing nothing beyond the fact that H gets 3-1 and he has AA with no club. I think it's just a "computer" call.

Arguably H and V both misplayed the turn. I think we all agree H needs to bet much bigger or even jam. But V also messed up.

Imagine a scenario wherein V, instead of x/c the 110 on turn and leading 200 river, goes ahead and x/raises to 310 (same amount) on turn.

H would get 2-1 on the turn call facing a huge range disadvantage and having to fade half the deck on river. H probably folds turn incorrectly quite often. Even if H calls, if/when V jams the river 5, H gets ~2-1 and probably cannot make the hero call even with AA.

Instead V takes a value line when a polar line probably works on this flop/runout.

I like Doc's point here - it used to be known as "the curse of knowledge" that people who seem to be good players play as well as you do.

Initially i thought V was a really solid player, but in reality he was just a very good ABC player capable of a minor move here and there.

A c/r on the turn by V would have really put me in the blender and based on his image at the time i probably make a nitty fold.

Fun hand all around though.

Not saying I would have check-raised river here as V. I would usually just check, hoping you'd check back, and put in a crying call if you bet a reasonable size, like 1/2 pot, give or take. I might check-raise occasionally, if I was very confident in my reads or picked up any tells, depending on the bet size and remaining stack size.

Then again, I hope I'd be able to think it through, and see that I wouldn't have many straights that open and call a big 3B pre, but I would have a lot of busted flush draws that shouldn't bluff, and my TPTK might be too strong a hand to turn into a bluff.

To Spanish Moon's point about V x/r'ing turn...

I played a somewhat similar hand recently - I opened A9s from the HJ, and called a 3B from a similar young grinder V in the CO. I called his 1/3 pot c-bet on Q76tt. Then I 4x check-raised his 1/2 pot turn bet on a 5, to rep a straight. He called. I effectively jammed the 4 river, expecting him to insta-fold AA, KK, AK, AQ, etc with four to a straight on board. Instead, he tank-called, saying, "I know you have a straight", and turned over QQ.

With my specific hand and on that specific runout, my bluff attempt seemed reasonable, especially since I had zero showdown value. I just happened to run into the top of V's range. I think V x/r'ing turn and jamming river would have been reasonable here, albeit, perhaps somewhat less reasonable when he has some SV.

Either way, it's hard to get big bluffs through when the strongest hands we can rep don't align with our previous actions, and our opponents are at or close to the top of their range.

I read this earlier today, when I was too distracted to parse it.

So...if we're here telling OP how he should have played it differently, by default we're saying he misplayed it, though I don't like to beat anyone up over their mistakes, especially not when hero made the correct river call, when I was suggesting he fold.

You've proposed a different and arguably better line for V here. I'll go a step further, to propose an interesting thought experiment - let's wonder how V would have played A7cc, 99, 98s, 77, 65s, or any hand that would reasonably fit into his range here, and which beats hero's AA.

I could see V playing all those hands the same way, which is why I was suggesting hero fold. I would think most low stakes players who donk-lead the river here are more likely to show up with thick value than to turn a good bluff catcher into a bluff.

Not really making an argument one way or the other. I could see V x/r'ing turn and jamming river as being a good / better line, because I agree it makes it harder to hero call the river jam. If hero gets out of line and 3B's turn with AA, or shows up with 99, though...V's in a world of pain.

I guess my point is I think hero made things too hard on himself by keeping V's range wider with the smaller bet sizing on flop and turn. We shouldn't have to tank and figure out our MDF here. And while I can respect the audacity of V turning TPTK into a counterintuitive bluff, I think both V's river bluff and hero's call are going to be negative EV more often than not.

All that said - you and others advocating for a call were right, and I was wrong, even if my reasoning was theoretically correct. As you said, it's an intriguing strategy by V. I wonder if it doesn't fall under the heading of FPS, though.