Rivered A Boat Super Deep - To Value Bet or Not?

Hmm. That massive overbet on the turn makes this an interesting spot. I don't know if your image is maniacal enough that he would call the turn bet with something like AJs that decided to 3bet pre. Then again I don't know why he would donk a hand like AJ on the turn, so it might not even be in his range in this line.

You beat KJs straights, oddly played AK, worse Ax (are there any arriving here after this line?).

You lose to AQ (seems like a somewhat likely hand for him to show up with here), AT, QQ (makes a lot of sense too).

I probably check back river given description of villain as a conservative player. I think there's a good chance he folds Ax and maybe even a straight.

It seems like you're likely to be value-owning yourself more often than you're getting called by worse. Your maniacal image is the X factor that it's hard to quantify here. How much wider is he calling here due to your image? Tough to say but I probably check back and I am a player that loves to go for thin value.

TL;DR response - I might actually check this back, because V could have us beat and it would suck to bet and get jammed on. Sort of impossible to find a bet size that would work as a bet/fold.

Grunch:

PRE - our raise seems standard. His 3B from the straddle concerns me, when he could just flat. It's small enough to think he might be hoping to induce a 4B. If he was raising light I'd think he might go bigger. Not going to fold TT, but I think we need to be leery.

FLOP - I actually think we could bet larger here, to target all his inelastic Ax combos, polarize our range, and help define his range some. I might bet pot. Your sizing doesn't tell us much if he calls.

We could also just check it back and let him make a delayed c-bet on the turn. If he checks twice he probably doesn't have much of a hand and we can bet small or large depending on the turn card and what we think we're targeting to continue.

TURN - not sure what to make of his check-call flop / donk 40% pot line. What jumps out at me is AQ, QQ, KJ, and maybe some slow played AA for value. Could also be QT maybe.

Hard to find obvious bluff candidates. Maybe he does this with KQ or KT, QJ or JT. Some of those combos don't seem likely to 3B pre though. Maybe less KT, QT, and JT in range. Not sure how many of those call flop.

Again, I'm wondering if he's hoping to induce a raise with KJ, AA, or QQ. Does he even 3B KJ pre? This raise seems dicey to me.

When he tanks, I'd think that would be at least 2P+. I'd think KJ would 3B sometimes, maybe. Starting to feel a lot like AA/QQ.

RIVER - seems like this V is going to check range and over-fold worse value. I think it's okay to just check this back.

Seems like a good spot to bet, especially with missed clubs. (Missed spades too).The question is sizing, and whether to bet/fold vs xr.

But hand too good not to be t in a spot hero can have lots of bluffs.

I might bet $2k. Shove probably fine in theory.

Agree shove is probably fine in theory.

The turn action is what's causing me to advocate for checking back.

I'm interpreting his turn lead as being relatively polarizing. Then when he calls our massive raise he's presumably folding out the entire bluff/weak side of the equation. So my question is what hands is he 3-betting pre, leading turn, calling raise that we're still ahead of on this river (excluding stuff like combo draws that would fold river anyway)? Then compare that to hands we're behind, of which there are a fair number, and I'm just not sure we're good more than 50% when called.

It's also relevant that the hands that are ahead of us will all call or raise 100% while the hands that are behind could sometimes fold. Then if it's close factor in the downside of reopening the action if we bet 1/3 pot and face a jam, and I'm not convinced it's a profitable bet.

If we think there will be a fair amount of Ax in his range in this node then I would agree we could bet, but it seems like a strange line for a hand like AK or AJ to take after they 3-bet pre (check calling flop, then leading turn).

KJs, AQ or QQ seem much more likely, but there are only 4 combos of KJs that we beat while there are 6 combos of AQ and 3 combos of QQ. So that's more than 2-1 combos that beat us vs combos we beat (9-4).

This is assuming all those hands 3-bet pre 100%, which they probably don't. QQ almost certainly does, AQ is also likely to 3-bet, while KJs might be slightly less likely to 3-bet.

I guess if we think he's 3-betting KJo pre that could change the equation to make a bet good. Also I don't know if he would possibly play something else like 77 this way?

There are a lot of variables but I'm still not convinced a bet is good.

I check back. He's expecting you to bet with your aggressive image and betting/raising every street. He is never folding better and not calling w/ worse.

Yeah, I'm with GWF on this. It's hard to find the worse value hands that take this line and pay off a river bet. It's mostly just AK / AJ / KJ.

Imagine betting small, and getting jammed on. We probably have to call, because V could have AK / AJ that takes this line specifically to check-raise as a bluff if we bet small, but this could also just be him trapping.

Then again...it would be pretty insane for him to show up with 2P or a set that fills up on the river and risks us checking back. I'd be sick if I were him and we did check this back with TT. I wonder if he'd ever block-bet instead of checking with a boat or quads. A block bet by him might look suspicious one way or the other, and might induce us to raise for value.

I dunno. Thinking about this more, if we believe V would break game-flow and donk-lead his boats for value, and would be capable of turning AK / AJ into a check-raise bluff if we bet small, I guess we could bet small, with a plan to call if he jams. It's just such a higher-variance play than simply checking back. You don't see too many ABC post-flop grinders making ballsy river x/r-bluffs with a hand as strong as AK / AJ here.

Seems like the key inflection point is his turn donk-tank-call. It does seem polar, and he isn't really capped. He may be thinking that checking to induce is higher EV than block-betting.

Thanks, everyone.

H thinks about it and checks back. V shows 77.

As I was mulling over my options I concluded a jam was off the table because I get called by better, and I don't think anything I beat is calling. Even 77 probably folds to a jam. So my line of thinking was like Dango maybe $1500 for thin value hoping to get a crying call from KJ or maybe a KQss. But I don't think KJss or KJcc donk the turn, I think both hands are more than happy to x/r and are ok with it checking through.

OTT, I really put V on QQ/AQ/AT/KQ/KK/QJ but when I raise, I thought KK gets shaken out almost always, and only KQss QJss continue. If he did have a red or offsuit KJ, I think he jams turn a lot. So from my perspective at the time V gets to the river with a tight range consisting of QQ/AQ/AT/KQss/QJss. I didn't really consider 77 because I assumed that would x/r such a wet dynamic flop. I could only name two combos I beat, and I wasn't 100% sure those were in his range.

My main concern was that the money was definitely creeping into my thinking as I went over the hand in-game. It was crossing that line to me where it was "a lot", this is the first time I've ever had a 5-figure stack. Usually, when I overbet to $2500 that's all of it and I don't have to think anymore. So I was concerned I was seeing monsters. But even adding 77, I think I still lose to most combos that are likely to take this line. I don't understand why 77 donks turn after flatting flop. I think that was a misstep from V that allowed me to get a lot more in on the turn than I would have.

I missed 77, but even with more thought away from the emotion, I can't come up with much more that I beat that I think this V would play this way. Even if V decided to take a stand and knock the maniac down a notch, I don't think this runout would be the one to get creative on OOP. So fun hand, in-game I felt like my thought process wasn't level headed, but I think it led me to a good decision.

Maybe we "should" but we certainly don't have to. And that was part of my thought process is that there is no way I'm calling an all-in jam, and opening that door to potentially be bluffed when I know I won't call seems like a bad idea.

"Seems like the key inflection point is his turn donk-tank-call. It does seem polar, and he isn't really capped. He may be thinking that checking to induce is higher EV than block-betting." - Yeah, if I somehow had a bluff here I'm shutting down this river. I don't know if I have any pure bluffs. My "bluffs" are probably hands like KQss. But since I was being a lot more aggressive with the short stacks maybe he thinks I spaz river. I didn't feel confident that he would lead with thick value 100%.

I view the check-call flop / donk lead turn line as the "delayed check-raise". It's usually something nutted that doesn't want to generate too many folds.

But in this hand, it's kind of weird for V to take a hand that could have x/r'd the flop and x/r the turn when his hand gets downgraded versus some nutted hands we could very plausibly have in our range. When he does this, it feels more like a defensive block-bet / see where I'm at bet than a nutted delayed x/r.

The thing about that is if he's blocking because his set got downgraded, all his sets get downgraded. AA and 77 aren't much different if we have KJ. And if his sets need to be afraid you have a straight, your sets need to be afraid he has one.

Before we dismiss the notion that 77 would fold to a jam, it may be worth going back to our reads, and going through the action, and thinking about it more. We have more KJ here than we do TT or QQ.

I have to wonder if he was checking to check-call. He may not have been checking hoping to induce. I suspect some part of him was relieved he didn't have to make a tough decision if you jammed, but I still wonder if he wasn't hoping to induce you to bet, and wouldn't have been happy to come over the top if you bet small, as you might with KJ when he checks.

Part of the reason I'd want to check back is to avoid leveling myself into making a bad call or bad fold. Our hand is precisely too in-between to want to bet it.

I didn't mean to suggest you have bluffs on the river. You'd need balls big enough to ride around in a dump truck.

My point was that V could check the river hoping you'll feel emboldened to value bet a worse hand, primarily KJ. And also that he could do that with value (boats / quads) or with trips, planning to turn his hand into a bluff if you do bet (which is why I think if we decide to bet small we maybe have to call it off if he jams).

V may have found the best line possible with bottom set / bottom boat. He literally beats nothing in our value range when we raise turn. He can only beat bluffs, in a spot that would seem to be fairly under-bluffed.

If we just call the turn donk, he can rep a ton of different hands on a lot of different run-outs, or play his hand like a bluff-catcher. When we raise, on a two-Broadway board with two flush draws, his entire range (other than KJ) is in the blender.

I understand why he called the turn. He has a set, he can boat up, we could just have a draw and we'll check back when we brick, etc. But I'd want to ask him what his plan was for the river. What was he hoping for? What was he thinking when he tanked for 30 seconds?

This is why I think he might have called a jam, and might have jammed over a small bet.

He almost HAS to check all rivers. But he's boated up. If he was worried about us having KJ, he beats that now. If he was behind TT or QQ, he's still behind. The only hand that improves to beat his is AQ.

We're going to have some AXcc that runs into trips, some busted draws that need to bluff, and some SDV that probably can't win if we check back. It sucks for him if we jam, but he probably has to call. It sucks for us if we bet small and he jams, but we probably have to call.

The best possible scenario for him is we check it back. The best scenario for us is...well, not checking it back, but checking it back is probably less of a disaster than betting and having him jam with a better hand.

Not to be results-orientated but xback from fear of 2p combos seems incredibly nitty.

It mostly requires villain to have aq and also find the unlikely line of xc flop, lead turn, x river. We block at combo. Giving villain a7 combos would be generous.

Aa almost more likely than aq to take this line.

But even if Hero gets stacked by aq and aa pure and qq, hero still should make up for it getting called by worse.

I'm not expecting villain to have 77 here often, but he certainly has kk, jj, kq, qx, kj? And other ax such as ak aj at minimum.

And honestly this would be a very weird line from qq too, so really not worries about that hand either.

Let me ask you this. What are we getting called by if we bet the river that we beat? With the straddle on we're 1000 BB deep and we're talking about the 3-bet range of an opponent who was described as conservative, who then put in a ton of BBs post flop.

You rattled off a bunch of hands that we're ahead of that are mostly never calling, and I doubt some of them are even in his range in this node. Why would he be leading turn 1/2 pot with KK or Qx? Then you think those call our massive overbet raise on the turn? Then you expect these types of hands to call river? I just don't see those hands being relevant in this spot. Even AK seems unlikely. Why would he check call flop then lead turn after a card that significantly weakens AK?

Not very conservative 3 betting 77.

In a spot where villain's line is likely to be very bad no matter what 2 cards he has, Hero doesn't even need to spend so much energy imagining his range, when Hero hand is obviously more than high enough in range to seek value.

I also think posters in this thread are not constructing reasonable calling ranges for villain in river to justify very tight checkback.

If worried about that its still better to have a bet/fold line for smaller sizing.

After all if villain never calls worse than aq is Hero worried about being bluff jammed all-in? It shouldn't be both.

Other important info - villain taking 30 seconds to call on turn and Hero choosing to raise turn. Would hero raise/fold turn vs jam? Should hero ever call turn donk?

You say we're not constructing reasonable calling ranges for villain, but what would a reasonable calling range be for villain? It can be helpful to put ourselves in our opponent's shoes. So if the villain had posted this hand and was facing let's say either a 1/3 pot bet or a jam on the river, what would you call, fold and/or raise with?

Remember also it has to be a hand that is consistent with the previous actions of us 3-betting pre, check calling flop, and donk bet- calling a turn overbet. Also we're 1000 BB deep and view our opponent as a bit of a maniac.

So hands that will call a bet from this line.

Ak, aj, kq, and kj all seem very likely to call at least 1/3.

And I suppose at pot size villain also prefers unblocking flush draws as well so might call higher frequency with more red cards.

Qj and qt could also reasonable call, maybe villain even has q9 and q8 with turned flush draw.

Also any ax:cc combos also good call candidates

Villain most likely folds kk to turn raise but if he has it, also a reasonable call. Villain could even consider turning kk into bluff on different rivers

Turn overbet/overraise is fairly small, not a big factor. Raising pot-sized is not unusual. Sets up a a nice size for river shove as well. Approx 7k into 6k pot.

Also giving villain 3 combos of qq but no combos of ak.. it seems like too much.

Only to clarify my own posts - by "2P", if you mean AQ that boated up, that's certainly a hand V could have, but the way this was played, I was also concerned about V having AA / QQ. I wouldn't be too worried about AT or A7.

As played / in this line, I'm not sure V has much if any KK or JJ in range on the river. And I don't know how often KK / JJ calls a bet, if ever. If KK isn't calling, QX isn't calling.

If we don't think V is 3B'ing 77 pre, KJ is the best / strongest hand we can target for value. If we don't think V is 3B'ing 77 or KJ pre, then we're just targeting AK / AJ. How much AJ does he have that 3B's pre and checks flop? How much AK does he have that checks flop and donk-calls turn?

V checking the river isn't unlikely with hands that beat us, when we raise pre, call his 3B, take the betting lead by betting the flop, and raise his turn donk. We're repping a ton of strength. It's reasonable for V to think we're going to bet the river if he checks.

Part of the problem in betting small here is that we're more capped than V is in this line, and we don't block any of the combos that we lose to. If we bet small and V raises, it's pretty gross.

I don't think this is a very weird line from AA or QQ. It's a little unusual for AQ, but not incomprehensible. A lot of opponents would check AA and QQ on this flop and lead the Q turn after we bet somewhat large on the flop and V calls, because we could be checking back a lot.

To play Devil's Advocate - if this line seems weird for AA / QQ / AQ, it should seem REALLY weird for 77 / KK / JJ / QX, and fairly odd for AK / AJ. It really only makes sense for KJ / AA / QQ and AQ.

He didn’t 3b with kings and now we expect him to have AJ or 77? Check back, he has tons of hands that have us beat.

Most of those hands just don't seem consistent with the prior action, and if they do somehow arrive at this point most aren't calling. You think Q9 or Q8 are in the preflop 3-bet range of a "conservative" player?

Why would all these Qx randomly lead turn? Same story with KK. Also if they did lead turn you really think they're calling a massive raise with second pair and a gutshot on a two flush draw AXX board?

I guess anything's possible but lead/calling turn with something like KK or KQ would be absolutely horrible and villain was described as giving off "grinder vibes."

Even AK and AJ don't make a lot of sense to me. Why would he check call flop with AK, then randomly lead when a queen hits that improves a bunch of the types of hands he would be targeting for value (AQ, QQ, KJ)?

I'll give you KJ and I suppose Axs. I wouldn't expect Axs to lead often when they pick up equity on the turn, but it's possible. Even these hands could find a fold on the river though, and the Ax hands specifically could decide to jam as a bluff before calling.

So if you do bet 1/3 pot on the river what are you doing when he jams?

He didn't 4! with KK. He raised and flatted my 3!.

You press fold. Have to agree with Monikrazy that this forum does have a tendency to constantly construct ranges that are essentially nuts only. I also don't understand the reasoning of ''if he jams river it's pretty gross therefore I check''. Learn how to bet/fold in tight spots so you don't leave heaps of value out there.

You could be right. I'm usually right there with you arguing with people on here who seem overly nitty.

This seems like a bit of an extreme example though, 1000 BB deep in a 3-bet pot with strong actions throughout by our opponent.

So you fold if he jams? I think it might be a call at that point looking at calling 5k to win an 18k pot, assuming there's any chance he turns something into a bluff.

My main point here was that the downside is larger than the upside. Betting 1/3 pot to win an additional two grand opens up the possibility of the $6, 000+ pot being stolen, or we call off a jam and lose $7, 000 additional. It's an asymmetric risk/reward situation.

He happened to have the one hand we might get a little value from. Check is perfectly fine this deep. Bet/folding the best hand would be atrocious -- much worse than missing value from one hand.