99 vs check/minraise

Yeah don't do this with 99. Do this with 66.

How? Passive player opens 7x utg and c/r us on a flop and this somehow feels like anything but an overpair.

Again, did we miss a passive player opened 7x utg? In what world are you not sure how many over-pairs he has in this line?

4 to a straight is a perfect board to bluff on because he will fold hands you beat.

Ha! Exactly. Sounds familiar......

We are not playing against us. We are playing against a passive rec who did not open to $20, min-click the flop, and call the turn to fold on the river w/ an over pair. He should fold -- that doesn't mean he will.

I don't want him to fold hands I beat 😉

You know what I meant. 4 to a straight good spot to bluff.

I had some young, aggressive guy barrel three streets into me thinking he could get a middle-aged woman to fold (I raised pre) on a scary board -- I called him down w/ AT and my A-high was good. (Granted, I'm not usually passive and I had some idea that this guy was full of it, but still...)

I was onboard for a bluff jam on a lot of rivers, but I think I prefer checking back this particular river.

On the turn we're bluffing against overpairs but can also get called by hands we're ahead of like flush draws, possibly 88 or 77 or even something like A5. So we do win sometimes when we check back river.

If I bet turn more often than not I'm planning to continue bluffing by jamming the river.

Board pairing cards are not ideal though. IME, at lower stakes like 1/3 opponent's expect you to be scared of the board pairing, and size down with your straights. The problem is if you do size down then overpairs just call. If you jam though lot of opponents will think that they would not play a straight that way and end up calling too with something like AA.

So considering you have some showdown value and this isn't the best river to continue repping a straight I likely just check back.

I'd never get to the river the way V did, with AA.

I'd jam for value in a different line, if I thought V had a strong range that could call. In this line, V looks capped, so if we had value, I'd size down.

If we think V's range here is over-pairs and busted draws, I don't see the value in jamming to try to make him fold, after he raised pre, x/r'd flop, and called turn. He's either checking to check-fold his draws or checking to check-call with his over-pairs.

There aren't many hands we can target for value. Mostly just 88 and flopped 2P, and I'd think 2P wouldn't check-min-click in a multi-way pot and then check-call turn on a relative brick.

I don't think we're folding many value hands or good draws when we bet small.

But if V's range is OP's and draws, we can get more value from those draws with a bigger bet, and often get to showdown without having to bet again or call a big river bet. A larger turn bet certainly seems more credible for thick value on a wet and dynamic board than a small bet.

V's at low stakes won't bluff enough when they're IP, but V's at all stakes will over-bluff rivers when OOP and we check back the turn. If we check back the turn, and V checks to us on the river, we can check back and win sometimes, or we can bet for value sometimes, or we can turn our hand into a bluff sometimes. It depends on our hand, our reads, the board texture, and how we range our opponents.

To play Devil's Advocate, suppose we bet small, V calls, and then he donks river. How is that situation better than if we just checked back the turn? Seems like that happens a lot when we bet small on the turn. Opponents tend to fear us checking back, so they come out and donk.

Checking back saves us from putting more money into the pot in a spot where we're likely either way ahead or way behind. Betting big gets max value from his draws and likely allows us to check back the river against his OP's. Not sure what a small bet does, if anything.

I don't think a small turn bet does much to cap our opponent when he checks. The flop min-click and turn check have already done that. We were already ranging him as having OP's and draws.

We don't know the river is going to pair the board when we're on the turn. I'm not sure the 3 pairing increase our fold equity at all. I'd think it does the opposite. All the draws brick, and the bottom card paired. Why would V fold an over-pair to a river jam, in this line?

If we're focused on river fold equity, that would seem to suggest we think we're behind on the turn. If so, why not check back and take a free card? Maybe the river is a flush card and we can fold all his OP's with a small bet.

Totally agree.

I mean, I guess I see why we're calling the flop check/raise even if we're convinced we're behind, but I think it's problematic for a few reasons.

First, stack sizes. We needed to bet a lol 1/3 PSB on the turn (which has no FE) in order to just barely give us enough for the river for FE. It's dicey.

Second, we don't have as many improving outs as we think we do. At first glance, it looks like we have ~22 (clubs to rep the flush, a bunch of 4-liners to rep the straight, and a binked set). The problem is he doesn't necessarily fold to a lot of 4-liners due to the obvious flush draw busting. I would much rather have a straight draw where I have FE on the flush cards and meanwhile actually have some IO on the 4-liners.

Third, once and a while he spazzes preflop and has simply flopped a lot nuttish than we expected.

Unless we have a really solid plan that we're convinced is going to work a decent amount of the time, I think it really is fine to mostly just fold when we think we're behind.

GcluelessNLnoobG

You think he's going to donk river after we bet turn when there are four to a straight on the board and he practically never has a straight? I would expect that to happen almost never, and it would be an easy fold if it did happen.

If we're considering turning our hand into a bluff I think there are a couple possibilities that make sense. The first is betting big on the turn then checking back/giving up river.

The line I prefer is betting small on the turn to keep our range uncapped. Then depending on the river we can either check back and take our showdown value or jam as a bluff. As I stated in my post above I probably prefer checking back this river. We effectively get to showdown cheaper this way than if we check back turn and face a (larger) river bet.

All that being said, I do think checking back turn is probably the "standard" line. Then if you face a river bet you can consider bluff catching, but mostly you're just hoping it checks down. This is totally reasonable considering the flop raise was so small you don't need to have it check down and be best very often. You also occasionally bink a 9.

In low stakes though I prefer taking that line (turn check back) with a straight. It seems like low stakes opponents read too much into a check back, and rule out straights from your range (when they shouldn't). Then a hand like AA might go for bet and you can jam over the top. IME they're less likely to believe you have a straight and more likely to pay you off after you check back turn. However when you have a hand like 99 checking back turn works against you because they think, "Oh, I guess he doesn't have a straight so I can now bet big on the river with my aces." They're also more likely to bluff a missed flush draw bluff or whatever after you show weakness by checking back.

Just to be clear - I think either checking back the turn to possibly bluff-catch river, OR turning our hand into a bluff by betting big on the turn both make more sense than betting small on the turn. If we bet big on the turn, we can evaluate the river, but I'd mostly just fold to a donk or check it back.

Again, to play Devil's Advocate - if we check back the turn, and V bets huge on the river, it's an easy fold, and we lose less than we would if we bet small and fold to a donk, or barrel and get snapped off. Most low-stakes opponents are going to have sizing tells, such that they'll size down with their bluffs and size up with their value.

We shouldn't be worried about an opponent betting big with his bluffs. Let them. If they're raising pre, check-raising the flop, check-calling turn, and then blasting off on the river, they're over-bluffing. Most low-stakes recs aren't going to suddenly decide to pot it with a missed draw after we bet-call the flop, just because we check back the turn. If V thinks our turn check-back is weak, he doesn't need to go huge to get us to fold, right?

OP is ranging V as having over-pairs and flush draws. I'm not sure I agree that he has a lot of over-pairs in this line, but assuming that is his range, he's likely to be pretty inelastic, such that a big bet on this board that hits our range more than his is going to fold out over-pairs on the turn sometimes, but it gets value from his flush draws that are just going to check-fold the river all the time.

I think his river donk frequency is going to depend a lot on our turn action. If we check back on the turn, we're doing it to induce river bluffs. If we bet big, he has less reason to think we're going to check back on the river, so he's likely to donk less frequently. A small bet here looks weak, so, yeah, I think there'll be a higher donk frequency from his over-pairs that want to get value when the FDFD bricks. I think over-pairs are going to block the river fairly frequently in this line.

The small turn bet just doesn't make a lot of sense here. The 3 doesn't change the nuts, as 87 was already there. If we think V is capped at over-pairs and flush draws, a big bet makes more sense than a small bet, but checking back to let his busted draws stab on the river also makes sense.

All due respect to those saying we're turning our 99 into a bluff, it's not going to work often enough if we bet small on the turn, inasmuch as if we actually had the hand we're trying to rep, we'd be sizing up, not betting small.

When we get called, we're just guessing on the river, but a river jam is likely to just fold out hands we were beating, hands that would have called a big turn bet, and get snapped off by all his over-pairs that can't find a fold when the FDFD bricks and the board pairs.

To add to the above, consider the hand from V's perspective, holding either a big PP or a flush draw.

The board is 6s5c4c, and we flatted his raise pre on the BTN. We could have all the sets, all the 2P, and all the straights on this board. If he check-raises flop and check-calls turn with a big PP, what is he hoping for? That we'll just check back the river? Wouldn't he be hoping to improve to a set, or that the board will pair, so he beats our worse 2P?

When the turn and river pair the board, he's now beating all our 2P combos on the flop. How does he fold at that point, when he can beat some of our value in this line? In order to fold, he has to think we flopped a set or a straight, but what sets or straights do we have that just bet-call flop and then bet small on the innocuous 3d turn? Wouldn't all those hands size up on this super-wet and connected board?

Does he even check-raise this flop with an over-pair, for a small size, in a multi-way pot, with the third player still to act? What does it say when he then checks the 3d turn? Do we think he's going for a double-check-raise, or hoping to induce? The passive guy who checked down three streets with nothing in a previous hand?

On the other hand, if he's on a draw and x/r'ing flop as a stop-raise, and then he checks the turn, what's he hoping for? Isn't he hoping we'll check back, or that we'll bet small, so he can get a free or cheap river card, and hopefully hit his draw?

When he check-raises the flop, is he ever folding to a small turn bet? If he's as bad as his line makes him look, wouldn't he call a big bet with his draws to the nuts? When he bricks on the river, he's not going to check-call, so we get max value from his draws when we either bet big on the turn, or check back on the turn to let him stab at it on the river.

Once we get to the river the way we do, I don't see any point in betting. His bricked draws just fold, and his over-pairs mostly just call.

Meant to circle back to this (boldfaced part):

Re-read that and think about it.

First off, in over 20 years of playing, I can remember getting double-check-raised exactly once. It's not exactly a high-frequency play. And it was the easiest fold I've ever made. V was kind enough to show me that he drilled the GSSD.

More importantly, how does betting the turn, for any size, ensure that V does NOT have a hand that can double x/r? If he does, the only way to find out is by betting. And of course, if he does x/r again, wouldn't we feel like a big dummy for not checking back, as we fold? (I felt like a big dummy as I was folding my TP after getting double x/r'd, so I speak from experience.)

If he DOES have a hand that could go for a double-x/r, there's no guarantee that he WILL go for it. If we bet, and he doesn't x/r again, that tells us...what, exactly? That he does NOT have a straight?

Wouldn't his straights just barrel this turn for a huge size when we bet-call the flop, looking to charge our FD's? If he does check, thinking he's trapping, does he NEVER just check-call when we bet small? Wouldn't the double-x/r look so strong that it would risk folding out our entire range that isn't chopping, or free-rolling with 87cc?

If he x/r'd the flop with a set, would he go for a double x/r on the turn that puts four to a straight on board? How does betting tell us he does NOT have a set if he just check-calls? Wouldn't that be exactly what all his sets would do - just check-call, hoping to boat up once there are four to a straight on board?

Seriously, how often is the loose-passive guy raising UTG with a hand that smashes this flop by making a set or a straight - AND CHECKING IT - then ONLY min-clicking his x/r, with another player with an uncapped range still to act, and then checking again on the turn that puts four smooth on board, with plans to go for the once-in-a-lifetime double x/r?

I'd be more inclined to believe this is 77 or 76s, likely 76cc, and he turned a straight, not flopped it. We can check back and fold when he bombs the river, or we can bet big and check back the river when he calls. Occasionally we river a set and either cooler him or get coolered. If we're lucky we can preserve some of our stack when he checks and we bet small, and he just calls.

Betting the turn small and jamming river to make him fold the over-pairs that make up a small yet decidedly sticky portion of his range is too optimistic for me. I'd rather think we're hoping he flopped 2P that got counterfeited but can't find a fold when the FD bricks. If we're giving him sets and straights, then he probably has as much 2P in this line as over-pairs.

Dying to know what happened.

Yes our hand has showdown value against V's range, especially when he just min-clicks it, check-calls your small turn bet, and checks again on the river.

The advice you're getting is a reflection of the logic you're using and the actions you take as a result. Aggressive actions are fine, when the situation calls for them.

I suspect you were bluffing with the best hand, and his tank was possibly just Hollywooding.

Does being a middle aged woman hinder you from understanding hypotheticals? Funnily enough you seem to understand it's a hypothetical when Doc plays devil's advocate.

You know many passive players who open 7x utg with those hands? That's a thing you've seen often in your 20 years of playing?

It's because for the most part the advice here is given by passive mostly weak players who use silly anecdotes to deter you from bluffing.

I don't suspect villain was Hollywooding and we bluffed with the best hand but that's mostly because I read into a 7x UTG open from a passive player differently than some in this thread.

Next time, post this hand as villain and watch them all advocate for river folds.

Well played dangomango on pulling the trigger on the bluff shove.

Good, I don't want him to fold anything on the turn because my plan is to bluff the river. I want 100% of his range to call, and if he somehow has a straight I want him to raise.

I'm not worried about being credible. I'm worried about having enough on the river to be scary. Because if V looks at the river jam and thinks he is "priced in", he's going to call. If he looks at the river and it's "a lot", then he will start seeing monsters under the bed even when there is absolutely no way they could be there.

We have a really bad bluffcatcher. I am absolutely never continuing if V bets river whether I checked the turn or not.

If V leads river, I fold and V just saved me $200 and let me off the hook. I agree that if V boated up or had the straight, he is going to donk river with some significant frequency. That just reinforces the choice to bluff jam when he doesn't donk.

If we check back, we only win if river goes x/x. That is literally our only path to winning and now V could lead with an overpair and we have to just fold. I believe V has TT-KK as the primary part of his range. Checking turn loses against that range 100% of the time. Betting small and then jamming river wins against that portion of his range sometimes.

The draw already came in. There's four to a straight on the turn. The draw hit if we had it. The only concern we have is whether or not V has it. And when he flats a small bet and then checks river, I'm saying he doesn't have the straight very often.

Yes, we were behind on the flop when he min-clicks it almost always. We're turning our hand into a bluff because we believe we are behind. What is he possibly minclicking with that we're ahead of? V isn't minclicking and then checking turn with two overs and a FD.

If I thought we're ahead, then I'd bet really small on the river. If I had a boat on this river, I'm not jamming because I believe I am almost never getting paid off. Either, we should always be jamming this river with our value because V is going to get sticky and call us down with middling value, or we should always jam with our bluffs because V is going to fold middling value. One or the other has to be true. Against the average $1/$3 opponent on a scary board where there's four to a straight and the board is paired, when facing a big bet, we're getting a fold well more than the 50% of the time we need him to fold.

If V x/r again, then I fold and I lose an extra $40-$50. Which is a lot less than I was about to lose on the river. So I don't feel like a dummy, I feel like I saved $200. The only reason to check back here is if we believe we have SDV strong enough to bluffcatch river, and we don't.

What is Vs range after a chunky open with a cold open UTG to $20 in a $1/$3 game where a "normal" raise is $10-$15. And even fish tend to play stronger hands on average UTG and when opening to a larger size also points to a stronger pre-flop hand. So V has mostly pps and broadway type hands.

OTF, V clicks back. Is a set clicking back? Probably not. Are FDs clicking back? Probably not, he can call for $20 and try to catch so why make it $40? I read this as almost always value, and what is V's value? He doesn't have 76, maybe A6s, but mostly his value is TT-AA. From that point in the hand, I am proceeding under the assumption that I'm against TT-AA and only proceeding with a bluff if I believe it will be successful against those hands.

If you're going to bomb river, betting the turn is essential. If the turn goes x/x and then V checks river and we suddenly bomb it, that looks super suspicious. I expect nobody but a complete nit to fold an overpair in that line. Even a fish is going to recognize that their check turn and check river looks super weak.

When we bet turn, we're saying "I have a hand and I'm not afraid of you x/r me". Whether V ever would x/r is irrelevant - I agree if he turned the straight or had a set he probably keeps betting turn and we can just fold. But it is a statement to announce that we have a hand. Then on the river, when he checks and we bomb it, we've already warned him that we have a hand. And he's going to sit there and think about our bet on the turn that looked like it might just be stabbing at weakness in a very different light. The primary purpose of the turn bet is to set up our river shove, to the extent that it does inspire any of his nutted hands to expose themselves, that's a bonus. We don't want V going to the river believing that he is well ahead, that gives him confidence and makes him more likely to call any bet. We want V to go to the river feeling a bit nervous that he might be behind. Then our shove reinforces that emotion and makes it much more likely that V finds the fold button. You need that little seed of doubt to be planted and that's the primary purpose of the turn bet.

Very well played in my book. I'd probably have bet slightly smaller on the turn so that there was an overbet on the river, so you won like $10 more than I would have.

Your assessment is correct, there is no real SDV. What hands could V have that you beat? 88? He probably folds turn and doesn't necessarily click back flop. A6? Maybe exactly A6cc takes this exact line. It's possible he did this with some random overs with FD but we can discount a lot of that with the minclick. I'm a total sucker for paying off minclicks and they are almost always pairs and you only beat one of those.

100% agreed. Pretending a passive player opens 7x UTG with 45s/56s/67s here is a fantasy. I have noticed that some posters include hands in their ranges to support their opinion, not because it makes any logical sense.

I agree the hand is wp and we have no real SDV but I'd argue his range is far tighter than that. I'd say he has 88 and A6s exactly never. Passive players would limp those before opening them 7x from UTG.

Docvail,

I was getting ready to compose a long response but fortunately pablito and Yami pretty much said exactly what I was thinking. A 7x open in early position from a passive opponent is not indicative of suited connectors and the types of hands that make straights on this board. That's pretty much the whole reason why we're bluffing when the four straight hits.

A wise man once told me that the key to playing against recreational opponents is to keep throwing the action back to them. When we bet small on the turn they will likely reveal the strength of their hand. They either double check raise or donk river, in which case we have an easy fold and only risked a small turn bet. Or they call and check, in which case they are likely capped at aces and we have enough back to jam and it's scary enough to get them to fold.

Again I don't think a board pairing card is ideal for bluffing and I might check back this exact card, but I don't hate that the OP went for it. I said above they were likely capped at aces when they check river. I meant that more on a blank river though and I do think they will occasionally show up with a full house here that checks river assuming we will continue to bet our straight. Obviously a full house would snap get it in. I think that's relatively unlikely though that he would raise to such a huge size preflop in EP with a small pocket pair.

With a tank fold from villain on the river, to me that suggests that he likely had the big pair that we were targeting and our plan to fold out TT-AA worked.

Well played. This hand is a good example of why you continue with relatively wide ranges against flop check raises. For one, you need to continue a lot otherwise opponents can exploit your overfolds (maybe not this exact opponent but in general). Second there are multiple ways to win on later streets.

Sometimes you might be able to cheaply show down the 99 and be good. Other times you change course and turn it into a bluff.

Wow, you make zero sense. You replied, Ha! Exactly. Sounds familiar...... and then you knock me for replying because it's hypothetical? You need to start paying attention to what you post.

dangmango, there are times to be aggressive and times to slow down. I'm really glad this worked. My passive player pool is basically never folding an over pair here -- at least not to me, but that's because I have an aggro image and they rarely believe me. I have to stick to value-owning them.

Speaking of which, how do your opponents see you? If you are usually passive, I can easily see him folding here. Solvers, GTO, etc., can say whatever they want, but live reads/image really do matter. I can get away with a lot more when I play NLHE where nobody knows my name 😉 (That rarely happens, though, because I'm there for PLO.)