TT66
1-2-5 plo, around 600 eff. Villain in bb is reasonable but not good.
Hero on btn with TT66hh with dry Tc and no spades.
P
But Professor - what is the exact reason calling is so much worse that you don't regard it even as an option?
Villain didn’t raise to the full pot (210) which is the normal action with a low SPR. Can we ‘trust’ him and discard top set from his range? (if not, we should fold). If he is a player aware of the SPR factor, then he must have strong draws to the nut (like As+QQ/JJ/QJ) which in his view are also blockers to our possible draws). By just calling we cap our range (no top set) and gives him a free card along with implied odds, additionally we will have to play guessing game on later streets.
By calling what is our plan on the turn if he bet on almost any turn? Shall we call or fold?
If the turn is a brick, he makes the normal continuation bet? If it makes straight or flush possible, he has them or the blockers to them? Even if it is a K, he can represent top full?
Granted: by reraising, we will lose our entire stack if villain has top set, but is it not the same if we just call?
Of course, the outcome of the actual hand allowed us to bluff or win on a showdown, and therefore gives some support to those who think that calling on the flop is right. But to make this happens it needs a check/check on the turn, and a BD possible flush allowing a successful bluff, or winning on showdown with middle set: very improbable
Maybe I am wrong, but my conclusion is: if villain has top set we should fold, if not we should raise
Say villain bets any turn and obviously Hero doesn't fold. If there is any money left it will go in on the river. So in case villain bets the turn all money likely goes in. The only difference between call and rip flop happens when villain checks.
So reaching a conclusion that calling flop is bad is hard to understand really. The difference is not big. What happened in the hand is one of the best scenarios for IP.
Say villain bets any turn and obviously Hero doesn't fold. If there is any money left it will go in on the river. So in case villain bets the turn all money likely goes in. The only difference between call and rip flop happens when villain checks.So reaching a conclusion that calling flop is bad is hard to understand really. The difference is not big. What happened in the hand
I agree with you Amok: ‘What happened is the best scenario for hero’ but at the expense of giving him twice a free card along with implied odds (since we intend to call when a flush or straight are possible on the turn). Isn’t it easier to put him almost all in on the flop? it can’t be a big mistake. Certainly less expensive than hoping for an improbable dream scenario?
Villain didn’t raise to the full pot (210) which is the normal action with a low SPR. Can we ‘trust’ him and discard top set from his range? (if not, we should fold). If he is a player aware of the SPR factor, then he must have strong draws to the nut (like As+QQ/JJ/QJ) which in his view are also blockers to our possible draws). By just calling we cap our range (no top set) an
We should be just calling with top set a significant amount in this situation so no, we are not at all capped when we call.
agree with you Amok: ‘What happened is the best scenario for hero’ but at the expense of giving him twice a free card along with implied odds (since we intend to call when a flush or straight are possible on the turn). Isn’t it easier to put him almost all in on the flop? it can’t be a big mistake. Certainly less expensive than hoping for an improbable dream scenario?
If villain leads a blank turn then when we were ahead on the flop we have extracted more value than if we had pushed then. We can have the "best" hand on this flop and still be an equity dog (AQJ9:sscc has 54% vs our hand on this board). Additionally, on the turn they can make a straight and decide to get tricky and check or bet half or whatever, and we still get run outs that work better for us (we don't get stacked).
Position is important and by not shoving all in on flop we get to take advantage of that.
if TT66ss is shitty hand in live setting i don't want to play this game anymore
I agree with theprofessor, that we shouldn't call, and with illiterat that we shouldn't stack off
We should be just calling with top set a significant amount in this situation so no, we are not at all capped when we call.Yes, we can call with top set when SPR is high but not in this case when we are almost all in when we reraise. If villain leads a blank turn then when we were ahead on the flop we have extracted more value than if we had pushed then. We can have the "best
What additional advantage since villain will certainly call our all in bet on the flop? So you give them a free card,, hoping they will give us a free card when they fill on the turn;? It will not happen. IMO, due to the low SPR, this hand will go to show down in any way whatsoever it is played
But again, if the hand goes to showdown no matter what, how can calling (the entire range) be worse than shipping?
Not sure if a turn CRAI by villain is a thing, but that seems a terrible enough situation to consider a xb ott
As played, check back otr
What is our gii threshold otf with SPR 10?
But again, if the hand goes to showdown no matter what, how can calling (the entire range) be worse than shipping?
Calling on the flop will commit us. The reason is that the action on the turn will certainly be either check/bet/call or bet/call with 2 exceptions (as played by two sleepy players, or the board pairs in which case villain saves the last bet).
However, there is a difference between calling on the flop or betting the pot. When we decide to not fold on the flop, we assumed (or hoped) that at this point we are ahead. We should not allow villain to save the last bet if he did not improve or if the board pairs. IMO the only way to ensure this is to bet on the flop.
Why does villain save a bet and we don't? Why is calling committing Hero (IP) but not villain (OOP)? Aren't we doing something fundamentally wrong if that can be true?
Why does villain save a bet and we don't? Why is calling committing Hero (IP) but not villain (OOP)? Aren't we doing something fundamentally wrong if that can be true?
When you have a made hand against what you suspect a drawing hand, you should try to be all in before the river. The reason is obvious: you deny villain a free card, implied odds and, in case of a draw heavy board, the possibility to bluff you out when a threatening card hits the board. For the drawing hand it is the exact opposite, he should try to keep back some chips to bet for value or as a bluff on the river.
In our case where hero mistakenly calls OTF, If the turn is a threatening card, and villain bets the pot, calling cannot be a big mistake, since hero have 10 outs to win. But folding to a bluff is a big mistake.
If villain checks the turn whatever it is, hero should bet the pot for the reasons mentioned above. This is why hero is committed whether he reraises on the flop or wait to see the turn ((I wonder what he gains from seeing the turn). I prefer the former
Villain is not committed, he can fold when the board pairs on the turn (if hero didn’t reraise him OTF), and on the river if sleepy hero calls OTF and forgets to bet on the turn.
To complete my previous post: If villain is allowed to see the river without being all in, he can save the last bet if he did not catch one of his outs
When you have a made hand against what you suspect a drawing hand, you should try to be all in before the river. The reason is obvious: you deny villain a free card, implied odds and, in case of a draw heavy board, the possibility to bluff you out when a threatening card hits the board. For the drawing hand it is the exact opposite, he should try to keep back some chips to bet
Ignoring the obvious range problems and it's bare middle set vs. a draw.
Drawing hands lose half their equity on the turn.
_as you said_ Hero is on the BTN and can bet the turn if BB checks.
_as you said_ Hero can still call turn if BB hits and he knows he hit.
(slight apology because these get into range thinking again)
BB can still bet turn on a brick.
Hero can hit turn and bet less than pot, where BB has no equity.
The idea that OOP wants to keep money back to bluff/value the river, but IP never wants to do that on the turn or river seems ... misguided. And kind of ignores one of the few hands you've ever talked about in 13+ years on here.
Hand history should include whether the King on the flop is clubs or spades. It is directly relevant to river decision.
Mostly agree with bluff either way though. Hero is relatively low in value range, has a useful blocker and may fold out KKxx and straights at some frequency.
As played, many of us agree that bluffing on the river is not a bad idea
The question I raised in my early reply was about the play on the flop. Once villain check raised us to 150, I suggested that we should either reraise (almost all in) or fold, but not call. Maybe folding is the right play since we are slightly ahead or way behind? Am I wrong again?
As played, many of us agree that bluffing on the river is not a bad idea
The question I raised in my early reply was about the play on the flop. Once villain check raised us to 150, I suggested that we should either reraise (almost all in) or fold, but not call. Maybe folding is the right play since we are slightly ahead or way behind? Am I wrong again?
Yes, you are wrong again. "Being slightly ahead or way behind" is more of a beginner concept. In reality it's about equity vs range. If villain was the biggest nit in the world and he has top set here 80% of the time yes you should fold. But you should not guess his exact holding and base your actions on that guess. Yes of course when considering his range you need to do a bit of guesswork if he is way too value heavy for example, but in general you just don't bet-fold middle set. If it was all about "slightly ahead or way behind" you should probably bet-fold your bottom/middle sets always.
On the flop you disregarded calling based on a guess when in reality it's very likely to be the best play, because that is the line where you can use your position to your advantage. It is not possible that it's a disadvantage like you tried to claim.
As played, many of us agree that bluffing on the river is not a bad idea
The question I raised in my early reply was about the play on the flop. Once villain check raised us to 150, I suggested that we should either reraise (almost all in) or fold, but not call. Maybe folding is the right play since we are slightly ahead or way behind? Am I wrong again?
Against a not-good opponent, jamming the flop can be an ok option since he may stack off with weaker made hands (2p and bottom set), flush draws and incorrect combos. Hero isn't pushing equity against the stronger portion of his range and is drawing near-dead vs top set. It's almost impossible to justify folding to xr on this texture given villain description.
Sidenote: Overlimping this hand is a losing play, especially with straddle on. Fold is better.
