Unorthodox back check-raise on flop - stupid-crazy or great situational awareness?

I think it’s overthinking and FPS.

You are running a huge bluff. Why run a huge bluff with top pair?

If you’re going to defend the bb with a suited 3-gapper, recognize that you are going to mostly tread lightly OOP and not look to build a pot for stacks if you flop top pair.

In a multi-way pot, trying to get into the brains of every opponent and out level everyone is going to have you take goofy lines and get yourself in trouble.

Call the $30. Fold to the c/r.

And I mean no offense by this - your posts and responses are too long. I saw you addressed this in another thread. I admire your thoughtfulness and thoroughness but the reality is that most readers just don’t have the attention span.

I think you’d get more discourse if you are more concise.

I agree, you should be more concise with your posts.

How are whether stacks 1k ot 1.5k not pertinent this hand? Are you sticking in a third or a half of the effective stack?

You have an interesting logic, but I think you are not realizing how often a large chdck raise bluff needs to work multiway for it to be profitable, and I don't think either villain is as capped as you think.

This is way different if it’s 1K or 1.5K eff. I kind of like it, but we have to shut down if called. Your line looks incredibly strong.

I have made plays like this before but the circumstances were very different. The time I can think of off the top of my head, I was in between one guy who led out and the preflop raiser; I suspected before calling the lead that there would be a raise behind me (from the original raiser) that I could 3bet if no one else did before it got back to me; and I also had huge equity against any hand (pair+gutshot+NFD).

Here you admit in your OP that you were surprised by the check-raise and you assumed because you were surprised that it must be weighted to bluffs. I don’t like this reasoning at all. I think you got very lucky if this bluff worked. You are putting a lot of pressure on overpairs but people do play sets this way too.

Puts AA in a bind

It could be over-thinking, and FPS.

Lately I've been seeing more situations in multi-way pots, wherein one player's action following another player's action opens up opportunities for creative exploits. Like, I've been seeing and making some plays that are very far from standard, but they make sense in context. I was in another game recently, where players were flat-calling / back-raising pre-flop with big hands from MP and LP, because there was so much loose 3B'ing and 4B'ing going on at the table.

I honestly didn't think I was "bluffing". I thought I very likely had the best hand on the flop, but even if I did, and even if I didn't, my hand wasn't likely to improve enough for me to continue by just calling, knowing I'd probably have to fold to a big bet from either opponent on the turn. But I also thought my opponents would very likely give me credit for having better than just a weak top pair if I raised when I did.

Knowing V1 was playing fairly TAG, and V2 fairly LAG, the play seemed viable at the time.

If you are wanting your opponents to give you credit for a better hand than you have, that’s basically bluffing, even if you are bluffing with the best hand (which I very much doubt you are).

WHISKEY. TANGO. FOXTROT????

Especially in a multiway pot, a board that connects with callers' ranges strongly incentivizes the preflop opener to CHECK all but their very strongest hands. A good Keep-It-Simple,-Stupid approach that gives up very little equity overall is for the opener to check their entire range and be uncapped when facing the subsequent action.

This play is pure spew.

I don't think you have the right odds to call OOP preflop. Seems like a play because you don't want to fold top pair. Not a good situation.

Result:

When I'm blocking top set and top 2, V1 raises UTG pre and V2 on the BTN flat calls, I think both their ranges are pretty capped on a T84r board. We're looking at V1 having mostly over-pairs and unpaired over-cards, and V2 having bottom set, at best.

Getting 3:1 on my call pre, I could have all the 2P combos, bottom and middle set, and occasionally top set.

I would have insta-folded if either V raised.

But my thinking was that if either V called (but not both), I could barrel the turn on any card from 2 through T that didn't pair the 8 or 4 on board.

I was planning to bet huge on another T or 7, giving me top trips or 2P. Any 6 or 9 adds a straight draw.

A jack would add a straight draw, too, but I thought V1 might have JJ or Jx.

Any 2, 3, or 5 is basically just a brick, unlikely to improve either opponent.

What sets are we giving V1 here, when I have a T, and he raises UTG pre, and then checks this flop? There's only one combo of TT available to him. So he could have 88 or 44, assuming he's opening 44 UTG.

It wasn't that I was surprised by V1's x/r. My read was that he didn't have much. Heads-up against V2, I think V1 might have flat called V2's bet, but when I'm still in the hand, and I call V2's bet, it puts V1 in a tough position, where he should be folding a lot, unless he has a very strong hand, like a set, and I don't think a set is going to be played as a check-raise by the PFR.

On this sort of flop, V2 and I are going to have some pairs, some 2P, some sets, and some straight draws. It smashes our range more than V1's. When V1 x/r'd, rather than just leading out or just calling, I was fairly sure he was bluffing.

When the action got to me, it seemed that 1 of 2 possibilities MUST be true:

1. I have the best, yet vulnerable hand. Unless I improve to top trips or 2p on the turn, I can't continue if either V bets turn huge. I should raise now, for value and protection.

2. I don't have the best hand, but I block top set and top 2, and I since I was getting 3:1 on my call pre-flop, I could have all the 2P combos here, as well as bottom or middle set, and occasionally top set. A big raise would likely take the pot down here on the flop.

Neither opponent showed. V1 claimed he folded an over-pair. I'm still not convinced. It's possible V1 had an over-pair. It's possible, yet I think much less likely, that V2 had a better hand than I did.

I think if either opponent had a better hand, they would have jammed over the top, or at least called the raise. But, yes, you're right, part of my thinking was that if I didn't have the best hand, I could credibly rep a better hand than the one I have.

I guess what I'm proposing in this thread is that this is a situation where the conditional logic makes my play viable. I either had the best hand already, but one that wasn't strong enough to call the x/r and call another big bet on the turn, or I had a nut advantage on that board, and a raise would force my opponents to fold better hands.

by AlanBostick k

WHISKEY. TANGO. FOXTROT????

Especially in a multiway pot, a board that connects with callers' ranges strongly incentivizes the preflop opener to CHECK all but their very strongest hands. A good Keep-It-Simple,-Stupid approach that gives up very little equity overall is for the opener to check their entire range and be uncapped when facing the subsequent action.

This play is pure spew.

I disagree. In a multi-way pot, between a UTG pre-flop raiser, and two players with the widest ranges (BTN and BB), I think V1's over-pairs want to bet this flop for value, and to charge our draws, not check.

While BTN and BB could have some sets and 2P, we're also going to have a lot of 1P hands, and some straight draws. UTG going for a check-raise, after BB checks, is pretty risky. BTN can just check behind on the flop. If UTG checks, he's potentially giving two opponents a free card.

Posting a hand, getting consensus opinion, then proceeding to rebut every post in favour of the line you chose (with or without rewarding results), is a forum pet peeve.

Fair enough.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

You have a bunch of reads, maybe they are correct ... but let's assume you don't have those reads. What hands are you playing this way?
You say you can have T8 ... but I don't think I believe that you just call flop with that. Maybe TT just calls pre. sometimes, maybe 44 just calls on the flop.

Line just looks weird, and maybe people will assume it's strong because of it and fold better one pair hands ... but still weird. Can see a bunch of your reads being correct and you still get called by better because it's so weird.

Good question.

I think my range for defending the BB when getting 3:1 pre-flop can be pretty wide, especially when I'm facing a raise from an aggro UTG and a call from a LAG/tilted BTN.

That range includes a lot of low to middling pocket pairs, and possibly even TT, though that's more likely to be a 3B pre. It could also include a lot of low to middling suited connectors, and a lot of 2 Broadway card combos.

On the flop, in this configuration, these are my most likely lines:

1. Check to the UTG / PFR. When PFR c-bets, I'm check-raising all my 2P and sets, whether V2 on BTN calls or folds. I'll mix x/r'ing and flatting J9, 97, and AT. Sometimes I'll call with JT. Just about everything else mostly gets folded.

2. Check. If UTG c-bets, and then V2 raises, I'm only x/r'ing top or middle set and top 2. I'm flatting with AT, bottom set, and J9. Everything else gets folded.

3. Check. When PFR checks, if V2 on BTN stabs at it, I'm usually just going to flat call with my entire range, and evaluate on turn.

When UTG checks and BTN bets, I'm almost never raising, even with 2P or a set, because the pot is small, and the BTN can't have very many strong hands that will call a x/r from the BB.

I understand that at first blush, my line looks weird. But consider how I'd play my entire range when the UTG/PFR checks, and BTN stabs at it. I'd be flat-calling with all my 1P, 2P, sets, and draws. But when the BTN stabs, I call, then UTG x/r's, and the BTN flat calls, all my 2P and sets now want to 3B, for value and protection, and are happy to just get it in.

So...yeah, I guess I turned a weak value hand into a bluff. As weird as my line may look, I think my opponents' lines are just as, if not more weird.

UTG should have just c-bet his over-pairs from up front, and folded his over-cards when the action got back to him. BTN should have folded to UTG's x/r. The UTG x/r, combined with the BTN flat call opened the door for me to credibly rep top 2 or bottom/middle set, and take the pot down on the flop.

If I’m V1 I’m folding aces. Limp raise or call raise is the strongest line in the book. He’s the third player to show aggression on the flop.

I've, "paid off," this play before. I had QQ and the board was 984, I check raise flop, BB back raises, call, turn 2x, pot sized shove on turn, hero tank calls, v has A8s. Run it twice and we chop in a ~4k pot as he catches and 8. My thinking there was that villain's line looks FOS after he just flats the initial bet. Interestingly, villain said he put me on a draw because he thought I would have bet first time around if I had a strong hand.

It is funny that the first time around you are saying you think the guy who check raised probably has 2 overcards, but now you're seeing that it can get him to fold an overpair.

I think it is just a bit ambitious to think we get villain to fold an overpair here. In these spots, I am always trying to make villains put all the money in when I have 2p+ and I think they have an overpair. I tend to count on them paying off more than hero folding.

I think you're looking for input that pats you on the back and tells you that it was a good play. But that's just, like, my opinion, man.

NH

Good on you for snapping your opponent off.

Sometimes I'll make a play supported by two seemingly contradictory thoughts. If I can clarify - I did think that V1/UTG has two overs when he check-raised, but I also thought that even if he had an over-pair, it would be hard for him to call my raise, because I could have all the 2P and sets on the board.

He did claim he folded an over-pair, for whatever that's worth. It's possible he did, but wasn't sure whether or not to believe him.