44 on K748 turn donk all-in

/thread

This is a fist pump call. 56 is somewhat unlikely (cold called a raise with a straight draw on flush draw board) and I would expect 77 to 3bet flop at a frequency. Villain has many possible combinations of two pair and combo draws that you are crushing. You have solid equity against 56 as well.

And yeah, the flop sizing is a mistake. Facing a large lead multi-way and a call on a wet board you should be raising big here.

It’s pretty standard to announce “all-in” and just put a single stack of chips in to signify your action. It’s impractical to actually push all your chips in and out of the pot anytime you go all in before anyone else has called, much less you’ve lost.

It’s a little silly to do it with all your chips except for one high value chip (and potentially inappropriate, depending if he was actually trying to hide the size of his stack).

It probably tilts his range toward value if you get the sense he was angle shooting, but you have a value range crushed anyway, unless he has all 65o and never does this with a bare king.

Yeah. In this case he only had like 10 chips total (few white $1 mixed in).

I did snap call the raise without a second thought. I thought it was maybe $20 more, moved about $50 to the middle, picked up my cards to flip them, and a guy next to the SB mentioned it was more to call.

I didn't really care other than not wanting to try and pause now and potentially "take back" my call, so I just shrugged and turned them over.

Based on this guy's play, yes, all 65o is in his range. He was routinely calling gutshots for large bets on the turn heads up. I think 77 is there too at least some frequency. I didn't give any thought to it being a bare king.

But because just K8 and K7 are 18 combos, there's no way it's some big -EV thing. I was most curious about the subtle chip move and flop sizing too.

Fold or raise pre. This is like the 5th thread where its “i went 17 ways with a low PP and hit a set and now im getting lots of action. Turns out thats not as exciting as i imagined.” Poker is a complicated game, and even small differences make big changes in the advice, but the advice is fold or raise pre, you dont want low PP multiway.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/170/l...

This was from 2 weeks ago. A bit wetter of a board and a bit deeper and your best case scenario hand goes into the muck.

As others said, limping in with crappy pairs is a normal 1-2 player leak ... you shouldn't just do it because the other fish are. Also when people have 50bb your set mining isn't worth much.

Raise more on the flop, it's a wet board and you can have a bunch of draws.

When SB cold calls your raise I would heavily assume he's on a draw. Not K8. Not 87. Also depending on timing probably not 77, but 77 is more likely than K8.
Maybe something like AK that is playing terrible at every street, is scared of the action but thinking "you can't fold TPTK, it's just a cooler".

On turn AK/KQ type hands don't generally wait for a non-safe turn card and pile it in ... although players will sometimes say "oh, I thought you were on a flush draw". Also some chance he didn't see it was a straight card.
Fish 77 will "value" shove here because the board is getting scary now.
So would mostly assume a range of: 65, some 77 and unknown amount of random crack insanity (but probably not enough of it).

I understand the saying of "don't fold sets at low stakes" and a lot of it is because of the unknown random crack insanity. Like if V ever plays KJ this way, or he didn't see it was a straight card, you are punting by folding (large RCI range). Would assume a lower RCI range with this flop action.
IME fish actions just mean what you'd expect ... plays almost any2 from SB because "pot odds" (and it's really just bingo anyway), can't fold one of the best draws 65o hits on the flop, hits nuts on the turn and shoves because shoving the nuts is always a good play. They might say "so you don't check back" or "to get value from flush draws" or whatever else they'll make up on the spot if you ask ... but they are looking at the board and looking at their cards and seeing if they match and that's it (kind of like you did with 44).

The live stuff has value, and for some players will mean it's 100% the nuts ... but you don't need it.

I don't think anyone is actually advocating for folding in this hand, but just to demonstrate how not close this spot is:

Let's say Villain never spews here with bare KX, never turns two pair with 78 or K8, and never semi bluffs a monster draw like A6cc. He only ever has flopped value hands (K7, K4, 77) and every combos of 56.

Against this range, we have 47.5% equity. Having to call $120 to win a final pot of $320, that means we need 37.5% equity to have a winning call. So we have a hugely profitable call here. You can even start to remove some combos. Like let's say he never overlimps pre with K4? That's cool, we still have 42.5% against K7, 77, and 56. And every random combo that Villain can have that is drawing dead (like KdQc for example) adds something like 2.5% equity to our side.

Yeah exactly. I mean, look, sometimes you can fold a set but not here! If you fold the set you are basically folding everything and that's completely exploitable

Sent from my Mi 9T using Tapatalk

Eh, I'm the fish then...
Against the majority of players it's correct to fold, IMO.
Would guess we are closer to 20% than 47%, probably very close to it.
Would want reads before I called that V could do multiple weird things that were conflicting ... although I'd try to be kind to myself if I saw the 20 bet and didn't realize the 100 was behind it, and auto called.
Or just was tilted and auto called because we have a set.
Or that I decided V could be clicking random buttons 10% of the time, without thinking about the fact that still isn't 37% equity for us.
Also try to think about doing different things at different points, so we aren't here.

Like even if turn went: check; bet 40; shove ... I think it's more likely villain has worse hands.
But when villain donk shoves turn for 1.5x pot, I just don't see people doing that with 8c6c/Ac5c/K6/AK/KQ much if ever, even if they get to the turn with those hands.
The problem is that even if villain is dropped into the turn with K8/K7 and would always play it this way ... he has to get to the turn with the action that happened.
So check flop four ways with top two pair on a wet board (planning on x/r?), but then just calls the bet and small raise (why? If you say trapping the obvious question is why donk shove turn).
Or somehow checks K with mid kicker on a wet board and then calls K8 vs. bet+raise (maybe assumes you are bluffing a lot) and hits the perfect turn and decides to shove stopping you from bluffing.
Yes, you'll call sometimes and see something weird that breaks your brain ... but that something weird needs to be almost 1 in 5 times to make this a call.

tl;dr In a void some hands we can beat make sense at various points, but it doesn't make much sense for those hands to have done all of those things and ranges only ever get smaller.

If we have 44 then we should have 77 as often. Should also have at least 2 combos. of 65s. We don't have K7/K4/74.
So I'd assume this hand is the bottom of our value range on the turn, we are probably folding a non-trivial number of bluffs though so maybe we should call vs. a GTO shoving bot anyway.

If we aren't raising 6d5d on the flop (because it's a limped pot and went bet+call) then I don't see how we are raising Ac5c so 44 is our worst value hand on the turn and we don't have any bluffs.

Eh, I have enough respect for your game that if you are saying you think this spot is a fold, it has to be at least worth considering.

I think you are right that there are some reasons to discount K7 here (and I fully agree K8 is unlikely). But aren't there reasons then to discount 56 and 77? Doesn't he lead those hands on the flop sometimes? Doesn't he fold flop with 56 sometimes (maybe not this guy, but certainly a lot of players)? Doesn't he 3bet flop with 77 sometimes? Do those hands always jam turn instead of check/jamming or donking smaller?

So let's go back to the hypothetical equity calculation.

Let's say he has 12 combos of 56 instead of 16, because some of the time he plays the hand differently (like maybe he leads flop some of the time to set his own price, or that he slowplays 56cc on the turn). And let's say he 3bets the flop with 77 some of the time and doesn't jam the turn with it some of the time, so he only gets 1 combo of that instead of 3.

In that scenario, how many combos of K7 (or literally any other hand) do we need before this becomes a winning call? The answer is 3. Give him 2 of the 9 combos of K7 and the 1 combo of 8c4c (assuming it is available - if not, choose literally any other hand) and we are winning money here.

I'd say it's more that a consistent thought process is more believable with 77 and 65.

Like random people can lead or x/r or x/c for a bunch of different reasons, but for the flop and the turn to be consistent we have:

77:
Flop: We have "the nuts" and not a lot behind, so it doesn't matter if it checks through sometimes and we can x/r with the nuts. We just call once a bet+raise has happened because our hand is the nuts so we don't mind being deceptive. We are fine with it going 3 ways to the turn. Hoping to get "a brick", but never folding no matter the players/action.
Turn: Scarey card hits and lots of draws might slow down, and worse good hands might even check back, but it's only one draw and we are HU so we bet and hope for a call.

This is somewhat believable. Lots of people will 3bet flop anyway, or will check turn to see what happens HU on the scare card.

But do they have the same thoughts as often with K7? It's further away from "the nuts" on the flop, and more importantly there are a lot more bad cards on the turn and much less chance to redraw if they hit. Maybe they check flop planning to raise as much as they would with 77 but then are _much_ more likely to 3bet flop, esp. as they're more likely to see going 3 ways to the turn to be bad. The advice of "never fold sets" isn't usually said for top two on the flop.
To be fair if they check/call flop then it's just as likely they decide this hand is too good to x/c and they don't want it to check through so shove.

AK doesn't really look like the nuts on the flop and people are much more likely to lead it, but after the bet+raise I'd assume if people don't fold flop then they either check turn hoping to get to showdown or shove flop hoping people fold draws. Would much more expect this to be in a x/r turn range than donk shove ... like they decide they can't x/f turn and they don't want to x/c and fold rivers and they are still charging draws.
But shoving 1.5x pot would mean? That they see the bet coming and decided to be aggressive? Much more likely they don't know the pot size or are clicking random buttons.

65:
Flop: We don't bet draws 4 ways OOP. We don't even think about folding an open ended draw, and it's only 25 to call. They don't raise draws.
Turn: We have the nuts, let's bet and hope for a call.

This is very believable. Do some people realize preflop and flop is bad? Or bet/raise with draws ... Maybe, but this line is internally consistent.

For for villain to have Ac4c/Ac5c/Ac6c/Ac8c/8c6c/6c4c or something then flop/turn isn't consistent.

PPT has weighted ranges, so if we are generous and say V only has 77/65o 80% of the time he sees the flop with it and K7 50% of the time he sees the flop with it:

ProPokerTools Odds Oracle Results (2.3 P...
Holdem, Generic syntax
Board - Kc7c4d8s
PLAYER_1 44
PLAYER_2 77@80,K7@50,65@80
600000 trials (randomized)

All-in Equity
[table=head]|Equity %|Wins Hi %|Ties Hi %|Wins Hi Count|Ties Hi Count|
44|35.8415%|35.8415%|0.0000%|215049|0|
77@80,K7@50,65@80|64.1585%|64.1585%|0.0000%|384951|0|
[/table]

...we are losing, but not a huge amount. We really need V to be doing weird and inconsistent things enough.

This is more or less what I thought when I walked out 2hr later and thought through the hand.

I had seen the guy call turn bets multiple times with just a gutshot so 65 just makes perfect sense here, and I think he'd be cautious enough not to do this with K4/K7/74, not loose enough to have 87, and possibly not loose enough to have K8 either. Overall, a very loose, bad fish, but an old guy who didn't seem super interested in or very prone to big bet spewing.

But, I took it easy on myself, counted up K7/K8 and kinda moved on until posting here.

Preflop I had a nit and very passive guy behind me, and BB/UTG were both also bad with about $200 stacks. If overlimping 44 is a mistake here, I'm fine with it.

Dan GK, you're saying if I can find 3 combos I beat the call is profitable vs. 13 assumed combos I have about 20% equity against?

Cool post, thanks. Would like to check this tool out. I’m realizing I screwed up my own equity calculation thinking we needed 32% equity and not 37.5% so the latter part of my more recent post is incorrect.

PRE - At loose low stakes, I'd probably prefer to open for a raise, rather than limp with a low PP, if only to make it more likely we'll fold out some hands that can out-flop us.

FLOP - Why raise to $25 over a $10 bet and a flat call, on this somewhat wet board? At least make it $40, or even better, $50. Nobody is folding Kx or a flush draw here.

TURN - No way the older gent is donk-leading for 1.5x pot into the flop raiser with a worse hand here. This is 65, all day. Not even 77. All the worse value hands are just praying to get to show-down. He's very unlikely to be calling flop with some weird hand that turned 2P.

I screwed that up but it’s probably more like 5 combos. Either way it’s pretty easy to get there unless you really think this is only the nuts. I think you would have to be very certain of that in order to fold here though. I don’t see how calling could be a mistake.

Reading through some of the other posts, and somewhat echoing what illiterat said...

I don't think it's worth trying to figure out if 77 makes sense, because we lose to 77. I think 77 is more likely to raise pre and 3B flop than to take this line on this wet board, when the 8 completes 65.

I think it's worth figuring out if V has 65, or some other hand we beat.

It was a limped pot pre. Hero raises to $25 on the flop, into a pot of $55. It's $15 more for V in SB to call, in a spot where the other opponents are very unlikely to back-raise over a call.

Hero described him as a bit LAG-ish. He could easily play every combo of 65 this way, because he's getting great implied odds to continue, and it'll be easy to fold to further aggression the turn if his draw bricks.

Otherwise, maybe he's got some KX combo, or the NFD that spikes an 8. But K7 is probably donking out or 3B'ing flop, not flat calling, and A8cc probably isn't donk-jamming.

So that just leaves K8 or 87, which is probably folding the flop. But if he does call flop with those hands, I'd think he's at least as likely to just check-call turn or even check-raise turn than to donk-jam all-in with 2P, even top 2, when the 8 brings in 65.

In a limped pot, V could have 16 combos of 65 in the SB, but only 2 combos of K8s, and 9 combos of 87. Even if we throw in A8cc, that's still just one more combo we beat. But his line is more consistent with the 16 combos of 65 than it is with the 13 combos of K8, 87 or A8cc.

As far as the chip-handling thing goes - I've had so many guys try to angle me that I just make it a habit to clarify the bet whenever there's any possibility of confusion. Also, in all-in situations, when I plan to call, I'll ask the dealer to get a count, if only to make sure the chips go over the betting line. If the all-in wasn't clear, I want it to be obvious that all the chips were in the middle.

I tend not to read too much into it, unless it seems like my opponent was trying to do something deliberately deceptive with his chips or something verbalized. With older guys especially, a lot of them seem to be prone to fumbling their chips. I saw one old guy get defensive about it when another player pointed out how long it took him to carve out a bet, saying, "I've got arthritis!"

It may be the case that the guy meant to push the full $120 in, but the black chip didn't make it all the way over the line.

He didn't lead flop so he did have to call the whole $25 raise. I did decide on that raise size with a bit of "slow play" in mind. Didn't care if it went 4-way to turn, and really didn't expect the actual outcome to happen.

Definitely possible he meant to move the whole stack. Like I said I've only played a few live sessions at NL so everything is a bit new. I will absolutely make a habit to clarify the bet size from now on.

This.

As played preflop, the flop raise is way too small, I'd make it at least 40.

As played, there is still no way I fold a set at 50bb effective stack, but the mistakes in the previous streets made this a much more awkward spot than it should have been.

My mistake. I overlooked that he didn't lead, he check-called, which makes me think it's even more likely he had 65, not 77.

Calling the $25 raise over the $10 bet with an OESD is a little loose, but not crazy-loose, especially if he believes the BB and / or UTG might come along, giving him better implied odds if he makes his hand.

Something I've noticed about limit players who transition to no limit is that it can be a challenge to adjust to proper bet sizing, both in terms of the sizing to take with our own bets, and how best to respond to our opponents' bets, depending on their sizes.

The additional fold equity available in NL allows us to take more aggro lines on every street. The implied odds somewhat compel us to play more aggro when defending strong hands against potential draws.

So, using this hand as an example, we want to raise or fold pre, to avoid playing our small PP in a multi-way pot from MP, possibly with one or more opponents behind us. On the flop, we want to bet / raise to an amount that will give our opponents a bad price to continue with some hands that can catch up.

The more money our opponents are forced to put into the pot, the more it weights their range towards strong value. The less money they're forced to put in, the more it weights them towards weak value or speculative hands / draws.

For sure.

I "knew" $25 was a small raise. I just felt the pot was so tiny that the small sizing gave me a good chance to get a light call down from a weak king or to have SB call with potentially even weaker draws than OESD.

The actual outcome of a coldcall and two folds (especially the first caller) given the initial action was pretty surprising, not that I know what they folded. Maybe my raise looked like exactly what a fish would do with a monster, so they all acted accordingly, lol.

I'm fine with preflop.

Flop is very drawy with multiple people interested so I raise much larger. I like offering poor 2:1 odds for draws so I go $50.

I think we're probably just forced to sigh call it off here. He has shown he can perhaps overvalue TP2K so it's possible he's overvalueing something worse here. And smallish $120 can go in somewhat easily at 1/3 NL. It isn't a fistpump, but I just don't think we can fold either.

GcluelessNLnoobG

As you can see from the other threads, overlimping speculative hands in position is a rather contentious issue.

I'd be flabbergasted if a winning player can't turn an overlimped speculative hand in position against the typical LLSNL lineup into a +EV spot. So I am most definitely not in the raise or fold camp. However, even if I'm deluded, I would think at the very worse it is a small mistake (and one that could even be offset by the fact that at the very least we're advertising to the table that we are playing hands other than AA / participating in the game).

GcluelessdeludednoobG

GG - good point there too. In my limited live sessions so far, I've probably run slightly bad in preflop hand quality, and I've had loose players actually talk about how much I fold.

Now that could also be an argument for raising, to cultivate a more annoying/aggressive image, but I think folding in all these spots, even if microscopic -EV to call (doubtful imo), is still probably not worth it.