QJs from UTG vs 2 ppl
5/5
Hero($1000)
MP1 ($500) – MABG: This guy has been playing pretty tight so far. He seems a bit fishy because I’ve seen him limp a few times, but that’s all I’ve noticed. He’s wearing a hoodie and isn’t talking much.
CO ($1000) – 50-60-year-old Iranian man: He plays a lot at my casino and loves action games. He seems like he's been playing poker since around 2000, and his style probably hasn’t changed much. Overall, he’s quite aggressive, capable of raising frequently, and willing to call preflop with marginal hands to gamble. However, he’s not easy to outplay postflop because he’s been playing poker his whole life and knows when to fold top pair.
Hero(UTG) Q♣J♣ opens to $20, MP1 calls, CO calls
Flop($70) T♣ 9♦ 2♦
Hero checks, x x
Turn($70) J♥
Hero bets $35, MP1 calls, CO folds
River($140) T♠
Hero checks, MP1 bets $40, Hero calls
OTT, I realized I had no real plan. I just blindly bet 1/2 pot. If this guy had shoved OTR, I would’ve been completely lost.
11 Replies
Shoved? I think you played it fine. I would bet flop for 1/3 more often than check.
I’d probably bet turn smaller and usually bet flop but seems pretty reasonable
I don't understand why you didn't bet flop tbh. If you didn't have a back door yeah maybe but with it I think i always would.
I guess I play the rest of the hand the same as played?
I like as played. Flop is not a good one to cbet as the ep raiser.
I guess flop betting depends on the players. If we’re up against two passive guys, I’ll bet 1/3 pot. But if both are aggressive, I check my entire range?
I also need to consider position distribution. If I have one tight player and one aggressive player, and the aggressive player is last to act, is it better to check in that spot too?
Think it's played fine tbh. Not expecting to be good that often on river, but enough to make the call at this price.
You payed it fine. Why would you be lost if he shoved river? Just fold then, it's probably not a bluff.
Flop check from OOP and multi-way is fine.
Think I might check turn, to let someone stab at it, which is going to happen a lot on this board texture.
As played on turn, I'm not buying that this guy checked flop with Tx or better Jx, then just flats our turn bet, and then only bets $40 into $140. This looks fishy AF, and I probably pay it off.
I guess flop betting depends on the players. If we’re up against two passive guys, I’ll bet 1/3 pot. But if both are aggressive, I check my entire range?
I also need to consider position distribution. If I have one tight player and one aggressive player, and the aggressive player is last to act, is it better to check in that spot too?
Assuming you're starting from a default of checking your entire range when OOP as the PFR, then you can start deviating if they're both passive and likely to check back a lot.
If the MP player is aggro, and the LP player is sticky, okay to just check. If the MP player is passive, and the LP player is aggro, just go ahead and bet. We don't want to check, have the MP passive player check, then the LP aggro player bet, and the MP player fold out behind us.
I think it's fine to check this flop. This board texture is going to get stabbed a lot, even by passive opponents, and we can call, even if someone bets pot. We have 2 overs, an OESD, and a BDFD. We can check-call flop and check-call across a lot of turns.
For the same reasons, it's also fine to c-bet the flop small. Even if we get raised, we have enough going on with our hand that we can call and look to play some turns.
If the flop checks through, I think it's fine to also check turn. There's three to a straight, two to a flush, and someone has to have at least 1P that wants to bet for value and protection on this board.
Betting the turn doesn't seem terrible, but it's might be a polarization mistake. We're not really sure if we're betting our hand for value, or as a bluff, and really don't want to call off a raise now.
If the MP player is aggro, and the LP player is sticky, okay to just check. If the MP player is passive, and the LP player is aggro, just go ahead and bet. We don't want to check, have the MP passive player check, then the LP aggro player bet, and the MP player fold out behind us.
If someone is last to act, does that make them more likely to bet?
Basically, the main rule is: if we think someone will stab after we check, we should be checking more. An aggressive player is less likely to stab from MP.
If someone is last to act, does that make them more likely to bet?
Basically, the main rule is: if we think someone will stab after we check, we should be checking more. An aggressive player is less likely to stab from MP.
Yes, being last to act generally makes it more likely someone will stab, whether they are aggro or passive. But an aggro player can still stab from MP, whereas a passive player is much more likely to check, not stab.
So if the MP player is passive and the LP player aggro, I'd lean more towards betting. If the MP player is aggro and the LP player passive, I'd lean towards checking.
We want to get called by the passive MP player when we bet, and we want the aggro LP player to over-call. We want the aggro MP player to bet when we check, and the passive LP player to call.
If we check to the passive MP player, and he checks to the aggro LP player, who then bets, the MP player is likely to fold when action gets back to him, especially if we check raise.
