[2-4] Weak top pair facing Flop check-raise
BN Hero 550€
BB Villain 206€
Villain is a player I've seen for the first time that day. Iirc he's played only one hand where the person in front of him RFI for 16 and he just all-ined over it. He's around 35, calm, very well dressed. I think he bought in for 200€, which is twice the minimum (and fwiw I think it's a terrible amount; I'd rather play with 25BB than 50BB).
Hero is dealt 8♠6♠. Hero RFI to 12. SB folds, Villain calls.
Flop (26€): 2♦4♣6♥
Villain checks, Hero bets 16, Villain raises to 56, Hero ???
This was just such a weird hand because it's so simple (only two streets), but I still kind felt kind of lost. On the one hand, I'm on the high end of my range here with a weak top pair. (I might not cbet this with high cards -- but does he know that? -- and actually against a weak player, maybe I would cbet.) There are also a bunch of logical semi-bluffs. On the other hand, live players famously don't bluff enough. I didn't really know what prior to use for this kind of player with so little to go on. GTO probably wouldn't fold this, but I doubt that matters.
15 Replies
Prior should be typical loose passive low stakes, when we have minimal info, or at least heavily weighted.
I think I just let this go. Sure occasionally we will run into a draw, but lots of overpairs sets and 2p play this way, and even better 6s.
Perhaps he knows this flop misses your range and smacks his and is on the steal. The all-in example leans me in this direction. I don’t think he would use this line with a monster.
So, I guess I call and see if we improve.
It’s close because I would fold to an unknown, because like you say the population doesn’t bluff. If you don’t think he has the savvy to recognize his range advantage, might be a fold. No easy answers in this game.
The problem is that you raised with trash and then were called by a shorty. The fact that this was likely a high-rake Euro game makes this play even worse.
P.S. You mentioned GTO probably wouldn't fold this [flop], but I doubt that matters. FWIW, GTO-W folds preflop.
The problem is that you raised with trash and then were called by a shorty. The fact that this was likely a high-rake Euro game makes this play even worse.
P.S. You mentioned GTO probably wouldn't fold this [flop], but I doubt that matters. FWIW, GTO-W folds preflop.
The rake is 0€ for a 0-48€ pot, 2€ for a 50-98 Pot, and 4€ for a 100-298€ pot -- so probably not what you suspected with "high rake Euro game"? I think this probably makes a big difference because the structure means there is no rake at all if it goes cbet - fold on the Flop, which is very different from these structures that I think are popular in the US where the rake is very high for small pots but has a small cap. This is the opposite system; the rake cap is extremely high (50€😉 but rake is very low for small pots, often 0.
This guy is amazingly OCD. I just noticed he'll have exactly, a pot-sized bet left on the turn. I doubt that's an accident. H hates a lot of the deck; I let this go.
I don't mind the open. I like my button, and want people to also call when I have something better. Which they won't, if I fold things like 86s. Also like the cbet. Most of the time, it doesn't get raised, and we profit.
The rake is 0€ for a 0-48€ pot, 2€ for a 50-98 Pot, and 4€ for a 100-298€ pot -- so probably not what you suspected with "high rake Euro game"?
Wow
Reveal (rest of the hand is trivial):
Spoiler
I called with the intention of folding to a big Turn bet.
Turn (138€😉: 8♦
Villain jams, Hero calls (now I'm obviously not folding). River comes K♣ and Villain shows A♦6♦
Poorly played hand :/ my reasoning for calling didn't make any sense (I thought that his prior all-in somehow meant I should call, but if anything it means the opposite). I kinda realized this during the hand as well, that was the main reason for posting it. Even without that though, I think you probably should just assume players don't raise enough until you get good evidence for the contrary.
(Trivia: I didn't know Villain's exact stack size before the hand, but I did know my own and noticed that I had won exactly 200 chips, so I calculated that Villain must have had 206 (because there's 8€ rake for a 300-500€ pot and there's 2€ from the SB.)
I don't hate pre. b/f OTF though.
Decision point 1: For the love of god, never fold pre. It's probably a button open in a 4-blind game with no fish in the blinds. I will not comment on the advice of open folding in a two-blind, low rake game with fish left to act in the interest of not saying anything when I have nothing nice to say.
Decision point 2: I tend to be open-minded to all kinds of cbet strats, but I don't think there's a framework where B60 on this particular flop (especially with this particular hand) makes sense to me. Range check, range micro-bet, mix underbet (in which case this combo sometimes checks back) all seem viable. You'd have to explain what you're going for here.
Decision point 3: I'm a peel-one-street monkey. Are we ahead enough to call a R85 at low SPR from described player? Maybe not. We also have position and top pair and 5 outs to single pair and blockers to better hands in a wide config; feels like peeling one is at worst a little bit bad and folding is quite bad if our reads are at all off.
Post-grunch: Do you ever lose a hand, or does the dealer always find a way to make you whole?
Lol, forgot I replied to this thread. As I wrote already, I'm cool with the open. I do want to note H is a dog to a random hand (46/54), and even a typical calling range, though that range is very open to discussion.
On #2, since BU's RFI range is really wide, don't they have a range advantage here vs BB? Even considering a human V calls much more than a bot, which would 3! or fold? BU might have 53s, BB never should, etc... That, plus the actual hand H has, its vulnerability, despite being one of the better TP H has here, yet no real redraw, suggests a bigger cbet, right? Not a check or a smaller one?
For #3, and this kind of ties into Doc's 'two Kings hands' thread, our opponents are usually infinitely less aggressive, without good value, than bots are postflop. Even considering a lot of the hands a bot would x-r postflop, it already would have 3! or folded pre. Like V's A6s. Normal passive Vs chase and they call. They often don't raise, though semibluffing is certainly a thing.
So when our normally passive Vs do wake up and raise us, on a non-scary board like this, I'd think we should be calling down a lot less than we would a more skilled player. Even w/o the OCD observation that came to mind for this hand.
Totally agree that folding like that is going to be a mistake at equilibrium.
Lol, forgot I replied to this thread. As I wrote already, I'm cool with the open. I do want to note H is a dog to a random hand (46/54), and even a typical calling range, though that range is very open to discussion.
46% hot and cold equity is plenty considering we're going to massively over-realize due to position, the suited-connectedness of our hand, and range composition (ie: being uncapped, ie: having initiative)--to say nothing of skill advantage. If anything, that seems quite high. I got 43%, which still seems very high, but then again that's why I'm saying open folding is a torch.
On #2, since BU's RFI range is really wide, don't they have a range advantage here vs BB? Even considering a human V calls much more than a bot, which would 3! or fold? BU might have 53s, BB never should, etc... That, plus the actual hand H has, its vulnerability, despite being one of the better TP H has here, yet no real redraw, suggests a bigger cbet, right? Not a check o
Looks like I over-extrapolated MP cbetting strats, and BTN does indeed go big size, med frequency here, likely due to the presence of all the sets, two pair and straight combos that BB has.
Dry top pair, with low overcard kicker is still majority checking. As far as cards to spike in a xx scenario, I'd rather start building a pot from scratch with two pair on an 8 turn when villain will have trouble putting us on anything better than A8 and have a big pot already built when I improve on a 4-straight (or backdoor flush) runout than vice versa.
BB is most definitely not 3b or folding vs 3x. It's over 2:1 call:3b.
"Vulnerability" also isn't a binary. The hands our combo is vulnerable to are ones that will fold to quite small bets, like T9o. 54 type hands aren't folding to any sized bet so you're not getting protection against those.
For #3, and this kind of ties into Doc's 'two Kings hands' thread, our opponents are usually infinitely less aggressive, without good value, than bots are postflop.
Yes, which is why it's not an obvious call down like it would be against a bot.
I think an explo fold is plausible, but I think that at best saves you a little bit of EV over peeling once and folding turn unimproved. If our read is wrong for whatever reason--they're getting feisty because it's BTN vs blinds and/or it's a board villain has a hard time believing helped us and/or European regs play different and/or people play different against a girl or whatever, idk--then folding can be quite bad. I also don't bet this big on a lot of boards like this, so probably less of a spazz factor than I'm used to.
Can't tell how long villain's been there or whether the one HH we have on them means they're super tight or super prone to make polarity mistakes for a lot of money.
I wasn't at the table, I can't validate the read or anything, I can just tell you what degree of confidence you need to have in your read to act on it.
When I bet a board that I don't bet all that often, I usually bet it larger. It's another heuristic I'm following (like range advantage -> bet more often) where I have never thought it through from first principles and can't give a good justification. That, and the hand is pretty vulnerable
When I bet a board that I don't bet all that often, I usually bet it larger. It's another heuristic I'm following (like range advantage -> bet more often) where I have never thought it through from first principles and can't give a good justification. That, and the hand is pretty vulnerable
I see, good justification and that is on my list of viable frameworks for this spot.
It’s just that if I’m betting low frequency, this combo would go in my check bucket for reasons stated elsewhere.
But there’s obviously a ton of combos where EVs are going to run very close, so hard to make too big of judgments on an individual HH basis.
