naked Ahhhh
1/3 NLHE 9 handed
Game is very gambly and good. Same as other thread I made. People are opening wide, minclicking wide, a
I'm guessing it would have been around 2012 or so. I flop this huge hand in a pot where I'm the LP raiser in a HU pot, like the nut flush draw + gutty + pear. Opponent donks, I raise, and he 3bets. So the gig is obviously up, but we have almost nothing left, so I just 4bet the rest of it in there and he, getting about 10:1, ... folds. Lolz.The reason I remember that story a
These are the spots that only happen in low stakes games. You've got to love them.
I remember years ago when I was first learning to play poker and playing like $30 live tournaments. There were certain players that would literally call off 95% of their stack preflop with AK. Then if they didn't flop an ace or king they would fold if you bet the remaining 5%.
This reminds me of that other Banana thread, in which he flopped the nut flush on a 3-smooth SF board, and 27 people all wanted to dump money into the pot, and everyone called me a dunce for thinking someone had a SF and we should fold.
There are some key differences that are more than a little relevant.
First - in the other hand Banana had flopped the nut flush. Here, he is drawing. His AA is no bueno 1000% of the time. He needs to hit a heart or an A to have any prayer of winning. In the other hand, he was already ahead of all hands except the SF. If we had A2hh here, then we're going to put more chips in. We would be a 50%+ favorite agains a flopped set and a hand like K9hh that are probably putting in all the money. But we don't have a made hand, we have a draw and our opponents are going crazy suggesting that at a minimum one has a strong made hand.
Second - in the other hand, Banana's opponents made passive actions. Banana was the one betting, while the other Vs made actions that were consistent with moderate made hands and draws. In this hand, we have a V who "bluffs infrequently" check raise. Which could easily be a hand like a set or 2p - but he isn't doing this with KhKx. So we have one V that has 2p+ and we lose to 2p. We have another V who could have FDs, but his FDs are our outs that we need to beat V1.
In summary, in the prior hand, we didn't need to hit an out. We were either good or dead and the only hand we were dead against was a SF. In this hand, V doesn't need a SF to beat us. 2p, set, straight, flush are all ahead of us, and we need to catch. And how many outs do we have? Absolute best case 11, but fairly frequently we are going to have less because one or both Vs will have at least one heart. Versus a set and two pair, which is the best possible situation, we have 36% equity. If V2 has say Qd5h, we now have 24% equity. And if we're against a made flush we are a distant 3rd place, especially if V's flush includes T, 9, 5, or 4.
So yeah, easy fold in this spot even if it's gross. (Though admittedly in-game I might not find it as easily as I do at my computer). Being aggressive in the other hand was right. It would be right to be aggressive if we had A4hh here too. But with just a draw in a multiway pot where we are the ones that are behind, we have to be more passive. Instead of our opponents stepping all over each other's outs in the prior hand, one of the Vs could be stepping all over our outs.
There are some key differences that are more than a little relevant.First - in the other hand Banana had flopped the nut flush. Here, he is drawing. His AA is no bueno 1000% of the time. He needs to hit a heart or an A to have any prayer of winning. In the other hand, he was already ahead of all hands except the SF. If we had A2hh here, then we're going to put more chips in. We
You missed some details, and are incorrect on most of those you mention.
This hand is 3-ways. That hand was super-multi-way. If memory serves, 6 people saw the flop in that hand.
Secondly, Banana is the PFR here, but checks the flop. Again, if memory serves, Banana didn't raise pre in that other hand. Pretty sure he did have A2s or A4s. I think it may have been a limped pot, but I'm not sure. Someone may have raised pre. I can't recall for certain.
In that hand, there was a bet, multiple flat calls, and then a x/r put in on the flop of T98 monotone, and not one but at least two, if not three people who called the x/r, making me think his flopped NF may not be good, and that someone may very well have flopped the stone nuts.
That line of bet, call, call, check-raise, call, call is very far from what I would consider "passive".
I don't recall anyone in that hand being described as maniacal. I think I may recall the V who put in the x/r as being kinda TAG-ish, and the original flop bettor maybe being face-up or TAG-ish.
In this hand, Banana checks as the PFR, then a maniac/whale bets 1/4 pot, a spew-prone opponent sitting deep raises 3x, hero tank calls, and the maniac/whale 3B's for a measly $100 more, from OOP, in a three-way pot, with 3 to a SF on board, and the spew-prone opponent just calls.
V2 did NOT check raise here. V2 is last to act. Nobody check-raised.
In that hand, we had no chance to improve. Here, we do have a chance to improve, but we might not need to, and it's a little tricky trying to figure out if we even want to, when some of our outs may also improve one of our opponents to the hand we're apparently afraid they already have, despite not really looking like they do.
As for the rest, it seems like you actually agree with me, vis-a-vis their ranges. I figured them both for made hands, but figured V2 for sure would fold if we back-jam, giving us a nice overlay to get this heads up with V1, who may or may not call, with a better hand or a worse hand, but even if he did, as long as he didn't flop a SF, we'd have reasonable equity vs his likely range.
Given the reads and the action here, I figured V1 would be wide pre and could show up here with all sorts of non-nutted hands, but also figured V2 would be capped and fold to our jam.
Sure enough, hero jammed, V2 folded, and V1 showed up with a non-nutted hand. Also, sure enough, hero managed to improve to a better flush (albeit, on the second of 2 boards), and they chopped V2's money.
If we can make 2P / sets fold by back-jamming here, we don't need low flushes to fold all the time to make it a profitable play, much better than calling. If V1 calls with 98o or 65o with one heart, or just two heart overs, this back-jam prints.
If we want to fold, that's fine. It's probably better than calling, and I wouldn't be shocked to learn folding is going to be higher EV than jamming, assuming V1 always and only calls with better and never calls with worse.
I'm not certain those assumptions are correct, but whatever, we're guessing what V1 has here, when his range is likely to be wider than my ex-girlfriend's a$$.
That line of bet, call, call, check-raise, call, call is very far from what I would consider "passive".
Banana was the x/r, so bet calling is way more passive than bet 3!ing (which you're correct, it wasn't a x/r) a bet/3! on this board is very aggressive which makes it an even faster muck.
I don't recall anyone in that hand being described as maniacal. I think I may recall the V who put in the x/r as being kinda TAG-ish, and the original flop bettor maybe being face-up or TAG-ish. In this hand, Banana checks as the PFR, then a maniac/whale bets 1/4 pot, a spew-prone opponent sitting deep raises 3x, hero tank calls, and the maniac/whale 3B's for a measly $100 more
This isn't a spot where reads matter. Even a maniac isn't bet/3!ing after a V raises and another V flats on this board without a flush and maybe occasionally a set. Imagining he is doing this with 9h8x is wishful thinking. You're against sets and flushes. The other V might have 9h8x.
Given the reads and the action here, I figured V1 would be wide pre and could show up here with all sorts of non-nutted hands, but also figured V2 would be capped and fold to our jam.Sure enough, hero jammed, V2 folded, and V1 showed up with a non-nutted hand. Also, sure enough, hero managed to improve to a better flush (albeit, on the second of 2 boards), and they chopped V2's
I didn't see the result before, but this just highlights the difference between flopping a draw and flopping the made flush. In the latter scenario, we want to pile in because we're ahead of weaker flushes that have a one outer and will never fold and sets that will also be sticky. That was the case last thread, and this V just proved fish aren't folding weak flushes to a huge jam.
In this hand, H got it in as a 70/30 dog and wasn't getting anywhere close to enough pot odds to want to get it in (H needs about 44% equity). Maybe there's a few percent of fold equity, but it isn't much after this action. H has a bit more equity against sets, but is still not getting good odds. It's pretty simple, when Vs are almost never going to fold, don't shove your draws.
H basically tried to turn AA into a bluff in a spot where Vs are very inelastic and will almost always call. It's a bad spot to bluff, and not a good hand to bluff with.
