1/3 going in guns blazing?

ATo after 2 EP limpers is kind of a cuspy hand, imo. I don't hate raising it but I sometimes think overlimping it may be better, although I'm really not sure (although I do know I'll be massively outvoted on that idea).

With some possibilities on this flop I guess I don't hate a cbet, but it's kinda also a board that could hit him a lot too. If we're going to often double barrel then I might bet even smaller on the flop to really try to widen his calling range so I have more very weak hands to successfully target on the turn.

On meh turn cards that don't improve our equity and we can't credibly rep, I think I go into give up UI mode.

GcluelessNLnoobG

I agree it's cuspy preflop, but to me it's a raise or fold spot. ATo is not an implied odds hand that would want to limp behind IMO. It's more the type of hand where you try to isolate someone and get heads up with position. That being said you've got to beware of the types of old guys who limp call with dominating aces. I think ATo is usually going to be a good open in this formation, but against certain players that limp hands that most people raise, it could be a fold.

Anyway as played a flop bet seems standard. We could debate sizing but I'll just skip to the turn.

I like a second barrel most of the time here with the gutshot, probably to something like 60. Most recreational players tend to overfold the turn.

If we're called I likely bluff all in on a spade river with the nut flush blocker. I also consider bluffing cards like a T, Q or K, and value betting an ace (and straight of course).

I mostly check back blank rivers after being called twice as I expect him to have a jack a lot after calling twice. Also we still have a sliver of showdown value against worse bricked draws.

Preflop is loose but fine. I would check back the very wet flop that is bad for our range. Would check back the turn as played. I probably would not bluff the river unimproved.

If you do bet flop there's also a good argument that can be made for overbetting a blank turn, as your opponent should be capped after just calling flop.

I do agree with DB that you should be checking back this flop a lot, but you still have plenty of strong Jx and overpairs that will be betting for value, and your exact hand is a good combo to bluff with (gutshot, straight blocker, BDNFD).

Basically if I don't think my opponent is going to play weak tight enough to barrel off here, then I'm probably not opening the hand preflop to begin with.

I'm out-of-the-step with most of the forum on this, but I think we should be attempting to get into cheap pots versus poor players on the Button with upwards of ~50% of hands here and play some Bingo, so ATo clearly qualifies. But that's me.

GcluelessBingonoobG

It could actually be plus EV in this specific scenario, don't get me wrong. It's hard to quantify these things, but I think generally if the limpers ranges are weak enough for us to play this hand then we're usually better off coming in with a raise, so that we have initiative, a bigger pot to steal on later streets, and an uncapped range. That's not to say that in that scenario limping behind wouldn't also be +EV. I just suspect raising would be better.

Does anyone want to attempt to define a range for our opponent going to the flop? This is kind of the key variable. I was just thinking about running a sim for this hand, but realized it's really hard to define our opponent's range. The more they're showing up with a wider range including junk like K8, K7, Q8, Q7 the more I like barreling aggressively. If they're playing only reasonable implied odds hands like pocket pairs, suited connectors and maybe suited aces then DB's line of mostly checking makes more sense.

Yeah the SPR is kind of awkward for an overbet, which is why I would usually just bet 2/3 pot and set up a river bluff all in on some rivers.

If you were to overbet turn the idea would be to maximize fold equity on that street and mostly shut down river when called, unless you get there.

What do you mean when you say you don't think he would be capped at worse than AJ? Do you think he would just call this flop with two pair or a set? I wouldn't really expect that. Maybe a straight might slow play, but for what it's worth we block that.

If I had a nickel for every time some clownfish acted like blocking some flushes means villain can't have any flushes, I'd have a massive shitload of nickels.

Fold pre

As played there's no reason to c-bet flop. anyone saying it's "standard" has never seen a deck of cards. Villain isn't folding a J. All his 8x and 7x hands likely have gutshot outs (at least). He isn't foldign a flush draw, pair+ draw, or combo draw. We don't really care about folding out Villain's equity from other random unpaired hands. We dominate all of his Ax and Tx holdings. KQ, Q9 and whatever other airball hands are not a big enough part of his range for me to attack with a spewbet. Also the chance of getting check-raised is probably higher than usual on this board.

As played give up turn. Villain has something, and you've unnecessarily built up the pot. You'll need to use huge sizes to get folds now, assuming you even can get folds at all. Blasting off here is absolute spew.

If I bet flop, I'm betting turn. I see no reason to go big - we want to be called by Jx, 9x, Tx, 8x, FDs etc. We take away an out for FDs and we take away an out for 9x SDs. Bet $50. We can jam a lot of rivers because V doesn't have 2p or sets. We can't bet big on turn because V has a lot of draws that will get sticky. If we get Jx to fold, we're EV+.

I think it's fine and fair to argue raising might be better. But if overlimping limpers with it on the Button is +EV, then it ain't a raise versus fold case.

Gnothatin',justsayin'G

FWIW I ran a quick sim. I gave our opponent a limp call raise composed mostly of small/medium PPs, suited connectors, and suited aces ATs and below.

I gave us a LJ RFI range.

Anyway with those assumptions AT with the As was always betting flop, but preferred a smaller 1/3 pot size with all hands that are betting.

With our entire range we're betting about 54% of the time on the flop, but that assumes that our solver opponent has a 9% flop leading range. If we node lock for them to check range on the flop, our cbet frequency goes down to 44% with our entire range, but we're still cbetting our hand almost every time (with the node lock we're now mixing in a sliver of checks).

Here's the interesting part, after betting 1/3 pot on the flop the solver is mostly betting with our hand with a slight overbet sizing on the turn. The thing is when we start with a small flop bet the turn overbet of 120% pot is only $88, so we still have a fair amount behind that way going to the river.

On the river the solver is jamming spades and mixing jams and checks on other cards that are good for our range, like a K or Q. The solver is bluffing those non-flush-completing rivers sometimes with our hand, but is bluffing at a higher frequency with combos that don't contain the As.

Fair enough. My assumption (which admittedly could be wrong) is something like against weaker ranges and opponents our hand might on average be something like +.2 BB as a raise and +.15 BB as a limp. Against stronger ranges it might on average be -.05 BB as a raise and -.04 BB as a limp.

I'm just throwing numbers out, but what I mean is that if the limpers are weak enough to justify entering at all, then the EV would likely be higher as a raise. Admittedly if the limpers ranges are strong, then limping is probably "less bad' than raising, but I would think in that scenario folding would be best.

Or you could just play like this guy:

Spoiler

Show

[image]5ZoPMJr.png[/im

..]

You have been colonized

V always has "something" - but what does he have?

He doesn't have JJ/88/77/J8/J7/87 those raise us OTF a ton. He doesn't have Ax fd, he doesn't have four combos of T9 and would probably raise some if not all T9. So V doesn't have 2P+ very often, if ever.

Therefore, I conclude V has Jx, a draw to a non-nut flush, a straight, or pair + draw. Can we get a MAWG to fold Jx or 8x when he misses his straight OTR? That's the only question that matters. I'd say against the average player, we can get that fold almost always.

That question isn't even on the table yet.

Right now the question is "What do we do on the turn?"

Are you checking? Is that what you're saying here? You didn't talk about the turn at all and skipped straight to the river because you're checking on the turn?

Good, we agree.

Grunch:

What do you think his range is?

Getting x/r'd here would suck. So definitely don't bomb it. Check back or bet small, like 40%-50% pot. Fold if he check raises.

Fold if he donks river and we don't drill our gut shot. Bet big if we brick and he checks. Bet small if we drill it or spike an ace.

I think his range is capped when he didn't x/r flop

It matters greatly because if we can't get V to fold Jx OTR, we should check turn and hope to get lucky. But if we think we can get V to fold we need to take actions OTT to set ourselves up for success OTR.

IMO, the most likely line to get Jx to fold is b50 turn jam river. If we xb turn then bet river, we look weak and get hero called more frequently by Jx and maybe 8x on bricks. We're only beating busted draws in that line, we gave the draws a free card and we get minimum value. I think if we x turn we're just checking or folding river unless we catch. It's a poor line against an average $1/$3 V. By betting turn, we get value from draws and set up a more effective bluff OTR.

See, I find that interesting.

I think most low stakes players are more likely to fast play their thick value on wet boards when it's likely they have the best hand, but their hand is vulnerable. I think they're less likely to fast play when they're not sure their hand is best or when they know it is but it isn't all that vulnerable.

So, on Js9s2d, they fast play 2P+. On Jc8s7s, they don't fast play as much, because their 2P / sets could be behind our straights, and their straights aren't as worried about being out-drawn. Their straights are more worried about us over-folding because it's such a scary board.

If I thought he was capped getting to the turn, I'd bomb it. I don't necessarily think he is capped, so I'd either check back or bet small. If we bomb this, I don't think we have anywhere near the fold equity we need, and it's probably a huge punt.

If we bet small, he might check raise, which would suck, but it's a pretty trivial fold, because WTF is he repping when he c/c's flop and then x/r's a brick? That's the delayed check raise line. He's nutted.

If he doesn't x/r, he'll probably donk huge on the river, and we get to fold ace high or call when we make our straight. Recognize that we'll still sometimes lose to QT when we get to the river that way.

If we check it back, he'll probably donk the river, but there's a decent chance he'll telegraph his hand strength with his bet size. We can raise for value when we drill a 9 to make our straight, or bluff catch a small bet when we river an ace. Otherwise, if he checks twice, we have the green light to bluff him out of his shoes when we miss or go for thin value when we improve.

He over-limped pre. He could easily have 88, 77, 87, or T9 here. He could also have JX, QT, TT, 99, or some other hand that is better than ours and seems too good to fold before seeing the river. He may have slow played AK/AQ pre, or even possibly JJ.

I'm not generally a fan of checking back with no SDV, but I think this is a spot where it may be a better option than betting, whether we bet big or small. If we bet, I think the size should be small, because he probably isn't as capped as you may think.

Understand that a lot of MAWG's actually play a Helmuthian style with lots of pot control / trap / slow play lines. They're not embarrassed to win a pot that's much smaller than it should be. They tell themselves you wouldn't have called if they raised. They hate playing big pots without nutted hands.

I hadn't really considered betting small on the turn with this hand, but I actually like it. Looking back at the sim I ran earlier, if we bet 1/3 pot on the turn he's supposed to defend by calling and continuing every time with 8x and 7x to keep from overfolding (even 76s is calling every time). I doubt a recreational player is going to find those marginal calls, so if he's overfolding, that will make our small bet more profitable.

Also for the record, he's not supposed to be capped here. The solver raises a fair amount with it's strongest hands on the flop, but it also calls a lot with straights, two pair, etc. This makes sense because it needs to arrive to the turn after calling with a range that is still strong enough to defend against all of our bets from overpairs, sets, Jx, and bluffs. We probably even have some T9s straights too.

Anyway I do agree with you that the more we perceive that our actual opponent is capped, the more we should want to bomb the turn big, and the more traps they have the more attractive a small bet becomes.

Honestly though I think a rec is going to overfold to both sizes, so I don't see much of a reason for checking back when our hand is betting even at equilibrium.

Bro, do you hear yourself?? You're talking about getting an unknown 1/3 villain to fold top-pair+ (on an unpaired, no-flush board) with a multi-street bluff that never offers villain worse than 1.8 to 1. (35%). If you think that's a good idea, then you sound like just the guy I've been looking for. Let's just stop talking about poker for a minute. I have something more important to discuss.

I have a bridge I want to sell you. It connects the the Grand Canyon to the Everglades.

He's not over-folding those hands if he never gets to the turn with them in the first place.

You're not playing against the solver!!!

These machines have completely wrecked an entire generation of poker players. It just RUINED their brains.

I think recs over-fold here. The problem is that most of the hands we want them to fold on the turn already folded to our flop c-bet.

I also think they'll either x/r at a high frequency, or if they don't x/r, they'll donk river at a high frequency, and they almost always have sizing tells.

It's how Helmuth plays. He slow plays flops to trap. If we bet turn big because we think he's capped, he springs the trap. If we check back or bet small, he's kind of stuck with a bunch of unappealing options.

He can x/r big and let us off the hook. He can x/r small and give us too good a price to not call and realize our equity, or he can c/c and then either check again on river, hoping we don't check back, or he can donk huge and let us off the hook, or he can donk small and look like a douche for winning the minimum playing this way vs competent opponents.

I think the EV difference between checking back and betting small is pretty minimal at these stakes. We win more by betting small when they over-fold bottom of range. We lose less when we check back and don't have to fold to their x/r with top of range or call their river donk when we brick.

I suspect the value we lose by not making them fold bottom of range is offset by the value we win when we drill our gutter and they tilt-spew with their sets, or they check-fold their 1P's despite our bet-check-bet line being FOS.

I recently played a similar hand. I c-bet 1/2 pot on KcQd4d, and barreled 1/2 pot on a flush completing turn with AA, no NF blocker. V x/c'd twice, then over-bet jammed a brick river with K2dd.

I could have saved myself 10BB's just checking back the turn and getting away from it on the river. If they're going to bluff after we check back turn, they're unlikely to go huge. They almost always seem to half-pot it.

Last night I 3B pre with QQ, vs a competent reg. I c-bet the whatever it was board for 1/3 pot, checked back the ace turn, and mini-tank called a 60% pot river lead. Reg had bupkis. Not even a pair. Total airball.

They do it with air. They do it with 2nd-5th pair.

A lot of my win rate comes from checking back turns with SDV and snapping off 40%-60% pot river bets.