1/3 - Line-check for AA in 3-way pot in loose-splashy game.
1/3 with UTG $5 straddle, $100-$500 BI, 9-handed. Not sure what the rake is. There's a high-hand and bad beat promo.
Read
This hand is why I don't normally cbet <50% of the pot. I'm fine winning a bunch of smallish pots on the flop It's also why I like SC 87 - TJ more than AA. As to V calling a big bet pre with 54s, IME across a lot of rooms, they do it all the time in 1/2 & 1/3. In 2/5, a smaller number of the fishier players do so. They are all losing players; adrenaline junkies for the most
Just so I'm clear, you don't like betting LESS than 50% pot, or MORE than 50% pot? I think you mean less than, but you wouldn't be the first guy I've seen get those symbols wrong on the innerwebz.
I'm not trying to do a deep dive into theory or sound overly defensive. I think there are sound reasons for using a small c-bet size when we're IP as the PFR, and adjusting that c-bet size / frequency based on how many opponents we have, the effective stack depth, and how many bets went into the pot pre-flop.
In thinking about this hand, I think an argument could be made for betting 1/2 pot on the flop and calling off if V2 wants to play for his last $115-$165. I'm less enthusiastic about c-betting 1/2 pot and continuing vs a chunky x/r from V1 in the BB.
If we bet $50 and V1 x/r's to $150 or more, he's effectively pot-committed himself. If we bet $50, V1 calls, and V2 jams, it re-opens the betting for V1 to re-jam. We'd have to decide right on the flop if we're happy playing AA for $400 after only seeing 3 cards.
If it works out that we bet $50 and they both fold, it's better than them both folding pre, I s'pose. But if we think we have a skill edge (and I was quite sure I had one over these two), I wouldn't break my arm trying to pat myself on the back for only getting a single street of value out of AA.
As for his pre-flop call - note that it was a straddled pot, for $5. He's only playing 80 straddles deep, and he'd already bled off $100 playing too many hands. Additionally, if he was paying attention, he might be concerned about V2 limping in off a 40-50 straddle stack. That's limp-jam territory.
It's not like I only raised to 4x-5x the straddle. I made it 7x. If V1 calls, there would be almost $80 in the pot when action gets back to V2, more than enough to make it a good spot for him to limp-jam for 2.5x-3x pot.
I shouldn't be giving V1 too much credit for sound decision making. But I don't think I was too generous in thinking he wouldn't show up on the turn with any naked 5x in his range.
Yeah, this would be my main takeaway here too. Especially when we're likely committed. Especially in a game that OP describes in reads (where I'd be very surprised if even 2nd pear + a backdoor folds to a large bet).
Leave the 1/4 PSBs to uncommitted deepstack / difficult game/opponents spots, imo.
GcluelessNLnoobG
IMO, being pot-committed post-flop is more relevant to tournament situations where we can't top off if we hero-fold. Many players misapply the concept of being pot-committed in cash games.
I don't consider myself pot-committed at more than 3 SPR. Ironically, I think many low-stakes opponents will be under-bluffing in low SPR spots, such that we'll need to be stronger (in relative terms, not absolute terms) before considering stacking off.
I view pot-commitment as a positive goal to achieve rather than a result we're resigned to accept. We want to intentionally get our opponents pot committed when we're nutted, and avoid getting ourselves pot-committed when we aren't.
One of the ways we do that is manipulating our bet sizing in order to set up a 2- or 3-street game, according to our preference, based upon our actual hand strength or overall range vs our opponents' ranges.
Like, here, I'm not trying to convince my opponents I flopped a set with QQ or JJ, knowing they might have QJ, or just QX or JX. I'm not trying to paint myself into a corner where I have to call off a jam from V1 on the turn because I put too much into the pot on the flop and didn't leave myself enough behind.
I'm not looking to bet too big on the flop so I can be pot-committed and forced to get the rest in on the turn. I'd much rather keep my options open and pressure my opponents to figure out an optimal response by using a smaller c-bet size.
I just don't see the value in giving up our positional advantage and skill edge by hurp-durping flop because "I has acez!"
You clearly thought you were pot committed, because you stacked off. You let third pair in cheaply and could also let in a gutshot or whatever. When you bet small like that multiway, you let everyone draw at you multiway, and what happened is what can happen. When you have a big pair and probably aren't folding, it isn't a good idea to bet real small because you are afraid everyone will fold.
You clearly thought you were pot committed, because you stacked off. You let third pair in cheaply and could also let in a gutshot or whatever. When you bet small like that multiway, you let everyone draw at you multiway, and what happened is what can happen. When you have a big pair and probably aren't folding, it isn't a good idea to bet real small because you are afraid ever
I was intentionally pot-committed on the turn. I didn't think I was pot committed on the flop, at least not with V1. I think I made clear I wouldn't be folding to V2.
Fear had nothing to do with my choice of sizing. If I was scared, it would have been fear of getting out-drawn, which would have led me to c-bet larger.
This is a lot of analysis for a pretty standard low-stakes cooler.
The downbet maybe the most debatable point but I think in theory we have small c-bets mw.
My main takeaway: The reveal shows the near futility of range analysis at live low stakes NL. Vs' ranges are almost always wider than we think and wider than theory suggests.
I don't mean that ranging opponents can be discarded. We have to do it. But I feel like there should be a low-stakes "reverse Baluga Theorem" in that Vs' calling of a strong turn bet where bettor has obvious range and nut advantage should make the bettor rethink the range of the Villain.
This is a lot of analysis for a pretty standard low-stakes cooler.The downbet maybe the most debatable point but I think in theory we have small c-bets mw.My main takeaway: The reveal shows the near futility of range analysis at live low stakes NL. Vs' ranges are almost always wider than we think and wider than theory suggests.I don't mean that ranging opponents can be discarde
I mean...I don't decide how many replies threads get. I just post 'em and respond as seems appropriate.
I started with an admission that I wasn't sure about my sizing on flop and turn. I can confirm that theory suggests going smaller with c-bets when multi-way. I'll adjust my sizing for various factors, as I did here, and explained why.
If we agree that opponents' ranges are wider than theory, I'd think that would suggest he gets to the flop and turn with even more hands we can target for value, not a narrower and stronger range we should fear.
When I'm ranging opponents in spots like this, I accept that they'll have some hands that they shouldn't, or some hands that are going to over-fold. One of the things we're trying to do when we range them is apply some probabilities. Like, I think V is going to have more Qx, Jx, and draws here than combos of 5x.
Even if we give him a lot of 5x getting to the flop, the 5 on the turn makes it mathematically less likely he has as much 5x in his range, compared to all the possible combos of Qx, Jx, and draws.
If we decide it's higher EV to use a larger size on the flop, okay. That'll change our calculus on later streets. If we think he shouldn't have as much 5x or as many draws in his range if we c-bet bigger, then we might need to size down or check back on the turn when it's just a brick, because V may have more slow-played QJ, and fewer combos we can target for value.
My main takeaway: The reveal shows the near futility of range analysis at live low stakes NL. Vs' ranges are almost always wider than we think and wider than theory suggests.
.
I don't think that's up there with discovering penicillin, but it's good stuff. Reading it somehow clicked in my brain such that I'll remember it.
I mean...I don't decide how many replies threads get. I just post 'em and respond as seems appropriate.I started with an admission that I wasn't sure about my sizing on flop and turn. I can confirm that theory suggests going smaller with c-bets when multi-way. I'll adjust my sizing for various factors, as I did here, and explained why.If we agree that opponents' ranges are wide
Doc, to be crystal clear, I think you played it very well. My point was really two-fold, one heuristic, one theoretical: 1) in my experience LLSNLH Villains have wider ranges than predicted by theory and 3) I proposed a corollary to the Baluga Theorem which is that V's calling a big turn bet generally conveys significant information about (a sober) V's range after a preflop 3b call and a flop call.
Specifically, the V has very few logical calls on this board to your turn bet. H has all overpairs and more boats. His QJ just got counterfeited by the board pair when we have AA/KK. He should only be calling with AQ and 5x. He raises often with QQ/JJ for value but can slow-play them.
Your explanation of your ranging thought process is very sound, insofar as I'm any judge of it, since I'm one of the weaker players in the forum. But I'm postulating that the downbet doesn't compress his range as much as theory predicts, but the turn call of H's substantial bet compresses his range more than theory predicts into a tight "probability cone" of AQ and 5x and boats.
The Baluga says strong turn bets are generally nutted. I'm not sure symmetry applies to game-theoretical action here, but I'm postulating that turn calls of strong bets in a 3b pot after a flop call also convey strength. A raise by V would be more polar in that regard, because it would contain more bluffs and attempts to get you off a chop of AQ.
This was an interesting spot. Thanks for sharing.
Doc, to be crystal clear, I think you played it very well. My point was really two-fold, one heuristic, one theoretical: 1) in my experience LLSNLH Villains have wider ranges than predicted by theory and 3) I proposed a corollary to the Baluga Theorem which is that V's calling a big turn bet generally conveys significant information about (a sober) V's range after a preflop 3b
Appreciate all that. You may be onto something, regarding the strength of his range when he calls the big turn bet.
I think there's some variability when there are so many draws available for both of us. Such that I think many low stakes players will continue too wide. But we might still expect to see him start folding out some the weakest parts of his range.
If I'm following your point to it's logical conclusion, you're suggesting we might just check back the river? Or would you suggest we use a smaller turn bet size to re-cap V, and then go for the big river bet?
Here again, I know there are spots to "front-load" our value by betting bigger on the flop. I wasn't sure if this was one of them, and I'm not as familiar with lines involving big flop bets followed by small turn bets, then big river bets.
The logic is that if your price is such that the draws are getting proper odds to call it is bad or at best neutral when they call. If you give them a price such that they are not getting proper odds to call it is good when they call.
It's not a binary situation where V's entire range is either entirely made up of draws or he has no draws at all. His range has some draws, and some hands that aren't draws. He didn't even have a draw here. He had 54o.
In the post I was responding to, deuceblocker said three things: 1) they don't like to fold, and as such, 2) my bet was too small, because they'll call with "whatever", but also 3) if I bet 1/2-2/3 pot and they fold, they "didn't much that could call".
"Whatever" that calls a 1/4 pot bet but folds to a 1/2 pot bet is apparently a weak hand. But it's not like we don't have other bet size choices between 1/4 and 1/2 pot. I was asking if that hand would also call a 1/3 pot bet, or fold? Where do we draw that line?
The minimum bet size is 1BB, and the max is all-in. Every bet size leads to a calculation of whether or not it's a good or bad decision to continue. There are hands that should call a 1/4 pot bet but fold to a 1/3 pot bet, and hands that should call a 1/3 pot bet but fold to a 1/2 pot bet, on up the scale of bet size compared to pot and stack remaining.
According to GG, we're pot committed on the flop at almost 4 SPR. Should I just jam? What hands are calling if I do? Are any worse? Is that how we get max value?
And it's not like their only options are to call or fold if we bet less than all in. They can also raise.
Was I supposed to bet 1/2 pot or more, so I only get called by a stronger range? How big a bet is too big, such that we only get called by better? Where do we draw that line?
I think it's reasonable to look at the board and think V's range is going to have some draws, some QJ, some PP's, some Qx, some Jx, some air, etc. We can size up to give the draws a bad price, but at the cost of losing value from some other parts of the range, and value-owning ourselves versus 2P+.
Hypothetically, if we c-bet 1/2 pot ($50) and V1 jammed for another $315 more on top, we wouldn't love it. We'd probably assume he had QJ or 55, or an OESD, and people would say we should just let AA go, only getting 1.6 to 1 pot odds, when we're probably not getting the right price to continue vs that sort of range.
It seems results-oriented to say 1/4 pot is too small when he shows up with 54o, but also say 1/2 pot is too big when he jams QJ or 55.
GENERALLY, I don't like a cbet less than 50%. I take down a lot of pots that way, both when I'm Action Deke and when I'm OMC.
Of course there are exceptions, like on DBBP, I'm often going to start from EP with a little flop bet as a pot builder, but I'm already committed to GII and hope I'm stirring the pot for someone else to make a move.
GENERALLY, I don't like a cbet less than 50%. I take down a lot of pots that way, both when I'm Action Deke and when I'm OMC.
Of course there are exceptions, like on DBBP, I'm often going to start from EP with a little flop bet as a pot builder, but I'm already committed to GII and hope I'm stirring the pot for someone else to make a move.
DBBP are their own thing. I'd guess there's some applicable theory, but I haven't studied them much.
Not really looking to change your mind or anyone else's, but I think 1/2 pot c-bets are fine when we're HU and IP in SRP's playing with typical SPR's. The more bets that go in pre, and the more players who see a flop, the more we should be checking or c-betting for a smaller size (at least when we're IP).
Like, in a 4BP, our c-bet might be 10% pot. If more than three opponents see a flop in a SRP, the burden of defense is so dispersed that we might get away with c-betting 20% pot. When we open using a large size pre, and get two callers, both playing off somewhat shallow stacks (45-80 straddles), setting up a 2 to 4 SPR on the flop, 1/4 pot is still large enough to easily get stacks in by the river, if not the turn.
It's not just "because theory". I think bigger c-bets are more "scared money" than smaller c-bets, at least whenever we're hoping for folds, as opposed to trying to play a two-street game by setting up an easy turn jam. We don't need to live in fear of playing late-street poker. Sizing up allows our opponents to play perfectly. Sizing down sets them up to make mistakes.
You just did it backwards imo
I pot the flop and when called shutdown.
You breathed on the pot and let villain catch up and beat you.
I’m fine if they both fold on the flop that smashes their range. I just don’t consider facing bun boy and young rapper the same as a 4 or 5 handed situation where the small bet is appropriate.
You say betting small gives them the chance to make mistakes, but don’t recognize that it was a mistake to bet tiny. I simply disagree; if you want low limit players to make mistakes, bet big - overbet, put the pressure on. You’re not letting them play perfectly, these are low limit players who do silly things.
My evaluation is that you ‘slow played’ the top hand and it cost you.
