Home / Community / Forum / Poker Education / Texas Hold'Em Cash Games /

anyone folding here?

Old
Default
anyone folding here? - Mon Dec 16, 2013, 04:50 PM
(#1)
mike2198's Avatar
Since: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,485
No reads on the villain, when he shoves the river it looks like pure value but i didnt see him turning up with a boat after checking flop and turn.

It looked like he was shoving a flush or an A with the way he played it, i couldnt see him shoving a flush or trip aces at the same time though because normally at zoom they will call a shove with these hands but not jam them with a few exceptions.


Last edited by mike2198; Mon Dec 16, 2013 at 04:52 PM..
 
Old
Default
Mon Dec 16, 2013, 07:13 PM
(#2)
spand42's Avatar
Since: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,496
Yeah I'm never folding there - he played the hand really strangely and I wouldn't really ever put him on a boat too often.
 
Old
Default
Mon Dec 16, 2013, 07:29 PM
(#3)
dukpond44's Avatar
Since: Mar 2012
Posts: 41
I'm folding preflop, but I'm a nit.
 
Old
Default
Mon Dec 16, 2013, 09:11 PM
(#4)
birdayy's Avatar
Since: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,179
Please make a more detailed title next time.

Never folding.
 
Old
Default
Mon Dec 16, 2013, 09:39 PM
(#5)
TrustySam's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,291
BronzeStar
It kind of seems like when the board's paired, and the pair on the board is AA, those AX boats seem to be more common than with other paired boards, especially if there's other broadway cards on the board, everyone else find that?

Not sure I'd personally be able to fold a boat when there's 3-to-a-straight and 3-to-a-flush on the board versus a casual ... but am not totally sure a fold of a 22 boat would be entirely wrong in this spot either? When you think about specific hands people might play this way that would also have a boat (that would necessarily be better than 2's full), there's some people who might choose to call with AK versus an utg raise. And most people are just calling with TT in the bb.

Maybe the question of whether to call or fold depends on whether we think someone with a straight or flush would check the turn as a slowplay, but still overbet shove the river after the board paired? I guess if a villain thought someone with a set, straight, or flush wouldn't have not bet the flop, and then bet the turn so small, then ... possibly?

And for the villain to have trip A's, they'd have to have called with either AQ or like A9s or something ... and have ruled out boats, flushes, straights, and think their kicker is good, and that their shove'll be call by worse to think it was worth the overbet. Although the villain seemed to really like the A, and the overbet was so massive, so yeah, that's really confusing ...


Tough spot mike!


PS Anybody else ever find that *other* stuff suddenly becomes soooo interesting when you've got a deadline looming? Am supposed to be working on my Time Vault year-end summary - it's due in 2 1/2 hrs ... eep ...

Last edited by TrustySam; Mon Dec 16, 2013 at 09:51 PM..
 
Old
Default
Mon Dec 16, 2013, 09:45 PM
(#6)
ArtySmokesPS's Avatar
Since: Oct 2011
Posts: 7,359
I'm wondering if a c-bet is +EV on this board. It seems a bit of a waste to raise small pairs UTG if you're giving up on boards that hit your perceived range.
As played, river is a puke-call for me. He can definitely show up with AT or TT, given the flop was checked through, and the turn was a scary card for two pairs and sets, but villains often slowplay flushes, and they overplay trip aces at 2NL/5NL like it's the holy nuts or something, so you'll have the best hand sometimes.


Bracelet Winner
 
Old
Default
Mon Dec 16, 2013, 10:37 PM
(#7)
Profess Awe's Avatar
Since: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrustySam View Post
It kind of seems like when the board's paired, and the pair on the board is AA, those AX boats seem to be more common than with other paired boards, especially if there's other broadway cards on the board, everyone else find that?
But here the villain presumably raises AK pre and we block a lot of A2 meaning there are less feasible better boats out there. Cant see TT checking both flop and turn either. For that reason it has to be puke call.
 
Old
Default
Tue Dec 17, 2013, 05:11 AM
(#8)
Roland GTX's Avatar
Since: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,905
Hi mike!

From my perspective we are missing two important factors here. Firstly up to the river the pot isn't that big. There is only 1.05 in it. Is it worth fighting for? Secondly, the villain jams a huge overbet with 3.91. If we do the math, you need to win nearly 79% of the time for calling to be profitable.

I agree that the villain could have trip As, a flush, a straight or complete air. However, my experience has been that huge overbets on the river are more often than not the nuts rather than a bluff. I don't think you will be ahead here often enough to make the call. I would fold. Had he made a potsized bet I would have snap called. I just don't see us having the best hand 4 out of 5 times here.

@Arty That flop is very likely to have connected with at least one of the villains. A straight is already possible and a flush draw is there to boot. I agree that we can rep an A by c-betting, but I don't think we will get everyone to fold and it is unlikely that we are going to improve to anything we can bet with confidence. Rather than turning our hand into a bluff, I would stick to our speculative game plan and check-fold the missed flop. Had the flop been dry Axxr or Kxxr, then I would c-bet with a better chance of getting folds.

Good stuff guys!

Roland GTX
 
Old
Default
Tue Dec 17, 2013, 07:27 AM
(#9)
spand42's Avatar
Since: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland GTX View Post
However, my experience has been that huge overbets on the river are more often than not the nuts rather than a bluff.
Yes you're spot on - and we certainly don't have the nuts here!

Having read your explanation, I agree that folding is the best play here despite how disguised and strong our hand is.
 
Old
Default
Tue Dec 17, 2013, 12:55 PM
(#10)
Roland GTX's Avatar
Since: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,905
Thanks for the reply spand42! I had to think twice before posting the opposite opinion of what so many members who I respect had posted. Im glad to hear my argument for folding makes sense

Roland
 
Old
Default
Tue Dec 17, 2013, 04:01 PM
(#11)
Bill Curran's Avatar
Since: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,508
It looks to me like he thought you had the flush, and his bet would look to you like a huge bluff and he hoped you would call
 
Old
Default
Tue Dec 17, 2013, 05:46 PM
(#12)
TrustySam's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,291
BronzeStar
That's a really helpful point you made Roland about the price to call, and how often we'd need to be right for a call to be +EV

Thought I'd made progress with thinking about the price to call in terms of it's size relative to the pot, but ... maybe not always if the price to call in absolute terms isn't that much? Will have to try to be more careful, especially when there's a lot going on in a hand
 
Old
Default
Tue Dec 17, 2013, 05:54 PM
(#13)
bhoylegend's Avatar
Since: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,261
Not exactly the same situation, but I love making river shoves like this at 2NL, doesnt usually work nearly as often at any higher level usually. With river shoves like this though, the times you get called make up for the times you dont in my experience, but only in these relatively small pots.

I either win a small pot, that still would have been small if I make standard value bet, or I stack the guy when he cant get away from his FH/Slow played Set or flopped flush. In the the small minority of times that he flopped a straight flush I have value owned myself of course but its worth it so often. River shoves are usually the relative nuts:

 
Old
Default
Wed Dec 18, 2013, 05:57 PM
(#14)
TommyGun369's Avatar
Since: Nov 2012
Posts: 340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland GTX View Post
If we do the math, you need to win nearly 79% of the time for calling to be profitable.
Hi,

How exactly did you do the math here?? I somehow thought that no matter how much a villain bets (even $1M into a $0.01 for example) we never have to be right more than 50% to make the call (excluding the rake) because we will always win his bet if we are right + whatever is already in the pot. If he is bluffing he has to be right 79% of the time since he is only winning what is in the pot and never our money if we call.

If I am wrong and am lacking fundamental understanding of basic poker math then tell me asap please! If not, do you see how profitable calling down is?
 
Old
Default
Wed Dec 18, 2013, 06:04 PM
(#15)
TrustySam's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,291
BronzeStar
Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyGun369 View Post
If not, do you see how profitable calling down is?

It's like 45% or whatever ... but 45% isn't the same as 33% (a pot-sized bet), or 22%.

Also, the villain shoved almost a buy-in ... at 25nl stakes, that'd be $20 into a $5 pot!


It feels like the decision of whether to call or fold is a close one, so maybe in the long-run it's more or less 0EV
 
Old
Default
Wed Dec 18, 2013, 06:25 PM
(#16)
TommyGun369's Avatar
Since: Nov 2012
Posts: 340
No no, I meant calling down in general

I would call here, too, because his line looks too much like a fish playing flopped nuts which is a straight in this case. If we count in all QJ combos (which is 16!!!) it is a must call. He does not have KK or AA so only hands that beat us here are AK(maybe he does not even have AK in his range here), AT, A2 = 14 combos. 16:14 is better than 50%so I am calling even if the effective stacks are $1000. And see how i never mentioned anything about him turning a flush? THIS IS A PROFITABLE CALL EVEN IF HE NEVER PLAYS FLUSH THIS WAY!!!

Edit: Ups, I forgot to put TT in his range which is another 3 combos that beat us. However, even 16:17 still does not make this a losing call.

Last edited by TommyGun369; Wed Dec 18, 2013 at 06:34 PM..
 
Old
Default
Wed Dec 18, 2013, 06:34 PM
(#17)
TrustySam's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,291
BronzeStar
Every post of yours takes me at least 3 re-reads and 15 minutes to process lol



Will need some time Tommy


Hey, so you finished exams?
 
Old
Default
Wed Dec 18, 2013, 10:51 PM
(#18)
TrustySam's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,291
BronzeStar
k, you know what confused me TommyGun, is like ... isn't the combo thingie only meant to be used when it seems equally plausible that the villain could be holding certain hands (some better, some worse) - like the combo thing is meant to be used as like a 'tie-breaker'? But if it looks more like 66%/33% likely the person has a boat rather than a straight based on the way the hand's played out, then maybe that should take precedence?

Or even doing a weighted average of likelihood of each hand and number of combinations, if it's seeming like 66% likely the person has a boat and only 33% likely the person has a straight ... 66%(16) > 33%(17), wouldn't the boat still be more likely?

I guess the differential in likelihood of the bb having a boat versus a straight would depend on how much more likely it is that a casual would bet the turn with a straight, but not two pair or a set? It sounds like you think a passive wouldn't bet either, so ... maybe you're right, I don't know
 
Old
Default
Thu Dec 19, 2013, 02:14 AM
(#19)
Roland GTX's Avatar
Since: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyGun369 View Post
Hi,

How exactly did you do the math here?? I somehow thought that no matter how much a villain bets (even $1M into a $0.01 for example) we never have to be right more than 50% to make the call (excluding the rake) because we will always win his bet if we are right + whatever is already in the pot. If he is bluffing he has to be right 79% of the time since he is only winning what is in the pot and never our money if we call.

If I am wrong and am lacking fundamental understanding of basic poker math then tell me asap please! If not, do you see how profitable calling down is?
Yikes! I'm not sure what I was doing there, but you are correct TommyGun. I'm sorry for confusing the matter, and glad you pointed it out!

There is $1.05 in the pot. The villain bets all in for 3.91 making the total pot 4.96. We need to pay 3.91 to call. Therefore our pot odds are 4.96:3.91 or 1.27:1. Expressed as a percentage our equity is 3.91 / (4.96 + 3.91) = 44%.

44% is significantly better than the 79% I originally posted! You may be right about calling being +ev, but I'm not sure. It is much closer than I originally stated. personally, I would still fold in this spot. My gut says they have the nuts most of the time.

Sorry about the blunder!

Roland
 
Old
Default
Thu Dec 19, 2013, 03:42 AM
(#20)
Roland GTX's Avatar
Since: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,905
FYI, Fadyen posted a fairly similar thread with huge river overbet that Dave replied to. It might be of interest:
http://www.pokerschoolonline.com/for...-max-Underboat

Roland
 

Getting PokerStars is easy: download and install the PokerStars game software, create your free player account, and validate your email address. Clicking on the download poker button will lead to the installation of compatible poker software on your PC of 51.7 MB, which will enable you to register and play poker on the PokerStars platform. To uninstall PokerStars use the Windows uninstaller: click Start > Control Panel and then select Add or Remove programs > Select PokerStars and click Uninstall or Remove.

Copyright (c) PokerSchoolOnline.com. All rights reserved, Rational Group, Douglas Bay Complex, King Edward Road, Onchan, Isle of Man, IM3 1DZ. You can email us on support@pokerschoolonline.com