80 replies to this topic

[CobaltBlue]

Full Tilt 2/4 NLHE (6-handed)

Cobalt $396
SB $128
BB $398

Cobalt is button w/ Q J . Haven't been at the table particularly long, so lacking much in the way of reads.

Pre-flop:
3 folds, Cobalt raises to $12, SB calls, 1 fold

Flop ($28): 3 4 4 (2 players)
SB checks, Cobalt bets $14, SB raises to $28, Cobalt calls

[mtdesmoines]

Full Tilt 2/4 NLHE (6-handed)

Cobalt $396
SB $128
BB $398

Cobalt is button w/ Q J . Haven't been at the table particularly long, so lacking much in the way of reads.

Pre-flop:
3 folds, Cobalt raises to $12, SB calls, 1 fold

Flop ($28): 3 4 4 (2 players)
SB checks, Cobalt bets $14, SB raises to $28, Cobalt calls

Setting up pressure on the turn if there's a blank?

[NoBBiR]

When people minraise, I want to stab them, but I usually wind up folding to them when they are unknowns because I take that to mean, "Hey I'm a moron and just outflopped the shit out of you and think I'm being sneaky." I especially fold when I have Queen high on a small paired, coordinated flush/straight board

[tskillz187]

I hate shortstackers.

[Scott3705]

Standard

Setting up pressure on the turn if there's a blank?

We don't need to put pressure on the turn if there's a blank. It's a value call getting 5:1 with implied odds considering Aces and kings are more scare cards than a jack of queen.

I'd say we can bluff an ace or king and stack him with a jack or queen.

[Shimmering Wang]

Standard
We don't need to put pressure on the turn if there's a blank. It's a value call getting 5:1 with implied odds considering Aces and kings are more scare cards than a jack of queen.

I'd say we can bluff an ace or king and stack him with a jack or queen.

This is kinda silly sounding. Especially the part about stacking somebody if we spike a jack or a queen.

[Scott3705]

This is kinda silly sounding. Especially the part about stacking somebody if we spike a jack or a queen.

It's silly cause you didn't read the stack sizes. He's got $88 behind with an $84 pot at the turn. the ace and a queen are scare cards to an over pair and a jack and less so a queen seem like another blank. The bluff with an ace or king is a possibility, not really necessary to make this a good call, but still within our arsenal depending on villian's tendencies.

Reading is paramount.

[rdtedm]

I don't think floating here is a good idea, villain's stack is probably not deep enough to fold unless a great scare card or Q/J comes on the turn. I think he likely get's a good amount of his money in on the turn if he still has what he thinks is the best hand.

[Lavitz]

I don't like calling here that much.

[coremiller]

I don't like this, unless you put him on complete air, and without reads you can't really do that (besides, if you think he has just air, you should push now, not on the turn). One problem is that not all of your "outs" are always good; it's reasonable (well, reasonable in a limited sense, since his min-raise here with anything is kind of stupid) that he might have the the nut flush draw, which would kill seven of your outs. Or he could have something like KQs, or some other variation, so even if you get a favorable turn card, you'll never know if your hand is good or not.

It's also conceivable that he could have a 4, and you're drawing dead. What's your plan if the Qh comes on the turn and he pushes into you? What if it's the Qc?

The only good reason to call is that you're getting 5:1 odds, which is a nice price. But I think that's mitigated by the reverse implied odds you have for the times your hand improves to a second best hand that you have to pay off with.

[rdtedm]

I don't like this, unless you put him on complete air, and without reads you can't really do that (besides, if you think he has just air, you should push now, not on the turn). One problem is that not all of your "outs" are always good; it's reasonable (well, reasonable in a limited sense, since his min-raise here with anything is kind of stupid) that he might have the the nut flush draw, which would kill seven of your outs. Or he could have something like KQs, or some other variation, so even if you get a favorable turn card, you'll never know if your hand is good or not.

It's also conceivable that he could have a 4, and you're drawing dead. What's your plan if the Qh comes on the turn and he pushes into you? What if it's the Qc?

The only good reason to call is that you're getting 5:1 odds, which is a nice price. But I think that's mitigated by the reverse implied odds you have for the times your hand improves to a second best hand that you have to pay off with.

100% agree with this post.

[tskillz187]

Thinking about it more I probably just let him have it and if I don't do that then I shove on the flop.

His min checkraise seems insane without a hand hes willing to go the distance with. I'm assuming he'll get all in with any pp and AJ+ right now, which is probably what he has, only I would also think shortstackers would reraise with this range. It's just a very strange hand.

[CobaltBlue]

I'd say we can bluff an ace or king and stack him with a jack or queen.

Despite everyone's disagreement, that's my general feeling as well.

If villain had a medium stack or a shorter stack, I think I can easily fold this. It's a little more iffy if he's got a particularly large stack, because the RIO are potentially bad. However, a re-raise works better in that scenario due to leverage. My feeling was that villain had a medium pair and was probably going to stack off on a Q/J turn. If he was just "testing" and checks a potentially scary turn, I think I can get him off of the hand. I realize that we're only seeing 5/1 immediate, but we're actually looking at about 11/1 with bare implied odds...that's probably enough to chase our 6 outs (more likely discounted to 5).

I'm certainly not saying it's an obvious call, but I do think a decent argument can be made in support.

Oh, and a call here is also potentially good for meta-game. =)

[coremiller]

Oh, and a call here is also potentially good for meta-game. =)

Is it standard to justify one's mistakes by referring to some vague, potentially unrealizable "meta-game" benefits? I know I do it all the time.

[navybuttons]

bet a little bit more on the flop.

we're not deep enough to floatcall here.

let him have it. who cares?

[mtdesmoines]

Despite everyone's disagreement, that's my general feeling as well.

If villain had a medium stack or a shorter stack, I think I can easily fold this. It's a little more iffy if he's got a particularly large stack, because the RIO are potentially bad. However, a re-raise works better in that scenario due to leverage. My feeling was that villain had a medium pair and was probably going to stack off on a Q/J turn. If he was just "testing" and checks a potentially scary turn, I think I can get him off of the hand. I realize that we're only seeing 5/1 immediate, but we're actually looking at about 11/1 with bare implied odds...that's probably enough to chase our 6 outs (more likely discounted to 5).

I'm certainly not saying it's an obvious call, but I do think a decent argument can be made in support.

Oh, and a call here is also potentially good for meta-game. =)

Related to what I posted earlier ... and I like your thinking. How'd the execution of the plan turn out?

[cwik]

I donno, this feels more like the flush draw to me then a middle pair. You'll have trouble stacking any draw, and the 4 he has here sometimes.

With absolutely no redraws I think this is a marginal play at best.

We don't know if you hit your 5-6 outter if you'll even be good, and we don't know if we hit you 5-6 outter if we can really stack him.

To make this play you have to be willing to fire on the turn, no matter what card comes, and I just don't know if that is going to be a profitable play.

Lets just say, you would be in much better shape here if you had a hand like 77, and I still won't like the spot.

[mtdesmoines]

...

To make this play you have to be willing to fire on the turn, no matter what card comes, and I just don't know if that is going to be a profitable play.

...

I find that two- and three-barrelling works about 60% of the time. Plenty enough to be profitable if not over-used and conducted in the right spots.

[cwik]

I find that two- and three-barrelling works about 60% of the time. Plenty enough to be profitable if not over-used and conducted in the right spots.

For him to two barrel this pot, it isn't just betting the turn. It involves calling the raise ($14) then betting on the turn ($30 min) So that is actually betting equivalently $44 into a $70 pot.

This means even if he took it down 60% of the time, it would still be a -EV play.

Secondly, two barrel bluffs work A LOT better when you oppenent is not playing back at you.

[CobaltBlue]

Is it standard to justify one's mistakes by referring to some vague, potentially unrealizable "meta-game" benefits? I know I do it all the time.

I wouldn't say that it's wise to do "all the time", but a spot like this...it's really going to affect your image.

Since we're early in the session, if we fold to this min-check-raise...particularly at a short-handed table...it's going to encourage a lot of playback. Generally, we'd like to have some control of the table. Folding here, while motivated by good thoughts in a marginal situation, is going to look really weak-tight. Obviously, we can use that to our advantage later if we get the right situations. However, in this case, I decided that I'd rather have my opponents view me as loose-semi-stubborn. If we hit and people are paying attention, we're going to get some nice advertising. If we miss and he bets...well, we paid a small price as an investment that we'll expect to be returned later.

Dustin, I agree that we probably should've bet a little more on the flop. Funny part about that is that I would've had to fold to the min-check-raise in that scenario. =)