Did I really play this hand badly?

PokerStars 1/2 Hold'em (9 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

Preflop: Hero is MP2 with T, T.
UTG raises, 2 folds, Hero 3-bets, 5 folds, UTG calls.

Flop: (7.50 SB) 7, 9, 6 (2 players)
UTG checks, Hero bets, UTG calls.

Turn: (4.75 BB) 3 (2 players)
UTG checks, Hero bets, UTG calls.

River: (6.75 BB) 5 (2 players)
UTG checks, Hero bets, UTG calls.

Final Pot: 8.75 BB

Was it the 3bet preflop?

100% standard.

I 3-bet worse than TT there preflop.

Yup its completely standard, but your still a donk.

sw

Unless you KNOW that UTG is the Rock of Gilbraltar and will only every raise UTG with AA or KK, never AK etc, then you played it straight up. Board is all smaller cards, so you bet out each time. Buddy did nothing but call, so why would you think your hand is bad?

Without knowing his hand, it's hard to say if he is calling you a donk because he's upset he lost, or just being a poor winner. If I had to guess, first case is he had AK and missed, second case is he had Jacks and got scared by your 3 bet, so he just called down and then felt stupid after because he was so weak tight.

Yeah, JJ is the only hand I could see him having that we are behind.

if he had AK or less and called all the way down and then called you a donk
i wouldve just laughed at him

put villain on a hand we beat that makes the river bet +EV?

AK calls sometimes, yes.
But enough against a 3 better preflop?

I check the river

Reads would help, but AK calls here a lot.

Any 9x (again, reads plz), and possibly even some other pairs. I really think you have to bet this river.

just because we win some times doesn't mean we win enough to bet.
We have to be ahead 50%_ of_ the_hands_that_call and that if we never call a raise from a better hand, or fold to a c/r from a worse hand

THe flush got there, so even AK isn't calling down all the way. (edit: I mean AsKs might have crying called the river after calling the rest of the way, or AsQs...etc... but those got there

Ok, A9s.

On balance I think it's a passive JJ-QQ more than hands that we beat AND that call (or an occassional slow played 99)

I think it's a lot closer than I probably first thought.

I could see it being JJ here a lot.

I really want some PT numbers.

you guys are out thinking yourselves. the river is a pretty easy value bet.

I just can't think of any reason why it's not OK to bet the river when checked to again. Without a read of a very tricky player, it has to be OK to bet here. Maybe, teeny tiny maybe, it would be wise to check-call if first to act.

I think you are good over 50% of the time here (against calling hands). It is certainly marginal, but you have to squeze every BB out of someone you can. If he has shown that he is passive with good hands or he has the ability to check raise this river, then a check is good.

IMO, with the rake at this level, finding an extra bet on these hands is key to winning.

Never defend yourself against negative comments at the table.

It is in your best interest for all opponents to think you are a donk.
And Villain's words are simply good advertising for this.


--CM

i meant to myself.
i do lose it every now and then, though, in the middle of a really bad session or streak, when beat by ridiculous stuff.
i try not to.

There are a million reasons, and Actuary is correct to ask the question. If you think about it, there aren't a whole ton of hands calling here that we beat, especially considering that the raise came from UTG. But this could be something retarded like A9 or A7. If his UTG raising range is wide, AND he has a propensity to call down too frequently with any pair or A-hi, then it's an easy bet. Otherwise, this might be a check/back.


Wang

we also dont beat any pocket pair except for 22, so I think it'd have to be real wide

but he hasnt played it like any of those.
i think AK and maybe AQ call down enough here to offset really passive JJ/QQ

maybe I'm coming around a bit?

He need a As or Ks, maybe Qs..then we can justify a villain turn call too.
Or he's just super loose

I'll say read dependent and my style is to chk behind against unknowns

Without reading replies...

100% standard. Value bet that river every single time.

If he gets all mad, be sure to point out to him that evidently, you had and bet the best hand on every single street.

Very good point - I hadn't thought it through in those terms.

OK, now I can think of some reasons to check the river. Betting here could well be a bet that is most likely called by a better hand. The villan may have chased to the river with AK or AQ, but how likely is he to call a bet and pay you off, versus all the times he calls with all those other pairs that beat you. Or check raises. (The villan wasn't Actuary was it?!?)

No no no! We have to bet the river. A9s calls 100% of the time... and all sorts of other weird hands from bad players will give this river bet value. Just because us tight aggressive players wouldn't end up on the river without a hand that could beat TT, there are so many worse, passive players out there that will call with a lot of things. ESPECIALLY at these stakes.

And calling a river check/raise is an instantaneous easy decision.

you've lost it.
really.

Almost a 7 BB pot on the river with an overpair and no paired board?

I've seen sillier plays than the ol' river check/raise with air... on a board that straightens out... with a hand that can be read fairly easily as "playing defense" from the betting.

Not calling for one more bet here is bad.

And you want to bet in a 5 way pot with QQ on a K5678 board... mkay...

no sw?
Calling a c/r is really bad.

And I solicit opinions on the QQ hand and later in the thread gave reason why I think c/c was probably better

so he saves all the aggression for a river c/r bluff?

Stating you have seen worse in no way means it's a worse hand 1/10 times
Maybe you play at donkier sites.

I'd rather make a bet-sized river mistake than a pot-sized river mistake.

This is also a great spot for Villain to bluff.

I respectfully submit that we have to call a river check/raise.

We've represented overpair the whole way and the board just straightened out. I would even go so far as to say A9 c/r'ing the river would be a fairly solid calculated risk... especially against tight/passives.

Meh, Actuary, just go back to being passive.

c/r river bluffs are very rare,

you are trying to manufacture circumstances that dont happen enough
For one thing, except the A9s, there is no hand that plays this passively the whole way then all of a sudden becomes a river c/.r bluffer
not enough at least.

but its a lost cause.
We will agree to disagree

20/11/1.4

I'd say I haven't changed.

What AF do you guys consider "standard"?
Where do you draw the line between passive and aggressive?

--cm

I think below 1.5 is passive and above 2 is aggressive