Live Poker Poker Forums

This hand took place in a 1/3NL 10-handed game at my local casino. Table was generally passive preflop and postflop with about 4-5 players on average seeing the flop in limped pots and 2-3 in raised pots.

Relevant reads:

SB ($250): Just sat down at the table and this is his 2nd hand. He's probably mid 20s, white and fat. I do not recall ever playing with him before.

Hero (covers): In CO. Mid 30's white guy wearing a hat.

Hero dealt ATo in CO.

Preflop: EP limps, folds to HERO who raises to $15, SB calls, EP calls.

Flop ($48 - 3 players): T65r
Checked to Hero, Hero bets $30, SB raises to 70, Hero...

I am looking for a plan for the hand.

I'd start with a call and decide what to do on the turn based on his bet sizing and the turn card. This kind of smallish raise is usually top pair type hands from what I've seen.

I'd start with a call and decide what to do on the turn based on his bet sizing and the turn card. This kind of smallish raise is usually top pair type hands from what I've seen.

this, it can be a monster, but especially on the rainbow board it's usually a 1pair hand and villain wants to "see where he's at" or thinks he has the best hand but doesn't feel comfortable calling and doesn't really know what to do so he just raises.

Live players love to x/r JT type hands here. I call and see how he reacts to the turn card. If it's a brick, then I'm looking to call again when he likely bets another smallish amount. If it's a scare card and he bets big, that is when I start skewing his range to better hands and look to possibly fold.

I agree with others about the flop play, but I'm not sure I like the preflop sizing. Unless you're basically running over the table postflop, so that you're just trying to create a lot of dead money to steal. Otherwise, you're setting yourself to play for stacks with a pretty marginal hand. (This is about the best flop you can hope for outside of two pair+.)

What about a PFR to $10, then assuming it is 3 way to the flop, a cbet of $17? Or you can cbet the flop bigger if you think they will still call with a wide range of worse hands. I think there are some table dynamics where your betsizing in this hand is great, but from your description, this table doesn't seem to have that dynamic. (Then again, you may have ended up stacking SB's QT in this hand. )

Just curious - with your Pitt avatar, are you still near Pittsburgh? If so - are you playing at Rivers or Meadows?

Thanks for the replies so far everyone.

@sweetjazz3 - 4BB+1/limper is my standard. I'm not saying it's ideal, it's just that I haven't fiddled with it a lot. The table was playing fairly fit-or-fold postflop with no moves being made. I am open to discussion one correct preflop sizing in these situations.

@Luke00016 - I live in Findley Township near the airport. I play about 95% at the Rivers with the remaining 5% mixed between the Meadows and an underground game.

On to the hand:
I decided to call and reevaluate the turn. It's not something I normally do, but folding seemed a bit too weak and 3betting seemed a bit too strong.

Turn ($118): Q (I think it completed the rainbow, but I don't think it really matters)
SB bets $70, Hero...

The Q isn't a true scare card like an Ace or a King would be. For that reason, and because he chose the same exact bet size on the turn, I think his range still includes worse Ts here. In addition, I fully expect all of the hands we beat to check/call the river and all of the hands ahead of us to bet the river. Therefore, the river becomes very easy to play.

Considering he bet again, our first instinct is to skew his range to the stronger hands, but for the reasons mentioned above, I wouldn't necessarily remove many of his worse Tx combos. It's a situation where a lot of live players get confused on the turn, bet because they think they should since they have the initiative (not that they are using these terms, just that they "feel" this way), and then bet only the top of their range on the river. In addition, they rarely check/fold the river because you could be bluffing so it's a good spot for a thin valuebet when they do check.

It's a situation where a lot of live players get confused on the turn, bet because they think they should since they have the initiative (not that they are using these terms, just that they "feel" this way), and then bet only the top of their range on the river. .

This is so true in my experience. Another situation where they often just "feel" they are supposed to bet is where you raise pre and cbet the flop, say for example K62r, and they call the flop with 77. You check turn and they feel like, "durrrr must be my turn to bet!" This tendency is a good read to have because you can get value from hands that would have just folded to a turn barrel.

In addition, I fully expect all of the hands we beat to check/call the river and all of the hands ahead of us to bet the river. Therefore, the river becomes very easy to play.

The problem going through my head is that villain only has roughly $100 left in his stack after his turn bet. If he bets again it seems kind of gross to put in a little over 60% of the effective preflop stacks into the pot only to fold to a bet on the river. However there can definitely be a flaw in my reasoning somewhere.

The problem going through my head is that villain only has roughly $100 left in his stack after his turn bet. If he bets again it seems kind of gross to put in a little over 60% of the effective preflop stacks into the pot only to fold to a bet on the river. However there can definitely be a flaw in my reasoning somewhere.

For most villains, TSB is absolutely right. They'll bet twice with good hands (top pair, basically) and get nervous so they'll check the river with almost everything except what they consider monsters (better than top pair, something like 2pair+). So you can be really comfortable calling the turn here and knowing exactly what villain has based on his river action. If he bets, you can almost always fold because people just aren't betting three streets for value - they aren't aggressive enough and just want to get to showdown.

That said, at a certain point the villain will have so little left after the turn you should call because you'd only have to be good like, 10% of the time. So if villain bets the turn and only has $20 left then yea, always call. In reality you'd just be putting him in on the turn, so this situation rarely arises.

EDIT: The potential flaw in your reasoning is that we can assign a really narrow range with a lot of confidence for most low stakes villains when they take a bet/bet/check line versus a bet/bet/bet line. When we can do this, size of the pot and stack sizes and anything becomes less important because we're so confident that his range is made up exclusively (or almost exclusively) of hands we lose to. Doesn't matter how much we've put in when we know his river bet is made up of 99% hands better than ours.

The odds certainly matter, but it's all about range analysis. Because live players suck so bad at betting the river for value, when he does shove the river in this spot, it's very likely that we are beat.

Due to confusion, he can still bet the turn with worse hands. The likelihood that he shoves the river w/ JT is not very high though. Obviously I'm making generalizations, but barring other info, that's all we have to go on.

There is a chance that he will still be confused and shove the river though. At that point, it's simply about determining how often he needs to do that for us to call. I might lean toward calling if the odds are good enough so that I can use that info later, even if it is unlikely that we have the best hand. If we only need to be ahead 20% of the time, then it's probably worth a call simply because he might feel committed with his previous actions, especially if the Q remains the only overcard.

I realize that kind of goes against what I was saying earlier, but I tend to trust my instincts and any sort of physical tells to help me make the close decisions in spots like these.

TSB and Luke, excellent replies. Thank you.