Live Poker Poker Forums

We need him to fold 37% of his range that beats us on the river in order for a bet to be correct,

This isn't necessarily correct. For example say that 5% of his range is A8 and 95% is sets. If he folds A8 100%, a bet is still not the correct play.

My problem with this play is related to that. The line villain took is very consistent with a set or 2 pair. Note that this villain plays 40% of hands and probably plays looser from the BB. This means that he can have more combos of 2 pair than one would expect. His line is not necessarily consistent with a top pair hand. He's going to c/r a higher percentage of his 2p+ hands than his 1 pair hands.

What I meant by my post earlier was that if you're going to make this play on the river, you need to have tpgk hands in his range. If villain's range is depolarized like this, calling the flop and turn is a mistake.

I personally am never delay cBetting this flop when I hit. I feel there is so much value to be had here (especially in a live setting) betting and get called by two overs and underpair that will give up on the turn (but gave you a bet first). I do not have a lock hand that needs my opponents to aquire equity before they will call. There are a lot of cards that can come which are bad for me (any heart or over card), if they do not kill you then they very well may kill your action. Heck, on this board even an under card will often eliminate the number of combos of top pair you have beat (6,7,9 being my main concern). Players are much more likely to call on the flop with a very wide range, that range is significantly narrowed (aka the range I can get value from) if a brick comes.

Why do you want to want to delay cbet?

He's going to c/r a higher percentage of his 2p+ hands than his 1 pair hands.

While I think this statement is literally true, because I don't think he's likely to check/raise 22 or A3, my experience is that a lot of live players will slowplay two pair and look for a check/raise on the turn*, while they will often raise one pair hands that they think are the "best hand" right now for protection / to take down the pot. It's almost comical how often players effectively turn marginal hands into bluffs as they should never get action from worse, and then it's more comical how often they do get action from worse anyway. (Of course, if he check/raise + led Q8+ in this hand, then I'm the more comical guy in this hand...)

* With a flush draw on board, as in this hand, two pair is more likely to check/raise the flop than the turn. I also mentioned a read in the initial post that this villain showed a propensity for being trappy with a flopped monster in a different pot.

This isn't necessarily correct. For example say that 5% of his range is A8 and 95% is sets. If he folds A8 100%, a bet is still not the correct play.

If he only has 5% A8 and he has 95% sets, his range is constructed differently. He still needs to fold 37% of his range, but it's obviously much less likely. I should have clarified by posting that he only needs him to fold 37% of his weighted range, but I thought that was assumed when we talk about ranges. My point still stands, and it's more than fair for you (or anyone else) to say "he has a set way too often to do this, and he won't fold a set to a bluff on the river often enough for you to bluff." But that's very different than what you posted IMHO.

My problem with this play is related to that. The line villain took is very consistent with a set or 2 pair. Note that this villain plays 40% of hands and probably plays looser from the BB. This means that he can have more combos of 2 pair than one would expect. His line is not necessarily consistent with a top pair hand. He's going to c/r a higher percentage of his 2p+ hands than his 1 pair hands.

What I meant by my post earlier was that if you're going to make this play on the river, you need to have tpgk hands in his range. If villain's range is depolarized like this, calling the flop and turn is a mistake.

Fair enough, and I think that's a much better point for discussion than your original post that I took issue with (as I mentioned in my last post, I think "he pretty much always has a set here" is a reasonable assessment and helps clarify where someone's mistake might be). I disagree with a 35-40% range being able to reasonably have 2pr frequently on this board texture (he's the SB, not the BB), but I do agree that we should weight postflop actions more heavily than preflop. I also think that most players, once they check this river, are intending to call with sets but will be willing to fold lots of top pair hands as well as many of the 2pr hands that they'd checkraise on this flop. But I just don't see many combos of 2pr as being realistic from the small blind here.

All that said, it's pretty clear that the decision to bet the river as a bluff relies on an opponent playing top pair this way on the flop. All we have is the single data point on the KJ2 board, which is a strange way to play 22. I'm not sure what to do with that information - to me it makes it feel somewhat likely that we actually have the best hand on this flop, and once the river comes, in the moment I'd probably check, assuming that I'm actually going to win. But that's a LHE tendency for sure.

Regardless I think this is a pretty interesting hand to talk about and I'm happy to stir some shit up in discussion just to make sure it gets fair treatment.

Rob

I definitely think a river bluff would be bad in LHE, but then the river bet might be for thin value.

I personally am never delay cBetting this flop when I hit. I feel there is so much value to be had here (especially in a live setting) betting and get called by two overs and underpair that will give up on the turn (but gave you a bet first). I do not have a lock hand that needs my opponents to aquire equity before they will call. There are a lot of cards that can come which are bad for me (any heart or over card), if they do not kill you then they very well may kill your action. Heck, on this board even an under card will often eliminate the number of combos of top pair you have beat (6,7,9 being my main concern). Players are much more likely to call on the flop with a very wide range, that range is significantly narrowed (aka the range I can get value from) if a brick comes.

Why do you want to want to delay cbet?

Putting in a delayed cbet isn't to improve equity (that's unlikely with our hand), it's to get called by hands that aren't normally going to call. Especially considering we're playing against the blinds. It's to get 2 streets of value out of hands that would otherwise only give us 1 bet.

Firing the flop and turn here we can get looked up by worse hands occasionally, but if we check this flop back we're more likely to get looked up by hands that aren't going to continue on past the turn at ton.

Any broadway hearts, or big/little hearts are never folding (regardless of when you decide to cbet), nor are any open ended cards.

This isn't the kind of hand and board that I want to play a huge pot with either.
In this scenario we got really lucky that we were about to use the river heart to rep a flush, AND get a fold. I don't think this is going to be the case most of the time however.

Medic,

Thanks for the reply. I know I am often over agg and need to find spots to dial it back a bit! This may be one of those spots. I value your comment about not wanting to play a big pot. I am not completely convinced but I do appreciate the thoughts and will continue to reflect and examine the merit of you contribution.

Thanks again.