Small Stakes Shorthanded NL Poker Forums

Hi, i have 54 hands on the villain he was at the time 40/33 with 31% of 3bet which means about 7 times out of 22 (he is mainly 3max and HU player)


i think maybe half of those hands were played at this particular table, but prior to this hand (2nd one) he made pretty aggro move on me, unlucky for him i had the nuts


first hand:

Grabbed by Holdem Manager
NL Holdem $2(BB) Replayer
SB ($202)
BB ($144)
Hero ($191)

Dealt to Hero Q K

Hero raises to $5, SB raises to $20, fold, Hero calls $15

FLOP ($42) T A 5

SB bets $21, Hero calls $21

TURN ($84) T A 5 2

SB bets $161 (AI), Hero calls $150 (AI)

RIVER ($384) T A 5 2 K

Hero shows Q K
(Pre 47%, Flop 61.1%, Turn 100.0%)

SB shows 9 9
(Pre 53%, Flop 38.9%, Turn 0.0%)

Hero wins $382


and 2nd one:

Grabbed by Holdem Manager
NL Holdem $2(BB) Replayer
SB ($238)
BB ($166)
Hero ($305)

Dealt to Hero K Q

Hero raises to $4, SB raises to $16, fold, Hero calls $12

FLOP ($34) K 7 6

SB bets $25, Hero calls $25

TURN ($84) K 7 6 A

SB bets $45, Hero calls $45

RIVER ($174) K 7 6 A 8

SB bets $152 (AI), Hero calls $152


i think this is one of those hands where u have to call twice or just fold OTT

so, what do u think ?

i mainly called him down couse of this first hand and his wide 3bet stat

and the other guy at the table was a fish 57/29

and what would be your play against unknown ?

We have to assume is his range polarised or depolarised.

How much he calls @SB, if he hasn't calling range we can assume that he is most likely depolarised which means that we have to fold the river, because of his Ax heavy range, which he is valueshove river for sure.
Also i never assume that he can turn JJ-QQ into a bluff OTR to fold out a Kx, which your hand looks like.

If we assume he is polarised we have to call, because he has to play most of his bluffing range like that to fold out a Kx and i don't expect him to 3bet weak AXs, which makes his polarised range weaker.

wow that 99 is butchered. that's a really awful bluff so i am not going to give him credit for playing very intelligently here. he can certainly have a lot of Ax, but given a pretty healthy 3b so far and an apparent penchant for idiotic bluffs, i'm stationing off here.

wow that 99 is butchered. that's a really awful bluff so i am not going to give him credit for playing very intelligently here. he can certainly have a lot of Ax, but given a pretty healthy 3b so far and an apparent penchant for idiotic bluffs, i'm stationing off here.

I agree with you but those 2 lines are very different. Doesn't that change our decision?

wow that 99 is butchered. that's a really awful bluff so i am not going to give him credit for playing very intelligently here. he can certainly have a lot of Ax, but given a pretty healthy 3b so far and an apparent penchant for idiotic bluffs, i'm stationing off here.

Agreed, whenever I see a bluff so moronic and idiot bluff, I automatically give the villain a green colour code (reserved for losing regfish types). The only logic to such a bluff is that he ranged you only on JJ-KK and decided overbet you off them as a bluff lol Anyhow, my point is that he wasn't "unfortunate" that he bluffed you when you had the nuts. It's more like you had the nuts and he pissed his chips to you in a really, really bad spot.

However, depending how many hands later the second hand occured, I often find that these aggro monkies do slow down in 3bet pots after you stack them (not all, but a lot of aggro players do). I'm actually inclined to fold here but it's really hard given history. Also, the first hand was an over-bet spazz play where he clearly wanted you to fold, whereas the second hand he went for three streets of standard betting in a 3bet pot. I think I'd be inclined to call turn and fold river here.

I actually disagree that this scenario requires you to "call turn and river" or "fold turn". After you call on the ace, MOST players will check the river with showdown value or give up their air. After you have already stacked him, it seems most aggros would be less likely to spazz out with worse hands in this manner. I've paid back stacks to over aggro-tards many times after not giving them enough credit "the second time".

Given that he just "bluffed" a stack away with a verry strong line (in the sense of BIG bets), and this line is totally different , a small bet on turn psb rivr. I think i would wait for a better spot to stack him, not sure if i would have folded the turn already, but i think call turn fold river is fine, or fold turn, not quite sure.

Im folding here as well, river is the worst card. there are so many 2pairs, Ax, flushes and some straights he can valuebet here. I think this is a spot where we should often call river if we call turn, but I wouldnt call on one of the worst cards because we feel obligated.

the guy showed us that he is pretty crazy in that 99 hand

and he is monkey 3bettor

and he is c-beting like 100% of the time on that board with air IMO

and the turn and the river are perfect card for him to follow up with his bluffs

some said that he wont be willing to bluff bi again after he just lost a pot

i think its the opposite

once he fires the turn he just wont give up on this pot on such a good card to him to bluff

last point is that i could be wrong but i rarely see such a bluff line which means he was on tilt before i got on this table which means he got even more tilted after that bad bluff with 99 hand and such a guy wont give up on his bluffs, but i could be wrong here so just a minor point

@Aston yea sure but what about his sizeing ?
Dont you think thay makes it different.

tbh im not sure what to think about it, its kind of leveling game, tbh at the time i didnt put too much thought into his sizing (so i guess it didnt make any difference to me)

It makes a big difference imo. with 99 he is overbetting the turn and turning his hand into a bluff.
In the second hand it looks more like valuebets. He could just adjust and is trying to run his bluffs with more reasonable sizes now, thats why it could be a leveling game. I would just assume the first till proven otherwise.

the best way to win leveling wars is not to let logic devolve into leveling. try to focus on the spot as basically as you can. for instance, should i fold top pair to a 70/20 aggrotard who loves to potbet all the time? no, you should not. you should not start introducing mitigating statements like "but he KNOWS he just got caught bluffing!"

here, this guy appears to be retarded. we have some new info in the form of new bet sizes, but we have no great information suggesting what this should mean. considering it in the way many of you suggest is based on nothing but intuition. this is how self-leveling begins. stick to the stuff you can say for sure. for anything else, if you can't at least weight it with percentages, you're simply guessing.

nice post terp,

the most important info here is "guy is aggro and able to spew"

and as for his sizing,
i mean u could go the other way and say "ok guy bet big the last time and he was bluffing so maybe he changed his sizing to actually look like he is value betting couse he knows that i know that when he bluffs he uses big bets"

and in 2nd hand the SPR is bigger so he has more option in choosing his bet sizes

tbh if he had a big hand i would expect him to play it exactly the same, i would expect most of regs to play it the same, though it would look kind of transparent but it would be still a leveling game

the other thing people are not talking about, which is incredibly relevant here, is he appears to have a pretty wide range here on every street. this means he will have plenty of hands with which to bluff. since he has shown no judgment so far in deciding how to bluff, i am definitely going to give him the "ooh pretty scare card, bluff!" line of thinking

i kind of did

...and he is monkey 3bettor

and he is c-beting like 100% of the time on that board with air IMO

and the turn and the river are perfect card for him to follow up with his bluffs...

im amazed that given all good reasons to call him down people are still reluctant do actually do it

i must say that in a game i called him down rather quickly (maybe lacking a proper though process), then after the hand i had a few doubts, but now i have non