Small Stakes Shorthanded NL Poker Forums

Villain is a very weak/tight regular (25/14/1.3), and the limper is a very loose/passive player who will c/c down with MPNK and the like.

I was struggling to put any hands in villain's range that play this way and then bluff the river, but I couldn't think of any legitimate ones, and I think our hand is a bluff-catcher at this point.

I bet the turn and bet it small because I thought I would induce a call from weaker hands, but post-session I'm not so sure. I'll share what I think is a better line than the one I took, and my thoughts behind, it a little later once I get some feedback and see what people think is the best line because I think I made a decent sized mistake as played.

Full Tilt Poker $0.50/$1 No Limit Hold'em - 6 players - View hand 758439
The Official DeucesCracked.com Hand History Converter

BB: $44.05
UTG: $91.60
MP: $109.55
CO: $158.25
Hero (BTN): $104.55
SB: $141.05

Pre Flop: ($1.50) Hero is BTN with A 4
UTG calls $1, 1 fold, CO raises to $3, Hero calls $3, 1 fold, BB calls $2, UTG calls $2

Flop: ($12.50) Q 8 A (4 players)
BB checks, UTG checks, CO bets $5, Hero calls $5, BB folds, UTG calls $5

Turn: ($27.50) A (3 players)
UTG checks, CO checks, Hero bets $14, UTG folds, CO calls $14

River: ($55.45) 5 (2 players)
CO bets $136.25 all in, Hero requests TIME, Hero ???

I think the hand is fine. Preflop is close and you should filter your stats to see if you are showing a profit with suited aces. You might find 3 bet or fold to be better options in your games. Flop and turn are standard. I don't think your sizing matters all that much. On the river, his line certainly looks strange but it is not a bluff nearly often enough to call.

BTW, since when is 25/14 "very weak tight" ?? I always think very weak tight is more like 13/10.

BTW, since when is 25/14 "very weak tight" ?? I always think very weak tight is more like 13/10.

Sorry, should have clarified I meant villain played his hands in a very weak/tight manner as a judgement call about his whole game, preflop stats aside. I guess Weak/Passive might be more accurate if we're just talking about a generic 24/15?

Sorry, should have clarified I meant villain played his hands in a very weak/tight manner as a judgement call about his whole game, preflop stats aside. I guess Weak/Passive might be more accurate if we're just talking about a generic 24/15?

I know all you kids want to play 30/24 like FWF does 6 max but unless you are super skilled post flop in getting yourself out of trouble that may be too loose. This dudes gap between vpip and pfr is a little wide for my liking but something like 24/18 would register to me as "solid/taggy" so 24/15 can't be too far off depending on which hands he is choosing to call with. Either way when I see those stats I am not thinking "sweet, massive exploitable fish, let me sit with him every chance I can."

judgement call about his whole game, preflop stats aside

I mainly meant postflop tendencies, although I was referring to the 9% VPIP-PFR gap as well although the PFR stats aren't why I labeled him as weak/tight, and the only reason I think they're important to this hand is in establishing an initial range because I don't think he'll be isolating the fish who limped quite as wide as most TAGs with a tighter VPIP gap. I would argue that if you have a perfect sample, a 24/15 is likely to be a fairly different to much different player than a 24/18 for a wide number of reasons, but even though I think that discussion would be somewhat interesting, and I could probably write six paragraphs on why because I'm too wordy, I don't want to derail too badly, and I'd love some thoughts on the line I think I should have taken that I describe below.

I just looked at HEM, and I suppose more relevant information that I should have looked at and provided earlier is that over a 1.5k sample size, he isolates a limper when he's in the CO/BTN 17% of the time over 91 samples and he steals from the CO 23% of the time which means he tightens up significantly when there's a limper in the hand (unless he ran really bad over that sample of 91) which seems to me to be pretty strong evidence that he just shuts down whenever anyone else is involved in the pot without a strong hand which makes a fold, as played, a lot more clear cut than I previously thought which means this hand isn't really that interesting I guess. There are some other aspects of this table/player that made me choose choose call instead of 3bet, but I didn't include them in the OP because I was mainly looking for thoughts on turn and river play.

FWIW, I did fold in game, but I think a better line would have been to check behind the turn and try to get some value on the river because I'm only getting one street of value against worse anyways, and checking the turn might induce some light call downs or light leads on the river. Even though I have the top of my range here, I don't think I'm getting bluffed too often here, and there's not much on this board that's worse than my hand that isn't scared to put money in.

It also prevents me from being put in a tough situation if villain decides to checkraise or donkshove river, although I don't think villain's ever really doing that as a bluff, and I don't think he's ever doing it for value with worse; so it's not really a hard decision, it's just nobody likes to fold trips.

Mostly though, I don't think anything worse would put money in on the turn but wouldn't put money in on the river if the turn checked through; but I do think there are worse hands that won't put money in on the turn that might do so on the river, and I think that's where the margin is in this hand and where there's a chance to play this hand a little differently than I did which will net me a few extra big blinds this hand.

I mainly meant postflop tendencies, although I was referring to the 9% VPIP-PFR gap as well although the PFR stats aren't why I labeled him as weak/tight, and the only reason I think they're important to this hand is in establishing an initial range because I don't think he'll be isolating the fish who limped quite as wide as most TAGs with a tighter VPIP gap. I would argue that if you have a perfect sample, a 24/15 is likely to be a fairly different to much different player than a 24/18 for a wide number of reasons, but even though I think that discussion would be somewhat interesting, and I could probably write six paragraphs on why because I'm too wordy, I don't want to derail too badly, and I'd love some thoughts on the line I think I should have taken that I describe below.

I just looked at HEM, and I suppose more relevant information that I should have looked at and provided earlier is that over a 1.5k sample size, he isolates a limper when he's in the CO/BTN 17% of the time over 91 samples and he steals from the CO 23% of the time which means he tightens up significantly when there's a limper in the hand (unless he ran really bad over that sample of 91) which seems to me to be pretty strong evidence that he just shuts down whenever anyone else is involved in the pot without a strong hand which makes a fold, as played, a lot more clear cut than I previously thought which means this hand isn't really that interesting I guess. There are some other aspects of this table/player that made me choose choose call instead of 3bet, but I didn't include them in the OP because I was mainly looking for thoughts on turn and river play.

FWIW, I did fold in game, but I think a better line would have been to check behind the turn and try to get some value on the river because I'm only getting one street of value against worse anyways, and checking the turn might induce some light call downs or light leads on the river. Even though I have the top of my range here, I don't think I'm getting bluffed too often here, and there's not much on this board that's worse than my hand that isn't scared to put money in.

It also prevents me from being put in a tough situation if villain decides to checkraise or donkshove river, although I don't think villain's ever really doing that as a bluff, and I don't think he's ever doing it for value with worse; so it's not really a hard decision, it's just nobody likes to fold trips.

Mostly though, I don't think anything worse would put money in on the turn but wouldn't put money in on the river if the turn checked through; but I do think there are worse hands that won't put money in on the turn that might do so on the river, and I think that's where the margin is in this hand and where there's a chance to play this hand a little differently than I did which will net me a few extra big blinds this hand.

I think your logic is sound for the most part and I like a turn check through against tricky or unpredictable opponents which given his line I think he almost certainly has to be. Against players who are predictable I think bet turn and check back river is better than check turn call river. This is based on the premise that you won't give infinite odds to gutshots of which there are quit a few on this board texture.

I think the hand is fine. [...]Flop and turn are standard.

Really? I think I "insta-fold" A4 on the flop once the PFR c-bets on an A-high flop in a 4-way pot ... I mean, okay, we´ve got position, but what are we hoping for?

Really? I think I "insta-fold" A4 on the flop once the PFR c-bets on an A-high flop in a 4-way pot ... I mean, okay, we´ve got position, but what are we hoping for?

I initially thought it was a 3 way pot but I still think the pfr will cbet Ace high boards enough for us to continue in this spot. If we are folding here when we flop the toppest of pairs then we should just fold preflop.

If we are folding here when we flop the toppest of pairs then we should just fold preflop.

Our main reason for calling with suited connectors preflop isnt to make weak hands postflop. Clearly if we dont expect villain to CB light in a 4-way pot we should just be folding the flop. Which i agree with tackleberry that unless we got a read or want to look up his small sizing makes the flop a clear fold.

Our main reason for calling with suited connectors preflop isnt to make weak hands postflop. Clearly if we dont expect villain to CB light in a 4-way pot we should just be folding the flop. Which i agree with tackleberry that unless we got a read or want to look up his small sizing makes the flop a clear fold.

We only flop a flush draw 11% of the time and 2pair 2% of the time. Playing a suited ace is not he same as a suited connector in that making top pair is still a reasonably strong hand. While we are not going to felt it in the face of heavy action, we can't treat it like 78s on 832r or J83r flop. The reason we play suited connectors and suited aces is that we can make big hands but also because we put ourselves into spots to win pots with semibluffs. Maybe this game plays differently than what I am used to but there is no way I fold here especially with bdfd to the nuts.

BTW, I think that one of the most common mistakes made at this limit by TAGfish is to cbet too often and Ace high boards cetainly qualify.

We only flop a flush draw 11% of the time and 2pair 2% of the time. Playing a suited ace is not he same as a suited connector in that making top pair is still a reasonably strong hand. While we are not going to felt it in the face of heavy action, we can't treat it like 78s on 832r or J83r flop. The reason we play suited connectors and suited aces is that we can make big hands but also because we put ourselves into spots to win pots with semibluffs. Maybe this game plays differently than what I am used to but there is no way I fold here especially with bdfd to the nuts.

BTW, I think that one of the most common mistakes made at this limit by TAGfish is to cbet too often and Ace high boards cetainly qualify.

Those were basically my thoughts on why I think continuing is good here given that we arrived here the way we did.

Also, BB & UTG are really big fish who will frequently call down with the raggiest of rags on any board which gives us some extra expectation as well. Perversely, that should tighten up villain's cbetting range significantly, but I've played with him enough to know that his thought process tends to go no further than "I raised preflop and there's an ace on this flop. I bet."

I'll admit, it's a lot thinner call than if it was a headsup pot, but villain has enough that's worse than Ax here (~70%-75% of his range) that I think we can't really do anything but call especially since the turn is going to be super easy to play against an unimaginative villain since we just fold if he double barrels as he's never double barreling worse on this board.

I also think the turn is definitely a check because 17% of his hands are better than ours, but there's only ~30% of his range that is 2nd pair or KK, and I think we're much more successful against both of those parts of his range if we check behind here than if we bet, especially since he needs to call more than half the time he has a worse hand that isn't complete air to make betting breakeven with checking. I'm disregarding gutshots for the most part because they only make up about 20% of his range which sounds big but means we're facing a straight about 2% of the time on the river and we're not stacking off on most rivers anyways so we're only going to lose the amount we would lose to the 17% of his range that is already better than our hand.

Edit: All these assumptions are based on the premise that villain isolates with the top 17% of his hands preflop which is what his stats indicate.