Micro Stakes Online NL Poker Forums

Villian was playing 15/4/0.0 shaping up to be nitty but tiny sample of 27 hands.

Is this spot to thin to go for value ? I weigh his range up to be pp's, 6x ,7x which he may of floated a flop with some gutshots and picked up a pair on the turn and fd's.

I guess the ace is a good card for him as he has alot of ax fd's in his range. Is this just a check for showdown ?

Poker Stars $0.02/$0.05 No Limit Hold'em - 6 players - View hand 1744551
DeucesCracked Poker Videos Hand History Converter

CO: $5.34
BTN: $11.43
SB: $5.59
BB: $5.00
UTG: $2.00
Hero (MP): $5.00

Pre Flop: ($0.07) Hero is MP with 9 9
1 fold, Hero raises to $0.15, CO calls $0.15, 1 fold, SB calls $0.13, 1 fold

Flop: ($0.50) 3 6 3 (3 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $0.40, CO folds, SB calls $0.40

Turn: ($1.30) 7 (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $0.85, SB calls $0.85

River: ($3.00) A (2 players)
SB checks

Final Pot: $3.00

I would check behind here for a few reasons.

1: Alot of regs at pokerstars at 5NL play a passive check call line when they have pocket pairs of jacks or lower. Jacks, tens, sevens, and sixes all beat you (and yes they may play sixes this way since they think they are trapping you). So for pocket pairs you're only beating eights. I doubt he would continue two streets with a lower pocket pair like 5s, 4s, 3s, 2s etc (and it would be pretty hard for him to call a river with these anyway, since he is probably afraid of the ace on the river)

2. Alot of his range is going to be overcards with flush draws. The flush missed so he isn't calling another bet so we might as well check behind. Also if he had the nut flush draw he now beats you (and yes they will check this to you even though they just got an A)

3. If he has a straight draw like 45 its missed so he isn't calling, 67, 3x beats you, and I doubt he is calling now with 68 that he missed his draws - his check is a give up or a trap. If we knew more about him and about his ranges we could starting putting gut shots like 57 in his range that you do beat but I do think given the information on the guy that we are pulling at straws.. but it is possible. If we see that we can write a note on him for next time.

4. At this point it is hard to put 6x and 7x in his range. If he called with K7 which seems unlikely (but we only have a small sample) if he really calling this bet on the flop without a spade draw? Probably not. If he happened to then we can just write a note for next time.

Really this boils down to: I think against what we know about this guy's range off the limited information we have, I think it will be hard for him to call with worse and he is never folding better. There are hands he may call with that you beat like pocket eights but that's one hand out of a lot that just arn't calling. I think a check behind and noting what he has is far better.

what can call you lol!?

x back getting raised here would suck.

x back getting raised here would suck.

Why? You think he bluffs here?

All in all i agree with checking back. Theres not enough 6x, 7x or pps to get value from imo.

All in all i agree with checking back. Theres not enough 6x, 7x or pps to get value from imo.

What about betting $1? $5NL players call to much and won't raise/bluff enough vs weak bets.

I only ask. I prob check back to because villain mostly has draw that won't call anyway.

What about betting $1? $5NL players call to much and won't raise/bluff enough vs weak bets.

I would check behind here for several reasons. Firstly, a bet is pretty thin (see Ravzar's excellent post). Second, you *could* get bluffed off your hand by a random spaz who views your tiny bet as super weak.

But third, and most important, checking back lets you make a read as to what he called you with and how he plays (e.g., if he had a FD here, etc.) -- this to my mind is worth a *lot* more than the $1 you could make by betting the river. (Think how often we make what we suspect are slightly -ev calls on the river just to make a valuable read. At least I do, especially early on in a session.)

I think odds of getting check/raise bluffed on the river at $5NL is <2%.

Also, Ravzar said 76 beats hero?

I think 67 is calling here all day even though it's counterfieted (so we beat it). 45 got there, so Ravzar is wrong on those two. Other then that I agree with him. Bet here is just too thin to be profitable.

I think odds of getting check/raise bluffed on the river at $5NL is <2%.

Probably right. But I definitely check here to make a read. This is really valuable in the long run.

Ok thanks for the replys so far. I did infact check and villian showed down TT. What notes would you guys take from this hand and how would you use that information to help you in the future ?

Thanks again.

Ok thanks for the replys so far. I did infact check and villian showed down TT. What notes would you guys take from this hand and how would you use that information to help you in the future ?

In this case he played as I would expect a (slightly passive) 5NL player to play it, so I wouldn't write down anything (other perhaps than he plays fairly passively with an overpair and didn't squeeze PF, but to be honest that's pretty standard at these limits).

On the other hand, had he shown up with the nuts here (66, say), you should note that he likes to trap (smooth-calling down and going for the x/r on river). Or if he showed up with a flush draw, it might be worth noting he didn't attempt to donk-bet bluff the river (many players do when they miss, especially on a scare card; it's very useful to know how people play draws, you could also note he didn't raise the flop). Or if he showed up with KJo, you want to write down that he's a massive station, floats oop, and that he should be value-betted really thin in future. Etc.

The way villain played it is pretty standard all the way through $25NL pretty much.

The way villain played it is pretty standard all the way through $25NL pretty much.

yep. with the occasional player dependant flopraise, usually the worse the player gets the higher the raise % lol

check it.