Micro Stakes Online NL Poker Forums

True. But think about it. You're bluffing with QTo - an easily dominated hand - by betting $1.90 before the flop in order to win $0.70. If he calls, and you hit with anything other than QTx, QQx, TTx, AKJ, or KJ9 on the flop, you're not going to feel great about that. How often does your bluff have to work to be profitable? About 73% of the time. And if you get called, you are almost certainly behind.

On the other hand, let's say that you flat call, ending action, intending to float-bluff here. Sometimes you may actually hit something, but the point is that the flop's gonna miss -him- 66% of the time. Including the cost of the initial preflop call, you're risking $1.10 to win $0.70, which has to work - drumroll please - about 61% of the time. Plus, you add the equity that occurs when you actually *do* hit the flop and are confident you are ahead.

I'm not saying it's the best move - I'd prefer to fold pre. But to me, float-bluffing here makes more sense to me than re-raising pre.

You're also in the SB so you're never closing the action. You also forget that donk leads get called/raised a heck of a lot more than 3bets because just don't believe. I think this line is just really really bad compared to 3betting pre.

As played, I'd just cbet the flop and barrel A-T or any heart on the turn.

Would you barrel heart turns without the Q of hearts aswell?

Could you elaborate a little further on what hands you expect villain to call flop and give up on an A-T or heart turn?
Would be much appreciated since I feel like not understanding villains range for that line is the core problem with this kind of hands.

Would you barrel heart turns without the Q of hearts aswell?

No. The reason is two-fold: If we are barreling QT w/o a heart on say a 2h turn we are barreling too much and it's easy for villain to bluffcatch. Second, we have very little equity vs his calling range. With the Qh, we have pair outs a high % of the time and flush outs a decent amount vs say 9h9x.

Could you elaborate a little further on what hands you expect villain to call flop and give up on an A-T or heart turn?

Mostly pocket pairs.

Would be much appreciated since I feel like not understanding villains range for that line is the core problem with this kind of hands.

Peoples range for calling the flop are basically pocket pairs and AhJx type hands. Obviously it varies from opponent to opponent, but I'd assume it's something like that for TAGs.

Makes sense, thanks.

I just looked at a few numbers I could come up with in flopzilla:

Assuming villains range for getting to the turn is: AhJh, AhTh, AhQ, AhJ, AhT, 55, 77-JJ.

Turn be: 5 5 7 A

So the only hands we could expect villain to fold are 88 - JJ.
Assuming villain folds those ( 88 - JJ )50% of the time: We still get a fold 50% of the time.

Now I what think is interesting is that his calling range for all the other cards we barrel is pretty much the same:
- If the turn was a his calling range would be the same.
- On the other three broadways (K, Q, T) there is hardly a way for the situation to become worse. In fact there is no way for villain to have to have more Kx , Qx or Tx combos than Ax combos.
So the other cards we would barrel can hardly be worse cards to barrel.

So what I get out of this is that it's pretty hard for this line to be -ev. Which means to me that this is a pretty good standard line to take against fairly unknown opponents (regs).
Of course I would still need to check all the other lines to see if any is higher ev, but I don't think any is.

Yeah, there is a possibility that check/calling Q/T turns are best against some villains (if they are likely to fold 99, etc but barrel AQ/AJ), but I think that they aren't as scary for villain compared to A/K turns.

I would value bet turn as a standard though.

I'd fold pre with only 12 hands on the villain, but I don't hate a 3 bet. Calling is pretty bad oop with no idea how villain plays postflop.

I'd cbet the flop. Everything he folds to your line he probably folds the flop. True your line got an extra turn bet, but I think it looks enough like missed overs you get looked up enough to counteract that.

As played I don't hate the river bet. It's pretty hard for him to have anything strong here so even though your line looks suspicious you probably still get quite a few folds.

Why 3bet QTos from the sb vs. this villain? Has he been doing things in game previous to make you wanna make this play profitable? Or is it just a read from the hud stats? I am just curious about the thought process pre. Thank you.

Most people tend to give 3 bets more credit when villain is unknown.

I would value bet turn as a standard though.

uhm, I don't get it? Do you mean you mostly have value hands in this spot?

uhm, I don't get it? Do you mean you mostly have value hands in this spot?

I might have been unclear. I was talking about after we cbet flop and turn a Q or a T.

I think if you are 3betting QTos from the sb just because of his HUD stats is an epic fail. I don't play on line but I have reviewed some graphs of bad players. They spike up and down winning and loosing, and loosing in the long run. But they do have upward trends sometimes. So sometimes they might be focused, read a good poker book, got some coaching, subscribed to DC, whatever and are playing good currently (or trending upward). I think if you get some in game reads that this player is playing bad, and makes sense with his HUD stats you can assume he is playing bad and is trending downward and is ripe to be stacked. If his hud stats reflect that of a good player but in game is making weird moves, bad bluffs, playing too many hands, ect. This could be a good player who is trending down at the moment and is ripe to be stacked. I could be way off tho. Just a thought. Good luck!

I think if you are 3betting QTos from the sb just because of his HUD stats is an epic fail.

I'm not sure what you are implying by this but there are definitely players (who we only know how they play by their stats) who we should be 3 betting QTo against CO vs SB.

You don't need reads to 3bet pre. I think it's fair to assume most people open the CO with a wide range, and then it's just a math problem. You're right that turn/river would have been better with reads but at the time I only had assumptions. And I assume he call with some overcards, some fd's and mayby trips but it's hard for him to have alot of 5x hands. I also don't assume he has an overpair here as I think he would bet those when I check the flop. I also assume he will fold river with his busted draws or broadways that didn't hit, I could probably make it bigger. But my assumptions might be off.

I'm going to grunch here and haven't read the 3 pages of replies, but this caught my eye.

I don't believe your pre-flop play, in a vacuum, is a mistake. Any time you have logic to your reasoning (he is likely opening a wide range, may fold to 3b's enough to make this +EV with ATC, and will 4-bet premiums), I'm a fan of it.

However, you proceed to play this hand in a very questionable manner. By checking the flop, you have capped your range. You never have 88+. You never have A K/Q/J. Your half-pot turn and river bets, therefore, represent very little. While I agree you shouldn't give your opponent too much credit, here you are giving your opponent no credit for hand reading abilities.

OP, you said that he is likely calling with a medium strength hand not good enough to 4-bet, and based on his action of checking back the flop, there's a high probability of it not being strong enough to withstand a check/raise either. By then putting out callable bets on the turn and river, you are not giving a hand like TT or even 44 a reason to fold. You've taken a line where it's difficult for you to have a very strong hand and he is getting 3:1 that you didn't river a J.

Again, in a vacuum, the preflop 3-bet is a fine, possibly +EV play. When it puts you in a position where you are going to make large -$EV moves, however, opening pandora's box is a losing proposition. If you're planning on playing large pots out of position, READS ARE IMPORTANT.

You have 12 hands on the villain. If you want to 3-bet here, you should be bet/bet/shoving a board like this. If you have a read on the villain where a tricky line will get looked up light, then your line is fine with a value hand, however you don't have either a read or a value hand.

If I haven't explained myself clearly, please let me know and I'll expand as best I can.

Edit: Also, any time you use the word "assume" in a justification for a line, you kill a puppy. Good lines are based on logic. Logic is based on knowledge. Assumptions are the opposite of knowledge.

I'm not sure what you are implying by this but there are definitely players (who we only know how they play by their stats) who we should be 3 betting QTo against CO vs SB.

Was just trying to say that in game reads should be more important than what the HUD stats say about villain, because even a loosing villain sometimes will play good poker and win. You would want to play him when he is being true to his bad hud stats in game and is loosing to profitably 3bet QTos from the sb vs him. You wouldn't want to 3bet QTos from the sb when villain is playing solid poker at the time. But I could be wrong.

Pre flop is fine it's postflop were hero makes mistakes. I think cbetting this flop is +ev shutting down on blank turns and Barrelling A-T any Heart. If I bet turn ibjam river. As played xf turn