PAHWM - 1/3 at the Aria (2 Viewers)

[suchj0sh]

@detroitdad , @suchj0sh what would be your reason to check/shove the turn?

I guess the stacks are a little shallower than I thought tbh. He’s only got $135 behind after the bet, so maybe it’s not great.

I guess MAYBE you’re hoping to get JJ or KK to fold, probably not enough behind to get either out though.

So my final answer will be “for fun”

 

[ChaosRock]

In some situations you can take the pot down right there, if you don't, you still get to gamble with a handful of outs to win!

So my final answer will be “for fun”

Fair enough.

 

[ChaosRock]

One post highjack:

@detroitdad @suchj0sh : Was playing a tournament and saw Ac4h on the BB. HJ raise, CO call, BTN calls and I call OOP. Flop is Qc3c2h. So gutter plus back door NF. I check, HJ bets, call/call and I call. So 4 players to the turn, which is a 8c. I check, HJ bets, call/call and I raised big with the Ac plus my gutter. HJ calls, CO calls, BTN folds. Turn is an off suit 7. Since I got two callers on my large check/raise, I shut down and it checks around. HJ had AJo and CO had Q5o.

So really I get it, weird shit happens, lol!!! Some people might fold huge hands, some people might call with a worse A than Hero. I really get the check/raise turn in the OP's hand, lol!

 

[suchj0sh]

One post highjack:

@detroitdad @suchj0sh : Was playing a tournament and saw Ac4h on the BB. HJ raise, CO call, BTN calls and I call OOP. Flop is Qc3c2h. So gutter plus back door NF. I check, HJ bets, call/call and I call. So 4 players to the turn, which is a 8c. I check, HJ bets, call/call and I raised big with the Ac plus my gutter. HJ calls, CO calls, BTN folds. Turn is an off suit 7. Since I got two callers on my large check/raise, I shut down and it checks around. HJ had AJo and CO had Q5o.

So really I get it, weird shit happens, lol!!! Some people might fold huge hands, some people might call with a worse A than Hero. I really get the check/raise turn in the OP's hand, lol!

There really just aren’t enough made hands that you can expect to fold in OP’s villain’s hand I guess. There really aren’t many like bad Q’s in villains range if he’s 3-betting appropriately.

Idk, on paper the “semi-bluff when I pick up equity on the turn” feels right, but with stacks and range it’s probably bad. Calling to c/f the river when we miss also feels like shit.

 

[ChaosRock]

There really just aren’t enough made hands that you can expect to fold in OP’s villain’s hand I guess. There really aren’t many like bad Q’s in villains range if he’s 3-betting appropriately.

Yep. that was my point. Maybe AT (although AT most likely checks back the turn)... But also, we're not representing much with the shove, other than KJ. Even, let's say, TT. You check raise middle set when KJ gets in? Also, the second diamond makes it more likely we're shoving the draw. We're certainly not check/raising something like AQo, right. So hard to be credible with the shove...

 

[detroitdad]

So hard to be credible with the shove...

I know that you know this. For the record, I'm not trying to be credible lol. I'm leaning into the gamble.

 

[ChaosRock]

I know that you know this. For the record, I'm not trying to be credible lol. I'm leaning into the gamble.

Totally get it! There's other reasons to shove for sure! Maybe you want to establish an image, maybe you want to get Villain stack before the third diamond gets there (although it's -EV) because you're stuck, maybe it's just for the thrill... Totally get it...

 

[detroitdad]

Totally get it! There's other reasons to shove for sure! Maybe you want to establish an image, maybe you want to get Villain stack before the third club gets there (although it's -EV) because you're stuck, maybe it's just for the thrill... Totally get it...

We have played enough together over the years that you know this isn't a regular play of mine. If you aren't playing like a controlled maniac occasionally, you become to predictable. If I'm going to do that. I want to do it in a situation where I at least have a shot to win the hand.

 

[JMC9389]

Go for thin value at 1/3 pot, fist bump snap call when villain shoves with his 10's or AJ suited.

 

[PokerDogDoc]

All great points and I think I could go several ways here, as played to this point.

1) I only realistically lose to 1 hand, , and if he’s got that, well, “good hand, sir” and I go broke.

2) I’m never check-folding here.

3) If I check, would he:
-Check behind? I lose value.
-Shove? I snap call. Max value.
-Bet small? Maybe. I check raise for value… does he call? Maybe.

I finally decided to put out a relatively small bet to rep non-nut hands to avoid a check-check situation and hope for either a call, or even better, induce a shove.

Pot = $334

HERO bets $100

VILLAIN tanks for 1 minute and shoves for $235.

HERO snap calls and turns over the A-high flush.

VILLAIN looks disgusted and shows for top set.

He later said that if I shoved, he would have folded, but thought I was making a play for the pot and that his set was either good or could get me off a straight by repping a flush. He didn’t put me on AKd.

HERO rakes $804 pot.

Sure, the river was a bit fortunate, but I’m working on improving my ranging and pot odds calculations in order to win more of these types of hands than I lose.

Lucky or well-played?
Both?
What say you?

 

[suchj0sh]

That’s poker baby. Seems like he laid you great odds the whole way, so I’d say WP.

 

[Kam]

Lucky and well played

He let you get there with the backdoor flush (lucky for the runner runner) plus also a one card to a straight - so he only has himself to blame.

You got max value, so WP

 

[ChaosRock]

All great points and I think I could go several ways here, as played to this point.

1) I only realistically lose to 1 hand, , and if he’s got that, well, “good hand, sir” and I go broke.

2) I’m never check-folding here.

3) If I check, would he:
-Check behind? I lose value.
-Shove? I snap call. Max value.
-Bet small? Maybe. I check raise for value… does he call? Maybe.

I finally decided to put out a relatively small bet to rep non-nut hands to avoid a check-check situation and hope for either a call, or even better, induce a shove.

Pot = $334

HERO bets $100

VILLAIN tanks for 1 minute and shoves for $235.

HERO snap calls and turns over the A-high flush.

VILLAIN looks disgusted and shows for top set.

He later said that if I shoved, he would have folded, but thought I was making a play for the pot and that his set was either good or could get me off a straight by repping a flush. He didn’t put me on AKd.

HERO rakes $804 pot.

Sure, the river was a bit fortunate, but I’m working on improving my ranging and pot odds calculations in order to win more of these types of hands than I lose.

Lucky or well-played?
Both?
What say you?

Yes, well, played. Max value.

 

[JMC9389]

If my math is correct, pot is $335 and Hero has $125 behind.


Yes, well, played. Max value.

Thanks. Was too busy to check the effective stacks. Pretty straightforward jam with the SPR so low.

 

[PokerDogDoc]

That’s poker baby. Seems like he laid you great odds the whole way, so I’d say WP.

For sure regarding the odds… happy that I was able to put $ at risk and hang in for the win and a big payout.
I’m realizing that in order to be a more profitable NLHE player, ….

 

[DirtyTIVA]

V’s a typical 1/3 donkey. Easy fold with top set to your jam on that board.

 

[Tight_Lay_DOWN]

Just reading this thread. I count four mistakes from the villain and the way the hand was played, I would have made each and every one of the same mistakes - albeit for different reasons...

1. Sitting in a 1/3 game with basically $500 when you should be playing 2/5.

2. Giving the villain’s tiny 3-bet way too much Sherlock Holmes meaning.
“Eliminating AA, KK, and AK because he made it small” is how you level yourself into paying off the exact hands you swore he couldn’t have. One other thing the sims and solvers essential all recommend 4 bet OOP, although I like to call, see a flop and play the flop, and randomizes an UTG donk bet, you have a chance if the villain does not flop a set, and how often do they flop a set? I know I don't hardly ever flop a set, so why should they...

3. Calling the turn instead of ripping it in with the giga-combo draw.
This is the classic live-player move of seeing a monster draw and saying, “I’ll just call and keep his bluffs in,” right before arriving at a river SPR so tiny it needs to be measured in microchips. If you’re going to draw to the nuts, at least have the decency to do it aggressively. You still have a tiny stack left to bluff lead the river if you miss, and villain might not call unless they have 2 pair or higher (one pair only hand might fold). If villain had missed - he might fold to a river bet, because he may have flopped a draw as well, even though he raised "small" pre flop. Either way - you are getting it all in on the river anyway, so turn jam is probably preferred, but as played, I on your side with this, although for different reasons.

4. River - Well the was covered above, I jam river. See how poker is - 2 players, same mistakes - same outcome, different reasons...weird right?

 

[PokerDogDoc]

Just reading this thread. I count four mistakes from the villain and the way the hand was played, I would have made each and every one of the same mistakes - albeit for different reasons...

1. Sitting in a 1/3 game with basically $500 when you should be playing 2/5.

I disagree. 100bb in a 2/5 game is suicide at least at the Aria. I posted a different thread about this. The 2/5 buy in is capped at $1500 and was regularly straddled to $10 (so now you have 50bb) with a $500 buy in.

2. Giving the villain’s tiny 3-bet way too much Sherlock Holmes meaning.
“Eliminating AA, KK, and AK because he made it small” is how you level yourself into paying off the exact hands you swore he couldn’t have. One other thing the sims and solvers essential all recommend 4 bet OOP, although I like to call, see a flop and play the flop, and randomizes an UTG donk bet, you have a chance if the villain does not flop a set, and how often do they flop a set? I know I don't hardly ever flop a set, so why should they...

Most players at 1/2 and 1/3 don’t play GTO poker so solvers don’t apply. Plus I play an exploitative style of poker and you’ve got to range opponents some how. Maybe you do it with a different range than I do, but mine was based on how I’d seen him play at the table. To each his own.

3. Calling the turn instead of ripping it in with the giga-combo draw.
This is the classic live-player move of seeing a monster draw and saying, “I’ll just call and keep his bluffs in,” right before arriving at a river SPR so tiny it needs to be measured in microchips. If you’re going to draw to the nuts, at least have the decency to do it aggressively. You still have a tiny stack left to bluff lead the river if you miss, and villain might not call unless they have 2 pair or higher (one pair only hand might fold). If villain had missed - he might fold to a river bet, because he may have flopped a draw as well, even though he raised "small" pre flop. Either way - you are getting it all in on the river anyway, so turn jam is probably preferred, but as played, I on your side with this, although for different reasons.

I debated check-raising all in on the turn but I did not have a made hand and would be semi-bluffing, myself. At these stakes and in my experience I’m never getting a better hand to fold or a worse hand to call… which is the purpose of a raise. He’s always calling a shove with the top of his range and always folding with missed draws… I wanted to keep him in the hand with all the low made and missed hands that he might have on the turn while I realize my equity by calling.

4. River - Well the was covered above, I jam river. See how poker is - 2 players, same mistakes - same outcome, different reasons...weird right?

Jamming the river is a reasonable play but as I said in a previous post, I felt I could get more $ by inducing him to bluff at it if I led out with a small bet. There is a significant chance that if I open jam, he folds on the nut-changing river. With a small lead bet I felt I was either going to get a “crying call” for $100, or a raise/jam which I snap call. Either of those print money for me than open jamming.

 

[Tight_Lay_DOWN]

This is why I love the internet. I respond to someone posting a hand history - and I assume they want feedback, otherwise why post it the way they did, asking what others would do street by street - by saying I would have played it the same way and happily taken the near full double-up. Then I suggest a alternative lines, because I know I play bad, and then every suggestion turns into a point-by-point defense of why every street was played perfectly... So why ask?


The result, though, is still the same:

You won the hand.
You got the double-up.

Just recognize that you were behind the whole way, then got there on the river - first with a gutshot on the flop, then picking up the flush draw on the turn. If I’m counting it right, you had about a 26% chance on the turn to improve by the river.

So if you want real feedback, that’s the part worth spending time analyzing: how the hand developed, what price you were getting, and whether the path to the river was actually sound whether you play Exploitive or not.

Since you play exploitive - well then you have more analysis to perform, because you were behind the whole way, From pre flop through the turn and had to bailed out on the river with a life vest - so who was exploring who in the hand...

One thing not up for debate: next time you’re there, take some chip porn pictures and post them on the forum.
That’s something we can all agree we like to see !!!

 

[PokerDogDoc]

This is why I love the internet. I respond to someone posting a hand history - and I assume they want feedback, otherwise why post it the way they did

For me, I view “Play A Hand With Me” as sharing interesting hands that can demonstrate how different players can have different strategies—both to illustrate various playing styles (and outcomes) and to generate conversation.

My hands and discussion are also geared to both new and experienced players, so I tend to dive a bit deeper into my game theory to give background and insight to my decision points.

Sharing how you would have played the hand and your feedback is appreciated, but is obviously different from my style of play. In my eyes, neither one is correct or better than the other, just different.

Just recognize that you were behind the whole way

Versus Villain’s specific hand, yes. And if we were playing with face up cards I would have folded on the flop.

But since I don’t know his actual hand, I’m playing my 2 specific cards vs. Villain’s entire range, choosing to make my decisions based on mathematics, saying “what are the odds he’s got …?”

Villain’s assigned range:

My equity calculations vs. that range preflop (63%), flop (even), and turn (34%) are shown below. So it wasn’t until the turn that I was mathematically behind his assigned range which, given the action, I still had as quite wide on the turn.

Villain’s turn bet was 75% pot, so I needed 30% equity to mathematically make it profitable to call and continue, playing the 33% odds to make my hand on the river that beats his range.

So if you want real feedback, that’s the part worth spending time analyzing: how the hand developed, what price you were getting, and whether the path to the river was actually sound whether you play Exploitive or not.

Agreed. See above pot odds calculation. 33% > 30%, so I make the call and see if I hit the river 1 out of 3 times. This time it did.

From pre flop through the turn and had to bailed out on the river with a life vest…

I agree, though we differ in terminology. I don’t view it as a “life vest”, I see it as hitting a river that was expected to hit only 1/3 of the time… but I was mathematically getting the right price to do so. If I whiffed (67% chance), then I have to decide whether to fold the river or bluff. In this hand vs. this Villain I would check-fold here.

One thing not up for debate: next time you’re there, take some chip porn pictures and post them on the forum.
That’s something we can all agree we like to see !!!

I also agree… but the Aria wasn’t allowing photos or video at the table.

Thanks again for your comments and feedback.

 

[DrStrange]

SO . . . . . .

Villain is a full-on LAG when it comes to three bet frequency. At least that is what the assigned range implies. This isn't ANYTHING like the ranges of the typical early position 3-bet ranges I have experienced in live cash games.

The original posts says "Villain is loose-aggressive with a high raise frequency but typical (low) 3-bet frequency for these stakes." If villain's three-bet frequency is "typically (low)" as suggested he isn't 3-betting with every possible combination of face cards, nines and tens.

None of us can know anything about villain other than Hero's input. Maybe this table was the wild west and this villain is the tightest of a remarkable lineup. All we can do is take Hero's description and run with it.

I think the entire discussion in this thread would have been different if OP has started out saying Villain might be three-betting T9o, 98s, 99 or better. Or roughly 25% 3-bet rate.

It is too bad. I think the hand represents a lot more interesting potential discussion when we start with a top 1% hand vs a villain playing the top 25% in his 3-bet range. This becomes a far more complex situation with villain's hand than the one we were asked to discuss.

A sadly missed opportunity -=- DrStrange

 

[ChaosRock]

I'm gonna piggyback a bit on what Doc said above. I agree with the critic of describing Villain as Hero did but I disagree with the Doc's point about describing Villain as he is suggesting, or describing Villain in a particular way at all for that matter.

In order to reliably describe Villain playing style, one needs to play hours and hours and hour with that player. Half a season/ couple of hours is not enough and basing the decision on a quick judgement is a recipe for disaster.

When a hand is discussed in strategy thread, imo of course, one should always assume a baseline play. If Villain is very, very well know by Hero, then yeah, show why baseline has veered to a different direction. Or even mentioning the a small deviation based on a hint, emphasis on small.

Personally, when I'm reading those things, I basically ignore descriptions and try to think of the hands from a blank canvas...

Anyways...

Looking from a Villan's play perspective, I think he's pretty bad... 3-bet was too small. On the flop, why bet 75% of the pot with TOP SET?!?!? Hero has no AA or KK ever. So he is hoping for a call with AQ having two blockers? He's praying for Hero's TT? I don't like it. Turn is okay. On the river, I would be weary of the flush honestly. What hand does Hero have that calls a 3-bet, calls 75% pot on the flop and a big bet on the turn? AJ? Not many two pairs, right? TT raise the turn some percentage of the time... River 8 doesn't bring additional 2-pair but it does bring one to a straight. So again, not sure other hands Hero has other than Jx and flush. If he thinks Hero will call with the rare AQ when J makes a straight? I don't mind a check back the turn. But, calling Hero's raise?!?!? I don't get it...

 

[PokerDogDoc]

Not sure how much of a sample size Hero can have on villain's three-bet frequency. Is hero ranging villain as QQ+, AKo (top 2%) or a bit looser? If Hero makes the villain's range top 1%, then it is a fold.

Let's keep Hero's range wide and flat. This hand has serious RIO risks, play it carefully. A respectful fold isn't out of the question if we give villain skills and a very tight three-bet range.

I think the entire discussion in this thread would have been different if OP has started out saying Villain might be three-betting T9o, 98s, 99 or better. Or roughly 25% 3-bet rate.

Villain has shown aggression on good hands but not always top of range. Based on his play I put the villain on a fairly strong but wide range of 99+, 2 Broadway cards (suited or unsuited).

Thanks for the comments.

The villain had been 3-betting with a fairly low frequency but I suppose that is a relative term. And as I mentioned, sometimes he had a string hand and sometimes he didn’t (ie. moderate made hand and was over betting). He just did it very selectively based on his opponent and position. It was hard to read but maybe “selective atypical” 3-bets would have been a better term?

Personally, I would be 3-betting large if I were in his position with suited Broadways and pairs 99+. His small 3-bet was difficult to interpret and didn’t match his previous play. At the time, I interpreted it as weakness so, right or wrong, I expanded his range to include the offsuit Broadways as noted in post #12 (quoted above) when discussing my preflop evaluation and ranging.

Sorry if I misled you.

 

[PokerDogDoc]

Looking from a Villan's play perspective, I think he's pretty bad

I agree. It was a poor play on Villains part from start to finish.

And I also agree it’s challenging (and a bit dangerous) to make interpretations of playing style when you sit down at an eclectic mix of players at a casino, especially during the WSOP…. so cautious play may be warranted.

After this hand and as we played for the next 2 hours, it seemed that V was mainly profiting from an overly aggressive preflop strategy to get a lot of over-folds, and was a bad post flop player.

 

[ChaosRock]

He later said that if I shoved, he would have folded, but thought I was making a play for the pot and that his set was either good or could get me off a straight by repping a flush. He didn’t put me on AKd.

I guess Villain's comments kind of incapsulate his play, lol! So he would have folded TOP SET to a shove on the tune (or he was saying river?) in which he is only behind KJs? a KJs that sometimes is not opened UTG and some fold to a 3-bet? So he is saying he was BLUFFING when he bet the river (repping the flush and getting you off a straight) but he calls your shove anyways?

If the is folding to a lead shove on the river, I can see it... But then, don't call the check/shove!

I guess Holdem is still very profitable after all...

 

[PokerDogDoc]

So he would have folded TOP SET to a shove on the tune (or he was saying river?)

I can’t be sure, but I think he meant that if I led out on the river with an all in shove for $235 (3/4 pot) he “says” he would have folded because he would have put me on the flush that came in.

But because I led out for only $100, he saw that as “weakness” (whatever that means… maybe I had 2 pair or a straight and I was scared of a flush?), and because he didn’t put me on AKd, he could jam and rep the Ace high flush to get me to fold. I can’t be sure, but this is what I gather from what he said.

 

[PokerDogDoc]

I guess Holdem is still very profitable after all

Yup, there are enough players making mistakes out there at these stakes that I can make $3000-$4000 a year playing 1/3 NLHE at a local, monthly 0.5/1 NLHE game, 5 or 6 day trips to the nearest casino 2.5 hours away, and 1 trip to Vegas. I usually average $20-$25/hour over the year.

 

[Tight_Lay_DOWN]

One thing not up for debate: next time you’re there, take some chip porn pictures and post them on the forum.
That’s something we can all agree we like to see !!!

Quote "I also agree… but the Aria wasn’t allowing photos or video at the table."
_______________________________________________________________



Well - I am Gonna be headed there in a week or two, maybe I can get some pics...

https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/show-us-your-live-stacks.3808/page-379#post-2731319

https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/show-us-your-live-stacks.3808/page-369#post-2653487

https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/show-us-your-live-stacks.3808/page-369#post-2654336

https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/show-us-your-live-stacks.3808/post-2655908

 

[PokerDogDoc]

Well - I am Gonna be headed there in a week or two, maybe I can get some pics...

That would be cool … Hopefully they loosen up. I’m not sure why they had such a tight restricted policy when I was there a few weeks ago. Maybe because they started their Aria Poker Classic tournament series or maybe just because it was the first week of WSOP and they were trying to tighten down unapproved vide othis year as opposed to last year?

 

[JustinInMN]

Very interesting hand, I know I am late to the party on this.

Villain is loose-aggressive with a high raise frequency but typical (low) 3-bet frequency for these stakes.

Villain rarely has true bluffs but he bets made hands aggressively… sometimes he has it at showdown, but he’s also frequently getting better hands to fold due to aggressive betting and check-raising.

UTG / Hero = and open raises to $10 (standard for the table)
UTG+1 / Villain = 3-bets small to $25
Folds around to Hero who __________ (folds / calls / 4-bets)

I actually think preflop this is a very interesting decision. This action is read dependent, but I think I like a call in this spot out of position against an infrequent 3-better

The 3-bet to $25 is basically a min-click. Most 1/3 players don't 3-bet small for value or to trap; a min-click at this level is almost always weakness. He wants to see how serious you are, i.e. "where he's at."

AKs is too good to fold, too vulnerable to flat. I think you're 4-betting here to at least $85, maybe a little more since you'll be OOP.

At these stakes, crazy to just call a tiny 3 bet from an unknown, eh? A loose aggressive raises us to a small amount. Even if he doesn't 3bet too often I have to think this range has lots more than just KK/AA. If we call, we're playing OOP with a premium hand. Much rather raise. We can fold if we get 5 bet but for now we build a pot and play back with a hand that dominates some of his range.*

* = I suck at poker, so all of this isn't good advice.

I would probably follow this logic against a normal or a frequent 3-better, but I just think an infrequent 3-better is going to have a range unbalanced toward mid to high pairs and very few unpaired hands. I am probably going to maybe range such a player on 88+ (maybe 77) and AJ+, and maybe KQs as the one possible K-high holding. Either way AK dominates a few of these holdings, but I expect to be against pairs more often here, which is not great news for AK.

Furthermore, given where I would put villain's range, I don't think he's folding to a 4-bet very often so that reduces some of the upside for raising to me. And if we don't improve, we are going to have to make a careful decision on whether or not we can bluff later in the hand.

Also I think at this sizing, as hero, I am actually going to call this pretty widely, so I don't think it hurts to have a couple stronger-than-expected hands in our calling range here. AKs strikes me as a good candidate for this.

Even if not raising, this is more than a good enough hand to call $15 more with $39 already out there.

FLOP


Hero has a gut shot straight draw, backdoor flush draw, and 2 overs
Ranges are fairly close and I’m not sure if I’m ahead or behind, but I’ve got a world of possibilities.

HERO checks… I’m checking my entire range here in flow to see how the VILLAIN plays it.

VILLAIN bets $40

75% pot bet shows strength but the absolute dollar amount seems fair, especially given my hand and implied odds. Plus, VILLAIN loves to stab/overstab flops to apply pressure, even with A high and moderate made hands.

I’m never folding here and I see no reason to raise (better hands don’t fold and worse hands don’t call).
HERO calls to realize equity

100% agree with this. Checking in flow with everything makes sense. Calling to realize equity makes sense. At this point, I am assuming this board hit villain (AQ, maybe AT, maybe KQ, maybe a set) so I am probably not going to plan to have a bluff opportunity unless villain checks the turn. We are just trying to improve, play it straight.

TURN


Board is now


Hero still doesn’t have a made hand but has improved to a combo draw: gut shot straight and nut flush draws with 2 over cards.

Hero decides to ___________ (check or lead out).

Short of making a pair or a straight, this is a really good turn, we are definitely going to the river now. I don't think a lead helps us though given I think villain can call with anything that beats us. And I would not want to check-raise for stacks here either, though I can't imagine folding even if villain shoves.

Check and lead the river if checked behind. Might check/shove the turn if villain bets.

I agree with this line 100%. I think villain just doesn't have air on turn too often, and probably never has air if he bets the turn again. If he checks, then maybe he has a second pair or a pocket pair under the 9 he might fold on the end if his flop bet was just a c-bet. This would be a coup if we as hero don't improve.

HERO calls $100 and hopes to realize equity on the river.

RIVER is an interesting one


Full board is

Board doesn’t pair (Villain has no full houses) and HERO makes the A-high flush — but it’s only the 3rd nuts, losing to the Q-high straight flush and T-high straight flush).

Do I ever put the Villain on QJd or 76d?

HERO thinks for 30 seconds and ________ (shoves all in, leads for $100, checks)

Of these options I like the $100 lead. Yes, I don't think villain ever has air here, but I think a lot of his value is now checking behind with a 4-straight on board unless villain happens to have a straight. The only way I see that is if he has AJ or JJ. In short, to get value from the effective nuts here (I am never putting an infrequent 3-bettor on or btw, barely worth mentioning) you need to bet your own hand and hope for a crying call, or maybe that villain will overplay a straight and shove.

If I check, would he:
-Check behind? I lose value.
-Shove? I snap call. Max value.
-Bet small? Maybe. I check raise for value… does he call? Maybe.

I finally decided to put out a relatively small bet to rep non-nut hands to avoid a check-check situation and hope for either a call, or even better, induce a shove.

Pot = $334

HERO bets $100

VILLAIN tanks for 1 minute and shoves for $235.

HERO snap calls and turns over the A-high flush.

VILLAIN looks disgusted and shows for top set.

Wow he decided to shove top set here? Would not have expected that ever. I would have expected a call for sure. And yes, I think it's an obvious call for hero at this point.

I think you thought this hand through really well on every street.

Villain made a huge error on the river.

He later said that if I shoved, he would have folded, but thought I was making a play for the pot and that his set was either good or could get me off a straight by repping a flush. He didn’t put me on AKd.

As long as players level themselves in this "logic" there are exploits to be had on the river.

He very perfectly makes a case to call to bluff catch, which I would argue is the correct play here 10 times out of 10. He is foolish to assume anyone is laying a straight down because a backdoor flush hit. Very rarely is someone in villain's position going to have a backdoor flush here. I don't even want to give him credit to consider that holding is somehow a partial blocker (It really isn't given the and are conspicuously missing and frankly the accounts for a decent hunk of hero's calling range on the turn) that makes it possible to rep a flush here, and less possible for hero to have a flush.

Bottom line, hero played this brilliantly, villain played fine until blowing up on the river.

There's not much villain could have done to prevent the draw-out here. Hero just isn't going to fold even if we judge villain's bet-sizes as too small. The river was inevitable once the turn hit. And there were other turns besides diamonds that would have worked in villain's favor as well.

But villain's river shove is a punt, no other way to think of it.

Bottom line, his shove ensures he loses the maximum every time he's beat and never gains himself any value when he's ahead.