Nasty River Spot: AK good vs Tight Player? (2 Viewers)

[Senzrock]

That all adds up to a spot that I'm just not sure this is worth the complexity.

I generally agree with this but the one thing we should keep in mind is - this is a pretty standard spot in the sense of, it comes up pretty regularly for us (cbetting this board texture with a hand like AK in a 3bet pot). If our default is to just fold all of these spots in search for (that mythical) “better spot” - we should be aware of how much equity we lose over years of playing.

 

[Senzrock]

If villain had raised flop to say 3300, It then becomes just a clear fold. His click back however allows us to continue here imo.

 

[Legend5555]

I generally agree with this but the one thing we should keep in mind is - this is a pretty standard spot in the sense of, it comes up pretty regularly for us (cbetting this board texture with a hand like AK in a 3bet pot). If our default is to just fold all of these spots in search for (that mythical) “better spot” - we should be aware of how much equity we lose over years of playing.

Not all Cbet misses are the same though. This is a specific spot on a very specific flop. You don't have any backdoor equity AND are OOP. Seems like an okay spot to just give up when you totally whiff and get raised, even though the sizing is annoying. Don't forget, there are plenty of times against some players in different configurations where you Cbet and they just fold stuff like suited broadways and suited Aces.

Now, if the player does this to you a lot, it can be a different story. But given how hard it is to realize our equity here, I think the default should be to fold. And I think that's actually even more true in a tournament where protecting your stack can often be more important than maximizing value.

I just think you need a VERY good read to justify trying to continue against this raise and perceived range OOP with no backdoor equity. Those pot odds are only correct if you get to see both turn and river.

 

[Senzrock]

Not all Cbet misses are the same though. This is a specific spot on a very specific flop. You don't have any backdoor equity AND are OOP. Seems like an okay spot to just give up when you totally whiff and get raised, even though the sizing is annoying. Don't forget, there are plenty of times against some players in different configurations where you Cbet and they just fold stuff like suited broadways and suited Aces.

Now, if the player does this to you a lot, it can be a different story. But given how hard it is to realize our equity here, I think the default should be to fold. And I think that's actually even more true in a tournament where protecting your stack can often be more important than maximizing value.

I just think you need a VERY good read to justify trying to continue against this raise and perceived range OOP with no backdoor equity. Those pot odds are only correct if you get to see both turn and river.

Yeah I hear you. I just think this board is actually above average for us though, given what his 3bet calling range should look like (and funny enough, KQ should fall right smack in the middle of that range). If this board was T96 - I probably just check give up or maybe check-call a small bet on the flop.

 

[grebe]

I understand the skepticism, but I find it interesting that no one will take my read on the situation given that I know this player and pressed him on it myself. To me, it seems like folks are uncomfortable having their own (poker) beliefs challenged (which this hand certainly does).

One of my points is that we are so quick to put villains on sets in these spots, it's just a gut response almost. It allows us to "fold and move on" instead of actually digging into some hand reading and figuring out the logic on each street.

Anyway, appreciate folks following along, even if you don't believe the ending lol.

The part that people are having issue with....at least I think....is that you labeled this player as "tight" and this kinda breaks the mold on how a simple tight player would play this hand, I think. Add to the fact that he said "I dont bluff", but he would have bluffed both on the flop and the river with KQ....so either way he is lying to you....or joking with the "I don't bluff" statement.

 

[grebe]

Also, please invite me to your next game. He played nearly every street horribly.

I actually love the flop raise from V, especially if he had KQ, knew that Hero was going to bet it and then raised on the flop that favored the V. Only issue is with the sizing. If V would have made it 3K, he takes it down most hands. Assuming he had KQ, his check/raise on the river is just awful.

 

[Senzrock]

The part that people are having issue with....at least I think....is that you labeled this player as "tight" and this kinda breaks the mold on how a simple tight player would play this hand, I think. Add to the fact that he said "I dont bluff", but he would have bluffed both on the flop and the river with KQ....so either way he is lying to you....or joking with the "I don't bluff" statement.

I thought it was understood that he was joking with me? Maybe people didn’t get that?

 

[Senzrock]

I actually love the flop raise from V, especially if he had KQ, knew that Hero was going to bet it and then raised on the flop that favored the V. Only issue is with the sizing. If V would have made it 3K, he takes it down most hands. Assuming he had KQ, his check/raise on the river is just awful.

Agreed on both those fronts.

 

[grebe]

I thought it was understood that he was joking with me? Maybe people didn’t get that?

View attachment 861090

Sorry, missed the lol. Sure, he had KQ. High 5 to him I guess? Not well played by him....but like I said, to a tight player, I fold to the flop raise. I just don't think we are folding out that much equity against this kind of player. Yeah, here maybe we do....but that's ok. We will make up for it in the long run, like when we flop a set and he tries this shit.

 

[RainmanTrail]

I understand the skepticism, but I find it interesting that no one will take my read on the situation given that I know this player and pressed him on it myself. To me, it seems like folks are uncomfortable having their own (poker) beliefs challenged (which this hand certainly does).

One of my points is that we are so quick to put villains on sets in these spots, it's just a gut response almost. It allows us to "fold and move on" instead of actually digging into some hand reading and figuring out the logic on each street.

Anyway, appreciate folks following along, even if you don't believe the ending lol.

You speak as though he showed you his hand though. This is the problem I'm having. You act like it is a fact that he had KQ, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Literally every decision he made in the entire hand, on every street, screams "definitely not KQ". The only thing suggesting it is his word after the fact. A poker player's word about what he had. And in a hand where you do very clearly had AK. In a conversation where even you yourself admit to lying to him about what you had.

You suggesting that we're all fools for sticking to our reads even after we've been "proven wrong" is what I find so hilarious in this hand, and it's why I keep giving you shit. There is no reason whatsoever that we should believe your friend. And we have every reason not to. If he showed you KQ, then that would be entirely different, and we'd be having a different conversation about how your player type reads ("he's a tight player") are in serious need of adjustment. But the word of a poker player about what they had after a hand (regardless of how nice they are or how honest you perceive them to be) means absolutely nothing. Poker players feel zero obligation to tell you the truth about what they had. Even the kindest and most gentle hearted players will lie straight to your face. I learned this lesson very early on in my career. Even old man coffee and sweet aunt Suzie will lie straight to your face. Even the best of friends as well. It's just part of the game.

 

[Senzrock]

You speak as though he showed you his hand though. This is the problem I'm having. You act like it is a fact that he had KQ, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Literally every decision he made in the entire hand, on every street, screams "definitely not KQ". The only thing suggesting it is his word after the fact. A poker player's word about what he had. And in a hand where you do very clearly had AK. In a conversation where even you yourself admit to lying to him about what you had.

You suggesting that we're all fools for sticking to our reads even after we've been "proven wrong" is what I find so hilarious in this hand, and it's why I keep giving you shit. There is no reason whatsoever that we should believe your friend. And we have every reason not to. If he showed you KQ, then that would be entirely different, and we'd be having a different conversation about how your player type reads ("he's a tight player") are in serious need of adjustment. But the word of a poker player about what they had after a hand (regardless of how nice they are or how honest you perceive them to be) means absolutely nothing. Poker players feel zero obligation to tell you the truth about what they had. Even the kindest and most gentle hearted players will lie straight to your face. I learned this lesson very early on in my career. Even old man coffee and sweet aunt Suzie will lie straight to your face. Even the best of friends as well. It's just part of the game.

I give up lol - good luck at the tables.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

I actually love the flop raise from V, especially if he had KQ, knew that Hero was going to bet it and then raised on the flop that favored the V. Only issue is with the sizing. If V would have made it 3K, he takes it down most hands. Assuming he had KQ, his check/raise on the river is just awful.

Sure, I can get behind the raise itself, but sizing was way way too small.

 

[Senzrock]

Sure, I can get behind the raise itself, but sizing was way way too small.

If the sizing is larger, I go away and we don't have to discuss this hand on PCF

But your comment brings up the point again right - what is the problem of making it so small? I would argue that it actually allows me to call with AK (touchy subject I know!)

 

[Schmendr1ck]

If the sizing is larger, I go away and we don't have to discuss this hand on PCF

But your comment brings up the point again right - what is the problem of making it so small? I would argue that it actually allows me to call with AK (touchy subject I know!)

If he has KQ or T9, he wants you to fold and it's too small. If he has JJ, he wants you to call and it's fine.

So my sizing complaint only applies if he doesn't have JJ.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

Of course, I could argue for a bigger raise with JJ for balance, but that's beside the point of the current discussion.

 

[Senzrock]

If he has KQ or T9, he wants you to fold and it's too small. If he has JJ, he wants you to call and it's fine.

So my sizing complaint only applies if he doesn't have JJ.

If he has JJ what's the point or raising the flop? He is either way behind or way ahead right? What if I had QQ/KK/AA (or even the occasional 88 or 77). Should be a just call with JJ there imo.

 

[Legend5555]

If he has JJ what's the point or raising the flop? He is either way behind or way ahead right? What if I had QQ/KK/AA (or even the occasional 88 or 77). Should be a just call with JJ there imo.

But many rec players don't think that way. They have overpair, you have a lot of AK, they don't want an A or K to come, so raise. It happens all the time.

 

[Senzrock]

But many rec players don't think that way. They have overpair, you have a lot of AK, they don't want an A or K to come, so raise. It happens all the time.

I know it happens all time time - no question. My comment though was that this is a bad play.

 

[RainmanTrail]

If he has JJ what's the point or raising the flop? He is either way behind or way ahead right? What if I had QQ/KK/AA (or even the occasional 88 or 77). Should be a just call with JJ there imo.

It's a classic information gain raise from a tight player. It's a good flop for JJ. He knows you have a strong hand, so now he's trying to figure out if it's AK/AQs strong or if it's AA/KK/QQ strong. He's ahead of that range. So he's thinking to himself that he should raise for value and information but he doesn't want to risk too much in case his JJ is no good. It's a classic scared JJ raise (er, sorry, I mean "KQo" lol)

 

[Zr1]

If villain had raised flop to say 3300, It then becomes just a clear fold. His click back however allows us to continue here imo.

Your wrong. Correct play is to fold unless villian turns his cards over for you to see. And even then he almost always has you in bad shape here so you fold anyways. Your description of villian and the action in the hand leads anyone with any experience to realize 8 or 9 out of 10 times we are beat. A lot of chips to spew in a tournament. Hand was misplayed from the start imo but moat hands we lose are

 

[Stufflymcstuff]

I understand the skepticism, but I find it interesting that no one will take my read on the situation given that I know this player and pressed him on it myself. To me, it seems like folks are uncomfortable having their own (poker) beliefs challenged (which this hand certainly does).

One of my points is that we are so quick to put villains on sets in these spots, it's just a gut response almost. It allows us to "fold and move on" instead of actually digging into some hand reading and figuring out the logic on each street.

Anyway, appreciate folks following along, even if you don't believe the ending lol.

Either this read on his honesty is wrong or he had KQ and your other read on his play style is wrong.

“If he has JJ what's the point or raising the flop? He is either way behind or way ahead right? What if I had QQ/KK/AA (or even the occasional 88 or 77). Should be a just call with JJ there imo.”

He isn’t way ahead with jacks when your bluffs include over cards and using this logic he shouldn’t be raised board pairs either.

He “shouldn’t” be raising the flop very much at all. And maybe AK without bd flush draws is very close to being worth calling against an unknown player but it’s at best borderline and your read was that he’s tight. You seemed to have zero confidence in your read when you chose to continue. Why so much confidence in your read on his honesty? How well do you know him? There are very few people I play with who I expect complete honesty from in these situations.

 

[Senzrock]

your other read on his play style is wrong

Not sure how many times I can see this in different ways but.. the entire point of the thread is how even tighter players can get out of line. If that is too nuanced for this audience I apologize! Maybe the "tight" players you all play with never raise flop with nothing. But if you play $2/5 or above, I guarantee you that you will find plenty of tight players who "make moves" in spots that are non-standard. This is the beauty of the game.

 

[Senzrock]

using this logic he shouldn’t be raised board pairs either.

Now you get it

 

[Senzrock]

He “shouldn’t” be raising the flop very much at all

You really are so close to getting it!

 

[Schmendr1ck]

If he has JJ what's the point or raising the flop?

In other words, what @RainmanTrail said.

He is either way behind or way ahead right? What if I had QQ/KK/AA (or even the occasional 88 or 77). Should be a just call with JJ there imo.

Yes, and I'm flatting or folding most of the time, but I don't hate a raise against an aggressive, sticky player (which is maybe how he perceives you?).

But if you're going to raise there to bluff (KQ) or deny equity (JJ), it has to be bigger.

 

[Senzrock]

How well do you know him?

Played with him for ~10 years and we text casually.

 

[Senzrock]

Yes, and I'm flatting or folding most of the time, but I don't hate a raise against an aggressive,

So.... in other words... you can see yourself doing all three? LOL

Got it.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

So.... in other words... you can see yourself doing all three? LOL

Got it.

Poker is situational, right?

Deciding what to do there depends on a lot of nuance that I don't have, so I'm never going to say, "I'll do X every time."

In the spot you describe against a player who is perceived as aggressive, I'm probably flatting with JJ almost always and letting him continue with a wider range.

Against some players in my group who have a history of never folding AK-type hands on low flops, I'm raising for value all day long. On the occasions when they have me beat, I'll find out quickly.

 

[Senzrock]

Poker is situational, right?

Deciding what to do there depends on a lot of nuance that I don't have, so I'm never going to say, "I'll do X every time."

This. This is literally the point of my entire post - I'm just grateful someone finally got it

All joking aside, poker IS situational. There IS a lot of nuance. We DO take different approaches to a similar spot with different hands. The experts in this thread seem to only play one way, the same way, all of the time. I am advocating a slightly different approach.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

Also not sure why I said "flatting or folding" as I'm virtually never folding JJ there unless Villain is a special kind of OMC or has shown me his cards.

Sorry about that! That's what I get for responding in the short breaks between tasks at work.