PAHWM: $2/5/10 QQ (1 Viewer)

[Forty4]

@Jeff results are in

 

[Josh Kifer]

-------E --------E

 

[Jeff]

Whew. I hate waiting for Christmas Day to open presents too!

 

[Payback]

Make sure you read the spoiler lol.

 

[JustinInMN]

Question for those advocating a "call": what are the hands you got to this point with that are part of your check/fold combos? Do you check/call twice with your flush draws and Tx? My point is that QQ is at the bottom of the hands you got here with, or pretty close to it. Maybe TT is worse, maybe that's the line one takes with AKh? Again, what else? If one does have a check/fold range here, I think QQ should be in it.

I think I can get here with at least , , and

The only better hands than I would have is , , , and maybe . But if I have 9s here, I can probably also have AJs or ATs here.

So either way I feel like this is far enough from the bottom to call.

Going to check the spoiler now.

 

[ChaosRock]

I think I can get here with at least , , and

The only better hands than I would have is , , , and maybe . But if I have 9s here, I can probably also have AJs or ATs here.

So either way I feel like this is far enough from the bottom to call.

Going to check the spoiler now.

I hear you, man... Realistically though, you're c-betting a large percentage of the time your high hearts draws in a board like that after 3-betting pre. Same goes for your sets (or check raising them). Two check/calls really puts you on the one pair kinda hands imo. Not sure how many draw combos we would be check/calling large bets twice after 3-betting pre on this board. Could be wrong though. Just spitballing.

And to Dave question, there is no difference imo between AA,KK and QQ on that board (assuming no Ah) other than the gutterball but, when one is counting calling or folding combos, AA are a few combos ahead of QQ so one might be a call and the other a fold, not because of relative strength vs Villain but more as a way of splitting one's decision.

 

[JustinInMN]

hear you, man... Realistically though, you're c-betting a large percentage of the time your high hearts draws in a board like that after 3-betting pre

Well if we are changing the line for what hero played, I am c-betting this hand on almost any board that doesn't have an Ace .

 

[Payback]

I hear you, man... Realistically though, you're c-betting a large percentage of the time your high hearts draws in a board like that after 3-betting pre. Same goes for your sets (or check raising them). Two check/calls really puts you on the one pair kinda hands imo. Not sure how many draw combos we would be check/calling large bets twice after 3-betting pre on this board. Could be wrong though. Just spitballing.

And to Dave question, there is no difference imo between AA,KK and QQ on that board (assuming no Ah) other than the gutterball but, when one is counting calling or folding combos, AA are a few combos ahead of QQ so one might be a call and the other a fold, not because of relative strength vs Villain but more as a way of splitting one's decision.

Typically yes AA ranges a few combos higher, but in this case villian is weighted to two pairs+ or bluffs which QQ /AA would both beat. Therefore I see them at the river as equal hands which is why I think establishing a calling vs. a folding combos by suits might be more appropriate than by what overpair we hold.

 

[ChaosRock]

Well if we are changing the line for what hero played, I am c-betting this hand on almost any board that doesn't have an Ace .

Not changing Hero's line as he did not have a hearts draw, LOL ! But it does make more sense to me a double check/call with QQ, or a hand with showdown, than with with a draw. IN other words, it's less likely "to me" to show up in that river decision with a draw, therefore, I have less missed combos to fold.

 

[Frogzilla]

I hear you, man... Realistically though, you're c-betting a large percentage of the time your high hearts draws in a board like that after 3-betting pre. Same goes for your sets (or check raising them). Two check/calls really puts you on the one pair kinda hands imo. Not sure how many draw combos we would be check/calling large bets twice.

This ties into the hand posted last week where Payback bet his A high flush draw on the flop. I like @Changster recommendation of checking a couple draws (like the nut flush) to keep ranges less capped on some run outs.

 

[ChaosRock]

This ties into the hand posted last week where Payback bet his A high flush draw on the flop. I like @Changster recommendation of checking a couple draws (like the nut flush) to keep ranges less capped on some run outs.

Yep, I agree with checking some of those draws, specially the AKs/AQs because of the A-high, 2 high cards and the NF.

 

[DrStrange]

This hand is an excelent example of the difficulties posed by deep stack play. Hero's hand plays itself if he were playing $500 effective (100bb). hero raises to $70, ends up with a SPR of ~3 and ends up all-in no later than the turn. Obviously Hero loses if villain calls with J9 playing in such a short stack environment.

Deep stack play punishes players who don't plan for the whole hand rather than take a street by street approach. Hero's decision on the flop is that proverbial first step on "the road to hell". It didn't seem that people took note of this.

I found it notable no one offered much of an opinion for how many chips Hero should risk with an unimproved hand. That seems to me to be a foundational decision that will shape the rest of the hand.

The run out in this hand was quite "safe" for pocket queens. No over-cards, flush draw bricked and the straight draw mostly bricked. I don't think we had a very good plan for what to do if the run out got ugly. Something like 75% of the possible turns + rivers put hero in a difficult situation.

Sometimes circumstances allow villain to out play hero. This was entirely foreseeable in this hand - one pair hand, out of position deep stacked with a coordinated flop. Villain's range is merged between draws and bigger hands. Hero does not know where his hand ranks. It seems to me we decided to fight an unfair battle. Villain knows a lot more about Hero's holding than hero knows about villain's cards. Villain has position. Lots of things can go bad under these circumstances.

To me the lesson(s) learned here should be a) plan for the whole hand before acting on the flop and b) understand Hero is in a terrible spot, so letting villain out play us for $150 is better than paying off a couple of grand in case villain is semi-bluffing. Some may call this "nitty" but I call it a prudent stack protection plan.

DrStrange

PS for what it is worth, I think villain left money on the table. The river bet should have been a bit bigger - say $900 vs $600. I expect villain would size his missed draws much bigger than his value hands. Not that this matters so much in a casino game, but in a home game it is a serious leak.

 

[Kain8]

This hand is an excelent example of the difficulties posed by deep stack play. Hero's hand plays itself if he were playing $500 effective (100bb). hero raises to $70, ends up with a SPR of ~3 and ends up all-in no later than the turn. Obviously Hero loses if villain calls with J9 playing in such a short stack environment.

Deep stack play punishes players who don't plan for the whole hand rather than take a street by street approach. Hero's decision on the flop is that proverbial first step on "the road to hell". It didn't seem that people took note of this.

I found it notable no one offered much of an opinion for how many chips Hero should risk with an unimproved hand. That seems to me to be a foundational decision that will shape the rest of the hand.

The run out in this hand was quite "safe" for pocket queens. No over-cards, flush draw bricked and the straight draw mostly bricked. I don't think we had a very good plan for what to do if the run out got ugly. Something like 75% of the possible turns + rivers put hero in a difficult situation.

Sometimes circumstances allow villain to out play hero. This was entirely foreseeable in this hand - one pair hand, out of position deep stacked with a coordinated flop. Villain's range is merged between draws and bigger hands. Hero does not know where his hand ranks. It seems to me we decided to fight an unfair battle. Villain knows a lot more about Hero's holding than hero knows about villain's cards. Villain has position. Lots of things can go bad under these circumstances.

To me the lesson(s) learned here should be a) plan for the whole hand before acting on the flop and b) understand Hero is in a terrible spot, so letting villain out play us for $150 is better than paying off a couple of grand in case villain is semi-bluffing. Some may call this "nitty" but I call it a prudent stack protection plan.

DrStrange

PS for what it is worth, I think villain left money on the table. The river bet should have been a bit bigger - say $900 vs $600. I expect villain would size his missed draws much bigger than his value hands. Not that this matters so much in a casino game, but in a home game it is a serious leak.

In summation, them bitches cost money yo.

 

[Frogzilla]

This hand is an excelent example of the difficulties posed by deep stack play. Hero's hand plays itself if he were playing $500 effective (100bb). hero raises to $70, ends up with a SPR of ~3 and ends up all-in no later than the turn. Obviously Hero loses if villain calls with J9 playing in such a short stack environment.

Deep stack play punishes players who don't plan for the whole hand rather than take a street by street approach. Hero's decision on the flop is that proverbial first step on "the road to hell". It didn't seem that people took note of this.

I found it notable no one offered much of an opinion for how many chips Hero should risk with an unimproved hand. That seems to me to be a foundational decision that will shape the rest of the hand.

The run out in this hand was quite "safe" for pocket queens. No over-cards, flush draw bricked and the straight draw mostly bricked. I don't think we had a very good plan for what to do if the run out got ugly. Something like 75% of the possible turns + rivers put hero in a difficult situation.

Sometimes circumstances allow villain to out play hero. This was entirely foreseeable in this hand - one pair hand, out of position deep stacked with a coordinated flop. Villain's range is merged between draws and bigger hands. Hero does not know where his hand ranks. It seems to me we decided to fight an unfair battle. Villain knows a lot more about Hero's holding than hero knows about villain's cards. Villain has position. Lots of things can go bad under these circumstances.

To me the lesson(s) learned here should be a) plan for the whole hand before acting on the flop and b) understand Hero is in a terrible spot, so letting villain out play us for $150 is better than paying off a couple of grand in case villain is semi-bluffing. Some may call this "nitty" but I call it a prudent stack protection plan.

So from a theoretical view, we kind of had to call three streets on this runout from minimum defense freq. Those were the arguments made...if we fold this what are we ever calling. There is a genuine point to not being so exploitable that you just get run over. Normally it’s fine say hey live players underbluff and I’ll overfold. This villain is too good for that though, as many folks pointed out.

However, there was a different exploit that I would have used to justify overfolding (folded KK/AA on the turn...and QQ on river). And with a heart, we could fold those each a street earlier. The exploit is I don’t think villain, as capable as he is, would have anywhere near the optimal board coverage in his call/call preflop range. He has all the two pairs, all the sets, and lots of straights including 67. Especially 67. We can underdefend this board and overdefend some others, punishing villain for calling our 3-bet with that range.