PAHWM: AhKh in an action "$1/$3" game (2 Viewers)

Conclusion

Top pair + nut flush draw when you have both the nut cards makes it harder for anyone to have a draw to call you with. Even QJ only had 6 outs here. So there isn't a lot that worse hands can do to catch up. When you get heavy action when you have tpnfd, you are basically only playing the FD. It's a good trap candidate multiway in position because if you are ahead, you are way ahead, and if you are behind, you have a strong draw to potentially crush a set (which is unlikely except for 55 on the flop and by the turn is almost impossible).

I'd much rather bet black AK here than my exact hands because it needs much more protection. But that's not to say I'm never being my exact hand here. But I think it can certainly be checked sometimes. But since we have position, we can easily check back and see what develops on the turn. Plan would be to call a single bet, and fold to any crazy action from a combination of the 3 players in front of us.

As it went, I think turn bet for value is mandatory. We can get called by Ts, the draws that are in bad shape, worse Ks is they actually checks twice, and even some lower pairs from the guys in later position.

When I get checked raises, this guy is only repping 5x or a bluff, maybe KT, but you'd think that would lead turn. I'm never folding to that range as there are WAY more bluffs from this type of player than there are value hands. Since all his value that raises beats me and the rest are bluffs that can't really call unless he thinks he pot stick himself, I think call works here. The SPR is very weird, but he might just blast river anyway hoping it works.

On river since I think it's a lot of missed draws, I didn't see a ton of value in betting. It's hard to imagine he has worse Kx here as played. Same for Tx.

I checked back and immediately trabled my hand and my opponent mucked. He claimed he had KQ, but I don't buy it at all.

Could I have missed out in value sometimes from these looney toons? Yeah, but keeping some semblance of balance is also important.
 
Last edited:
Legend5555 said:
When I get checked raises, this guy is only repping 5x or a bluff, maybe KT, but you'd think that would lead turn. I'm never folding to that range as there are WAY more bluffs from this type of player than there are value hands. Since all his value that raises beats me and the rest are bluffs that can't really call unless he thinks he pot stick himself, I think call works here. The SPR is very weird, but he might just blast river anyway hoping it works.
Click to expand...
Totally agree with this. I am surprised this line of thinking is contraversal here.

Legend5555 said:
keeping some semblance of balance is also important.
Click to expand...
I do actually disagree with this point. I think against observant players, balance and other gto considerations are certainly important. Against calling stations, I think is better to go full exploit mode and go for full valuetown without deception.
 
Burke said:
What do you think about jamming his turn check-raise?
Click to expand...
Not the way I would go unless hero is 100% certain villain is bluffing.

Lots of hands with 5's in them can be showing up here. Hero should absolutely hate that turn card. Second worst card behind a 10 that could come up. Villains here can have all of the sets post flop and lots of the 5's, whereas hero is pretty capped in their range and shouldn't have a 5 all too often here except for A5 suited.
 
Legend5555 said:
That makes no sense unless we think he will call off with a draw.
Click to expand...
I would consider a check raise with a flush draw a semi bluff at best, no? Especially on this board.

I feel like we're arguing semantics at this point. Villain check raising this turn card is either a bluff or representative of something really strong like a boat, trips at worst. Villain wouldn't do this with a hand like hero's. That just wouldn't make any sense. I would think that any two pair hand with no possibility of a flush coming in would look to get to showdown as cheaply as possible.
 
JMC9389 said:
I would consider a check raise with a flush draw a semi bluff at best, no? Especially on this board.

I feel like we're arguing semantics at this point. Villain check raising this turn card is either a bluff or representative of something really strong like a boat, trips at worst. Villain wouldn't do this with a hand like hero's. That just wouldn't make any sense. I would think that any two pair hand with no possibility of a flush coming in would look to get to showdown as cheaply as possible.
Click to expand...
The point is that jamming against a polar range makes no sense. You get called when beat, and folded to otherwise. It only makes sense if you think villain has a lot more bluffs than value and will always call with those bluffs.
 
Legend5555 said:
The point is that jamming against a polar range makes no sense. You get called when beat, and folded to otherwise. It only makes sense if you think villain has a lot more bluffs than value and will always call with those bluffs.
Click to expand...
Agreed. That's what I was trying to say, but I suppose in a more roundabout way lol. There's absolutely zero situations I'm jamming here. Getting called only by better and not getting called by worse.
 
JMC9389 said:
Agreed. That's what I was trying to say, but I suppose in a more roundabout way lol. There's absolutely zero situations I'm jamming here. Getting called only by better and not getting called by worse.
Click to expand...
I think you can get called by a draw that won't call the river after missing. Though that point is moot if as hero, you are planning to check behind on the river anyway.
 
JustinInMN said:
I think you can get called by a draw that won't call the river after missing. Though that point is moot if as hero, you are planning to check behind on the river anyway.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm not too keen on putting more money in seeing this board pair. I'm taking my showdown value and checking the river in the event the villain is trying to slow play a boat or 5's.

Also, hero should have waited to table his hand. Hero closed action and has the right to see what villain had. They let the villain off the hook and let them keep a key piece of information that can be used on future hands with this villain.
 
This post is so bizarre to me... Like so bizarre it seems like you might be trolling people. You start with reads that say "action player, moderate action player, and whale...." but then you seem to completely forget that on this absolute monster of a flop and talk yourself into checking back because you block *some* second-best combos???

Your logic for the turn being a mandatory bet is "We can get called by Ts, the draws that are in bad shape, worse Ks is they actually checks twice, and even some lower pairs from the guys in later position." How, with these player reads, is none of this also true on the flop? That seems totally backwards. Can you fill in more about these players that makes you think they'll fold Kx or Tx on the flop but call it on the turn?

You should be using what you said about the turn to bet the flop, and *then* if you're not convinced people will call a double barrel with their weak Kx, Tx, etc on the turn after it pairs, that's when you check back because you'll maintain pot control and *also* induce a lot of players to either bet those weaker hands for value on the river, of if they check to you they're much more likely to call your river value bet since it now looks like you c-bet, didn't improve, and are bluffing the river. This is like ABC pot-control, see a showdown, milk value on the river strategy.

It seems like you are trying to apply super high-level tactics for a game against people who really, really, really don't require that level of effort.

I probably come across sounding like an a-hole here, but I'm genuinely confused how you'd talk yourself into a flop check here against these guys in a 1/3 hyper-action game. I just don't translate "action/action/whale all called a huge preflop 3-bet" into "better check back the flop because second pair won't give me enough action..."
 
chipchipchip said:
absolute monster of a flop and talk yourself into checking back because you block *some* second-best combos???
Click to expand...
Exactly. It's a monster flop and hard for anyone else to have anything good enough to call down all 3 streets that doesn't beat top pair. And I even said that you certainly can bet this flop.

chipchipchip said:
"We can get called by Ts, the draws that are in bad shape, worse Ks is they actually checks twice, and even some lower pairs from the guys in later position." How, with these player reads, is none of this also true on the flop? That seems totally backwards. Can you fill in more about these players that makes you think they'll fold Kx or Tx on the flop but call it on the turn?
Click to expand...
The guys in the early positions are going to have a tough time check calling with Ts if I bet flop. They have to worry the people between could be strong and possibly check raise. Everyone is naturally going to check to me on the flop, so we (as well as the other players) can't learn anything about their ranges from them checking to me. Given the properties of my hand, it's unlikely I can get 3 streets of value, especially multiway, unless I over flush someone.

High vpips pre flop doesn't always translate into loose action post. With one of these guys, it could. With one, it certainly doesn't. And with the guy that became the main villain, giving him rope is often the best way to make money.

If I had black AK, or a worse flush draw, I'd be much more apt to bet. But I need to have some strong checks to balance out all the hands I am going to check here. And multiway, I'm def going to be checking a lot of stuff on the flop. Betting this flop into 3 other prior says a lot about our hand and even loose players understand that to some degree.

chipchipchip said:
You should be using what you said about the turn to bet the flop, and *then* if you're not convinced people will call a double barrel with their weak Kx, Tx, etc on the turn after it pairs, that's when you check back because you'll maintain pot control and *also* induce a lot of players to either bet those weaker hands for value on the river, of if they check to you they're much more likely to call your river value bet since it now looks like you c-bet, didn't improve, and are bluffing the river. This is like ABC pot-control, see a showdown, milk value on the river strategy.
Click to expand...
That's not the only pot controlling line though. If we think it's often going to be a 2 street hand, then we have options of when to get those 2 streets. It also limits some ways we can get paid by weaker hands like Tx. Betting flop is better against draws if we think we can get them to call twice. But it also opens us up to the pot getting very big very quickly.

I think most people are top pair nut flush draw and think "ZOMG, gotta get all the money in!" When in reality, because having it blocks so much stuff, it increases the chance that when you get big action, you are crushed. The only nice think is you know you aren't drawing dead of you so get the money in. But the only things you beat are worse TP and combo draws (which there aren't much of given my hand). And those aren't exactly looking to just pile it all in.

Because if they, it makes my exact hand a good candidate to balance out my weak/medium strength hands that want to check back here multiway like AQ, AJ, 77, 88, 99, JJ, QQ,

And like I said, I have bet this flop with this type of hand before. But I sometimes check it back so I can have some strong hands. I know some people disagree with maintaining some sort of balance against bad players, but I think it still has merit. And I also play against these people 2-3 times a week. They have a certain idea of how I play at this point. So it is important to to have some balance so they can't just easily make assumptions.
 
Legend5555 said:
The guys in the early positions are going to have a tough time check calling with Ts if I bet flop. They have to worry the people between could be strong and possibly check raise. Everyone is naturally going to check to me on the flop, so we (as well as the other players) can't learn anything about their ranges from them checking to me. Given the properties of my hand, it's unlikely I can get 3 streets of value, especially multiway, unless I over flush someone.

High vpips pre flop doesn't always translate into loose action post. With one of these guys, it could. With one, it certainly doesn't. And with the guy that became the main villain, giving him rope is often the best way to make money.
Click to expand...

If the above is all true, then I guess my main issue is that you should not describe them as action players and an uber-whale. If these guys can reliably determine that if hero c-bets into all of us he must have it, so I'm going to fold Kx and Tx and 44 and A5 and all the other garbage that comes with calling way too much preflop, then they are not action players. It sounds like the reads you should've given these guys are "these guys all love to pump the pot preflop because they want to play much bigger, but turn into solid thinking players post flop." Then I'd have no issues with your logic and deciding to check back sometimes on the flop.

So my next question is... If the above is all correct, what's your c-bet bluff frequency against these guys? They're going to fold all the Kx and Tx so bluffs here should just print money right? Huge preflop multiway pots that people will fold 90+% of their range sounds like the juiciest game ever. Like you should be c-betting nearly 100% here anyways, so it negates any "balance" you need to hide your monsters.

Again, I just think you're giving these guys way to much credit, and you're leaving money on the table.
 
Legend5555 said:
The guys in the early positions are going to have a tough time check calling with Ts if I bet flop. They have to worry the people between could be strong and possibly check raise.
Click to expand...
So you and I have very different interpretations of the read you offered in the original post. I would not assume players as loose as described are folding second pair routinely against possible continuation bets.

Legend5555 said:
Everyone is naturally going to check to me on the flop, so we (as well as the other players) can't learn anything about their ranges from them checking to me.
Click to expand...
By betting into them, you can learn how much "pure air" is out there that can fold. This seems beneficial given your read that villains are loose and you do have some reason to "fear" just about any card on the turn that doesn't make a flush.
 
find a way to pile the money in :D

either open raise to pot size or if you know villain is going to raise to build up the pot, i would go for a limp re-raise and trap all that dead money in there. Jist of it is to try to get as much money in as u can - If you can lower your SPR to like < 3, would be great. Flop u smash so just shovel it in or go for CR all in.
 
How are you not raising like pre 200$ with that hand and that table.
80$ got you 3 callers.

raise to 200$pre, get 1 or 2 customers (hopefully whale), ship the flop like super fast, even blind. Make the whale or whoever think you're either bluffing, or have it. You just made 200$ + whatever limps, if they call, its probably with garbage, in which case you're ahead anyway. Most of the time they'll probably just call you to see what you have.

Your cards don't really matter on that table. It's psychology.
 
chipchipchip said:
It seems like you are trying to apply super high-level tactics for a game against people who really, really, really don't require that level of effort.
Click to expand...
This is my take too.

I kinda wish we put skill levels on strategy threads. Or label them as “GTO PAWM” and “low stakes PAWM.”
I have nothing to offer to somebody who’s trying to play GTO, unless they want to hear an everyman opinion. And since I play low stakes poker against low stakes poker players, I have very little to gain from GTO conversations.
I guess I do appreciate the discussion about how, when we have it all, it’s unlikely that our opponents have any of it. But if I have one thing in common with GTO players, it’s that I have little interest in playing multi-way pots, (especially against maniacs.) So I’d be betting that flop anyway.
 
upNdown said:
This is my take too.

I kinda wish we put skill levels on strategy threads. Or label them as “GTO PAWM” and “low stakes PAWM.”
I have nothing to offer to somebody who’s trying to play GTO, unless they want to hear an everyman opinion. And since I play low stakes poker against low stakes poker players, I have very little to gain from GTO conversations.
I guess I do appreciate the discussion about how, when we have it all, it’s unlikely that our opponents have any of it. But if I have one thing in common with GTO players, it’s that I have little interest in playing multi-way pots, (especially against maniacs.) So I’d be betting that flop anyway.
Click to expand...
Why not start at a GTO base and adjust from there?
 
GTO rarely applies to low stakes, live games. Why would a skilled player in a game with the normally weak cast of characters choose to play "fancy GTO" poker to keep the table from getting to a stage where they can exploit Hero? And if hero does use GTO, he gives up the substantial majority of the potential profits that an exploitative style can win.

Hero should be looking for a new game / table change if he thinks the $1/$3 table is so tough that GTO strategies are needed.

Exploit the field all the time, every game. GTO is purely fancy play syndrome in almost every situation. We can debate how to exploit the field. We can decide Hero is making his own mistakes and offer suggestions. We can give Hero a sympathetic shoulder on bad beats and cheer him on when he rakes in a big pot. Even talk about meta game considerations.

But GTO? Not needed -=- DrStrange

PS Understanding GTO is a going to help most people's game. Makes you think about situations in novel ways. Just don't abandon exploitative play in favor of GTO as that will almost certainly lower Hero's profits.
 
upNdown said:
Learning GTO would take a lot of work and time and probably money, wouldn’t it?
Click to expand...
I mean, yes and no? I assume most of us who want to win more hands than we lose will spend money on books, coaching, courses. Maybe not. I know that in the 4 months I've spent on coaching sites I am not close to the amount of money I spent on books in the last 15 years of playing poker.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Similar threads

Legend5555
PAHWM - $1/$2 TT BvB
2
Replies
43
Views
1K
JMC9389
JMC9389
ngmcs8203
Trying to find more spots to bluff
Replies
11
Views
659
ngmcs8203
ngmcs8203
dmoney
PAHWM: 22 in the small blind
2
Replies
56
Views
2K
grebe
grebe
ngmcs8203
Overplaying the turn in position?
Replies
21
Views
776
Manjankins
M
ngmcs8203
100NL on Ignition - 10 hands into session vs 90%VPIP
Replies
18
Views
675
ngmcs8203
ngmcs8203
Back
Top Bottom