Set vs fish a bit deep

He was one of those 44/12/5 fish, didn't seem to me like he was bluffing. I wasn't really sure if he was calling too light, he said he folded J9 on J high board to 2nd barrel. So there's a chance he's rather tight. Here I'm not sure about turn sizing(seems like maybe 20-50$ more would be better) and also about how to play this river now that I got called. Basically on river I really didn't know what to do, didn't want to fold my set so I just jammed but there wasn't much thought into it... when he check called turn I really wanted to jam river pretty much all the time but heart riv is horrible. Thing is that if he folds a lot, he may fold Q, obv call w flush, check calling has to be bad since hes never betting worst and doesn't bluff often, does that really leave me with a check fold? He got most of his stack into flips and also got me to draw (while giving me awesome odds) and missing btw. Also one of those hands he 3b me INP quite small I donked w A4s w gutshot str draw and flush draw, bet turn too rather big and shut down on river he check behind w KK. So now I went ahead and trying to represent the draw in a different way. He was playing only one table.

Submitted by : Oddeye

GAME #2089242851: Texas Holdem NL $2/$4 2010-01-28 01:16:08
Table Four Roads No DP
Seat 1: RealLifeRaptor $644.50 in chips DEALER
Seat 3: wolfVSwolf $205.00 in chips
Seat 6: Hero $725.00 in chips
Seat 8: OMGIRaiseU $497.50 in chips
Seat 10: TheBEATSz $1,509.04 in chips
wolfVSwolf: Post SB $2.00
Hero: Post BB $4.00

Holecards(Odds)
Dealt to Hero
alafosse:
OMGIRaiseU: Fold
TheBEATSz: Call $4.00
RealLifeRaptor: Raise NF $16.00
wolfVSwolf: Fold
Hero: Call $12.00
TheBEATSz: Call $12.00

Flop(Odds) (Pot : $50.00)

   
Hero: Bet $42.00
TheBEATSz: Call $42.00
RealLifeRaptor: Fold

Turn (Pot : $134.00)

   
Hero: Check
TheBEATSz: Bet $88.00
Hero: Raise NF $244.00
TheBEATSz: Call $156.00

River (Pot : $622.00)

   
Hero: Bet $423.00
TheBEATSz: Call $423.00

Summary
Total pot $1,465.00 Rake $3.00
TheBEATsz: Shows
TheBEATSz: wins $1,465.00

CF river.

raise the fucking turn to at least 320

played fine

On January 27 2010 22:35 palak wrote: raise the fucking turn to at least 320

Then you can shove any river and feel good about it, no matter what happens. As played, he actually has the odds to continue...

Also, even though he does have odds to continue, you are still putting him in a shitty position and charing him up the ass with that check-raise. You effectively bet $244 into $134 and he called with a draw. After having charged him that much, shoving river is perfectly fine.

This is actually something I use a lot against weak players. Yes, they may have the odds to call the check raise (or a raise of their bet) with their draw, but that does not make their situation profitable in the hand as a whole. The isolated decision might be +EV for them, but they still cannot make money in the hand. When compared to straight-up 2nd barrel bet sizing, the check makes the hand waaaaaay more profitable to us, even though the standard 2nd barrel does not give as good odds on the call. Anyway, I digress. My main point was that after that check-raise, you are perfectly justified shoving any river. You are still making a ton of money on the hand, even if you stack off every time he hits. And since he is a bad player, check-folding like Maynard suggests is not really viable given remaining stack sizes and the fact that fish bet when checked to just cuz sometimes. Finally, he could have perfectly legit fish hands there that do not fold to check-raise (65, Q6, Q8, AQ, KQ, a ton). Many of those hands will call a shove despite the flush draw filling up. So it's a shove pretty much regardless of the option you follow.

On January 28 2010 03:05 phexac wrote: Also, even though he does have odds to continue, you are still putting him in a shitty position and charing him up the ass with that check-raise. You effectively bet $244 into $134 and he called with a draw. After having charged him that much, shoving river is perfectly fine. This is actually something I use a lot against weak players. Yes, they may have the odds to call the check raise (or a raise of their bet) with their draw, but that does not make their situation profitable in the hand as a whole. The isolated decision might be +EV for them, but they still cannot make money in the hand. When compared to straight-up 2nd barrel bet sizing, the check makes the hand waaaaaay more profitable to us, even though the standard 2nd barrel does not give as good odds on the call. Anyway, I digress. My main point was that after that check-raise, you are perfectly justified shoving any river. You are still making a ton of money on the hand, even if you stack off every time he hits. And since he is a bad player, check-folding like Maynard suggests is not really viable given remaining stack sizes and the fact that fish bet when checked to just cuz sometimes. Finally, he could have perfectly legit fish hands there that do not fold to check-raise (65, Q6, Q8, AQ, KQ, a ton). Many of those hands will call a shove despite the flush draw filling up. So it's a shove pretty much regardless of the option you follow.

we are charging him 156 into 310 which gives him 2:1 direct odds with clear implied odds.

On January 28 2010 03:05 phexac wrote: Also, even though he does have odds to continue, you are still putting him in a shitty position and charing him up the ass with that check-raise. You effectively bet $244 into $134 and he called with a draw. After having charged him that much, shoving river is perfectly fine. This is actually something I use a lot against weak players. Yes, they may have the odds to call the check raise (or a raise of their bet) with their draw, but that does not make their situation profitable in the hand as a whole. The isolated decision might be +EV for them, but they still cannot make money in the hand. When compared to straight-up 2nd barrel bet sizing, the check makes the hand waaaaaay more profitable to us, even though the standard 2nd barrel does not give as good odds on the call. Anyway, I digress. My main point was that after that check-raise, you are perfectly justified shoving any river. You are still making a ton of money on the hand, even if you stack off every time he hits. And since he is a bad player, check-folding like Maynard suggests is not really viable given remaining stack sizes and the fact that fish bet when checked to just cuz sometimes. Finally, he could have perfectly legit fish hands there that do not fold to check-raise (65, Q6, Q8, AQ, KQ, a ton). Many of those hands will call a shove despite the flush draw filling up. So it's a shove pretty much regardless of the option you follow.

If I'm correctly understanding what you're saying, this sounds flawed.

What I think I read is that once our opponent made the turn bet and we put in a raise, those two instances of actions gained us so much EV that even if we lost on the river, we have played the entire hand +EV because his entire turn play was more -EV.

While that may or may not be true since I haven't really thought about the hand, just because a hand was played in a manner that was +EV shouldn't justify that we played it well. Slowplayed AA against a passive fish will almost certainly be +EV as well, but obviously that's horribly played.

You effectively bet $244 into $134 and he called with a draw. After having charged him that much, shoving river is perfectly fine. This is actually something I use a lot against weak players. Yes, they may have the odds to call the check raise (or a raise of their bet) with their draw, but that does not make their situation profitable in the hand as a whole

this is obv incorrect. Hero is 'effectively betting' 240 into 220, leaving the villain needing to call only 155 to win 460. villain's situation is obviously profitable if they are not only getting the correct direct odds but also the implied odds to call if you're shoving every river.

It's an irrelevant discussion anyway because villain's range is way bigger than flush draws. Played fine imo, the raise on the turn is perfect though I think I prefer bet/bet/bet line because fish usually don't play their draws this aggressive.

Raising more on the turn doesn't change much in this hand and I think the sizing is fine because it sets up a nice river shove.

155 to win 310, you can't count your own call as something you win.

and he is not getting direct odds (he need something like 3,5:1 for that)

but he has enough implied odds given stacksizes (if he expects to get paid off every time he hits)

You have said that although this guy sees lots of flops he seems to play rather tight postflop. I think you have to put him on the flush draw when he calls your check raise on turn. If he had 2 pair he would likely re-shove on turn.

Given this I think betting the river is a mistake. A very sickening check fold for me on river.

You played every other street fine IMO.

I agree with twisssted

On January 28 2010 11:42 breaktwister wrote: You have said that although this guy sees lots of flops he seems to play rather tight postflop. I think you have to put him on the flush draw when he calls your check raise on turn. If he had 2 pair he would likely re-shove on turn.

lol wat

He has a straight and flush draw lol.

agree with twisted

i think turn's going to get checked back a decent bit

On January 28 2010 07:56 edzwoo wrote: Show nested quote + On January 28 2010 03:05 phexac wrote: Also, even though he does have odds to continue, you are still putting him in a shitty position and charing him up the ass with that check-raise. You effectively bet $244 into $134 and he called with a draw. After having charged him that much, shoving river is perfectly fine. This is actually something I use a lot against weak players. Yes, they may have the odds to call the check raise (or a raise of their bet) with their draw, but that does not make their situation profitable in the hand as a whole. The isolated decision might be +EV for them, but they still cannot make money in the hand. When compared to straight-up 2nd barrel bet sizing, the check makes the hand waaaaaay more profitable to us, even though the standard 2nd barrel does not give as good odds on the call. Anyway, I digress. My main point was that after that check-raise, you are perfectly justified shoving any river. You are still making a ton of money on the hand, even if you stack off every time he hits. And since he is a bad player, check-folding like Maynard suggests is not really viable given remaining stack sizes and the fact that fish bet when checked to just cuz sometimes. Finally, he could have perfectly legit fish hands there that do not fold to check-raise (65, Q6, Q8, AQ, KQ, a ton). Many of those hands will call a shove despite the flush draw filling up. So it's a shove pretty much regardless of the option you follow. If I'm correctly understanding what you're saying, this sounds flawed. What I think I read is that once our opponent made the turn bet and we put in a raise, those two instances of actions gained us so much EV that even if we lost on the river, we have played the entire hand +EV because his entire turn play was more -EV. While that may or may not be true since I haven't really thought about the hand, just because a hand was played in a manner that was +EV shouldn't justify that we played it well. Slowplayed AA against a passive fish will almost certainly be +EV as well, but obviously that's horribly played.

I am not saying that CR is better inherently than regular barrel. Just saying that, when situation permits it (this being the big qualifier), you make way more money with CR (obviously). When your opponent is predictable, you can just regard the CR size as your CBet size. In no way do I advocate slowplaying when you would not otherwise.

But yeah, in this case this is purely academic discussion because villain's range is wider than just flush draw.

If u bet turn u won't be able to get stacks in.
C/r turn gets stacks in. Just an advantage to c/r I thought shud be mentioned.

ramajam then break something when he shows you a flush. wait nvm go break something asap.