A large mistake

[Clarkmeister]

Inspired by another post with the same title from 2 years ago.

Online $5-10

Otherwise decent player open limps in MP, I raise on the button with QhQd. SB calls, MP calls, 3 to the flop.

Flop: [5s 6s Jd] SB checks, MP bets, I raise, SB folds, MP calls.

Turn: Qc. MP checks, I bet, MP checkraises, I 3 bet, MP folds.

A large mistake.

[Homer]

Where's the mistake?

Are you saying that you should have called the turn checkraise and raised the river?

Are you saying that MP made a mistake by folding to your three-bet?

I must not be getting something...

-- Homer

[Homer]

Okay, I think I have it....maybe.

I'm guessing you put him on QJ or maybe an underset (but not a flush draw), in which case he had either 0 or 1 out. However, if this is the case, I can't envision him folding to your turn three-bet unless he knew that you had QQ, which he couldn't possibly know. So it seems to me that even if you knew your opponent had one of these hands, you should still three-bet the turn.

I still don't get it, do I?

-- Homer

[Louie Landale]

Yeah, you could MAYBE have sucked another bet out of this player. You could also MAYBE have lost a bet by flat calling, when he decides to chicken out and check the river. So he either has enough to check-raise when you obviously have a pair (he's unlikely to be bluffing) AND cannot call a 3-bet, or he has enough to check-raise, not enough to bet again, but enough to pay it off. The second seems a LOT more likely to me.

Heck, and that doesn't take into consideration him deciding to 4-bet and build you a really big pot. And that's just trying to max your EV for this hand.

You definately need to 3-bet for your long term profit. If folk know you routinely slowplay the nuts, hehehe, they are SURE to take advantage of it. For one thing, you can never realistically 3-bet believably again, so you cannot try to move him off his pair (if he knows you don't 3-bet with the nuts).

Assertive cute plays NEED the protection equity granted them by your assertiveness with your really good hands.

Get cute when you know what he has and know you can take advantage of it THIS hand.

- Louie

[marbles]

What do you mean by "large," exactly? Sure, the 3-bet was unnecessary, but it doesn't look like it cost you more than 2 big bets... A bad fold can cost much more than that.

OTOH, he may have gone racks with his 55, 66, or QJ on the river... Hmm... Maybe it was a large mistake after all.

[Clarkmeister]

Homer,

The problem is that there are two scenarios here:

1. He is overplaying one pair (AJ would seem the most likely candidate) and he simply cannot call a 3 bet. In this instance I very likely cost myself 1 full BB on the river.

2. He has an underset or 2 pair. In this case, the action goes either 3-bet call, check-call, OR call the turn, bet-raise-call. I get 2 BB either way.

So why raise the turn here when he is drawing to one out at best? If he has the "big" hand of a set or 2 pair, I make the same either way, but if he has the one pair hand, I make an extra BB.

In the hand, I reacted and clicked that raise button without thinking about his holdings and the appropriate play in relation to that possible range of hands.

[bernie]

you may have only missed 1 bet at most....and thats IF he goes to showdown... after his raise, he may not have put in another bet anyways....any decent draw is likely calling. i dont gather your image is that tight as to them putting you on the nuts with this play...i think your range is a little wider. so i dont think he had a hand...he was just bluffing and you snapped it off. or he had a weak J.

so one benefit is that you didnt have to show your hand...9/2os was good here the way you played...

b

[Clarkmeister]

Marbles, a true 1BB mistake is very rare.

Folding on the end appears to be catostrophic, but in reality it is not. The reason is that it doen't truly cost you the entire pot. If you are getting 10-1 on a river call and mistakenly fold a winner when your expectation is 10% winners (dictating a call), the cost of the fold is NOT 10BBs.

The vast majority of our mistakes are of the "fraction of a bet" variety.

[pittsburgh_kid]

I think if your opponent has an underset, he calls you down to the river. Same thing for 2 pair. The raise feels right - he shows strength with his check-raise, you hit it back. Most likely is he had a J, and put you on overpair or set. No one is folding a set at $ 5 -$ 10.

[bernie]

is this guy really good enough to lay down a set or top 2 pair in this spot? are you playing that predictably? that doesnt sound right....

that said, i may have just called his raise. i think he may have just a J also....which may get you one extra bet on the river....depends on my opponent and what i think he'd play this strongly with against me...

b

[Clarkmeister]

Louie,

See my response to homer for more, but:

I think I definitely get that extra BB from him on the river. Assuming he checks the river, he really *has* to call since he is inducing a bluff. Plus, there are times he will improve (say his AJ hits a jack or his kicker) and this will cause him to lose 2BBs on the river.

I understand and agree that you can't *always* call behind with the nuts, but trust me when I say that I cap flops and turns plenty often with the goods, even headsup. I just think this is a situation where a little hand reading reveals that this isn't the time to drop the hammer on the turn.

[bernie]

i dont think its often that someone will c/r like this and not call the 3 bet. i think more often than not they would call here. i think a c/r with a J in this spot, against someone whos shown power the whole way would be kinda foolish. unless hes trying to put a move on ...even then, if you call he may not call the river bet. even though he induced a bluff...

why wouldnt he bet out and call a raise? there is no indication that youre going to lay your hand down to a c/r. not with all the action you showed...

however, its a nice move if he did it and saved himself a bet. ii just think the # of hands hed have that would call this outnumber the hands hed fold.

b

[Clarkmeister]

bernie -

See my responses to homer and Louie.

No one is folding a set or 2 pair. No way in hades.

But whether I raise the turn or river, I collect the same 2bets from those 2 possible holdings. But by allowing him to see the river, I am definitely getting one BB extra from a 1 pair hand, and might even get more if he improves.

Make sense?

[Homer]

I tend to agree if you can definitively predict the actions your opponent would take in each scenario. But what if you were against an opponent who is willing to cap the turn with an underset, then go to war again on the river if he fills? In this case, failure to three-bet the turn ends up costing you multiple big bets. I think this is another factor to take into consideration, making the situation not quite as cut and dried as you seem to think. Thoughts?

-- Homer

[Clarkmeister]

Bernie -

A checkraise with a hand like AJ is perfectly reasonalbe given my table image and my play. I am likely to raise a Jxx flop with 88 as well as AK, and I will rarely check behind on the turn.

[bernie]

yes it makes sense.

see my other reply also...i think there are more hands that will call this 3 bet than fold. i think it may only be obvious he had a J or less since he folded, not because he c/r'd. i think you played this hand in hindsight mainly because he folded. what do you think he'd c/r with here? a J is low on the list for many players.

b

b

[Clarkmeister]

Against a maniac, you are correct. But against a maniac, I wouldn't think twice about hammering away.

The problem is that this was a pretty reasonable player. Even with a set I don't think I get more than 2BBs from him.

Put yourself in his shoes with, for example, QJs. You limp first in, an aggressive but thinking player on the button raises you. You bet the J high flop and are raised again. You checkraise the turn with your top 2 and get raised yet again. Are you really going to do anything other than calling the turn and check-calling the river?

[bernie]

if he had AJ, why wouldnt he 3 bet the flop? this is why i dont necesarily think he had AJ, but a lesser kicker. maybe JT.

again, i think he's calling your 3 bet more than folding

b

[Clarkmeister]

I had to stop viewing this thread in flat mode in order to keep up with where your replies were coming from, lol.

"I think there are more hands that will call this 3 bet than fold"

True, but those same hands will also lead the river and call a raise. I get my 2BB from those hands regardless of the line I take.

[Homer]

I'm pretty sure that I'm so used to playing against maniacs that the word has lost all meaning. The sad thing is that I wouldn't even classify someone going to war on the turn and river with an underset as a maniac. I would consider them to be "somewhat aggressive." Obviously, I need to start playing some more 5/10 to gain a different perspective...

-- Homer

[marbles]

"Folding on the end appears to be catostrophic, but in reality it is not. The reason is that it doen't truly cost you the entire pot. If you are getting 10-1 on a river call and mistakenly fold a winner when your expectation is 10% winners (dictating a call), the cost of the fold is NOT 10BBs."

--I see your point. Yep, you blew it on this one. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

[bernie]

"True, but those same hands will also lead the river and call a raise. I get my 2BB from those hands regardless of the line I take. "

good point. no fair using sound thinking in a debate

b

[Vehn]

Well I think the times that he folds his AJ when I'm 3 betting the turn with QQQ here is somewhat compensated by the times that I'm 3 betting the turn with KK here, and he's folding having pot odds to draw for his 5 outer. But I mostly agree.

And for those of you who wouldn't 3-bet the turn with KK here you don't have the right style of play and the table image that goes with it for these types of tables. /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif

[Clarkmeister]

Totally agree with your point. And with KK or AA I *would* 3-bet here, virtually everytime. The fact that my opponent is very likely drawing stone dead, or to 1 out at most is what makes me think I should have backed off here.

[bernie]

"And for those of you who wouldn't 3-bet the turn with KK here you don't have the right style of play and the table image that goes with it for these types of tables"

it really depends on the predictability of your opponents doesnt it? i think blindly 3 betting here with KK is wrong. he didnt say this was a tough, tricky table. but to each his own...

b

[bernie]

i wouldnt say hes drawing close to stone dead....thats only if you think he has the A as his kicker...

again, the # of hands most c/r here will have you beat if you only held an overpair. i think you agreed earlier that usually a player c/r'ing here has 2 pair at least. but i also think it's player dependent.

b

[Ulysses]

Clark,

I think you are close, but don't believe this is quite as clear-cut as you propose.

It definitely smells like AJ here. However, I believe your opponent is more likely to put you on QJ than QQ. Or maybe even AQ. I think most times that check-raise is going to be either two pair or a set, not AJ, though. In that case, your description of the action is correct when it's two pair. However, I think the mistake is lessened by the fact that many times you'll get 4-bet by a set, almost definitely if it's JJ. And the mistake is also lessened by the fact that you won't always collect that last bet from AJ.

[AceHigh]

"I wouldn't even classify someone going to war on the turn and river with an underset as a maniac. "

I wouldn't either. I like to lose a lot of bets with my sets when I'm beat. /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif

[Punker]

And if he had 55 and capped the turn and gave action on the river? What would your feeling be then about your turn 3-bet?

Hindsight is 20-20. Losing extra raises from a big but inferior hand by calling is just as bad as losing calls that could have been induced from a weak hand by raising. There's no reason at this point for you to think he doesn't have some kind of big hand. He certainly could also have a hand where he wants to put in bets on the turn but on the river one of you won't want to be putting in the chips (eg, he has 8s7s).

I like the 3-bet. I consider it a large correct play.

[Dynasty]

Given the board of 5s,6s,Jd,Qc, I think there's enough chance that your oppponent either (1) has a big hand or (2) is drawing live against your top set to make 3-betting only a very small mistake if it is a mistake at all.

Obviously, you will get action from 2 pair or better and may get 3-bet by some of those hands.

The hands I really want to force to call a 3-bet are spade flush draws with either the Js or Qs. It's very reasonable for your opponent to have played Jsxs, Qsxs this way, especially the Qsxs. Hell, he may even have QsJs.

I don't think this is on the same level as D.Andrew's AT hand.

[Rube]

I can think of a bunch of hands that a MP limper could check-raise the turn with that would pay off more bets on the turn but wouldn't bet or pay off bets on the river.

Try 7s8s, 8s9s, 9sTs and other higher suited spade connectors and one gappers.

I'd get the money in on the turn while he could still be drawing.

Plus, if he has an under set or two pair there are a lot of river cards that could freeze the action and keep him from betting, including spades and straight cards.

[Binkus]

I not sure I would cosider it a Large Mistake you still played it fine but if you just called on the turn you might have gotten him to bet out on the river giving you one more BB