JJ capped PF, set but 3 broadways

Ryan11 · #1 11-19-2005, 02:25 AM

UTG: 32/5/0.9 and can't stop talking how good he is and how everyone is just lucky.
CO: 24/21/1.4 seems like a fairly solid player, a bit on the weakish side tho.

Party Poker 5.00/10.00 Hold'em (5 handed) link

Preflop: Hero is SB with J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], J[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img].
UTG raises, CO 3-bets, 1 folds, Hero caps, 1 folds, UTG calls, CO calls.

Flop: (13.00 SB) Q[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 6[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (3 players)
Hero bets, UTG calls, CO raises, Hero 3-bets, UTG calls, CO calls.

Turn: (11.00 BB) K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (3 players)
Hero bets, UTG raises, CO calls, Hero calls.

River: (17.00 BB) 3[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (3 players)
Hero checks, UTG bets, CO calls, Hero calls.

Final Pot: 20.00 BB.

Spicymoose · #2 11-19-2005, 02:34 AM

I normally cap preflop, but I could see calling, and check raising most flops. This might be the better move, but I am unsure. Capping doesn't seem all that wrong though. On the flop, I could see just calling the raise, and check raising the turn.

On instinct I would 3-bet the flop, but looking at it more carefully, I think it is likely we are behind to the straight. There are 16 likely combos of AT he could have, while only 3 combos of the KJ (which seems like he could play that way), and most other hands seem kind of ridiculous for UTG to hold.

So I think the turn and river are fine, although normally I think I would [incorrectly] 3-bet this turn.

UncleSalty · #3 11-19-2005, 02:54 AM

I think a turn 3-bet is correct. CO is almost certainly coming along for the ride and we have at least 25% equity even if the straight is made on the turn. You would need to be pretty damn certain he has AT to make a 3-bet incorrect here.

Edit: UTG would certainly be playing AK this way too IMO
Edit2: I should certainly use the word certain more often. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Spicymoose · #4 11-19-2005, 02:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think a turn 3-bet is correct. CO is almost certainly coming along for the ride and we have at least 25% equity even if the straight is made on the turn. You would need to be pretty damn certain he has AT to make a 3-bet incorrect here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets assume he had AT. He would play basically exactly like this. That gives him 16 possible combos of AT. Please give me any other likely hand he has. And by likely, I mean even a 25% chance of him having. I think we are behind far more often than we are ahead. Also, when we 3-bet and are behind, not only do we get capped, but we sometimes lose our padding CO. Not to mention, if we pair on the river, we can easily pull of a check raise.

UncleSalty · #5 11-19-2005, 03:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think a turn 3-bet is correct. CO is almost certainly coming along for the ride and we have at least 25% equity even if the straight is made on the turn. You would need to be pretty damn certain he has AT to make a 3-bet incorrect here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets assume he had AT. He would play basically exactly like this. That gives him 16 possible combos of AT. Please give me any other likely hand he has. And by likely, I mean even a 25% chance of him having. I think we are behind far more often than we are ahead. Also, when we 3-bet and are behind, not only do we get capped, but we sometimes lose our padding CO. Not to mention, if we pair on the river, we can easily pull of a check raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

A guy with a PFR of 5 is less likely to be raising AT from UTG than we would be. I think it's very possible he plays AK and even possibly AQ this way too. I agree that if he has AT and we get capped it sucks, but we still have 10 outs on the river. I guess if you put QQ and KK in his range it makes it more marginal. Still, my gut says a 3-bet is marginally +EV.

New001 · #6 11-19-2005, 03:03 AM

KQ isn't possible? KJ? 66? QJs? etc. Players with those stats rarely raise just the top 5% of hands, they'll raise some good ones and some weird ones. You're almost certainly getting at least 2 bets in on the river from him if you improve, and you could still be ahead.

Spicymoose · #7 11-19-2005, 03:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
KQ isn't possible? KJ? 66? QJs? etc. Players with those stats rarely raise just the top 5% of hands, they'll raise some good ones and some weird ones. You're almost certainly getting at least 2 bets in on the river from him if you improve, and you could still be ahead.

[/ QUOTE ]

KJ is certainly possible, and I would think he might play this way with it. Unfortunately there are only 3 combos. QJ there are also 3 combos, but he would most probably raise the flop, and so we must discount how many combos we count; I'll say 33%, which is 1 combo. 66 certainly is a possibility with him going for the slowplay, but again there are only 3 combos. It was mentioned that AK might play this way, which is true, and adds 12 combos. AQ is highly unlikely, as he would not usually play the flop this way, so although there are 12 combos, I am only going to count 25%, or 3. This leaves us with about 22 combos of hands that we are ahead of.

AT he almost always plays like this for 16 combos. QQ he could be slowplaying, but not always, so lets call those 3 combos 2. KK is unrealistic, as he probably would raise the flop, so lets call it only 1 combo. That leaves 19 combos that we are behind.

When we are ahead, we get 2 extra BB, but sometimes only 1 extra BB from the check raise. When we are behind, we have to pay 2 extra BB, with slightly less than 20% chance to improve. I think this is actually pretty close, and I have swayed between thinking it is an easy raise, to being an easy call, back to being an easy raise, and finally to it being close, but possibly a raise.

New001 · #8 11-19-2005, 04:23 AM

I like that analysis. I think it's a little less close when you add in weird random hands like AA or random trashy two pairs, but it doesn't seem "easy" either way. I still prefer a raise here though.