Making him fold a better hand

[meep_42]

Is a flop bet here mandatory? Or even +EV?
Seems like a prime example of the "Two Overpair Hands" in SSH, to me. When the Ace hits, I think I take WA/WB. The way you played it, I'd check-fold the turn - he's showing down most of the time he doesn't have an ace, and he's beating you with an ace much of the time.

-d

[Saborion]

[ QUOTE ]
Is a flop bet here mandatory? Or even +EV?

[/ QUOTE ]
If I put the guy on such a narrow range of hands, no it's certainly not mandatory, or even +EV. But I tend to put people on to narrow hand ranges so I bet in case he has overs.

By the tone of your post it sounds as though you don't consider a flop bet +EV, which is interesting since most people that have responded so far said that I should 3-bet the flop. If the flop bet isn't +EV, then the 3-bet should be very -EV.

All that being said, I'm not sure the flop bet isn't +EV since, despite his low PFR, he may know that the MP dude is loose and cap more lightly. Maybe 11 % PFR's do cap AK/AQ etc preflop in a 3-way pot, or maybe his emotional state of mind made him play a bit more aggro than usual.

So, how often do you think this particular player has 2 overs or a pair of 9's after his flop raise?

[meep_42]

I was adding it more for conjecture than anything else. I don't think a flop 3-bet is the right play here, though, because you can't protect your hand and you're either slightly ahead or way behind (in that there are about 20 scare cards on the turn but only 2 solid ones).

I'm starting to think that with a 11 PFR, though, he's generally not going to be capping too light, say with 9s or AJ or less. He's almost always betting this flop (with a PF cap and Tot-A of 2+) if you check, so a free card isn't an issue. However, he won't always protect your hand for you with AQ/AK, so you're only forcing out the middle-man (and in a good situation) when:
a) he raises with AK/AQ
b) Middle man will fold the flop for 2 bets but not 1.

Together, i'm not sure they happen that often.

So, upon looking at this, I'm leaning towards a check-call on the flop.

If I did bet-call (as I think I would when I don't have minutes to think about it), i'd seriously consider donking the half the deck that's good.

-d

[Saborion]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm starting to think that with a 11 PFR, though, he's generally not going to be capping too light, say with 9s or AJ or less. He's almost always betting this flop (with a PF cap and Tot-A of 2+) if you check, so a free card isn't an issue.
So, upon looking at this, I'm leaning towards a check-call on the flop.
-d

[/ QUOTE ]

Check-call the flop, then re-evaluate on turn?

But you seem to agree with me about this player not capping light, so what about check-raising the flop since he's very unlikely to 3-bet with a worse hand? So if he 3-bets we can check-fold the turn unimproved?

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]

By the tone of your post it sounds as though you don't consider a flop bet +EV, which is interesting since most people that have responded so far said that I should 3-bet the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would have check/raised the flop, I'm somewhat surprised by everyone bet/3betting

IMO when you lead a lot of players are smooth calling with AK here

[Saborion]

[ QUOTE ]


I would have check/raised the flop, I'm somewhat surprised by everyone bet/3betting

IMO when you lead a lot of players are smooth calling with AK here

[/ QUOTE ]
Ditto. That combined with his low PFR made me think a 3-bet would be very -EV. Would be a bit different if we were holding QQ+, but when we only beat 99 or overs, I think a check-raise is the way to go.

[meep_42]

I think check-raising is pointless as it only bloats the pot when our equity edge (if it exists) isn't that great. The only reason to bet out is to hope to get raised by a worse hand or to deny a free turn, neither of which (in my estimation) is happening all that often after the pre-flop action.

I honestly think check-raising is the worst of the non-folding options. (I'd rank them check/call, bet/call, bet/3bet, check/raise with the last 2 being close)

-d

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I would have check/raised the flop, I'm somewhat surprised by everyone bet/3betting

IMO when you lead a lot of players are smooth calling with AK here

[/ QUOTE ]
Ditto. That combined with his low PFR made me think a 3-bet would be very -EV. Would be a bit different if we were holding QQ+, but when we only beat 99 or overs, I think a check-raise is the way to go.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think that people will smooth-call with overs, yet fold to a c/r on the flop? The fact is that someone with AK is very likely seeing the turn either way. We are lead betting because there is a decent chance we are ahead and, if given the opportunity to 3-bet, we want to take it. After 3-betting, a lead turn bet might finally make the overs fold (not to mention get a bigger pot for us).

And perhaps most important, if we 3-bet and lead the turn, it is much easier to assess the strength of our hand thereafter. If you check/call the turn, how will you have any idea whether you are ahead or not?

[Saborion]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I would have check/raised the flop, I'm somewhat surprised by everyone bet/3betting

IMO when you lead a lot of players are smooth calling with AK here

[/ QUOTE ]
Ditto. That combined with his low PFR made me think a 3-bet would be very -EV. Would be a bit different if we were holding QQ+, but when we only beat 99 or overs, I think a check-raise is the way to go.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think that people will smooth-call with overs, yet fold to a c/r on the flop? The fact is that someone with AK is very likely seeing the turn either way.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I don't think he'll fold to the check-raise. But I think that a) he'll bet his overs on the flop if we check to him, and b) he'll hardly ever 3-bet our check-raise with a worse hand, which means we can check-fold the turn those times he do 3-bet. It would be different if we had QQ or better imo.

[ QUOTE ]

We are lead betting because there is a decent chance we are ahead and, if given the opportunity to 3-bet, we want to take it. After 3-betting, a lead turn bet might finally make the overs fold (not to mention get a bigger pot for us).

[/ QUOTE ]
Although he sometimes will raise overs on the flop, he will not always do that, meaning that when we bet and he raises we're not 100 % sure where we're at. At the same time I don't think we're ahead often enough to 3-bet.

[ QUOTE ]
And perhaps most important, if we 3-bet and lead the turn, it is much easier to assess the strength of our hand thereafter. If you check/call the turn, how will you have any idea whether you are ahead or not?

[/ QUOTE ]
Who said anything about check-calling the turn? I was advocating a check-raise and lead on the turn if our check-raise is called, which it will be. If we're 3-bet on the flop I was suggesting that we check-fold the turn. The information you get by bet/3-betting should be the same kind of information as you get by a check-raise against a player with this stats.

[Wynton]

Maybe I've been misinterpreting your comments. First, I thought you were concluding that you were behind on the flop, because you put this particular player on a narrow range of hands. And I opined that your range was too narrow.

Yet, in light of the hand range you put villain on, you advocate: c/r the flop and (a) lead the turn if villain doesn't 3-bet the flop; or (b) c/f the turn if villain does 3-bet the flop. Is that a correct interpretation?

If so, Idon't think that line is bad (though it seems to contradict your assumption that you are behind a vast majority of the time on the flop). My only real objection to that line is that you are potentially giving free cards on the flop, or alternatively missing an opportunity to 3-bet against someone who is actually behind.