Answers on a postcard.

[Nade]

Villain is a good reg playing at about 22/18. He tanked pre flop, flop and turn, but not on the river. What can we put him on? Does he turn up here value betting a weaker hand often enough to make a call profitable, could he just have total air, or does he have the goods? Full Tilt No-Limit Hold'em, $1.00 BB (6 handed) - Full-Tilt Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com MP ($102.50) CO ($360.70) Button ($154.95) SB ($69.90) Hero (BB) ($107.55) UTG ($99) Preflop: Hero is BB with Q, Q 3 folds, Button bets $3.50, 1 fold, Hero raises to $12, Button calls $8.50 Flop: ($24.50) 10, 7, 4 (2 players) Hero bets $12, Button calls $12 Turn: ($48.50) 10 (2 players) Hero bets $31, Button calls $31 River: ($110.50) 4 (2 players) Hero checks, Button bets $55

[deadlydaveLDN]

Re: Answers on a postcard. Ok, what hands beat you? Hands with 10s in, is he really going to call a 3bet pre flop? I'd need to see his fold to 3bet stat to be sure, but I think most 22/18 regs are going to fold things like A10, K10, Q10 etc to a 3 bet. If he has a hand with a 4 in it he's played real bad post flop (unless it's 44). AA and KK, I think we can assume would have 4bet. 77 is a possibility. Other hands, given his pre/post flop play JJ-88, 89, 56, 1010, total air, maybe an AK/AQ type hand. I think given the hands he could have that you beat are way more than the hands that beat you, and it's a nice chance to bluff (with the board/your river check) it has to be a call here. You might call and lose, but I think in the long term this is a profitable call.

[billy the punter]

Re: Answers on a postcard. Possible hands for him 65 89 JJ 99 88 77 44 TT JJ JT QT KT AT We can rule out ace high in my opinion. I don't see the flop call as a floating call to bluff later - it's hardly a scare flop. So like I say I can only see his hand being one of 13. You're losing to 8 of them. So you're beating 56, 89, 88, 99, JJ - surely if he chose to play 88, 99, JJ meekly thus far I cannot see him value betting either of those three. For me this means he's likely to have one of the 8 hands that beat you. Therefore I think you're beat. He can only bet $55 at the end due to your stack, this is another reason why a calculated bluff (floating call to bluff later) is totally out of the question - it could still be a desperate bet after a missed draw, but 56 or 89 to a reraise preflop? The more I think about it, the more I think you're beat - I'm pretty sure you passed here. Personally I play this differently. Preflop correct obviously, flop ok, but I'm not betting the turn here. I'm checking for two reasons, firstly to attempt to get info (a check is sometimes better than a bet), and secondly to keep the pot smaller - important as the hand now has a dangerous look to it. So I'd check the turn, a lot of players at this level will check behind if they DO have the T or a house. So if that was the case I'd check the river too and that always you to make a cheaper call (or a pass of course) on the river. If he bet the turn, I may take that as him not having trips and that he may now be betting two pair. I definitely think assuming such is financial beneficial long term. Unless you have history/notes suggesting otherwise.

[seanfaz]

Re: Answers on a postcard. Yeah i would say youre beat. This is one of those situations where a year ago i would have to call, and it was a leak in my game. When all signs point to being beat more often than not, just let it go and don't make a crying call. I also agree with billy that a check on the turn is not a bad option; but this hand is just another example of how it is difficult playing big hands out of position.

[Nade]

Re: Answers on a postcard. Thanks for the points and analysis made guys. I folded. I agree with that range billy except i'd add KK + AA, although i'd expect him to reraise the flop with either of these and maybe JJ but his river action means i wouldn't rule out either. In hindsight maybe i should have checked the turn but i wanted to take the option of floating away from him whilst also appearing really strong also to make it more likely of a checked down river. So i think betting narrows down my opponents range a lot, after all it was a big bet on the turn, i doubt many people at all will put a third of their stack in just planning to bluff the river. My thinking through the hand is firstly that i was very suspicious of his holdings because he tanked pre flop. My flop bet size was just half the pot - $12 into 24, this isn't something i do usually but as i was suspicious he had a big hand pre flop so i figured an opponent would nearly always re-raise that small looking bet on the flop wanting to get the money in with their big pair. He tanks and calls. I'm like uhhh what. So at that point i'm now considering the fact my bet looks like an inducer bet with a really strong hand so he doesn't want to build a really big pot. i.e. i'm still none the wiser. The turn is another T. My standard would be to c/c it down, but i like to take unconventional lines sometimes. In this case i make a big bet out on the turn, i wanted to appear strong to get some good information from my opponent, instead of c/c where i'd have less info on their hand. But also i didn't want to be faced with the thought that my line looks really weak with the weak flop bet, c/c turn then check river to which i often will face a big bet or shove and so what will race through my mind is that they can be doing that with a really wide range as my line looks weak. Another reason for betting out big was to try and get better hands to fold as sometimes people even with big pairs will fold to big action. The river is a terrible card in my situation. I was really expecting it to be checked down and he'd show AA or KK. For the first time through the hand my opponent doesn't tank and puts me all in. Quite a few things went through my head as i tanked on the river but i opted for the fold because i had shown relative strength pre flop and turn at least and yet wasn't all that deterred to go with his hand particularly putting another $55 in on the river. Another main reason as Sean touches on - i've reviewed so many sessions in the past where i see i've made crying calls losing $30, 40, 50 here and there and it really accumulates over the days weeks and months so i went for the lower variance option of 'if in doubt, fold' because simply i couldn't put him on enough of a range that i beat to make a justified call. Having considered everything lots i agree that it definitely looks like i'm beat here by most likely a T, although at the time i wasn't sure and thought he might be making a move. I think i get a lot of information from my turn bet in a situation where people will mostly make a standard check and so won't have too much information on their opponents hand.

[deadlydaveLDN]

Re: Answers on a postcard. What are his 4bet and fold to pre flop 3bet stats?

[Nade]

Re: Answers on a postcard. Oops that was long. Basically for the passing viewer: Folded because i'm a nit/couldn't put him on a hand i beat. In hindsight i think they had a T. :). 4bet stats and fold to 3bet i don't have atm, need to go out now so can't look them up.

[billy the punter]

Re: Answers on a postcard.

The turn is another T. My standard would be to c/c it down, but i like to take unconventional lines sometimes. In this case i make a big bet out on the turn, i wanted to appear strong to get some good information from my opponent, instead of c/c where i'd have less info on their hand. But also i didn't want to be faced with the thought that my line looks really weak with the weak flop bet, c/c turn then check river to which i often will face a big bet or shove and so what will race through my mind is that they can be doing that with a really wide range as my line looks weak. Another reason for betting out big was to try and get better hands to fold as sometimes people even with big pairs will fold to big action. The river is a terrible card in my situation. I was really expecting it to be checked down and he'd show AA or KK. For the first time through the hand my opponent doesn't tank and puts me all in. Quite a few things went through my head as i tanked on the river but i opted for the fold because i had shown relative strength pre flop and turn at least and yet wasn't all that deterred to go with his hand particularly putting another $55 in on the river. Another main reason as Sean touches on - i've reviewed so many sessions in the past where i see i've made crying calls losing $30, 40, 50 here and there and it really accumulates over the days weeks and months so i went for the lower variance option of 'if in doubt, fold' because simply i couldn't put him on enough of a range that i beat to make a justified call. Having considered everything lots i agree that it definitely looks like i'm beat here by most likely a T, although at the time i wasn't sure and thought he might be making a move. I think i get a lot of information from my turn bet in a situation where people will mostly make a standard check and so won't have too much information on their opponents hand.

The thing is once you bet the turn, a call from him can now means: trips, house, draw, two pair A check, check from him means: trips, house, draw, JJ, two pair A check, bet from him means: trips, house, draw JJ, two pair (although less likely to be a monster if he bet). So I don't think a bet gets you any extra info - sure you're still in the dark somewhat if you check but this way it's cheaper. I don't think a bet is getting better hands to fold. I really don't think anyone is folding KK or AA, if I've slow played AA or KK I'm re-shoving you on the turn as quick as can be (if I hadn't already done so on the flop). If you check and he bets turn, I'm pretty sure you're winning and I'd be reraising all in with QQ. If you check and he checks - alarm bells ring (as they should've with his call on turn) and then you can check/call on the river. He'd put a milky bet in probably, around the size of your turn bet I would imagine. You get a showdown for the same money. Some conjecture here I know but I've gone down the 'most likely' route. In the end you made the correct pass so I wouldn't dwell on this too much.

[seanfaz]

Re: Answers on a postcard. I'm going to put an interesting look on things which i'm sure many will disagree with....... You could have just called preflop. That way, you play a much smaller pot out of position, and add deception. Playing QQ and JJ in large pots out of position is arguably the hardest situation in poker. I'm sure if he folded to your raise preflop you would have been happy, and you certainly don't want action on the flop and turn. So you could have just called preflop, looking for a queen or having a deceptive overpair to c/r with on a ten high board. I'm not recommending this play, nor would i have played the hand the same way (i don't think), but i'm just saying that by playing it this way would minimise losses as you keep the pot small out of position. An extra benefit would be that you could get away with floating alot more if you show down, as observant opponents will see that you only flat-called with QQ. Any thoughts?

[AlunB]

Re: Answers on a postcard. Nade. What do you make of the sizing and speed of his river bet? Does that not make you a bit suspicious? That said it's hard to see him calling with a draw or air on the turn unless you two had a really weird dynamic that session. More importantly why are you still at that table if there is a good reg with position on you?

[billy the punter]

Re: Answers on a postcard.

I'm going to put an interesting look on things which i'm sure many will disagree with....... You could have just called preflop. That way, you play a much smaller pot out of position, and add deception. Playing QQ and JJ in large pots out of position is arguably the hardest situation in poker. I'm sure if he folded to your raise preflop you would have been happy, and you certainly don't want action on the flop and turn. So you could have just called preflop, looking for a queen or having a deceptive overpair to c/r with on a ten high board. I'm not recommending this play, nor would i have played the hand the same way (i don't think), but i'm just saying that by playing it this way would minimise losses as you keep the pot small out of position. An extra benefit would be that you could get away with floating alot more if you show down, as observant opponents will see that you only flat-called with QQ. Any thoughts?

I probably slow play big pairs more than most and I wrote a piece on it for the forum before (this you replied and agreed with some of the ideas in it if memory serves). I think it's fine if it's AA or KK but I don't think QQ is strong enough to flat call with here. I'm all for playing unothordox with the hand though. I may really overbet my reraise pre. Or check raise all-in on the flop. Like you say it's hard to play OOP, especially how this hand panned out - you really don't want end up the position Nade found himself. It was a horrible situation, a small bet to call, but probably a waste of $55. All in all, although he could've played it differently, he made the correct fold in the end.

[billy the punter]

Re: Answers on a postcard.

Nade. What do you make of the sizing and speed of his river bet? Does that not make you a bit suspicious? That said it's hard to see him calling with a draw or air on the turn unless you two had a really weird dynamic that session. More importantly why are you still at that table if there is a good reg with position on you?

$55 was all he could bet, that is all Nade had left. Had Nade had $200 and he bet $55 I would still pass - it would then smell of a milk to me. The speed of the bet is the only niggling doubt I have, it is suspicious but not enough for me to ignore all the other points which point to him having a hand.

[AlunB]

Re: Answers on a postcard. I know that. But $55 is a half pot bet there unless my insta-maths is rubbish. He could have bet less, especially if he was hoping for a crying call. It's a 55 BB bet. It's not a small bet. Although I don't think it's an odd bet size bearing in mind the previous action and the pot size. But if you had the nuts would you not at least pause to think of the bet size most likely to be called?

[seanfaz]

Re: Answers on a postcard. Yeah billy thats true, it isn't strong enough to slowplay, but thats not necessarily the only benefit of playing it that way. Anyway, its just another option, and yeah the fold in the end was correct which is what matters here at the end of the day. Nade, yes a smaller bet would get called for sure, but there is no reason to think that, after re-raising pre-flop, betting the flop and the turn, Nade wouldn't call the $55 if he would call $20 or $30 really

[billy the punter]

Re: Answers on a postcard.

I know that. But $55 is a half pot bet there unless my insta-maths is rubbish. He could have bet less' date=' especially if he was hoping for a crying call. It's a 55 BB bet. It's not a small bet. Although I don't think it's an odd bet size bearing in mind the previous action and the pot size. But if you had the nuts would you not at least pause to think of the bet size most likely to be called?[/quote'] Firstly I don't think it's a big bet - it's only half the pot. I think, given that how the hand was played out, he expected Nade to put his final $55 in. Most would in this instance, at this level. This also could be the reason why there was no "acting" dwell up prior to the bet. I think he thought he must get called, so dramatics and intracies were simply not needed. I do understand where you are coming from, but I think in this instance we could be looking too much into such things. I think there are other more important facts which, like I said already, lead me to think he does have it. Although Occam's Razor isn't always the correct principle in poker - it is more so at this level.

[AlunB]

Re: Answers on a postcard. I have to admit I'm just interested in opinions as I like to see how people think about poker and the kind of strategy questions people ask themselves and want answered from the mag perspective. I agree with Sean that why not bet $55 as if you are going to call $30 you are probably going to call $55. That said it's still more than half a buy-in. I was thinking the opposite on the timing though Billy. I meant more that people tend to act quite quickly when bluffing on the river. Oh and I also agree that I am running the risk of overanalysing it here!! :)

[billy the punter]

Re: Answers on a postcard.

I have to admit I'm just interested in opinions as I like to see how people think about poker and the kind of strategy questions people ask themselves and want answered from the mag perspective. I agree with Sean that why not bet $55 as if you are going to call $30 you are probably going to call $55. That said it's still more than half a buy-in. I was thinking the opposite on the timing though Billy. I meant more that people tend to act quite quickly when bluffing on the river. Oh and I also agree that I am running the risk of overanalysing it here!! :)

Yes I know, I think the same. In my post above I meant that a quick bet may not be a bluff in this instance - it could mean a hand due to him thinking that a bet would automaitcally be called anyway. He probably thought a call was a cert and acting weak (dwelling) was not needed. If that makes sense.

[Nade]

Re: Answers on a postcard. A lot of really really good strat. talk in here which is good to see. Firstly for Dave - his fold to 3bet % is 60, his 4bet % is 0 after 367 hands.

The thing is once you bet the turn, a call from him can now means: trips, house, draw, two pair A check, check from him means: trips, house, draw, JJ, two pair A check, bet from him means: trips, house, draw JJ, two pair (although less likely to be a monster if he bet). So I don't think a bet gets you any extra info - sure you're still in the dark somewhat if you check but this way it's cheaper.

That's a really good way of illustrating a point. Only thing i dispute a bit is a bet by them on the turn wouldn't be a bluff at all. People will often call a flop bet to float the turn if checked to them even if it pairs the board as they will have it in their mind to float so they'll go with it at this level. So the possibility of them bluffing should be factored in and that's why a check/call line is usually normal on this turn. Lets say for arguments sake the board comes out turn:T river:2 and we check/call down, i think it will cost us $40+ overall and therefore a bit more expensive. We're still getting beat by any ten but on this river people will vbet a larger range including smaller pairs and air so you're right c/c down is a better line for value.

Nade. What do you make of the sizing and speed of his river bet? Does that not make you a bit suspicious? That said it's hard to see him calling with a draw or air on the turn unless you two had a really weird dynamic that session. More importantly why are you still at that table if there is a good reg with position on you?

I think his river bet is totally standard as i'd expect him to either check or put me all in in that spot with his entire range so i didn't think about the bet size. This is another good reason for betting the turn - it makes it look like i i'm happy and want to get all the money in so people recognising this will fold the turn or as i said earlier will usually check behind the river. So for him be happy getting it in on the turn and river it all indicates a very big hand. Re. the reg - i was on his left and so had position on him except when in the blinds. It's totally impossible on FTP to get tables with no regs on at all, most have 2 or 3, not all of them that good, but solid abc regs nonetheless and it's good to play with the more solid players regularly to improve my game as opposed to playing spew monkeys who just donate to us with no thought.

I think, given that how the hand was played out, he expected Nade to put his final $55 in. Most would in this instance, at this level. This also could be the reason why there was no "acting" dwell up prior to the bet. I think he thought he must get called, so dramatics and intracies were simply not needed.

I definitely think this is the case and is something i deleted from my long first post to make it shorter (yes deleted things from that post :lol) Really good discussion so far, at the moment i am siding with the check call down approach as getting most value from the situation but i think my bet out has a lot of advantages too and it's good to mix things up, for example i'd bet out sometimes in that spot with a T too.

[Thommo85]

Re: Answers on a postcard. There's always the possibility that your opponent is putting you on a hand such as AK/AQ, I guess it depends on how you've been playing before this hand. However the check on the river and the betting pattern could suggest that you've tried to have a stab at the pot on the flop and the turn, with the check the opponent seeks weakness and pushes this weakness to the max by setting you all in.

[seanfaz]

Re: Answers on a postcard.

There's always the possibility that your opponent is putting you on a hand such as AK/AQ' date=' I guess it depends on how you've been playing before this hand. However the check on the river and the betting pattern could suggest that you've tried to have a stab at the pot on the flop and the turn, with the check the opponent seeks weakness and pushes this weakness to the max by setting you all in.[/quote'] I really can't see that. If he is putting him on AK/AQ, even after the turn bet, what has he been calling with? If he puts him on AK, why is he shoving that river - AK is not calling $55. So that would be a pure bluff, and i cant see him floating big bets on the flop AND the turn.

[billy the punter]

Re: Answers on a postcard.

I really can't see that. If he is putting him on AK/AQ' date=' even after the turn bet, what has he been calling with? If he puts him on AK, why is he shoving that river - AK is not calling $55. So that would be a pure bluff, [b']and i cant see him floating big bets on the flop AND the turn.

With deeper stacks it's a distinct possiblity, but in this instance with little money left, I agree - definitely not.

[AlunB]

Re: Answers on a postcard. With Nade's permission I used this hand for the Pro Views feature in the April issue of InsidePoker. It's not out until March 19th, but I thought I would give you a sneak preview of John Tabatabai's analysis. There are two other hands of Nade's analysed by John in the mag, but you will have to get a copy to see those I'm afraid. If anyone else is interested in having a pro take a look at some of their tricky hands then please PM me or send me an email. Analysis Below Pre-Flop I don’t personally use stats too much, but from the limited knowledge I have 22/18 doesn’t give away too much info. His range for flat-calling a big blind that is re-raising a button depends more on your image on the table. Given the level we are playing at it is unlikely he is playing tricky with big pair or A-K. It is most likely he is playing his position with a variety of hands from pocket pairs to suited connectors. The Flop You have an overpair on a good dry board, so you should continuation bet to build the pot and extract value while having the best hand. The pot is $24 so you should generally look to bet around $18, which is two thirds of the pot. Betting half the pot is a bit too small and skews your hand range for the future when you miss the flop and want to bluff your opponent off of his. When the button flat calls he could have hit something or just be floating, as many online players like to do these days. It really is very dependant on your opponent and his tendencies. The Turn If you have a bad image it is good to bet here as he won’t believe you have a 10 and will call you down light. However, if you have a tight image he will probably think that you wouldn’t bet without the 10. Consequently this makes your hand look stronger than it is. I don’t think there is one right answer here. If I had a tight image I would check call. If I had a more aggressive image I would bet expecting to get looked up lighter. The River Once he flat calls the turn and the river double pairs the board it is very difficult to extract any more value by betting the river, unless you have history with this player of three-barrel bluffing him. Generally, when you check here a lot of his pocket pair type hands will check behind hoping to win at showdown. The only hands that go all-in here are slow-played tens, rivered fours or missed straight draws such as 8-9. However, at this limit I find it hard to believe we are ahead to call here now, and I think a fold is a better option.

[Nade]

Re: Answers on a postcard. This is superb thanks Alun. John is a top player so i'm excited to be involved in this and can't wait to see his thoughts :D

[Nade]

Re: Answers on a postcard.

Betting half the pot is a bit too small and skews your hand range for the future when you miss the flop and want to bluff your opponent off of his. When the button flat calls he could have hit something or just be floating, as many online players like to do these days. It really is very dependant on your opponent and his tendencies.

I think this is a v.good point from John that this can only work if i'm the type to bet half pot as a bluff in this spot. I wouldn't and barely anyone else would either so an opponent will nearly always be suspicious of the bet and call or fold and only re-raise with really strong hands as it does look like an inducer bet and that's exactly what it was. John would have played the hand pretty standard like we've discussed throughout coming to the same idea that playing it standard would be best.