Welcome.

Take a tour. Enjoy some free sample content.

How it works

Free Video: CLP Video No. 287: Home Game Bart Reviews His Splashy At $1-$3 Deep Part 2

Free Podcast: CLP Podcast No. 54: Time Warp And Turn Value
New to Crush Live Poker?

How do you usually proceed in this tricky spot?

Steve Posts: 149Subscriber
This isn't a very common spot, but when it does come up it's always tricky and potentially costly.

I'll give you an example of the situation I'm referring to.

5/5 NL game

I'm in the cutoff with Kspade9spade and I open for $20.

The button and both blinds call. Hero and the button are both pretty deep around $1,500.

The flop comes KdiamondQclubQheart

Checked to me and I bet $50. Button calls. Blinds fold.

Turn is Qspade

What's your plan for the rest of the hand?

Comments

  • DavidChan Posts: 1,208Pro
    I would tend to check this flop because we are WA/WB.

    On the turn, I would check because we are still WA/WB and checking might induce a bluff.
  • NicholasK Posts: 237Member
    David Chan said

    I would tend to check this flop because we are WA/WB.

    On the turn, I would check because we are still WA/WB and checking might induce a bluff.
    so you'd plan on check/calling the turn unless there was a read that they ha a q?
  • DavidChan Posts: 1,208Pro
    Based on the flop action, Villain on BTN is likely to have Kx/JT/Qx. Why? Well, Villain called our c-bet with 2 guys behind him, Villain has to have something decent or good. He wouldn't call a gutshot or a pocket pair with 2 guys to act behind him.

    On the turn, JT isn't going to call a bet. Kx is chopping with us. So there are no worse hands that can give us action on a turn value bet. Therefore, a turn check is definitely best.
  • NicholasK Posts: 237Member
    David Chan said

    Based on the flop action, Villain on BTN is likely to have Kx/JT/Qx. Why? Well, Villain called our c-bet with 2 guys behind him, Villain has to have something decent or good. He wouldn't call a gutshot or a pocket pair with 2 guys to act behind him.

    On the turn, JT isn't going to call a bet. Kx is chopping with us. So there are no worse hands that can give us action on a turn value bet. Therefore, a turn check is definitely best.
    what I was asking is what is your plan when the V bets the turn
  • DavidChan Posts: 1,208Pro
    Check/evaluate turn. Consider folding if Villain bets really big on turn or river because we are most likely chopping at best unless Villain is a bluff monkey.
  • ThatOtherJeremy Posts: 314Member
    Im definitely checking the turn. This is a case where you are clearly never getting value from worse. I think the flop c-bet is ok, but once you are flatted by the button you should probably be shutting down for the most part. AJ would probably be the very best you could hope to be up against, and that isn't likely given V isn't closing the action.

    I would probably just fold this hand if V bets turn, there's just not much reason to call the turn if you feel like you are usually going to be facing a river bet. Its really hard to see him checking back the turn with a Q. If he does check the turn, you can think about check/calling a small river bet that doesn't bring in the straight
  • Steve Posts: 149Subscriber
    I ended up betting the flop thinking I could get called by JT or possibly even AJ or AT, but I do see the merits of checking the flop as well.

    As the hand played out, I did check the turn realizing I'm not getting called by worse. The button bet $115 and I called.

    On the river, I checked-called a $215 bet and I ended up chopping the pot with the button, as we both had Kings.

    After the hand was over, I couldn't help but notice that I risked a lot of money for very little reward. I figured I played it wrong, but wasn't sure where I should deviate from what I did.
  • OminousCowOminousCow Posts: 702Subscriber
    David, what do you think of triple barreling with very large sizing to rep KK, AA, or a Q with the goal of getting chops to fold?
  • DavidChan Posts: 1,208Pro
    Live NLHE is a lot like playing tennis. At all levels, avoiding unforced errors is much more important than hitting winners. Even at the professional level, most tennis matches are lost by the person who makes more unforced errors -- they are NOT won by the person who hits the most winners. At the amateur level, tennis matches are always won by the players who are best at avoiding hitting the ball out of bounds/Into the net.

    Back to live NLHE. Trying to triple barrel someone off a Kx chop in this hand is just like a reckless tennis player trying to hit a perfect shot down the line to win the rally in one stroke instead of just focusing on hitting a series of good shots to eventually win the rally against a bad tennis player who is likely to hit the ball into the net soon anyway. In the first place, the original c-bet is a really bad bet because it is way too thin. It is really hard for us to get called by worse hands more than 50% of the time when we c-bet K9 into KQQr in a 4-way flop.
    Compounding that fundamental mistake by attempting a fancy play triple barrel against mostly bad players at the live 5/5 NL level is lighting money on fire. Most of them won't fold a Kx chop very often anyways. By going for the triple barrel here against an uncapped range (Villain can easily have Qx quads), we will end up risking a very large proportion of our stack to win a relatively small amount of money.
    Cliff Notes: C-betting this flop is bad. Triple barreling this board is even worse.
  • Steve Posts: 149Subscriber
    David, how would things change if I had a stronger King? KJ or AK, perhaps.

    I agree that triple barreling at this level is bad news.
  • ThatOtherJeremy Posts: 314Member
    David,

    So are we ch/ca the flop and ch/folding the turn? I see how razor thin a cbet would be but I guess I also think there are so many players that try to steal as the action closer when the PFr shows weakness...your thoughts?
  • nahcretep Posts: 108Subscriber
    HI David,
    you mention not value betting when WAWB, what about hand such as AK on a A72 rainbow board? or when we have QQ and the board comes K72?
    I guess I am little confuse about combining the betbetbet/fold concept and the WAWB concept ( especially with C-bets ), does it mean when we don't hit nutty hand, we are not betting? when we bet, its always for value or bluff/semi bluff, and when we check we always have mid strength hands?

    I kind of agree with jeremy that we often get bluff off on later streets if we show weakness, are we essentially playing WAWB as bluff catchers or let player value own them selfs?
  • ThatOtherJeremy Posts: 314Member
    nahcretep said

    HI David,
    you mention not value betting when WAWB, what about hand such as AK on a A72 rainbow board? or when we have QQ and the board comes K72?
    I guess I am little confuse about combining the BBB concept and the WAWB concept ( especially with C-bets ), does it mean when we don't hit nutty hand, we are not betting? when we bet, its always for value or bluff/semi bluff, and when we check we always have mid strength hands?
    Im not David, but I think I can clarify this issue well enough. We value bet to extract from all of the worse hands than ours. With AK, on a board of A72 rainbow, we are not inherently way ahead/way behind. The reason is that when we bet, we will be getting value from MANY hands that are worse than ours (JJ-KK, A10-AQ, all suited A-rag, and probably one street from 99-1010...) that wont fold the flop to a single bet dynamic. WAWB concept is a function of both board texture and actions within the hand. In the case of this thread, David correctly surmises that when we bet K9 on a flop of KQQ rainbow, into *3* people, we wont be getting value from hands *worse* than ours frequently enough to make the bet profitable. We are WAWB because specifically:

    *players with Ks will always call us. The paired flop gives us kicker problems where we are likely chopping with another player with K. We cannot bet to chop.
    *players with Qs will always call, and sometimes raise, us.
    *players with AJ, J10, A10 will very infrequently call us, and (almost) never raise us

    In all cases, we can only hope to win a small amount against the hands we are ahead of, but we can lose substantially more to the hands that have us beat.

    Its just learning to see the board and actions and evaluate them all as a function of our hand strength before betting...its not about being nutted, its identifying what hands are going to call us relative to the board and if we can win against those hands enough to justify betting
  • NicholasK Posts: 237Member
    nahcretep said

    HI David,
    you mention not value betting when WAWB, what about hand such as AK on a A72 rainbow board? or when we have QQ and the board comes K72?
    I guess I am little confuse about combining the betbetbet/fold concept and the WAWB concept ( especially with C-bets ), does it mean when we don't hit nutty hand, we are not betting? when we bet, its always for value or bluff/semi bluff, and when we check we always have mid strength hands?

    I kind of agree with jeremy that we often get bluff off on later streets if we show weakness, are we essentially playing WAWB as bluff catchers or let player value own them selfs?
    I hope I'm not stepping out of line here to say that we're not necessarily WAWB on flops like A72 or K72. C-betting is no secret to anyone playing poker these days and you're likely to get value from a flop bet from mid pair and pp in these spots. It would be a mistake to not try for value when it's there.
Sign In or Register to comment.