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?

AAQ7 double suited aces - simple hand

reedmylipsreedmylips Posts: 1,145Subscriber
Game is just starting (5/5 half PLO half BigO home game in Portland), six handed. I bought in for $500, everyone bought in for somewhere between $500-$1,000. First round is PLO.

First hand, UTG opens to $20, HJ calls, CO calls, I look down at my button hand at AAQ7, double suited to the aces in hearts and diamonds, and raise to $80. Blinds fold, PFR calls, as do the field callers. Pot is $325 after the rake.

Flop comes 553 with two clubs and one spade. Checks to me. I have $420 left.

1) What is my play on this board? Check back and fold to a turn bet? Bet/fold? Bet/call off? Check back and call or raise turn? It seems like a pretty safe board for my hand, but there are not a lot of turn cards I like on the turn(a red T?).

2) Since nobody is folding pre-flop to my 3-bet, and my hand makes nutty hands and nutty draws when it connects, should I be over-calling a raise with this hand instead of 3-betting pre-flop?

Thanks for your help.

Chris

Comments

  • AesahAesah Posts: 1,048Pro
    definitely raise more preflop. $100 is better for your SPR

    As played, I would probably bet $100, without reads folding to a c/r from anyone except possibly CO
  • chilidog Posts: 2,427Subscriber
    Don-
    U don't think 3betting to $80 and then cbetting $100 into 4 people screams weakness? I know if I saw that cbet I might have to c/ship on general principal if I had an equity whatsoever. That seems like a super exploitable sizing (or are you trying to induce to snap?). Betting $160 I think will generate more honest reactions.
  • reedmylipsreedmylips Posts: 1,145Subscriber
    chilidog said

    Don-
    U don't think 3betting to $80 and then cbetting $100 into 4 people screams weakness? I know if I saw that cbet I might have to c/ship on general principal if I had an equity whatsoever. That seems like a super exploitable sizing (or are you trying to induce to snap?). Betting $160 I think will generate more honest reactions.
    This is kinda what I thought, that c-betting really small like to $100 would look uber-weak, and that if the shoes were reversed, I might just check/pot against that kind of bet if I was one of the field callers.

    As played, I c-bet to $200, got raised AI, and called off my last $220 getting 3.5-1. He showed up with a monster (5433) and I was drawing to 2 ace outs.

    sigh - I still have a lot to learn.
  • AesahAesah Posts: 1,048Pro
    what definition are you using for exploitable? a couple other questions to consider before you answer that:

    1) does how a betsize "look" (i.e., you said it screams weakness) affect how exploitable it is
    2) can a betsize being more exploitable still be more +EV
  • AesahAesah Posts: 1,048Pro
    him having a full house and "showed up with a monster" doesn't even matter, if he has any 5xxx hand (there are 12 out of 45 unknown cards, so if the distribution is completely random there's roughly a 50% chance someone has a 5. of course a 5 has lower weight than a random card but probably by a fairly negligible amount.) then you need to be getting somewhere around 9:1 to call the c/r so you have to bet/fold unless villain would play draws or weaker overpairs like that. also pay attention to the position as people are less likely to semi-bluff with 3 other players still in the hand

    ProPokerTools Omaha Hi Simulation
    600,000 trials (Randomized)
    board: 5spade5club3spade
    5 90.89%
    adahqd7h 9.11%

    ~~~~~~~~~
    chilidog said
    I know if I saw that cbet I might have to c/ship on general principal if I had an equity whatsoever. That seems like a super exploitable sizing
    Do you think betting $100 instead of $160 is more "super exploitable" than c/r'ing all your "any equity whatsoever" hands against a live 3-bet range which probably has alot of AAxx hands?
  • chilidog Posts: 2,427Subscriber
    Aesah said

    what definition are you using for exploitable? a couple other questions to consider before you answer that:

    1) does how a betsize "look" (i.e., you said it screams weakness) affect how exploitable it is
    2) can a betsize being more exploitable still be more +EV
    exploitable: acting in direct correlation with the strength of one's precise holdings. i.e., checking misses, betting strongly on strong fit boards, betting weakly on weak fit boards, etc.

    1) depending on your level of trickiness vs. ABC-ness, most live players generally bet size in relation to the strength of their hand. so yes, if hero cbets small after 3betting pre in a live plo game, it appears weak (exactly like hero's exact hand: AAxx). so facing a cbet of $100, some players might be encouraged to try to take the pot down with a light c/r, and some may not. i think the likelihood of a light c/r is cut back significantly with a cbet of $160 vs. $100.

    2) yes, in many situations.
  • chilidog Posts: 2,427Subscriber
    Aesah said

    Do you think betting $100 instead of $160 is more "super exploitable" than c/r'ing all your "any equity whatsoever" hands against a live 3-bet range which probably has alot of AAxx hands?
    most players with AAxx that missed the flop (such as in this thread) are probably going to bet/fold or check/fold the flop. i think i would just check behind and fold to a bet -- almost nobody playing live plo has wheel cards in their 3betting range.

    so yes, i think betting $100 is pretty easy to take advantage of, while c/r'ing any equity is much tougher to take advantage of. i know i would have a hard time calling off my stack with unimproved AAxx with no draws vs. a field of 3 other players, especially when my range looks exactly like what my actual holdings are.

    but maybe you could explain the basis of your suggestion to cbet small?
  • AesahAesah Posts: 1,048Pro
    chilidog said i know i would have a hard time calling off my stack with unimproved AAxx with no draws vs. a field of 3 other players
    can you explain what you mean by "vs. a field of3 other players". you *never* have to call a c/r with any players left to act, and obviously if more than 1 villain is still in the hand when it's back to you it's an easy fold.

    on the contrary, you're actually protected from c/r's since *everyone else* except CO is "vs. a field of [x] other players"
    chilidog said so yes, i think betting $100 is pretty easy to take advantage of, while c/r'ing any equity is much tougher to take advantage of.
    interesting assertion. I strongly disagree- I can answer how to take advantage of the latter in 1 sentence:

    "Only bet/call with an overpair or 5xxx, check behind everything else"

    Whereas the former is quite a complex topic. How exactly would you take advantage of it? The best piece of literature I've read on it IMO is Zen Fish's 2-part article, which just scratches the surface (yes the hand is different but the concepts are quite similar): http://nutblocker.com/adjusting-to-aggressive-players-on-static-boards-part-1-by-zenfish/
  • AesahAesah Posts: 1,048Pro
    chilidog said exploitable: acting in direct correlation with the strength of one's precise holdings. i.e., checking misses, betting strongly on strong fit boards, betting weakly on weak fit boards, etc.
    ok I think I see where the confusion is. I would also bet $100 if I had AA53 here, if that clarifies things.
  • reedmylipsreedmylips Posts: 1,145Subscriber
    Aesah said

    definitely raise more preflop. $100 is better for your SPR

    As played, I would probably bet $100, without reads folding to a c/r from anyone except possibly CO
    Thanks for all the replies to this thread, everyone. Don, I'm starting to think that in my game (deep, loose), where if someone opens and two people call and that NONE of them is folding if I 3-bet, then maybe it's correct to just overcall on the button. After all, PLO is primarily a post-flop game, and if I'm not going to stack off on most boards, then why 3-bet pre-flop?

    I could see if only one person had opened and others have folded, my 3-bet with AAQ7ds virtually assures I'm getting to play a pot heads up in position with a strong holding. But with an open and two callers, and none of them folding, should I just overcall the button with any hand I intend to play so I don't bloat the pot up and can more easily fold on flops where I don't flop huge (NFD or top set in this case)?
  • AesahAesah Posts: 1,048Pro
    reedmylips: no you want to raise more since everyone else with their shitty hands will fold much more flops than you so you want their extra $20

    as a NLHE comparison, the above post reads to me exactly the same as if you know your opponent is on a draw and you have a set and you say "should I bet less so I can more easily fold if the draw comes in". Yes you won't always win but you have more equity.

    if your villains are folding hands as strong as KKxx on this board then you should stab more often with air (risking $100 to win $325 only needs to work 1/4 times even if you have 0% equity). if they're not folding KKxx, then I think it becomes obvious why you don't need NFD or top set to bet with AAxx here
  • ScottyScotty Posts: 48Subscriber
    This thread makes my head explode. Just listen to Aesah, everything he said is spot on.
Sign In or Register to comment.