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?

overplay?

500cap2/5nl 285 effective hero covers
Limp pot no reads on Villian

Hero in the Bb (6s7s)checks option 6ways to the flop
Flop(30) As Ts Js
Hero leads 20 and folds to Villian in mp2 who calls20
Turn(70) 9d hero checks villian bets 45
Hero raises to 105 Villian calls
River(280) 4c hero bets 125 villian shoves for 30 more and tables nut flush Ks8s thoughts?

Comments

  • dpbuckdpbuck Posts: 2,024Subscriber
    Only mistake I see is not open-shoving the river. BVB.
  • FuzzyDunlop Posts: 139Subscriber
    Definitely continue to lead on turn as you'll be called by plenty of worse hands. You lose so much value as an unknown villain is checking back so frequently, not to mention potentially giving a free card to a bigger spade.

    At that stack depth though, the money is always going in with each of you having flopped a flush.
  • beauregard Posts: 1,592Subscriber
    dpbuck said:
    Only mistake I see is not open-shoving the river. BVB.
    really?
    in a limped pot...
    hero bets flushed board and gets called.
    hero check/raises flushed board and gets called.
    and somehow we think that 6 7 is the nuts here?
    (does the saying, "don't go broke in a limped pot" have any significance here?)

    i'm not saying I'm folding... necessarily... but when the board is: A J T 9 4
    what in world do we think V is calling, betting or shoving with?
    2 4?

    in our games, only KXss or QXss is ever bold enough to be betting/ shoving the river.
    here, K X, Q X, 9 X and 8 X have us crushed.

    combo wise - there are as many hands that beat us as we beat.
    which then means we have to go with our live reads...
    would you ever expect V to show aggression on the river with a smaller flush?
    i wouldn't.

    I like the flop bet. and think i would bet the turn - and not get so "tricky/trappy"
    (1/2-2/3 pot in case V was chasing with 2-pair, a set, just the naked K or has a SD)
    on the river, i probably bet 1/2 pot again...
    do I call a shove?
    depends on my image and the V's image (hands that he's shown down)

    not playing it that way is the mistake I see....
  • dpbuckdpbuck Posts: 2,024Subscriber
    Less than 60 BBs deep, how can you think about folding readless? 2P, straights, sets, and lower flushes are all out there. Yes, by the time you get to the river you'be got to start thinking you're beat, but at that point you're getting over 3:1 on your money.

    Hand is totally different if we're even at 100 BB deep, but shortstacked and readless, how do we ever get away from this? We lead flop and get called. Yeah, maybe we should lead turn rather than checkraise. Say we get raised there - SPR is less than 1. You're folding a flopped flush to a single raise against an unknown shortstack at 2/5?
  • beauregard Posts: 1,592Subscriber
    I think the check/raise is too much "fancy play"
    first i hate the raise sizing - second, it's usually WA/WB

    had we just played the hand straight-forward, we could be more certain that V has a bigger flush

    playing against an unknown/readless makes it more likely that V is playing ABC - plus since he's short-stacked, we can feel confident that on the river - he ain't shoving with just a naked Ace in his hand.

    I think SWJM spends too much time on his phone (posting hands) and not enough time getting reads/tells on players. even "readless" you can gauge an opponent on his timing tell and how he handles his chips. These little things or even what hands he's shown down go a long way to make a generic V somebody that you can gauge what he's capable of doing.

    say we bet 45 and V shoves on turn. I'm folding.
    say we bet 45 on turn and V calls. I might check/fold on river.

    One thing that Bart is very correct about is that in LLNL, folks just don't bluff enough.
    So if V is shoving at any point, I'm folding.

    I don't know why we would think that our baby flush is good on the river. I also don't see why I'm going for stacks here. (Are players in your games so stubborn/dense that they would call off 60bb in a 2/5 game with 2-pair+ on a flushed board at the river?)

    Being that we're oop, it's obvious that we're not bluffing. With the board being a flush - unless we're retarded - it's obvious that we have a flush. So with V calling, it's obvious that he's either drawing to a bigger flush or has one.
    we bet 45 on turn, V calls. (V now has 220 behind)
    we bet 95 on river and fold to V's shove.
    (Lately, a HUGE factor in my current winrate is not the money I win in big hands - but the money I save by making smart laydowns.)

    AP, we should check/fold the river. We ain't bluffing. V ain't bluffing. And nobody shoves the river in position with 5 4.
  • AJD804AJD804 Posts: 184Subscriber
    beauregard said:
    dpbuck said:
    Only mistake I see is not open-shoving the river. BVB.
    really?
    in a limped pot...
    hero bets flushed board and gets called.
    hero check/raises flushed board and gets called.
    and somehow we think that 6 7 is the nuts here?
    (does the saying, "don't go broke in a limped pot" have any significance here?)

    i'm not saying I'm folding... necessarily... but when the board is: A J T 9 4
    what in world do we think V is calling, betting or shoving with?
    2 4?

    in our games, only KXss or QXss is ever bold enough to be betting/ shoving the river.
    here, K X, Q X, 9 X and 8 X have us crushed.

    combo wise - there are as many hands that beat us as we beat.
    which then means we have to go with our live reads...
    would you ever expect V to show aggression on the river with a smaller flush?
    i wouldn't.

    I like the flop bet. and think i would bet the turn - and not get so "tricky/trappy"
    (1/2-2/3 pot in case V was chasing with 2-pair, a set, just the naked K or has a SD)
    on the river, i probably bet 1/2 pot again...
    do I call a shove?
    depends on my image and the V's image (hands that he's shown down)

    not playing it that way is the mistake I see....
    Starting the hand less that 60 BBs deep, Im only getting away from this hand against the nittiest of players. On that flop there is plenty that will call us that we are beating.

    We are readless so I wont include every possible hand, but here are just a few of the hands that would call a check raise of that size on the turn. KQ, JT, AT, AJ, K x, Q x. And that doesnt take in the small possibility that he limped a big PP if he was first one in, because we dont know that so I wont count it.

    There are far less hands that beat us, K8ss+, Q8ss+, 98ss, and maybe 85ss. Since we have the 67, it means there are far less flush combos out there for the villain to have. I cant in any way seriously consider folding here against an unknown less than 60BBs deep.

    Now I do agree that the check raise was a bit unnecessary here and we lose too much value against alot of those hands that I mentioned earlier. But there is no way it is a WA/WB situation. As for not going broke in a limped pot, no offense intended here, but I always thought that was a silly saying.
  • chilidog Posts: 2,427Subscriber
    Beau-
    I think I'm betting almost all flushes on the river if checked to.
  • beauregard Posts: 1,592Subscriber
    AJD804 said:

    Starting the hand less that 60 BBs deep, Im only getting away from this hand against the nittiest of players. On that flop there is plenty that will call us that we are beating.
    agreed.
    AJD804 said:
    We are readless so I wont include every possible hand, but here are just a few of the hands that would call a check raise of that size on the turn. KQ, JT, AT, AJ, K x, Q x. And that doesnt take in the small possibility that he limped a big PP if he was first one in, because we dont know that so I wont count it.
    agreed
    AJD804 said:
    There are far less hands that beat us, K8ss+, Q8ss+, 98ss, and maybe 85ss. Since we have the 67, it means there are far less flush combos out there for the villain to have. I cant in any way seriously consider folding here against an unknown less than 60BBs deep.
    disagree!
    flop: A J T
    hero 7 6

    hands we beat:
    5 4, 5 3, 5 2, 4 3, 4 2, 3 2... 6 combos
    hands that beat us:
    K Q, K 9, K 8, K 5, K 4, K 3, K 2 (7 combos)
    and those are ONLY the K X combos!

    do this with QX, 9X AND 8X - and you'll see why I believe playing 67s so aggressive is longterm -ev.
    AJD804 said:
    Now I do agree that the check raise was a bit unnecessary here and we lose too much value against alot of those hands that I mentioned earlier. But there is no way it is a WA/WB situation. As for not going broke in a limped pot, no offense intended here, but I always thought that was a silly saying.
    In our games - if you check/raised the turn - you're typically folding out the naked K and Q
    which begs the question... why check/raise if only a higher made flushes are calling?
    we probably fold out small flushes
    so really, what does the check/raise accomplish except causing us to spew more $$?

    I just think hoping for a shove on the river is just "very optimistic"
    I think the best play is to bet flop & turn - and maybe even river... but fold to a shove.

    BTW - this "silly saying" cost Hero an extra $155... that's a 1/2 buy-in for a 1/3 game!
    You still think it's silly?
    chilidog said:
    Beau-
    I think I'm betting almost all flushes on the river if checked to.
    We're in BB - we're first to act - we don't have that luxury of seeing what V does...
  • AJD804AJD804 Posts: 184Subscriber
    I think only assigning a flush to the villain since he called that check raise is way too narrow. It was only 60 more into a pot of 220. Saying the villain would never call with KQ, AJ, AT, or JT is just wrong. You cant give him credit for limping in MP with K5ss-K2ss Q5ss-Q2ss, and then also discount the fact that he wouldnt call a small check raise with those hands plus the others I mentioned.

    The problem with the hand is the check raise. Had OP just bet out 50 Im guessing the villain would have raised, and then we could have possibly, depending on the size of the raise, released the hand.

    As for the silly saying, yes it is silly, because if instead of 67, we have Q9ss. Are you telling me that you dont go broke with Q9ss only 60 BBs deep?
  • snapper35 Posts: 243Subscriber
    Some say nothing you can do 60 BBs. Here is the Trn lead line.

    TRN(70) lead 50-now the V has 210 left!!!
    Rvr(170) Agree BEA, V dont bluff enough or for large bets.

    A shit ton of spades in V range for over calling.

    V MP2 and 6 ways to FP means 1 V is behind him too.
    V just called with baby flush or 2 pr on FP with one behind?

    The V had 2 people ahead of him limping PF with rest of table to act.
    Does he come in MP2 with AJ/A10/J10 off? Then just call that FP with one V behind?
    Few suited 2 pr hands, the greater part of his range is flushes AND then he has to bet
    2 pr or a worse flush on the rvr!

    This line on Rvr your in for 75 if you c/f and he ends up being that crazy of a player you will know in next few orbits. Then you have a read and get his stack

  • Bandgeek Posts: 140Subscriber
    I oddly find myself agreeing with beau on this one.

    Granted, with stacks this shallow, by the time we find out we're beat we're pretty well committed, but checking the turn was pretty ridiculous. What if V checks back and the 4th spade falls?

    100bbs deep or more, the don't go broke in a limped pot maxim will apply here. If you get raised or V calls a significant checkraise, we're almost always behind and should muck.
  • beauregard Posts: 1,592Subscriber
    AJD804 said:
    I think only assigning a flush to the villain since he called that check raise is way too narrow.
    agree that his range can be wide on the flop and even turn. (But note: most V's should be afraid that we've got the flush - so they should play any 2-pair, set, sd or fd more passive to our aggression.)

    and agree that by the time we can make a reasonable decision, we've got maybe 30 bbs in. but that's no reason to stack off if we can say with some certainty that we're beat.
    AJD804 said:
    As for the silly saying, yes it is silly, because if instead of 67, we have Q9ss. Are you telling me that you dont go broke with Q9ss only 60 BBs deep?
    Q 9 is the second nuts. A big difference!
    Depending on V-type, I might play it aggressive or passively.
    But in the end, I think we beat much more than we don't - so calling it off here isn't as spewy or an overplay.
Sign In or Register to comment.