Flop => flat or jam better vs range polarised between Qx + and FDs ?
Turn => as played call given villain's range has a lot of dominated FDs that we're ahead of ?
No Limit Holdem Tournament • 2 Players
$14.69+$0.31
Hand converted by the official HUSNG.com hand converter
| BB | iHITonTHEriv | 490 | |
| SB | Hero | 510 |
Effective Stacks: 25bb
Blinds 10/20
Pre-Flop (30, 2 players)
Hero is SB
Hero raises to 40, iHITonTHEriv calls 20
Flop (80, 2 players)
iHITonTHEriv checks, Hero bets 40, iHITonTHEriv raises to 120, Hero calls 80
Turn (320, 2 players)
iHITonTHEriv goes all-in 330, Hero calls 330
River (980, 2 players, 1 all-in)
Final Pot: 980
iHITonTHEriv shows a pair of Queens
Hero shows high card Ace
iHITonTHEriv wins 980 ( won +490 )
Hero lost -490
Since you have almost no FE I think a call is good. I would suggest to calculate the different expectations. And try to check how much FE you need to make a jam better. As for the turn, flush draws are a small percentage of his range, must be a fold on the turn.
LVT
why wouldn't there be any FE on the flop for shoving over his CR?
CR (semi)bluff is a damn well possibility on that board...
CR could be a Q protecting, or any 6 or 8, any straightdraw, flushdraw (although low probability since you have 2 blockers)
but i agree that there are arguments pro shove and pro call on the flop ...
you can never ever call the turn as played...
or shove flop, or callflop+fold turn
As played, if I flat the flop on the premise that I'm ahead of the FDs in his range => I'm still ahead of them on the turn.
Unless villain partitions his turn 2barrel (after c/r NAI flop) into:
Qx => bet
FD => check
Then I'm still ahead and have to call the turn.
With the benefit of hindsight the c/r to 120 is pretty value oriented sizing.
Regardless, I might have some FE in a readless context, so I think I have to jam over the c/r on the flop.
I think that even if he plays every single semibluff type hand he can have like this , which i dont think he does, I still dont think you can call turn..
I mean on this board ,I dont think he have enough pure bluffs compared to the valuepart of his range for you to call.
I think that even if he plays every single semibluff type hand he can have like this , which i dont think he does, I still dont think you can call turn..
I mean on this board ,I dont think he have enough pure bluffs compared to the valuepart of his range for you to call.
*deleted (posted twice)
I was talking to another member about this spot and he made a good point.
Jamming the flop is only profitable if we have have fold equity.
c/r to 120 here within the population are generally transparent "I'm ready to get all in now" signals.
There is, of course, the possibility that villain just sizes his c/r to 120 at this stack depth but I think the general hyper population sizes their NAI bluffs smaller. Additionally, quite a few would c/r semi-bluff jam their FDs.
The net effect is, on average we are up against Qx + in this spot, with nearly zero fold equity, more often that we would be if villain had a more balanced c/r to 120 size on this board.
As such, we expect a flat will be slightly better than jamming on the flop without reads that villain deviates from the population tendency.
When we get jammed on the turn for about a pot size bet => 330 into 320, we are layed 330 / 980 = 34% pot odds.
We have the nut FD + an overcard, giving us likely 12 outs.
We have about 24% equity.
If we are always up against Qx + here (which I think some people would argue we are) then we have to fold because we don't have correct pot odds to call. (24 < 34)
If he has any FDs or complete bluffs, we are probably about a 90/10 favorite to win the hand (note that in this case his semi-bluffed FDs are bluffs anyway because we have him dominated).
So how often does he have to be taking this line with [FDs + bluffs] that we would be correct to call?
Given if we are behind we estimate we have 24% equity.
And if we are ahead we have about 90% equity in the hand.
We have to call 330, for our equity share of a 980 pot.
Let the amount of bluffs (incl dominated semibluffed FDs) in villain's range be 'x'.
Therefore his value holdings are (1-x).
Our equity is therefore, e = x*0.9 + (1-x)*0.24 = 0.9x + 0.24 - 0.24x = 0.66x + 0.24
We can calculate the expectation of calling the turn:
EV(call) = e * 980 - 330 = (0.66x + 0.24)*980 - 330 = 646.8x - 94.8
We are indifferent between calling and folding when EV(call) = 0, and can solve for x to find breakeven villain bluff frequency
646.8x - 94.8 = 0
x = 94.8 / 646.8 = 14.7% ~ 15%
=> Villain has to be taking this line > 15% of the time with [bluffs+FDs], in order for us to call the turn
I got owned in this spot, largely because I thought villain was less likely to jam the turn with a strong value hand than to make a smaller bet that was more likely to be called. In my mind his range had enough semi-bluffed FDs that a call would be profitable (given I know I need 33% equity vs his range to call a pot size bet).
Based on my discussion with the member that reignited my interest in this hand, I think I overestimated the amount of FDs in villain's range when I made the decision at the table on the fly.
I'm not on my computer that has PPT on it, so I can't explore the ratio of FDs to Qx that an OOP calling range + c/r range would have in it.
But we could measure that ratio against the calculated 15% to see whether the call is good or not in a readless context.
The critical factor remains though => if villain doesn't take this line (including flop sizing) with any bluffs/semi-bluffs, then the turn is an easy fold.
What do you think about this line in general?
Obvious population value line? Or are there often bluffs/semi-bluffs in villain's range here?