Skip to forum
Notifications
Clear all

ATo in SB, flop TPTK, raised on flop, fold?

40 Posts
12 Users
3 Reactions
4,814 Views
nickycakes
Joined: 10.10.2015

I guess this is rather basic play, but it felt weird when I was playing it and wanted to make sure I wasn't doing anything wrong.

Known Players:
MP2: $5.57 - 111 bb
MP3: $6.55 - 131 bb
CO: $4.80 - 96 bb
BU: $3.63 - 73 bb
SB: $5.05 - 101 bb
BB: $5.47 - 109 bb

0.02/0.05 No Limit Hold'em (6 Handed)
Hand recorder for this hand: PokerStrategy.com SideKick 2.1.20409.2

Preflop: Hero is SB with A♦, T♦
Hero posts small blind ($0.02), BB posts big blind ($0.05), MP2 folds, MP3 calls, CO calls, BU folds, Hero raises for $0.28, 2 folds, CO calls

Flop: ($0.70 - 14 bb) T♣, 6♦, 3♣ (2 Players)
Hero bets $0.49, CO raises for $0.98, Hero ?

PF
Raise to 4BB + 2BB for the limpers from SB

Flop
Flop top pair top kicker, Bet 2/3 pot. Villain raises, I'm guessing he's either bluffing or flopped a set.


Reply
Quote
39 replies
la55i
Joined: 27.01.2013

Looks like we are beat. I don't see this usually as a bluff, most likely set or a strong draw like 4c5c.


Reply
Quote
nitrol
Joined: 24.07.2010

We can bet smaller on flop.


Reply
Quote
YohanN7
Joined: 15.06.2009

We can also bet bigger. That way the decision is easier when (and if) he raises or even only calls (we are done with the hand). To be used against somewhat tight players.

In this spot, AT through AA are usually all bluff catchers having roughly the same value. Bottom of bluff-catching range with no further info -> fold. Calling (once) a min-raise with TPTK + backdoor isn't criminal though, especially with some reads, as long as you don't go even wider. If I was IP (getting min-check-raised) I'd call and see what happens.


Reply
Quote
Dadramel
Joined: 10.08.2014

Since you have a backdoor, at least one call is required


Reply
Quote
kriko92
Joined: 16.11.2010

Fish do this with TP too often to be able to fold for that price. Call and reevaluate turn. With JJ+ we can even stack off with some information.


Reply
Quote
Lathdari
Joined: 07.10.2014

With no disrespect intended to either of you, I think you should ignore Berezovaya. No doubt he's correct from a game theoretical point of view, but you will beat NL5 quite handily by sticking to the simple rule of betting the good hands, folding the bad hands and playing draws according to the odds offered. As a rule of thumb, in the absence of reads to the contrary, a raise at NL5 (regardless of size) promises a hand better than TPTK. So you have the worse hand. The odds of making a backdoor flush are 23:1. The maximum amount you can possibly make is the $2.17 in the pot plus the $3.79 remaining in the villain's stack, which is $5.96, and you're asked to pay $0.49, so the maximum possible implied odds are 12:1 which is nowhere near good enough to call. In fact it's worse than that, because you will almost certainly have to pay to see the river and 3♦: will be a bad card for you.


Reply
Quote
Lathdari
Joined: 07.10.2014

Originally posted by kriko92
Fish do this with TP too often to be able to fold for that price. Call and reevaluate turn. With JJ+ we can even stack off with some information.

Firstly, some fish may raise TP here, but more will be calling. Secondly, why do you think SB is a fish? Thirdly, even if he can do this with TP, he can also do this with any better hand, and however you read his behaviour pre-flop, Tx can only be a small proportion of his range.


Reply
Quote
kriko92
Joined: 16.11.2010

Originally posted by Lathdari

Originally posted by kriko92
Fish do this with TP too often to be able to fold for that price. Call and reevaluate turn. With JJ+ we can even stack off with some information.

Firstly, some fish may raise TP here, but more will be calling. Secondly, why do you think SB is a fish? Thirdly, even if he can do this with TP, he can also do this with any better hand, and however you read his behaviour pre-flop, Tx can only be a small proportion of his range.

Hero is SB, we're playing against CO. Limp/calls, not full stack = fish. I agree that fish don't usually minraise TP, they just call. The thing is we don't need that to happen very often as his value range is very narrow - it's very hard to have two pairs on this board. It's good to give credit to fish and keep it simple but sometimes we can miss profitable situations that way.


Reply
Quote
Dadramel
Joined: 10.08.2014

Yea, let's fold any randomly mini raised TPTK at praiseworthy nl5. Chap, your math may be correct but you haven't taken into consideration he might have actually had lots of junk in let's call it 'range'. The vast majority of those hands are complete off the wall trush. If anyone here plays the very low stakes (2,5) you should set up the rule of circumscribed trust for your own good to avoid squawking "everytime I get mini raised at micro stakes, I simply buckle under"


Reply
Quote
CPallo
Joined: 12.04.2012

Any additional info on cut-off that could help us determine what's the best option?

I think in general when fishy opponent limps and min-raises flop, you are not facing any draws. Most likely he has a set or a slow-played overpair. If you had seen him play aggressive before, then the decision could be way different. But vs unknown this line is usually quite nuts.

So fold.


Reply
Quote
YohanN7
Joined: 15.06.2009

Originally posted by Lathdari
With no disrespect intended to either of you, I think you should ignore Berezovaya. No doubt he's correct from a game theoretical point of view, but you will beat NL5 quite handily by sticking to the simple rule of betting the good hands, folding the bad hands and playing draws according to the odds offered. As a rule of thumb, in the absence of reads to the contrary, a raise at NL5 (regardless of size) promises a hand better than TPTK. So you have the worse hand. The odds of making a backdoor flush are 23:1. The maximum amount you can possibly make is the $2.17 in the pot plus the $3.79 remaining in the villain's stack, which is $5.96, and you're asked to pay $0.49, so the maximum possible implied odds are 12:1 which is nowhere near good enough to call. In fact it's worse than that, because you will almost certainly have to pay to see the river and 3♦: will be a bad card for you.

No, that reasoning is incorrect. You don't call because you have a backdoor. You would call because you have TPTK + a backdoor, turning a marginal fold into a marginal call. The BDFD, in addition to a little equity, adds playability. Your chances of bluffing your opponent out of the pot (practically the definition of playability) goes up. The rationale is that you can put your opponent in a difficult spot. Difficult spots are where most players are liable to make substantial mistakes.


Reply
Quote
Lathdari
Joined: 07.10.2014

Gentlemen, if you've been following nickycakes' posts, you will know that he is following the "beginner's strategy" from Lem0n36's course. It's clear to me that what he's asking here is whether this is a correct fold according to the basic principles of that strategy, and the answer to that question is "yes".

I understand that in this particular situation, there are some reasons why we might want to call, which is why I said that Berezovaya was game theoretically correct, but advice like "Since you have a backdoor, at least one call is required" is not going to be at all helpful. Backdoors aren't even mentioned in the strategy nickycakes is following, and if he starts calling raises whenever he has a backdoor, he's going to lose a lot of money (relative to his limit). For Berezovaya's comment to be helpful, you would need to add a huge explanation about balancing our b/c range, avoiding being exploitable, assigning ranges to unknown villains and what we propose to do on the turn. And that still wouldn't be helpful, because none of those (apart from how to play the turn) are things nickycakes need to understand to beat NL5.

Any way, CPallo has the right of it. Limp-call-minraise is a strong line: villain almost never has "junk" and only occasionally has a draw or worse TP (both of which would usually be played passively). If you're going to be snobbish about NL5, you probably shouldn't be commenting on an NL5 thread. That is how the villains play and we should have the corresponding game plan.

The following comment from Lem0n36 seems relevant (second comment, second page of the course thread), both as to how the strategy works and as to sensible refinements to make as we improve:

Originally posted by LemOn36
Yes, no limit beginner strategy has 100% cbet, bet/fold strategy and it's good against people that
- call too wide preflop
- fold too much on flop with their wide range, and then are reluctant to fold on turn+river
- don't pay attention to what you are doing

Characteristics that are typical for the smallest limits - you don't have to double barrel, or check raise on turns, you simply bet and keep betting your strong hands and strong draws, bet flop and check fold your thrash hands including midpairs. It's not optimal, but it's a strategy that will yield the most success against most opponents at NL2/NL5 while keeping simplicity.

As you get better and are more familiar with complex situations, that cbet% will drop, as you
- Check fold boards with weak hands that hit opponents range strongly
- Stop cbetting mid strength hands pretty much completely as you'll start learning what to do against a bet
- Develop a multi-street range based gameplan where you try to protect all your lines, make use of range advantage, play with range disadvantage and aim not to be exploited and exploit your opponents.

I think at NL10 optimal cbet% vs the population should be around 60%-65% on average - people still will fold too much, but you should start to
- give up hands with no backdoor draws on boards good for your opponents, especially out of position
- Use bet flop check call turn line with a lot of medium strenght hands that can't get 3 streets (like TPNK, 2nd pair) vs people that float you. (to check fold river, most NL10 regs are way too passive there) etc.
- Start using delayed cbet in position + check back with showdown value hands etc.


Reply
Quote
nitrol
Joined: 24.07.2010

Limp call and then min-raise is a fish move that cannot be classified. I've seen a lot of different hands in this spot and fd is there a lot... We can call there.


Reply
Quote
Shark97
Joined: 27.08.2015

OMG,peoples.......

"Looks like we are beat. I don't see this usually as a bluff, most likely set or a strong draw like 4c5c."
I am sorry but this is a b******t.
Firstly it is a minraise-->We Re-Raise(3Bet) -->then we can see more
Secondly He might have 66 or 33 but not TT.Because he limped.(Fishes/No fishes bet with TT).BUUUUT I think he had 4c5c like you wrote it,therefore when he might be a draw , we bet big (pot,or more 1,5pot...).
When he reraise,we can fold.
Alright?! X-)
I hope i could help you......


Reply
Quote
MJPerry
Joined: 03.10.2011

Originally posted by Shark97
Firstly it is a minraise-->We Re-Raise(3Bet) -->then we can see more

lol yeah the old "3-bet to find out where we're at"


Reply
Quote
CPallo
Joined: 12.04.2012

3-bet there and then we are committed with a hand that most likely is way behind. Not a good idea..


Reply
Quote
Shark97
Joined: 27.08.2015

Originally posted by MJPerry

Originally posted by Shark97
Firstly it is a minraise-->We Re-Raise(3Bet) -->then we can see more

lol yeah the old "3-bet to find out where we're at"

Yes,it is old,but it works.


Reply
Quote
Shark97
Joined: 27.08.2015

Originally posted by CPallo
3-bet there and then we are committed with a hand that most likely is way behind. Not a good idea..

Top pair vs straight draw (#16)&flush draw (i calclulate here just with A and K high )>>(#20) ,but here might be a lot of middle/little pair too.
And the setts: 66 and 33-->(#6)
Summary: #36 vs #6
WAY BEHIND???????
I don't think so


Reply
Quote
MJPerry
Joined: 03.10.2011

Originally posted by Shark97

Originally posted by MJPerry

Originally posted by Shark97
Firstly it is a minraise-->We Re-Raise(3Bet) -->then we can see more

lol yeah the old "3-bet to find out where we're at"

Yes,it is old,but it works.

Raising for information hasn't been considered a good play for about 12 years.


Reply
Quote