bottom set on turn

Hi tukioppilas62,

for my part, i try to create a reasonable range of V and calculate some numbers.
If he is a reg, he will have arround 12% OR-Range from UTG. This includes: 66+, ATs+, KJs+, QTs+, sc from 56-JT, AJo+, KQo

From this range we could say he cbet all ThXh combos, sets 2pairs and overpairs and calls them on a raise. probably he will have 90% of his callingrange in his shoveingrange on the turn, cause pot/stack ratio is small.

As a result i tried to run some calculations:
To be BE or above we need 36%eq (19.92 / (8.78 + 6.25 + 19.92 + 19.92))

Equity Win Tie
MP2 39.97% 39.97% 0.00% 6d6c
MP3 60.03% 60.03% 0.00% QQ, TT, 77, QTs, 76s, AhQh, AhTh, KhTh, JhTh, Th9h

we could argue about some of the hands, i haven't included 89 because i think he will 3bet those on flop the same with TT (just took one of the two for even-out the possibility).

so on my part, its a snappcall

Best Regards
B9rd

I agree qualitatively with the above post, but not quantitatively. Note that he has 7 hands (post above) that must be considered bluffs (even QT for two pair) on his part given the action, and 9 value hands. (Sure, the dividing line is a bit floating.) He would be bluffing way to much (giving you 2:1), and at NL25 unknown regs are striving to learn these things.

@YohanN7 QTs consists only of QhTh and QcTc so i dont think its too bad to take the hole range

Originally posted by B9rd
@YohanN7 QTs consists only of QhTh and QcTc so i dont think its too bad to take the hole range
Well, it illustrates well how close it is, since if you remove three bluffs, then you don't have a snap call, but a snap fold:tongue:

you're right. but building ranges is hard anyways. we could say as well that we put in some AA,KK combos and its fine again ofc its wrong to "manipulate" our Range that the outcome is what we think off, at the end of the day, its better to call vs reg and make a note to improve your skill of building a range

since you raise vs UTG, it already looks strong, and since you raise on a board which hits your range quite good, then it looks even stronger. So I wouldnt expect that many bluffs as 3 bet on turn, unless you are super bluffy with raises and he is aware of it. 3bets are anyway quite value heavy, so folding is surely fine. Calling can't be terrible, but imo folding is better.

By the way, raising flop is already quite thin, unless you expect villain to call down decent amount of overpairs.

Originally posted by GingerKid
since you raise vs UTG, it already looks strong, and since you raise on a board which hits your range quite good, then it looks even stronger. So I wouldnt expect that many bluffs as 3 bet on turn, unless you are super bluffy with raises and he is aware of it. 3bets are anyway quite value heavy, so folding is surely fine. Calling can't be terrible, but imo folding is better.

By the way, raising flop is already quite thin, unless you expect villain to call down decent amount of overpairs.

where exactly do you not agree with my given range?

Agree w. Ginger even the flop raise can be thin. Our line looks strong and we are at the bottom of our valuerange on the turn. QTs is rarely on utg opening range and he can't jam two pair on turn for value and also can't see him jamming much semibluffs. Imo set of sevens are a call but folding sixes better than getting it in. Also just calling flop is maybe a better option.

Originally posted by B9rd
you're right. but building ranges is hard anyways. we could say as well that we put in some AA,KK combos and its fine again ofc its wrong to "manipulate" our Range that the outcome is what we think off, at the end of the day, its better to call vs reg and make a note to improve your skill of building a range

I don't get the point of this. Seeing the results leads only more easily into results oriented thinking which is not good. Randomly you could see villain having pocket duces in this spot but it doesn't mean that our call was good. Hope you understand my point.

Originally posted by tukioppilas62

Originally posted by B9rd
you're right. but building ranges is hard anyways. we could say as well that we put in some AA,KK combos and its fine again ofc its wrong to "manipulate" our Range that the outcome is what we think off, at the end of the day, its better to call vs reg and make a note to improve your skill of building a range

I don't get the point of this. Seeing the results leads only more easily into results oriented thinking which is not good. Randomly you could see villain having pocket duces in this spot but it doesn't mean that our call was good. Hope you understand my point.

if he shows up with 22 we have a note that he is overbluffing this spot. so for further action we can call more confident. notes are the most important thing in my opinion. it's something completly different to say our call was bad/good dependent on the result, but if we see there 22 our call was good not only because we where right to call in this moment but also we have seen, that he is bluffing in this spot very wide.

Against unknown people we want to play as we would be playing against a population. Seeing a hand that doesn't fit the range a population would hold in one particular spot as an example pocket duces here would not mean we made the right choice by calling if we don't expect the population to overbluff the spot frequently enough.

The right way to think is to think first about the spot in general (how does the average nl25 regular play his range on the turn) and then think if we have some reads from villain. If we can not expect enough bluffs from the population to justify a call and still make a call and see villain bluffing it doesn't change the fact we made a mistake by making a call we didn't consider being +EV.

"if we see there 22 our call was good not only because we where right to call in this moment " This is purely results oriented thinking. We can't put villain on a hand we have to put him on a range.

I don't see him having anything else besides QQ, A♥:Q♥:.

TT, 77, AhTh should be push on flop and there is no sense from him to push them on turn if he decided to push them at all.

Originally posted by tukioppilas62
Against unknown people we want to play as we would be playing against a population. Seeing a hand that doesn't fit the range a population would hold in one particular spot as an example pocket duces here would not mean we made the right choice by calling if we don't expect the population to overbluff the spot frequently enough.

The right way to think is to think first about the spot in general (how does the average nl25 regular play his range on the turn) and then think if we have some reads from villain. If we can not expect enough bluffs from the population to justify a call and still make a call and see villain bluffing it doesn't change the fact we made a mistake by making a call we didn't consider being +EV.

"if we see there 22 our call was good not only because we where right to call in this moment " This is purely results oriented thinking. We can't put villain on a hand we have to put him on a range.

I think you missunderstand my argumentation and you cannot just put a part of a sentence out of it's context.

first of all I kinda agree with your thoughts about acting against a population. BUT hero already described that he is a reg. so you can construct his range based on that.

we assume now that our opponent is a reg we will play most likely more hands against him in the future. given that assumption we can call here for a note not only to proofe us if we are right or not, as well to know how he plays hands. if he has TT, we know he doesnt ship it on the flop, if e has 22 we know that we can call there with even bigger bluffcatchers. if he shows us KK, we can extract more value in similar spots in the future.

To come back to my argumentation the post before, your conclusion is wrong. because if you would read my sentence to a end its exactly what i am saying. we put the 22 into the range and calculate now our desision. i dont say he has 22 i am only saying he has 22 in his range. and because of that is our call in the future good against this specific villain.

probably i dont use correct words, sentences or constructions as well cause i am not a native english speaker

Greetings

Originally posted by tukioppilas62

The right way to think is to think first about the spot in general (how does the average nl25 regular play his range on the turn) and then think if we have some reads from villain. If we can not expect enough bluffs from the population to justify a call and still make a call and see villain bluffing it doesn't change the fact we made a mistake by making a call we didn't consider being +EV.

This is sound and the correct way to go vs unknowns:)

Originally posted by VaskataBuci
I don't see him having anything else besides QQ, A♥:Q♥:.

TT, 77, AhTh should be push on flop and there is no sense from him to push them on turn if he decided to push them at all.

I have to agree with that. 98s, TT, 77 would be raise/calling the flop.

Originally posted by VaskataBuci
I don't see him having anything else besides QQ, A♥:Q♥:.

TT, 77, AhTh should be push on flop and there is no sense from him to push them on turn if he decided to push them at all.

AhTh has 30% equity once hero is stacking of with 66,77,TT on the flop not much else. So getting it in with such hand would be quite terrible for villain. Also the more I think about the hand I come up with that hero should basically have no raising range on this flop against 3x utg open. We just end up being super valueheavy and face up. That being said villains turn jam is very very strong I don't expect to see bluffs there like ever so I'm even more inclined to be folding. Sometimes we may see overplayed QTs or some AQ :heart::heart: but not often enough. Usually QQ, TT, 77 that wants to get it in because of fearing the flushdraw

Originally posted by B9rd

Originally posted by GingerKid
since you raise vs UTG, it already looks strong, and since you raise on a board which hits your range quite good, then it looks even stronger. So I wouldnt expect that many bluffs as 3 bet on turn, unless you are super bluffy with raises and he is aware of it. 3bets are anyway quite value heavy, so folding is surely fine. Calling can't be terrible, but imo folding is better.

By the way, raising flop is already quite thin, unless you expect villain to call down decent amount of overpairs.

where exactly do you not agree with my given range?

I didnt comment your range at all, I just gave my opinion. Regarding your range, I dont agree that villain will shove turn with that many draws. I would personally just bluff catch a top pair + draw, dont see a need for shove. Also shoving QTs is unrealistic, it would be a big overplay.

we assume now that our opponent is a reg we will play most likely more hands against him in the future. given that assumption we can call here for a note not only to proofe us if we are right or not, as well to know how he plays hands. if he has TT, we know he doesnt ship it on the flop, if e has 22 we know that we can call there with even bigger bluffcatchers. if he shows us KK, we can extract more value in similar spots in the future.

You are making with this big assumptions about using only single showdown hand. If someone shoved turn with 22, doesnt mean that he is bluff heavy. It could be a tilt (as it is mostly). Then you say you would likely call here (even if it is -EV because you get the note and understand how he plays), but how do you know that when you bluff catch him and see 22 on showdown, that he is not going to stop bluffing you?
Example, I overbet turn and river very bluff heavy vs opponents who never saw me bluffing (because population overfolds), and once a villain bluff catches me light vs overbet, i make a note and start overbetting value heavy vs them. This guy is a reg, so he is also going to make assumptions and adapt.

Originally posted by VaskataBuci
I don't see him having anything else besides QQ, A♥:Q♥:.

TT, 77, AhTh should be push on flop and there is no sense from him to push them on turn if he decided to push them at all.

I agree with this. I think that if he had TT or 77 he would have raised/pushed on the flop.

Really tough lay down.