QQ 3bet pot

I'm gonna call this.

Originally posted by Dr1fter808
I'm gonna call this.

Why would you call this?

Originally posted by SDK1987

Originally posted by Dr1fter808
I'm gonna call this.

Why would you call this?

Because you won't call it so I will.

That's a weird explanation, but against a unknown that isn't full stacked it's tough to call the river I think with only a bluff catcher.

Originally posted by SDK1987
That's a weird explanation, but against a unknown that isn't full stacked it's tough to call the river I think with only a bluff catcher.

You got it completely backward, you do want to call this more against someone who is not fully stacked compared to some tags that have auto buy in turned on.

1. Bet bigger flop - small bets on those positions doesnt work that great - you achieve nothing by betting small.
2. Bet turn -> xback river. You hold blockers to two flushdraws so its more likely opponent has hand with showdown value.

Originally posted by Dr1fter808

Originally posted by SDK1987
That's a weird explination, but against a unknown that isn't full stacked it's tough to call the river I think with only a bluff catcher.

You got it completely backward, you do want to call this more against someone who is not fully stacked compared to some tags that have auto buy in turned on.

I expect weaker players aren't bluffing enough to make a call with QQ profitable. I expect players that doesn't play with a full stack are most of the time weaker players.

Originally posted by SDK1987

Originally posted by Dr1fter808

Originally posted by SDK1987
That's a weird explination, but against a unknown that isn't full stacked it's tough to call the river I think with only a bluff catcher.

You got it completely backward, you do want to call this more against someone who is not fully stacked compared to some tags that have auto buy in turned on.

I expect weaker players aren't bluffing enough to make a call with QQ profitable. I expect players that doesn't play with a full stack are most of the time weaker players.

You add an interesting meaning to the word weaker.

As always, SDK is active in discussion, or rather in criticising users for concise posts even when it shouldnt require any further explanation(very easy decision). Its also not that SDK posts are often even shorter and contradictory(like Drifter pointed). Its looks like someone want to reach 60k posts milestone as fast as possible?

Its snap call river. Sure, we block both flushdraws , we dont have top pair etc. but majority of recreational players call too much to 3bet. Its also tempting to float small bet on flop. Result? They arrive with very wide range on turn and its not hard them to overbluff.

Against an apparent recreational (he doesn't have a full stack).
Easy call, recreational players tend to overpay preflop 3bets.
Flop by putting such a small sizing on the flop, you drag so much range, that you already have a profitable call.

Originally posted by EmiyaKiritsugu
As always, SDK is active in discussion, or rather in criticising users for concise posts even when it shouldnt require any further explanation(very easy decision). Its also not that SDK posts are often even shorter and contradictory(like Drifter pointed). Its looks like someone want to reach 60k posts milestone as fast as possible?

Its snap call river. Sure, we block both flushdraws , we dont have top pair etc. but majority of recreational players call too much to 3bet. Its also tempting to float small bet on flop. Result? They arrive with very wide range on turn and its not hard them to overbluff.

How does someone like that become a moderator? Shouldn't there be infraction against this type of trolling?

Originally posted by Dr1fter808
How does someone like that become a moderator?

Remember that moderators aren't expected to be poker experts. They're here primarily to supervise the forums.
Because of that we read — or at list scan — almost every post and sometimes (in my case often ) read them wrong, or simply make mistakes.
Also remember that moderators are volunteers.
There are some perks, but not a lot.

If you're interested, send me a pm.

I think you have to bet the turn, at least a small amount. I think checking a king OTT after a decent sized bet on a T-High flop can give away weakness. Now he can bet big on the river and get a fold, or at least make you question it(hence the post). There’s a very good chance it’s a bluff given how he bet flop and turn, but now you really can’t tell as well as you could’ve. If you bet 1/4-1/3 OTT, and he calls, you know for sure he has something given a rainbow flop that isn’t really connected that well. You may still be in an awkward spot OTR if he bets, but the sizing should give u some help. Also, he’s likely going to check back if he’s ahead because he thinks you’ll bet again and value own yourself since you’ve now bet a decent size on the first two streets, and 3 bet preflop. Then you can check back OTR and risk a lot less money. I just think you have to bet OTT so you can tell whether you’re ahead or behind before having to make a big decision.

Ok so I think this is a fold at 25NL against a likely recreational (Not having a full stack and opening 3x UTG are both fairly decent indications of this) and actually quite an easy one. So the reason for this is that when villain reached the river his range is going to be mainly 1 pair, 2 missed overcards ( weird missed flush draw/backdoor flush draw) I think it's going to be very pair heavy tbh but I wanted to highlight that QdQh is just a terrible hand to call giving you block a lot of his air like AQ QJ and Qx of diamond or hearts . I think the main thing we have in our favour here is that such a player type is very rarely turning a pair into a bluff. in theory his bluffs are meant to be small pocket pairs and suited connectors like 45s 67s. For a 3x open he's probably not opening these hands too often and basically never turns them into a bluff when you check the turn because he'll perceive himself to have some SD value. For these reasons I think it's a fold. I actually think we just fold all our bluff catchers here. In theory I think we should be calling some QQ but this exact combo will be the first in the muck

I would call because he Might have made a silly bluff on the board. The only Velue hand i Could put him on is AK . Nothing els to worrry from in my opinion

Originally posted by regie
I would call because he Might have made a silly bluff on the board. The only Velue hand i Could put him on is AK . Nothing els to worrry from in my opinion

A set like TT, 44 and 66 could be in villains range as well. If villain defends pretty wide on 3bets hands like KT+ is reasonable as well I think.