Marginal OESD rivers bottom pair.

Thinking on this more I like x/f (check/fold) turn best.

To check/call I would need at least 9 outs and >1BB implied odds to be profitable... but its difficult to have both those things given that my outs can give me a 2nd best hand. Hands like JT got there on the turn / he could have a pair already.

As we see here my pair outs are difficult to show down: he barrels the river and I improve to a pair and its difficult to justify calling against his range getting 5.2:1.

I like check/folding the turn as well. We're getting 1:3 and even if we spike a Ten on the river, every Jack has a better straight. I think there definitely are some of these in his range (KJ, JJ, maybe QJ, J8).

Also it will be tough to play when you hit a 7 or a 6 on the river, which is what happened. I like the river fold but you can't feel too good about it as he might have KJ, KT as you said or even some weird 22-55 (?). I would fold the river as well though.

Betting the turn wouldn't accomplish much either as you would have to twobarrel vs KJ, KT and even then they might call. The turn card is quite bad and improves his flop checkback range imo (J8, K8, JT?, KT, KJ now have a gutshot). So I think that your fold equity isn't great, he could also sometimes play AQ, QJ, QQ, 99 etc this way.

Against such a guy it's an easy call for me. This hand has got a good playability. On a lot of FLops you can just check/fold instead of being torn between "hmm is Q or K high good enough on this board to calldown?" You can figure your equity on the flop quite well so playability is fine and i would also call 56o and hands that run slightly -EV Preflop but for the sake of implied odds if you hit a monster it's worth playing these hand in my opinion. Turn check/fold especially if you don't consider 6 or 7 to be outs for you to check/call. I would not barrel the Turn. This Line looks like a trap or something marginal that he's going to call twice and he'll certainly peel gutshots on the Turn with his high WTS. Just on your oesd it's not worth calling given 1:3. River i don't know. What he could be betting with that he checked back? Don'T think he's valuebetting 8x but he's capable of everything but i think he would even bet JT on the Flop. His Checkbehind looks like Jx and most likely Kx or a trap and he'S quite polarized on the River. I would call. :/

thx guys.

@firsttsunami
Yeah, I was thinking about his river value range. I felt he could value bet pretty wide against our line here in this situation. Its tough to say for sure how well an opponent value bets, but if he is really polarized as you are expecting then you're right, its much easier to show our hand down.

This is an interesting hand. For me the key thing here is the super-low flop c-bet percentage of villain. I should say I'm playing higher than this so my reads may be off.

Preflop I'd call - its not as clear as when you can count on a flop cbet, when the effective odds become very enticing, but still we have plenty of hand here. I don't really understand the comment about playability.

On the turn I think you choose the worst option of the three (sorry!). Its all about this guy's cbetting tendencies, and whether he check/calls or check/folds flops rather than cbetting. His percentage is low enough that he is not just screwplaying with made hands when he checks back the flop. If he is inclined to give up, that is more reason to bet the turn. We have some equity on the turn, and implied odds, and its possible the equity we have plus the chance he gives up and folds (we won't win with at showdown with 7 high) is enough to make the play profitable.

I'd really like to see how he has played on ace high flops in previous hands. If in the past he has lol checked back the flop and raised the turn with an ace on Axx then I'm check/folding the turn in such a small pot. If he has checked back the flop and folded the turn ever on Axx instead of cbetting then I'm betting the turn.

As played I agree with the river fold. With both players playing so passively its possible we have been owned, but what can you do? Turn it into a bluff on the river to fold out T9? I don't think so.......

I should point out that I have assumed that hands are normally 2 or 3 handed on the flop, if loads of hands are 4 handed plus then my interpretation of the flop cbet percentage is off.........

Originally posted by RedHeaterI don't really understand the comment about playability.

some hands are worth more than their preflop equity would suggest because they are very playable. 76o isn't worth much more than its equity suggests but with hands like JTs you can add like 4% on any equity clac. K2o you can probably subtract 3%.

On the turn I think you choose the worst option of the three (sorry!). Its all about this guy's cbetting tendencies, and whether he check/calls or check/folds flops rather than cbetting.

np. its very likely to happen some of the time and if i fail to post hands where I've made mistakes then I'm making another, much larger mistake (failing to identify and correct flaws in my game).

Originally posted by datsmahname

Originally posted by RedHeaterI don't really understand the comment about playability.

some hands are worth more than their preflop equity would suggest because they are very playable. 76o isn't worth much more than its equity suggests but with hands like JTs you can add like 4% on any equity clac. K2o you can probably subtract 3%.

I would have thought 67 was doing well playability-wise. I mean, if a broadway flop comes down you know exactly where you are, yet if there is a low board you have plenty of opportunities to cause trouble. Just a shame its not suited.....

As best I can tell, 76o is the offsuit connector which is most accurately represented by its preflop equity. 65 and below figure to show a small deficit and 87+ tend to show a small surplus.

OK, I'll take your word for it! Its not a good hand, of course, but good enough to call pre.

No need.

Just take your database, create an alias with all the regs.

Then look at how much each hand makes where VPIP = true and find the percentile rank of 76o.

Stove 76o vs random.

compare percentile rank to equity vs random. what do you find out?

That it has about 42 percent equity v a random hand. In practice it is one of the worst performing hands.

My concern about this sort of analysis is that it doesn't account for the situation. In particular, this hand is going to be played a large amount of the time in a blind, so is automatically going to perform very badly. Everybody loses money in the blinds.

I looked at the recentish hands I played with 76o . This is everything, 2/4 - 15/30 six max, full ring etc etc. Of 510 hands, only 5 were outside of the button/blinds. The total amount won is -$999.03 (ie negative) at -0.23 BB/hand. Without the blinds I would be up $234.

In the small blind I am up both before/after the blind (although - 0.01 BB/hand before the blind is taken into account, in terms of big blinds). In the Big Blind I am well down with the blind accounted for but only a little without.

The big surprise for me is that I am $300, 0.23 BB/hand down (compared to overall +0.18 BB/hand when I VPIP) over 128 hands raising 76o from the button. Makes me think I should consider only opening this on the button against certain sorts of villains.

So I've rambled off topic having seen how badly I am doing with this hand from the button. Good for me as its highlighted a possible problem.

Good stuff RedHeater. Theres lots of concerns, none of which would become so clear until you try to find the answer yourself but how to deal with these concerns.

Another concern is that 76o in your hands also shows when you fold. This isn't true of most cases you'll see in your opponents. In fact, our database will most likely show hands that are show down.

A further problem is that offsuit hands are more likely to be dealt than suited hands and pocketpairs. As a result, winnings by holecards will provide much more reliable information on some types of hands.

This rambling is totally expected until you have a very direct and clear way of answering the question.