Edit: Effective stacks are $2000. The fact that I didn’t think to include that should tell you something about how relevant I think that is. Thanks to Ian for pointing out the error.
This hand comes from a live $5/$10 NLHE game at the Hollywood Casino in Charleston, West Virginia. Villain has been at the table for about an hour and hasn’t proven particularly active or nitty in that time. He seems to be a regular in his late 20’s, probably professional or semi-professional. He doesn’t seem super-talented but good enough to be a modest winner in a live $5/$10 game.
The one hand that I saw him play that’s of interest here, he check-called three bets with A9 on AQ68Q. He was in the BB and lost to the Button, who had QJ. The significant thing is that when he called on the flop and turn he literally beat his opponent into the pot. Like he held chips in his hand, hovering over the pot, and dropped in the appropriate amount as soon as his opponent announced a bet. He vocalized some frustration after losing that pot but hasn’t seemed tilty since. It’s been about half an hour since then.
Hero is me. I’ve been very quiet since Villain has been at the table (the whole time I’ve been there, really, though I don’t think Villain knows that one way or the other). He’s probably seen me raise limpers a few times but never play a big pot.
I open to $40 with Kd Ks UTG+1. A loose player in late position calls, and Villain calls in the SB.
Flop is Qc Jd 6s. Villain checks, I bet $90, other player folds, Villain calls using the same beat-me-into-the-pot method he used before.
Turn 3h. Villain checks, I bet $220 into $310, he again calls in the same way.
River 8s. Villain visibly straightens in his seat, swallows hard, fiddles with his chips, and throws three black $100 chips into the pot. He seems pretty relaxed as I’m watching him, not visibly uncomfortable or excited, willing but not overly eager to make eye contact, look at the pot, etc. Someone he knows walks over from another table and they chat for a minute, again he seems natural relaxed. None of this feels like an act one way or the other.
Hero has to call $300 to win $1050. Do you call?
We have to be good here only 22% of the time, I don’t see how we’re ever folding here ?
Would be terrible to fold if he happens to have a AQ/KQ he’s donking with for fear of a bigger bet (live poker !), and putting him solely on QJ/J8s/Q8s to advocate folding seems silly.
(Not the right dynamics going on here but this could even be a min/small raise, he’s definitely calling a lot with AQ out of curiosity and definitely doesn’t have us beat >50% of the time when he calls – live poker yay)
Maybe I missed something, the decision seems so trivial…
At least online, the snap-call generally indicates a marginal made hand. The one piece of evidence we have seems probative of that read for this guy’s live play. Marginal made hands that he might flat from the SB preflop that now beat you are J8s, Q8s, 86s and 88. That’s 10 combos (maybe call it 8 combos because he probably doesn’t call all of those hands preflop all the time, except 88). Perhaps we can throw in a few combos of T9 and slowplayed sets/top 2; let’s say 6 combos of those. Even though we’ve seen him ch-snapcall with a marginal made hand, this may just be his default way of acting when he’s planned on following up a check with a call.
So, let’s say he has about 14 combos that beat our KK. Getting 3.5:1, we only need to find 4 bluff/random stupid spaz combos to make this a breakeven call. There are two combos of KTs (which he might not play this way) and…um, I guess maybe an occasional random top pair or middle pair that he decides to bet for absolutely no reason at all, like QT-Q9, JT-J9? You said he seems competent, so I wouldn’t expect him to decide to bet some 1 pair hand here. I’m struggling to come up with more than 4 bluff combos. Is a competent player really going to bet 1 pair here when he knows worse hands aren’t calling, and better hands aren’t very likely to fold? He can’t really expect people to fold top pair or AA-KK, 90% of the time those hands will sigh-call (if not snap-call) in this game. Unless he recognizes you, I think he expects to get called by 1p, which means he’s less likely to turn those 1p hands into bluffs, which means we probably aren’t getting to 4 combos that we beat.
His live actions (sitting up straighter, using a small number of big chips to bet, chatting with a friend, looking calm) all project strength as well. Occam’s razor says he’s more likely to actually be strong than to be super sick at live tell leveling, especially at 5-10 in Charles Town. So, despite the great price, I think a fold is best.
You have to be right 22% of the time for a call to be correct. The visual tell seems to indicate he hit a straight. I think this is the same tell as in a previous WYP. Is it possible he is bluffing (using a reverse tell)? Could he possibly be value/blocking betting one pair here (thinking you might have something like AJ and you’ll check it back)? My guess is that the physical tell doesn’t lie and the correct decision is to fold, but I would have a hard time doing it live. This is partly because I probably would not have picked up the physical tell (or figured out what it meant) and partly because I would feel much worse folding a winner to a small bet than calling and losing, which probably speaks to a major leak in my game.
Doesn’t speak poorly of you at all. Folding a winner to a small bet costs you a lot more than paying off a small bet, and you should feel worse (nearly 3x worse, in this case) about doing it.
What were stacks/How much does he have left when he bets? I think that’s pretty integral to analysing the whole line.
Bet sizing feels blockish, but his body language is pretty strong after his river bet. The snap calling flop/turn says he was giving no thought to raising, nor did he care what pot odds he was getting. I guess he could have a decent made hand but be seeing monsters under the bed when the straight draw connects. QQ/JJ seem unlikely, but QJ or 66 seem distinct possibilities.
I’m trying to talk myself into a fold, but getting better than 3:1 on the river I think there’s little to no chance I actually make it at the table.
Sorry, Ian, I did edit the original post to add this info but I never responded to the comment. Stacks were $2000 to start hand.
Yeah, sorry – I saw it when I went to read the Cardplayer comments this morning, but up until then I’d been reading via email.
I figured that you had to be pretty deep since the smaller stack:pot was on the river, the more likely you were to mention stacks. As Ciaffone & Ruben (might, assuming i recall correctly) say: how deep you are defines what the right line is. I think it’s somewhat relevant, since the deeper you are the more likely a nut hand is to raise on the flop or turn trying to build a really big pot.
when he had a bluff catcher, a-9, he check called the river… in this hand, he leads, so my guess is that he doesn’t have a bluff catcher like a-q… my guess is he has 9-10 suited and caught the river… not sure i have the discipline to fold, but… i’m definitely leaning towards it…
I think it likely that the villain made 2 pair or possibly even a set of 888. I don’t think he is bluffing, and I don’t think it likely that he is on the straight draw given the turn bet size, but its possible. I also really don’t think his knee-jerk stiffening reaction is a reverse tell, and in fact it makes we want to think he spiked his 8.
It just does not seem to me to be a spot where this villain is going to be bluffing, but rather he was calling you down as a bluff catcher and he hit the river – and is now betting hoping you have what you are representing, which is an overpair or AQ. Furthermore his bet size seems to want a crying call.
Everything adds up to a fold despite the very good odds. He doesn’t need to be value betting worse or bluffing very often to make the case for a call, but I really don’t think he is doing it much at all in this spot.
This is very strange! It would be strange for Villain to have a draw here, both because his behavior indicates a made hand of some sort and because your turn bet would have at least had to make him think before check-folding.
Did he call quickly preflop? It would be useful information for figuring out if he can have QQ/JJ (Don’t laugh! It happens!)
The river bet looks pretty strong to me, but it is very hard to put Villain on a hand that beats you, except 88 that put you on AK all along. It would also explain why he was trying to bully you into making his life easy, which is usually what’s going on (at least subconsciously) with the hover-snap-call.
Several times I’ve seen a hand like AQ here. I usually hate advice of the form “He could have one notch worse than you! You have to call!,” but it really makes a lot of sense, on every street. Also, if this guy has a limit background, there’s a very standard “good player” line in LHE that involves check-call / check-call / betting with a top pair hand that you think could easily be worse than what the other player has. The obvious objection here is that you’ve shown lots of strength and it might be hard for him to find a bet with AQ, but the last time someone did something like this against me with AQ on something like this texture, I had raised the flop and shown plenty of strength on the turn… The situations are far from identical but I really do think it’s a mistake to think that Villain’s range is extremely polarized here. (Both because the bluffing pole is probably very small and because the value pole is wider than just monsters.)
In the end, I think you are behind 88/QJ/ something hilarious too often to raise (and he’s rarely folding it, so a two-way raise, though sexy and frankly tempting, is not called for). But he has AQ exactly pretty often, could have other things, and is bluffing maybe 3% of the time. So I think you have to call. Hope all this made sense.
In the A9 hand did Villain check-call river or did it go check-check. I am not sure if the 3b you said he called includes pre-flop raise if there was one(I assume there was being(5-10).
Does V really think he is going to be called by AJ, 99, 10-10,10-j, or that Hero has exactly KQ and will call but wouldn’t raise if v checks…I am not convinced. I fold and after V. shows his 888, q8, j8 I show my KK.
It’s not clear that what Villain is thinking makes a lot of sense, whatever that is. Isn’t QJxx8 a “good board” for AQ? I agree with you in a sense, though–if I knew more about this opponent, I would sometimes fold this hand roughly because I’d be able to rule out certain thought processes.
Also, unless you play primarily for ego, don’t show your hand if you fold. There are sometimes reasons to show, but here you do much better not to give away that information.
Let’s split you question: Do you call? -into 3question questions.
1.How your opponent perceives your range?,
The question which translates into who you are? – He identified easy you are cash pro.
What about your range?
your range is wide,not capped from top or bottom.
Well he has big doubts about strength of your range on river regardless of your double barrel.
2.How your opponent perceives his own range?
He assumes that his flop and turn calls looks like pot control with medium strength hand or draw at minimum.
Is his river bet is a lot of strength?-yes indeed.
But he knows that with river blank his unexpected bet and the move will be perceived with suspicion.
SO his river move is polarizing move too.
3.What is his actual range?
This question gives reason behind his river bet.
a)I see him value beting with nuts only.I do not see him making thin value river bet because of answer 1.
b) if he has something worse that bluff catcher he will definietly bluff river card.
He easily identified you as cash pro and count on reading abilities and possibility of your disciplined fold.
Final answer: Regardless of his actual ranges he will play GTO.
So you have to play GTO too.
Because of location Hollywood Casino and unknown effective stack size my sense of GTO is like 50/50.
River is not blank but bluffing opportunity.
Andrew, if the answer turns out that the tell makes this a fold for this bet size, then I would like to know what bet size would you call? At some size (e.g. $10) I would imagine you would at least call just to see his hand.
Good question. This is damn close to the borderline amount, which is why I posted the hand.
Similarly to what others have said, I think this is a fold, even if I don’t have the discipline to do it live. His actions in the a9 hand scream that he’d never play a 1p hand this way, and it’s difficult to think he’d play q8/j8 from the sb. 88 is a small possibility though I’m not sure he gets to the river with that hand. I’d put him squarely on t9 or possibly kt. The question is how much confidence you have that he plays kt this way. I have a feeling these small bluff bets on a marginal scare card work very seldomly live and he would know this; I’d expect a bigger bet were he bluffing. Not to mention, of course, that your hand eliminates 2 of 4 combos of KTs. I think he’s value betting expecting you to call with exactly the type of holding you have. Fold.
Agree with this completely. You need a good reason to think that he would be capable of such a performance on a bluff, as well as a reason for him to think you would fall for it. Given the limited history you have neither. His hand is face up as T9.
The timing thing is not always what people think. Some people will say it is a marginal made hand, some people will say it is a draw — both are right. The timing tell represents two things, first a class of decision for this type of player, second the type of player this is. The type of player is one with bad habits, ostensibly one who wants his ego involved on the felt, making snap calls with confidence. That’s neither here nor there but a general insight if he is indeed a semi-pro reg.
The class of decision that it represents is an easy one, ie: the decision is clearly not a fold and clearly not a raise. On this type of board both draws and marginal made hands can fall into that category depending on his style of play. I am wondering if this player would be so passive as to check-call with T9? What we have observed suggests he might.
I think this is a nice place to make a hero fold. He would almost certainly check-call with worse one pair hands.
This is a nice post, though I disagree that most Villain-type players would have an easy decision with T9 on the turn. It would be slightly different if the board hadn’t been badugi, as then he might have picked up outs with T9s.
Don’t get me wrong–I love folding overpairs in this general type of spot. I just think this specific siltuation isn’t right for it.
Another way to look at the situation is: Let’s say I’m right about T9 (that Villain is unlikely to have it). In that case, there are quite likely six combinations of hands that beat him, all of which are very consistent with Hero’s line. Villain could also easily think that T9 is possible for Hero. So, whatever Villain’s behavior means, we have to discount the interpretation of it as reflecting Villain’s belief that he is nutted.
This is all pretty speculative, but the lines of reasoning leading to the conclusion that Villain has a huge hand are not exactly rock-solid either. It is obviously a discouraging sign when the river goes down as it did, but I don’t want to fold for $300.
Ya, the thing that makes me think he is bad enough to call T9 on the turn as he did is the way he played A9 before (as described). In that hand he should have thought about folding the turn (before he called) and folded the river. Instead he insta called the turn and called the river. I assume his opponent in that hand wasn’t the type such that the river call could ever be good. While A9 on AQQ68 is of different strength than AQ on QJ863, it might not be to him. His physical tells are pretty pronounced to be honest — it is very hard to fake that kind of behaviour. I am in no way sure about his line and what it represents combo wise, but once he acts in this way physically I am a bit more confident he doesn’t have AQ often enough.
I’m a little confused about this though: “Let’s say I’m right about T9 (that Villain is unlikely to have it). In that case, there are quite likely six combinations of hands that beat him, all of which are very consistent with Hero’s line.” I am a little slow, which six combos are those? I agree with your thought that he isn’t otherwise capped (ie he can have top set and second set) and that factored into my choice to fold a lot (should have made a point to mention it more I guess). But yeah I am just confused what you mean, do you mean Andrew can have 6 combos of QQ/JJ for 1st and 2nd set?
Yup, that’s what I meant. Sorry for being unclear.
Agreed about the A9 river call – pretty bad IMO.
Live players r always overvaluing top pair….against a lot of pkayers this is an easy fold… But vs him I can find a call. Also his level of comfort may not indicate only strength but a level of comfort in which he is very comfortable with his decision. It’s a simple bet/fold for him.
i think this is a call because it looks suspiciously like a blocker bet to me. a live 5/10 player has this type of bet in his game and i would also assume a live 5/10 player would know that if he’s going to commit $350 OOP against an early position raiser with a draw he’s going to need to get a bit more out of you than just $300 if he actually does hit gin. otherwise his play is no better than a 1/2 live player. i know that live players are slagged quite often but these basic plays are something learned if you’re going to play 5/10, unless you just come into money somehow (which doesn’t seem to be the case according to andrew’s description). his earlier beat of c/c all streets probably made him decide to block the river to save him some money here.
if he hit his straight, i’m paying him off since this bet size is a mistake on his part. it also tells us what we can expect from him in future hands.
I’m still interested in how much there is left to bet on the river, but I’m also interested in the river bet sizing. Online, betting 30% of pot definitely feels like a block, but I remember Bart Hanson’s podcast often made the point that live, a lot of people bet smaller on later streets relative to the potsize, because the absolute size of the bet seems large. I wonder if this could be the case here, and a 30% psb might actually be perceived by villain as a big value bet.
*dodgy maths warning*
Also, if villain does have the straight draw on the turn, he’s calling to 8 outs (well, 6 but he doesn’t know this), so he hits about 1 time in 5 or 6. So he needs to win 5 times what he calls on the turn to make the play +EV. The bet was $220, and there was $220 + $310 in the pot already, so he needs to make up another $1100-220-310 or $570 on the river (assuming you never fold). So betting $300 odd when he hits is a losing play. (assuming my maths is right)
Certainly a losing play to chase at 98, but that’s far from a guarantee that he’s not doing it.
surfbum4life on the Cardplayer site has it exactly right.
You shouldn’t call here though I most likely would because I lack self-control.
Sitting behind my computer though its painfully obvious that he has something. Everything suggests this person is an ordinary decent reg player. Highly unlikely to do unusual or creative things or own you with some elaborate levelling. He doesn’t seem to be in spaz or tilt mode, and even if he was it’s unlikely he would take such a weird line. Additionally his live demeanour suggests that he isn’t really trying to hide tells.
He also seems to prefer check/call lines with medium strength hands. As such I can’t see him turning anything worse than KK into a bluff here, so I guess this is a fold.
I don’t know what to do here.
It is funny because I played the same hand last night and I folded my kings and he showed me a draw that hit a middle pair on the river.
Call. Everyone who says fold really think he has a straight more than 78% of the time that he does this? I think there are enough blocking bets/bluffs/weird plays happening here that, even though it’s possible we may be losing more often than not, we do have the correct odds to call.
The main thing for me is that villain might not be able to balance this river bet size in this spot. So, I think a less-than-half pot bet means he is (much?) more likely to be eliciting a thin call rather than blocking a larger bet from hero.
I think villain would check-evaluate hands like AQ, as there does not seem to be much reason to lead the river. What is he thin value betting against, specifically KQ? Unlikely. What is he block betting against, AA-JJ, which our line is consistent with? Unlikely also. While villain may check-evaluate hands like two pair (or sets) a lot of the time also, I think he may lead with them some of the time. With QJ, say, he has two of the broadways on board in his hand so may think that he can max. value from a range of AA, KK, AQ and KQ with a lead, as AQ and KQ may check behind. I don’t think he is betting missed draws here (i.e., KT), as it seems like a pretty bad spot for it and villain probably recognises this. More generally, I don’t think a block bet makes too much sense here and I give villain credit for recognising that also. Really, two pair plus make a lot more sense to me than anything else.
In terms of live reads, his body language prior to betting the river seems most relevant. The consideration taken (especially straightening up in his seat) seems A LOT MORE consistent with a value bet, or even debating lead versus check-raise, than a block bet. Interpreting most of the other stuff mentioned seems tough. He didn’t lead the river in the previous hand so might not lead here if he had AQ. Though, I am not that sure what to make of this link, i.e., having lost the A9 hand playing it the way he did, he might do something differently, and lead AQ now. Similarly, reading into his quick flop and turn calls seems fraught with potential for making incorrect inferences. Is he doing it with a marginal hand/draw or is he levelling us by doing it with a stronger hand and to rep weaker? His state on the river after betting could also mean a better/worse hand than ours. Hero having taken some time to decide, villain could think a wide range of hands (e.g., AQ/QJ) are good.
Do I trust this analysis enough to turn down the tremendous odds and hero fold? I am going to say, “Yes!” (though if you could see me, you would see me grimacing a fair bit). I think the fact that a block bet didn’t make much sense got me a lot of the way and the pre-river bet body language the rest.
My thoughts here are not between fold or call but between call or raise…
I don’t thing that fold is a thought in my mind.
What hands beat hero’s KK at river? QQ,JJ,88,66,33,T9,QJ,Q8,Q6,Q3,J8,J6,J3,68,63,83..
Obviously can’t call preflop OOP with 83,63,J3,Q3,J6,Q6 not even with Q8,J8,86 but may be if were suited… Then can’t call flop and turn with 86,J8,33…
So to beat hero must have QQ,JJ,88,66,T9,QJ,Q8s… With QQ, and JJ in my opinion, I expect 3-bet preflop from a regular but we can accept the possibility of calling. Also difficult to call with QJo,T9o an early pos raiser but could with suited.It is also difficult to call 70% pot+turn bets with 88… Finally with T9 without flush draw the check-call line both flop and turn looks bad for a regular in 5-10… For conclusion I count 2comb of QQ, 3 for JJ and 66, 4 for QJs, 2 for Q8s, 2 for T9s and 1 for 88.. Total 17 comb. But if he had Q8s he must have Q9s,QTs also (half comb also so 4 comb), AQ (12 comb), KQ (6 comb), AJ (12 comb) and may be TT,99 (if he had 88 and made a block bet). These are much more…
Now the way he played the hand… He called OOP with implied odds hand as 66,88,QJ,Q8s or T9s and when he hit, after so much strength of hero, he played them with c-call, c-call and 40% block (or value) bet? Also decide to cover the strength of his hand (QQ, JJ) and do the same? I don’t think so..
Look like blocking bet in my opinion. Call is my choice.. Raise is next thought (to optimistic?). If he could call with A9 three bets why he didn’t with AQ or KQ?