Welcome.

Take a tour. Enjoy some free sample content.

How it works

Free Video: CLP Video No. 287: Home Game Bart Reviews His Splashy At $1-$3 Deep Part 2

Free Podcast: CLP Podcast No. 54: Time Warp And Turn Value
New to Crush Live Poker?

$5-$10 3 interesting flushing hands

2»

Comments

  • JacklambJacklamb Posts: 561Subscriber
    edited November 2016
    Hand 1: With that sizing and what seems to be an obvious tell, I fold the 8 high flush.
    Hand 2: Against a good player we're hardly getting value in this spot...the river is terrible so if it was me against that guy, there's a good chance I check back. I may also bet relatively small for value like $200 and give up to a check/raise. Especially if he thought about raising turn, it's hard for us to be good here. All of his draws would have hearts in them, yeah? If he's good he would not just be calling with just 57 no hearts on the turn I don't think. What about a hand like 56hh? Do you think he calls flop? A pair and a few backdoor draws? I'm not sure.
    Hand 3: Kind of seems like AK? In real time I probably would NOT raise. A min raise might not be bad here if she's a fish and calls off AK.
    Do we really like 3betting A5s here vs this opponent raising UTG? Given her range it doesn't seem like a good move. It'd be easier to play with just a call maybe?
    Bart, in hand 2, if he check raises you on the turn, do you ever reraise? Or what's your play?
  • JacklambJacklamb Posts: 561Subscriber
    edited November 2016
    Clock wrote: »
    I'm gonna bet ~600 and I don't think V can x/r w/o a flush, but sets probably can't fold to a good player that's capable of v-betting AJ-AK here...
    If we are all good players here (we would like to assume so) and the consensus seems to be we would NOT value bet much with AJ or AK, then wouldn't he be right to be folding sets? And we would only be getting called/raised by better.
  • snapper35snapper35 Posts: 243Subscriber
    edited November 2016
    Hand1- fold. Turn acting, 1000 is large bet from a 5-5 player out of position into 2
    Hand2- Chk. Villain being a good player he could make this hard and bet pot/overbet pot to look polarized
    or use a value bet size with his bluffs too.
    Hand3-You gave us her range, I just dont see passives' betting pot as a bluff. You said loose/fish, does that mean bad
    enough to stack off on pp board with non-nut flush.
    Not all 5-5 players can bet 200 as a bluff.
  • BananaStandBananaStand Posts: 1,455Troll
    edited November 2016
    Bart wrote: »
    So in hand 2 you would call up to a $600 bet on the river
    I believe my words were "might be tempted to call". I still maintain that check/call, check/call, lead is almost always the roast chestnuts. It's just such a good bluff spot because you really have zero flushes in your range and he has maybe a few.
    Bart wrote: »
    and/or you would bet $200 and call a checkraise?
    Again, it's a really good bluff spot. Does this guy know who you are? Does he know he's dealing with Bart 'bet/fold' Hanson whose range currently contains zero flushes? I think if you lead small, his bluff sizing should be small enough to call. It's simple combo work, and you'll likely only need him to have less than half a dozen worse hands.
    Bart wrote: »
    Trying to be diplomatic as possible and I will discuss this hand tomorrow but notice how your thoughts arent in line with others that have posted in this thread
    I'm also trying to be diplomatic when I say that 100% of people who posted in this thread are poker players, and 99% of poker players lose. You can do the math.
    Bart wrote: »
    and I think you are far far off here in the analysis of this hand.
    Ok, if you want to diplomatically leave it at that, I guess that's ok. I'll check out the podcast, but I'd really like to know specifically, what you disgree with.

    Do you disagree that your range contains almost no flushes. I guess maybe you could have 64hh if you're really playing loose pre-flop, but that's about it. Your upfront raise got called by half of LA. Would you really lead a backdoor heart draw into the field here on an ace high board? I know your'e not in the business of c-betting into 5 people with single digit equity.

    Do you disagree that villain's line is strange if he has one of the nine flush combos that you suggested to Wendy previously in this thread? It's heads up on the flop when the action gets back to him. Would he really check/call twice when your range is so obviously almost entirely 1 pair hands? If he thought you might be weak on the flop, he should check/raise. If he really had a strong draw on the turn, he should check/raise. He has the range advantage and the stack depth to threaten you.

    Do you disagree that him checking the river, with the intention of check/raising for value, would be a positively absurd line? AA is really the pinnacle of your range. I'd really discount 66/44 from your range as you would likely check/raise the flop. After that you're capped at two-pair and worse. And I think he'd expect you to check back the river with a huge portion of that range. Almost all of it really.

    So I'm tempted to call a raise if we lead super-small on the river. You gave Wendy 9 possible heart combos he could have. You left out 64hh, so that's 10. I want to discount that range ALOT, but even if I don't, you'll be in a situation where you'll likely need 30 ish percent. So that's only another 4-6 combos you need him to have. If he can have 57hh, why can't he have the other 3 suited combos as well? Same for 53. There's 6 potential bluff combos right there.

    As I said, a check/raise line for value would be pretty wacky here, so I don't really expect this to happen with any significant frequency. Most of the time I think we're just getting thin value from his AK, Ax, and 64s.

    If he's a good player he will realize that a small river bet looks like a bet/fold for thin value (again, does he know who you are?). That plus the fact that your range is face up and capped, should be enough for a good hand reader to pounce. If we're gonna lay that trap on purpose, then we have to call when it works.
  • Bart HansonBart Hanson Posts: 6,111Administrator, LeadPro
    edited November 2016
    Banana-- Again, it's a really good bluff spot. Does this guy know who you are? Does he know he's dealing with Bart 'bet/fold' Hanson whose range currently contains zero flushes? I think if you lead small, his bluff sizing should be small enough to call. It's simple combo work, and you'll likely only need him to have less than half a dozen worse hands.

    Just because I bet into a rainbow board vs 4 ppl doesn't give someone the green light to check raise the river because "I have no flushes in my range".


    Banana-- I'm also trying to be diplomatic when I say that 100% of people who posted in this thread are poker players, and 99% of poker players lose. You can do the math.


    While I agree with you about the general poker population, I think that as many as 30-50% of CLP subscribers are winning players and even more that post in these forums with regularity.


    Banana-- Do you disagree that your range contains almost no flushes. I guess maybe you could have 64hh if you're really playing loose pre-flop, but that's about it. Your upfront raise got called by half of LA. Would you really lead a backdoor heart draw into the field here on an ace high board? I know your'e not in the business of c-betting into 5 people with single digit equity.

    Do you disagree that villain's line is strange if he has one of the nine flush combos that you suggested to Wendy previously in this thread? It's heads up on the flop when the action gets back to him. Would he really check/call twice when your range is so obviously almost entirely 1 pair hands? If he thought you might be weak on the flop, he should check/raise. If he really had a strong draw on the turn, he should check/raise. He has the range advantage and the stack depth to threaten you.

    Do you disagree that him checking the river, with the intention of check/raising for value, would be a positively absurd line? AA is really the pinnacle of your range. I'd really discount 66/44 from your range as you would likely check/raise the flop. After that you're capped at two-pair and worse. And I think he'd expect you to check back the river with a huge portion of that range. Almost all of it really.

    If I raised 44 or 66 preflop with that many callers I would have a very non-high frequency of check raising the flop as the preflop raiser. So this guy who doesn't have a backdoor flush, who arrives at the river with Ax decides to rep the backdoor flush as a check raise on the river? And how exactly is my range capped at one pair when I raise pre and bet on the flop multiway and again bet the turn. I bet bet with AJ in real time, what would I do with AA, 44, 66? ? Its all the same..


    Banana-- If he's a good player he will realize that a small river bet looks like a bet/fold for thin value (again, does he know who you are?). That plus the fact that your range is face up and capped, should be enough for a good hand reader to pounce. If we're gonna lay that trap on purpose, then we have to call when it works.

    Tell me the hands he specifically he pounces with. He is trying to get me off of AJ? AQ..AK, AA?
  • BananaStandBananaStand Posts: 1,455Troll
    edited November 2016
    Bart wrote: »
    Just because I bet into a rainbow board vs 4 ppl doesn't give someone the green light to check raise the river because "I have no flushes in my range".
    Oh come on. Your range is pegged at Ax. Your hand is pretty much face-up after the flop. What do you think *would* give him the green light to check/raise the river? Do you disagree that the counter-measure to a bet/fold line is to check/raise?
    Bart wrote: »

    While I agree with you about the general poker population, I think that as many as 30-50% of CLP subscribers are winning players
    So 50-70% of people in this thread lose money at poker. I'd suggest listening to the minority.
    Bart wrote: »
    and even more that post in these forums with regularity.
    Hmmm, what does that say about someone who posts most-regularly??
    Bart wrote: »
    If I raised 44 or 66 preflop with that many callers I would have a very non-high frequency of check raising the flop as the preflop raiser.
    What what what???? You're out of position, 400BB's deep, and you don't think a check/raise is appropriate? You're gonna let someone in position play pot control with their Ace? Alot of Ax hands would likely get checked back on the turn, so you won't be able to do it then. You don't think one of your umpteen callers has an ace and will bet the flop?

    Seriously Bart...I'm being diplomatic here. I'm literally shocked that you wouldn't check/raise the flop with a set.

    Also....don't you kinda think your turn-sizing screams "not a set"? Maybe just a little..???
    Bart wrote: »
    So this guy who doesn't have a backdoor flush, who arrives at the river with Ax decides to rep the backdoor flush as a check raise on the river?
    Sure. I did mention that it is the least likely scenario, but if it did happen, I think you must recognize that it's a decent spot for him to pull off a bluff.
    Bart wrote: »
    And how exactly is my range capped at one pair when I raise pre and bet on the flop multiway and again bet the turn. I bet bet with AJ in real time, what would I do with AA, 44, 66? ? Its all the same..
    It's really not all the same. I think the only way you have 66 or 44 here is if you are allergic to money. And if he's holding Ax, then you only have one combo of AA. Barely a blip on his radar. You don't have a flush, you don't have KT, you don't have QQ/JJ. Range capped.
    Bart wrote: »
    Tell me the hands he specifically he pounces with. He is trying to get me off of AJ? AQ..AK, AA? [/b]
    So I'm still trying to be diplomatic here, but this is infuriating. I answered this question already. It's pretty difficult to maintain diplomacy when you're not even reading what I post, but arguing against it anyway.

    If he can have 53hh or 57hh, then he can have those same hands in diamonds, spades, and clubs. In fact, I think those combos are more likely than the heart combos, as the hearts would have found a check/raise somewhere earlier in the hand. We can sit here and debate combos all day. He may be turning A8 into a bluff, or he has some other airball hand that he's been planning this with all along. We've both said it multiple times in this thread now. He would not check a good hand. So......that just leaves bad ones.

    It sounds like we agree that a check from the villain is a powerful signal of weakness. You mentioned it in another post earlier in the thread. So then I'm assuming that we agree that this is a spot where we can bet for thin value. He can have the one remaining combo of 64s, A6, A4, AK, or even Ax that might call a bet of 200-300 or so.

    So I'm not seeing how we disagree here Bart. We agree that a check from the villain, with a value hand, would be absurd. We recognize that. We can also recognize that our hand is pretty face up. We can also recognize that this is a spot where our face up hand is susceptible to bluffs. We can also recognize that this "good" player should know all of this. And when we add all that up, his check/raise range is full of shit.


  • DrSpaceDrSpace Posts: 716Subscriber
    edited November 2016
    HAND 2:
    We can bet small vs a good player. We can ✔️.
    We can call any size donk on the river iff the villain in balanced, like they would bluff the ♥️ to get us off an A. Hard for them to have a big ♥️ blocker or even a lot of bluffs really. Really tricky villains might bluff AxT ♥️ for example.

    Hand 3:
    An important consideration is whether the villain is even capable of ✔️⬆️ the turn. It is conceivable she might not raise a strong value hand on the flop. Hands like 88 and ATs (1 combo) are possible if she has that play in her repertoire. Bet folding too big makes our lives hard, maybe raise 1-1.3x, as long as the bet doesn't get to big to make the bet fold. She doesn't have a lot of value combos and hands like KQss might be overplayed given the action. Maybe 200-500$ as played. Make it big enough that a 3! is reliably beating us.
  • maphacksmaphacks Posts: 2,009Subscriber
    hand2: I don't know what games you are playing in, but claiming it's likely / or a good spot to bluff for villain is really off. yes it is correct that villain has flushes and we don't , but that doesn't make it a good bluffing spot if we never fold two pairs or sets.
    for example I often recognize spots where I know villain is "capped" but I also know he will call no matter what I rep and how big I bet. even against good players who know what I am repping it doesn't work that often if they have a decent hand or what you would call "top of your range".

    @banana: you propose checkraising flop with sets and in the same sentence you say you don't want people potcontrolling their Ax hands. well that's what could be happening if you check (raise). and if they bet and we follow up with a raise IMO it just looks too strong. we might get calls on the flop but usually most aces are folding the turn. I don't think that makes us more money.
  • Bart HansonBart Hanson Posts: 6,111Administrator, LeadPro
    maphacks wrote: »
    hand2: I don't know what games you are playing in, but claiming it's likely / or a good spot to bluff for villain is really off. yes it is correct that villain has flushes and we don't , but that doesn't make it a good bluffing spot if we never fold two pairs or sets.
    for example I often recognize spots where I know villain is "capped" but I also know he will call no matter what I rep and how big I bet. even against good players who know what I am repping it doesn't work that often if they have a decent hand or what you would call "top of your range".

    I actually ranted quite a bit about this on todays show.. U took the words right out of my mouth.
  • BananaStandBananaStand Posts: 1,455Troll
    edited November 2016
    Gonna listen to the podcast tomrrow. But it kinda seems like we're just arguing the chicken and the egg.

    It is a good bluff spot because he can rep a flush. Your counter measure is to call when he has too many bluffs in his range.

    You seem to think that it's not a good spot because hero always calls. Hence our counter measure is to fold.

    It's really a levelling war that goes around in circles. But at the end of the day I think quincy jack said it best. If he's balanced, he has a bluff frequency on the river and we have to call.

    If he's not then fold. But this whole thread started with the statement that our villain is a good player, former pro and can hand read well.

    How does he have the same range as a drooler who only leads when he has the walnuts
  • aaronaaron Posts: 498Subscriber
    Hand 1: Fold
    Hand 2: Bet river, Evaluate anything over half pot if he leads (depends on if he can turn hands into bluffs which seems suicidal in this spot), Frequency of squeezing AQ pre is also relevant
    Hand 3: I'm raising in this spot even with her sizing and am not a fan of the flop or turn check. I'd think she'd bet turn w/ 88/Tx a high % (player pool tendencies) so she has AQ/AK or KQ/KJss that you can get value from here. If she doesn't have 44/AT in her range we're in amazing shape.
  • aaronaaron Posts: 498Subscriber
    Gonna listen to the podcast tomrrow. But it kinda seems like we're just arguing the chicken and the egg.

    It is a good bluff spot because he can rep a flush. Your counter measure is to call when he has too many bluffs in his range.

    You seem to think that it's not a good spot because hero always calls. Hence our counter measure is to fold.

    It's really a levelling war that goes around in circles. But at the end of the day I think quincy jack said it best. If he's balanced, he has a bluff frequency on the river and we have to call.

    If he's not then fold. But this whole thread started with the statement that our villain is a good player, former pro and can hand read well.

    How does he have the same range as a drooler who only leads when he has the walnuts

    Just b/c someone is a "good" player or used to be a pro doesn't mean we can give them credit for unorthodox lines. I play live poker every day and can't count on one hand the times I've seen someone check/raise river bluff in a spot like this. You're confusing theory with actual real life.
    Thanked by 1Jacklamb
  • BananaStandBananaStand Posts: 1,455Troll
    aaron wrote: »
    Just b/c someone is a "good" player or used to be a pro doesn't mean we can give them credit for unorthodox lines.
    What's unorthodox about bluffing a flush on the river? Seems like a pretty balanced play that a good player might make. There seems to be a mad rush to muck our pretty-good hand if Villain even breathes on the pot. Maybe a 'good' player might pick up on that.
    aaron wrote: »
    I play live poker every day and can't count on one hand the times I've seen someone check/raise river bluff in a spot like this. You're confusing theory with actual real life.
    Well I did say that I expect that to be the least likely scenario. I think we all agree that V isn't checking a good hand on the river. He's only checking bad ones. So any check/raise would have to be a bad hand.

    I think we really need an answer to my question. Does this guy know who Bart is? Does he know that the hero's middle name is "bet/fold"? If there is one person on this earth I'd be confident check/raise bluffing, it's Bart Hanson. No offense Bart. Folding to the check/raise still exploits the population-wide imbalance toward value. But I think if you are making a living preaching 'bet/fold', then you naturally have to accept that you're gonna get bluff-raised more than most people.
  • BananaStandBananaStand Posts: 1,455Troll
    So I just listened to the podcast....I think I know why there is so much "back and forth" between me and Bart.

    Somehow, the words I post, in plain english, get turned into something else during the trip from Bart's computer screen to his brain.

    Where did I say that your range is capped because you wouldn't raise a suited hand UTG??

    You can't have a flush here because it means you c-bet from out of position into 2/3 of the table with single digit equity.

    What suited K's are you raising UTG and then c-betting into a huge field on an Ace high board? How in the universe can you have K T???
  • JacklambJacklamb Posts: 561Subscriber
    edited December 2016
    Banana, you pay money for material that Bart makes, but you spend so much effort opposing what he has to say. I understand arguing to understand something better, but you sound like a joke. Just because a spot is good to bluff does not mean that we suddenly take any hand we're currently holding and now decide to bluff. That doesn't make any sense. If you did that with any regularity it would cease to be a good play vs a competent player if he's disregarding his holdings to now bluff because we bet small on the river.
    If there is one person on this earth I'd be confident check/raise bluffing, it's Bart Hanson.
    Lol, ok buddy.
    Thanked by 1Thehammah
  • BananaStandBananaStand Posts: 1,455Troll
    Jacklamb wrote: »
    Banana, you pay money for material that Bart makes, but you spend so much effort opposing what he has to say. I understand arguing to understand something better, but you sound like a joke.

    Just today I got a PM in my inbox from someone thanking me for being willing to challenge certain "standard" lines of thinking, and providing a different perspective to the discussion.

    I've gotten similar notes from other regular posters in the past. I suspect that they don't do so publicly because of people like you, who name-call and pile on anyone who disagrees with the consensus.

    And for the record, the consensus has not answered my question. How can Bart have a flush in Hand 2?

    It was addressed in the podcast under a bogus premise that claims I don't think Bart opens suited hands from upfront. I have no idea where that notion came from. It was invented out of thin air.

    If we had one, maybe two callers pre-flop, then sure, we've got flushes here. But in this case, with the whole neighborhood in the hand, we didn't c-bet KThh. That's the compelling factor here.

    Oh well, maybe next podcast.
  • JacklambJacklamb Posts: 561Subscriber
    edited December 2016
    Banana, you don't play these stakes. How could you have a practical answer to these questions? You play lower stakes and not very often. I name-call because you're a 1/2 player discrediting Bart Hanson whose information you pay for. Doesn't that seem a bit backwards and foolish? I like to contribute to the forums but when you keep posting things like this I can't take anything on here seriously.
    Thanked by 1Thehammah
  • Bart HansonBart Hanson Posts: 6,111Administrator, LeadPro
    Banana you are making some assumptions about hand 2 with regards to my actions that are not true. I would not check raise 66 or 44 with a high frequency on the flop, I would bet them. I think its a better line for value to go bet bet bet with those hands and have a AQ-A9 hold on than to go check raise bet bet.

    You say that my range is "faceup" on the flop because I bet and that I am pegged at Ax.. then you say my range is capped at the end, most likely to a single paired ace, yet I actually have AJ for top two on the turn.

    While it is true that it is nearly impossible for me to have a flush here because "I bet into half of LA" you still somehow think that I am not strong at the end because "I bet into half of LA" on the flop, two thoughts that are incongruent.

    If we agree with your approach here should we be floating any rainbow flop vs the preflop raiser after he bets into multiway competition to represent a backdoor flush because we know that the pf raiser won't have it?

    And I'd love for you to answer my question in the podcast about representing any board where the nuts can't be in the preflop raiser's range because of the preflop positions and/or post flop action of betting certain boards into multiway fields.
  • BananaStandBananaStand Posts: 1,455Troll
    Bart wrote: »
    Banana you are making some assumptions about hand 2 with regards to my actions that are not true. I would not check raise 66 or 44 with a high frequency on the flop, I would bet them. I think its a better line for value to go bet bet bet with those hands and have a AQ-A9 hold on than to go check raise bet bet.
    Sorry, but this blows my mind. You're so deep and people love to hang on with top pair. Do you really lose AQ with a check/raise on the flop? Maybe that's a difference between 5/10 and the games I play. I don't know, but if that's really teh case, how are you not check/raising every hand?

    Also, didn't you say somewehre in the podcast that you didn't expect to get three streets from A9/AT?

    Bart wrote: »
    You say that my range is "faceup" on the flop because I bet and that I am pegged at Ax.. then you say my range is capped at the end, most likely to a single paired ace, yet I actually have AJ for top two on the turn.
    This is where I'm getting a little frustrated now Bart. Once again, you've invented words and put them in my mouth. I'm pretty sure I stated that you have undiscounted combos of AJ, AQ, and AK in your range. I won't go back and re-read the thread again, but IF I said anything about a single paired ace being "most likely", then it's only because of the combinatorical realities. There's an J and Q on the board. Unless they play with screwy decks on the west coast, you should have more combos of AK

    Bart wrote: »
    While it is true that it is nearly impossible for me to have a flush here because "I bet into half of LA" you still somehow think that I am not strong at the end because "I bet into half of LA" on the flop, two thoughts that are incongruent.
    If they are incongruent....then something must have happened in between the flop and river. What was it....... Oh yeah....the dealer put two more cards on the board.

    Running broadway flush cards really changes the relative strength of many parts of your range.

    Bart wrote: »
    If we agree with your approach here should we be floating any rainbow flop vs the preflop raiser after he bets into multiway competition to represent a backdoor flush because we know that the pf raiser won't have it?
    It's like you're just inventing ways to argue with me on your own forum. Why???

    Of course we shouldn't be doing that. First of all, backdoor flushes are like 20 to 1 draws. Double floating will surely cost too much relative to how often we win. Plus, it only works if top pair blocks the BD flush draw. If it doesn't, then the PFR CAN have BD flushes in his range.
    Bart wrote: »
    And I'd love for you to answer my question in the podcast about representing any board where the nuts can't be in the preflop raiser's range because of the preflop positions and/or post flop action of betting certain boards into multiway fields.
    I'd love to know why it's a relevant question. Do you not agree that poker is very much situational? And that blindly taking lines when only a certain handful of conditions are true would be unwise?

    So I don't know how to answer your question. I wouldn't ever say "any time this happens, do this" in a vacuum.

    But the name of the game is exploitation. Exploitation in poker means countering unbalanced ranges. So if the pre-flop raiser got to the end with a range that's unbalanced and weak, I'd probably look for ways to attack that.
Sign In or Register to comment.