Love those a-ha moments...

Did a fun online $0.25/$0.50 6max session/lesson with a student today. We were in mid-position and opened with a pair of eights to $1.40. The action folded to an aggressive recreational player on the button who flat called. Blinds folded. Flop came out 9-2-2 rainbow. We c-bet to roughly 60% of the pot. Villain re-raised us 3x.

My student's immediate instinct was to fold, but before we did I asked what was the villain's preflop range? Remember, they just flatted an MP open raise and we're ~100bb deep. Student's answer: small- and mid-pairs and suited connectors.

So the next question was: Good, so what are you afraid the villain has here? Answer: a nine? Maybe a two? Or an over pair?

Name the deuces that are in his range? Answer: Uh, there's only one pair of deuces.

Good. Now name the nines that are in his range? Answer: There are a few combos of pairs of nines. Or he could have T-9.

And what over pairs are in his range? Answer: Uh, tens?

Really? At this aggro 6max table? Answer: No, he'd probably re-raise us with those pre.

And how many other cards in his range missed this flop? Answer: Uh, a bunch.

So what are you afraid of? Answer: Uh... uh... not much.

Based on his stats, is the villain aggressive post-flop? Answer: Uh, yes.

Does he multi-barrel? Answer: Uh, yes.

So do we have the best hand the vast majority of the time here? Answer: Yes. 

Will he bluff a lot in this situation? Answer: Yes.

So, when we have the best hand against a bluffer, what should we do? Answer: let him bluff.

Good. 

So we called. Turn was a three that completed the rainbow.

So, did this improve villains hand? Answer: No!

So has anything changed? Answer: No!

Do we still have the best hand the majority of the time? Answer: Yes!

Are there any draws we should be afraid of? Answer: No!

Is the villain likely to continue bluffing? Answer: Yes!

So what-- Answer: Let's let him keep bluffing us!

We check. Villain fires another barrel. 

So should we call or raise? Answer: If we call, he'll have about a pot size bet left to bluff again with.

Do you think raising here is going to get worse hands to call? Answer: No.

Do you think he'll fold those few better hands in his range if we raise? Answer: No.

So raising accomplishes what? Answer: Nothing good!

So, what should we do? Answer: Call!

River was another blank. 

Should we--  Answer: Nothing has changed! The only way he can win is to bluff us again. We should check!

We checked, villain shoved, my student snap-called, we doubled up.

A-ha, says the student. A-HA!

All-in for now...

-Bug

Bug's Poker Tip #25

Don't Pay Off Big Turn and River Bets

This tip is similar to Bug Tip #1: They're Probably Not Bluffing, but is worth repeating/expanding upon here. In fact, besides the adage to play tight and aggressive, this might be the single best piece of technical poker advice you'll ever hear for low and medium stakes games: Do not pay anyone off unless there's a damn good reason to*. When someone makes a big turn or river bet, your one pair-type hand becomes just a bluff-catcher. And, as we said back in Tip #1, they're probably not bluffing. So what are you trying to catch? In other words, in the majority of cases, your opponent won't be making a value bet with an inferior hand to yours. It's not rocket science, friends: either you're beat, or your opponent is bluffing. And if they're not bluffing very much when they bet big, then you're most likely beat. Don't play the sheriff. Don't pay to see what they have. Don't pay them off. Yes, it can be frustrating and annoying and aggravating to feel like you're getting pushed off a hand like TPTK, but at low and medium stakes, most players don't try to push people off hands correctly/enough. They're playing ABC poker, and are simply trying to make a hand, and then when they do, they bet. A big bet from a standard opponent means a big hand. Don't pay just to confirm that fact. Fold. Take a breath. Move on.

All-in for now...

-Bug

*A "damn good reason" might be that the player is a maniac, is on tilt, or simply doesn't understand the game. Most opponents you usually face are none of these things.

Hand Analysis: TPTK OOP Against ABC Player

You're in a deepstack $50 NL cash game against a table of solid ABC players. In this hand, you're OOP with A♣-Q♦ against one player. You've bet the  flop and turn, only to be called on each street. The river pairs the rainbow board, which now reads Q♥-T♠-8♥-4♣-4♦. What do you do?

Reads: You've have TPTK on a coordinated board. You got called two streets by an ABC player. Sure feels like a weak pair or a straight and/or flush draw to me. He could have a made straight (J-9) but he probably would have raised somewhere along the line, probably on the turn. Because he didn't (and we're this deep), I'm assuming he has a busted draw; i.e., he probably would have raised the turn to try and build the pot with the nuts. There's also a chance he has a Ten.

Estimate/Decide: Against his range, we very likely have the best hand (read: Value).

Implement: Here's where a lot of beginners go wrong, IMHO. They think they have the best hand, are afraid of not getting any more money out of the villain, so they lead again and hope their opponent calls. But do we really think the bad guy will call with worse here on the river? Answer: probably not. If he does have a busted draw, he's not going to call any bet from us here, as even a lowly pair of deuces beats him; ABC players may be straightforward in their actions, but they're also not idiots, and this guy should be well aware that we have something. He might call us with a Ten if we lead, but he has seen us fire two barrels and isn't stupid, so he has to put us on either a Queen (or better), or a busted draw ourselves. Therefore, the only way we're going to get any more money into the middle is to check and try to induce a bluff. The more aggro a player is, the better the chance of this succeeding. If the player is super passive and/or a fishy calling station, we might consider leading small here... but we have no reason to suspect he's a fish.

The trick to poker is slowing down to think before acting. When you get to the I-is-for-Implementing step, you should know what it is you want to do with the hand (e.g., build Value, Bluff, SDV, etc), so you need to then figure out the best way to achieve that goal. In this case, we want to build more Value, but leading out will look really strong AND it's unlikely we'll get called by worse unless we bet really tiny, which doesn't really add much value. Checking, on the other hand, looks to an ABC player like we missed and/or have marginal strength and might fold. Said another way, checking looks weak, so it could very possibly get the villain to bluff into us.

Answer: Check and call.

All-in for now...
-Bug