$2 NLHE Full Ring: Flop a straight, What could go wrong.

Hero in BB with with $2.23 behind,
Villain in the High Jact with $1.61 behind.
Villain 2 on the Button with 3.81 behind
Blinds post folds to Villain #1 who limps. Fold to Villain #2 who raises to $0.10 . Hero calls expecting Villain #1 to call also, but is disappointed when Villain #1 folds. Was it reasonable to expect a call?
Pot = $0.23 and the Flop comes BINGO. Hero flopped a straight. Hero raises $0.12 thinking it looks bluffy, hoping Villain #2 has a pair. Villain calls.
Pot =$0.46 and the Turn comes an Hero checks trying to induce a bet, Villain checks back, not biting.
Pot =$0.46 and the River comes Hero bets pot thinking it looks bluffy . Villain pauses and bets $1.50 putting Hero all in. This is a surprise. Hero needs to call $1.47 to win $2.29. Villain can have trips, or two pair or a boat. Does Hero call?

Preflop
I would always defend 76s to a normal open up to say 3BB. But when you are facing a 5BB open, you are not getting a good price, and you are going to be out of position postflop against probably two opponents. I know, low stakes live players regularly call in spots like this. But barring live dynamics, where you might need to "give action to get action", there is no way, this call is ever going to make you money.

Flop
Checking to the preflop raiser is obviously standard, and the plan would then be to go for a check-raise, since you flopped the nuts. But I actually dont mind leading on this board. Its a low and very coordinated board, which favour your range, and I dont think, it will always be C-bet. I would not use the thought process, that leading looks bluffy, but I do think, you can get action from at least some hands, that might otherwise just have checked back. Like his AK/AQ, that sort of stuff. And if he has an overpair or a set, he is probably going to raise you, which is of course fantastic.

Turn
I am not to worried about the board pairing, because I think, most people would have raised the flop with two pair or a set. So I think, you almost always still have the best hand, and I would bet it for value. Leading the flop and then checking the turn to induce is overthinking the situation in my opinion. If he has an overpair, he might actually get scared of the paired board and check back, and if you thought, he was very bluffy, why did you not check to him on the flop?

River
As played I would clearly bet again for value, but I am not really on board with your thought process, that full pot "looks bluffy". In my experience recreational players love to bet full pot, when they are strong, so if anything I probably overfold slightly to that sizing. I feel, you are either overthinking the hand or trying to make up for lost value on the turn and looking for a reason to justify your turn check.

Anyways when he raise and put you all in, I think, its a relatively easy fold. I am still not to worried about boats, because I think, sets and two pair raise the flop, so the most likely boat is a cautiously played QQ. But I think, he can have all 16 combos of JT, and I dont think, trips check back the turn on such a wet board. So you only beat a bluff, and a line like this in the micros is almost never a bluff. You are also not getting a good price getting only around 2:1.

Results
So you did in fact run into a slowplayed set, and this is definitely something, you will see in the low end of the micros. People playing very passively with big hands on the early streets, and then all hell breaks loose on the river. And this is why, we can just fold to that river raise and not worry about getting bluffed. The funny thing about this hand is, you were both trying to slowplay, and realistically all the chips should have gone in on the turn if not on the flop. In which case you would also have gotten stacked. But because the action was delayed, and JT came in, you actually had a chance to get away, and not taking that chance is a fairly costly mistake.

I agree with fundiver that the raise is too large to be calling this pre flop. This is also a type of hand that you can hit something with and still not be all that good. If the flop would have come K73 are we calling with confidence to a 50-60% bet sizing? I would not be confident with it but I guess we would have to call almost trapping ourselves. The larger the pre flop raise is the larger that flop bet will be by villain so I think I just pitch here and wait for another hand.

As played on the flop I personally dont like the lead. Most villains at this level are going to c bet and then we can go from there (depending on the sizing I would probably just call and wait for the turn to raise but that is just me). When you lead you really need villain to have an overpair to get a lot of value. It is 2NL so you will get a lot of loose calls but at the same time do we want to risk making AJ off fold here when we are pretty sure they will make a bet into us if we check? I always take a lead out there as a one pair hand so I dont agree with the bluffiness but it does make your hand look weaker than it is imo so I get it from that point but I dont think we have to play that way at 2 NL. I would let villain potentially hang themself here and just check to the raiser.

I would not personally love the turn in game but would not hate it either. I wouldnt think villain has too many 8x hands they are raising pre with a limper already in there at 2 NL so I wouldnt think its a card that could give me extra value. I would see it as a blank or a card where villain picked up a few boat outs to their pocket pair. If we bet the flop I would bet this turn as well for what I just wrote. It doesnt change the hand (little do I know) so if I am betting for value on the flop I would bet for value here too. If villain has nothing then you probably arent getting anything on the river anyway unless they spike a card.

As played on the river I like betting big to make our hand look more polarized (not sure villain would pick up on that) and it also could be a spot where if villain is calling 50% pot they will also call pot. Once we get raised though we have to start thinking about what the hell they would do this with that we beat and makes sense that they have. I really dont think villain would have any 8x other 88 which beats us that would raise pre in this situation. If if they were to have some, we block 78 and 98 beats us. I would discount QQ as I dont think villain checks the turn with QQ there. I would really think its not a bluff often either so I would pin them heavily on J10. If I was on the top of my game I would fold the river here but I will admit that I would probably call in game just because I am not that good and would have the "show it to me" mentality. In going through the hand though and thinking about it I think this is a fold that you can make safely on the river at 2NL.

TheBigFinn said:

Hero calls expecting Villain #1 to call also, but is disappointed when Villain #1 folds. Was it reasonable to expect a call?

Click to expand...

Not really much to add except that a call from a limper in this situation is more the norm than the exception. I would probably still fold because I'm not closing the action, but calling is never a huge mistake and the implied odds can be worth it. Especially if you have the initial limper tagged as a loose-passive player and the open limp is not super out of character.

Hermus said:

Not really much to add except that a call from a limper in this situation is more the norm than the exception. I would probably still fold because I'm not closing the action, but calling is never a huge mistake and the implied odds can be worth it. Especially if you have the initial limper tagged as a loose-passive player and the open limp is not super out of character.

Click to expand...

I did not touch on this in my initial reply, but why would we want the limper to call? If he call, there is less dead money in the money, and we have to content with more opponents postflop. And its not like, we are getting value from a call, when we have 7 high. Even if he has junk like K2 or Q4, he probably has more equity in the hand, than we do.

Presumably the thought process of OP is, that the limper is a bad player, and he wants to get involved with him. And thats all well and good. But how are we going to outplay the limper, when we are out of position, dont have initiative and have to content with the preflop raiser as well? Getting involved with bad players is all well and good, but this is not the hand to do it with or the situation.

fundiver199 said:

I did not touch on this in my initial reply, but why would we want the limper to call? If he call, there is less dead money in the money, and we have to content with more opponents postflop. And its not like, we are getting value from a call, when we have 7 high. Even if he has junk like K2 or Q4, he probably has more equity in the hand, than we do.

Presumably the thought process of OP is, that the limper is a bad player, and he wants to get involved with him. And thats all well and good. But how are we going to outplay the limper, when we are out of position, dont have initiative and have to content with the preflop raiser as well? Getting involved with bad players is all well and good, but this is not the hand to do it with or the situation.

Click to expand...

I would say that going multiway with a low suited connector is almost always preferable to going heads-up regardless of player strength (unless you can profitably open raise or 3-bet). Mainly because it makes playing the hand significantly easier to play (we can just go fit or fold post-flop), the implied odds of hitting go way up, and the reversed implied odds of hitting a weak pair go way down.

Hermus said:

I would say that going multiway with a low suited connector is almost always preferable to going heads-up regardless of player strength (unless you can profitably open raise or 3-bet). Mainly because it makes playing the hand significantly easier to play (we can just go fit or fold post-flop), the implied odds of hitting go way up, and the reversed implied odds of hitting a weak pair go way down.

Click to expand...

I think, this is a wide spread misconception, and that its just the other way around. Small to medium suited connectors are hands, where part of the strength often comes from semi-bluffing with draws, and its easier to bluff one person out of the pot rather than multible. Its also easier to get paid, when we make a small flush, because people tend to be hyper aware of monotone boards in multiway pots. And finally there is less risk of us making an expensive second best hand, as in fact we did in this hand. This is important, because suited connectors almost never makes the nuts.

There was an old video on Youtube with Annie Duke, where she talk about this. Dont know, if its still there, but if you can find it, its quite funny, and she eleborate quite a bit on the above points. But the main conclusion is, if you want to play a suited connector, you should almost always play it with preflop aggression and avoid multiway pots. In this case that would mean 3-betting, which is probably a bit to far out of line, so I would just fold.

fundiver199 said:

I think, this is a wide spread misconception, and that its just the other way around. Small to medium suited connectors are hands, where part of the strength often comes from semi-bluffing with draws, and its easier to bluff one person out of the pot rather than multible. Its also easier to get paid, when we make a small flush, because people tend to be hyper aware of monotone boards in multiway pots. And finally there is less risk of us making an expensive second best hand, as in fact we did in this hand. This is important, because suited connectors almost never makes the nuts.

There was an old video on Youtube with Annie Duke, where she talk about this. Dont know, if its still there, but if you can find it, its quite funny, and she eleborate quite a bit on the above points. But the main conclusion is, if you want to play a suited connector, you should almost always play it with preflop aggression and avoid multiway pots. In this case that would mean 3-betting, which is probably a bit to far out of line, so I would just fold.

Click to expand...

Alright thanks for the insight! I'm not convinced yet, but I'm planning to check on the math later tonight.

Hermus said:

Alright thanks for the insight! I'm not convinced yet, but I'm planning to check on the math later tonight.

Click to expand...

Few things in poker are black or white. But there is a widespread believe, that suited connectors are great implied odds hands. Something like "if I make a straight or flush, then someone will donate their entire stack to me". And often that is pretty far from reality, which this hand is actually a good illustration off.

When I was a cash game player, I started running filters in my database after around 100k hands. And I was shocked to see, how much money I was losing with small suited connectors and also the smallest pairs like 22-44. It was way more, than I was losing with junk, because with junk I just folded and only lost the blinds.

So the objective fact was, for those 100k hands my results would have been better, if I had always folded suited connectors and small pairs, unless I got a free look at the flop defending my blinds. And I think, a lot of players would find the same, if they did the same kind of reality check.

Never playing these hands is of course a bit extreme, and I am not saying, its optimal. But they should only be played in the most pristine sitautions, and being out of position and facing a big raise was not such a situation.

Hermus said:

I would say that going multiway with a low suited connector is almost always preferable to going heads-up regardless of player strength (unless you can profitably open raise or 3-bet). Mainly because it makes playing the hand significantly easier to play (we can just go fit or fold post-flop), the implied odds of hitting go way up, and the reversed implied odds of hitting a weak pair go way down.

Click to expand...

My plan was to hit or fold. My thinking is when middle suited connectors hit the flop they are hidden and top pair or over pairs often pay me off.