£200 NL HE Full Ring: £200 Oesd on the flop

[sitingman]

Game

Hold'em

Game Format

No Limit

Stakes

$1/$2

Table Format

Full (8-10 seats)

Currency

£

Live 1/2 game in a London casino.
8 handed table.
Utg raises £7,
I'm next to act with 77, utg has me covered but I have around 100bbs. I call.
Big blind calls with a similar 100bb stack.

Flop 568 Rainbow.

Big Blind and utg check. I Bet pot thinking I have a good bluff hand and want to use a big sizing on a board that I won't bet too often. Big blind calls.

UTG raises to £80. I have a good hand but I have shown strength by betting pot, some else has called and now UTG raises.

I didnt think calling was a good option as I'm putting in a large part of my stack and feel the turn would be awkward most of the time. All in or fold? How would you have played this?

 

[primrose]

I think betting pot is a mistake. You're betting as a bluff, and a Pot bet doesn't really achieve more than a 75% pot bet. If someone really likes their hand, they're not going away. You gave a GTO reasoning, but you're playing live; you should play the field, not GTO. You don't want to go too low because you don't want broadways with a backdoor flush or something to call, but 75% and probably even 67% would achieve this, too.

... you should also really format these more. At the very least add the size of the pot. You said you bet pot and got raised to 80, but I don't know how large pot is, which is very important here because it's a pretty close spot. Don't make have to calculate! Well I guess I'm calculating now, so it should be about 22, which means you have to call about 58 to win 22+80+80+22=204. (There's also images with :{number}{color}4: like .)

Anyway as played I think fold to the raise. You're virtually always behind and UTG won't let you see another card for free; an all-in on the Turn is likely and then you don't have the right price (assuming about 16% for your straight and no other outs -- you can also win with the 7 and maaybe with blanks, but you're also not guaranteed to win with any 4 or 9, so I think 16% is fair). But you might have had the right price if you bet 15 instead of 22.

 

[fundiver199]

Preflop
Seems completely fine to call here.

Flop
If you bet this flop, its not a bluff, because no better hand will ever fold. So its a bet for value and equity denial, and since its kind of thin value, you dont need to bet full pot. I do like a bet here though, because its 3-handed, and you dont want to let random hands like QT or KJ get there for free. When UTG raise, its extremely strong action because of your sizing and the fact, BB has already called.

UTG has now put in 87 and only have 113 left in the effective stack. I understand these numbers are not accurate, but its close enough. UTG has basically committed himself to this pot, so I think, you need to threat this as an effective all-in. If you call, you can not fold on the turn and should expect, that he usually jam. And if you jam, he will never fold.

So with this in mind we can simply pull out Equilab (away from the table of course) and see, what your equity is. If we assume, BB will fold, if you 3-bet jam, then pot will be 427, and its 173 more for you to jam. This mean, you need 40,5% equity. The worst case scenario is, you are never ahead. Lets say his range is 55+, 97s and 87s. In this case you only have 33% equity. If I add a few more hands like 76s and A7s, you have 38%.

We can also check the math, if BB call and UGT overcall. I will give BB a different range by removing JJ+ but adding a lot of offsuit connectors and A7o. Now you have 26% equity. The pot will be 600, so you need 28%. In both cases your equity is to low, so unless we assume, UTG will sometimes make it 80 and then fold to a jam, this is sadly a fold.

 

[fundiver199]

but you're also not guaranteed to win with any 4 or 9

The real killer here is, if someone already has a straight with 97 or (less likely) 74. This is already baked into the math, I did above, since I gave UTG 97s and BB 97o as well. I think, that is pretty realistic.

 

[Station_Master]

Its a standard fold pre, but ok its live so call away!

Your thought process on the flop is competely off. Why are you thinking of such a strong hand as a bluff. Check or bet smaller are the better options.

Facing the raise i dont see whats wrong with call, your IP and its 58 into a pot of 88 i think ( as mentioned above it would help to format better) so about 67% pot. You have the equity to call here. Shoving makes no sense as it will almost never be a bluff from UTG.

Sure it sucks if the turn is a broadway and he shoves and you need to fold your equity but it would only be 18% max at the point, and there are also good turns where you are happy stacking off (and others where he may not bet)

 

[primrose]

Facing the raise i dont see whats wrong with call, your IP and its 58 into a pot of 88 i think ( as mentioned above it would help to format better) so about 67% pot. You have the equity to call here.

Fundiver's odds were to get there on the River, not the turn. Turn is roughly half, should be about 16%. So if we assume we only get to see one card, which we should, then I don't think we have the price to call the raise.

 

[Station_Master]

I

Fundiver's odds were to get there on the River, not the turn. Turn is roughly half, should be about 16%. So if we assume we only get to see one card, which we should, then I don't think we have the price to call the raise.

I'm talking about equity not odds to hit our hand. Why assume something happens 100% of the time, that makes no sense in a probabalistic game. Sometimes we see both cards. anyway even if we just see one its fine as we have good impied odds to win the rest of villains stack if we hit our hand. Note its ten outs rather than eight if we are up aginst an overpair.

 

[fundiver199]

Fundiver's odds were to get there on the River, not the turn. Turn is roughly half, should be about 16%. So if we assume we only get to see one card, which we should, then I don't think we have the price to call the raise.

It is of course a little more complicated than that, because if he has a hand like JJ, and turn is a K, maybe he freeze and dont put in the rest of his chips. And then we do get to see both cards for 60 more. But there is also a flip side, because if we improve on the turn, there will be 4 cards to a straight on the board, and then an overpair might no longer be willing to stack off. So we dont have good implied odds to compensate for sometimes having to pay a lot to see the last card.

I think, the whole hand would be a lot easier, if Hero had not bet full pot. Then the raise also comes in much smaller, and then its a pretty easy call and see a turn in position. Or maybe jam and still have some fold equity. Lets say pot was 20 going to the flop after some rake. Then Hero bet 10, BB call for 10, and UGT raise to 50. If Hero now jam for 193, pot is 273, and its 143 more for UGT to call, so he is getting less than 2:1. In that situation it is easier for him to sometimes raise-fold an overpair, and Hero could more effectively turn his hand into a semibluff.

There would also be less risk, that BB is sandbagging some kind of monster, because against a small sizing he will be more inclined to raise. So I really think, Heros sizing created an awkward situation, where Hero dont have any options, that are really great. Folding a hand with this much equity (unless someone flopped a straight) obviously suck. Jamming is unprofitable, unless UTG sometimes fold, and calling seems quite questionable as well.

 

[Station_Master]

It is of course a little more complicated than that, because if he has a hand like JJ, and turn is a K, maybe he freeze and dont put in the rest of his chips. And then we do get to see both cards for 60 more. But there is also a flip side, because if we improve on the turn, there will be 4 cards to a straight on the board, and then an overpair might no longer be willing to stack off. So we dont have good implied odds to compensate for sometimes having to pay a lot to see the last card.

I think, the whole hand would be a lot easier, if Hero had not bet full pot. Then the raise also comes in much smaller, and then its a pretty easy call and see a turn in position. Or maybe jam and still have some fold equity. Lets say pot was 20 going to the flop after some rake. Then Hero bet 10, BB call for 10, and UGT raise to 50. If Hero now jam for 193, pot is 273, and its 143 more for UGT to call, so he is getting less than 2:1. In that situation it is at least easier for him to sometimes fold an overpair

Agree we dont get in this horrible spot if hero doesnt pot it. Personally i think the implied odds are ok, e.g. turn rolls off a 4 i cant see KK not stacking off in a low stakes cash game with so much of villains stack already invested.

 

[primrose]

anyway even if we just see one its fine as we have good impied odds to win the rest of villains stack if we hit our hand. Note its ten outs rather than eight if we are up aginst an overpair.

I think you're too optimistic. I mean yes, both points you made are directionally true: if we wait for one card and then only continue if we hit it, then we do have implied odds, and if the opponent has an overpair, then a 7 is an out as well. However, now you're adding two wrinkles to your calculation that tilt the result in your favor, while not adding any of the wrinkles that tilt it away from your favor, such as

- opponent could have a straight already
- opponent could have two pair or a set, which gives them outs to a boat at the River

We can't make a precise calculation, but if we have to ignore complications, we should try to roughly be roughly balanced in whether we ignore complications that are good vs. bad for us. My simple 8 outs calculation ignores implied odds and doesn't treat the 7 as an out, which both work for it, but it also ignores the two things above, which work against it. I think that makes it closer to the truth.

 

[Station_Master]

I think you're too optimistic. I mean yes, both points you made are directionally true: if we wait for one card and then only continue if we hit it, then we do have implied odds, and if the opponent has an overpair, then a 7 is an out as well. However, now you're adding two wrinkles to your calculation that tilt the result in your favor, while not adding any of the wrinkles that tilt it away from your favor, such as

- opponent could have a straight already
- opponent could have two pair or a set, which gives them outs to a boat at the River

We can't make a precise calculation, but if we have to ignore complications, we should try to roughly be roughly balanced in whether we ignore complications that are good vs. bad for us. My simple 8 outs calculation ignores implied odds and doesn't treat the 7 as an out, which both work for it, but it also ignores the two things above, which work against it. I think that makes it closer to the truth.

You are right on both points, but I still think we can profitably call. As its an UTG open they probably are more weighted toward overpairs than straights or sets. Its hardly a printing spot, but I still think calling is better than folding or shoving.

All things considered we probably have about 36% equity and need to realise about 28% to make a profitable call which we should (just) be able to in position.

 

[CRStals]

I've skipped everyone's response to this and will dive into on my own without influence...
Pre-flop - I'd OK calling IP with 77 - it's not a great hand to call with when there are 6 players to act behind you though...but do you really want to three-bet against a UTG range? Depends on your reads at the table but a 3-Bet may be in order to ensure no one else has the odds to call unless they have a real hand. The BB calling is exactly what you don't want to happen - playing hands multi-way is much more complicated.

Flop (£22) - What hands are going to hit UTG's range? Not much other than 88 and depending how tight they are, 88 could be a stretch. So they either have a massive overpair, or they have totally whiffed on the flop. The BB feels like they have an eight though - that flop hits them and I'd be surprised if they fold on that board. I get your point on betting big, but you should be able to size down and achieve the same result. An argument can also be made to check with your hand as it may not be strong enough to stand on its own and betting into two players can often invite trouble - as you found out.

End of the day as played I think you have to shove if you call given you only have £20 back into a massive pot - but for me that's a fold on that UTG raise.

 

[sitingman]

Great feedback thanks. I'm getting the message that a pot size bet wasn't great but I generally try not to bet into 2 players as a bluff so guess when I do I try bet bigger to get a fold.

I decided to make a tight fold. Felt behind and wanted to find some better spots. Big blind folded aswell and UTG quietly took the pot.

 

[fundiver199]

Great feedback thanks. I'm getting the message that a pot size bet wasn't great but I generally try not to bet into 2 players as a bluff so guess when I do I try bet bigger to get a fold.

If you take only one thing away from this thread, then please let it be, that you are not betting this flop with 77 as a bluff. bluffing mean, you are trying to get better hands to fold, and nobody folds top pair or better to a single bet on the flop. Not even a pot sized one. So as I said already, this is a bet for value/protection, its not a bluff. It would be a bluff, if you were betting with A7s, because now a lot of better hands like AT-AK and 22-44 would likely fold, especially to a large sizing. But with 77 you beat all those hands, that might potentially fold, so you are not bluffing.

 

[primrose]

Yeah, when I said bluff earlier, I was just thinking that we want hands to go away -- like, we're not happy if we get called. So in that sense it feels like a bluff. But fundiver is correct that very few better hands will fold, and the hands we want to go away are weaker than us right now but have a lot of outs (probably two overs). Which falls under equity denial, not bluffing.