Am I missing value longer term?

shakinaces

So pre-flop I took the set-mine option with tens. Sometimes I'd re-raise here but hadn't been long at the table, didn't recognise most of the names and therefore took the passive approach with the plan to fold if the flop comes with overs and progress with caution if the flop is undercards and the betting gets big.

Only player I've sat with before is the initial raiser, who is fairly straight up and most likely has a pair or two big cards to have raised UTG.

Therefore happy to check behind on flop after the passive preflop.

BINGO.

The small bet from the initial raiser doesn't look strong (should that be a sign it IS strong?) but I want to build a bit of a pot now and hope they did have a hand like AQ/AK or maybe JJ?

Then I get hit by a river check-raise on a completely blank card. Couldn't bring myself to fold, although the call gives away the fact that alarm bells were ringing loud in my ears.

But should I be considering that things like AK/KJ/J9/even AA are there frequently enough and will call off if I throw in another raise? I know it would have stacked me on this occasion, but over the long term is it likely to be a more profitable play?

Player	Action	Cards	Amount	Pot	Balance
SB	Small blind		£0.05	£0.05	£24.28
BB	Big blind		£0.10	£0.15	£7.96
CO	Big blind		£0.10	£0.25	£4.90
	Your hole cards	10 10
Villain	Raise		£0.30	£0.55	£14.78
UTG+1	Fold
CO	Call		£0.20	£0.75	£4.70
shakinaces	Call		£0.30	£1.05	£19.70
SB	Fold
BB	Call		£0.20	£1.25	£7.76
Flop
		Q K K
BB	Check
Villain	Check
CO	Check
shakinaces	Check
Turn
		10
BB	Check
Villain	Bet		£0.20	£1.45	£14.58
CO	Fold
shakinaces	Raise		£1.20	£2.65	£18.50
BB	Fold
Villain	Call		£1.00	£3.65	£13.58
River
		6
Villain	Check
shakinaces	Bet		£2.20	£5.85	£16.30
Villain	Raise		£4.70	£10.55	£8.88
shakinaces	Call		£2.50	£13.05	£13.80
Villain	Show	K Q
shakinaces	Muck	10 10
Villain	Win	Full House, Kings and Queens	£12.07		£20.95

Phantom66

Regardless of time at the table and lacking prior knowledge of opponents I can't see the longer term value being in calling pre-flop.

TT is too good a starting hand to set mine with.

You have position and a very good starting hand - but one which is unlikely to improve on the flop.

Has to be a re-raise for me.

As played...

Against a random or known weak player, you should be looking to get it all-in with a FH even a low one when there are so many possibilities of str8, trips, high 2 pair which might pay you off.

Your villain is the one player you have history with and you think is a decent player. Therefore I would be giving villain credit for strength with the small lead out and call on turn.

The safer play is to check behind on the river and accept you might lose value to an AJ/AK who might pay off a value bet. A large bet/shove would most likely only get called by the higher FH.

As played the river reraise is so strong you have to expect to be behind, but for the size of the bet I think you have to call.

If anyone is missing value in this hand it is the villain not you.

F_Ivanovic

Phantom your thinking is pretty flawed at the end here. You want to not value bet because you think it's unlikely we'll be called by worse enough of the time - and yet you then go on to say that we have to call the re-raise? It doesn't matter that we're getting a good price on the end if we're only facing hands that beat us.

Anyway, not value betting this river would be a mistake. There are plenty of worse hands that will call a bet. When villain raises I think just flatting is fine. We are getting such a good price and there are some worse hands that villain can have. I certainly wouldn't expect a good player to have a full house that beats us here because if they did they played the hand terribly.

Phantom66

In Response to Re: Am I missing value longer term?:

Phantom your thinking is pretty flawed at the end here. (1)You want to not value bet because you think it's unlikely we'll be called by worse enough of the time - and yet you then go on to say that (2)we have to call the re-raise? It doesn't matter that we're getting a good price on the end if we're only facing hands that beat us. Anyway, not value betting this river would be a mistake. There are plenty of worse hands that will call a bet. When villain raises I think just flatting is fine. We are getting such a good price and there are some worse hands that villain can have. I certainly (3)wouldn't expect a good player to have a full house that beats us here because if they did they played the hand terribly.
Posted by F_Ivanovic

1, Against a weak player absolutely I'm value betting - info we had was that this was decent opponent (but see 3)
2. you are calling the reraise too - and I take the point that either the VB should be made, or should be a fold, by the same logic - the hand as played is full of contradictions so please excuse mine.
3. Hence my comment it's the villain who is losing all the value in this hand and that the turn min bet + call to raise smelt very strong (even though I wouldn't play it that way)

In cash I start off by assuming villain is tight and competent and believe they have strength when bets indicate that - then adjust accordingly based on observation.

I'm just expecting a C/R which I don't want.

Even so on balance I think you are right and should be a VB.

F_Ivanovic

I usually assume the opposite. Unless I see them playing on several tables I will just assume they're a rec and most rec's are definitely not tight and competent and unless I see otherwise I will value bet thinly vs them and not bluff too mugh to begin with.

Phantom66

In Response to Re: Am I missing value longer term?:

I usually assume the opposite. Unless I see them playing on several tables I will just assume they're a rec and most rec's are definitely not tight and competent and unless I see otherwise I will value bet thinly vs them and not bluff too mugh to begin with.
Posted by F_Ivanovic

Interesting take.

Accept a multi-tabler is likely to be a grinder, selective with hands and making correct bets.

I would describe myself as a competent rec - nothing more, nothing less.

So this is my approach when joining 1 or 2 tables...

I would argue that there are plenty of "recs" who know at least the basics of starting hands, position and reading the texture of a flop and are working on the rest of their game. Takes longer to work out weaknesses in their game.

Depends on levels (and I haven't got through many I admit) and time of day but I would argue that of 5 players on a full table likely to have a 2/3 split either way of a tight players v loose players. Either style can be good or bad of course, the trick is finding the not so good and exploiting them.

A couple of orbits or a showdown or two should rapidly help narrow down who is who among the villains.

In the meantime I would rather give up on a small pot or two than call off larger pots with marginal hands with no information to go on.

I suppose the technically best way is table selection and joining a waiting list and observing without paying the blinds.


Interested to understand the dynamic of starting new tables as a successful multi-tabler though.