In terms of river over-bet bluffing frequency
I wonder how frequent you guys see an over-bet jam on the river as a bluff?
From my own limited experience, I have rarely seen any big over-bet bluff (OTR) in low stakes in my local casino, hence in the hand below, I wonder whether we can overfold?
1/2. Friday night. 8-handed. Hero just transferred to this table for 5 minutes so no ideas about the table dynamic.
UTG+1 limped 2, 4 limpers, until we saw red Kings on the BB. We opened to 20. UTG+1 was the only caller.
V is a white guy between 25-30 years old. Not much useful information.
Flop 522 rainbow. We bet 40% pot, V called.
Turn J, putting a backdoor FD there, we bet 55 into 90, V looked down at his cards again, tank called.
River another J, now we checked on this double paired board. V jammed 325 into the pot of around 200 and put his poker face on refusing to talk.
Hero?
I’m assuming any sane player below 100nl is underbluffing when they overbet, which is probably the equivalent of like T/25NL live tbh.
Most overbets at low stakes live games are from non-sane players, and the hands they show up with are all over the map. I’m making a Bayesian inference that applies to an unknown kid in these games blasting into a spot that makes no sense to overbet.
Still not calling without a J though, which I should have plenty of.
At low stakes river overbets are basically always the nuts.
Clues to support he's betting on value:
- Overbet
- His limp-call PF can have any boat or even quad 2s on this board.
Clues to support he's bluffing:
- That river jam is too big to get paid
- When he looked at his cards again on the turn, it looked a bit like a flush draw to me.
- We did check the river, so he knew we were capped (unless trapping).
I would have played the river as bet-fold. V probably had a PP with the flush suit. He's not checking his hole cards to see if he has a jack.
As played, I think we need to call.
First of all, this is 1/2. A random limp/caller is not a master strategist. I would have made a b/f in this situation. I know that a top player can exploit the b/f, but this is 1/2.
What this often means that the villain failed to get the pot built up with a winning hand and has to try to make it all up on the river. Don't pay him off.
OP, do you remember the suits of the 2's on board?
Venice10's post has me wondering if he might have been checking his hole cards to see if he had the 2 of the flush suit, trying to decide if he wanted to raise turn.
There's a lot of random nonsense that happens at 1/2. V shouldn't be limping in from UTG1 with 2x, and definitely shouldn't be limp-calling a BB raise with 2x. But he's obviously some sort of rec-fish, so maybe he shows up with some hand he shouldn't have.
When a flush draw appears on board, and someone checks their hole cards, they're usually confirming the suits of their cards, which is usually something they do when their cards aren't suited.
He might have a PP and was checking his suits. But thinking about it more, he might have some AXo hand, and was checking to see if he had the A of the flush suit, thinking he could rep the flush if it came in on the river.
When the river double-pairs the board, and we check, he probably thinks we'd never check a boat, or an over-pair to the board, so we must have a PP below Jx, or another Ax type hand, and that he can get us to pay him off with worse, or bluff us off a chop.
It's hard to credit him with having a boat here. Our hand is under-repped when we check the river. I think we need to call.
A2s if the 5 and J are the same suit, might make sense. Limps. Has a bunch of limpers follow. Gets popped from BB, calls (because suited!) and because surely some of those limpers will come along. Oops. V's also >200 bbs deep, and thinks they've minimum >20:1 IO.
Turns a flush draw, (or gets confused about their A2s being that color, but "which suit?"). Checks cards, to see if flushdraw. Rivers 2s full.
The shove is probably exactly as Venice described. Instead of betting something H can sigh-call. (Or b/f something reasonable, if H might've been squeezing with AJs)
V probably doesn't believe H has a J or 2 in their range, if V is thinking that far ahead at all.
I’m assuming any sane player below 100nl is underbluffing when they overbet, which is probably the equivalent of like T/25NL live tbh.
Most overbets at low stakes live games are from non-sane players, and the hands they show up with are all over the map. I’m making a Bayesian inference that applies to an unknown kid in these games blasting into a spot that makes no sense to overbet.
Still not calling without a J though, which I sh
I overbet bluff very frequently, and exactly in spots like this against thinking Vs. it definitely doesnt always work, even against Vs who have no reads on me, but i think its EV+.
I dont know how likely he has Jx but i agree bluffs here are rare so i bet he has 22 exactly, but he couldve floated with overs. I have traditionally called sometimes in spots like this, but i do feel like i get suspicious and shown the goods enough that my current thinking is its not ev+ and ive started folding a bit more. I think its more marginal than most people think though.
Agreed, this could be A2s of the flush suit. But that's one combo. It could also be A5o with the ace of that suit, which is potentially three combos.
Going through a bluff catching check list:
Do we beat value? No.
Did we give V rope? Yes, when we checked river.
Is V capable? We don't know enough to say he isn't capable.
Is the bet large for the game? Yes.
Does V have showdown value? No.
It's pretty close between a fold and a call, but I lean towards call.
What this often means that the villain failed to get the pot built up with a winning hand and has to try to make it all up on the river. Don't pay him off.
Although I can't quite reveal the result yet, I have found your comments to be spot-on a few times (last time I posted to ask whether I should fold my top top to an old man's turn jam).
This part 'What this often means that the villain...and has to try to make it all up on the river' explains a lot of the river over-bet I have seen. But obviously, as I overfold to them, I don't get to see their hands all the time to build up a good sample size.
My bad. I don't remember whether it's the 2 or 5 which was a heart (it reveals a leak in my game).
When the river double-pairs the board, and we check, he probably thinks we'd never check a boat, or an over-pair to the board, so we must have a PP below Jx, or another Ax type hand, and that he can get us to pay him off with worse, or bluff us off a chop.
I suspect players with Ax type of hand would have enough showdown value to under-bluff with big over-bet to get us off a chop though.
Lol I don't want a niche 2+2er sample. How about the river over-bet you have seen from others? Are they infrequent enough?
I myself is not keen on over-bet. On value, it gets too much fold than ideal. On bluff, a lot of the times smaller sizes can also do the trick. But I can change my mind sometime in the future.
I like your super narrow-ranged guess! I do have the reveal of this hand, so you will see soon 😀
My bad. I don't remember whether it's the 2 or 5 which was a heart (it reveals a leak in my game).
I suspect players with Ax type of hand would have enough showdown value to under-bluff with big over-bet to get us off a chop though.
When I try to bluff an opponent off a chop, I'll just jam, because I'm free rolling.
Without knowing the suits of the cards on board, and without any reads on V, we're mostly shooting in the dark here.
I think this is a close decision, enough that no one would fault you for taking the low variance route and folding.
We're bluff catching in a spot where bluff catching isn't clearly profitable or unprofitable.
Our hand is strong and under-repped. We beat all his bluffs, and we gave him the green light to bluff when we checked. Was our plan to check-fold, or check-call?
If the plan was to check fold, then fold. If it was to check call, then call.
If it was to check-evaluate, then it's a bad spot to do that, because we don't really have enough info to make a confident decision. V is repping a super narrow value range, and could have enough bluffs to make this a profitable bluff catch.
I don't think it's a huge mistake either way, regardless of what the result is.
I don't think it's a huge mistake either way, regardless of what the result is.
As played, I think we need to call.
I agree with b/f. I hard disagree with absolutely everything else you've said. Population tendencies absolutely disagree with you and hero has provided 0 reason to believe he's capable of bluffing here and EVEN if he shows up with a bluff this time, vs population you're losing heaps here.
If the plan was to check fold, then fold. If it was to check call, then call.
This is not how river spots or poker works and you know this.
At low stakes river overbets are basically always the nuts.
100% agreed with this. It's been years since I've played 1/3 or 2/5(no 1/2 where im from) and I mostly play 5/10 or 10/25 now if it runs and even there people simply don't overbet bluff rivers like ever.
Agreed, this could be A2s of the flush suit. But that's one combo. It could also be A5o with the ace of that suit, which is potentially three combos.
Going through a bluff catching check list:
Do we beat value? No.
Did we give V rope? Yes, when we checked river.
Is V capable? We don't know enough to say he isn't capable.
Is the bet large for the game? Yes.
Does V have showdown value? No.
It's pretty close between a fold and a call, but I lean tow
I have some issues with this checklist. First off, in a 1/2 game we should lean more towards assuming that V's are not capable until proven otherwise than the reverse, especially Vs we've seen limp/call. Secondly, why are we assuming V has no SDV? This just seems like awful mirror-imaging because "we" wouldn't turn SDV into a bluff OTR, so V must not have any.
doc, you seem like a pretty good player except that you give LLSNL players way to much credit by default, imo. It's a recurring issue, and I think you are leveling yourself often.
Spoiler
After a few minutes, I flipped in a call. Villain showed QTs for the busted flush draw.
Not sure if these tells are relevant - during the thinking time, I tried to get villain to talk to me but he was silent and had both his hands on the table. I asked 'so you have a jack huh' 'maybe you flopped it with 55'. Initially he didn't give out any information, until I said 'I have a big overpair, and I don't like folding.' At that point I noticed that the frequency of his blinking changed and there are some movements of his fingertips. These may not be relevant at all and he could simply be putting on some acting, but they are the factors which direct me to calling.
There is another detail I only recalled after writing the post - villain moved seat (still at the same table) just before this hand. I mean, if you are running well and winning, you are not so motivated to move seat, are you? And if someone's not running well, maybe that's the time they are most likely to get out of the line.
I am happy to distance the process with the result. It can be a 'bad call' but just happened to be right this time. Even so, I think this hand and the live tells I noticed are worth sharing with the readers.
Nh. I wouldn't have called. I don't think we're good 39% of the time there, in a vacuum. But the cues you perceived are very important in live poker at moments like those.
I continue to be perplexed at the hands live villains show up with.
Lol I don't want a niche 2+2er sample. How about the river over-bet you have seen from others? Are they infrequent enough?
I myself is not keen on over-bet. On value, it gets too much fold than ideal. On bluff, a lot of the times smaller sizes can also do the trick. But I can change my mind sometime in the future.
Yeah i was responding to raise announced. i think i sorta answered on the next paragraph, but basically, im of the opinion that lowstakes players bluff too much on the river. They get there with too much junk playing passively and then say “oh **** its the only way i can win!” So im guessing most people suggested a fold (i havent actually looked yet), but ive found it marginal.
I traditionally call really really wide on the river, like ive made tons of calls in spots like this with ace high, and i definitely catch some bluffs, but i dont think enough
I like your super narrow-ranged guess! I do have the reveal of this hand, so you will see soon 😀
Yeah, Jx just doesnt often play this way, some people play too fit or fold on this flop, and the others, when they do hit i feel like they would bet smaller. This sizing is almost like they want 2x to fold at low stakes.
QTs is a great bluff candidate imo, and i think he played it great. I put this in “spaz” range of lowstakes Vs, in thst they are unpredictable, and even sometimes unpredictably play a spot really well. Maybe this guy recently saw a video of a spot like this, maybe he just bluffs his whole range, who knows.
QTs is a great bluff candidate imo, and i think he played it great. I put this in “spaz” range of lowstakes Vs, in thst they are unpredictable, and even sometimes unpredictably play a spot really well. Maybe this guy recently saw a video of a spot like this, maybe he just bluffs his whole range, who knows.
QTs is a good bluff candidate, but the reason it's not a good spot for V to overbet in theory is because they don't have a lot of pure bluffs, and they have less Jx+ than H does. It's basically the inverse of the nuts/air vs bluff-catcher clairvoyant toy game where V has a very condensed range with just a few exceptions (like QTss/A4ss), and all it takes for H to show up with the third nuts is to be capable of clicking check one time with any of the great multitude of Jx. (Which TBF is hilariously rare for a lot of the TINOs in these game.) Even if we isolate just for their 1 combo of quads specifically (and we're not nearly deep enough for that to make sense), they don't even have the advantage when it comes to quads.
As a result, the rare times that V does bet, they want to charge a price that makes for a difficult call/fold decision despite the fact we know that it's hard for them to have a bluff. Otherwise, they can just check and realize their equity against H's range that includes a fair amount of bluffs that ran out of steam.
QTs is a good bluff candidate, but the reason it's not a good spot for V to overbet in theory is because they don't have a lot of pure bluffs, and they have less Jx+ than H does. It's basically the inverse of the nuts/air vs bluff-catcher clairvoyant toy game where V has a very condensed range with just a few exceptions (like QTss/A4ss), and all it takes for H to show up with the third nuts is to be capable of clicking check one time with a
In practice, i think 0% of Jx get there with a bet bet check line on this runout, so if you jam into them here you just gotta fade a call from QQ-AA and A2, and i think for the most part you will. And i dont even blame them for folding cuz non maniacs who can bluff $300+ at 1/2 are extremely few.
...QTs is a great bluff candidate imo, and i think he played it great. I put this in “spaz” range of lowstakes Vs, in thst they are unpredictable, and even sometimes unpredictably play a spot really well. Maybe this guy recently saw a video of a spot like this, maybe he just bluffs his whole range, who knows.
I'm assuming you're saying QTs makes sense as a bluff because it blocks combos of QJ and JT, and unblocks ace-high and king-high flush draws that will win if it goes check check, but fold to a bet.
That's all logical, but we should wonder what V's plan was, calling a big bet on flop with total air, and calling again on turn, drawing to the 3rd nut flush, on a paired board.
His card check makes me think he called flop hoping to make top pair or pick up a draw, yet forgot his cards' suits. The river jam just seems like pure spew at these stakes, in a spot like this, where hero can and often will call with ace high, as well as QQ+.
I'm assuming you're saying QTs makes sense as a bluff because it blocks combos of QJ and JT, and unblocks ace-high and king-high flush draws that will win if it goes check check, but fold to a bet.
This and (more importantly) the limited number of pure bluffs to choose from to begin with, especially if you devalue A-high as a bluff (which tbf shouldn’t be as true for the wheel aces V is heavy on given the positions). I’d keep this in mind for the remainder of the post…
That's all logical, but we should wonder what V's plan was, calling a big bet on flop with total air, and calling again on turn, drawing to the 3rd nut flush, on a paired board.
Short answer: they’re floating.
I’d consider what your continuing range is facing a 40%p cbet on 522r IP after cold calling pre.
Obviously everything is either an overcard or a draw on this board and 3/4 of suited hands have BDFD so it’d be a mistake to continue with 100% of these hands, but the effects of folding all of them is pretty gnarly too. (MDF doesn’t matter broadly speaking OTF, but you’re gonna get yourself in trouble having a cold call strategy preflop only to roll over so easily postflop.)
His card check makes me think he called flop hoping to make top pair or pick up a draw, yet forgot his cards' suits. The river jam just seems like pure spew at these stakes, in a spot like this, where hero can and often will call with ace high, as well as QQ+.
I think the opposite is true where this is more likely to go through against a TINO at LLSNL whereas it’ll get snapped off more often in tougher and/or bigger stakes games.
I don’t think it’s good regardless when a smaller bet is so hard to bluff catch given V’s range composition.
Btw, I think the card check read is one of the easiest to overstate, and if the front page of this forum is any indication, it’d be better served ignored than given as much weight as it’s given.
