-
Top Set in Trouble – PEAL hand
This was a hand from a PEAL session over a month ago against @MaxChaos ! I had a big post drafted but lost it somehow. I was revisiting though and I think it is a good one for the forums as it gets at several interesting points that I learned a lot from. A nearly perfectly polarized range to hands I beat vs. hands I don’t, polarized bet sizing vs value bet sizing on the river, all kinds of good stuff.
We have KK in the Cutoff and get a call from @maxchaos in the BB. I gave him this sort of a range in the BB as a call.
Going to do this in separate posts.
-
8 Replies
-
One of the things I have been wondering about is we had top set vs. nut straight on the flop and the pot was only 700? How did we not get all in on the flop here? I think it was interesting how the board texture, the flush draw, etc. dictated both of us playing these extremely strong hands a little cautiously. Both of us had a strong case for trying to get value from worse hands while also being cautious about what was on the board. The fact that KK and J10 were such small pieces of the range made it difficult to bloat this pot up.
-
The flop comes K(!)s,Qc,9s giving us top set on an extremely wet board (90% equity vs. the range above). I go to c-bet 25 into 65, but misclick to 10 instead. I say in the chat that it was meant to be 25 (PEAL is a friendly game) and Greg raises to 50 which is a min raise. So what does the range look like now? Given we are in a deep stacked cash game and we splash around a bit in PEAL, I think this could be done with straights, sets, two pairs and maybe some combo draws. We have 77% equity against a range like this.
Given the amount of cards we don’t like on the turn and river and might have to shut down on and an opportunity to extract value from 2-pairs, worse sets and draws, we go ahead and raise to 150. Greg goes ahead and calls which I think he does with most of this range. We can probably quibble with maybe getting some folds or raise backs here (with made straights for example), but I think as played this makes sense.
-
The Turn is a 10c and Greg checks. This is a bad card for us. 4 liner to the the jack and this brings in some of the straight draws. As you can see the range is getting more polarized to two pair/set which we could get value from or straights which we are behind. If we bet and get raised here we are in a really tough spot, so I elect to check back.
-
The river is a 4c. And we face a 168 bet into 365. What is interesting is what this card does to the range. At this point, it is almost even between two-pairs and sets that I beat or straights that I lose to. In the PEAL commentary, I was wondering about the number of Jacks vs. the number of missed flush draws. Given Greg’s sizing here, that is the wrong analysis. A missed flush draw should be using a polarized bet size not a value size and I trust Greg knows this. In Greg’s analysis, he specifically says this is a value bet and I don’t think there are many bluffs in this sizing. So think that is where we get to value that I am beating vs. value that I am losing to. Also, given the sizing and that I am about 50/50 to win the pot. I think it is a clear call as I only need 168/701 ~ 24 % to call. We lose to J10o that flopped the nut straight!
-
Awesome analysis of this hand, Dan.
I remember that night and the anguish I could sense on your side trying to decide if you could fold that set . . . ???? A tough decision indeed. I would agree based on your analysis that you made the right call. Granted it didn’t work in this specific instance with that specific combo, although there were plenty of thinner value hands I could be betting with that you did beat.
Thank for posting the breakdown. Definitely helped me to read through it.
-
Not sure what the blinds were and how much your open was for from the cutoff, but I would personally never call with this wide of a range, even from the big blind. However, I see it is a 57% range which a lot of the literature I read says is about correct. I know we can assume the open from the cutoff might be pretty wide. I’d never be calling this with something that at least couldn’t make a flush or a straight, such as 9-4s, J-6s, Q-7o, etc. I’d like to hear some other’s input as to whether they think this calling range is roughly correct and I am way too tight!
-
To clarify my last post… I said make a straight OR a flush. I meant a hand that has the possibility of doing either or both, rather than just one or the other. Obviously I’m also calling (or raising) with other more traditional good hands… pairs, broadways, suited connecters, strong aces and kings, etc.)
Log in to reply.