Beginning regular Legendary-F , who runs the blog “Variance, downstreak, or maybe bad poker?”, analyzed an NL5 hand in fast poker and shared his ideas on how to play when pairing a weak ace out of position.
High-stakes regular and GreenLine fund coach Vladimir NeNaZavode pointed out his mistakes and rated his opponent’s game as “excellent.”
Preflop
This is a fast-fold No Limit Holdem hand on PokerOK (GGPoker's Russian skin). The opponent is unknown, but we know their VPIP is 24.
After opening the CO, I have two options: 3-bet or call. The randomizer chose 3-bet. The 4x sizing for me is standard.
Vladimir NeNaZavode
It feels like not much has changed at the micros over the years, with most people over-calling preflop (and showdown confirms this). I would lean towards a more linear 3-bet at these limits. If we want to 3-bet polarly here, like a solver, then we must increase the sizing – a 3-bet of 12-13bb is suitable here. In this situation, the 3-bet is clearly not for value, so it is better to either call or increase the size. I like the first option much better.
Flop
We checked out of position so as not to inflate the pot with top pair and a weak kicker. I thought that we were unlikely to get a call from weaker hands, but our opponent could turn them into a bluff on later streets.
Plus, I wanted to leave my opponent’s bluffs and hit the turn/river with nines. He also has T9s, J9s, 98s in the range, and sometimes, we will get paid 66 and 77. In principle, the flop is not a draw, so there is no point in protecting the hand with a bet. An opponent in the range, of course, may have 87s and 76s, but there are not so many of them – I think that he will call all 87s, and throw away about half of 76s. He could also easily end up with AK and AQ, since, at this limit, most will be inclined to call rather than 4-bet.
Vladimir NeNaZavode
The flop is a default, our hand looks good when checked. If we talk about reasoning, then, as my experience shows, on Ax boards, at both micro and medium limits, people do not bluff a missed continuation bet often enough, because they intuitively see our check as protected.
Turn
I bet 2/3 of the pot to get calls from 9x and TT. QQ could have stayed too; people at this limit don’t really like to 4-bet them. J9 and JJ arrived, but we got a flush draw and, in principle, we are not very afraid of a raise.
I would most likely push the raise – several draws appeared, and the same KdQd and T8 could play like that, since after checking the flop they could feel weakness. Against strong hands, we still have nut value. I think that coupled with fold equity, this is a +EV action.
If we talk about the size of the bet, then I don’t like 1/3 of the pot after missing a continuation bet – we don’t get it from weaker hands that won’t throw away even for a larger sizing. Plus, a bet of 1/3, in my opinion, will not protect our hand (if we talk about a straight draw), and a flush draw through KdQd or Td8d, which will easily pay 2/3 of the pot, we dominate. A bet of half pot has a right to exist, but, again, we fall short. Pot bets and overbets do not make sense, since all hands weaker than ours will fall off on them.
Vladimir NeNaZavode
On the turn, in my opinion, there are a lot of logical errors in reasoning. Just like on the flop, our hand is still top pair with a weak kicker. You need to understand that when people see a check from us on such a board, they will often pot-control their Ah hands. Of course, they will start to place partial AQ (I would give the frequency for this meta at 50-50) and will put full weight on AK. However, there will still be a LOT of top pairs stronger than ours in our opponent's range, so we are still not motivated to put a lot of money into the pot, despite the extra equity we have gained. A block bet of a quarter or a third of the pot will look very good.
Hero writes that pushing against a raise is a waste of money. How often do you see bluff raises in position in response to a large size? Even if there are a couple of combo draws there, this is not an argument for pushing – we simply do not have enough equity.
River
I checked the river, since we didn’t get the flush, and I don’t want to get called by J9. After checking the flop, our range is drained, so our opponent can turn a weak hand into a bluff.
Why did I open the push? I think that my opponent’s range will also be limited to Aces, especially strong ones, and he should, in theory, raise sets on the turn. I assumed that he shouldn’t push two pair here, as there is a chance of running into slowplayed sets. Therefore, I put my opponent on a bluff – KQ, 98, 9T, T8, JT.
I never expected to see AJ at the showdown. I think that my opponent played his hand sub-optimally. Well, that, or he read my weak ace and played brilliantly.
Vladimir NeNaZavode
You have to ask yourself, how often do we see bluffs of almost two pots at our limits? At micro and mid-stakes, the golden rule still applies – people under-bluff and show up too often. How should we use this rule in this situation? We just blockbet on the river. A size of 10 to 30% of the pot looks very good here.
I wouldn’t worry at all about the fact that we are not protected here, especially in micro-stakes fast-fold tables at PokerOK. We can actually blockbet with all eligible hands, and play weaker hands through 100% check-fold and have no check-calling range at all. Especially if we had blocked bet on the turn and left our opponent with a wider range by the river. When checking, we will almost always see check backs from hands that we can thinly value bet against, and expecting expensive moves from second and third pairs is very optimistic, so the EV of a block bet will always be higher than the EV of a check.
The opponent played his hand perfectly and loaded exactly as much as needed at these limits.
