Play Poker Tree...
Last week, Black Belt Poker introduced a brand new feature called the Poker Tree in which players were given every possible branch of a poker hand and invited to select their route by progressing through the relevant steps. The only route which didn’t end in misery was ‘Nik’s Golden Route’, the direction chosen by online pro and multiple GUKPT finalist Nik Persaud. However, poker’s a game of opinions, so we sought out the views of highly successful cash game pro Sida Yuen, as well as members of the Black Belt Poker community. Having discussed the hand in depth with Sida, Nik decided to modify his route slightly, changing his action on the river so that it echoed Sida’s chosen path.
If you haven’t yet worked your way through the Poker Tree or just need a reminder of the hand in question, then be sure to do so now so you can see how closely your thought process resembles that of the pros.
Sida Yuen
Sida Yuen is a high stakes online cash player who went to Vegas last summer as a member of the Vegas 8. He has worked his way through the various stakes and now regularly multi-tables the $5/10 games.
He has also written the following articles for Black Belt Poker:
Three/Four-Betting: Part One
Three/Four-Betting: Part Two
The Hand Exchange: Yuen on Lundy – Part One
The Hand Exchange: Yuen on Lundy – Part Two
Sida’s route: 2, 4, 9, 17, 23, 28, 45
(2) Call preflop
Given reads, Villain will attempt to steal my blind often with weaker hands as he assumes I’m multi-tabling. Therefore, with a hand like Q-J suited, I prefer a call since I can keep Villain’s dominated hands from the middle position, and it can also flop very well post-flop.
Three-betting is an option, however I may be dominated by his three-bet-calling range and we’ll be playing a bloated pot out of position. Since he thinks we could be three-betting light, we may also be played back at with light four-bets preflop, forcing us to fold a hand that is possibly ahead preflop. The big blind is also seen to be really tight and doesn’t squeeze without a real hand, which makes it more favourable for a call preflop. (In this position I prefer to three-bet a polarized range, such as hands like 5-7s or 8-9o or K-3s, or hands like J-J+/A-Q+. Also, given reads that Villain may play back light and likes to call three-bets preflop, I will widen my three-bet value range to even 9-9/T-T+ and A-J+ and sometimes K-Q+.)
(4&9) Check-call the flop
Since our read is that he will overplay hands, I will check and let the villain continuation bet (as expected the vast majority of the time). We don’t really know his flop continuation bet percentage, but we will assume he is trying to attack us with weaker hands because he thinks we are multi-tabling, so he will fire all of his air on his flop, and may also value-cut himself by continuation betting with a hand like weaker queens, J-J, K-T, A-T, J-T, etc.
Check-raising is over-representing our hand, and with our tight and solid image this accomplishes nothing but only fold out worse hands and keep in better, whilst putting more money in the pot. With a check-call we may also let Villain double barrel some turns since he may think our check-calling range on the flop is still fairly weak.
(17&23) Check-call the turn.
Again, similar to the situation on the flop, check-calling is preferred. Villain may still be barrelling some draws such as A-J, K-J, A-K or the turned backdoor flush draw, and sometimes may still be betting a worse hand like J-J/A-T to ‘protect’ his hand (since he is viewed to overplay his hands), so we are still reasonably ahead of his range. Leading is one of the worse options for us as it almost allows Villain to play perfectly, to fold when he’s behind and to raise when he’s ahead or has enormous equity with a hand like A-Jdd/ A-9dd/ K-Jdd. One may argue we should check-raise here to protect our hand from the possible draws, but the stack-to-pot ratio is still too large, and we are risking too much in our stack to protect a smallish/medium sized pot, and again Villain can play perfectly and only come over the top with better hands. So I prefer a check-call again.
(28&45) Check-call the river.
On the river it’s a clear check-call again. We hit one of the good cards, giving us a straight, but we are also beaten by backdoored flushes and higher straights. Leading is bad because Villain should be competent, and Villain should be able to see that J-x is very much a big part of our range. We could be check-calling flop and turn with any Q-J, J-T, J-9, A-J, K-J, 9-T. Our hand is very much face-up and by leading we will rarely get Villain to call down with worse two pairs and sets (unless we lead a smallish bet, but again that could induce bluff-raises by Villain’s with bare Ad-x hands).
On a higher level, if we hold a hand like Ad-Jx, and we are slightly deeper with the villain, I could argue a check-shove to try and fold out chops and possibly better hands as we hold the key nut bluff card, and more competent villains may be able to fold their hand. However, at $1/2, and given our reads, I don’t think we can even fold out the same straight through a check-shove, and it will only be $64 more for Villain to call, and we cannot expect to fold him out of chops given pot odds.
Villain can still be bluffing on this river a non-zero percent of the time (not rare, just unlikely), and villain may also be thinly value-cutting himself with a set or two pair (again unlikely, but it’s a non-zero chance). So we are beating that part of his range, and I check-call expecting to see a chop the majority of the time. If we are beat by higher straights or flushes, we also took the line that allowed us to lose the least.
Leading is bad because villain should be competent, and villain should be able to see that J-x is very much a big part of our range. We could be check-calling flop and turn with any QJ,JT,J9, AJ, KJ, 9T. Our hand is very much face-up and by leading we will rarely get villain to call down with worse 2 pairs and sets (unless we lead a smallish bet, but again that could induce bluff-raises by villains with bare Ad-x hands).
Brown Belt James Mitchell on the River Decision…
I think the main point in the river decision is the balance between the value gained in catching Villain’s bluffs or hoping he value cuts himself (both which are unlikely but still non-zero) by check-calling…
… or the value gained by leading smallish and hoping he calls with worse (which is also unlikely, but non-zero).
However, the bigger issues are between the times when Villain has a better hand and is able to choose his value bet size when you decide to take a check-call line, i.e. by over-shoving the river and giving you a hard decision (in which case I’ll very likely fold because our hand is very face up as J-x at the strongest and he shouldn’t expect us to fold that)…
… and between the times when you lead with your straight and get raised on the river as a bluff, which gives you another hard time.
In my opinion, since our opponent is competent and is a winning player, he will be very unlikely to pay you off even if you lead smallish into him on the river as your hand is very face-up as a J-x straight. If he has the naked ace of dimonds, he may even shove and bluff u off your hand, which will be the worst case scenario
So I prefer a check-call line on the river.
Community Routes
Orange Belt Kevin Williams:
2 (call)
4 (check)
9 (call)
17 (check)
23 (call)
29 (bet)
48 (call).
“Essentially boils down to bluff catching with my top pair and value betting my straight. I value bet because a) I have no real reason to put him on the BDF, b) I think K-J is a very small part of his range, especially as I kind of expect him to take a free river card with this sometimes, and c) the texture of this board makes it a good spot for me to bluff, so he may call me down light. Obviously have to make the crying call of $66 on the end. We’re chopping quite a bit and are calling $66 to take down our $201 share of the pot when this happens. Also, a small amount of the time we’re actually winning.”
Orange Belt Jamie Burland:
2 (call)
4 (check)
10 (raise)
73 (bet)
78 (call)
“I dont want to build the pot out of position with Q-J so just call preflop. Then hit a flop which puts me as a favourite against his range so go for the check-raise. He calls so have to watch for cards which fill obvious draws, still ahead most of the time here. Turn brings low straight possibilities but unlikely Villain is opening with J-9 or worse so this card unlikely helped - bet out and call the all-in. Pokerstove has tHero a 62 percent favourite at this point and sure enough he has a draw, albeit a lot of outs. Unfortunate not too scoop at the end.”
Yellow Belt Simon Shaw:
2 (call)
4 (check)
9 (call)
17 (check)
23 (call)
28 (check)
45 (call)
“The only real question is whether to lead the river and I think this is close since we have to consider that x% of the time Villain will be checking back with showdownable hands that we beat, y% of the time Villain will be betting hands that beat us which we call, and z% of the time Villain will be betting hands we beat either because he has little showdown value or he is turning his made hand into a bluff (since our perceived range is Qx or Tx a fair bit I think).
What leads me more towards a check-call on the river is to do with stack sizes. If we bet $80 then we are committed when Villain shoves, and nearly every time Villain shoves we are smoked so we lose $146. Most times Villain just calls our bet we are splitting so we make nothing, sometimes he calls with A-A or A-Q and we win. When we check-call sometimes we lose $80 and sometimes we win the whole pot.”
Brown Belt Adam Latimer:
3 (raise)
7 (bet)
85 (all-in)
“I pushed the whole way and got rivered, poker tree is rigged in my opinion”
Andy Brisland: 2 (call), 4 (check), 9 (call), 18 (bet), 30 (check), 50 (call)
Lee Innes: 2 (call), 4 (check), 10 (raise), 72 (check) and 74 (fold)
Malcolm Sievwright: 2 (call), 5 (bet), 12 (bet), 55 (bet), 71 (call)
Simon Mairs: 3 (raise), 7 (bet), 27 (check), 41 (all-in)
Jason Layland: 2 (call), 5 (bet), 11 (check), 19 (fold)
Mike Carroll: 3 (raise), 7 (bet), 27 (check), 83 (fold)
Lee Clarke: 3 (Raise), 7 (bet), 85 (all-in)
Adam Saunders: 1 (fold)
Ian MacDonald: 1 (fold)
Nick Spiers: 1 (fold)
Kyle Milne: 1 (fold)
Ben Pooley: 1 (fold)
Join us next week for another edition of The Poker Tree.