Here is the Friday hand analysis from the experts at 2CardsCollege! By the way, don’t forget that you too can send us your hands and our coach will analyze them in detail.

https://www.weaktight.com/h/56293071d3904386598b489d

This is a hand from the $1,050 Thursday Thrill. The villain has 19/11 stats, total 3-bet 5.3, total call open 15%, EP call open 29(20), MP 12(23), fold to flop c-bet 14(7), all on 197 hands.

Since the villain has a pretty wide cold call and rarely 3-bets, I suppose he would call with this range:

I took the bottom hands of the range with no more than 50% probability because they may be missing in the calling range if the villain understands that realizing the equity of these hands by calling is a negative EV decision since there is still the whole table left to act.

With that, the villain seems to be a decent regular, but considering his statistics, I decided to construct the range this way.

On such a flop, we have an easy value bet. I decided to bet 65% of the pot on this board into two opponents. Considering the villain’s pre-flop calling range, I think this bet sizing is reasonable. Besides, the villain does not like giving up on the flop even though there is a small sample of stats.

The flop calling range:

I don’t think the villain has a raising range on this texture, which is why he would just call with his strongest holdings. In addition, due to his dislike of folding, the villain would call with a lot of backdoors since many turn cards could strengthen him. The only thing confusing me is whether he would call the same number of backdoors facing a half-pot bet and a bet of my sizing. However, the hands that I marked in the deep stacks look quite convincing. In addition, the villain may think the big flop bet means I want to generate a bigger fold equity.

The turn brings a pretty unpleasant card for me that improves some backdoors of the villain and the straight got there. I guess I still can make a correct value bet into this card.

There is a small sample (4 situations) of the villain’s fold to turn c-bet(50%).

The villain’s turn calling range:

My hand has almost 61% equity and this is still a correct value bet. Although, if the villain would not call with 77, 88, and TT here, I would only have a 49% equity, which makes the bet not the best decision.

If the villain realizes I often have a strong range on the turn, he should fold those hands and then a better play for me would be checking.

The river is one of the most unfortunate cards for me. Whether the check/call is +EV or not depends on how often the villain would turn his hands into a bluff. However, it is a progressive knockout, which complicates the decision. I have the extra pot odds for a call and this is the hard part:

  1. The villain thinks I would often call because of the bounty and rarely bluff.
  2. The villain would play the same way he would have played in any freezout by turning almost all of his hands into a bluff. By the way, if the villain folds 77, 88, and TT, I think I have much worse pot odds for a call since it is a rather big share of the total combinations that became almost 50 on the turn.

Let us try to picture the villain’s river betting range:

I need 38% equity for a breakeven call, but I have 15% (as seen from the screenshot above) if the villain only turns into a bluff AsQs and the flush draw hole cards hits. If the villain does not fold 98s, 77, and 88 on the turn, but always turns them into a bluff on the river, then I have 37% equity, although those hands can at least fail to make it to the river.

It turns out I can only call if the villain turns his top pairs into a bluff, but he would rarely do it. Yet, the villain can have many value hands on the river. Overall, in the best-case scenario, I need to call due to the pot odds. The villain’s overbet-push looks rather balanced, which is why I cannot lean my read towards his value or bluff combos based on the bet sizing.

Conclusion: Against a thinking opponent, it would be better to check the turn. As played, I consider the check/fold a correct decision due to having too much doubt about the villain’s range.