Conmover el límite

Chapter 19: The Last Bet

For good reasons, being able to put in the last bet is a rarely discussed concept in forums. The reason is those who know about it don't want others to know. Although it is a fairly simple concept when you first hear the idea, it is very powerful when applied correctly.

For example, it is much easier to shove all-in with ace-high when you think your opponent is weak. However, it is infinitely more difficult if you have to call an all-in with ace-high even if you know your opponent is weak. The reason is you don't want to bluff-call.

When analyzing the heads-up hands in Chapter 17, knowing your opponent's range might not be enough. The stack sizes have to be right as well. You want to be able to three-bet shove if your bet gets raised. The amount has to be enottgh so that a good Villain has to think twice before calling with a good hand that can only beat a bluff. Since we all realize that no one ever has the nuts after they check behind on the turn, we should consider three-bet bluffing the river more often when Villain's combinations of nut hands are low.

A situation where getting in the last bet doesn't have a lot of folding equity is on drawy flops such as or . The reason is simple: Your range is fairly defined when you take the donk/three-bet line on the flop. Additionally, when your opponent raises your flop donk bet, he most likely has a plan if you were to shove. If he doesn't have a plan, he would elect to call instead because he can gather more information on the turn and the river. His hand can improve as well.

Interestingly, getting the last bet in on the turn is more powerful than getting it in on the flop.

Ranges are narrower and more polarized. It is difficult to call a bet/shove on the turn with one pair against a solid regular who isn't tilting. One of the reasons is when we do bet the turn with one pair, our intention is to bet/fold. Thus, when we do bet and Villain shoves, our brains are wired in such a way that it is difficult to abandon our original plan; we will come up with reasons to justify bet/folding the turn. Equity wise, unless our one pair hand is up against a stone cold bluff, it is an understatement to say our equity against a standard range of a monster combo draw or a set isn't good.

Against an opponent who has a propensity to raise your turn donk bet, you should consider taking the bet/three-bet line with a lot of draws; a gutshot with one overcard isn't that bad. Villain can't have that many hands i f he often raises you. Even i f Villain knows there's a good chance you are

three-bet shoving with a draw, he can't call with a high card or whatever mediocre hand that he bluff-raises you with.

Not surprisingly, getting the last bet in on the river is the most powerful. Ranges are even narrower and more polarized than the turn: You either have the nuts or you don't. Unless we have a really crazy image, bet/three-bet shove the river for 200BB with a flush on a paired board isn't exactly a good idea. More importantly, since there are no more streets to play on the hand, there is no suckout potential in the event one makes the wrong all-in call.

One important criteria is to hold hands that limit the number of combinations of nut hands Villain potentially holds. For example, bet/three-bet with A4 on a K493 is better than doing so with a hand like KJ/KT against a solid opponent. The reason is that when you are called, KJ/KT is likely drawing dead and there are more combinations of a set of 44 and A K . Against loose aggressive opponents who have been splashing around, we obviously prefer KJ/KT all day since that is considered a nut hand. On a totally different tangent, it's not a bad idea to hover the mouse over opponents' screen names to get some reads based on locations. If it's somewhere in Scandinavia or Russia, always click call if it's a close decision between folding and calling.

One characteristic to consider when deciding to bet/three-bet on the river is whether your opponent is tricky enough to check back the turn with the nuts, though such opponents are a rarity. The reason they are so rare is one cannot win a big pot if one checks with the nuts. As a rule of thumb (and I use the same rule for river bluff-raises), it's probably safe to assume they aren't that tricky until they prove otherwise.

The next page has two examples that show why getting in the last bet is important.

79

Hero raises to $150, Villain calls $100 Flop: ($300) (2 players) Villain bets $2500, Hero raises to

$6950, Villain shoves, Hero ???

Preflop: Hero is MP with

1 fold, Hero raises to $80, 3 folds, BB calls $60

Flop: ($170) [ (3 players).

BB checks, Hero bets $140, BB calls

$140

In Example 19.1, we need to strongly consider if Villain is good enough to three-bet shove with any A x. Against most opponents, probably not. Yet it is a spot where you should consider turning any hand that has the A into a bluff and realize it's not often good when getting raised.

Example 19.2 serves as a proof of concept. Obviously, it is easy for us to three-bet this river

because we hold the nuts. The question is, does our opponent ever have the nuts? If we are holding

Q x type hands, we should consider three-bet shoving in this spot. A pair of kings, even with a queen

kicker, is rarely good after Villain check-calls twice and check-raises the river. We could fold as well.