Bluff catcher facing big turn bet

[thefarang]

Narrow down his range by re-raising pre-flop? Sure it will do that, but there are inherent disadvantages which far outweigh the advantages imo.

For starters, versus a EP open it's completely overepping your hand.

All it really does is get worse hands to fold and opens up the possibility to folding the best hand to a 4 bet bluff, which this type of player would be well capable of doing.

Doing something just to avoid tough decisions post flop doesn't necessarily make it the correct play.

You only played 30 hands against this guy!!! Unless you can tell me that you've specifically seen him 4-bet bluff (which is something that you should have mentioned in your synopsis), you're looking for monsters under the bed.

The thing that re-raising pre-flop would have done is given you the betting initiative. On the flop he would have checked to you and then you can bet or check behind. Instead, you called and you were the one forced to make the decision to call.

And what's so bad about getting a worse hand to fold here? It's not like 99 is a monster. It's a very vulnerable hand. Nearly forty percent of the cards in the deck are problematic.

Secondly, even if you do call 99 pre-flop, why are you not taking control of the pot on the flop? The way this hand should go if you're just going to smooth call with 99 in position is:

Pre-flop

Villain: Raises
Hero: Calls with 99

Flop

Villain: c-bets
Hero: Raises

Turn

Villain: Checks
Hero: Bets
Villain: Folds
Hero: Wins the pot

[pokeraussie]

You sound like a tournament player, none of what you have suggested pre-flop or post-flop I would ever consider in a cash game.

All your advice seems to be centered around having initiative in the hand at the expense of everything else.

I have position in the hand, smooth calling is not the end of the world.

A super wide range is going to have to play against me OOP. I can live with that and play some poker post flop.

[thefarang]

I didn't see him 4 bet bluff. But I didn't know how he would react to a 3 bet.

You sound like a tournament player, none of what you have suggested pre-flop or post-flop I would ever consider in a cash game.

All your advice seems to be centered around having initiative in the hand at the expense of everything else.

I have position in the hand, smooth calling is not in end of the world.

A super wide range is going to have to play against me OOP. I can live with that and play some poker post flop.

I can assure you that I am not a tournament player.

I didn't see him 4 bet bluff. But I didn't know how he would react to a 3 bet.

Exactly!!!!! You had no idea how he would react, yet you have said that you didn't raise because you were afraid he would:

1. 4-bet you dry and make you fold a better hand.

2. Fold

Since you have never seen him do it, there is no reason to fear it. That only leaves the second fear which shouldn't be a fear at all. With 9's you should be happy to take the pot right there. It's a marginal hand that doesn't necessarily want to see a showdown.

[pokeraussie]

I wasn't fearing a 4 bet mate, just saying a player with these stats would certainly be capable of doing it light.

The reasons you don't want to 3 bet is you lose the set mining potential. Hands like AA/KK which you will easily win their stack when you hit a set, will be 4-betting and getting it in pre-flop.

By calling, we're playing the hand in position and likely have the best hand pre-flop. This is a great situation to be in!

Honestly I can't believe some of the advice you are giving.

Why on earth would you decide to call with 99's and now raise this flop when a K hits? WTF do you seriously mean this or you're playing a joke (don't take offense, but what you are suggesting is just confusing the hell out of me).

We have SD value on a board which likely missed our opponent. Yes by calling we'll have to re-evaluate on the turn, but that's just part of playing poker.

Raising the flop is basically turning our hand into a bluff and gets worse hands to fold.

[RB]

Almost always a fold OTT. I'm used to 6-max and his stats seems somewhat TAGish/slightly loose TAG in FR although 30 hands doesn't mean much.

We don't need to overthink our hand as villains at these stakes play their hand straight forwardly.

Without a specific read, as played call flop and fold turn. No need to overthink their betsizing without (again) knowing about their postflop tendencies. As just a general rule of thumb, (with no prior history) most villains at 25NL will not double barrel on such a wet board (by the turn). Your bluff catch is likely to be a -EV play in the long run.

[RB]

This is not great advice and has few very fundamental flaws in your poker understand. Not nitpicking but instead let me explain why.

We need to have a plan with every action we take on every street.

Preflop: 99 is not a great hand to 3 bet pre in this spot because most villains do not raise light UTG at 25NL. We have seen that he plays 20+/20+ albeit only 30 hands, so the stats aren't entirely accurate but we get some what an idea that this player is not a maniac. If it's a mistake to assume that he has a tight UTG open raising range then it's a small one (mistake). Your 3 bet pre w/ 99 absolutely achieves nothing, you either get 4 bet which you have to fold or you fold all his weak hands that he decided to raise UTG - which is unlikely.

Flop: You never EVER ever ever ever (have I said it enough times yet? in case I haven't>>>) ever ever ever raise on any streets 'because you want to take control of the pot'. This play makes absolutely no sense since you are achieving nothing. You are either betting (on a fundamental level) for 1) value, 2) bluff or 3) capitalize on dead money (think c-bet flop with air).

You're saying we should raise OTF, villain calls, Hero c-bets OTT and villain folds. This is a VERY specific line to take that applies mostly to villains that bet/calls tons of flops and c/f OTT. We have absolutely no history with villain so this line is a hugely -EV line.

Let's assume we follow your advice, and we raise OTF. Villain reraises us OTF, then what? Well... we have to fold.
However if villain calls our raise OTF then what's your plan OTT? What cards are you barreling? What cards are you checking behind? Raising OTF then betting any turn card is almost a recipe for complete and utter disaster.

Every action we take in poker needs to have a reason and plan for what to do in future streets. The reason why we 3 bet AA preflop is not because it's a strong hand, but because we want to get value from a strong hand. The reason why we bet almost all flops with AA is because our hand is likely to be ahead of villain's range a lot of the times. The reason why we bet/fold AA on a monotone (and connected) board vs. a complete nit that plays fit/fold is because our hand is almost never good here and has less than 20% equity vs. villain. Of course I'm simplifying our reasons in the previous 3 examples but you get the general idea - always have a reason.

I think your intentions were good but those advice are very ill-informed. I hope you can see why.

[thefarang]

This is not great advice and has few very fundamental flaws in your poker understand. Not nitpicking but instead let me explain why.

We need to have a plan with every action we take on every street.

Preflop: 99 is not a great hand to 3 bet pre in this spot because most villains do not raise light UTG at 25NL. We have seen that he plays 20+/20+ albeit only 30 hands, so the stats aren't entirely accurate but we get some what an idea that this player is not a maniac. If it's a mistake to assume that he has a tight UTG open raising range then it's a small one (mistake). Your 3 bet pre w/ 99 absolutely achieves nothing, you either get 4 bet which you have to fold or you fold all his weak hands that he decided to raise UTG - which is unlikely.

Flop: You never EVER ever ever ever (have I said it enough times yet? in case I haven't>>>) ever ever ever raise on any streets 'because you want to take control of the pot'. This play makes absolutely no sense since you are achieving nothing. You are either betting (on a fundamental level) for 1) value, 2) bluff or 3) capitalize on dead money (think c-bet flop with air).

You're saying we should raise OTF, villain calls, Hero c-bets OTT and villain folds. This is a VERY specific line to take that applies mostly to villains that bet/calls tons of flops and c/f OTT. We have absolutely no history with villain so this line is a hugely -EV line.

Let's assume we follow your advice, and we raise OTF. Villain reraises us OTF, then what? Well... we have to fold.
However if villain calls our raise OTF then what's your plan OTT? What cards are you barreling? What cards are you checking behind? Raising OTF then betting any turn card is almost a recipe for complete and utter disaster.

Every action we take in poker needs to have a reason and plan for what to do in future streets. The reason why we 3 bet AA preflop is not because it's a strong hand, but because we want to get value from a strong hand. The reason why we bet almost all flops with AA is because our hand is likely to be ahead of villain's range a lot of the times. The reason why we bet/fold AA on a monotone (and connected) board vs. a complete nit that plays fit/fold is because our hand is almost never good here and has less than 20% equity vs. villain. Of course I'm simplifying our reasons in the previous 3 examples but you get the general idea - always have a reason.

I think your intentions were good but those advice are very ill-informed. I hope you can see why.

I don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying, however, what I said needs to be put in context. Like you, I actually give villain credit for a hand. I don't think he's as loose as the OP thinks he is. I'm assuming the villain to be a pretty straightforward player as nothing the OP has put forward indicates otherwise.

Given that premise, I personally would not raise 9's pre-flop in that situation. However, OP has a different read on the situation. Given what he believes, I think he's in a better situation raising pre-flop (or on the flop) and being able to control the pot size so as to lose as little as possible.

For instance, on the flop, even if the deck smacks the villain in the face, he'll likely check to the raiser (I'm assuming he plays fairly standard poker). Instead of a pot-sized bet, OP can make a 1/2 pot bet. If he gets popped for a raise he's minimized his loss. If the villain just calls, he can either make another 1/2 pot sized bet on the turn or check behind and evaluate the river.

And if the OP believes what he's said, he still thinks he's ahead on the flop. So why not raise if he's ahead? Hell, he still thinks he might be ahead on the turn so he obviously thought he was good on the flop.

So the context is not what I would do but what I would do if I believed what the OP believes. I would rather get away from the hand cheap than call down pot sized bets to the river. The only way to get away from the hand cheap, if you believe what the OP does, is to make the villain reveal his true hand strength.

[pokeraussie]

I don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying, however, what I said needs to be put in context. Like you, I actually give villain credit for a hand. I don't think he's as loose as the OP thinks he is. I'm assuming the villain to be a pretty straightforward player as nothing the OP has put forward indicates otherwise.

I've played a ton of hands at 25nl 6-max. In this spot he is c-betting close to 100% of the time.

Plenty of straight forward players are c-bet bluffing this flop. Where it becomes interesting is the turn, hence why I made this thread.

And if the OP believes what he's said, he still thinks he's ahead on the flop. So why not raise if he's ahead? Hell, he still thinks he might be ahead on the turn so he obviously thought he was good on the flop.

Raising the flop is awful because only better hands are calling (even a FD with 2 over cards is actually a slight favorite against me) and it doesn't allow an aggressive villain to bluff more on later streets.

My hand is not strong enough to raise for value, but it's still likely good enough to be the best hand. In this situation, calling is the only option.

Poker isn't just about minimizing your losses, it's also about maximizing your wins.

[RB]

Everything I've stated in my post is nothing revolutionary. It's just the very basics of poker that most regs grinding in the micros will understand.

With that being said, no need to make this hand complicated. It's such a standard line that we shouldn't be reading too much into. However having a long discussion is never a bad thing since everyone (hopefully) learns something new.

A lot of regs obviously visit 2+2 so it would make sense to post this hand there to get some opinion.

[Frank]

This is pretty simple, 3 bet the flop to around $4.50-$5.00 and the hand is over. You get information and move on. He will either call, fold, or shove. Him calling ends the hand; he has you beat, him shoving ends the hand; he has you beat or nut fd, in both cases you still cant call, him folding ends the hand; you gather the necessary info and win the pot. Since you just called the flop idk what you're thinking, you're basically stuck and gathered no info on what his hand is. Probably just fold the turn in this case b/c you are folding the river if he bets again, but you can also call and hope he has AQ, AJ or air and gives up on the river. In cash games you look for 2 streets of equity, so calling isn't overly terrible on the turn even though it still makes little sense. The board is relatively dry, but his hand range still crushes your nines. If he flopped a set or has tt and up or K10, KJ, KQ, and AK you are basically gift wrapping him a pot. Fold the turn is best and move on.