Nits can do some strange stuff to "see where they are at" after the flop. He may have called the raise pre with AQs and then thought he'd take a stab with the min CR to represent something stronger and still had his Overs and gutshot.....also I can see 66 or A4s, A5s doing this...but he thought better of committing his stack...he just hoped you'd call and then he'd lead on any turn. Nits will Semi-bluff now and then but suffer from FOBP (Fear of Big Pots) without the nuts.
Another possibility is that simply your read on your opponents image of being a nit was wrong, which is highly probable when playing live poker given the small sample size and not seeing their hole cards most of the time.
I think villian hit a pair and was trying to get to showdown cheaply. You see this play a lot. They hit pair on the flop, min c/r with the intent on checking turn when you check turn, and hopefully you check river and they check back with like a five. Or it's a draw with some type of three. I've also had this type of play happen when I first sit down at a table and I'm playing my first hand and if i fold they show some stupid bluff. They create some call equity for the future in a relatively small pot. It feels like the villian had A5 suited and hit a 5. Which after some deliberation, folds because they aren't beating anything except ace high. That's why they deliberated for a little bit then folded.
The check/min raise is what creates this mess. Fishy move, we're never folding otf, and stacks aren't deep. I'm fine getting it in here. If they have it, they have it. But I'm really never surprised by what these live players show up with.
@@ThePokerBankyeah your right it is confusing. If nits were just nits it'd be a easy game for everyone else. We (nits) survive by creating confusion and setting traps. His min raise was probably a setup for later streets and at some point he decided that his trap wasn't going to work against you so he got out of your way.
So, it is a blocking min-raise that will stop the aggressor, and make sure you see two cards? It is not meant to get folds, but it is meant to stop the opponent from betting the turn?@@ohyeah2856
Disagree with the Jam. You said they were nitty. So they are likely folding everything you can beat and calling everything that beats you. If you just flat, they will slow down if turn and river overcards hit allowing you to see a showdown or even making a small value bet. IF they keep blasting when the overcard hits, you know ur likey beat and can fold without losing much more.
@@ThePokerBank he probably had an Ace in his hand or 67 and was planning a jam on the turn. You had him covered and should’ve let him see a turn. Seems like his reputation scared you and you panicked judging by the time it took for you to make the jam.
In online cash games I've noticed that there is a group of players who seem like NITS, and they maybe in some ways, but they are capable of big bluffs or really bad calls. I see this enough that I keep an open mind. Though there are some people that make it obvious that they will only raise with the super nuts. Maybe it is 1 out of 10 in live games who are like this. You need a very large hand sample size to read some players.
It's cos nits are just bad players. They know they have to bluff sometimes but have no idea how. You have to expect ridiculous holdings occasionally. I got raised on the turn yesterday by a guy tagged as the biggest stain in the game. I had opened Co and he defended Bb. Board was T43 4, flush draws and oesds possible, I call with pocket kings fully expecting to be near dead. River comes an offsuit 7, I check and he checks back 65. He raised the turn with an oesd, gets there, and checks back a straight.
I don't like how you breezed over the first flop decision. This board is very tenuous for you as you lack nutiness. I think you want to bet more frequently as your pair gets lower as denial is more valuable. QQ is right on the cusp, but your analysis likely indicates your checking range is total dogshit. As for facing the raise, pretty sure jamming is a punt and you make it because you don't want to play poker OTT. Yes the turn is going to suck, but we shouldn't play to avoid shitty spots, but to maximize EV.
Would a smaller 3bet of $65-75 be just as effective? Given their remaining stack size ($125) they can't reraise they have to wait for the turn to put in the rest. Using stack size against them is a good idea because if they are strong they will try a shove back only to find they can't, then you know you are dead meat. If they call you are likely dead meat, and if they are on a draw, they nit fold to any 3bet pressure. At any rate, you save some chips and get the same info.
@@ThePokerBank No, I was thinking about other possible lines you could have taken. A slightly smaller 3bet puts the villain in the same tough spot and exposes their position while preserving a portion of your stack (25+ bb). A hand review is not only a chance to evaluate you own play, but also a chance to discuss other lines you could have taken and if they may have merit. I was more or less asking you if this line may be workable instead of all in. I am interested in learning so I ask questions.
@@jppagetoo always good to ask questions, and I was asking you the question earnestly. By trying to preserve the portion of a stack you give villain even better pot odds and can easily end up making mistakes on future streets. The stacks are such that getting it all-in here makes the most sense imo.
shoving prob best. though maybe click to 60-70 is better. a lot of ppl do this min c/r with weak hands like 77 / 5x/4x to find out where they are at. if nit has 55-44-22-A3(lol) oh well, its 70bb. one should be always stacking off with QQ for 70bb pre and post on a board like this
Its a 70bb effective pot with an overpair this is such a trivial jam idk why your making a 13 minute video about this. Your one of those people that like to hear themselves talk.
