The dreaded turn raise

[JDErickson]

Loose Party Table. Opponent very loose passive 55/3

Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (8 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is UTG with A/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, A/images/graemlins/club.gif.
<font color="CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="666666">3 folds</font>, CO calls, Button calls, <font color="666666">2 folds</font>,

Flop: (7.50 SB) 5/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 9/images/graemlins/club.gif, 8/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="blue">(3 players)</font>
<font color="CC3333">Hero bets</font>, CO folds, Button calls.

Turn: (4.75 BB) 8/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="blue">(2 players)</font>
<font color="CC3333">Hero bets</font>, <font color="CC3333">Button raises</font>, <font color="CC3333">Hero ???

Comments

[Nate tha' Great]

Nothing else you can do. He'll have trips sometimes but is also in a stupid Party player bluffing hotspot (turn pairs the board on a draw-heavy board). Can't fold. Can't raise. Your hands are tied. Call down.

[arkady]

Not that it matters, but given the loose passive nature of the villain you are probably beat. But who cares right? You are still going to showdown.

[MoreWineII]

...and you're not drawing dead. That's always a nice little bonus.

[Haupt_234]

You can't raise and you can't fold. Raising would be the worst option since he either has you beat (most likely since he is passive) or he is on a bluff, and you want him to continue bluffing.

Haupt_234

[JDErickson]

[ QUOTE ]
or he is on a bluff, and you want him to continue bluffing.


[/ QUOTE ]

This an interesting thought I've never considered. I agree in principle but I'm not sure most Party 2/4 idiots would fold even if they were bluffing.

I don't know if the way I handled it was correct but I can say that I have done this quite often in past and it seems to work well when the board pairs like this on turn.

I 3 bet the turn and he called. He called the river bet when a rag hit and showed 66.

So is it totally out of line to raise here and fold to a cap?

Jim

[Vee Quiva]

Well if the idiot is going to raise with 66 then a raise by you on the turn is not out of line at all. I would have guessed your opponet had an overpair, not trips since it's usually tough to call an utg raise with low pocket pairs. But sometimes you get idiots at 2-4 Party that will see every flop.

[Victor]

Hi Nate,

How does this situation differ from this one Dynasty post (http://http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=924250&amp;page=1&amp;view=co llapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=14&amp;fpart=1#924250)

[MarkD]

This board is much different with many more draws. that is the major difference.

[Ponks]

I end up 3-betting this a lot of the time. I'm not sure if its the right play, but in my opinion it seems to be +EV a lot of the time. If they are a pretty loose passive player I'll just call down, but anyone else I'm generally out there 3-betting. I find its more often something like 9T trying to bluff you out, or KK trying to slowplay till the turn, but they still have a decent hand so they'll showdown.

Ponks

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
How does this situation differ from this one Dynasty post (http://http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=924250&amp;page=1&amp;view=co llapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=14&amp;fpart=1#924250)

[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed link (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=924250&amp;page=1&amp;view=co llapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=14&amp;fpart=1)

[arkady]

Extremely different.

Less players, pretty important.
Top card pairs, very important.
The villain in Dynasty's hand is not a well known retard, ultra important.

are those enough for ya?

[cardcounter0]

Everyone knows when a passive low limit fish raises on the turn when the board pairs he always has trips.

Don't even consider pot odds or anything, you are beat. You must fold immediately.

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Nate,

How does this situation differ from this one Dynasty post (http://http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=924250&amp;page=1&amp;view=co llapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=14&amp;fpart=1#924250)

[/ QUOTE ]

Others have picked up the gauntlet here, but the key differences IMHO are:

1) The action is heads up in this hand;
2) The board is very draw heavy.

Both of those things make this opponent siginificantly more likely to (semi-) bluff with a worse hand. These players almost can't resist raising when a medium card pairs the board on the turn and they have a reasonable draw to begin with.

[arkady]

that advice....just sucks.

[cardcounter0]

Thank You.

I think with close hard choices like this, you just play it one way or the other (absent any good reads or past history of the player).

If you choose to go with the re-raise/call down route, resign yourself to occasionally getting shown the nuts and losing additional bets.

If you go with the believe the raise so fold route, resign yourself to occasionally getting a big pot stole from you.

[JDErickson]

Ok I know I should have said all this to begin with but in a hurry this morning while posting.

PT stats were after the session. During the session I did not have any stats on him. Realistically all I could say at the time of the hand was he was an idiot. Showing down 2nd best quite often. He played a majority of his hands but I didn't have a read for his postflop passivity yet.

Not sure if this makes any difference in the raise/call/fold field though.

Thanx,
Jim

[arkady]

That advice...is much better.

[cardcounter0]

I always make idiots show me the goods. They are idiots because they don't have them more often than they do. What is the point of getting a read on a player, or trying to classify them, if you don't use that information in your action?

[cardcounter0]

I thought they were the same. Since I usually play with a fairly 'sharp' bunch of B&amp;M players, I am pre-inclined to fold in the above situation.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Playing Party Poker with the usual gang of Dummies, I might just be re-raising automatically.

[JDErickson]

[ QUOTE ]
I always make idiots show me the goods. They are idiots because they don't have them more often than they do. What is the point of getting a read on a player, or trying to classify them, if you don't use that information in your action?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point and the reason I chose to 3 bet him on turn. I do think calling is probably the best option in this situation though.

[tipperdog]

Normally, I'd say call him down. However, you describe the opponent as loose-passive. If he's VERY loose passive, he probably isn't the type to raise with a draw in this spot (which I think is a good play for an aggressive player).

If, based on your read on the player, you believe there is very little chance he'd raise on some kind of draw, you have a clear fold. However, against normal players, I think you call it down.

[Victor]

"The villain in Dynasty's hand is not a well known retard, ultra important. "

Where is this stipulated in either post?

In fact JD describes his opponent as loose <font color="blue"> PASSIVE</font> just as Dynasty does. This would make him less inclined to do crazy things and semibluff. As this hand played out I don't know if he would still be considered passive.

The more I think about the more it seems correct to fold in this situation but to call down in Dynasty's post because of one factor that no one has eluded to: POT SIZE.

Another point of contention is that I usually do not classify players who semibluff as "passive." This could be because I mostly play live where passive = bets only the nuts.

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
The more I think about the more it seems correct to fold in this situation but to call down in Dynasty's post because of one factor that no one has eluded to: POT SIZE.

[/ QUOTE ]

To a certain extent, pot size is a double-edged sword. Obviously, you have more incentive to call down when the pot is large; on the other hand large(r) pots can protect against bluffs because the opponent reasonably has to *expect* that you'll call down. Here in JD's hand, for example, an opponent on a draw with no pair could reasonably expect, say, an unimproved AK to fold to his turn raise; the pot is just not large enough to justify calling down. I don't think the opponent in Dynasty's hand is expecting AA to fold because there the pot is much bigger.

[ QUOTE ]
Another point of contention is that I usually do not classify players who semibluff as "passive."

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the forum needs to be careful with its definitions here. Very often, a player will be characterized as "passive" based on a low preflop raise perceentage, usually derived from PokerTracker.

While there certainly is a strong correlation between preflop aggression and postflop aggression, I think it's important to try and develop a more nuanced sense of your opponent's game where possible. For example, there is class of players who see poker as primarily a game of luck (so they "gamble" with a lot of hands preflop), and secondarily a game of skill, but perceive a lot of the skill to come from "making a move" once in a while. While this typology is not nearly as abundant as the LAG or the calling station or what have you, it is nevertheless fairly common, and these players may get mischaracterized by looking at preflop statistics.

[ QUOTE ]
This could be because I mostly play live where passive = bets only the nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

*Much* easier to consider a laydown in a live game. I think everyone is agreed on that.