View Full Version : Part I of an interesting (and odd) opponent-dependant hand
A lot of background and opponent info on this hand:
Decent 20/40 live game with several mediocre pros/semipros, an idiot or 2, and a woman that I thought was very good. I didn't know her, and hadn't been in the game that long, but as a result of her play, the way that players I did know reacted to her, and a couple of short conversations she had with various passers-by, I was basically going on the premise that she was a very strong player(as in I'd rarely expect to encounter this type of player in a 20 game; we were both on the list for a 75 H.O.E. that never materialized) I also think that she respects my play, and suspect that we have similar table images with each other (generally tough aggressive).
The pre-flop situation:
I'm in either the cutoff or the cutoff -1 (I don't remember but it's not important) and its folded around to me. Both the loosies in the game were on my right, the good player has the sb, and the big blind is a bad notorious super-rock. I'm pretty sure I picked up both his blinds the round before. Just to give you an idea of what I could normally expect out of him: I am very confident (if the other players were tight enough) that I could take his blinds from lp 4 times in a row and when I raise the 5th time his calling/3betting standards would not be one iota different than when I raised the first time. (He normally plays in the 10 game)
I open-raise with K /images/graemlins/heart.gifQ /images/graemlins/club.gif and she cold-calls???? out of the sb. bb folds as expected.
This is one of those semi-rare preflop situations in this game where I could be open raising a hand that has absolutely no value because I can expect to just pick up the blinds the VAST majority of time, and I know that the sb knows this, and she knows that I know and so on. I found the cold-call to be perplexing. This is obviously a clear spot for a resteal by her. I could see a cold-call sometimes being an ok play here against certain types of players, but I generally play very well post-flop and I think spotting me both position and the lead here is giving up a lot AND since this such an obvious resteal situation a 3-bet would give me very little information about her hand.
The flop came down:
K /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 2 /images/graemlins/spade.gif 6 /images/graemlins/heart.gif
This flop is VERRRRY obviously the textbook resteal flop, so I really didn't expect her to try it since I would generally (but not necesarily against her) 3 bet a checkraise here the vast majority of the time (regardless of my hand). And I'm pretty sure she knows all of this. I also think this is a spot where A-high type hands would have to checkraise (not as a resteal but for value/protection) and call a 3-bet with the intention of betting any turn card given the preflop action. In other words, I think she's in a pretty problematic post-flop situation here because of her non 3-bet pre-flop. (just as a side note, had I not flopped so well or if I had no hand, as a default play I probably would check behind on the flop a lot of the time and bet the turn if checked to, or sometimes (probably often) raise the turn if bet into.
She check-called the flop. Basically I'm thinking wtf? Maybe hoping to see the river here for 1 small bet or set up a play with a hand like medium suited cards or some such??
Turn:
A /images/graemlins/club.gif
I get checkraised.
elysium
08-22-2004, 03:09 PM
hi mm
in this situation, you are better off checking down the turn IMO. this might not be correct though. betting out when checked to may be the better play.
the problem with betting when checked to by this type of opponent who may be running a play those times you get check-raised on the turn, is that if this opponent is successful, and these type tend to have a lot of success, they click into their big mo gear against you, and they get very expensive because you must hammer them with big moves in order to regain control of the table. so if he's successful against you,.....and that's the other thing. when these type players beat you, they make it look very easy. if you are going into the game with a mystique of invincibility, the rest of the table tends to tag you with a failure label any and every time you get outplayed, or play it exactly wrong. and these type players make it seem like you did play it wrong, when in fact, you might have played it perfectly. perfectly here is likely betting when checked to. well, against anyone else at the table, when you are wrong, and trailing but betout anyway when checked to, well, chances are high that the average type opponent will call you down. with the opponent you describe, however, chances are that if you are trailing, he will make you look very bad when you betout. so you lose not only whatever extra amount is now required to cover your position, but you also lose a measure of control over the table as they affix their loser labels onto you, and drag you in the abyss of mortally flawed mediocrity; something somewhat undesirable for anyone desiring of bringing the table up to a level of behavior encompassing even a modicum of civility. at the first scent of weakness, they will set on you like a pack of hungry wolves, and feed what is left of your errant carcass to the roving, firebreathing vulchers of suductive good intent, who will pick whatever little currency there is remaining that you haven't yet converted into chips, from your miserable skeletal remains. and you will be left there for dead.
better rather to check-down the turn, IMO. now if he bets out on the river you can safely call, quickly quelling any quirky coup. if he checks, you can confidently bet and call any raise, without compromising the integrity your teflon burnish. any loser labels attached will now lack the adhesive wherewithal and clinging endurance to outlast your efforts to regain control over the table, as the rabble-rousers are reminded that it cost you the same amount or less than it would have cost them. while your teflon shield of invincibility may suffer a temporary glaze of gooey mediocrity mist, it should dry before the loser label can stick, leaving you fresh to fight the following round.
i am not sure of this, but IMO a measurable amount of consideration should be given to checking down the turn.
elysium,
Just a few quick questions/clarifications
1. If this player flopped a monster here, would you agree that checkraising or attempting to checkraise the flop would be a far more profitable line than this one. If I have nothing there's a good chance I check behind, and maybe bluff raise the turn if bet into. If I decide to bet the flop faced with a check-call line I will check behind the turn, and maybe call a river bet if I pair up depending on my "feel" of the situation. If I get checkraised here with nothing, I may still try to take a shot at the pot later on. If I have a halfway decent hand, I likely 3-bet the flop and EXPECT to be led into on the turn by all sorts of inferior hands and likely raise, and probably call down a 3-bet that could easily be made by hands like KT, KJ, etc.
Given the line this player took preflop and on the flop, I think there is a far better chance that this player is on an outright move than anything else. What do you think?
Also, I find it very hard to believe that this player would check-call A-high on that flop. It puts them in the position of having to make a semi-tough calldown if I raise a stop and go, and there is a very high liklihood, I will check behind every worse hand if they attempt a turn checkraise. Do you agree?
The ace on the turn appears troublesome here, but not all that much because, because I think there is a minimal chance my opponent has it.
Although AK is certainly a possibility I think its probably more likely that AK goes for the checkraise on the flop.
Whether or not its right in this particular game (I think that these players would still be too weak to start really taking shots at me) I generally like betting the turn in these situations to induce a move, and get people to invest lots of chips in a pot that they really have no business contesting based on hand-strength alone. Also, I'm not so sure it would ever come into play here, but I have noticed a tendency of some players to fire again rather hopelessly on the river with hands that have no showdown value (maybe based on pot-size or maybe based on out right desperation)
These type situations come up pretty damn infrequently at the 20 level and to some extent I think they turn into fancy-play pissing contest rather than figuring heavily into an overall strategy like they would in higher limit games where these type situations come up much much more often.
They do however provide some insight into how different post-flop lines match up, and if I were in the same exact situation in a bigger game, I think I would probably take this line with at least a somewhat greater frequency than a check-behind the turn line.
Manzanita
08-22-2004, 06:05 PM
mmcd,
Against this tough opponent it is hard to tell whether you are ahead or behind. Your hand is much too good to fold, but if your opponent has an Ace (which is a distinct possibility) you are drawing slim. I would call the turn raise and then call again on the end without improvement.
-- Manzanita
Ms 45
08-22-2004, 06:14 PM
This might be a good time to induce a bluff. She may have a monster or Ax, in which case you save a bet by checking the turn and calling on the river. She also might have crap and is waiting to put a move on you. In this case, you get the extra bet out of her by tricking her into betting on the river. If an ace didn't fall on the turn I think betting out is automatic, but the ace seems to call for a check on the turn.
It's pretty clear to me thats the default as to how to play out the rest of the hand, but I'm more interested in looking at the line I took up to this point given the opponent information, the resteal preflop situation, the resteal and re-resteal texture of the flop, and my actual handstrength here. I am also interested in what people think of my opponents line here given the information she has about me, and the different ways this hand can play out postflop given the range of hands (pretty large) she could put me on given my post-flop line up to this point.
As I said, I think an A-high that paired up on the turn is very unlikely here as her check-call line on the flop would really open her up to getting outplayed regardless of what hand I held.
What do you think of her line if she held:
A small pair?
An outright bluff?
A top pair type hand with a weak kicker? (i.e. K7s)
A stronger top pair? KJ, K10?
A monster made hand?
Ignoring actual hand values (just sort of relying on ranges of hands that I can put her on and she can put me on), whose line was more exploitable postflop. With me, I gave some examples of how I may have responded differently to her line given a different handstrength. With her, I think its a matter of sort of plugging different handstrengths into the line she took, and examining how each would play against my line.
With each of the above types of hands, how does her postflop line "match-up" with mine given how she thinks I will play the various hands I could hold here after the flop.
Who's line (or potential line had I flopped differently) is likely to extract the maximum postflop. (given the range of hands each of us can hold taken in the aggregate) This would of course include both getting the opponent to fold the best hand, and inducing 2nd best hands or even garbage type hands to put in unwarranted extra bets post-flop.
In terms of inducing a bluff:
This hasn't been widely written in any poker books or anything, but it's something in my arsenal that I use fairly successfully against tough and very agressive post-flop players. I was inducing a bluff here by betting the turn. I was inducing a bluff raise (or even an overplay) with the chance of a 3rd bluff bet going in the river possibly. Against certain types of players, you'd be surprised how well this can work as long as you pick your spots carefully . Obviously if you make a habit of doing this against the wrong players in the wrong ways at the wrong times, you will just get drilled. [I have some more to say about this, but not until after Part II of this hand.]
Given the action so far, what specific hands can you put her on that have me beat here.
(Please rule out Ax that hit on the turn because with this player in this situation given how the preflop and flop rounds played out, I would have at the time bet my left nut that she did not have Ax)
What do you think the percentage of the time she has me beat is vs. the percentage of the time she is on a bluff/semi-bluff or has some sort of second best hand?
Given these estimated percentages how do I get MAXIMMUM VALUE out of my hand in the aggregate?
James282
08-22-2004, 08:12 PM
A cold call screams of overwhelmin strenth in my opinion. She doesnt want to resteal you, she wants to obtain the maximum value from her hand - probably a monster pair but possibly AK - thouh most would reraise Ak if they were actually touh. By the way, my key to te left of h doesnt work, and Im cut/pastin my hs so bear with me.
-James
[ QUOTE ]
A cold call screams of overwhelmin strenth in my opinion. She doesnt want to resteal you, she wants to obtain the maximum value from her hand - probably a monster pair but possibly AK - thouh most would reraise Ak if they were actually touh. By the way, my key to te left of h doesnt work, and Im cut/pastin my hs so bear with me.
-James
[/ QUOTE ]
James,
What happens when I have little or no hand preflop or I don't connect with the flop at all. (It's also important to note that she knows that I know she would 3 bet a geat many different hands in that spot.)
Do you think I am more likely to make a play for a 7sb pot or a 5sb pot?
What about her flop check-call, followed by a turn check. I'm pretty sure she knew I was capable of checking behind on the flop and either folding or bluff raising the turn depending on how strong I "felt" she was. I am also capable of betting the flop (as I did here) checking the turn and folding the river if I don't feel I have adequate showdown value.
Assuming the pre-flop cold-call as a given wouldn't checkraising be a better play (once I bet the flop) than check-calling. It is very clear that A-high type hands have to checkraise this flop. In turn I would 3-bet a lot here, whether I held AK, pocket 4s, a set, or 9 high.
With a monster hand here playing it this way out of position would be a pretty terrible line IMO.
**Also keep in mind on this particular board theres is likely to be a lot of "play" post-flop in most scenerios**
Also note that against this player in this situation, I absolutely will not put in 4 bets on the turn w/ a marginal or even a very good second best hand.
James282
08-22-2004, 09:09 PM
A bluff would be transparent, though. You may perceive this as a terrible line but I promise it's a popular one.
-James
elysium
08-22-2004, 09:17 PM
hi mm
no no. that's not the issue. the issue is avoiding a dangerous situation against a very good, highly experienced pro. you can beat him. but you first must stay outside of his range in marginal situations by suppressing his ability to throw punches at you.
if you have had an opportunity to study mason's playing style against these type opponents, you would see how mason contains their aggression early on by putting them into a position of only being able to show a strong move by betting out, not being raised. the pro bets, and mason will envelop him in a cocoon with a suppression call, keeping the pro away from playmaking ammo that he would know how to use with deadly effect; and it's their ability to levy devestatingly strong, crushing plays, when afforded a check-raising opportunity or reraising opportunity, that must be taken into consideration. you must first respect these type opponents before you will find occasion to beat them. the value of betting sags considerably when you take into consideration losing control of the table to the person under whose control you would least like the table to be. you'd rather lose to ralph or henrietta since they will not make you pay the fullest amount those times you find yoursellf trailing. they will make mistakes that find you saving a bet or two, albeit that you still do lose; but when facing jim "texas tweezers" dandy, or martha "sandbag" moneyhouses, if you bet into either one of them with so much as a tail light out, you will be made to look embarrassingly deficient in ability. they will make you pay the fullest. and whether you think that he or she might be making a move on you when the A hits, you still must accredit them with holding two unknown hole cards of some value. when the A hits, there aren't many other non-made hands that they could have called the flop with, and no draws. this is very, very bad. when you get check-raised, highly experienced opponent is thinking the same thing about your hand. he knows that you have at least something and that you will call his check-raise. he is making a check-raise for value.
could it be a bluff? yes it could. even if you knew that it wasn't, however, you must still call. you need to be aware of this beforehand. when he checks on the turn, he is doing so to check-raise or fold often enough that together with the lack of value a bet by you has on the turn, the better play is to check it down, avoid a nasty big mo shifting event and in so doing perhaps induce a shot by him on the river, instead of a fold (although here you want him to fold), and give yourself the ability to limit your risk to 1BB rather than 2, on the one hand, and pick up perhaps 1 or 2BB rather than none on the other. if he has something like a big double over-carded pocket pair that he would have called you down with, it will be tough for the table to figure that out, and they will likely think you got in the maximum amount yet again, in keeping with your mystique of invincibility; which, by the way, can be of great assist in close spots.
you beat these type opponents by getting into marginal situations against the weaker opponents who you might draw-out on or nose out on at the wire. when the better players see you consistantly showing down slightly better hands than those of your opponents, and getting into cyclical steamroll events against the table when the situation finds you betting and them collapsing under the weight of your bets, the pros fire up. but they come in weak tight. in mid-firefight, you can feel their knees weaken as your betting. when they are induced to jump in out of a sense of sportsmanship, rather than from an arousal induced by the greed factor of good hole cards, you can catch these pros momentarily forgetful that it took a lot of hard work on your part to condition the table as thus, and they find themselves amidst the formidable incline of plane necessary to get up to the top of the hill and as they are scaling upwards, the heavy burden they must shoulder in addition to their own cumbersome weight as you pile on the weight of your betting action, forcing them to make decisions at improptu times. if instead, you make it footrace on level plane, the pro will win often enough to prevent your taking control of the table.
betting when checked to on the turn, gives this highly experienced pro the terrain needed to run the race on his terms. he can fold or check-raise. he can call. he can do whatever he likes. ralph or henrietta will call. pretzel pete findaway will make you pay the fullest. that type opponent must be kept at arms length of ammo. that type of opponent must be contained in these marginal areas, and bet into strongly when you have the better of it. you don't knock these type out, you wear them out.
Elysium, great post, I see what you are getting at about checking behind on the turn:
Party Poker 30/60 Hold'em (10 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)
Preflop: Hero is SB with A/images/graemlins/spade.gif, A/images/graemlins/club.gif.
<font color="666666">8 folds</font>, <font color="CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="CC3333">BB 3-bets</font>, Hero calls.
Flop: (6 SB) 4/images/graemlins/club.gif, 6/images/graemlins/club.gif, 6/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="blue">(2 players)</font>
Hero checks, <font color="CC3333">BB bets</font>, <font color="CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="CC3333">BB 3-bets</font>, Hero calls.
Turn: (6 BB) 2/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="blue">(2 players)</font>
Hero checks, <font color="CC3333">BB bets</font>, <font color="CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="CC3333">BB 3-bets</font>, <font color="CC3333">Hero caps</font>, BB calls.
River: (14 BB) 3/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="blue">(2 players)</font>
<font color="CC3333">Hero bets</font>, BB calls.
Final Pot: 16 BB
Results in Hero shows As Ac (two pair, aces and sixes).
BB shows Qd Qc (two pair, queens and sixes).
Outcome: Hero wins 16 BB.
I realize how much I can usually drill people who bet in this spot, and I think getting all the extra action in these T AG games is at least largely a function of table image and control over opponents.
I think a difference here though is that I took a flop line that would induce extra action on the turn.
Also see my reply below about inducing bluff raises. Against some opponents I can play a hand in such a way, be it through the line I take or the way in which I bet the hand, as to almost cause them to bluff raise me.
I think here this probably wasn't a good player/spot to attempt this. Whether it works right or not I almost certainly hurt more when it fails than I am helped when it succeeds. Especially since this player has position me at the table.
Though I could certainly shake it off psychologically if I happen to get outplayed here or there, I absolutely do not want this player to decide to get more frisky with me when I open raise or isolate a limper.
Thanks,
mmcd
Ms 45
08-22-2004, 11:12 PM
[ QUOTE ]
In terms of inducing a bluff:
This hasn't been widely written in any poker books or anything, but it's something in my arsenal that I use fairly successfully against tough and very agressive post-flop players. I was inducing a bluff here by betting the turn. I was inducing a bluff raise (or even an overplay) with the chance of a 3rd bluff bet going in the river possibly. Against certain types of players, you'd be surprised how well this can work as long as you pick your spots carefully . Obviously if you make a habit of doing this against the wrong players in the wrong ways at the wrong times, you will just get drilled. [I have some more to say about this, but not until after Part II of this hand.]
[/ QUOTE ]
According to my understanding, you induce a bluff by feigning weakness to coerce a bet out of your opponent on a later street. I don't see how you can feign weakness by doing anything other than checking because a bet represents strength. Your explanation above seems to be describing something very different. Also, this subject has been thoroughly covered in poker literature, most notably in HEPFAP. It is an excellent chapter and I suggest you read it if you haven't.
You seem to be describing a different concept: betting marginal hands against over-aggressive players (or players who will always bluff in a certain type of situation). Against a loose/aggressive player I agree with you that this is a good play, but I see it more a function of value betting a loose player and then calling down a player who is likely to raise with little.
[ QUOTE ]
Given the action so far, what specific hands can you put her on that have me beat here.
(Please rule out Ax that hit on the turn because with this player in this situation given how the preflop and flop rounds played out, I would have at the time bet my left nut that she did not have Ax)
[/ QUOTE ]
You may have to start considering what life will be like for you with only one testicle. Ax is a hand a lot of players will flat call with pre-flop, and then bluff with post-flop... especially if they think you are weak.
The other possibilities are a big hand that she's waiting to raise on an expensive street (AA-QQ). A medium pair is also slightly possible, (very probable on the flop, but much less probable given the cards on board). Garbage is the other possibility, especially if she thinks you're weak.
[ QUOTE ]
What do you think the percentage of the time she has me beat is vs. the percentage of the time she is on a bluff/semi-bluff or has some sort of second best hand?
[/ QUOTE ]
Before your turn bet, it is very difficult to determine the percentage you are beat when you're facing someone who has just called twice. What you do know, however, is that when you have her beat you have her badly beat, and when she has you beat she has you badly beaten.
[ QUOTE ]
Given these estimated percentages how do I get MAXIMMUM VALUE out of my hand in the aggregate?
[/ QUOTE ]
When I gave you my original response, I was referring to how I think you'll get maximum value out of your hand. Granted, I was referring to maximum value with all small letters and without the extra "M," but I think it is fairly obvious that when someone posts an opinion about how a hand should be played they don't feel their method will minimize profit. I think inducing a bluff (my way, not your way) gets the most +EV out of the situation. Judging from your response, I assume you don't agree with my assessment, but regardless who is right I don't think there is a single poster here who makes plays or recommendations that he or she feels are less than optimal.
Just a quick note:
If the turn had been a blank, I might have checked behind to induce a bluff (or hope she pairs up on the end) in the classic sense of the term because basically, I don't think this player would check-call me 3 times with a hand that has some showdown value (obviously that I beat). She would not expect me to bet a worse hand on all 3 streets for her, and if her hand was vulnerable, as in A-high, small pairs, etc. The action would not have went check-call-check. A-high hands would have either checkraised or bet that flop every time.
I think part of the reason for my turn bet was because of the A showing up (and the fact that I completely discounted Ax as being in her hand). A lot of players will try to push people off their free showdown type hands when this happens, whereas there is no real way they can show any false strength if I check behind. If they bet the river it would look like a like a bluff after my turn weakness. I might have done the same thing here if any Q or J showed up on the turn also, otherwise I thing checking behind is far superior.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.