out of line?

[mike l.]

so it's a good 100-200 game at commerce and there's this really fishy guy playing two to my right. so there's this hand where im watching him and he's utg+1 and he is about to limp and then he decides to raise. he's a non-actor in the tells dept, strictly retarded as clarkmeister would say. and no one else seems to be paying attention plus what he did was pretty subtle, but my read is pretty certain. so at that very moment i decide if it's folded to me (im on the button) i will 3 bet no matter what i have and put the pressure on all the way.

and that's exactly what happened and that's exactly what i did.

anyone else ever do that?

[Clarkmeister]

"anyone else ever do that? "

Yes

[HiatusOver]

I say nice hand. Whether it is plus EV or not depends a lot of on your image and the original raisers tendencies...but overall you are pretty much obligated to do what you did, we do play this game for fun right? Or was it money? I am pretty sure it is one of those 2

[mike l.]

"we do play this game for fun right? Or was it money? I am pretty sure it is one of those 2"

i do it out of a sick habitual uncontrollable compulsion to gamble and im pretty certain so do most of my opponents.

thank god im winning or id be fuucked.

[surfdoc]

[ QUOTE ]
so there's this hand where im watching him and he's utg+1 and he is about to limp and then he decides to raise

[/ QUOTE ]


Hi Mike,

It makes sense obviously to isolate him as you have a clear read on him as weak. However, if he almost limps but then raises doesn't that imply that he has a hand that is at least strong enough to play? What kind of a hand do you hold here or are you playing offsuit trash with the plan to bet/raise at every opportunity? It is just that wouldn't most fish in a big game be more likely to play weak tight, especially up front?

[mike l.]

"It is just that wouldn't most fish in a big game be more likely to play weak tight, especially up front?"

no. see that doesnt even make sense. fish arent concerned w/ position. they are interested in seeing a lot of flops and a lot of rivers and getting lucky and winning a lot of pots. they arent worried about being dominated or being out of position. they are comfortable playing out of position in fact because their favorite play is check-call. they wouldnt know how to play tight even if you told them they had to. they dont understand the meaning of tight, let alone weak tight.

this guy was playing 80% of his hands. he was on tilt completely. he had just lost a lot playing 40 and was now losing the rest of what he had playing 100. he was limping some but raising as well. if he had a truly good hand (and that's a pretty wide margin of hands for a player like him, because as i said he doesnt understand the meaning of tight) then he wouldve raised automatically and not rethought and said oh screw this im just going to push and raise with this pile of turd hand.

yes i had 97o as it turned out. but that doesnt matter. i was committed as i said before, to reraising absolutely any hand i had to try and get the blinds out and play heads up against this guy.

[potato]

you made a read, you acted on it, next post

[3rdCheckRaise]

Question here if acting on that read with 97off but with position is EV+...

[potato]

the cards are irrelevant in this type of situation. The only reason you even look is in case your opponent catches you playing blind.

[3rdCheckRaise]

True that but...opponent who check-call-check-call-check-call likes to see a showdown...

[Lawrence Ng]

Mike I've done this a lot in the 30-60 when I get the fishy "let's raise cuz I'm pissed" player. And even more so in a 50-100.

There's more swings no doubt because I am playing more hands and if they hit on me it's costly, but hey it's poker and it's really fun and beats folding 90 percent of hands which I normally do.

The only problem I see with this is that they loose calling stations and recreational players start wanting a piece of the action in my 30-60 games so instead of heads up, it usually winds up 5 or 6 way action and thus my strategy backfires forcing me to tighten back up and play solid.

[papawawa]

Did you beat the guy into submission?

[elindauer]

Hi Mike,

You need two things for this play to be profitable:

1. reasonably tight blinds

and either of these:

2. a reasonably tight opponent who understands what your 3-bet means and will fold unimproved a lot, or

3. a hand with some showdown value


So 3-betting with a hand like A8 makes sense, but 3-betting in this spot against this ultra-loose opponent with 97 probably doesn't.


my 2 cents.
Eric

[Ray Zee]

this play is fun but never profitable. as the every so often time one of the other wakes up with something and punishes you. what keeps you doing this is the times you get away with it. like bank robbers for instance.

[mike l.]

yeah i had 97o and 3 bet and he called and the flop was QT9 or something and he check called and the turn was A and he check and i bet and he hesitated a long time and called. and the river was J. and he checked and i bet and he folded. i think he had something like 76.

[elindauer]

lol. Are you suggesting robbing banks isn't +EV? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I think *never* is a strong word, but your point is well taken. I rarely make this play.

Thanks.
Eric

[surfdoc]

[ QUOTE ]
no. see that doesnt even make sense. fish arent concerned w/ position. they are interested in seeing a lot of flops and a lot of rivers and getting lucky and winning a lot of pots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. I guess I don't have the experience to realize that a fish is a fish even in a higher limit game.

I think that after Ray chimes in this thread is essentially done but I am still curious as to the results. If he wanted to "see a lot of rivers" did you get him to lay down his 66 or whatever?

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
yeah i had 97o and 3 bet and he called and the flop was QT9 or something and he check called and the turn was A and he check and i bet and he hesitated a long time and called. and the river was J. and he checked and i bet and he folded. i think he had something like 76.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you have called a river checkraise?

[mike l.]

"Would you have called a river checkraise?'

no because this player wouldve never made one on me without the nuts.

[El Dukie]

I'm going to have to echo Eric & Ray on this one. I understand that you were playing the player and not the cards, but I probably wouldn't try this without some semblance of a real hand. ('Course, I don't claim to be good enough to play $100 - $200, either.) I'd be concerned that a complete fish would call me down the whole way. But if you knew that he'd often go to the river then fold like he did.... /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[mike l.]

"I'm going to have to echo Eric & Ray on this one."

agreeing w/ ray zee? gee dont go out on a limb there.

im not going to say much to defend the play. but i will say that clarkmeister has done it and while ray is great and all, he doesnt play much limit hold em anymore. the games changed, and the games are better than ever.

i doubt youll find many players comparable to clark w/ the mid limit hold em skills to beat the games the way they currently play. so i feel like im in okay company unless clark adds some sort of amendment to his "yes" that shoots the play to hell.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
"Would you have called a river checkraise?'

no because this player wouldve never made one on me without the nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

What percentage of the reason for your river bet was just to have him fold and not have to show your hand? 90%? More, less? What are the chances he folds T7 or calls w/ 55?

[nykenny]

[ QUOTE ]
yes i had 97o as it turned out. but that doesnt matter. i was committed as i said before, to reraising absolutely any hand i had to try and get the blinds out and play heads up against this guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

forget what you had mike, but answer this question: did his limping tell mean he actually had JT instead of AT or it meant he had 84o instead of JTo? if it meant along the line of the latter, i guess isolating him is OK, assuming either he playing VERY predictable post-flop OR he is extremely intimidated by you.

otherwise, what does it achieve by isolating? if he catches a pair, he will stick around to the end... or any type of draw... so you will end up firing two barrels all the time and sometimes 3, while you will only flop something a small percentage of time.

now putting 97o back into the picture - no show down value.

so in conclusion, my answer to your quention is: YES. I have done it too /images/graemlins/grin.gif. I did it to a sane/weak/tight/straight/forward woman player in commerce 40-80 game this past Febuary. i just cold-called with two blanks (i knew it was most likely headsup cause i looked left), and raised her on the flop, and bet the turn and won the pot.

Kenny

[nykenny]

[ QUOTE ]
True that but...opponent who check-call-check-call-check-call likes to see a showdown...

[/ QUOTE ]

my point too. cards do matter.

cards don't matter to a more thinking player (with a bad hand) that you can manipulate easily, but to a fish, who will call-call-call with A high or pair or duece or call-call-fold with a back door... mike's going to need a lot more tricks then just the 3bet-isolation play to win this pot most of the time.

[nykenny]

[ QUOTE ]
so i feel like im in okay company unless clark adds some sort of amendment to his "yes" that shoots the play to hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

hehe /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[mike l.]

"What percentage of the reason for your river bet was just to have him fold and not have to show your hand? 90%? More, less? What are the chances he folds T7 or calls w/ 55?"

there's no chance he calls w/ a worse hand i dont think but some chance he folds a better hand. my image was pretty tight and he had made one honest remark earlier about how tight/tough i was. so there was a respect factor. he had called me on a hand earlier where i 3 bet him w/ AQ or something and had top pair and he called me down and was a bit devestated to have lost yet another pot. this was just how it was going for the guy. my bet was to not have to show my hand definitely, but also because the board was now scary as hell to a player like him against a player like me.

sometimes it's hard to remember on here, the player hero is against doesnt know all the things you guys do about hero and his tendencies.

i guess my question for this post needs to be revised. it isnt: do you ever do this? it's: how often do you do this? if you never ever do this than your game is missing something.

[nykenny]

oops i thought mike was out of position... since he was in pos, it's much better a play...

[mike l.]

the guy wouldve raised w/ out thinking w/ JT. or any A, Kxs, any pair, etc, etc. so his hand was pretty wretched i imagine.

[mmcd]

[ QUOTE ]
the guy wouldve raised w/ out thinking w/ JT. or any A, Kxs, any pair, etc, etc. so his hand was pretty wretched i imagine.

[/ QUOTE ]

If only you had looked before making your decision, you could have raised your 97o for value.

[andyfox]

I recently played in a game with another 2+2er. After I cashed out he took a small break and we talked. He said I'm the only player looking at my opponent(s) when the flop comes down. (This was the 40-80 at Commerce.) I told him I don't worry about players noticing, for example, that I often fold UTG after looking at only one card before the second card gets there. A lot of the time, nobody notices much of anything.

As Yogi said, you can see a lot just by looking.

[ike]

[ QUOTE ]
True that but...opponent who check-call-check-call-check-call likes to see a showdown...

[/ QUOTE ]

Theres a difference between liking to see showdowns and liking to see rivers. If mike's opponent is the latter not the former and the other players at the table are going to allow him to get away with the isolation an overwhelming majority of the time I like the play.

[andyfox]

I once had a guy tell me he beat me without looking at his cards. And I've had a guy say out loud, after I 3-bet pre-flop, "OK, I'll do what I did last time, I'll call and then check-fold the flop." And he did.

What I'm saying, I guess, it that table presence is sometimes very important. And by that I mean what you know about a particular player's habits and how what he's done at the table to that point means to what mood he's in and how push-aroundable he is just at that moment and what you noticed just now that he doesn't know you noticed. Ray's probably correct that we remember the successses and forget the failures, but I'm not sure it's still not profitable.

[mike l.]

"Ray's probably correct that we remember the successses and forget the failures,"

i dont think he's right on that count either. the times i fall on my face on this one hurt pretty bad and that egg i have to wipe off my face is rotten egg at that.

[El Dukie]

[ QUOTE ]
agreeing w/ ray zee? gee dont go out on a limb there.


[/ QUOTE ] /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

To be clear, I'm not really criticizing your play. (Nor Clark's.) You were at the table, and if you felt that the guy would chase the whole way and fold the river, then cool. I'm just saying that I (tight-ass that I am) would probably only pull the trigger with some semblance of a real hand. I'd be concerned if he was a total calling station, the type who would call on the end "just to see your hand." I do raise to isolate bad players, and I'll do it with a weaker hand than I'd otherwise raise with, but for me at least, there's a limit to how light I'm willing to raise! (Which is only one of the reasons why Clark and you are better players than I am....)

[El Dukie]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm the only player looking at my opponent(s) when the flop comes down.

[/ QUOTE ]

A couple weeks ago at an HP 15-30, I'm involved in an unraised multiway pot and am looking at my opponents when the flop came down. As I look around the table, my eyes lock with Gabe, in the BB, who's doing the exact same thing.

I blinked first. Even with sunglasses. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[Clarkmeister]

Mike,

To clarify, most of the times I have done this have been postflop. But I have done it preflop also, just not nearly as often.

[MMMMMM]

This play really blows if you look down and happen to find 72o.

[mike l.]

speaking strictly preflop what do you think of ray zee's contention that it's a -EV play meant for bank robbers to get their jollies?

[mike l.]

"This play really blows if you look down and happen to find 72o."

not as much as youd think because if you get to show that down then you have hugely fuucked with everyone at the table who is noticing. 2+2 backs it up w/ all those stories of oz playing 83o or whatever like the stone cold nuts to throw people off, check your old books, i dont remember which one it's in.

there is however one hand i mightve folded and that's K2o. it's the hand w/ the distinction of being the biggest possible dog against another hand (KK) so i avoid it every time i see it. i tried to add some other hands to that list as time as went by but cant seem to follow through.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
speaking strictly preflop what do you think of ray zee's contention that it's a -EV play meant for bank robbers to get their jollies?

[/ QUOTE ]

I know this much mike. No hand that you play heads-up for 3 bets with position and dead blinds in the pot against a controllable player can be *that* -EV.

[mike l.]

"No hand that you play heads-up for 3 bets with position and dead blinds in the pot against a controllable player can be *that* -EV."

sweet. i think i want to get that tattooed on my ass. or something.

[IlliniRyRy]

[ QUOTE ]
this play is fun but never profitable. as the every so often time one of the other wakes up with something and punishes you. what keeps you doing this is the times you get away with it. like bank robbers for instance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks Ray, I know Mike is obviously a well-respected player and poster but I just don't understand this play at all. Maybe it's strictly because he's playing 100-200 and I'm playing 15-30. I don't see how this play could ever possibly work in the party 15 games, it gets shown down so often and if he calls the river bet, his hand is good way too often. As for the bank robbing analogy, the type of people that rob banks usually have nothing to lose, so it has to be a +EV move for them because they do get away with it all the time. The only downside to robbing a bank for pro poker players is that you might not have internet access in jail if you get caught. You don't need society to make money, just an internet connection.

[Ray Zee]

i agree with that 100% clark. but i dont remember anything about the blinds being dead.

sometimes in these posts we are assuming different scenarios and have a totally different conculsion.
i stick by my position. of him playing ANY hand and having the blinds live. change that and you have changed me for sure.
i have done these plays many times myself and still do. so i am not speaking from a position of tightass. but you are doing it more for fun than money. nothing wrong with that. i like fun.

[mike l.]

not sure why im bothering with this, but ill just add that i most definitely considered who the blinds were and how likely they were to fold without a premium hand and in this case everything checked out just right. had the sb or bb been the type to come no matter what, or even with too many hands, i wouldve abandoned the mission.

but fearing this plan simply because the blinds MIGHT wake up w/ a great hand seems silly.