Standard hand for Guido, yet not so for a beginning 6-max player

[Peter]

Guido, regular poster in this shorthanded forum, is a good friend of mine. We have lots of discussions about poker. Since his move to shorthanded games I have been acting as his psychiatric consultant, hearing him whine about the bad beats but also share in the joy that a table with only 5 fish, instead of 9, brings.
One of the hands he told me about this evening had me feeling like someone who has no clue about poker, because I know he plays well, yet I would have played it different. Keep in mind, that I just started playing 6 max and I started at 1/2. Also, compared to Guido, I'm probably a little weakthight and the only things I know about 6 max are the following: be more agressive than in a full ring game, big cards go up in value, pairs go up in value. That's about it.

When Guido told me the hand, he didn't tell anything about the opponent, so assume no reads:

Party Poker 10/20 Hold'em (6 max, 6 handed)

Preflop: Guido is BB with K/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, J/images/graemlins/diamond.gif.
UTG folds, MP folds, CO folds, Button folds, <font color="CC3333">SB raises</font>, <font color="CC3333">Guido 3-bets</font>, SB calls.

Flop: (6 SB) 7/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 9/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 8/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="blue">(2 players)</font>
SB checks, <font color="CC3333">Guido bets</font>, <font color="CC3333">SB raises</font>, Guido calls.

Turn: (5 BB) 9/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="blue">(2 players)</font>
<font color="CC3333">SB bets</font>, <font color="CC3333">Guido raises</font>, <font color="CC3333">SB 3-bets</font>, Guido calls.

River: (11 BB) Q/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="blue">(2 players)</font>
<font color="CC3333">SB bets</font>, <font color="CC3333">Guido raises</font>, <font color="CC3333">SB 3-bets</font>, Guido calls.

Final Pot: 17 BB

I have no problems with preflop and flop, I would have played that the same.
The turn I don't understand. Guido improved by getting a flushdraw, but I have a hard time believing SB would fold for a raise and I certainly don't want to be 3bet. Of course I can't fold, so I would call.
On the river I would cap. I figure there are a lot more hands that SB would play this way that I have beat. And also, SB can't reraise me anymore, so even if he has me beat, it only costs me 1 more bet.
Our difference of opinion on the river especially surprised me, because like I said, compared to Guido, I'm weak thight.

We would like to hear some opinions of other posters about this hand. I'm sure Guido will join in as well once we have some other opinions.

Peter

[fyodor]

I like the turn raise. He's not getting the odds for it but it's a semi-bluff. He's representing trip 9s and there is some chance the SB will fold to that bet or just call and then check fold the river. Of course when the SB 3 bets you have to think he has a nine himself or else the straight.

On the river I am again with Guido. Again I like the raise but the paired board just stops me from capping. There is a good chance SB has the straight and doesn't believe the backdoor flush but there are also a lot of hands that beat the K flush that he could have.

[ChicagoTroy]

call PF (sometimes raise, depending on opponent), same flop, call turn, cap river

Interested to hear other opinions.

[DrSavage]

I like the turn raise, although i think it's player dependant. Mostly it depends on how agressive he would play a mediocre hand here and if hero thinks he has some showdown value unimproved. I would cap the river though since he can't raise you back anymore.

[spider]

As far as this hand, I think there are a few calls that could go either way, so I wouldn't think it is a big deal if you have a different opinion than someone else. (I think the flop bet-call and river raise are standard, the other plays could generate reasonable differences in opinion.)

But one thing I would mention is there is a pretty big difference in aggression between 1/2 and 10/20 (I mainly play 5/10 myself). So I would be careful about applying 10/20 hands to 1/2.

[Guido]

I don't think the hand is standard but you have options on almost every street and neither of them are bad.

Sometimes when I feel somebody is trying to steal I play very aggressive, like this hand. Just to make a point that it won't be that easy and he might have to pay a lot.

Preflop you can either call or 3-bet. Both of them are fine although 3-betting makes it earier to play I think. In this case I choose to 3-bet because I probably thought he was on a steal and I have position anyway.

The flop is probably the only street where you have only 1 option and a lot of the time you can take the pot right here. Of course you call the raise with 4 ten outs, maybe 3 jacks and 3 kings and a backdoor flushdraw.

On the turn you have two options again, raise or call. Again I choose the most aggressive option. He might fold right there thinking I have an overpair or a 9 or better. Yes, you don't want to face a 3-bet but I don't think that will happen that often. I thought there was a good chance he might fold (obviously I was wrong) and when he doesn't I have a lot of outs. Again, I think calling or raising are both good options.

On the river I'm not so sure as you that this should be an easy cap after all this aggression I've shown. Would a 9 3-bet again? Maybe but a 9 and JT are about the only two hands I beat that might 3-bet. Because of all the aggression I've shown, I decided to call his 3-bet. When I didn't raise the turn I would probably cap the river too.

Thanks,

Guido

[Peter]

[ QUOTE ]
call PF (sometimes raise, depending on opponent), same flop, call turn, cap river


[/ QUOTE ]

Could you explain why you would play it like this?

Thanks,
Peter

[Peter]

[ QUOTE ]
But one thing I would mention is there is a pretty big difference in aggression between 1/2 and 10/20 (I mainly play 5/10 myself). So I would be careful about applying 10/20 hands to 1/2.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is in your opinion the difference between the two limits, and what do you do to adjust to that difference?

Thanks,
Peter

[Peter]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought there was a good chance he might fold

[/ QUOTE ]

What made you think that?

[ QUOTE ]
On the river I'm not so sure as you that this should be an easy cap after all this aggression I've shown.

[/ QUOTE ]

Might my reasoning for the river being an easy cap come from my limited understanding of shorthanded? Namely that I should play more aggressive and that opponents play more aggressive as well, so I shouldn't give much respect to their aggressiveness, especially when I have a big hand?

Peter

[Guido]

[ QUOTE ]
What made you think that?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because the 9 fell on the turn. Also the way I played preflop and flop can make him think I have a high pocket pair. The board is very coordinated and very scary so there is a good chance he will fold a better hand like A7, 44 or AK. Even when he doesn't fold I have a ton of outs. Of course I didn't expect a 3-bet again.

[ QUOTE ]
Might my reasoning for the river being an easy cap come from my limited understanding of shorthanded?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know what this has to do with shorthanded. On a paired board without the nut flush this isn't an easy cap for me in any game. Why are you so sure he has a straight or a 9? Why can't he hold 77, 88, 99, QQ, 89 or 79? Even a better flush is possible although not likely...

Thanks,

Guido

[stripsqueez]

pre-flop is an aggro choice - i prefer call - i dont have much showdown potential if i can trust the pre-flop raise so i'm going quietly most of the time

having 3 bet pre-flop i might 3 bet the flop with the hope of him calling and checking the turn - i will bet the turn unless i pick up a big draw - i may check the turn and call the river unimproved but i may fold - seems that i have now decided that i do have some showdown potential as i'm angling for the river already - mostly i want to protect my upside - him betting a draw when i am in fact in front - is that a bad plan ?

the way it was played i just call the river 3 bet - surely i said 3 9's isnt winning when i raised the river given my actions on previous streets - a straight should be scared

reasonable minds could differ particularly given different opponents

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[Peter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Might my reasoning for the river being an easy cap come from my limited understanding of shorthanded?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know what this has to do with shorthanded. On a paired board without the nut flush this isn't an easy cap for me in any game. Why are you so sure he has a straight or a 9? Why can't he hold 77, 88, 99, QQ, 89 or 79? Even a better flush is possible although not likely...


[/ QUOTE ]

It has to do with shorthanded because my understanding of playing shorthanded is that opponents are much more aggressive, so I should be more aggressive and give less respect to their aggressiveness. To me, this means that a threebet on the turn followed by a threebet on the river on a paired board doesn't necessarily mean they have a full house.
That's why I named my understanding limited, because apparently I'm taking the concept of being more aggressive and giving less respect to aggressiveness too far if seasoned 6 max players wouldn't cap the river automatically.

Peter

[Guido]

I don't know how others think about this but when I compare 6-max and full games and I look at the aggression, most of the extra aggression comes from the preflop and flop play. A little more on the turn and not much on the river. It's not like they are capping AK on every street... Players are more willing to go to war preflop and on the flop but don't show much more aggression on the expensive streets compared to full ring games.

Guido

[Peter]

Interesting observation. I genuinely hadn't thought about that. I guess this is something you only have a feel about after playing a lot and it certainly makes me understand why you wouldn't cap the river.
Do others share this observation?

Peter

[fyodor]

I have found that when going from full to SH and also the more you move up in limits, the more 3 betting you will see on the flop. Both from the original bettor and from a 3rd person in the pot. Everyone wants to take control of the hand.

By the time you get to the river it's normally just betting or raising for value.

[spider]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But one thing I would mention is there is a pretty big difference in aggression between 1/2 and 10/20 (I mainly play 5/10 myself). So I would be careful about applying 10/20 hands to 1/2.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is in your opinion the difference between the two limits, and what do you do to adjust to that difference?


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, in spite of my statement, I am not really the guy who should answer this question since I have played much more 5/10 than either 1/2 or 10/20.

But you could find plenty of posts here talking about how 10/20 is more aggressive than 5/10. And in general, the higher the level, the more tight and aggressive the opponents. With 1/2 vs 10/20 this is a factor of 10 difference, so you can expect a pretty sizable difference in aggression.

[spider]

[ QUOTE ]
what do you do to adjust to that difference?


[/ QUOTE ]

For one, you have to respect a PFR much more at 1/2, because there are folks there who won't raise with less than AK or JJ. So you might fold a hand there that is worth a re-raise at 10/20.

Also, it has been a while since I played the 1/2, but I remember you could limp a lot of hands from UTG or UTG+1 knowing it would be 4 or 5 to see the flop and extremely unlikely anyone would raise. That sort of thing will get you killed pretty quickly at 10/20. If first in, it has to be for a raise and better be a decent hand from EP.

[Peter]

Thanks for your reply. I just played another session at 1-2 and indeed find it is not aggressive at all. Which of course meant I was too aggressive and lost. It almost plays like a 1-2 full ring game, where the first couple of players have folded.

Peter