Uncharacteristic play at the pot, 3-handed on the turn

[JimmyV]

Party 15/30, nondescript hour of the day. Opponents in the hand are a reasonable button who's a little loose but good at getting paid off ("Hudak the Kid") and an SB I have no read on.

I raise in mid-early position with K /images/graemlins/club.gif Q /images/graemlins/diamond.gif. Button cold-calls, SB calls, BB passes.

Flop 9 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 8 /images/graemlins/spade.gif 9 /images/graemlins/club.gif.

I bet, Hudak calls, SB calls.

Hard to put anyone on a made hand here. KJ, AQ, AJ, etc all seem possible for the button, along with other random gutshots and of course (esp. for SB) the nine-in-the-weeds gambit.

Turn is 3 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif.

Now part of my thinking here is that buttons who cold-call love to act last. And the other part is that I've been paying too much attention to what people THINK I have and not enough to the fact that they play so much cheese themselves. They don't have to put me on much of a hand to give up in disgust on their Festivals of Scunge. Moreover button in this hand is just sentient enough to fold A high to a river bet if subjected to the right stimuli. (And his A high is unlikely to be AK or AQ given the preflop smooth-call.)

So I check, button bets, SB calls, and I raise. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Comments?

[elindauer]

A chip spewing loser of a play under almost all conditions. You have to have a very solid read on your opponents to make this play profitably. Your essentially planning a 3-bet bluff into two players with 7 bets in the pot. How smart is that?

my 2 cents.
Eric

[BeeKay]

Bad, let me guess BUtton folded, SB called, then check called the river and you lose.

[Steve Giufre]

I think check raising is your worst option. I like both leading again, and check folding a lot better.

[JimmyV]

For the record, I've never made this play unsuccessfully. And yes, N = 1, which is why I thought some feedback of a reasoned sort (ahem) would be helpful.

Leading out is bad: I know. AJ and AT will call down; wouldn't you? As we've seen, SB will also call a bet with his underpair or six outs.

Elindauer, what are you putting the opps. on?

JimmyV

[JimmyV]

[ QUOTE ]
Bad, let me guess BUtton folded, SB called, then check called the river and you lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

To what? 33? A4? Are YOU calling a turn checkraise with those hands?

[Steve Giufre]

[ QUOTE ]
For the record, I've never made this play unsuccessfully. And yes, N = 1, which is why I thought some feedback of a reasoned sort (ahem) would be helpful.

Leading out is bad: I know. AJ and AT will call down; wouldn't you? As we've seen, SB will also call a bet with his underpair or six outs.

Elindauer, what are you putting the opps. on?

JimmyV

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I think AJ A10 will probably call down if you lead out again. And no, I dont always call down in that spot with those hands, and I would never be in that spot ever because I wouldnt cold call your raise from the button with AJ or A10. At the same time I dont like putting two bets in and trying to push two players off there on hand on the turn. I'd probably give it up. Had I only gotten one flop caller, I might fire again depending on the player and the kind of mood I was in. I dont think your play is all that consistant with a big pair considering how draw heavy the board is. If the button is a thinking player he should be wondering why you are risking giving two players a free card in this spot. Would you ever play say QQ this way? I'm not sure I would be comforatable enough the button would bet to check a hand like in a three way pot with one player left to act.

I unfortunately have made that play unsuccessully a bunch of times, which is the reason I dont make it very often anymore. By the way we have played together and I think you play goot. But I'll be calling you down a lot more often now....

[JimmyV]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont always call down in that spot with those hands, and I would never be in that spot ever because I wouldnt cold call your raise from the button with AJ or A10. ...

[/ QUOTE ]

As I'm sure you know, when someone says "loose Party 15 player" they're really saying something. The button cold-caller is a particular breed, and they just love paint more than anything.

[ QUOTE ]

If the button is a thinking player he should be wondering why you are risking giving two players a free card in this spot. I'm not sure I would be comforatable enough the button would bet to check a hand like in a three way pot with one player left to act.


[/ QUOTE ]

These guys hate to check it around with a hand that isn't drawing super-live to something awesome. They're not like you and me, and no, they're not really "thinking players" even though they understand betting patterns.

I'm dismayed at how many 2+2ers keep making comments that suggest they don't know how to read hands while keeping in mind the texture of the board (see the other two responses above). I think my logic in this scenario was pretty clear but everyone figures it's just bad because my cards weren't so hot.

Since so many of these Party cats don't bother to figure out what you're representing you don't necessarily have to represent something specific to them. In this case I had good reads that have yet to be contested in this thread: name me some likely holdings for these cats that makes this play -EV on this board and we'll talk.

Many of these Party 15 freewheelers are playing a power game rather than a mind game.

Present company excluded, of course.


"The strong take from the weak; the smart take from the strong." -- Princeton basketball coaching legend Butch van Breda Kolff


JimmyV

[andyfox]

"The strong take from the weak; the smart take from the strong." -- Princeton basketball coaching legend Butch van Breda Kolff

I remember Butch when he came to the Lakers. He may have been a legend at Princeton, but he was an arrogant, incompetent jerk here. And anyway, wouldn't it be smarter to take from the weak? That is, provided they had something you wanted?

What's your plan for the river if one or both call the raise?

[Steve Giufre]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm dismayed at how many 2+2ers keep making comments that suggest they don't know how to read hands while keeping in mind the texture of the board (see the other two responses above). I think my logic in this scenario was pretty clear but everyone figures it's just bad because my cards weren't so hot.

JimmyV

[/ QUOTE ]

No, not because your cards arnt so hot. I guess I'll assume you are telling me I'm not a good hand reader, and I'm not gonna watse anyones time arguing whether or not that is true. But you dont give enough player information to make an argument for checkraising the turn. You are taking a stab that the button has a big ace, and the SB is on draw. Any by doing so, you are putting quite a few bets into this pot, and I dont think you will be right enough of the time to make it the right decision. You are also assuming the button will give his big ace up, and that the SB isnt just your average calling staion who is gonna make you turn your hand over with 10 8. The play sucks. Esspecially in this sort of game where you usually need to show the best hand on the river to get the pot.

[JimmyV]

Andy:

If both players call the raise I check the river with the intention of folding; maybe they both have TJ. If one calls I bet the river with the intention of folding. As it happens, they both folded the turn.

Steve: I wasn't accusing YOU of being a bad hand-reader, I was accusing the other two posters mostly of replying lazily, and I was bemoaning a tendency in the threads to eschew hand-reading entirely just because (as you say quite aptly) you 'usually' have to show the best hand to win the pot in the 15. 'Usually' isn't always. And hand-reading is more interesting than just ignoring the board and valuing your own cards in a vacuum.

I think T8 is a pretty unlikely holding for SB here; he's flopped a pair and is being extraordinarily passive in a 3-way pot with it if that's what he has. I think he's MUCH more likely to have a gutshot with an overcard.

Sure, maybe he calls down with 66 or 83s or something weird. But I think the odds are in my favor, and I don't like the idea of keeping control by simply betting out, since I can't beat Ace high and these guys are loose quasi-attentive. The check-raise gets their attention even if it doesn't activate their hand-reading synapse.

Sorry to offend you, Steve; truly I was trying to be hard on the other posters, not on you.

JimmyV

[JimmyV]

[ QUOTE ]
wouldn't it be smarter to take from the weak? That is, provided they had something you wanted?


[/ QUOTE ]

In this instance 'strong' means only 'aggressive' in the poker sense. Party 15 clowning is generally strong rather than weak; if you want to take from the weak you should be in the 3/6.

JimmyV

[Senor Choppy]

[ QUOTE ]
As I'm sure you know, when someone says "loose Party 15 player" they're really saying something. The button cold-caller is a particular breed, and they just love paint more than anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's completely misrepresenting the button in this hand.

[ QUOTE ]

These guys hate to check it around with a hand that isn't drawing super-live to something awesome. They're not like you and me, and no, they're not really "thinking players" even though they understand betting patterns.

Many of these Party 15 freewheelers are playing a power game rather than a mind game.

Present company excluded, of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if you have PT or not, but the button in this hand plays a better game than many 2+2 posters here, if he isn't one himself.

[JimmyV]

Choppy: This is a worthwhile intervention. I meant most of those last comments to apply to the general species of "the button cold-caller," not necessarily this one. But that wasn't clear from the way I framed it.

It was because I thought Hudak was a pretty solid player that I felt reasonably confident about my read and optimistic that I could push him off some kind of hand.

On the other hand, I can't think of any hands I'd cold-call with on the button versus a single open-raiser. My estimation of Hudak went down as I wrote this hand up precisely because of his play of THIS hand.

What do you think he had here, by the way?

Thanks for the correction tho -- and the extra nudge to get started on the Poker Tracker. It's the downloading-of-data tedium that's kept me from getting it deployed. I really ought to.

JimmyV

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm dismayed at how many 2+2ers keep making comments that suggest they don't know how to read hands while keeping in mind the texture of the board (see the other two responses above). I think my logic in this scenario was pretty clear but everyone figures it's just bad because my cards weren't so hot.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to imply that because I don't agree with your play, I must have not thought about the hand or, apparently, can't read hands and suck at poker.

You're entitled to your opinion and you may be right, at least about me sucking at poker, since I can't put players on a hand given the information you've given. The SB probably doesn't have a 9. He could anything from a straight draw he'll fold unimproved to passive pocket aces. The button could have just about the same array of hands, except that his hand could be as strong as quads.

How do you handle such a broad read? When I don't know what my opponents hold, and don't know much about their tendencies, I assume they are loose and passive. So I give the button credit for a hand that beats me, which isn't saying much, and assume I can't win the pot with a bluff. Hence, I think the turn check-raise, putting a lot of money in on a planned 3-bet bluff with king high against two opponents is a losing play under normal circumstances.

The little information you've given me makes me even less inclined than normal to make this play. I don't have to know what they hold to know that I get called down with this action too often to make money.

my 2 cents.
Eric

[Senor Choppy]

I'm guessing 77 or AJ-ATs. I don't agree with his play here, but I've seen worse from many solid players.

[JimmyV]

Elindauer:

You don't have to suck at poker to make comments that make it SEEM as if you can't read hands.

And you don't have to agree with a play to acknowledge that there's logic (whether good or bad) behind it. If you just predict how you think a play will turn out, without giving reasons, you haven't engaged with its real merits and demerits, and therefore are neither agreeing or disagreeing but just expressing disdain for the typical Party 15 opponent (who, admittedly, likes to look people up). I prefer to respect my opponents a little more than sometimes seems justified, because when I get contemptuous I start losing a ton of chips.

(Also it's more interesting to posit that we're winning all this money from people with some kind of intelligence.)

As it happens, your last sentence illustrates my most important point about the current trouble with this particular forum: "I don't have to know what they hold to know that I get called down with this action too often to make money."

You suggest that the ACTION in this hand is more important than our knowledge of the information that inspires that action. This in turn implies that our task in the 15 is actuarial: out of X opponents Y is going to showdown regardless of the hands they hold or their understanding of your hand. I think hand reading, opponent knowledge, value-betting, and even bluffing are more important than that. Otherwise a computer could play the Party 15/30 simply by amassing a database of betting patterns and ranking the value of its own hand against the values of other hands shown down after a certain betting pattern.

Do you like the play any better now that you know it worked? Both opponents bullet-folded.

JimmyV

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
You suggest that the ACTION in this hand is more important than our knowledge of the information that inspires that action. This in turn implies that our task in the 15 is actuarial: out of X opponents Y is going to showdown regardless of the hands they hold or their understanding of your hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's right.

[ QUOTE ]
I think hand reading, opponent knowledge, value-betting, and even bluffing are more important than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. But the action in this hand doesn't lend itself to hand reading. They haven't given you much information, and you don't have any opponent knowledge. What do you want?

[ QUOTE ]
Otherwise a computer could play the Party 15/30 simply by amassing a database of betting patterns and ranking the value of its own hand against the values of other hands shown down after a certain betting pattern.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no doubt that a computer could beat the game doing exactly what you describe. So?

[ QUOTE ]
Do you like the play any better now that you know it worked? Both opponents bullet-folded.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. But I like the play more against these two players next time you see it, now that you have some player information.


Good luck.
Eric

[JimmyV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Otherwise a computer could play the Party 15/30 [OPTIMALLY] simply by amassing a database of betting patterns and ranking the value of its own hand against the values of other hands shown down after a certain betting pattern.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no doubt that a computer could beat the game doing exactly what you describe. So?


[/ QUOTE ]

Oops: I meant to say something else (see edit above). I meant to say that you're claiming that such a computer's approach to the game would be optimal. I don't think it is; not even close.

Wouldn't you prefer to beat the game for MORE than that computer would? Isn't maximizing your win rate what the forum should be for? Winning and losing isn't a binary question; we should focus on EV.

And I think there was plenty of information about these opponents' hands. Do you get information only when opponents raise or fold?

JimmyV

[rory]

Don't do this stuff on Party 15/30-- it's dumb.

You make money when your opponents do this to you and you call them down. Nobody ever folds to this silliness because everybody does this stuff all the time. Don't bother.

[hockey1]

[ QUOTE ]
When I don't know what my opponents hold, and don't know much about their tendencies, I assume they are loose and passive

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, elindauer, although I think your posts are usually very good, this is a monumental mistake at Party 15/30. Loose yes -- and by loose I'm talking about raising with 83o UTG and hitting both on the flop to knock of my KK yesterday (but I digress) -- and really overaggressive (id.). If you assume loose passive in these games you will absolutely get run over. If one takes into account that single not so minor mistaken premise I don't think Jimmy's play is SO bad. It's still bad, just not as bad as you make it sound.

[JimmyV]

[ QUOTE ]


You make money when your opponents do this to you and you call them down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes indeed I do. Indeed I do. Quite a lot of it.

JimmyV

[Steve Giufre]

Jimmy,

Been out of town for a couple days. No offense taken at all. I think this play can be right, but it usually involves a read which is why it probably has more success in B&M than it does on the net. Anyhow like I told you I'm pretty impressed with the way you play and I'm sure you are doing just fine.