Two Folds

[naphand]

One thing I have noticed about my game is that I launch into games very aggressively, and am very willing to take people on straight away. This often leads to quite a lot of chip-splurging early on as I establish reads and, perhap, my image. I am not so sure that this is very productive, as players seem very willing to fight and some are certainly capable of trapping you (there are a lot of LAGs obviously).

To this end I have been "experimenting" with playing tighter and more passively for the first 20-30 hands, rope-a-doping a little before cranking up the aggro with some read-based plays. This seems the standard ploy, though it has not been for me previously.

Both hands are early in the game.


HAND 1

CO is a passive calling station.

Poker Room $2/$4 (5-max, 5 handed)

Preflop: Naphand is SB with 8 /images/graemlins/club.gif 8 /images/graemlins/heart.gif
UTG folds, CO raises, Button folds, Naphand raises, BB calls, CO caps, Naphand calls, BB calls.

Flop: (12 SB) 2 /images/graemlins/heart.gif, 3 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 5 /images/graemlins/spade.gif (3 players)
Naphand checks, BB bets, CO raises, Naphand folds, BB raises, CO calls.


BB has hit the flop and he called 2 cold PF, could be a lot of things but I doubt he attacks a PF capper with top pair. CO raises again after capping PF, this looks very much like a big PP. 2 outs to improve, standard against a passive player?


HAND 2

CO is LAG and caps easily with draws and pairs of any description. Button is unknown. BB is tight.

Poker Room $2/$4 (5-max, 5 handed)

Preflop: Naphand is SB with A /images/graemlins/heart.gif Q /images/graemlins/club.gif
UTG folds, CO raises, Button calls, Naphand calls, BB folds.

Flop: (7 SB) Q /images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 6 /images/graemlins/club.gif, 7 /images/graemlins/club.gif (3 players)
Naphand checks, CO bets, Button raises, Naphand calls, CO calls.

Turn: (6.5 BB) T /images/graemlins/club.gif (3 players)
Naphand checks, CO bets, Button raises, Naphand folds...


PF I am not reducing this field with a raise and I know I can CR LAG any time with a friendly board, best to let him bet it (he will auto-bet almost any board even after Button's raise). Button I know nothing about, if I knew his standards better I 3-bet and CO probably caps. Flop is very good for me; CO makes his auto-bet and Button raises again, I only call. I suspect Button is on a flush draw (possibly AA-99). The plan is to CR the Turn if no /images/graemlins/club.gif falls or if it is only 1 bet to me. The Turn T /images/graemlins/club.gif could mean a lot of things for LAG, but Button is certainly not afraid of the 3rd suit and me waiting behind. I am drawing to 3rd-nut and possibly dead already.

In hindsight I particularly don't like either of these cold-calls, I think I should 3-bet both times. Does anyone have anything to support this line, apart from the dubious "observational" aspect? What about the fold?

Results later.

[PokerNoob]

Hand 1 looks ok when a passive calling station caps and raises the flop this looks like a pocket pair higher than eights and you have to dodge BB. When he 3-bets behind after your fold, you've got to feel pretty good.

Hand 2 I would check threebet that flop, regardless of my plan to play passive. If you just sat down, you might not know button is raising to isolate with worse than AQ. I lead the turn and take it from there. If your plan is to look like a station, you might as well call down with TPTK and 3rd nut redraw. Does Poker Room show the losing hands?

[Scotch78]

Hand 1:

I don't know about you, but 88 is at the bottom end of my 3-betting range. You're out of position and the aggressor is normally passive, so I fold this one pre-flop. The flop fold is even easier to make.

Hand 2:

I usually re-raise pre-flop with AQ, but not sure which way this one would swing for me. With TPTK I want to get it heads-up against the LAG, and he's likely to auto-raise if I lead into him, so that's what I do.

Scott

[naphand]

HAND 1:

I just checked CO's PFR and it was 1.23%, a figure which perhaps should lead me to fold this PF. Something around 5-6% is probably necessary in order for there to be a reasonable chance of raises with less than premium PP. Anyone care to divulge the math of this? I don't recall any discussion about what the various PFR percentages amount to.

The action from the Turn goes: bet-call, bet-call (CO true to type). CO shows AA and BB wins with 35o OMG /images/graemlins/grin.gif


HAND 2:

CO just calls Buttons Turn raise and check-calls a River rag. CO shows T9o (classic LAG hand) and Button turns over A /images/graemlins/club.gif 8 /images/graemlins/club.gif


Both folds were "right". Pre-flop in Hand 1 I think a case could be made for folding based on CO's PFR%, though I am happy with it. There were certainly questions about Hand 2; I think the merits of 3-betting PF could be debated, but certainly this flop needs a 3-bet. What happened here was that my resolution not to leap into hands guns blazing from the get-go unintentionally put me in a passive mode. How do others feel about AQo in this situation. i.e. out of position against a LAG and Button raisor? I feel that 3-bet may not always be right here.

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
Pre-flop in Hand 1 I think a case could be made for folding based on CO's PFR%

[/ QUOTE ]

A case could be made for it? Please try and make a case against it.

Scott

PS Today I was holding AQ and the player to my right raises. My nifty little PlayerView HUD tells me he has a 1% PFR after 1,000+ hands. I fold, of course. Then after everyone else folds to his flop bet he turns over 72o!

[naphand]

You just made the case.... /images/graemlins/cool.gif

Sample sizes on PT can be small (this was 167 hands).

[Scotch78]

Ehh, 167 isn't too big, but I still don't like it. However, now that I know you're using anecdotal evidence to justify your poker theories, I understand why you make these mistakes.

Scott

[PokerNoob]

Lol, obvious misclick. On second thought, maybe not. Maybe he only raises 72o as some kind of fetish.

[naphand]

I played 1 game where I 3-bet Aq PF and Button cold-called 3, and went on to win with 73o when he picked up trips. He claimed he had mis-clicked, when I checked the table history he had won the previous 4-5 hands. I was not a mis-click... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I regulalry see players just suddenly making random raises with complete trash. There is either a lot of mis-clicking going on, or some players just love to gamble on the spur.

[naphand]

Captain bizarre strikes again.

No poker theory was proposed, you made the case yourself. I merely pointed it out. I assume you are playing on Cryptologic? as the only realistic explanation for their stultifying slow play is; they are checking PT before they make every decision... /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[Scotch78]

I was, then CT and Amir came out with this awesome HUD for Party and I switched to Empire.

Scott

PS If you didn't already take Kiddo's advice, you should most definitely check out their product.

[Guy McSucker]

Scott,

[ QUOTE ]

now that I know you're using anecdotal evidence to justify your poker theories, I understand why you make these mistakes


[/ QUOTE ]

Naphand is a nice guy and a valuable poster. I respect him, and if you're here to learn, so should you. I'm also aware he doesn't need my help to defend himself, and that his skin is thick enough to shrug off the above, but I'm grumpy today and you've been getting under my collar for a while now, so here goes.

Remarks like yours, quoted above, help nobody. This is a quality shared by many of your posts. To illustrate, here are some of the well-thought-out things you've said.

[ QUOTE ]

Just going to emphasize again . . . I am making a profit in the SB while the rest of you are trying to minimize a loss. This is not a playing style determined by emotion, it is something I found that works


[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, I'm intrigued. But who is this guy? Is he just claiming that to look good after a tiny sample? Let's see now:

[ QUOTE ]

I've been trained to find the smallest piece of doubt in arguments and then attack like a super-aggro maniac (philosophy major). My brain simply won't let me have faith until I post long-term wins.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, so Scott is the only person who can win from the blinds. Must be some kind of genius. I'd love to see his stats.

[ QUOTE ]

BB/Hand (by position)

SB: (0.09)
BB: (0.18)


[/ QUOTE ]

Now, I'm no philosophy major, but I believe I have uncovered an inconsistency.

Don't get me wrong, people are allowed to be inconsistent, change their minds, and learn things over time. But not if they conduct themselves the way you do.

I will not be engaging in a flame war.

Guy.

[Scotch78]

Naphand seems to know when I'm joking and when I'm not, so I'll learn poker from him and you can learn humor from him. As to the quotes you took out of context . . . not one of them was intended or expressed in the vein you just interpreted them. As to the general trend of your reply, yes, I have a harsh sense of humor to start with, and have been particularly irascible of late, which seems to have taken me off the deep end unawares. When it's come to my attention that I hurt someone, I apologize. Naphand has not given me this impression yet, and I take his personality as one that can enjoy the banter. If I'm wrong, I hope he will take this opportunity to tell me. As to any offense you've taken from my posts . . . it was never my intention and I wish it hadn't happened. Since it bothers you, I will try to restrain myself. In return, I ask that you refrain from misquoting me in the future; it is something I find particularly offensive.

Scott

[Guy McSucker]

That was a very noble response, Scott.

I concede it was unfair to create the little collage of quotes that I did.

Let's move on.

Guy.

P.S. " I'll learn poker from him and you can learn humor from him. " was genuinely funny.

[naphand]

Scotch78 is right Guy, he really does not have to worry about what he says to me. While sometimes I have to consider he may be making some kind of point, and he may even have spotted an inconsistency in what I say (No!), he has a sense of humour that encompasses being "offensive" or at least somewhat sardonic. That's OK because I give him credit for this when reading his posts. Perhaps you have not seen all of exchanges that took place between us recently, rest assured it is unlikely that Scotch78 is really having a go, he is and he isn't. I suspect he posts this way in a half-enquiring half-can-I-get-naphand-to blow-off kind of way. I have read on this guy, so far it has proven +EV and at times he has almost succeeded in amusing me... /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

At the same time, I do listen to what people say (although that may not always be apparent), and I particularly respect people who can force me to question my reasoning, because that is a learning process. I realise that, at times, I can be a bit OTT and need to be careful. That said, there are some issues upon which I am quite prepared to stand my ground and take on all-comers. Poker is not one of them, as I am still learning and recognise even the worst/newest players still have a valuable contribution to make.

I only hope for his sake that his handle "Scotch78" refers to a beverage and not some sassenach-imagined heritage.

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
I only hope for his sake that his handle "Scotch78" refers to a beverage and not some sassenach-imagined heritage.

[/ QUOTE ]

God, if you guys think I'm disagreeable now, you do not want to see me after a few shots of whiskey. "Scotch" is just a nickname for "Scott". I'll leave the "78" up to your imaginations though, but rest assured it has a heritage as long and distinguished as Rolling Rock's "33".

Scott

PS The best way to tell when I'm joking is probably to check if I gave a reason for what I'm saying. When I am giving serious advice I try to think aloud and express why I think such and such is a good line. If there's no explanation given or it doesn't match with the inital comment, then I'm probably joking.

[beginner]

I like the 3-bet in hand #2 to make CO call 2 cold. Even LAGs fold sometimes when they are faced with 2 bets. You have much better chances heads up.