Pls advise on this hand.

[CinnamonWind]

MP2 is a LAG. I've seen him get a bit of FPS, but mainly he just pushes too hard.

Party Poker 3/6 Hold'em (9 handed)

Preflop: Hero is CO with A/images/graemlins/heart.gif, T/images/graemlins/spade.gif.
UTG folds, UTG+1 folds, MP1 calls, MP2 calls, MP3 calls, Hero calls, Button folds, SB folds, BB checks.

Flop: (5.33 SB) A/images/graemlins/spade.gif, J/images/graemlins/club.gif, 4/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="blue">(5 players)</font>
BB checks, MP1 checks, MP2 checks, MP3 checks, <font color="CC3333">Hero bets</font>, BB folds, MP1 folds, MP2 calls, MP3 folds.

Turn: (3.66 BB) 6/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="blue">(2 players)</font>
MP2 checks, <font color="CC3333">Hero bets</font>, <font color="CC3333">MP2 raises</font>, <font color="CC3333">Hero 3-bets</font>, MP2 calls.

River: (9.66 BB) 5/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="blue">(2 players)</font>
<font color="CC3333">MP2 bets</font>, Hero calls.

Final Pot: 11.66 BB

[Grease]

I probably would just call the turn. It was definitely not a blank. I would call the river or bet if checked to.

[Evan]

3 betting that turn is just reckless. Check-call check-raise is not a line that's often beaten by one pair.

EDIT: Just noticed the read. I still just call down though.

[ErrantNight]

save yourself a bet and just call the turn... not a blank, lag or no lag he just woke up NOW on the turn... may only have a draw to that club frush to go along with his nifty pair... but he also might have that flush... or two pair... or... yadda yadda yadda

[CinnamonWind]

I know I shouldn't have 3 bet the turn, but I had a good read and figured he was probably bluffing. I was hoping to knock him off his hand. Results in white below.

<font color="white">
Villian shows [ Jd, 9d ] a pair of jacks.
Hero shows [ Ah, Ts ] a pair of aces.
</font>

[Six_of_One]

If he was bluffing, then why would you want to knock him off his hand?

Like the others, I wouldn't have 3-bet the turn. It seems to me that you will lose the maximum when behind, and if he really is bluffing you may win the minimum.

P.S. My fortune cookie just told me "You will attain the highest levels of intelligence," so I advise you to listen to me.

[CinnamonWind]

I meant knock him off if he didn't have the flush. I was confident he wasn't totally bluffing.

[Avatar]

I still don't get why you'd want to make him fold a worse hand.

[Six_of_One]

I understand, but even still, if he's behind with only a few outs, don't you want him to stick around?

[CinnamonWind]

[ QUOTE ]
I still don't get why you'd want to make him fold a worse hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ehm, I wanted him to fold a non-flush hand. Big difference. I thought I might be behind two pair and he may fold it.

[bdk3clash]

Your hand has major showdown value against a loose, aggressive player but you don't want to trigger a 4-bet on the turn. Also, you'd prefer that your opponent's river bets are bluffs he continues to run and not value-type bets, which won't happen if you 3-bet the turn.

[CinnamonWind]

[ QUOTE ]
Your hand has major showdown value against a loose, aggressive player but you don't want to trigger a 4-bet on the turn. Also, you'd prefer that your opponent's river bets are bluffs he continues to run and not value-type bets, which won't happen if you 3-bet the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that is exactly what did happen ... I 3 bet the turn and he still bluffed the river.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
P.S. My fortune cookie just told me "You will attain the highest levels of intelligence," so I advise you to listen to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds like we should ignore you for now and ask again later /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your hand has major showdown value against a loose, aggressive player but you don't want to trigger a 4-bet on the turn. Also, you'd prefer that your opponent's river bets are bluffs he continues to run and not value-type bets, which won't happen if you 3-bet the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that is exactly what did happen ... I 3 bet the turn and he still bluffed the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I should have written "...won't tend to happen..." even though exactly that did in this instance.

I'm just basing my recommendation on the turn action--I tried to ignore the subsequent action and results themselves.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
Ehm, I wanted him to fold a non-flush hand. Big difference. I thought I might be behind two pair and he may fold it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Trying to push anyone off 2 pair isn't too smart usually, and vs. a LAG this is absolutely futile...if this is what tipped your decision then I think that's an error.

If you really think he's semi-bluffing a single /images/graemlins/club.gif here, then raise is good, but when you think he's probably just as likely to be on a bluff, you might as well just call the CR, then call a river bet.

This guy has to be super LAG for you to be able to count on him CR'ing you as a bluff, then calling your 3 bet, and follow it with another bluff on the river. I don't think many people can fit that description.

[StellarWind]

I think the turn 3-bet is wrong for two different reasons:

1. You are risking 2 BB to gain 1 BB. Yet there is no reason to think you are even a favorite to win. Speaking in the context of hands that checkraise this turn, you only beat a bluff--a bluff that probably has a pile of outs.

2. With a legitimate 3-bet like 4 /images/graemlins/spade.gif4 /images/graemlins/heart.gif, it would be much better to call the turn and raise the river instead. You certainly don't want to have extra money in when the fourth club hits. The key point is that you are pretty certain he has something he wants to show down. If you thought he had only a flush draw the turn raise would be preferable, but there is no reason to suspect that.

Your actual hand is also very vulnerable to the board pairing. A four or six destroys your kicker in addition to the trips issue. That's six more river cards you don't need to be raising.

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
Except that is exactly what did happen ... I 3 bet the turn and he still bluffed the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

So? That doesn't mean bdk3clash is wrong. You will get stop n' go'ed by a small flush much more often than pure bluffs in that spot. So much so that calling the turn intending to call the river is a much better line. Most bluffs will fold to the turn 3-bet and you will win 1 BB less when ahead and lose 2 BBs more when behind if you don't fold.

[CinnamonWind]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Except that is exactly what did happen ... I 3 bet the turn and he still bluffed the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

So? That doesn't mean bdk3clash is wrong. You will get stop n' go'ed by a small flush much more often than pure bluffs in that spot. So much so that calling the turn intending to call the river is a much better line. Most bluffs will fold to the turn 3-bet and you will win 1 BB less when ahead and lose 2 BBs more when behind if you don't fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

He said it "won't" happen. It did. My read was correct. This guy followed through on his bluffs hard, and was not betting like he had the flush. If he had it, he would have played differently (i.e., raised the flop and smooth called the turn).

I shouldn't have three bet the turn, and bdk's reasoning (and others' reasoning) is sound, but my read was good and it won me more bets.

[sfer]

Then why didn't you raise the river?

[J.R.]

[ QUOTE ]
I shouldn't have three bet the turn, and bdk's reasoning (and others' reasoning) is sound, but my read was good and it won me more bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I shouldn't have three bet the turn, and bdk's reasoning (and others' reasoning) is sound, but I was lucky and it won me more bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

[CinnamonWind]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I shouldn't have three bet the turn, and bdk's reasoning (and others' reasoning) is sound, but my read was good and it won me more bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I shouldn't have three bet the turn, and bdk's reasoning (and others' reasoning) is sound, but I was lucky and it won me more bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]


That's silly. I knew precisely why I was raising the turn, and it was because I thought I was ahead. This is the kind of player who would bluff at a flush.

Now when the river comes and he bets into me, it smells a lot less like a bluff. It smells like someone afraid of missing a value bet and/or expecting a raise. So I called.

I have admitted that the turn 3-bet was a mistake against almost all opponents. Against this opponent there was a strong chance I was still ahead, and so I reraised into his probable bluff on the turn. I think you are underestimating the importance of reads, but that's natural since you weren't at the table watching him play.

[CinnamonWind]

FWIW, his VPIP was 84% over 140 hands, and his PFR was 56%. That is the kind of player I was dealing with, though oddly he didn't raise this hand. That might have been because MP1 was ultra tight (or he might have just not felt like it, who knows).

[J.R.]

Should you or should you not have 3-bet the turn?

If you shouldn't have, you were lucky.

If you shouldn't have against pretty much every opponent other than this one, and that's why you made this anomalous play, then WTF are you doing posting this hand and not telling peoples this was a super-duper-special LAG fool of an opponent who can and will bluff/semi-bluff check-raise a 3-flush turn and not shut down when 3-bet even when on an unimproved semi-bluff? That read is the crux of the hand, so why post an entirely READ-dependent hand without the specifics of the read you relied on to embark on your bizzarely over-aggressive line. To tool on people or to get into meaningless arguments like this one. Sorry, I'm not trying to hate on you. Stella Artois is good.

[CinnamonWind]

[ QUOTE ]
Should you or should you not have 3-bet the turn?

If you shouldn't have, you were lucky.

If you shouldn't against pretty much every opponent other than this one, and that's why you made this anomalous play, then WTF are you doing posting this hand and not telling peoples this was a super-duper-special LAG fool of an opponent who can and will bluff/semi-bluff check-raise a 3-flush turn and not shut down when 3-bet vene when on an uniproved semi-bluff? That read is the crux of the hand, so why post an entirely READ-dependent hand without the specifics of the read you relied on to embark on your bizzarely over-aggressive line. To tool on people or to get into meaningless arguments like this one. Sorry, I'm not trying to hate on you. Stella Artois is good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you think you're getting a little testy over this? Relax a bit, you'll live longer.

[J.R.]

I am very relaxed, how are you tonight?

[CinnamonWind]

[ QUOTE ]
I am very relaxed, how are you tonight?

[/ QUOTE ]

I won $250 in 20 minutes from some fruitcups on the Party 3-6 tables and then watched a Chris Rock comedy special. I'm good.

[bdk3clash]

"He said it 'won't' happen. It did."

I just wanted to reiterate that my original intention was to convey something along the lines of "won't tend to happen" or "generally won't happen." I recognize that it did happen, but you certainly didn't know what was going to happen when you were deciding what to do on the turn, though it's clear that your read lead you to believe it might/could/probably would happen.

I thought I made this clear in my clarification post where I said:

"I guess I should have written '...won't tend to happen...'"

I don't think it's really fair to continue to say that I said it "won't," because I can read the results as well as anyone, which don't really matter as they relate to the turn decision anyway. The read certainly does, but I still say you should just call down for the reasons I mentioned above.

Interesting hand; good discussion in this thread, CinnamonWind.

[CinnamonWind]

[ QUOTE ]
"He said it 'won't' happen. It did."

I just wanted to reiterate that my original intention was to convey something along the lines of "won't tend to happen" or "generally won't happen." I recognize that it did happen, but you certainly didn't know what was going to happen when you were deciding what to do on the turn, though it's clear that your read lead you to believe it might/could/probably would happen.

I thought I made this clear in my clarification post where I said:

"I guess I should have written '...won't tend to happen...'"

I don't think it's really fair to continue to say that I said it "won't," because I can read the results as well as anyone, which don't really matter as they relate to the turn decision anyway. The read certainly does, but I still say you should just call down for the reasons I mentioned above.

Interesting hand; good discussion in this thread, CinnamonWind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree entirely with your reasoning and I understand what you meant. At the time I was feeling all smarty pants-ish, so I went with my read in the face of logic. If I had it to do all over again, even against this player, I'd just call the turn.

[J.R.]

Interesting hand; good discussion in this thread, CinnamonWind.

Seriously, now I must be tripping and its time to roll out and retire but what is so interesting about a hand that involves a bizarrely aggressive play which is only justfied by an extremely unique read that the poster declined to share with others until after peoples responded with what is the correct answer given the info provided? Off to church.

[CinnamonWind]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting hand; good discussion in this thread, CinnamonWind.

Seriously, now I must be tripping and its time to roll out and retire but what is so interesting about a hand that involves a bizarrely aggressive play which is only justfied by an extremely unique read that the poster declined to share with others until after peoples responded with what is the correct answer given the info provided? Off to church.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, karma will get you one day if you stay this ... unpleasant.

[bdk3clash]

I dunno, I'm finding this thread interesting for a few reasons. The hand itself was played in a, uh, non-standard way that now even the original poster/player agrees was likely incorrect, actual results notwithstanding. I agree that the unique read should have been included in the original post, but I enjoyed the conversation and discussion that fleshed out the actual thought process CinnamonWind was employing at the time, the problems with it, and the eventual conclusion that an alternate line was probably better.

What can I say; I'm a sucker for a happy ending, though I'm sensing some CinnamonWind/JR hostility for sure.

[bisonbison]

You know, karma will get you one day if you stay this ... unpleasant.

I don't think J.R. has anything to worry about. He's one of the strategy stalwarts here and I think it's one of our perpetual reasonable questions:

how much is "I had a read" an ex-post-facto justification for good results?

And as for karma and unpleasantness, it's got a bead on me. No need for anyone else to sweat.

[CinnamonWind]

[ QUOTE ]
I dunno, I'm finding this thread interesting for a few reasons. The hand itself was played in a, uh, non-standard way that now even the original poster/player agrees was likely incorrect, actual results notwithstanding. I agree that the unique read should have been included in the original post, but I enjoyed the conversation and discussion that fleshed out the actual thought process CinnamonWind was employing at the time, the problems with it, and the eventual conclusion that an alternate line was probably better.

What can I say; I'm a sucker for a happy ending, though I'm sensing some CinnamonWind/JR hostility for sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

No hostility from me. I just don't have a lot of time for mean people, generally.

Thx for the comments on the thread. Perhaps I should have included the full read in the original post, but really I wanted advice against a general LAG opponent, not this specific nut. I got that advice and it was sound. When I was called "lucky" though, with the implication that I was sort of stupid as well, then I felt it was time to explain a bit more about the situation.

I was probably a bit lucky, and I am an *extremely* aggressive player, but the implication that I was just being a dumbass and got saved by the idiocy of the villian is, in this case, incorrect. I made the wrong move, but I didn't make it for a stupid reason (like losing my cool or getting ego-driven about the turn raise).

[helpmeout]

If someone bluffs you on the turn, just call down and let them try again on the river.

Most times when people bluff or semi bluff and you 3bet them on the turn they wont pay you off on the river.

Even though you get the same number of bets, when they do improve or have a big hand you will lose extra making calling down clearly better.

If you had a bigger hand like 2pair or an Ace of clubs, sometimes even AK, then 3betting is good against this kind of opponent.

[Danenania]

I like calling the turn and raising a non-club river best in order to collect the max from weak made hands and pure bluffs alike.

[J.R.]

I not trying to hate, sorry if I appear to be a jerk. I'm trying to learn and debate (a chicken and egg thing), and I like the fact that someone of ostensibly reaonably good intellect (CinnamonWind), who wasn't schooled in the 2+2 line of thought has shown up here and provided some fresh air and unique reasoning. I'm not trying to make this personal, but am just trying to challenge ideas and posts. The point to me was after this thread was worked thru, CinnamonWind seemed to both agree with you and to advocate her line.

I dunno, I like to challenge what I see are sharp intellects and go aginst the grain, to the extent I can. Sorry, maybe I'm reminiscent for long past days, but things seem a little too cookie cutter. I don't really handjob it up in posts. Maybe its just a natural progression and I should post elsewhere. Its not my intent to be unduly abrasive. Upfront and unabashed, yes, but not egotistical and over the top and condescending. Maybe I have become that evil monster, but I really despise things authored with a tone of perfection that don't live up to the packaging. I'm know I'm no genious.

[CinnamonWind]

[ QUOTE ]
I not trying to hate, sorry if I appear to be a jerk. I'm tryign to learn and debate, and I like the fact that someone of ostensibly reaonably good intellect (CinnamonWind), who wasn't schooled in the 2+2 line of thought has shown up here and provided some fresh air and unique reasoning. I'm not trying to make this personal, but am just trying to challenge people. The point to me was after this thread was worked thru, CinnamonWind seemed to both agree with you and to advocate her line.

I dunno, I like to challenge what I see are sharp intellects and go aginst the grain, to the extent I can. Sorry, maybe I'm reminiscent for long past days, but things seem a littel too cookie cutter. I don't really handjob it up in posts. Maybe its just a natural progression and I should post elsewhere. Its not my intent to be unduly abrasive. Upfront and unabashed, yes, but not egotistical and over the top an condescending. Maybe I have become that evil monster, but I really despise things authored with a tone of perfection that don't live up to the packaging. I'm know I'm no genious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just an FYI, I was schooled in the 2+2 line of thought. Because I am new here doesn't mean I haven't immersed myself in the readings. But I will break with the 2+2 reasoning when I feel it's appropriate, like in this spot, and I am much more aggressive than the average 2+2er, I think.

I don't think you're a jerk. Maybe you just came on a lil' strong. I'm certainly pleased to get advice though, as that's why I am here.

[bdk3clash]

"I'm know I'm no genious."

POTY contender.

[J.R.]

ty

[Tosh]

This thread is so read specific there can be no real debate. You were the one playing with the guy, not us, its your play.

[colgin]

CinnamonWind,

I haven't read the results or others' thoughts yet so here goes. I just call down after LAG C/R's the turn. Against other opponents you might be able to fold but not against this one. However, I don't see the point of a three-bet. If LAG is completely bluffing you don't want to fold him with your three-bet and you don't want to expose yourself to a cap if you are behind. I think calling down maximizes your win when you are ahead and minimizes it when you are behind. Now against certain true maniacs three-betting the turn might be OK, but I suspect your opponent here is not one of those.

All the best.

Colgin

[Trix]

When he check-raises you on the turn the pot is 6 BBs.

You can 3bet and he will likely fold right there if he has nothing or play the river correct, meaning that he either put in one more bet or none.

When he is ahead, he may cap and you will probably call down anyway.

When you just call the check-raise, he will be very likely to bet no matter what he has on the river, so you gain the same one bet as when you 3bet the turn, but wont lose more when he slowplayed a strong hand on the flop or improved on the turn.

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
What can I say; I'm a sucker for a happy ending, though I'm sensing some CinnamonWind/JR hostility for sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to point out that I've got some big time pwnage on JR heads-up. That is all.

[Tosh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What can I say; I'm a sucker for a happy ending, though I'm sensing some CinnamonWind/JR hostility for sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to point out that I've got some big time pwnage on JR heads-up. That is all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to point out that I've got some big time pwnage on Sfer heads-up. That is all.

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to point out that I've got some big time pwnage on Sfer heads-up. That is all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to point out that limit poker is a game of luck and skill. And request that regular posters ignore that comment when reading my previous post.

[J.R.]

I would like to point out that I've got some big time pwnage on JR heads-up. That is all.


Unfortunately for both of us you are not unique in that respect.