Party 3/6: HEFAP-inspired play to shut down a LAG

[chesspain]

Party Poker 3/6 Hold'em (10 handed)

Opponent is a LAG, although he tends to shut down on expensive streets in the face of aggressive. I should mention that he and I exchanged words briefly about thirty minutes before, when he was whining frequently about his losing hands.

After he coldcalled in this hand, I had a funny feeling that he was going to try to pull some floater crap on me--so I decided to play the turn as recommended by S&M, who opined that against aggressive players it can be wise to checkraise up to 50% of your good hands on the turn, in order to buy free cards in future hands out of position when you only hold whiffed overcards.


Preflop: chesspain is UTG with A/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, K/images/graemlins/spade.gif.
<font color="CC3333">chesspain raises</font>, <font color="666666">5 folds</font>, CO calls, <font color="666666">3 folds</font>.

Flop: (5.33 SB) T/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 3/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 7/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="blue">(2 players)</font>
<font color="CC3333">chesspain bets</font>, CO calls.

Turn: (3.66 BB) A/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="blue">(2 players)</font>
chesspain checks, <font color="CC3333">CO bets</font>, <font color="CC3333">chesspain raises</font>, CO folds.

Even if I didn't maximize my winnings by this play (although I might have, if all he had was a mediocre or unmade hand that he would have folded to a turn bet), is it worth it to make a play this like for image, especially with a player under whose skin I may have already gotten?

[J.R.]

bet and 3-bet the turn. the check-raise to buy free cards later on is overrated in online games where others don't get attention. Its also less effective against bluntly aggressive players, as its designed to be used against a player who will recall this check-raise in a similar situation later on and consider checking. If this is truly lag, he is not very discriminating with his bets. And the check-raise says big hand, whereas the bet 3-bet, gets another bet out of him before saying "big hand" and may tie him in as the pot is bigger.

[Joe Tall]

I think your c/r is perfect. If you bet, often a player of this type will fold. As you have checked on a 'scare' card, this type of player will often bluff and then you can get your raise in as often he'll check the river through. Your raise may also peak his curiosity, given your history and you'll get paid off when making this line.

Peace,
Joe Tall

[Joe Tall]

bet and 3-bet the turn

Why are you so sure our opponent is going to raise? Often, they will fold to a bet on a scare card, yet, bluff-bet when checked to.

Peace,
Joe Tall

[StellarWind]

Betting and checkraising the turn are both good plays. Over an extended session I would vary them. In the one-off situations typical of online play it doesn't matter very much.

J.R. mentions 3-betting but you won't get that chance very often against a worse hand, especially given your "shutdown" read. It's not an important consideration in making your bet/checkraise decision.

[ QUOTE ]
is it worth it to make a play this like for image

[/ QUOTE ]
If image was the only consideration I would bet the turn. Whatever I may or may not achieve against this player, I have other opponents. Checkraising from the lead is a real attention-getter. I don't want the loose/passive fish to perceive me as a bully who humiliates people. They won't want to be my next victim and are likely to tighten up. Fewer terrible coldcalls and less chasing hurts profits.

I have a sometimes leak where I get fixated on one player whom I find irritating for some reason. I start playing against him instead of the table in general. This sounds like you may be prone to the same problem. Food for thought.

[sthief09]

I like check-raising. The differences are that if you bet and he has a hand, you can 3-bet. if you check-raise you only get 2 bets. but, more often, he has a hand like one pair or something, which he'll bet and which he's going to showdown with. this way, you get to charge him 2 BB to draw to his 5 outer. if there was any question that he'd check the turn drawing live, I'd be more inclined to bet. but given that he's guaranteed to bet, and he'll call a raise with anything that he'll call a bet with. also, if you get 3-bet, it becomes pretty apparent you're behind.

[Aces McGee]

[ QUOTE ]
Often, they will fold to a bet on a scare card, yet, bluff-bet when checked to.



[/ QUOTE ]

You're not mentioning the quite real possibility that they'll check the turn scare card through, though they'd call a bet.

-McGee

[Joe Tall]

You're not mentioning the quite real possibility that they'll check the turn scare card through, though they'd call a bet

Put yourself in the confrontation, the history, this opponent is going to give you the, 'oh yeah, you check, fck-you, I bet' in this situation.

Peace,
Joe Tall

[Aces McGee]

I had forgotten about the history. I agree that makes it less likely that he'll check the turn through. (Although his fold to the turn checkraise makes me think we've miscast him a little bit).

Beat LA,
McGee

[MoreWineII]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a sometimes leak where I get fixated on one player whom I find irritating for some reason. I start playing against him instead of the table in general. This sounds like you may be prone to the same problem. Food for thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say you're far from alone in that.

[tolbiny]

"Although his fold to the turn checkraise makes me think we've miscast him a little bit"

I think the turn fold shows it cast him perfectly- he obviously bet with very little/nothing at all.

[J.R.]

I agree, he just say the guy liked to float and he expected the guy to pull soem "floater crap", which means coldcall preflop/smoothcall the flop and pop the turn, and floaters/aggressive players may be more inclined to do so on a potential scare card like an A.

[J.R.]

J.R. mentions 3-betting but you won't get that chance very often against a worse hand, especially given your "shutdown" read. It's not an important consideration in making your bet/checkraise decision.

I agree in general, but Chess said he expected the guy to pull a "floater type move", and to shut down in the face of aggression. Floating is coldcall/smoothcalling and waiting to raise on the turn. I think that's the source of confusion, at least for me. The shut down in the face of aggression seems to imply a bit more than just a turn bet, as hero has raised and bet the flop, so a turn bet is to be expected and is not really out of character agression that would be expected shut down an agressive player looking to float the turn when a potential scare card (the A) falls.

I dunno, I read the agression and floating to mean this player would shut down to a raise, not an expected bet. But against a run of the mill LAGGY type who will indiscriminately take a shot if you check and shut down to agression, the check-raise is fine unless shut down means fold to aggression, in which case check-call the turn and then bet the river or consider check-raising the river may be superior (depending on their expected level of aggression after you call the turn- i.e. willl the turn call freeze them into checking the river, or are they thick-headed enough to fire again), as the pot isn't that big.

[MRBAA]

Another way to play this would be to check/ call the turn, then bet out the river.

[J.R.]

Another way to play this would be to check/ call the turn, then bet out the river.

[ QUOTE ]
in which case check-call the turn and then bet the river or consider check-raising the river may be superior

[/ QUOTE ]

[J.R.]

If image was the only consideration I would bet the turn. Whatever I may or may not achieve against this player, I have other opponents. Checkraising from the lead is a real attention-getter. I don't want the loose/passive fish to perceive me as a bully who humiliates people. They won't want to be my next victim and are likely to tighten up. Fewer terrible coldcalls and less chasing hurts profits.

I completely disagree with this. You presented the case for why people, to the extent they are paying attention, are more likely to check behind your checks, for fear of the check-raise. That's the image consideration. WRT people not coldcalling/chasing, I think you have it opposite: people are going to be more inclined to chase you down, looking to return the favor and check-raise you. If your humiliate someone (to the extent they feel humiliated), revenge is the motive that generally consumes them, not avoidance. You yourself have indicated that is the case for yourself, and you are more in control and rational than the typical 3-6er

I have a sometimes leak where I get fixated on one player whom I find irritating for some reason. I start playing against him instead of the table in general

You don't fold and get out of his way, you try to beat him by playing him and palying hands against him.

When people get emotional, such as when they are "humiliated" (if a check-raise is humilaiting) their reaction is to tilt (i.e. overplay), not to go passive and weak-tight. It is analagous to the effect of needling, in both case you are trying to irritate/humilaite/upset your opponent to induce them to play out of control and more based on passions than rational, well thought out lines of play.

And in the case where you have bet, your opponents have no reason to fear a humiliating check-raise as you have already bet. And based on the prior check-raise they may think you are more prone to check-raise with big hands, another reason why they might be even more inclined to call when you bet (which would be indicative of a lesser hand to them, as you didn't try to check-raise). I think you have this backwards.

[StellarWind]

I don't think you understood my post.

I agree that the checkraise is definitely the move if you want to tilt your victim. I just don't think that is the most important image consideration.

I was describing the effect of the checkraise on the other eight people at the table. The ones who have not been humiliated and have no reason to seek revenge. Specifically the loose/passive players who make the table good. This type of player wants to play his cards in peace. This type of vicious and humiliating play upsets and frightens them. The effects of that are extremely bad:

1. They make an effort to protect themselves by playing better. No one wants to be humiliated. Most of these players know that playing most of their hands is bad. They will tighten up and play less hands for fun if they feel there is a bully at the table.

2. Quite often they will leave the table completely.

My image strategy online is very simple. I am the invisible man. I don't engage in conversation beyond "nh" and "ty". I don't reproach people for their play or their behavior. I don't make spectacular plays that are roughly zero EV. I maintain a large buddy list so no one notices that I'm following them. The less people think about me, the better. If they notice me they are more likely to remember how I play. They might start thinking about why I play. They might even decide to avoid me.

[ QUOTE ]
revenge is the motive that generally consumes them, not avoidance. You yourself have indicated that is the case for yourself

[/ QUOTE ]
For the record, I did not say anything about revenge. I said that when a player irritates me, I tend to focus on that player instead of remembering that I have nine opponents.