The Second Hand a Result of the First?

[Schneids]

*UTG actually = BB. Didn't notice converter messed up.
First hand:
Party Poker 10/20 Hold'em (6 max, 6 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Schneids is Button with 8/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 9/images/graemlins/diamond.gif. UTG posts a blind of $10.
MP folds, CO folds, <font color="#CC3333">Schneids raises</font>, SB folds, BB folds, UTG (poster) calls.

Flop: (4.50 SB) 5/images/graemlins/club.gif, 3/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 7/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
UTG checks, <font color="#CC3333">Schneids bets</font>, UTG calls.

Turn: (3.25 BB) J/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
UTG checks, <font color="#CC3333">Schneids bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">UTG raises</font>, Schneids calls.

River: (7.25 BB) 9/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">UTG bets</font>, Schneids calls.

Final Pot: 9.25 BB

Results in white below: <font color="#FFFFFF">
UTG has Ad 7d (one pair, sevens).
Schneids has 8d 9d (one pair, nines).
Outcome: Schneids wins 9.25 BB. </font>

Chat after the hand:
UTG: why would u call a check raise with nothing, idiot
ME: cuz i'm dumb
UTG: no XXXX

A few minutes later on the same table, with all the same players....
From the button I raise two limpers with Td9d, both blinds fold.
** Dealing Flop ** [ 2d, Kh, 2s ]
check to me, I bet, both fold, I win pot.

[ALL1N]

[ QUOTE ]
The Second Hand a Result of the Frist?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, yes; are you saying you raised preflop as a result of the first?

I am often willing to make bigger laydowns after a confrontation like this, but the only way it really changes my aggression is when I'm out of position: betting marginal holdings knowing I can fold to a raise.

[JrJordan]

Just curious, what's your reasoning for calling the turn checkraise here? Do you give him any credit for the J here because that's killing your number of outs and your odds to call for the river.

[Rubeskies]

[ QUOTE ]
Just curious, what's your reasoning for calling the turn checkraise here? Do you give him any credit for the J here because that's killing your number of outs and your odds to call for the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hero has a double gutshot draw and getting over 6:1.

Easy call.

[Jeff W]

Double gutshot. 6.25:1 pot odds.

[Schneids]

Basically to be making loose PF raises profitable, I think you need to have an "unbluffable" type image. For the typical player, it doesn't matter if they know you make "bad preflop raises" in their eyes, if they also believe that you are unbluffable. Their loose preflop calls then become compounded into larger errors since the flop will miss them often enough that it's profitable for you to bet any flop if they're going to give up and fold right away because they don't think you're bluffable and don't exactly want to keep calling down with Q-high or J-high or whatever else they limped with...more or less an extension of TOP HU play that talks about it often being profitable to run over opponents in HU battle who fold too much.

I love stealing little pots like this on the flop, and it's much easier to do when people do not believe I'll fold to them if they try to make a move on me. Making a few loose calls (or loose in the eye's of the opposition) I think can at times be very helpful for your shania.

I would guess I call down with ace-high quite a bit more than a lot of regular 10/20 6m 2+2ers. I think the above is why (in addition to my belief it's not an unprofitable move for me).

I'm hardly set in stone regarding these thoughts so hopefully a few of you can give your own feedback.

[JrJordan]

Damn it, I thought I was just running bad but if I miss a double gut like this, then there's obviously more going on with my play. Touche.

[Robk]

basically i agree with your point but don't think it's as important as you're making it out to be. it's certainly a factor but many other things affect the profitability of these raises. to name a few if you're winning, if they're winning, the last hand you raised and showed, how often you're raising, your exact hand, etc. etc.

[ QUOTE ]
Making a few loose calls (or loose in the eye's of the opposition)

[/ QUOTE ]

most will notice that your calls are reasonable even if they are a little bad, and so you tend to have to forfeit value by actually making some loose calls to boost this aspect of your image. then you have to wonder who's noticing and who isn't. then you have to get hands to take advantage of it, and then they still have to miss the flop, and you have to miss the flop and so on. so i doubt there's much value in purposely cultivating this image (or any other for that matter) in these games. basically imo it boils down to playing your hands as best you can under the current circumstances, being aware of your current image, and knowing how to adapt to take advantage of it. which is exactly what you did here. and also

[ QUOTE ]
I would guess I call down with ace-high quite a bit more than a lot of regular 10/20 6m 2+2ers. I think the above is why (in addition to my belief it's not an unprofitable move for me).

[/ QUOTE ]

i would guess that your latter theory is more likely to be correct, and you're using good opponent/ play knowledge to pick profitable calldown spots others miss. i think making an argument that your image derived from these additional loose calldowns is a significant factor in your overall profit is a stretch.

btw i'm assuming a situation where you're playing a manageable number of tables and actually taking advantage of these things. i grant that if you're playing a cookbook game over 4+ tables your general image should be a much bigger concern.

[Grisgra]

I think this makes one helluva lot of sense, and makes me think that my little LAG-attacks that may cost me a little money early on in the session end up paying off later. Calling down with A-high early on may be a simple straightforward way to get people to not play back at you for the next 50-100 hands in those mini-pots. Maybe . . . my thinking is just getting started on this. (Weird coincidence you posting this today.)

[Robk]

possibly interesting to you (or others), but this concept is the central principle of doyle brunson's NL strategy. maybe interesnting to check out the NL chapters of supersystem if you haven't read them a hundred times like us NL junkies /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[Schneids]

Thanks Rob, I will do that.

I think I was sort of intuitively doing some of this, and then what set off all the thinking about appearing "unbluffable" was when I read the post someone made in MTT/STT forums about Gigabet calling someone's all in reraise with KJ, where Gigabet explained the implications of his call and it making his opponents less likely to try to push on him when he's a large stack since they see he's capable of making loose calls (and obviously the whole fact about him getting a huge stack if he wins the hand, which is unrelated to our limit ring).