Interesting turn C/R

[MicroBob]

Party 15/30.

The BB is a fairly well-known 2+2'er....at least he has the same name as a 2+2'er so this is my assumption.
In my new p-tracker database (for 2005) I have 64 hands on him, VP-11, PFR-7.8. small sample obviously.


Since I think most of the more experienced 2+2'ers who are playing 15/30 are better than me (many of them SIGNIFICANTLY better than me) including the BB in question I was wondering what some of you thought of this play.
Is it truly as bizarre as I think it is??


I do not know if the BB knows that I am a 2+2'er although I suspect there is a decent chance that he does.
maybe thinks I am capable of laying-down some possible hands here. not sure.


I raise AsAC UTG.
UTG+1 calls. BB calls.

3 to the flop
T63r

BB checks, Hero bets, UTG+1 and BB both call.

Turn
7 (two spades)
BB checks, Hero bets, UTG+1 folds, BB C/R's!!!, I call

River
9 (no flush)
BB bets, I call


BB has 6h, 5h
My AA is good.

[Stork]

Looks like he was trying to protect his top pair or semi-bluff a flush draw. I don't think you can laydown an overpair on a relatively tame board to a turn checkraise.

[MicroBob]

Not sure if you saw at the bottom of the post that the BB had 65s for a pair of 6's (and an inside-straight draw).

i wasn't going to lay-down here....I was more curious about his play because it confused the hell out of me.

[imported_stealthcow]

seems weird to me. of teh hands you'd raise utg with here the only ones you lay down are AJ and AQ

[mplspoker]

3 bet turn.... Please explain why the hell you would think your behind.... Very weak IMO. You need to get full value out of your hands, especially the best one in poker.

[MicroBob]

when a respected 2+2'er pops a C/R on me I have to think of the possibility that I'm behind to a 2-pair or a set.

[mplspoker]

ok. but i just can't imagine that it's not EV+ to pop it once more on the turn - regardless of what you think about the player, unless he/she is the most conservative player on the earth and you know that for a fact. I don't think there are many "respected posters" that wouldn't 3-bet that in my opinion.... although I could be wrong. It's value bottom line in my opinion.

[Michael Davis]

"I don't think there are many "respected posters" that wouldn't 3-bet that in my opinion.... although I could be wrong."

His opponent in this hand isn't a regular Party monkey, and he has position so a bet is going in on the river for sure.

-Michael

[Stork]

I think I like 3-betting better here as well. Sure you're drawing slim to a set, but you have enough outs against two pair, and you'll be ahead much of the time here and when you are he wil usually have no more than 8 outs against you.

[BobbyTheG]

Interesting play obviously. I don't mind not three betting here. I think it's easier to say "three bet it" when you know the outcome of the hand. Obviously you are calling on the river regardless. Maybe he was varying his play. When someone check raises on the turn, obviously he is representing two pair or a set. One of the poker nuggets that's always true (except for the times that it isn't) is that when you get check raised on the turn, one pair isn't good. Maybe he put you on a bigger pocket pair and thought he could get off of it. Maybe he put you on AK. I don't totally hate his play, as long as he is doing it to vary his play, but it's awful, awful poker if used regularly.

[mplspoker]

Varying your play isn't neccessary online in my opinion. Just giving away money.

[amulet]

it is generally correct to call a raise (one bet) in bb if you have a suited connector and at least one other player has called. 65 is a little low, but almost correct. after the flop he played it poorly. many always assume you have AK and if no paints show they play their pair too hard to make you fold. they are not aware that it is almost 50/50 that you have a big pair (32 AK and AQ combos vs 30 AA KK QQ JJ TT combos). this type of play post flop is a loosing play.

[BobbyTheG]

I agree that you don't have to vary your play as much on line. Just trying to give a reason why he may have made this play. I play cash games almost exclusively live so I had my "bricks and morter" hat on. Good point though.

[IndieMatty]

He probably thought you were an ordinairy party monkey and perhaps fired that second bullet with you're AK,AQ,AJ,KQ, 55, 33, 55, unimproved, get you to lay down 99, 88. etc. I don't hate this guy's play. You gotta 3 bet this Bob, he'd probably play ATs this way too.

[OrianasDaad]

Let me step up from the nano-limits to make a comment.

My thoughts here only apply to "thinking" players, which you assume you were playing against.

You raised pre-flop, and the board was T-high - not likely you connected.

I'd guess the turn check-raise is a feeler for AK. It represents a slowplayed set - and he knows you'll have to fold AK since he has an idea of what you are likely thinking.

[mythrilfox]

First of all, all of you who say "3-bet! 3-bet! 3-bet!" weren't actually in the hand, and would probably not 3-bet if you knew Villain was a fairly well-respected poster.

Moreover, even knowing the results, I hate 3-betting. If Villain is a well-respected poster, he probably can lay down his hand right here for only 1 more bet. And then you lost a value bluff on the river. If he calls the 3-bet, he's still check/folding the river, so you don't gain any more bets from this line. Then you lose MORE money when you're behind by 3-betting (probably 2 more bets, I would imagine... Assuming you refuse to lay it down)

This was definitely played correctly.

[mythrilfox]

I also dislike calling a raise out of position with 65s and only 2 people in. I don't know where you're getting the calculations that this is "generally correct."

[etizzle]

i agree. He's not checkraising for value here with AT against the UTG raiser, he either has something big or is semi/pure bluffing. He would have checkraised the flop with a top pair hand like AT i think. Just calling the checkraise and calling/betting the river gets the 3 bets, but if you are behind he will cap the turn for sure.

[tolbiny]

Ak, KQ, KJs.......

[tolbiny]

"when a respected 2+2'er pops a C/R on me I have to think of the possibility that I'm behind to a 2-pair or a set."

There is always that possiblility- but ther have got to be a bunch of hands that he will c/r you with here- a lone T, a semi bluff- why does he put you on a big pair- you could be easily playing overcards here. With his range of hands and the fact that you still have quite a few outs agianst a 2 pair hand you need to three bet this turn. It also makes it harder for him in the future to c/r semibluff you as he knows he will face a three bet at least some of the time.

[tolbiny]

"First of all, all of you who say "3-bet! 3-bet! 3-bet!" weren't actually in the hand, and would probably not 3-bet if you knew Villain was a fairly well-respected poster."

Knowing that my opponent was capable of plays at the pot would make it even more likely that i would three bet here.

"If Villain is a well-respected poster, he probably can lay down his hand right here for only 1 more bet."

Bull- out and out wrong- the only hand that villian can lay down is a straight bluff or a gutshot- if he has as little as a pair he needs to call this with 5 outs. If he has a pair and a gut shot he has 7- if he picked up a flush draw he has 9 ect ect ect. Every hand you are ahead of you want to face them with and extra bet here- with the sole exception of a bluff.

"If he calls the 3-bet, he's still check/folding the river, so you don't gain any more bets from this line"

If villian is willing to check fold a pair on the river here then you need to be able to three bet and bet the river with Ak/AQ unimproved here some of the time.

[rigoletto]

Man I'm starting to get just a tad tired of all the dick swinging agressive advice on this board.

Solid player raises UTG, other solid player c/r him on the turn and most of you are dying to put in more when you likely has he worst of it. There is nothing wrong with calling here (a river raise would have been nice though).

What do you do when he calls your 3-bet and then bet the river, or worse: c/r your obvious overpair again on the river!

To make matters worse a 3-bet will make him fold right there some of the time and rarely will he call a rive bet with a worse hand.

[tolbiny]

On the other hand whne up agaisnt a good player who knows that you could be betting overcards here you can't give him a cheap shot at blowing you off your hand. He has to know that a three bet is comeing some of the time. If you can't do it with AA, when can you do it here?

[rigoletto]

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand whne up agaisnt a good player who knows that you could be betting overcards here you can't give him a cheap shot at blowing you off your hand. He has to know that a three bet is comeing some of the time. If you can't do it with AA, when can you do it here?

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all solid players are not making this move very often. It's to expensive to make with a hand you'd like to see a showdown with. The thruth of the matter is that a solid player will have you beat here a majority of the time which is something all you agressors seem to ignore.

Scondly: why does he have to know you'll 3-bet some of the time. All he has to know is that sometimes you call with AK and other times you call with an overpair. He's the one making a mistake by c/r the worst hand and Bob had him accumulate it by inducing him to bet the river.

On another note: can you call a turn cap here! If BB has enough guts he might just do that since he knows exactly what you're holding.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
You need to get full value out of your hands, especially the best one in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
A pair of aces on the turn is far from the best hand in poker. (And deciding how to act on the turn based on how pretty your hand looked preflop is a good way to lose a lot of money).

[AviD]

[ QUOTE ]
Man I'm starting to get just a tad tired of all the dick swinging agressive advice on this board.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rig, for what it's worth, I agree.

[IndieMatty]

Good points in both posts.

[mplspoker]

Give me a break. Only 3 players saw the flop and there is not a straight/flush out there. The only thing you are behind is some "weird 2 pair" - which is unlikely b/c you are playing against a "solid 2+2 player". If it got capped heads up would you have a probablem 3 betting the turn? Answer - definitely I don't see why this is any different. And this crap about him guaranteed folding turn just b/c he knows he is behind is BS and folding to a 4-bet - not a chance this is party poker - not live. This is called charging a player for his likely draw. If he capped it on the flop would you raise the turn? Yes. By just calling you are allowing him to "catch up" cheaper a large percentage of the time.....

[BarronVangorToth]

This is without question a situation where you were put on a hand (overcards) that you didn't have and he then checkraised you, to put you off the hand, and when you called the turn and he bet the river, I'm sure he thought his hand was good.

You really should've 3-bet the turn and bet the river. If you 3-bet the turn AND he leads out on the river, then I can see just calling, but the turn is a place to grab another BB.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[AviD]

I wonder how different the replies would be if you didn't post the results...

[MicroBob]

Interesting discussion.
FWIW - I don't KNOW for fact that it's a 2+2'er....just somebody with the same name as one. I could send him a PM and ask if that's him but I really don't want to call him out on a hand that most of us agree was played kind of strangely from his side.

In fact, because it was played this way, I have definite doubts that it's the same person....but again, I just don't know.


It's possible I got passive here when I should have 3-bet.

But a C/R represents more than just me betting and him raising (if he had position on me).

It sure looked to me that if I 3-bet it that I would be very possibly facing a cap.
Doesn't waiting for the turn to pop the C/R here smell too much like a set to anyone else??


If it gets capped and he turns over 77 for a set then I certainly feel like a party LAG who's just spewing chips because my AA was so pretty.


The ideas that he might fold to my 3-bet anyway, whereas just calling can induce him to bet at it again, are valid I think...although I admit I didn't think THAT deeply about it in the hand itself.

I pretty much just said "oh crap...a tight player just C/R'ed and I'm pretty sure he's smart enough to have noticed that I had raised it UTG...guess i should just go into call-down mode here."
I'm overly simple that way.


I like the feedback though and it's given me some stuff to think about.

[rigoletto]

[ QUOTE ]
Give me a break. Only 3 players saw the flop and there is not a straight/flush out there. The only thing you are behind is some "weird 2 pair" - which is unlikely b/c you are playing against a "solid 2+2 player". If it got capped heads up would you have a probablem 3 betting the turn? Answer - definitely I don't see why this is any different. And this crap about him guaranteed folding turn just b/c he knows he is behind is BS and folding to a 4-bet - not a chance this is party poker - not live. This is called charging a player for his likely draw. If he capped it on the flop would you raise the turn? Yes. By just calling you are allowing him to "catch up" cheaper a large percentage of the time.....

[/ QUOTE ]

You must be the CEO of LAG Inc. You insist on 3 betting AND calling a cap + calling the river (not much sense callng a cap otherwise) in a pot where you are likely behind. If you really feel you have to call a cap on the turn then you should definately not 3-bet.

And BB capping the flop HU is very different. If BB had played it stronger on the flop I would put him on top pair most of the time and raise the turn. In this scenario it looks like the turn card helped him and his likely hands are 67, 77, 89, 45 or a bluff, 33, 66 are possible but more remote since he didn't c/r the flop.

[rigoletto]

[ QUOTE ]
I pretty much just said "oh crap...a tight player just C/R'ed and I'm pretty sure he's smart enough to have noticed that I had raised it UTG...guess i should just go into call-down mode here."
I'm overly simple that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, that's all you need.

[mplspoker]

Whatever dude, you have no clue. The only people who agree with just calling don't win at 15 on party and probably play much lower.

[mplspoker]

Don't take advice with this guy. it is obviously wrong. If you simply put the player on a huge hand every hand you will not be getting value out of your hands.

[rigoletto]

[ QUOTE ]
This is without question a situation where you were put on a hand (overcards) that you didn't have and he then checkraised you, to put you off the hand, and when you called the turn and he bet the river, I'm sure he thought his hand was good.


[/ QUOTE ]

Could you please teach me how to make that kind of read *sarcasm off*

[BobbyTheG]

I totally agree that if you didn't post the results, the messages would be different. A few thoughts...1) mplspoker posted that you could only put him on a "weird two pair". I think that's goofy. You are most afraid of a set and that is what he is representing with that board. 2) I like how you played it. If you three bet it and he caps, then what? check call the river I guess, but it seems like a pricy play to be making when normally in this instance you are probably way behind. 3) Maybe I'm leaving bets on the table here, but playing back at someone you describe as a solid player with only an overpair on the turn seems to me to be a long term negative play. 4) I totally agree with rigoleto's post that it's way easier to scream "3-bet" when you know the results. If he flips over 77 then someone would be in your grill about playing too aggressive on the turn. Interesting hand though, good discussion.

[MicroBob]

I would probably call again if faced with the same situation actually and I, for one, am winning on party-15 (admittedly with not a large enough sample size).

The key for me being that I have him read as likely a tight 2+2'er.

Of course, if it was the exact same player (not just ANOTHER tight 2+2'er) then I would happily push back at him based on my read from this hand.


FWIW - Most of the time my problem is that I'm TOO LAG.
I push and chase too much when I am holding too little (although I've shown much improvement the past few weeks).

So this whole thread where I take a few jabs for playing it too weak-tight actually comes across as a bit of a compliment. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[mplspoker]

Fair enough. Trust me if you wouldn't have posted the outcome, I still would have said the same though.

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW - I don't KNOW for fact that it's a 2+2'er....just somebody with the same name as one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you should say which poster it is because there is a decent chance he doesn't remember, but it doesn't matter.

BTW, I think he played it fine, if you don't have an overpair you will fold here most of time.

[worm33]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't take advice with this guy. it is obviously wrong. If you simply put the player on a huge hand every hand you will not be getting value out of your hands.

[/ QUOTE ]


This whole getting value from your hands thing is pretty funny. On the turn and river he got 3 big bets. Now if this guy really does play well, when you 3 bet the turn what are the possible outcomes.

1. He folds.
2. He calls.
3. He 4 bets.
If he folds you win 1 less bet than you do if you play it passive. If he calls and check calls the river you win 1 extra bet. I would say this is by far the most unlikely scenario if the guy even plays ok. If he 4 bets and you call and then call the river bet as suggested and presumably lose, you lose 5 bets when you should have only lost 3, when your behind. The way you suggest to play it, you either win the same 2-4 bets on the river with the most likely being 2 and 3, or lose 5.....i dont see any "value" in that

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I pretty much just said "oh crap...a tight player just C/R'ed and I'm pretty sure he's smart enough to have noticed that I had raised it UTG...guess i should just go into call-down mode here."
I'm overly simple that way.

[/ QUOTE ]



Hey, that's all you need.

[/ QUOTE ]


Hey Rig,

Is the 15/30 online game really this simple? (I am not trying to be a smart ass, I am really serious) That is, does simple ABC style play, raise when you think you are ahead, fold when you think you are behind and can't redraw to a winner and call down when you think you have a shot at the pot on the river get the money at the party 15/30?

No need for any fancy play to get the money at the 15/30?

In regards to the dick waving aggression, just how much waving does one need to do in your opinion? (I'm talking in regards to PFR % and aggression factor if you are a PT user.)

BTW, for what my opinion is worth, I think how you analyzed this hand is dead on.

[rigoletto]

Well, it's not quite that simple. But solid ABC play is a good place to start. In this case you are up against a (presumed) solid player which makes him somewhat more predictable. But to play optimally against some of the many LAG's at PP 15/30 you have to sometimes play more like mplspoker suggests. You will also face very good players at PP 15/30 and sometimes have to get into some 4-5th level thinking. In this particular hand I wouldn't change my play; Worm explained the reasons why so much more eloquently than me in his post. It's often the math that decides the play.

Against mplspoker I would 3-bet the turn, because he's overly agressive and allways calls down with any kind of hand /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Your agression factor stats are meaningless out of context. What are you going to do if I tell you that preflop raises should be 12% and postflop agression factor 1.2? Raise the first 12 hands out of every 100? Set an agression quota for the week and adjust your agression mid-week to hit the chosen number on sunday evening? You have learn to recognize the correct situations for agression depending on cards, position, opposition, your table image etc.

[Humble]

[ QUOTE ]
This whole getting value from your hands thing is pretty funny. On the turn and river he got 3 big bets. Now if this guy really does play well, when you 3 bet the turn what are the possible outcomes.

1. He folds.
2. He calls.
3. He 4 bets.
If he folds you win 1 less bet than you do if you play it passive. If he calls and check calls the river you win 1 extra bet. I would say this is by far the most unlikely scenario if the guy even plays ok. If he 4 bets and you call and then call the river bet as suggested and presumably lose, you lose 5 bets when you should have only lost 3, when your behind. The way you suggest to play it, you either win the same 2-4 bets on the river with the most likely being 2 and 3, or lose 5.....i dont see any "value" in that

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. IMHO you have hit on the key point.

If you are in a situation where you are either slightly ahead or way behind (against a set or straight), which I think is the case here, the most profitable play is calling behind.

I know that I have read about this concept in several 2+2 books but with 2 min of searching I can only locate HPFAP pp. 147-148 on "Waiting to Raise" but I think it captures your point above very nicely. I am sure the concept also appears in Mason's Poker Essays I-III but cant locate it right now.

And while the title of the HPFAP section quoted above might imply a raise was ultimately correct at the river, I dont think that is the case here. By the river it is perfectly unclear who is ahead and as has already been noted earlier, had the opponent not bet the river, MicroBob would (and should)have.

Cheers,
H

[rigoletto]

[ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. Trust me if you wouldn't have posted the outcome, I still would have said the same though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never doubted that for a second.

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]

Your agression factor stats are meaningless out of context. What are you going to do if I tell you that preflop raises should be 12% and postflop agression factor 1.2? Raise the first 12 hands out of every 100? Set an agression quota for the week and adjust your agression mid-week to hit the chosen number on sunday evening? You have learn to recognize the correct situations for agression depending on cards, position, opposition, your table image etc.



[/ QUOTE ]

No, of course not. I agree that aggression is definitely situational, I was merely trying to have a benchmark to compare against my own stats. (Just trying to measure up against all the dick wavers out there.)

No, seriously, some players suggest that for the long term, there is a correct range of PFR % and aggression factors and that these numbers will start to converge after a number of hands. I like what you are saying, don't worry about these numbers, just be sure you are making what you think is the best decision or applying the proper level of aggression given the situation.

[tolbiny]

"First of all solid players are not making this move very often."

Solid players arn't having a set or two pair on this turn very often either. The number of drawing hands/hands that are good against overcards vastly outnumber the number of hands that beat your overpair.

"Scondly: why does he have to know you'll 3-bet some of the time. All he has to know is that sometimes you call with AK and other times you call with an overpair."

He has to know you will three bet it because a good player will almost always have some kind of draw in his hand (when he is making the move). maybe as weak as a gut shot, maybe as strong as a flush draw with a pair- if you don't ever three bet (without a monster yourself) then your above statement of "First of all solid players are not making this move very often" becomes untrue, because it can only cost him a fraction of a big bet to fire in this c/r with a hand he would call your bet with.

I have overstated my position though- a three bet should not be done here 100% percent of the time- but it should be the majority play IMO.

[tolbiny]

"1. He folds"

If the villian in this hand is a t/a thinking player (and that's our read on him right now) he will almost always have a draw when he is making a move. He will have the odds to call the draw with the exception of a gutshot w/ no pair. Him folding is liely to happen less than 5% of the time to your three bet.

[tolbiny]

"BTW, I think he played it fine, if you don't have an overpair you will fold here most of time."

And this is exactly why you have to pop the turn again a high percentage of the time- because he can make this play with stright/flush draws, and it will be highly profitably if you fold your overcardds to much and dont charge him when he's drawing.

[tolbiny]

I think the main disagreement i have with those who advocate calling down the majority of the time here is thier assesment of the "solid" player having 2 pair or trips a high percentage of the time. I disagree with this assumption.
first of all there are generally a lot more profitable plays against a thinking play (read microbob) with 2 pair or a set than check/call check/raise in this situation. The vilian in this hand never gives hero a chance to three bet with an inferior hand- he makes a play that is designed to scare you opponents. In my experience check raises from solid thinking players are used as an intimidation tactic and have a tendancy to slow your opposition down- why would you want to do this with a big hand?
Secondly there is a wide range of hands that would like to see your overcards fold (as you will have them a high percentage of the time), any single pair or flush/straight draw, and these are hands you want to charge to draw out on your here.

[roy_miami]

[ QUOTE ]
Give me a break. Only 3 players saw the flop and there is not a straight/flush out there.

[/ QUOTE ]

89 makes the nut straight there dude.

Why does he need to send a message by 3-betting a pair? I think just calling down is enough of a message. Hero can wait till he has a set to send his message. You say hero is not getting maximum value out of his hand? Thats easy to say when you know your opponents hand. Actually if both players turned their hands over, hero got at least 2 extra bets that he shouldn't have. If hero makes an extra 2 BB's per hand when he's ahead on the turn the game should be pretty easy to beat.

And for all of you guys that will 3-bet the turn here, call a cap, and call a river check-raise with a pair your welcome at my game anytime.

[Punker]

I think it was well played by the BB. He's obviously testing you on the turn to see if you have a pair or not, and was unlucky that you did AND that he didn't hit anything. This flop doesn't look like it hits a preflop raiser either. Call it a semi-bluff/marginal value checkraise, and I think if you want to play 15-30 a lot, you're going to see it a lot.

[roy_miami]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it was well played by the BB. He's obviously testing you on the turn to see if you have a pair or not, and was unlucky that you did AND that he didn't hit anything. This flop doesn't look like it hits a preflop raiser either. Call it a semi-bluff/marginal value checkraise, and I think if you want to play 15-30 a lot, you're going to see it a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the purposes of this play is to send a message that you can't respect my turn checkraises too much in the future. I don't think its required to send this message in the party 15 game any longer though as its automatically assumed everybody and their grandmother will checkraise semi-bluff.

[worm33]

And this is exactly why you have to pop the turn again a high percentage of the time- because he can make this play with stright/flush draws, and it will be highly profitably if you fold your overcardds to much and dont charge him when he's drawing.

[/ QUOTE ]

If hes on a draw, 2 scenarios when u 3 bet the turn. He calls and hits on the river or calls and misses on the river. When he calls and hits he gets 4 bets from you maybe even 5 if your mpls poker and pay off a checkraise. When he calls and misses he check folds. You get 3 bets. When u call the turn and call the river, you get 3 bets or he gets 4 bets if he hits.

If your saying to 3 bet the turn so people dont take shots at you, well put the fear of god into them and they wont take shots at you, and you can do that without 3 betting the turn here.

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
because he can make this play with stright/flush draws

[/ QUOTE ]

Against some players you are right, especially when he could have easily picked up a flush or str8 draw on the turn. And against them you should 3-bet. But others have to have an overpair beat to make this play. Often you play against relative unknowns at Party 15/30 so it's tough to say which play is correct.

[tolbiny]

try looking at the math again- an 11 out draw will hit 25% of the time- you losing 4 bets 25% of the time is more than made up by you winning 3 bets 75% of the time-
Also a friking 11 out draw here is likely to be above average- i would estimate the average draw to be around 7-8 outs.

[tolbiny]

I agree that certain players i would call this down (and even one or two very specific ones that i play live with that i could fold on the turn)- but i am going off microbob's read-
a solid 2+2er that he considers better than he is would certainly be capable of making a move here if they suspect overcards.

[roy_miami]

[ QUOTE ]
try looking at the math again- an 11 out draw will hit 25% of the time- you losing 4 bets 25% of the time is more than made up by you winning 3 bets 75% of the time-
Also a friking 11 out draw here is likely to be above average- i would estimate the average draw to be around 7-8 outs.

[/ QUOTE ]

The way hero played it you win or lose 3 bets 100% of the time.

If he pops the turn he will win 3-bets most of the time, once in a while he'll collect an extra bet from a KTs or something on the river. The times he's ahead on the turn and gets outdrawn on the river he loses 5 bets and the times he's already behind and drawing dead he loses at least 5 bets. He will also lose 1 bet every time villain is on a complete bluff and folds to the 3-bet immediately.

I would say 3-betting a TAG will win you an extra bet about 5% of the time and will lose you an extra 2 bets upwards of 50% of the time. All told a 3-bet on the turn seems to be inferior to calling.

[rigoletto]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that certain players i would call this down (and even one or two very specific ones that i play live with that i could fold on the turn)- but i am going off microbob's read-
a solid 2+2er that he considers better than he is would certainly be capable of making a move here if they suspect overcards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Making a move here on the turn with middle pair against an UTG raiser is not very solid when you have to call if 3-bet. And why would he want him to fold overcards here?

[Ulysses]

A couple of minor add'l points. There are a number of overall relatively solid players in this game who will checkraise here w/ a turned draw (or a weak made hand) hoping to get AK to fold who will check-fold the river if the checkraise is called on the turn. There are also players w/ weaker made hands who will call a 3-bet and make a crying call on the river. So, there do exist scenarios where 3-betting the turn results in an extra bet. These are less common than other scenarios noted, but should be taken into account when weighting the scenarios and deciding the merits of a turn call v. 3-bet.

[Joe Tall]

This is an easy river raise.

Peace,
Joe Tall

[worm33]

[ QUOTE ]
try looking at the math again- an 11 out draw will hit 25% of the time- you losing 4 bets 25% of the time is more than made up by you winning 3 bets 75% of the time-
Also a friking 11 out draw here is likely to be above average- i would estimate the average draw to be around 7-8 outs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said anything about any math. And u always win 3 bets the way hero played it. I guess not always, since as el diablo pointed out another scenario when you have the villian beat is check bet fold on the river.

[MicroBob]

Interesting discussion.
I'm out of town and just snuck away for a couple hours of playing and 2+2 surfing so I'm just now getting caught up on this discussion.



To answer a previous question about whether you can beat 15/30 by playing fairly ABC. I think you can....assuming your definition of 'ABC' is pretty much the same as mine...meaning that you are still making some relatively intelligent plays.

I'm hardly the deepest thinker on here and I am winning most of the time with appropriate aggression (which is taking me time to get right) and with some decent player reads.

When you can find 1 or 2 players at each table in the V-30, R-2 range then it is certainly a beatable game. If you don't have a couple of donkeys at your table then you should be looking for another table.


The number of maniacs in the V-80, R-35 range that I have run across at 15/30 is simply staggering. Sit to their left and isolate-3bet to your heart's content (when appropriate) and you obviously have a profitable situation.

15/30 is tougher than the 3/6....but it certainly isn't THAT tough to beat....and the fact that I'm beating it is evidence of that imo.


I don't want to directly contact the villain-in-question in this hand (I don't know why exactly) but I'm going to contact a couple others in this thread via PM and ask if they know whether or not this opponent was indeed a 2+2'er.


However, it doesn't necessarily matter for my own approach to the hand. I was assuming the guy was a 2+2'er and was adjusting my strategy accordingly. Whether he REALLY was a 2+2'er or not is more for morbid curiousity.


Again, thanks for some interesting points to think about.
I was actually thinking about this hand while driving and suddenly thought "you know....it really DOES make sense that I should have 3-better MORE often if I figured him to be a trickier 2+2'er."
although I do suspect that I would also still continue to wimp-out if faced with this situation again simply because I don't fully trust my judgement enough and I have been burning myself too much by trying to raise-for-value when I'm really spewing-chips-with-a-loser.

It's a REALLY fine-line that I'm going to be trying to precisely locate for a LONG time I suspect.

[golferbrent]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting discussion.
FWIW - I don't KNOW for fact that it's a 2+2'er....just somebody with the same name as one. I could send him a PM and ask if that's him but I really don't want to call him out on a hand that most of us agree was played kind of strangely from his side.

In fact, because it was played this way, I have definite doubts that it's the same person....but again, I just don't know.


It's possible I got passive here when I should have 3-bet.

But a C/R represents more than just me betting and him raising (if he had position on me).

It sure looked to me that if I 3-bet it that I would be very possibly facing a cap.
Doesn't waiting for the turn to pop the C/R here smell too much like a set to anyone else??


If it gets capped and he turns over 77 for a set then I certainly feel like a party LAG who's just spewing chips because my AA was so pretty.


The ideas that he might fold to my 3-bet anyway, whereas just calling can induce him to bet at it again, are valid I think...although I admit I didn't think THAT deeply about it in the hand itself.

I pretty much just said "oh crap...a tight player just C/R'ed and I'm pretty sure he's smart enough to have noticed that I had raised it UTG...guess i should just go into call-down mode here."
I'm overly simple that way.


I like the feedback though and it's given me some stuff to think about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bob--
If you were playing live I would agree that the checkraise by the player could represent danger to your hand... however, you are playing on party poker and since it is online... the CR can mean many things... I think you need to 3 bet regardless of whether it is a solid player or a LAG you are up against...

He is putting in a raise with what he thinks could be the best hand (reading you on overcards) or has potential to improve to best hand... make him pay to get there...

And for all out there who say us 3 bettors wouldn't say what we are saying w/o the results already posted... I would 3 bet this hand whether playing live or online... and even more so online...

What are you looking for... there is free money out there... he is definitely calling on the turn... and he may be forced to call on end b/c he is committed... either way... worst case you make same amount... you may make an additional bet on end if he calls... you just need to be cognizant of what cards hurt you on end...

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
either way... worst case you make same amount...

[/ QUOTE ]


don't forget that if I'm behind here I'm possibly WAY behind.
If I 3-bet and he caps then I'm feeling kinda stupid.

Maybe I give too much respect to C/R's....but if I pushed THAT hard with over-pairs EVERY time I got C/R'ed I think it would be a long-term loser.

I guess my default is to generally assume that a C/R probably means strength until I have either some sort of 'feeling' (for whatever reason) or direct evidence that they are capable enough of a C/R bluff or semi-bluff.


Again, I'm probably more LAG in a lot of aspects of my game then I should be....and perhaps i'm trying to clamp down a bit and tighten-up some and maybe found a less-than-ideal place to do that.

But, if calling-down here is wrong I doubt that it is wrong by a huge amount...and I still think the situation is very read-dependant anyway.

Thanks for your observations though.

[Danenania]

I haven't read all the replies but why are so many advocating a turn 3-bet? A 3-bet accomplishes almost nothing. You allow the opponent to fold when you're ahead and reraise when you're behind. The only time to 3-bet would be if you were certain opponent held 2 spades but that's a small fraction of his possible holdings.

To answer the question I don't like BB's play at all because I don't think he should expect you to bet unimproved overcards on this turn into two players who called a nearly drawless flop and I don't think he should expect you to fold an overpair with both the spades present and plenty of outs for you to continue against 76. Looks like an uninspired bout of FPS to me.