PDA

View Full Version : Dueling With A Passive

gaming_mouse
02-17-2005, 12:48 AM
This guy was very loose (>60) but pretty passive (~1.5). Anyone think the river cap was too much?

Party Poker 3/6 Hold'em (7 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is BB with J/images/graemlins/club.gif, Q/images/graemlins/club.gif.
<font color="#666666">4 folds</font>, SB completes, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, SB calls.

Flop: (4 SB) Q/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 3/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 4/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
SB checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">SB raises</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero 3-bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">SB caps</font>, Hero calls.

Turn: (6 BB) 4/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
SB checks, Hero checks.

River: (6 BB) J/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">SB bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="#CC3333">SB 3-bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero caps</font>, SB calls.

Final Pot: 14 BB
Nick C
02-17-2005, 03:13 AM
I haven't played many hands with quite this sort of stop-and-start action. I guess the turn was kind of an intermission.

Anyway, SB liked his hand enough to checkraise and then cap the flop. Then after the board paired, he decided to check the turn. Possibly his Q3 just got counterfeited, or maybe the flush or straight or even the set he just knew would come in hadn't yet. (1.5 isn't that passive, and the pot is heads-up.)

Or maybe he started liking his hand that much more and decided to go for another checkraise.

To me, the river cap does seem a bit much. But at least you didn't have to worry about a 5-bet.

I'm guessing your plan on a river blank was to call a bet, which does seem reasonable to me.
Evan
02-17-2005, 03:17 AM
I wouldn't cap that river. That crazy flop action followed by a turn check should look very suspcious to you. It either means he's full/trips or he got counterfeited. IMO the first is more likely than the second.
J.R.
02-17-2005, 03:19 AM
[ QUOTE ]
This guy was very loose (&gt;60) but pretty passive (~1.5).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll be blunt. You don't understand the pokertraker aggression factor. Look into how it is calculated.
Michael Davis
02-17-2005, 03:21 AM
I would definitely hold my breath and bet the turn.

-Michael
Shillx
02-17-2005, 03:24 AM
This guy is hardly passive. I would bet the turn. Your hand isn't quite strong enough to pull this play imo.

Brad
Evan
02-17-2005, 03:24 AM
I almost said that too. It looks like he's either drawing dea/really thin or we are royally fu[/i]cked. I guess its hard to tell how much of which but that turn check looks really suspicous to me though.
Michael Davis
02-17-2005, 03:25 AM
Well I would be real hesitant if there weren't two spades on the flop.

-Michael
Evan
02-17-2005, 03:28 AM
Yea, but that kinda action is pair+draw really often I think......and we know what just happened there. I dunno, wouldn't be the first time I've been accused of being weak tight. But don't you think if he's having that much trouble keeping it in his pants w/ a semi bluff he's going to lead the turn?
Michael Davis
02-17-2005, 03:34 AM
I don't know if he'll lead the turn or not, really. But I would bet this with the intention of folding to a raise. If he's flushing it's imperative you get a bet in here, and if he's not, well, are you really folding the river? I feel real comfortable folding to a raise here so it's an easy bet.

-Michael
Evan
02-17-2005, 03:38 AM
I'm definitely not saying you're wrong, I'm kinda trying to work out my own line. I think there's a lot to be said fro checking (i.e. More than it would normally have going for it here) but when in doubt betting is usually a pretty good plan.

[ QUOTE ]
I feel real comfortable folding to a raise

[/ QUOTE ]
I like. You win.
Nick C
02-17-2005, 03:51 AM
[ QUOTE ]
If he's flushing it's imperative you get a bet in here, and if he's not, well, are you really folding the river?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wondered about the turn also, but I have a question about what I've quoted here. There are some players who, if the turn gets checked through (or even if they bet and don't get raised), will frequently go ahead and bet the river after they miss as a bluff. Against such opponents (and I'm not saying the one in the hand fits that description, necessarily), is it so imperative to bet the turn?
Michael Davis
02-17-2005, 04:05 AM
I understand what you're saying and I frequently employ this bluff-inducing technique. However, in this case it's not right if you think you can fold to a checkraise because he may not bet the river on a bluff. And if he has a hand that he will bet the river on a bluff, given the flop action, he's probably calling the turn bet.

If I'm putting in one bet, I'd rather have it go in on the turn where I'm virtually certain my opponent is calling even if I have him beat. I'd rather not gamble and hope he bluffs. Plus, if I bet the turn and he just calls, I have an option to value bet the river and pick up another bet.

-Michael
Nick C
02-17-2005, 04:18 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I understand what you're saying and I frequently employ this bluff-inducing technique. However, in this case it's not right if you think you can fold to a checkraise because he may not bet the river on a bluff. And if he has a hand that he will bet the river on a bluff, given the flop action, he's probably calling the turn bet.

If I'm putting in one bet, I'd rather have it go in on the turn where I'm virtually certain my opponent is calling even if I have him beat. I'd rather not gamble and hope he bluffs. Plus, if I bet the turn and he just calls, I have an option to value bet the river and pick up another bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, this does make sense. Thanks.

If you bet and got called and a flush card fell on the river and SB bet, what would your action be?
Michael Davis
02-17-2005, 04:21 AM
I don't know. I think it's a whole lot more likely he's bluffing now than when he checkraised me on the turn, but what can he have, really, when he threw around all those chips on the flop and made it to the river? I probably make a crying call but honestly I don't know.

-Michael
Nick C
02-17-2005, 04:26 AM
Yeah, I don't know either. You have convinced me that the turn bet-fold plan is a good one, though.
gaming_mouse
02-17-2005, 09:33 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I'll be blunt. You don't understand the pokertraker aggression factor. Look into how it is calculated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think this? It's not true. His aggression numbers were 1,1.5,1. Do you really think 1.5 is aggressive? I'll give you neutral, at most, but even then your comment seems a little heavy handed.

Anyway, perhaps a more important point is that aggr factor converges more slowly than people think, and does not capture alot of important situation-specific tendencies of your oppo.

In this case, at least, the villain really wasn't passive. He turned over T4o for the turned trips.

gm
spydog
02-17-2005, 09:44 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think this? It's not true. His aggression numbers were 1,1.5,1. Do you really think 1.5 is aggressive? I'll give you neutral, at most, but even then your comment seems a little heavy handed.

Anyway, perhaps a more important point is that aggr factor converges more slowly than people think, and does not capture alot of important situation-specific tendencies of your oppo.

In this case, at least, the villain really wasn't passive. He turned over T4o for the turned trips.

gm

[/ QUOTE ]

Villian sees at least 65% of all flops. If his aggression factor is 1.5 then that means he is doing his fair share of betting/raising with a made hand. Because he sees so many flops with hands like 87o and T2s, he is probably calling with his draws/bottom pair/etc..., which is why his AF isn't as high as yours or someone you think is aggressive. VPIP &gt;60 + AF &gt;1.3 = Loose/Aggressive player.
marching_on_together
02-17-2005, 09:57 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll be blunt. You don't understand the pokertraker aggression factor. Look into how it is calculated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think this? It's not true. His aggression numbers were 1,1.5,1. Do you really think 1.5 is aggressive? I'll give you neutral, at most, but even then your comment seems a little heavy handed.

Anyway, perhaps a more important point is that aggr factor converges more slowly than people think, and does not capture alot of important situation-specific tendencies of your oppo.

In this case, at least, the villain really wasn't passive. He turned over T4o for the turned trips.

gm

[/ QUOTE ]

1.5 is fairly aggressive when you take in to account this guy is playing so many hands. If he 's a player who plays his decent hands aggressively then he's going to be around this figure. A player with aggresion of 1.5 and playing &gt;60 of hands is not the same level of aggression as a player with 1.5 playing &lt;15 of hands. Unless people are manics if they play a lot of hands it will tend to lower there aggression level.
gaming_mouse
02-17-2005, 10:00 AM
[ QUOTE ]
A player with aggresion of 1.5 and playing &gt;60 of hands is not the same level of aggression as a player with 1.5 playing &lt;15 of hands. Unless people are manics if they play a lot of hands it will tend to lower there aggression level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, okay. That makes sense. I never considered this before.