Playing against tighties, quick observation

[Schneids]

I've played a few hundred hands recently at the same table as a v. tight 2+2er. I've noticed that, in particular around blind steal spots, that when they're in on hands against me I'm more often to check than I would against a typical opponent.

At times, this has been advantageous and I've been avoiding betting their hands for them when I myself have a decent hand. For instance...

I raise in LP (don't remember if CO or button) with A3o. 2+er calls in SB, as does BB.

Flop AQx. I bet and get called only by 2+2er. Turn King. I check behind. River Jack and again check check. I lose to 2er's AK.


Knowing they probably have a better hand than me though has also costed me the pot a few times. For instance...

2er opens from button. SB folds, I 3bet with 66 in blinds.
Flop AKx. I bet get called. Turn a blank and I check, 2er checks behind. River Ten and again check check and I lose to 2er's QT.

[Zele]

In the name of God, Schneids, change your avatar.

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]
In the name of God, Schneids, change your avatar.

[/ QUOTE ]

My vikes one was getting outdated you don't like this choice? I think it's funny /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[arkady]

its damn funny.

[Robk]

hand 1 i think you played correct. (incidentally i think your opponent played every street wrong.)

hand 2 i think you made an error in checking the turn. Against Ax, KQ-8, QJ-T, JT you are 4:1 to have the best hand on the turn and are getting 4.25:1 on your bet so a bet is the play on that alone. (if you disagree that this is his hand range, please correct me.) but i can think of at least 3 things that make betting the turn even better. first you can discount the aces in his hand as he must raise them (edit: on the flop) some portion of the time, making you even more likely to have the best hand than simple counting indicates. second he may have peeled one with a pocket pair you need to bet out. and third youve got a 5% chance to nab that six.

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
My vikes one was getting outdated you don't like this choice? I think it's funny

[/ QUOTE ]

Not as funny as Garfield riding a porn star.

Scott

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]
In the name of God, Schneids, change your avatar.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was going to comment on the avatar, too, but more to say it is friggin hillarious. Without the "Up!" s it would be witless and mildly vulger, but with them it kicks ass!

I think you need to crank up the aggression some on these hands. I would slowly ramp it up until it affected how much they played back. I think I would fire again on the turn on both (second I not as sure about because I don't recall all the details and I am too lazy to open another window).

This is assuming that the tight players adjust their game. If they do you are making it correct for them to defend a lot more liberaly, since they are effectively getting 5:4 on their call from the BB (if the sb folds), and can make good folds on the turn. If they ever adjust more and fire at some rivers when you check the turn you are going to make a lot of bad folds. I'm not saying they should fire every time, but bluffing seems awfully profitable there for them. If bluffing isn't, then they will be able to make some thin value bets against you, again assuming that they are not rocks. If you are talking about rocks here, and AK guy from hand one sounds like he fits that bill, then I like you adjustments.

[gonores]

Didn't we cover this a long time ago when we decided that the flop call when HU from a decent opponent (who doesn't specifically know you) is the scariest play in poker?

I don't get what right-thinking 2er would play hand two the way QT did.

[rory]

What if I thought he thought I would just call with a good ace or a good king and so I thought, thinking that, he would check a king, any pocket pair or even a weak ace on the turn?

[gonores]

Regardless of he thought/I thought stuff, if you're going to continue the hand, you HAVE to show aggression. If you think it is +EV to continue playing the hand, then it is much more +EV to try to push him off his hand than it is to try to see two free cards.

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]
What if I thought he thought I would just call with a good ace or a good king and so I thought, thinking that, he would check a king, any pocket pair or even a weak ace on the turn?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is pretty much what I was thinking you'd do if you had an ace or king. I really didn't expect you to raise on the flop with either.

[rory]

A lot of my style recently revolves around getting free cards. So I take them when I get them.

[gonores]

"Your style?" Bluntly put, I don't think styles that try to pick up free cards are well suited for the Party 10/20 6max. Maybe I'm wrong, but intuitively sounds like a better plan for full ring games, or at least shorthanded 10max games. And style or no style, Schneids lays down winners in close to (probably even more than) a quarter of instances with a turn bet or a flop raise here.

With a flop call, you are getting 7:1 on a 11:1 shot, hoping to parlay it into a 5.5:1 shot by getting a free card. Fuzzy math says taht you need this to work approximately 50% of the time to be mathematically sound.

Firstly, I don't think this works 50% of the time against Schneids. Secondly, with a flop raise, you probably make him fold small pocket pairs and suited connector-type hands that either have you beat or are drawing live against you. Raising the flop also gives you a chance for a free card, if you so desire. But the main point is that Schneids doesn't need to make a laydown too often here to make this play more profitable than trying to see two more cards against a guy who may or may not have you beat.

As a final point, if I am in Schneids' shoes, after I see the way you played this hand, I can think of a number of different ways to exploit you down the road. It's comforting to know that I can bet a flop, get a call from a decent player, and then bet a turn and get a fold. I'd be much more willing to mix it up with you if I knew you were willing to put me in tough spots with me out of position.

[rory]

This style is very well suited for the 10/20 six max games. The biggest weakness people have is they are too loose, too aggressive and bluff too much. So playing limp and picking up a lot of bluffs or bad value bets, even from good players who are trying to play well by being aggressive works very well. It also lets you save a lot of bets when you are beat. I've been beating these games at a good clip for a long time, so it cannot be just flat out wrong to be playing this way.

The more aggressive style works extremely well too-- I spent a long time playing that way as well and it also beats the games.

You are assuming that only Schneids can adjust-- I know what he has seen me do, and I know he is a thinking player, and I know how he will probably adjust because I play this way every day and know how it makes other people think they can exploit it. People get pissed when I free card them a few times in a row by calling and lose the pot. They start betting more, and I adjust. My raises for a few rounds after I adjust are like a hammer, because I haven't been raising the whole time at the table. Once they stop having so much power, I adjust back. I can play poker too, you know. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I welcome people trying to somehow out play me with worse cards out of position. It is ridiculous to think that is somehow going to be the way to exploit the play of another player. The way to exploit my play is to fold your BB when I raise, because being out of position in a small pot with the worst hand against a good, thinking player is not a good spot to be in. I can't think of a more profitable spot in poker-- better cards, heads up, in position with a small pot. I'll take that all day against anyone.

[gonores]

[ QUOTE ]
The biggest weakness people have is they are too loose, too aggressive and bluff too much.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your countermeasure to this is to attempt to "pick up a lot of free cards"?

Furthermore, even if this does work for the 6max games against typical 6max players, Schneids isn't a typical 6max player. Going into a shell against Schneids is just not a good idea.

[ QUOTE ]
I've been beating these games at a good clip for a long time

[/ QUOTE ]

God, I hate this line...no matter who writes it or where I read it, I roll my eyes every time.

[ QUOTE ]
I can't think of a more profitable spot in poker-- better cards, heads up, in position with a small pot. I'll take that all day against anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right....until you stopped maximizing your profit. Doesn't it make sense that by playing passively, the range of hands with which I can play against you profitably expands?

Also, you did not comment on the hand in your reply.

[rory]

The QT hand is a good example of it working on a good player.

[gonores]

Schneids wins this pot 60% of the time your way. Schneids wins this pot 0% of the time my way.

[rory]

We have played and will play more than this pot.

[gonores]

Is whatever metagame considerations you're gathering from this hand really worth the 2.5BBs in equity you left on the table?

[rory]

You are overestimating the equity, there are times Schneids has a big hand and I check behind and outdraw him. He did 3 bet me preflop, after all, and now he does a turn check-- it could easily be a check-raise attempt since he knows I would call with an A or K here too. Also, he will remember this hand and bet my hand for me in later hands to avoid giving me a free card. We are playing a little guessing game, but he always has to act first. This strategy is not as miserable as you think it is, you are just myopically looking at this one hand and not considering the strategy as a whole. Yes, for this particular hand raising him on the flop with nothing would have won the pot right there, more likely than not. And sometimes I will do that. But at this point in our playing, he was going to give me a free card on the turn without a big ace or another huge hand if I just called the flop, so I just called. It is easy to say a raise is correct here when you know his hole cards, I did not have that luxury.

At any rate, further discussion is sort of pointless because I think my play was absolutely correct and you do not. We will have to agree to disagree.

[Gazza]

I agree with Rory. Calling sometimes with QT in such situations is not so bad.

With implied odds taken into account the play is close to break even EV wise. And raising here is, on the whole asking for trouble, although Rory could probably get away with it more often than I could.

I would, though, bet the turn after Schneids showed weakness. But he might not have showed weakness against me so maybe I should fold on the flop or raise after all!

Confused. I think it just goes to show again (that Anderson article) that what works for one player might not work for another so it is not really right to slam their play when whatever you do doesn't make much difference EV wise anyway

Gazza

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
In the name of God, Schneids, change your avatar.

[/ QUOTE ]

terrible advice. and it's not close.