Rat Trap

[naphand]

This is a great table. To my immediate left is a loose calling station, calls down any pair, any draw. The other threee on the table are LAGs but not overly aggressive, they are just reasonably aggressive and way too loose (seeing about 50-60% of flops). The sort of game where you can CR and be sure of calls, rather than folds. I have not been getting great cards so my image is pretty tight (at this point my V$IP is 17%), and it is not so easy to get a good hand to SD. My notes on LAG in this hand have him as an habitual bluffer.

Is this the right spot to slow play?


Paradise Poker $3/$6 Hold'em (5 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Naphand is SB with 9/images/graemlins/heart.gif, T/images/graemlins/heart.gif.
UTG <font color="#A500AF">(LAG)</font> calls, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, Button calls, Naphand completes, <font color="#CC3333">BB <font color="#A500AF">(Calling Station)</font> raises</font>, UTG <font color="#A500AF">(LAG)</font> calls, Button calls, Naphand calls.

Flop: (8 SB) 2/images/graemlins/club.gif, T/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 5/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(4 players)</font>
Naphand checks, <font color="#CC3333">Calling Station bets</font>, LAG calls, Button folds, Naphand calls.

Turn: (5.50 BB) T/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
Naphand checks, <font color="#CC3333">Calling Station bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">LAG raises</font>, Naphand calls, Calling Station calls.

River: (11.50 BB) 8/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
Naphand checks, <font color="#CC3333">Calling Station bets</font>, LAG folds, <font color="#CC3333">Naphand raises</font>, Calling Station calls.

Final Pot: 15.50 BB


Given that I cannot bet or raise anyone off this pot, plus Calling Station must actually have a hand given his PF raise from the BB, is my flop passivity the best line? Who votes for raising the Turn, given my very tight image and LAGs proclivities?

[bunky9590]

If your checkraises are getting calls, checkraise/threebet the ever bloody turn. Lead the river.

[naphand]

It is quite likely LAG is bluffing and will bluff the River.

[Gazza]

I think you are perfectly placed to lead on the flop here.
You have a very vulnerable top pair with the pre flop raiser sitting over you. Lead into him and see what happens. If he is a calling station then he won't raise with just overcards. If he just calls then he may still have an overpair and is waiting for the turn but it is much more likely that he now has just overcards.

So be prepared to lead again into the crowd if you still have top pair on the turn. Going for a CR here would be overdooing it in my opinion because you still have to be wary of the calling station.

If he raises on the turn with a full field then you have to go to the river (pot odds) and fold there unimproved.
If he raises on the flop and the others fold then I would be prepared to check fold the turn unimproved against this particular opponent, but against most players I would go to showdown and against many I would be 3 betting the flop


As for the way you played it I suppose you were planning a check raise and then changed your mind when the LAG got in on the act. Even without hindsight I would assume his most likely holding to be one small pair or nothing (maybe he picked up a flush draw, maybe not - there are so many players who can't resist bluffing when the board pairs) but I would still go ahead and 3 bet expecting them both to call. The LAG will not fold his bluff for one more bet here. Too embarassing. And the calling station? Well, he is a calling station.

The way you played it I would fear the river being checked through. I mean what the hell to they put this tight player who has called the whole way on. Sorry, stupid question, they are probably not even thinking about you.

[bunky9590]

[ QUOTE ]
It is quite likely LAG is bluffing and will bluff the River.

[/ QUOTE ]

Makes it closer, But I still probably three bet.

[Jonny]

I'd probably 3-bet the turn, since the calling station is likely to call 2 bets cold. Then obviously lead the river.

[ISF]

I would always lead this flop hoping the bb raises to clear out the field. Given that you did not lead the flop I threebet the turn.

[naphand]

I am not worried about clearing the field here, I have only 2 opponents, both bad. Leading the flop will let them believe I have a T, almost certainly. LAG is unlikely to bluff into me when I lead. Calling Station may raise his premium hand (raising the table from BB is most certainly a premium hand in these games, except for the LAG idiots who do this with 2-suited or JTo etc.). But I am pretty sure Calling Station will bet this flop, his raises were very rare and this one, coming from the BB, makes this one of only a very few hands, all of which he will lead with. If I lead out, he may raise and knock out LAG, a player who is probably adding value to this hand. It is also quite (more) likely he calls and waits to CR the Turn. If I CR the flop, LAG will drop on the Turn for one more without a T (he does not have an overpair, overcards possible), if he has a T is is probably better than mine (with the exception of something like T8s) and I get 3-bet.

I do have a vulnerable TP, I could be against a big PP or a bunch of overcards or worse PP (LAG). I am not going to fold anyone drawing to overcards or with a better PP, and I have poor position. By waiting for the Turn and going from there it allows me to more easily fold to a raise should a bad card hit or trap for more bets if the board continues to support me. Leading the flop is too obvious here, my opponents have position on me and I am looking at a player who will want to bluff this raggy board and a normally passive player showing some strength PF.

The plan was to CR the Turn unimproved. When I trip I have a really big hand that is not afraid of free cards. If it is checked to LAG he will almost certainly take a stab, especially with precisely NOTHING or a med PP. Calling station checking the Turn means exactly AK, he wont put me on a T as I did not lead the flop. What makes this play easier for me, is that the aggressor is likely to bet, and if he doesn't LAG is almost certain to take a stab with any hand, I can also stand a free card here too. I think this makes the Turn ideal for a CR.

When LAG raises right on cue I had to laugh, his bluffs were horribly obvious and this was a horribly obvious spot. He does not have me on a T because I did not lead at any point. They have no idea what I have, and the fact I cold-called probably did not even register (it may in future, of course /images/graemlins/grin.gif). The issue for me here is to 3-bet or call:

(i) 3-bet and calling station calls here, and calls my River bet. LAG might call my 3-bet but I actually figure he dumps it immediately.

(ii) By calling I can be sure LAG will bet the River again and I get to CR and trap calling station for 2 more.

When calling station bets out again (eh? Captain Bizarre or what?) on the River, plan (ii) fails to get the extra bets, but I still get to CR and have the satisfaction of knowing my read on LAG was spot-on. LAG was not totally stupid, he would release his bluffs when caught. I suppose I could have bet the River, there was a risk of it getting checked though, but LAG will bet his bluff, he has no other way to win! plus he might have a med PP and figure he is ahead. Calling station wont raise a River bet, his brain was not fast enough to work out no draws came in, so betting out gets just 1 BB, perhaps 2 if LAG has a PP (if so, he would have bet).

[Gazza]

Firstly you have three opponents, not two, on the flop. With two then I can see your point but with three opponents I want them to know I have a made hand. I want to eliminate these guys or at least one of them. Even a hand as bad as an overcard plus a backdoor is not really making a mistake to call for 1 SB. However, they are more likely to fold if you show strength as well as the pre flop raiser (they will fear he is slowplaying if he just calls - a raise from the BB is quite frightening).

Basically you are in a pretty marginal spot and it wouldn't surprise me if your equity here was only just over your fair share here. As I said in the other post I don't feel your hand is strong enough to go for the CR on turn approach. I would like to have at least a big kicker for that.

And on the river I think it is far from certain the LAG will continue to bluff, especially if he has something to showdown such as a pair (the most likely scenario). He doesn't sound like a complete maniac and if he was then it would be even better to 3 bet the turn so that he can cap.

But I'm not really saying that your line was bad. In practice I do all sorts of strange things decided on the spur of the moment. It's even good for an aggressive player to play passively sometimes. Helps to keep you unpredictable.

[Gazza]

[ QUOTE ]
Basically you are in a pretty marginal spot and it wouldn't surprise me if your equity here was only just over your fair share here

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe this is wrong as your equity would still be at least 20% if calling station has a big pair and it would be over 50% if he doesn't

[naphand]

My memory has a loose wire somewhere. Yes it was 3 opponents, Calling Station and 2 LAGs to the flop.

I think my equity is substantially better than fair share here, though it does depend a lot on what BB (Calling Station) has. I definitely do not believe he would raise overcards, and a big PP I expect to get slow-played on the flop if I bet out. This is the crunch read, if BB was more aggressive then betting out anticipating a raise looks much better. As it is, I wanted to see what happened. If BB bets I get to effectively be the Button for that street, I see the response of the rest of the table before acting. If BB does not bet and one of the others does (which is likely), I can CR to put BB under pressure to fold.

If I lead I have to hope BB raises, but this also probably means I check/fold the Turn unimproved, esp. with any cold-callers coming along and a scary Turn. That's OK, it's not a great position to be in.

At the back of my mind was precisely the notion that always leading with TP was not getting me all the $$ I could (I was not getting called to SD). This is a problem with being the SB, and by checking here I can (likely) see the Turn cheap, I probably drop on the flop if it is 2 bets back to me. This is a very specific spot, weak TP, normally passive player leading, bluffing LAG. I don't like ABC here particularly due to my recent history at the table (bad cards, very ABC play). I am pretty sure BB will bet if I check and the board is so crappy on the flop, no-one is going to try a bluff yet.

I quite like the idea of letting BB lead each street, due to the "effective Button" effect. I can play this similarly to the way I would play the Button. BB would have to have a big hand to keep betting, no doubt about it. The point you make is right, my hand is not great, a free card is very bad. Flop-wise I think it is about whether BB raises or not should I bet, and whether it gets checked thro. The latter I do not expect at all, and the former I also do not figure likely (he just does not have enough aggression). I was not planning a Turn CR on the flop, I was planning a flop CR if BB checks, or a call if he bets out and see who is coming along/see the Turn card. I cannot rely on a calling station to put 2 bets to the field, and I cannot do it myself. Also, telling the field I have a T (betting the flop) denies any chance of value from LAG bluffing unless the Turn is an overcard, if the Turn is an overcard I am even more twitchy about LAG and BB. Betting out would put me in a very tough spot, out of position, should an overcard fall on the Turn and I probably have to drop to a BB bet or LAG raise. I really want an undercard (if no T/9) on the Turn. The advantage to betting out the flop is to define BBs hand better if he raises his overpair and it gets HU, but as I say, I cannot rely on this at all. If BB just calls I will feel obliged to bet the Turn and call the raise, which is the same BB as calling down to SD from the flop. I think I have options here, and my image perhaps allows me to get away with this a bit here.

My line worked out ok this time and my read of the situation was good. It's not really a question of right or wrong, I just want to explore the merits of playing this way in these circumstances, as opposed to a more ABC line. Thanks for your response.

NB
River-wise, LAG will bluff again, almost certainly, the board is perfect for him. He is not a maniac, but is very predictable in his bluffs.