Very Aggggressive...

[Chris Dow]

Here we go, no real read I think this is the second (but maybe third) time he's just lead the flop into me. Can't have that so I decided to try to put a stop to it. Comments? FWIW, my line is, fold immediately to 3 bet, but continue the bluff on the turn if he checks to me regardless of what falls.


Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (9 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is Button with 6/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 7/images/graemlins/diamond.gif.
<font color="#666666">6 folds</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, BB calls.

Flop: (4.50 SB) J/images/graemlins/club.gif, J/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, T/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">BB bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>

[Schwartzy61]

I believe this is misplaced aggression. What do you do if he calls and then check/calls it down? You really have like 1.5 outs to win this hand (backdoor flush), your only chance is to get him to fold. You would really have to know how he has reacted to stiff opposition in the previous hands, And since you don't give the liklihood of him folding I assume it won't happen often enough for this play to work out.

[Fnord]

You got your hand stuck in the cookie jar this time though.

I've made the same play and usually end up just feeding the guy more chips. Being more detatched, I would give this one up and hope he tries this [censored] against me next time. Or maybe make a loose flop call just to see what he does on the turn. Make a note and shift down gears a bit. With any luck, next hand he'll call the flop raise and gaybet the turn too.

[Chris Dow]

Sorry, you guys misunderstood. I post hands ambiguously because results don't matter. You're assuming I posted this because it failed, in this particular instance that isn't true. He called the flop and check/folded the turn. Please don't talk about outs btw. While I certainly realized that I had backdoor diamonds, the play is made entirely to generate fold equity. I think the important thing is that people leading the flop into the preflop raiser are typically very weak. I let him get away with it one time and this time I decided I wanted to stop that. By choosing to not fold on the flop I'm going to invest 2BBs to try and win approximately 3BBs. What do you guys think about the strict odds? I will make this play fairly frequently at 2/4 when the board looks good for it. JJT when led into is a good board right?

[chief444]

I'd much rather have a pair, A or K that I can showdown. I think that adds a lot of value to this play. I'm not sure as it is you'll take it down with a flop raise and turn bet 2 in 5-6 times.

[Fnord]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure as it is you'll take it down with a flop raise and turn bet 2 in 5-6 times.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I don't like pure bluffing the donks, they call too much. It's what they do.

If you really want fishy to fold, why not represent a big hand by calling the flop then popping the turn?

[Chris Dow]

I'm curious about your A,K comment chief. I honestly don't think having it to showdown would be much help. On the contrary, having the overs to draw to would benefit so if that's more what you meant, than I would concede that would be a nice bonus.

Do you want the ace because you can check behind if he's doing this with a straight draw and doesn't give up on the turn?

[DMBFan23]

he's bluffing too much, so I want him to stop bluffing...

I think thats backwards

[Fnord]

[ QUOTE ]
he's bluffing too much, so I want him to stop bluffing...

I think thats backwards

[/ QUOTE ]

Chris is probably used to raising hands like this and picking up pots on unloved flops and is a little steamed this guy is making it difficult, so he's swimming against the current.

[Chris Dow]

Yeah, for me it's not backwards. At this level I much prefer to be the person raising preflop and betting the flop. When someone tries to break up that cycle I will react aggressively if a good spot presents itself. As far as not showing the extra strength by going for the turn my logic is that if he is betting a jack here (which is like, the only way I lose in my mind) then he is betting it with the intent of 3 betting the flop if I raise. So I'd just as soon give him the chance now. So while their basic mistake at this level is to call too much, I try to compound their mistake by making them not reach showdown enough. They have to be trained to do that and this sort of play is one way I try to do that. It's important here that this guy is defending his blinds vs one of my button raises, I'm of the opinion that I can't let those guys get frisky with me and just lead flops and make my life uncomfortable.

[chief444]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm curious about your A,K comment chief. I honestly don't think having it to showdown would be much help. On the contrary, having the overs to draw to would benefit so if that's more what you meant, than I would concede that would be a nice bonus.

Do you want the ace because you can check behind if

[/ QUOTE ]
I think a lot of times when you're bet into here it's some crappy draw, A-high, or low pocket pair. Sometimes a T. So a percentage of the time your A or K high is best and will still win at showdown. When it isn't best you have a decent redraw against pocket pairs. You have at least 3 outs against anything but a J.

I guess my thinking really is this play IMO probably doesn't work quite 1/3 or so of the time but if you show down a winner anyway maybe 15-20% of the time then it may tip the scale towards it being profitable. It's likely close as is but if you just get the little extra value from actually dragging the occasional pot at showdown then I like it more.

[Schwartzy61]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, you guys misunderstood. I post hands ambiguously because results don't matter. You're assuming I posted this because it failed, in this particular instance that isn't true. He called the flop and check/folded the turn. Please don't talk about outs btw. While I certainly realized that I had backdoor diamonds, the play is made entirely to generate fold equity. I think the important thing is that people leading the flop into the preflop raiser are typically very weak. I let him get away with it one time and this time I decided I wanted to stop that. By choosing to not fold on the flop I'm going to invest 2BBs to try and win approximately 3BBs. What do you guys think about the strict odds? I will make this play fairly frequently at 2/4 when the board looks good for it. JJT when led into is a good board right?

[/ QUOTE ]

First, you can try and generate all the fold equity you want, but if you're against a calling station, all those bets won't generate much fold equity. If he has a pair of tens in this case and just wants to call you down you lose. If he has a pocket pair and you scare him into a check/call situation, he will call you down and you lose. If he has KQ and wants to draw to his straight, but then calls a river bet because he didn't believe you the whole time then you lose.

You didn't provide us with anything other than this guy has lead into you on 2 or 3 hands previously. Did he showdown all these hands and show trash? Did he do it against someone else and go check/fold on the turn? This is all information we didn't have. So against an unknown player at this level it is generally better to play it a little more straight up until further information is gathered.

In the end this is a very read dependent play and we didn't have the same information running through out heads that you did.

[crunchy1]

I wouldn't make this play against a guy I had no real read on. That being said it kind of sounds like you did have some read on him - if nothing else than he plays aggressively into flops he thinks missed the PF raiser.

I like the thinking of punishing players for trying to act aggressively towards you with what are likely weak holdings. I also agree with Chief in that you need this play to work a certain percentage of the time and I'm not quite sure that it's going to work often enough against an unkown.

I also think it shouldn't go w/o mention that many times (especially HU) you will get smooth called on the flop and check-raised on the turn. I think that this will happen often enough to make this unprofitable in almost any situation. I'll make this play against aggressive opponents all the time - but I also see this play from almost all the different player types.

Last, FWIW, if this guy is raining on your blind stealing parade - then maybe you should think about leaving the table or not worrying about stealing blinds with such weak hands. Or - the next time you "steal" be holding AA. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Chris Dow]

It isn't enough to simply say that the guy likes to weak lead flops like that? I don't think it's a mystery that leading into the pf raiser is typically weak...

[ErrantNight]

so what's your question? is it occasionally correct to full on bluff an opponent that's auto-betting flops that are easy to get away from and easy to scare off an opponent, heads-up, in blind steal situations? sure.

but since you have zero showdown value... i'm not inclined to think this is a great spot for it... if your read is strong enough on your opponent to pull this... why the hell not?

i'm not sure what kind of discussion you're hoping to initiate here... unless it's a discussion about the validity of the pure bluff

[ErrantNight]

if you're not leading into the pfr here when you're strong sometimes you're not playing very good poker.

[Chris Dow]

Crunchy, good last point, and certainly if this blind steal had failed I would have given serious consideration to leaving.

[Chris Dow]

Errant, two points, of course I lead there, I was saying that my opponents seldom do, you need to stop extrapolating what isn't there and read the actual words. Secondly, was I trying to generate a discussion about pure bluffs and their merits and when to try them, well from looking at the hand I posted and seeing that it is a pure bluff, yes I would say that is exactly what I was trying to do.

[ErrantNight]

apologies for extrapolating too far... but you're read is good, that lead is frequently very weak, and this IS a very good spot for a pure bluff... which you rightly need to fold to a 3-bet or continue on the turn... the number of bets you're investing on a pure bluff to win a small pot here, however, is pretty large... so you need to be VERY certain on your reads... but assuming that you are correct in them, i like this

[Fnord]

[ QUOTE ]
the number of bets you're investing on a pure bluff to win a small pot here, however, is pretty large...

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not just about this hand, it's about how we want to deal with this guy. Getting him to back down here might translate to +EV on later hands if we can push him around with less resistance. However, one might argue you're better off re-enforcing his mistakes by folding here and picking up value by drawing a bluff when you do have a hand.

[spydog]

If you are hell-bent on winning this pot, why not call the flop and raise the turn? It's .5BBs more expensive, yet probably twice as effective than your line.

BTW, I don't like pure bluffing in this spot.

[27offsooot]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the number of bets you're investing on a pure bluff to win a small pot here, however, is pretty large...

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not just about this hand, it's about how we want to deal with this guy. Getting him to back down here might translate to +EV on later hands if we can push him around with less resistance. However, one might argue you're better off re-enforcing his mistakes by folding here and picking up value by drawing a bluff when you do have a hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's somewhat important that CD already folded to a donk bet from villain in a similar situation. This might have set-up in villain's mind that fold = no hand from CD, and raise = hand. Considering villain will likely take another shot at CD with little or nothing, I don't hate this play. So I think that his folding equity is higher than most give him credit for. If you wait only until you have a legitimate hand, you won't get value out of your holding.

[Chris Dow]

With the hands I play, I can't have him donk leading into me all the time, so this post is relevant.

[Nate tha' Great]

This is an exceptionally problematic spot for you.

The problem is that, even if he's betting with just something like a straight draw, this is going to be an awfully expensive bluff for you to follow through with, as his hand would beat you at showdown unimproved. I don't think you're going to push him off something like a pair of tens in a blind situation, and you have no outs to speak of if behind. You have to hope that he's bluffing almost completely.

I just give up here. The pot is small and, well, he surely has the best hand anyway, whether he recognizes it or not. I'll play back at people some in these blind stealing situations, but I'm going to wait until I have more outs or at least more showdown value.

[Yobz]

I actually like this play, but my flop aggression is bordering 4 or so...it works often at 2/4 and if you do it in a session enough and people catch on, you tighten up and win big pots with bigger hands...it sucks to get called down, though

[Pedigree]

[ QUOTE ]

It's not just about this hand, it's about how we want to deal with this guy. Getting him to back down here might translate to +EV on later hands if we can push him around with less resistance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the more you try this play the more he's going to get tired of you being aggressive on future hands. With no real read I'd wait until I had some outs and make this play in a better spot.

[Yobz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It's not just about this hand, it's about how we want to deal with this guy. Getting him to back down here might translate to +EV on later hands if we can push him around with less resistance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the more you try this play the more he's going to get tired of you being aggressive on future hands. With no real read I'd wait until I had some outs and make this play in a better spot.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't work that way, though. You're saying that he will get tired of this and call down in the future, so you shouldn't make this play. If you fold here and next time you have a hand and hero raises and villian folds, hero wins a small pot. This way, hero wins 2 pots (1 big) instead of losing 1 pot and winning 1 small one.

[meep_42]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll play back at people some in these blind stealing situations, but I'm going to wait until I have more outs or at least more showdown value.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is one of the most overlooked aspects to blind-stealing / heads-up situations -- at least it was for me.

-d

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
You really have like 1.5 outs to win this hand (backdoor flush), your only chance is to get him to fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize any 6 or 7 gives hero a pair?

[Pedigree]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I think the more you try this play the more he's going to get tired of you being aggressive on future hands. With no real read I'd wait until I had some outs and make this play in a better spot.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't work that way, though. You're saying that he will get tired of this and call down in the future, so you shouldn't make this play. If you fold here and next time you have a hand and hero raises and villian folds, hero wins a small pot. This way, hero wins 2 pots (1 big) instead of losing 1 pot and winning 1 small one.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's successful and if the next time we're in a similar situation the hero has a hand.

What if it's not succesful and the next time we also don't have a hand and want to steal (but this time have a hand with some outs)? That's what I'm getting at...

[Schwartzy61]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You really have like 1.5 outs to win this hand (backdoor flush), your only chance is to get him to fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize any 6 or 7 gives hero a pair?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, I didn't consider the possibility that a measly pair of sixes or sevens might take this pot down. Of course with a pair on board you could hit a six and a seven or even running cards to make a full house and still lose, so they are tainted and the probabilities are still against you for the most part.

I'll rephrase...

Your BEST chance of winning will be to get this guy to fold, and since you don't have a solid read (at least you didn't give us one) on the likelihood that this guy is A. bluffing and B. will fold, it is a play that is questionable. To reiterate my main point, It's a read dependent play that you would have to use against the right opponents, it is not a "default" play to use in the majority of situations like this...