JJ faces aggression on Q flop

[Bodhi]

Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (10 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Villain plays over 70% of his hands, raises around 11% of them, but is only somewhat aggressive postflop (1.4)-- villain has been running quite good so this number could be distorted over 45 hands or so. I've seen him bet a paired board as a total bluff in last position when the field checked to him, but I haven't seen him bet out on a semi-bluff or on the come with a strong draw.

Preflop: Hero is CO with J/images/graemlins/spade.gif, J/images/graemlins/diamond.gif.
<font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, UTG+1 calls, <font color="#666666">2 folds</font>, MP2 calls, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="#666666">3 folds</font>, UTG+1 calls, MP2 calls.

Flop: (7.50 SB) 6/images/graemlins/club.gif, 9/images/graemlins/heart.gif, Q/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">UTG+1 bets</font>, MP2 folds, Hero...

Perhaps I should cross post this in the HU forum. Anyway, there's no more need to raise to knock out other opponents, but I see a number of possible lines here:
1. Fold (ugh), but the pot is not so big yet.
2. Raise, if called bet the turn, check the river
3. Raise, if called check the turn, call a river bet.

My fear with option #2 is that I put this villain on a Q about &gt;75% of the time and I'm simply chip spewing. Thoughts?

[toss]

Isn't an aggression factor of 1.4 for a vpip of 70% mean that he's really aggressive? I don't know how it works, but thats what I hear. My line would be call/ call/ bet if checked to.

[sy_or_bust]

#3 is usually best if you're especially worried about the Q. The potential flush draw hinders this line, but without a read it's not so dangerous to give a free card and call a river bet in a pretty small pot heads up. You will snap up river bluffs from an aggro opponent (yours is) very often. When you think UTG+1 will very often hold a weaker hand or draw, #2 gains in value.

I would never flat fold this river unless I had a monster read.

[Bodhi]

1.4 is still not that aggressive, and your concern made me reevaluate this PT "read."

[sy_or_bust]

[ QUOTE ]
1.4 is still not that aggressive, and your concern made me reevaluate this PT "read."

[/ QUOTE ]

AF is related to VP$IP. If a 70% player has a 1.4 AF, he is far more aggressive than a 30% player.

[nepenthe]

Why is calling the flop not an option?

[Bodhi]

Are we going to call down the whole way? I feel that if we just call this flop, we'll be stuck in the same unpleasant situation on the turn.

[nepenthe]

I might raise a non-heart blank on the turn. I might do the same with A or K. I might call the turn and fold the river depending on reads and the board. It really depends.

[toss]

I guess I like the raise, check, call river bluff line the best now.

[Bodhi]

I can definitely see the merits of this line here. Only loses 2BB's when we're behind, possibly gets the villain to bet the river when he wouldn't have otherwise, and it's not weak-tight like folding.

It's not very often that I come across a situation where inducing a bluff is the correct line, but perhaps it was here. Next time I'm HU in a similar spot I might try this.
Thanx.

[SteveL91]

Line 3 is a line I really like using in situations like this; especially against an unknown 2/4 player. I just find it to be a cheap way to get to a showdown when I suspect there's a high liklihood of being behind.

[wdbaker]

I think that you have to raise for several reason's:
1: You want to see if what he has is so good he will reraise in which case you are probably behind.

2: If he just calls you, he may give you a free card on the turn which is always welcome in these situations as he may have a queen with a small kicker and this will give you a free card to draw out on and skip a big bet and see the river for free.

3: He may just fold to your raise realizing that he can't bluff you.

4: You just need to let the table know you got big kahuna's /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Hope that helped

One Street at a Time
wdbaker Denver, Co

[ropey]

I guess this is why I stick to live poker. All of these percentages, numbers, acronyms, and mediocre explanations of opponents really gets to me after a while.

If you think he has a Queen...FOLD.
If you think there is a reasonble chance he doesn't have a Queen...RAISE.

This is how you play poker...you make what YOU!!! think is the best play at the time, based from your knowledge of the situation. Why does this have to be so difficult?

-ropey

[nepenthe]

[ QUOTE ]
All of these percentages, numbers, acronyms, and mediocre explanations of opponents really gets to me after a while.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
If you think there is a reasonble chance he doesn't have a Queen...RAISE.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all...lol
Moreover, why must you raise the flop if you think he doesn't have a queen?

[ropey]

You have position on him...raise to find out where you are. See, by raising, you can actually gain information, and this information might help you play the turn.

[ QUOTE ]
First of all...lol

[/ QUOTE ]
Funny?

The funny part to me is how these simple hands get overanalyzed, because people are looking for a black and white answer on how to play the hand. If you could actually think about why you do the things you do, you wouldn't need to post such simple hands searching for verification that you play the hand correctly.

If I'm playing this hand and I think my opponent has a Queen, I'm folding the flop. If I decided there is a reasonable, yes, reasonable chance, that he doesn't have a queen, I am going to raise to find out more information. From there, I will play the hand accordingly.

There is only one person who can decide whether this is "correct"...the person in the hand.

-ropey

[toss]

Medicore explanations? Sometimes. %'s, #'s, and ACR's? Why type unnecessary letters.

If theres a reasonable chance he doesn't have the Queen, raising isn't always the best option. We play poker and we post here to improve our game. It's not like we come across a difficult decision and post while in the middle of the hand and hope someone responds before the timer runs out.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
You have position on him...raise to find out where you are. See, by raising, you can actually gain information, and this information might help you play the turn.


[/ QUOTE ]

Raising for information is highly overrated. Say you raise the flop, opponent calls the raise, and then opponent checks the turn. What have you learned?

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I like the raise, check, call river bluff line the best now.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I was going to raise the flop, there is no way I'm checking the turn. I would almost always bet the turn and then consider taking the free showdown. Indeed, I much prefer to get our bets in on the turn when I may still be ahead, especially since if he is on a draw there is no guarantee he will bluff at the river. Moreover, it's not like I'm going to cry if I have to fold to a turn checkraise, since his stats suggest that he is definately not a post-flop LAG.

[toss]

Lets see we want to raise the flop since villain may have too many outs. We bet a blank turn for value and decide to see if the river is good for value betting. We can't afford to give a free card in this spot.

[ropey]

[ QUOTE ]
Raising for information is highly overrated. Say you raise the flop, opponent calls the raise, and then opponent checks the turn. What have you learned?

[/ QUOTE ]
The information you gain depends on the player. Ideally, you have an idea of how the player reacts in different situations. A lot of players will 3-bet in his position with AQ or better...this will certainly provide information. Against some opponents, I could put them on a draw...the only real problem is not knowing your up against a little queen. In any case...raising seems much better than calling.

-ropey

[toss]

I'd like raising the flop since theres a reasonable chance we're ahead. Also villain can have too many outs to let him see the turn cheaply. If we placed villain on a hand where he had only two outs, I'd let him bet all the way and raise him on the river.

[Bodhi]

[ QUOTE ]
The funny part to me is how these simple hands get overanalyzed, because people are looking for a black and white answer on how to play the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I take it you do not have a very analytical frame of mind. The hand is interesting to me because:
1. Playing JJ when a single overcard flops happens very frequently
2. My heads up play is weak
3. There are many possible lines to take, and I'm not sure which one is best.

The fact that you complain we're over analyzing these "simple" hands makes me worry because it sounds like you don't believe you have anything to learn.

[Piiop]

I agree with Chesster. If I raise the flop (and I would), I would bet the turn and maybe check the river maybe bet.

Sometimes against this situation, I would opt to call the flop, raise the turn, and check behind on the river. However, I think there are a lot of scary cards that could come on the turn that would make me not want to raise, so that's out.

I would also consider raise, bet, bet. Against many players like this, he could be betting the flop with a 9, a 6, smaller PP, or draw, and will call down with all of them - giving the river bet value.

You could just call, call, call. Which isn't a bad option, however you're probably missing out on some value since it's likely you will be paid off by a lot of different hands from this player.

I'd also like to add that a VPIP of 70 and an aggression factor of 1.4 is high. The AF is somewhat misleading if you're looking at *just* that AF number. The formula for calculating it is (Bet% + Raise%)/Call%. Check out the Pokertracker forums or the search button for more discussion about it.

And to the guy who hates VPIP and AF and whatever else: don't be silly. This is extremely useful information available to us online players. The more information we have, the better decisions we can make. Sure, reads are usually more important than these stats, but that doesn't mean they're useless. And a lot of decisions in poker are more involved than just raise or fold, including this one.

[Bodhi]

Even though this hand is "simple," I suppose there's a lot to be debated. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Here's what I think it is at issue between lines 2 and 3:
Assuming we raise the flop, we can be the turn again and fold to a check-raise without a showdown, or if the villain just calls we check behind on the river. If we raise the flop and don't bet the turn after we're checked to, we call a river bet and show down for the same price.
The advantage of line 2 is that we don't give a free card if the villain is on a flush draw (though like I said, I haven't seen him bet out on a draw). Its disadvantage could be that if he is on a flush draw and makes it on the river, he might just bet out and forgo a tricky checkraise, and we'll have to call that extra bet.
The advantage of the third line is that in most cases we're paying a maximum of only 2 BB to show down our marginal hand, avoid a turn check-raise, and might induce a bluff (and we know he's capable of bluffing). The disadvantage is that we give the villain infinite odds on the turn if he's on a draw, and we look weak and our future flop raises might receive less respect.

I'll have to think about this some more. I'm still leaning towards #3 because the cheapest showdown seems desirable here because I really want to showdown JJ, but I'm not strong enough to risk extra bets to do it.

[Piiop]

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming we raise the flop, we can be the turn again and fold to a check-raise without a showdown, or if the villain just calls we check behind on the river

[/ QUOTE ]

This is all good and sometimes you should bet the river depending on the board.

[ QUOTE ]
The advantage of line 2 is that we don't give a free card if the villain is on a flush draw (though like I said, I haven't seen him bet out on a draw). Its disadvantage could be that if he is on a flush draw and makes it on the river, he might just bet out and forgo a tricky checkraise, and we'll have to call that extra bet.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not only are you denying free cards, but you're getting value out of his worse hands. And, although you haven't seen him bet out with any draws (not many hands), there are a lot of draws on this board you need to protect against. Flush, 2 OESD's, some gutshot str8s, and overcards. It doesn't matter if he makes a flush draw on the river and you call his bet after you checked the turn. You should be checking the turn with the intention of calling ANY river. You are giving him the opportunity to bluff at the pot (or maybe value bet in his mind), you MUST call if you check the turn. So, that situation doesn't matter.

[ QUOTE ]
The advantage of the third line is that in most cases we're paying a maximum of only 2 BB to show down our marginal hand, avoid a turn check-raise, and might induce a bluff (and we know he's capable of bluffing). The disadvantage is that we give the villain infinite odds on the turn if he's on a draw, and we look weak and our future flop raises might receive less respect.


[/ QUOTE ]

Your hand is not marginal. You have JJ headsup against a guy who plays 70% of his hands and there is 1 overcard. Avoiding a turn checkraise shouldn't be a large concern unless you think he would be check-raising on a bluff. If he does check-raise the turn, you should usually be folding. Giving infinite odds is definitely a very bad thing here, and not just to the obvious draws. Remember he could also have something like A9 and you'd be giving a free card to a 5 outer. No reason to do that.

#3 is bad.

[Bodhi]

You wrote this about option #2, raise, bet, check-behind (or bet again):[ QUOTE ]
Not only are you denying free cards, but you're getting value out of his worse hands. And, although you haven't seen him bet out with any draws (not many hands), there are a lot of draws on this board you need to protect against. Flush, 2 OESD's, some gutshot str8s, and overcards. It doesn't matter if he makes a flush draw on the river and you call his bet after you checked the turn. You should be checking the turn with the intention of calling ANY river. You are giving him the opportunity to bluff at the pot (or maybe value bet in his mind), you MUST call if you check the turn. So, that situation doesn't matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it seems like you're talking about 2 and 3 here when you mention checking the turn. Care to clarify? (I really appreciate your help here).

[Piiop]

Yeah, I kinda messed that up. I thought you originally meant that if you had checked the turn, then you would call a river bet from a flush some of the time. You actually meant that sometimes he'll just bet out on the river instead of going for a checkraise after you bet the turn, which means you won't be getting a free showdown. Which is something to consider, but I don't think will happen very often.

From the tone of your posts, it seems like you're wanting to fold or get to showdown very cheaply - thinking that your hand is in trouble. Against this specific type of player, I wouldn't be happy with an overcard, but I certainly wouldn't automatically think I was behind. I think a lot of the time your J's will be best and you will be missing value and protection if you play them too passively.

[Bodhi]

Right, your interpretation of my tone is accurate. I've been paying a lot of attention recently to which passive players bet top pair into the pfr, and it's sometimes surprising to see the regularity and predictability with which they do it (I especially pay attention to the hands that I have already folded preflop). A savier opponent with a Q here (or even a A9) might check-raise the flop to knock out the third player and show strength--but these passive opponents never think that far.
Everyone has had the unpleasant experience of these hands where you raise the flop, bet the turn, maybe bet the river, and then see the passive player show something like Q8o. In any case, I've learned a lot from this thread, and you and others have convinced me that raising and betting the turn is the most profitable play. I just have to suck it up now and keep firing (in the appropriate places) despite those overcard flops.

[mr pink]

i usually just call and reevaluate on the turn.

[HajiShirazu]

I would raise the flop and bet the turn, making the river decision based on what the turn and river were. 1.4 is pretty aggressive for somebody who sees the flop 70%. At the very least, his bet here is going to be worse than top pair a lot of the time.

[Paxosmotic]

[ QUOTE ]
If I'm playing this hand and I think my opponent has a Queen, I'm folding the flop. If I decided there is a reasonable, yes, reasonable chance, that he doesn't have a queen, I am going to raise to find out more information. From there, I will play the hand accordingly.

[/ QUOTE ]
Faced with a bet on a Q-high flop, without risking more of your chips with an informational raise, how are you going to determine if villain has a Queen? Are you going to ask him? Or have you vastly overrated your hand reading abilities?