A Rare Online Entry from W.D.-- Turned Trips Against a Passive

[W. Deranged]

Everybody's favorite 10/20 doesn't ever get going anymore so I had to play Party.

Party 3/6 (10 handed)

Villain in question is UTG + 2. Has been slightly loose/neutral but quite passive: 24/2/.6 over about 80 hands.

Deranged is in the BB with 9 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 8 /images/graemlins/heart.gif.

Two folds to villain who limps, all else fold to Deranged. I choose not to exercise my option.

Flop: Q /images/graemlins/heart.gif 9/images/graemlins/spade.gif 5 /images/graemlins/club.gif

Deranged bets, Villain raises, Deranged calls.

Turn: 9 /images/graemlins/club.gif

Deranged checks, Villain Bets, Deranged check-raises, Villain three-bets...

...and so where do I go from here...

I'm interested in what people feel about the turn check-raise as well. Flop I think is pretty uninteresting as against a passive leading middle pair seems quite standard to me.

I make one request for replies to this hand, to make things more interesting: If you advocate a particular line, please describe how the passiveness/aggressiveness would change that decision, and tell me what would be the marginal values of certain stats for villain that might change your view. (unrelated example: I would usually fold against a villain with agg. factor less than 1, but raise against a villain with agg. factor greater than 1.5) The numbers aren't that important specifically but I think I'm interested in how people use stats on decisions like this one.

[P.S. I think the answer for the given hand is pretty obvious, so don't flame me for a lame post... I'm interested in the "post-script" question.]

[Nick C]

I would call down.

You've got some outs (though not quite enough) against 55. Q9 and even QQ and 99 are unfortunate possibilities, but despite his apparent passiveness, Villain could also be a player who plays aggressively with strong hands like AQs when they hit. Also, I'm not ruling out a limped AA/KK or even JJ/TT. Some players who seem passive normally do fall in love with their big pocket pairs. Also, against some better nines, such as T9/J9, you have chopping outs.

Plus, 80 hands isn't really that much, especially since Villain has only played about 20 of them. Maybe he hasn't hit many flop in those 20 hands.

I don't know. Those are my thoughts.

Anyway, though, I wouldn't expect to win.

As for the turn checkraise: It seems fine to me. Your opponent isn't a player I'd expect to be able to bet/3-bet against versus queens up. But if you're worried that the paired board will scare him into checking behind, then that could be a reason to stop-n-go instead.

[Harv72b]

I call down as well.

For starters, I don't put a whole lot of confidence in a player's aggression factor over just 80 hands. I've seen far stranger things on Party than a guy who hasn't put in a raise in 2 hours suddenly deciding to go on a full-on maniacal tilt for one hand. Still, I have to respect the read thus far, enough that I'm not throwing in the cap to say "I don't care if you slowplayed aces, I can beat 'em".

Now, if I have a sample size of more like 500 hands, spread out over multiple sessions, and I've never seen the guy raise with less than the near nuts...then it becomes a fold based on his low VPIP (a worse 9 is highly unlikely from a 24% guy who limped UTG+2). Your turn check/raise screams "I have the 9", and a true passive isn't 3-betting that with anything less than a boat, possibly not with less than the nut boat.

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
Everybody's favorite 10/20 doesn't ever get going anymore so I had to play Party.

Party 3/6 (10 handed)

Villain in question is UTG + 2. Has been slightly loose/neutral but quite passive: 24/2/.6 over about 80 hands.

Deranged is in the BB with 9 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 8 /images/graemlins/heart.gif.

Two folds to villain who limps, all else fold to Deranged. I choose not to exercise my option.

Flop: Q /images/graemlins/heart.gif 9/images/graemlins/spade.gif 5 /images/graemlins/club.gif

Deranged bets, Villain raises, Deranged calls.

Turn: 9 /images/graemlins/club.gif

Deranged checks, Villain Bets, Deranged check-raises, Villain three-bets...

...and so where do I go from here...

I'm interested in what people feel about the turn check-raise as well. Flop I think is pretty uninteresting as against a passive leading middle pair seems quite standard to me.

I make one request for replies to this hand, to make things more interesting: If you advocate a particular line, please describe how the passiveness/aggressiveness would change that decision, and tell me what would be the marginal values of certain stats for villain that might change your view. (unrelated example: I would usually fold against a villain with agg. factor less than 1, but raise against a villain with agg. factor greater than 1.5) The numbers aren't that important specifically but I think I'm interested in how people use stats on decisions like this one.

[P.S. I think the answer for the given hand is pretty obvious, so don't flame me for a lame post... I'm interested in the "post-script" question.]

[/ QUOTE ]

I am calling down from here as well.

As for stats based decisions, I use them a lot.

The aggression factor is interesting to me, because it can cut both ways and is not as concrete as it would first appear.

A 3+ agg factor often is the product of excessive folding on the flop. While many 45-60VPIP types who sport Agg factors <1 are in fact very aggressive, but the number gets diluted because they end up calling so many flops.

One of the things I would look at on this hand is his aggression factor on the turn specifically (this is one of the reasons I like PAHUD). After 80 hands it is not going to be anywhere near accurate, but it could give you some insight on other players.

One of the eye opening things to me since I started using PAHUD, is the % of the time people fold to flop/turn/river.
Some of the patterns are very valuable in decision making.

For instance one common pattern is this (% folded to bet F/T): 35/65, with this type of player you know they are going to peel, so you know If you decide to semi-bluff, you are going to fire twice. Another one is 65/20, with this type of player I am then looking at their W$SD percentage, you know if they peeled the flop, they have something legitimate.

In the particular situation above I would mainly be interested in the % fold to flop bet, turn aggression, % folded to turn bet, and then W$SD%. For instance If a player peels a lot on the flop, does not fold many turns, has a decent AGG rating on the turn, with a low W$SD%, I might be inclined to cap.

Although, many people are reluctant to make Stat based decisions without some sort of "non-PT" read to back it up, I have found that if enough of these stats jibe, you can have a pretty solid read soley based on statistics over a relatively small sample of hands say 70-120.

I even make do with smaller samples sometimes.