JJ big blind hand 15-30

[mike l.]

cutoff, a player who can be very loose and very aggressive and can also play tight/semi-normal openraises in the cutoff, folded to me and i 3 bet w/ JJ. he calls.

the flop is Q93. i bet, he calls.

the turn is an 8. i check, he bets, i checkraise, he calls.

the river is a 7. i check w/ the intention of checkraising again. he says angrily "what youre gonna try and checkraise me again?" and pauses. i say "did you check?" and he says "im thinking about it."

comments? result later.

[Ulysses]

I like it 'til the river. Then I'd bet. In second place I'd check-call if I think I will induce a bluff. But what pays off a check-raise? AK, maybe. A9, TT. What else? Unless you think he's the kind of player that is convinced you're making a move w/ AK and must call you down w/ 55, I think betting the river is better here. I don't want him to check behind w/ a hand like AK. And I don't want to face a 3-bet on the river, which a very aggressive player is capable of w/ TT.

[mike l.]

"Unless you think he's the kind of player that is convinced you're making a move"

yeah he thinks that of me. i shouldve mentioned that. we have fairly similar styles, and that includes both of us being capable of playing perfectly sane boring poker for hours on end sitting side by side, yet still neither of us trusts one another.

my default play is to bet here (and bet blind when im really paying attention) so i was going for the river checkraise as a kind of vary my play move. i can think of a lot of hands he wouldve paid me off with seeing how he's seen me try countless hopeless checkraise bluffs on both the turn and river.

[elysium]

hi mike,
well,...whew, i don't like check-raising again here. he will only call, not fold.

usually you want some possibility of getting a better hand to fold when you check-raise. when that's impossible, you then want to put more money in the pot.

after check-raising the first time, even if the last thing he expects is to be checked raised again, your opponent is satisfied for the time being with the trouble he's gotten into the last time you checked and he bet. no, he really doesn't think you'll check-raise not because he expects you to raise when he bets, but rather because he really will not bet if you check. so you're thinking,"hey cool. he is open for a check-raise because he doesn't expect me to raise his bet if i check and he bets". but that's not quite correct. he doesn't expect to be check raised because he really will not bet if you check. only really this time. that is why he doesn't expect to be check raised.

let's see what kind of a mess you got yourself into this time. well, obviously you think you're going to check-raise him, and he's angry because you don't think that he will check. in other words, he's not angry that you think he will bet, he's angry that you think he won't check. and yes, it's virtually the same thing here. but he's just angry. eh, he'll figure it out. he figure out why he angry. let's see, anything else?

yea mike, you'll never get another nickle out of this one in this hand. just remember, when in order for an event at the table to happen requires an action by your opponent, and he thinks that the event won't happen; it's because he really isn't taking the action required in order for the event to happen, not because he doesn't think that if he takes the action the event won't happen. and we ran into a little of that today. well good post, and keep pre-planning.

[sucka]

Oh my F%$* God - I think this is the funniest thing I have ever read in print. Wait a second...did he steal this out of one of Mason's "Poker Essay's" books? /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

just remember, when in order for an event at the table to happen requires an action by your opponent, and he thinks that the event won't happen; it's because he really isn't taking the action required in order for the event to happen, not because he doesn't think that if he takes the action the event won't happen. and we ran into a little of that today

[mike l.]

you paint a very lucid picture for me, but let me respond to a couple points to ensure i have understood them correctly:

"no, he really doesn't think you'll check-raise not because he expects you to raise when he bets, but rather because he really will not bet if you check."

so are you not saying he doesnt not think i wont checkraise because rather he wont not not bet when i dont really not check? just want to make sure i got that correct because it's clearly an important point.

"only really this time."

exactly. now i hear ya.

"he's angry because you don't think that he will check. in other words, he's not angry that you think he will bet, he's angry that you think he won't check. and yes, it's virtually the same thing here."

thanks for clearing that up. i had been mistaken in thinking that "not checking" and "betting" were in fact the same thing, but now that youve clarified it i can see that, in this case, it's merely "*virtually* the same thing here." very important point of clarification, i appreciate your hard work friend.

"he figure out why he angry."

indeed he angry and indeed he figure.

"let's see, anything else?"

oh please god let there be more.

"just remember, when in order for an event at the table to happen requires an action by your opponent, and he thinks that the event won't happen; it's because he really isn't taking the action required in order for the event to happen, not because he doesn't think that if he takes the action the event won't happen."

oh now i get it! so if he doesnt not think that the event wont not happen; it's really not because he wont not take that action, but rather because he doesnt not think i dont think he isnt taking that action.

"well good post, and keep pre-planning."

aye aye captain!

[sucka]

yup!

It's the classic, "he thinks the event won't happen but only because he's not taking the action for the event to happen in the first place" thing.

Jeez Mike, get with it. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

[mike l.]

he checked and my hand was good. i normally of course bet after checkraising the turn, does anyone see any value to going for the double checkraise sometimes just to keep those value bettors paying the max?

[Rick Nebiolo]

Mike,

I can't remember the hand details but years ago I was checkraised by the same guy on the flop, turn and river and lost the hand and felt like a total idiot. That's probably enough of a reason to try the double or triple checkraise once in a while ;-).

~ Rick

[Ulysses]

does anyone see any value to going for the double checkraise sometimes just to keep those value bettors paying the max?

No, not really. When you take into account the times the value-bettor doesn't call your check-raise and the times he checks behind, I suspect you're better off just betting.

However, based on your "history" with this player as you described earlier, I don't think it was a terrible attempt here.

I was so focused on just reading posts by Elysium that I missed your initial response to me, which included what I think was one of the funnier statements around here in a good while:

i can think of a lot of hands he wouldve paid me off with seeing how he's seen me try countless hopeless checkraise bluffs on both the turn and river.