PP 5-10: Did my opponent outplay me?

[Clarkmeister]

PP 5-10. I've played relatively straightforward and haven't gotten out of line in a pretty aggressive game.

I'm UTG+2 and open raise. I'll post my cards in a separate post. The button coldcalls with AsKc. The BB also calls. 3 to the flop.

Flop: Jh 4s 6d. BB checks, I bet, button calls, BB folds.

Turn: Jc I bet, button calls.

River: Qc I bet, button calls.

Thoughts on button's play given my range of hands and play on postflop streets?

[elysium]

hi clark,
button played terribly. he never did anything but lay there like a wet rag. quads. you hit quads.

[JTG51]

I hate the button's play. The only remotely reasonable raising hand that he beats is KTs. The tone of your post sounds like you didn't win, so I assume you also had AK.

I imagine his thought process went something like:

Preflop - "Oh, I've got AK, he must have AQ, I'll just call though."
Flop - "I can still beat AQ, better just call though, just to be safe."
Turn - "I can't believe he's still bluffing with his AQ."
River - "He must have AK, we're going to chop so I'll just call."

So no, I don't think you got outplayed.

[Rich P.]

He did not outplay you. He definately should have raised pre-flop if he was going to play at all (my philosophy). He had position on you and a good hand.

Afterwards, he just called you down hoping you didn't have a pair. This is reasonable, because he could not know for sure; but to out play you he would have had to raise. A raise on the flop would have defined your hand some, perhaps gotten him a free turn card, and maybe even a free show down, at which point he probably should bluff rather than show down.

Anybody agree? Why do you even ask whether you were outplayed?

[JTG51]

...he just called you down hoping you didn't have a pair. This is reasonable...

It is? Clarkmeister said he had "played relatively straightforward and haven't gotten out of line". Name some hands that a player of that description would raise with from Clarkmeisters position that don't have at least a pair on a QJJ64 board. Heck, name one other than AK.

[samdash]

Yeah that's absolutely right. The only possible hand I can think of that clark might have is ATs and I'm not sure if that's in his normal UTG raising arsenal or not. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[Bob T.]

I don't think he outplayed you, I think that calling four times in the hand means that you can never claim to have outplayed anyone. I think it is not likely that he won. If he did win, you had probably had AT, KT, or T9, or this is the hand you finally did get out of line with. It seems that every other hand you could have is going to beat him.

[Rich P.]

I didn't say his play was good. I think there's a difference between reasonable and good.

By reasonable, I mean he read his opponent to have either a pair or not. Now half the time he's probably right and the other half the time he wrong. This means by just calling he increases his EV from negative to break even minus the rake or even better considering the money in the pot.

By good, I mean he reads his opponent for overcards and then acts on his read by raising.

I am, of course, assuming he called based on the reasons described by another poster's reply in this tread, namely that he put his opponent on possibly having AQ. The fact that our hero had not gotten out of line does not necessarily mean that his play is so predictable that he would not have tried to bluff at this pot since his only other option would be to check-fold.

Of course, I do agree that our hero probably would not have bet his hand down this way without a pair. On the other hand, I see it all the time. Perhaps it's more likely our hero has a pair considering his action, but this does not mean that his opponent's play was unreasonable.

By reasonable, I mean reasoned: the opponent considered what his opponent might have and decided how to play based on the potential holdings he thought our hero might have. It may not have a positive EV, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't reasonable to put our hero on a hand like AK or AQ.

All Comments Appreciated.

[PokerPrince]

He played it like a callmonkey. I'm not sure if this opponent could outplay a jar of pickles.

PokerPrince

[rharless]

Maybe, he played so weakly, because you scared the buhgeesus out of him /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif

Quite honestly, I am stumped as to why you'd even ask if he outplayed you. I only see his play as being passably good if (1) you were playing out of line in that session, which you said you weren't or (2) by some incredible stretch of the imagination, you chose this hand to withdraw some invested "table image dollars" AND he was able to put you on doing that for this particular hand. This read seems next to impossible in an online game.

The only hand I can figure that you raised here that would lose is the Cali monster (ATs). The vast majority of the hands that you'd raise here will win outright or chop, unless you have suddenly started falling in love with suited connectors like T9s.

[marbles]

Not sure why everyone is riding this guy so hard... Other than the coldcall preflop and the river call, his play was textbook, particularly against an aggressive player.

IMO, the hand comes down to the river bet. Either you're betting a monster for value (AA-JJ, QJ, AJ), or you're trying to run him off of his medium pocket pair. If it's the latter, you certainly can't beat AK (i.e. you have ATs, KTs, T9s). There are a lot of hands that beat AK that you wouldn't necessarily bet on the river (e.g. 88-TT, AQ, KQ), so perhaps he's thrown those out.

Iff he's thought it through to this degree, his call is justifiable. OTOH, he may just be a doofus that fell ass-backwards into a decent pot.

[Clarkmeister]

"Did my opponent outplay me?"

I ask this because my opponent almost certainly thought that he did.

PP games are considerably overaggressive. As such, there are some players who have correctly adjusted their game by playing somewhat weak tight. This can actually be a pretty profitable strategy against a great many PP players. But those players don't seem to take into account their individual opposition. In one respect he is typical also. Namely that no one on PP is folding an ace headsup. Value betting is critical in these games IMO for this very reason. What worse hand can call? Ace high, that's what.

Taken individually, I don't think that any of his decisions are that bad, except the river. As an overall gameplan its atrocious because generally he's only facing a bet when beat.

Preflop, he should generally 3-bet. But with the button, calling is OK, or at least it isn't awful, especially when most PP players will take that as being weak. Its not a terrible use of position combined with playing against typical opponents. I'd still 3-bet though because I like being up against 3 outers and don't particularly care if they know I'm strong. Plus, I'd rather get the BB out. But calling is OK, if suboptimal.

On the flop, his smoothcall is also OK. Its unlikely the BB can overcall on that particular board without a better hand, so raising isn't needed, but its still a better idea than calling.

On the turn, he could still be ahead of most PP players. So he decides to go into his default weak tight calldown mode. In a live game, he should consider raising here if he thinks he might be in the lead since he could also get a better hand to fold. Online he can't possibly get most players to get a better hand to fold so now he's stuck calling here, too.

On the river, he calls, because...well...he doesn't know what else to do. His passive play on every street was dictated by his passive play on the prior streets. A postflop version of Tommy's "limping begets limping" concept.

My range of hands there is something like AJo, ATs, QJs, KQo, 77. So he is basically toast once the queen comes, and was likely drawing to 6 outs at best on the flop most of the time. But he didn't change his gameplan for this hand to take into account that he was against a tighter more reasonable player and stuck with his "anti-maniac" strategy of calling down. Poker is a game of adjustments, even from hand to hand. Play the player, right?

Anyways, I flip over AhQh and take it down.

And I guarantee you, he thinks he outplayed me.

[Clarkmeister]

Good post, and very funny considering my holding on this one, LOL. The funny thing is that this hand will reinforce his thinking. Next time he'll be paying off my 88, and the time after that my AJ. He'll never make the proper adjustment against me because he sees one "bad beat" and that simply reinfocrces his thinking that everyone he plays against is a typical PP nutcase. Meanwhile, I now know his thinking and will value bet him into the poorhouse.

[bernie]

i dont see where he would want to give you an opportunity to fold with a 3 out draw. unless hed make a move on the flop to bet the button out and maybe go for a free card on the turn.

you were betting against the FTOP werent ya? seems he was in a good spot. what would you have done if he raised the turn on you? would you have called? if so, then you described yourself in the line "Namely that no one on PP is folding an ace headsup. Value betting is critical in these games IMO for this very reason. What worse hand can call? Ace high, that's what." therefore if you folded, when youd have played to the river if he only calls, then he played it fine.

now if you missed the river are you done betting? checking and folding 'your' A high? maybe. but if you call a bet here, then he gains also.

the only place id see where i may have played it differently against you in this hand is the flop. if you were a different type of player, other options would be considered. but this also depends on how your opponent sees you. i also wouldve reraised preflop, but since only 3 see the flop, the only thing lost is extra info on your hand. which im guessing you may have checked the flop in this situation.

so in a certain way, yes, he did out play you. you gave up alot on every street except the river. that said, the way he played it, doesnt qualify as a bad beat for him.

but remember, your question was whether he outplayed you. not the table or just his hand in general. this question makes the other player in the hand almost insignificant

b

[Clarkmeister]

Rain does suck. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

FTOP is meaningless in this spot because against my entire range of hands he is getting his brains beat in. Replay this hand 100,000 times giving him AK and me random distribution within my range of hands and he gets destroyed with this flop and this action. Did he outplay me if I had AJ? TT? 77? AK? AA? Of course not. These headsup situations aren't about "this hand".

"the only place id see where i may have played it differently against you in this hand is the flop"

That's a good way to burn chips my friend. One of the first things I learned was how to counter the "I don't know what the hell he's doing so I'll call him down every time" strategy that people became fond of using against me. /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif

[MarkD]

So, optimally the best way to play the hand against you would have been to reraise you preflop. Would you cap it? I assume no.

Then you check the flop, and he bets, and you fold and we redeal? Or...?

I would have reraised you preflop, bet the flop and if you check raised me on the flop I'd take off one card on the turn. If I improved I'd call you down, if I didn't I would fold. How bad is that? If I reraise you preflop, bet the flop and you smooth call, then I likely check the turn and call the river. I'm not sure how good of strategy this is though.

[Clarkmeister]

The best way to play it against me is likely a mix of plays. Just as I wouldn't bet my unimproved AQ on the turn here anywhere near 100% of the time, I certainly wouldn't recommend raising me on the flop, etc. 100% of the time.

A good default line of play would be to 3-bet preflop. Assuming my image of you is reasonable, this forces me to give you credit for a serious hand and should have the desired effect of making all my future actions more meaningful. (edited addition: (i.e. if I checkraise you on a ragged flop you are basically toast))

Generally if I thought you were a solid player I'd check-fold on this flop against a preflop 3 bettor with AQ or any other unimproved overcards other than AK.

[samdash]

If the weak player 3 bet preflop Clark would have most likely 4 bet causing the hand to play out in a similar manner. I really hate those "crawl into a turtle shell and call" weenies you run into on pp. I realize they're easy to beat but they just make me mad for some reason.

[Clarkmeister]

I never 4 bet preflop in this spot unless I thought my opponent was a very loose 3-bettor.

Those "call-down weenies" have stumbled upon a good strategy to use against many PP players.

[Vehn]

Actually this style of play is "passive-tenacious", definitely not weak-tight. Abdul mentions it in his short handed essay. It can be very effective against the standard "pound pound pound" tactics that tight-aggressive use and 2+2ers recommend - especially with position and especially against people who play poorly on the river, which in my opinion is where many "good" players have holes in their game (don't value bet enough and don't bluff enough). Hell, he got Clark to put in 1.5 big bets in a small pot with only 3 outs. The problem with it of course is that you need to have excellent hand reading skills, something that I don't think really exists online without an enormous effort in terms of note taking and observation. In this case the Q on the river in this hand is really the death card for this player and the river call here is ridiculous.

Here's two examples of this play from a recent $15/$30 session that may or may not illustrate what I'm saying.

#1) I open raise in mid position with pocket 7s. An OK player on the button 3-bets me, and we're heads up. The flop is ten-rag-rag, I checkraise him and he calls. The turn is a blank, I bet and he calls. The river is a Q, I bet, he calls, and angrily mucks AKs. When the Q comes many players would not bet a ten so he figures my bet could be a bluff and pays off.

#2) I raise UTG with black tens. A good player in mid position 3-bets me and we're heads up. The flop is Q rag rag, I check, he bets, and I call. The turn is a blank, I check, he bets, and I call. The river is a J, I bet out, and he thinks for a minute and folds. If I'm more aggressive on a previous street (out of position) I lose way more when I'm behind and make less when I'm ahead, and the pot is not so big that I want to try and win it immediately.

[davidross]

Your comments on the style of the PP 5/10 game intrigue me. It's what I have played exclusively for the month of March and I have had a lot of success(+3,000), but it's not quite long enough to know if it's my play or just good cards. I fit the profile you described. I believe I play with an appropriate amount of aggression early in the hand, but some of these guys are crazy aggressive. I just revert to call mode when faced with some of them. It usually works.
Being player specific requires more time and effort to put each player into a profile, but it is invaluable (Notes really help because my memory is faulty). Do you play as Clarkmeister? I'm just wondering why I haven't seen you online.

[Lee Jones]

I'd type "calling station" next to his name. And then never bluff him but value bet like crazy (as you suggested).

From his standpoint, I'd three-bet you. Though it would depend if I'd been taking good notes about you. If I had you properly pegged, I'd still three-bet you, but I might actually give it up on the flop (or the turn at the latest).

Regards, Lee

[MarkD]

Yah, I can't imagine a 100% infallable way to play the hand against a solid opponent (not you specifically, but any fairly solid opponent in your position). What I listed was the best "default" play I could think of that would give the AK the best chance of winning the pot / losing the least.

Anyways, I play overcards horribly - it's my biggest leak IMO, that and being checkraised / raised on the turn and paying off too often. Trying to find a balance in my game atm on those two situations. (Sorry to get off topic.)

[Clarkmeister]

His strategy isn't going to work against someone with a balanced approach. It will work against a large number of PP hyperaggressives.

To employ a simplistic strategy such as "call down no matter what" or "fold when that guy bets" the particular opponent must be playing way above or below optimal bluffing frequency. Otherwise you get buried. It can work, its just not going to work long term against someone with balance, as I think your examples illustrate.

[JTG51]

The only possible hand I can think of that clark might have is ATs...

I'm not sure why I completely ingored ATs, but I think my point still stands.

[JTG51]

Meanwhile, I now know his thinking and will value bet him into the poorhouse.

LOL, I like that line. I'm going to have to start using it.

I wonder about these guys that routinely call people down with A high. Do they eventually adjust, or do they really go all the way to the poorhouse. Does that one 8 BB pot they win every week make them forget about the 15 times they lost 3 or 4 BBs making the same play?

I think a lot of them are so afraid of being bluffed and feel like they played so well when they win one that they never adjust.

[eMarkM]

No, he doesn't play as Clarkmeister. I've asked before. He's said in the past he would have to stop posting if he revealed his PP handle. Too many would take their shots, etc. Probably true given his prolific and highly regarded posts. Guess you'll have to figure which one is him by his style of play.

[Rich P.]

So he called on the river for the size of the pot, not a big mistake. His big mistake was his gutless play. Either raise or fold, especially with this type of hand. That's my philosophy.

[Rich P.]

I don't see how you could have called a turn bet after a preflop raise and a flop bet. You would have had to fold, and given your odds at that point of 13 to 1 (3 cards out of 42 unknown cards) a fold is correct.

It would have taken a very good read for you to play your hand hyper-agressive to cause him to fold. Then, as you say, if our opponent has reverted to a defensive check and call mode, your bets only help him except on the river.

You were bluffing into a calling station -- not a good strategy. While he didn't outplay you, you certainly overplayed your hand and got lucky on the river.

[AceHigh]

I really liked this piece of analysis, vehn_. Stay away for the PP 2/4 games, ok? LOL /forums/images/icons/cool.gif

[AceHigh]

"Do they eventually adjust?"

If there good players they do. I'm not sure this player isn't a good player. In games where most players are decent, it's important to occasionally play a hand differently.

Would we be viewing the hand differently if the last card was an Ace?

[bernie]

i used a little hidsight liberty with my answer /forums/images/icons/grin.gif figured youd notice that. oh well...

""the only place id see where i may have played it differently against you in this hand is the flop"

That's a good way to burn chips my friend. One of the first things I learned was how to counter the "I don't know what the hell he's doing so I'll call him down every time" strategy that people became fond of using against me."

uh...i didnt exactly say i agreed with his calling down. unless he knew you had a worse hand than him and thought you may fold if he made a move. i believe i mentioned that. also, if you notice, i said id raise the flop on you. of course id likely have raised preflop also. you dont burn chips that way my friend. you gain info.

i took a FTOP stance in a hindsight frame since the cards were face up at the end. and in the end, with that reference, he outplayed you. except the river.

obviously youve seen me post enough to know i dont exactly agree with the way he played the hand. but again, that wasnt the question. was it?

sunshine today! (drop!) /forums/images/icons/mad.gif well, for a little while anyway

have a good un

b

[Vehn]

I actually kinda miss internet poker but I don't know why. I certainely play enough B&M to keep me entertained. I just need a new hobby I think, I actually grabbed one of the free $25 for 2+2 signups at 24hr poker that was offered on the internet forum, spent a couple hours working it up to $100 playing .5/1 PLHE, then lost it all in 1 hand of 1/2 PLO /forums/images/icons/shocked.gif I was somehow less than satisfied /forums/images/icons/frown.gif

Oh well.. I guess this is kinda the natural evolution after moving from playing casually for low/lid stakes to playing semi pro in the mid limit for real money. Poker really is a 2nd job to me now and its kinda lost its "magic" I guess. I'm so bored I went and bought what is quite possibly the worst RPG I've ever played, Xenosaga for the PS2. Anyways enough rambling.