Turn isolation raise

[WSOP Bound]

Reads after ~45 hands:

BB - Weak Tight (10%/0%/.25)
MP1 - Loose Passive (49%/3%/.32)
MP2 - Maniac ( 97%/42%/4.5)

I have seen MP2 play way too many hands way to fast. He raises preflop on many hands with garbage just because it wasn't raised. If it gets checked to him on later streets he will reliably bet it himselft no matter what he holds. Other two haven't done anything noteable.



PokerStars 0.25/0.50 Hold'em (10 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is Button with J/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 9/images/graemlins/heart.gif.
<font color="#666666">3 folds</font>, MP1 calls, MP2 calls, <font color="#666666">2 folds</font>, Hero calls, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, <font color="#CC3333">BB raises</font>, MP1 calls, MP2 calls, Hero calls.

Flop: (8.40 SB) J/images/graemlins/club.gif, T/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 7/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(4 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">BB bets</font>, MP1 calls, MP2 calls, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, BB calls, MP1 calls, MP2 calls.

Not so sure about this raise against a bet from a weak tight player. He is representing at least a J here and quite possibly an overpair. With his weak tendencies I wanted to
see how he reacted to a raise here. My line was to fold if he raised or led the turn. Any thoughts?

Turn: (8.20 BB) 5/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(4 players)</font>
BB checks, MP1 checks, <font color="#CC3333">MP2 bets</font>, Hero ???

My hand is not very strong here, but it beats a lot of things that MP1 will bet (essentially any two). I really didn't plan to bet or raise, but when BB bets I see the oppurtunity to put the rest of the field to two. I figure that BB will fold just about anything but the nuts and MP1 is likely to fold to two as well. Is there any validity to this line?

[Guruman]

I wouldn't play this hand with a maniac in the pot. High-card hands are far more valuable because you can go nutz immediately when you pair up. A middle suited one-gapper type hand can hit a pair and still be behind enough to lose money. Also, a perpetual raiser can often jack up your drawing odds on the flop.

[WSOP Bound]

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't play this hand with a maniac in the pot. High-card hands are far more valuable because you can go nutz immediately when you pair up. A middle suited one-gapper type hand can hit a pair and still be behind enough to lose money. Also, a perpetual raiser can often jack up your drawing odds on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a good point. I don't tend to play hands like J9s but for some reason felt okay with it on this table. I think that somehow that on idiot made it seem more profitable to play, but I think that I needed more limpers first to play it for flush/str8 value alone. Thanks for the post!

[SlantNGo]

The preflop limp is fine after two limpers, especially a loose-passive one, as long as your postflop play is good enough that you're not bleeding money as a result.

Good flop raise - there is a very good chance you have the best hand, and you have a gutshot and a backdoor flush draw as well.

Raise the turn. You have no idea how your hand holds up compared to the maniac, but your increase in equity heads up vs. the maniac is more than enough to justify the extra BB going in.

[@bsolute_luck]

yes, raise the turn.
1.value,
2. protect vulnerable hand in large pot
3. read on villain
4. and he may figure you for a flush draw and that 5 didn't help.

[toss]

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't play this hand with a maniac in the pot. High-card hands are far more valuable because you can go nutz immediately when you pair up. A middle suited one-gapper type hand can hit a pair and still be behind enough to lose money. Also, a perpetual raiser can often jack up your drawing odds on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Raise PF.

[WSOP Bound]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't play this hand with a maniac in the pot. High-card hands are far more valuable because you can go nutz immediately when you pair up. A middle suited one-gapper type hand can hit a pair and still be behind enough to lose money. Also, a perpetual raiser can often jack up your drawing odds on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Raise PF.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting....

There have been three responses regarding the preflop play. One says to muck it, the next that the PF limp was fine and the latest says raise. Now I'm confused /images/graemlins/confused.gif

I think I understand the justification for folding, basically the maniac is likely to make it much more expensive for me to draw

I chose to limp in this hand, but am not really sure why execpt that the starting hand chart said to /images/graemlins/blush.gif I just moved to Pokerstars from UB so I'm not really used to playing loose tables. Previously my stats were (12%/10%/2.9), so trying to expand my starting hand range and it's unfamiliar territory at this time.

I have no idea why I would raise unless it is to blow away the blinds and try to get in this alone with the LPP and Maniac

Is any of this correct?

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't play this hand with a maniac in the pot. High-card hands are far more valuable because you can go nutz immediately when you pair up. A middle suited one-gapper type hand can hit a pair and still be behind enough to lose money. Also, a perpetual raiser can often jack up your drawing odds on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Raise PF.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting....

There have been three responses regarding the preflop play. One says to muck it, the next that the PF limp was fine and the latest says raise. Now I'm confused /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because this hand can be played differently depending on the table conditions you have. A tight table without enough limpers is probably a fold (although I think limping is close). A passive table with enough limpers is a call. Here your hand seems to have equity against the range your opponents may be limping in with plus your read of the BB as well says this is a very possible raise.

[WSOP Bound]

[ QUOTE ]
That's because this hand can be played differently depending on the table conditions you have. A tight table without enough limpers is probably a fold (although I think limping is close). A passive table with enough limpers is a call. Here your hand seems to have equity against the range your opponents may be limping in with plus your read of the BB as well says this is a very possible raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the explanation!

[benkath1]

Text book hand protection raise.

[bozlax]

My inclination is to raise this preflop. You've got two horrible players limping in, and you'd like to be in the hand with them alone and out-play them postflop. Add to that, there's a good chance that on the flop you can get it HU with the maniac when MP1 checks, Maniac bets and you raise.

[ QUOTE ]
With his weak tendencies I wanted to see how he reacted to a raise here.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is awful. He did exactly what tight-passive (btw, his stats show tight-passive, not weak-tight; what read do you have to call him weak-tight? he looks like a classic rock to me) players always do when faced with aggression, he retreated but didn't go away. You now know absolutely nothing about what he's holding, you only know he's unlikely to go away. This is why I wanted to be rid of him preflop.

On the turn, if BB is holding AK/AQ (although it sure looks like he wouldn't have raised AQ preflop OOP), a raise might get rid of him, but since he's weak-tight he'll probably fold to 1, too. If he's holding an overpair, he's not going anywhere. In addition to top pair, you've still got a gutshot (not to the nuts) but your BDFD is gone.

Call the turn, check/fold the river UI if BB is still around.

[bozlax]

Wow. You have an OOP tight-passive preflop raiser, putting you significantly behind nearly his entire hand range (the only thing you're ahead of is AK, and I doubt he's betting AK out on that flop even if it's /images/graemlins/club.gifs). So, I think 1 &amp; 2 are probably shot, and what the weak players think of your hand (3 &amp; 4) are the least of your problems.

[bozlax]

Give me what you think BB's hand range is, and tell me what raising the turn is going to protect you from.

[aces_dad]

When I first read this post I thought it was a great chance to get BB to fold a better hand than we have, and get isolated against a maniac we likely beat.

Now I'm looking at the stats and see BB has just raised his first hand in 45 (!) OOP no less which makes me think overpair more than UI overs and despite the read as weak-tight, am concerned he's really weak-passive and will just call down with the best hand here. So now I'm not so sure he'll really fold the best hand for 2 cold here, that he wouldn't do for one anyway.

OP, do you have more info regarding the weak-tight read? Any fold or call down hands of interest on BB?

[shermn27]

I raise.

[johnc]

Preflop: J9s is a pretty marginal hand to play knowing you'll get raised by the maniac. I'm playing this hand cheap on weak/passive tables.

[DeathDonkey]

Yay for mass confusion over a preflop play. The limp is best, you have the button and a good multiway hand. You don't want to raise those particular opponents as LPPs and maniacs aren't going anywhere and you will almost always have to show down the best hand. Limp is right. I would say limp &gt; raise &gt; fold.

On the turn its an easy raise for value / maybe hand protection. You have already said what the maniac does when checked to in this position so I am assuming you usually have him beat. If you can get the rocky BB to fold an overpair that would be awesome, it probably won't happen, but if he has AK you wouldn't mind him folding either in a pot of this size. Also you have alot of outs against AA for example so even that isn't that bad. If the BB calls two I would check behind on the river unimproved.

-DeathDonkey

[WSOP Bound]

[ QUOTE ]
If the BB calls two I would check behind on the river unimproved.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was playing this turn raise as a single shot to try and isolate the maniac. Bottom line is if BB coldcalls this (or worse yet pulls a c/r) I'm getting out of this hand unless I can see a free showdown or catch a J or 8 on the river.

[WSOP Bound]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With his weak tendencies I wanted to see how he reacted to a raise here.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is awful. He did exactly what tight-passive (btw, his stats show tight-passive, not weak-tight; what read do you have to call him weak-tight? he looks like a classic rock to me) players always do when faced with aggression, he retreated but didn't go away.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tend to agree that my raise probably didn't serve the purpose that I intended. He's not folding much of anything here and is not likely to three bet anything short of the nuts. Even his check on the turn isn't a sign of weakness, my flop raise probably just shut him down. If I didn't have the maniac here who I could have predicted would bet the turn I'd like the flop raise much better since I'm almost certain to shut down BB and MP1 allowing me to get a free look at the river.

[WSOP Bound]

[ QUOTE ]
Preflop: J9s is a pretty marginal hand to play knowing you'll get raised by the maniac. I'm playing this hand cheap on weak/passive tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

The maniac is MP1 and his already limped so I don't fear a raise from him. If he was still to act behind me than I agree that I should lay it down because I don't really want to pay two to see the flop with J9s. With only the blinds left to act behind me and one of them being uber-tight I didn't expect this to get raised.

[WSOP Bound]

[ QUOTE ]
what read do you have to call him weak-tight?

[/ QUOTE ]

He went to showdown once in 45 hands when his K3 checked from the BB caught the incredible flop of KK3. I should have included this in my OP, but all I had in my notes as I played this hand was "weak tight". I had to go back to my PT database and try to figure out why I may have formed that opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
The preflop limp is fine after two limpers, especially a loose-passive one, as long as your postflop play is good enough that you're not bleeding money as a result.

Good flop raise - there is a very good chance you have the best hand, and you have a gutshot and a backdoor flush draw as well.

Raise the turn. You have no idea how your hand holds up compared to the maniac, but your increase in equity heads up vs. the maniac is more than enough to justify the extra BB going in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the flop raise, I think you showed your dominance and there is a great chance this flop didn't hit anyone else. I would like to have seen that raise on the turn for the same reasons, you would weed out the rest except the maniac, who obviously plays eraticly, so their is a good chance he is on a long shot draw or even calling what he thinks is a bluff, but still he holds nothing (my favorite style of player.)

[bozlax]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what read do you have to call him weak-tight?

[/ QUOTE ]

He went to showdown once in 45 hands when his K3 checked from the BB caught the incredible flop of KK3. I should have included this in my OP, but all I had in my notes as I played this hand was "weak tight". I had to go back to my PT database and try to figure out why I may have formed that opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

All I get from that is that he's, in fact, a rock. I'd like to have seen him play aggro preflop and flop and then fold the turn or river to aggression before I label him weak.