An interesting 80-160 hand

[J.A.Sucker]

This was a very interesting hand that I witnessed in the 80-160 game at Bay 101 tonight. I had just gotten there, but judging by the cast of characters, it was clear this game was unhinged.

It's 10 handed and folded to Degenerate Gambler, who limps in MP. On his left is Peter, who is a very tricky, thinking player. Many people think Peter is very live, and he does play too many hands, but he is one of the best card readers that I've ever seen, and will apply lots of pressure on all streets. He changes gears with the best of them, and it's not always pedal to the metal. Anyway, he limps, too. The button (terrible) limps. The SB (bad local high limit player) completes. The BB is Henry, a thinking prop. He raises with AcAd.

DG now springs to life. He's been losing his a$$ and has been going all in every hand, but he tripled up recently and now has some chips. He 3 bets. Peter calls. Button calls. SB folds. Henry caps it. DG, Peter, and Button all call. 4 players see the flop.

Flop: 8h 6h 3h. Henry bets out. DG raises. Peter 3 bets. Button folds. Henry looks sick and calls. DG calls.

Turn: Tc. Henry checks. DG springs to life again and bets. Peter raises. Henry goes into the tank for about 45 seconds and finally calls. DG calls, leaving him with 7 chips left.

River: 2c. Henry checks, DG goes all-in for his last 7 chips. Due to the rules at Bay 101, Peter's options are to call, fold, or complete for 1 more chip. He mucks. Henry calls.

Comments on all streets welcome. How would you have played it if you were Henry? How about if you were Peter? What did DG have?

Peter played his hand excellently as Henry's hand was relatively obvious, and he had a good shot at making Henry fold it on the turn with his decent pair and flush draw, DG won the pot with random two pair (or maybe flush), and I don't mind the way Henry played it.

[James282]

Peter played it great. Looks like AhTx or something similar. He knows Henry has an overpair, and puts him to the test on the turn since he knows Henry doesn't have the Ah, he might fold aces with no heart or feel shitty about calling with KhKx. On the river, he's [censored]. Henry made the tough decision on the turn, and since he can't raise more than one chip because of some stupid rule, he knows Henry is going nowhere, and folds the worst hand. Henry played it great also because he knew Peter was capable of making this excellent play at the turn and called it down. His only mistake was thinking for so long, which opened him up for more plays at him.

2 good postflop players playing well in a big pot.
-James

[mike l.]

dg has A8 with the Ah. peter has Kh9x. henry shouldve bet-3 bet the turn and it's not close. being scared against wild super laggy players with an overpair is bad limit hold em.

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
dg has A8 with the Ah. peter has Kh9x. henry shouldve 3 bet the turn and it's not close.

[/ QUOTE ]

After all that hesitation? Do you then call a 4 bet because you exposed so much weakness? Because I do agree that auto-threebetting would have been a stellar play in this enormous pot.
-James

[mike l.]

"After all that hesitation? Do you then call a 4 bet because you exposed so much weakness? Because I do agree that auto-threebetting would have been a stellar play in this enormous pot."

i wouldnt have hesitated. i wouldve had my chips ready to jam the flop and the turn. if someone 4 bets the turn i expect to likely be beat but i call down, the pot is silly huge and they play cuckoo. this is limit hold em, i have pocket aces, and they are known to be out of control. if they flopped a flush theyre going to win a sick pot because im not going anywhere and with a player dead set on going all in and a tricky dicky as my only competition im loving every time i get in this situation.

[flawless_victory]

[ QUOTE ]
2 good postflop players playing well in a big pot.
-James

[/ QUOTE ]you like the BB play here??
MR.callcallcallcallcall...

[Ray Zee]

i agree with mike l. knowing henry i also know he folds up his speed when pressed. but he plays very well usually. this time he needed to jam back on third and bet out on the river. not only because he has the best hand but DG is going to be allin anyway so why not get it in now and put peter to the test and hope he folds a hand that he should call with, or just charge him some more for being a cuttie.

[James282]

Yes, I think BB played it fine. As Ray pointed out, DG is seeing a showdown here - we're not charging him anymore. The only person who can give us more money is Peter, who when we beat will likely give us one more bet(on the turn) but when we are behind will almost always charge us 2 additional bets. I am not sure if we are ahead of Peter or behind - depends on his trickiness and how I'd feel while I was at the table. The more I think about it, the more it seems that calling and reraising are similar in expectation - but that reraising is a marginally better play.
-James

[mike l.]

"reraising is a marginally better play."

i think reraising is significantly better because it spells out loud and clear "do NOT fuuck with me!", very important to state repeatedly with your chips in a game like this.

[J.A.Sucker]

What do you think of the check on the turn? Can you count on the action going the way it did? How would you feel if DG checks and Peter does, too? What about the flop?

[mike l.]

"What do you think of the check on the turn?"

it's a pretty sure thing that almost all in player will bet. so time to set up a nice checkraise. at the same time it's very likely all in crazy will raise. if im beat i want a little side pot if at all possible. it's close between betting here so you can 3 bet or check(re)raising. but id be interested to hear if you think otherwise.

"How would you feel if DG checks and Peter does, too?"

angry but surprised.

"What about the flop?"

is it a 5 bet cap up there or just 4 like here? i think capping and leading the turn is fine. i think calling looking sick and inducing action is fine too. i think not 3 betting the turn is leaving bets on the table.

[J.A.Sucker]

4 bet cap. I will post my thoughts tomorrow. One thing I can tell you is that I was very surprised that DG bet out the turn. Does that influence your thinking?

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
"reraising is a marginally better play."

i think reraising is significantly better because it spells out loud and clear "do NOT fuuck with me!", very important to state repeatedly with your chips in a game like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't you want people [censored] with you? I've played in some very tough games at some decently high limits, and I've never particularly minded players "[censored]" with me - that seems more like an ego thing than an EV thing IMO.
-James

[Klepton]

this is a really good thread.

DG has flush or 97, Peter has AhT or Ah8

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
"What do you think of the check on the turn?"

it's a pretty sure thing that almost all in player will bet. so time to set up a nice checkraise. at the same time it's very likely all in crazy will raise. if im beat i want a little side pot if at all possible. it's close between betting here so you can 3 bet or check(re)raising. but id be interested to hear if you think otherwise.

"How would you feel if DG checks and Peter does, too?"

angry but surprised.

"What about the flop?"

is it a 5 bet cap up there or just 4 like here? i think capping and leading the turn is fine. i think calling looking sick and inducing action is fine too. i think not 3 betting the turn is leaving bets on the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I'm having trouble seeing which bets you are leaving on the table. You are THAT certain that we are ahead of the major villain that you want to put in 1-2 more bets in on this hand to find out? Because forget about DG. His money is there - consider this hand HU. Consider also that even if we are ahead, we aren't winning a full bet from our opponent when we 3 bet. We're getting like .65-.75 of a bet depending on where he is. We could also be losing 1-2 full bets if he reraises us with a hand we are drawing dead or slim against(unlikely he has such a hand, but still possible). The only way we are getting a side pot, it seems, it when we are behind. The more I think about it, the more I think that a simple cold call is better.
-James

[mike l.]

"One thing I can tell you is that I was very surprised that DG bet out the turn. Does that influence your thinking?"

makes me think dg is more likely to have a flush or set or made hand that beats AA. makes me wish i had bet the turn and let him raise so i could 3 bet get dg all in and win a bet from lag on a draw.

[mike l.]

"I've never particularly minded players "[censored]" with me - that seems more like an ego thing than an EV thing IMO.?"

no. you dont want to be put to the test every time the board gets scary or you have AK and missed or whatever. you dont want to just have to always call down by default. you want your opponents to play more predictably than they should because they are afraid of you. you want to be able to read their hands and occasionally steal a pot from them or get them to at least fold a hand they should call with when youre looking to clean up outs multiway. nothing to do with ego.

[James282]

Fair enough, but how about my comments about why calling the turn is better in this particular hand?
-James

[mike l.]

"how about my comments about why calling the turn is better in this particular hand?"

all my other posts (too many at this point) explain why i think reraising the turn is best. i think ja sucker will post something tomorrow explaining what im missing about the situation.

[chuddo]

TT for DG?

[Mikey]

look I understand Peter reads hands very well and if he did why is he trying to make Henry lay down the overpair.

What Peter has is a 9T 89 type hand.

I agree with mike l. you have to punish someone like Peter who tries to be fun and raises all the time and is loose agressive.

[ QUOTE ]
"i think calling looking sick and inducing action is fine too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think Henry's sick look was an act? He knows at that point, he's bargaining for a tough hand in which he will have to get more involved than expected.

Peter does NOT have AhTx as he would have raised the DG's limp pre-flop with that holding...Ah8x would be more likely. Peter's flop raise is good, but turn play is negligable. He may be able to move Henry off of a big pair, but he is ignoring the fact that DG may very well have an overpair with a heart or even KhTx, QhTx or JhTx.

Henry is in a tough spot on the turn, but calling is a good play and 3 betting may be even better. We all know that Peter didn't have a hand that beat AA because he folded on the river. Henry didn't know that at the time and all of you need to keep that in mind. If Henry was even entertaining the thought of folding for two bets on the turn (which he knew was a good possibility with a DG and tricky player behind him), then he should have led out to avoid that situation.

DG sprung up on the turn for one of two reasons. Either he hit a ten with his big heart, or (more likely) he has JJ, QQ, KK and is more relieved that Henry didn't bet. I don't think DG could have a pat hand here for the simple fact that he didn't put his last 7 chips in on the turn.

[elindauer]

I think I play this hand just like this, although I obviously don't raise the turn every time with the bare A of hearts, I like the idea of pushing out the overpair and getting it heads up with DG when, hell, my ace high might even be good.

I'd have agonized just like Henry, concerned that Peter had flopped a set, but aware that he could have the ace of hearts and decided to use DG's turn bet to lever me out. Tough spot, but I think I call too.

All around, well played, especially if DG has, say, KK no hearts. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

-Eric


my 2 cents.
Eric

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
dg has A8 with the Ah. peter has Kh9x. henry shouldve bet-3 bet the turn and it's not close. being scared against wild super laggy players with an overpair is bad limit hold em.


[/ QUOTE ]

Reading Peter for Kh9 seems absurd. I don't know him, but the description of a player who, yeah, plays a little loose but is pretty good is not consistent with someone who calls 2 cold preflop with K9.

I think Peter has AhJ.

-Eric

[esspo]

J.A., nice to meet you. I was sitting to your right before you moved to seat #1. I swear I almost asked if you were J.A. Sucker, but decided I probably wasn't right. I have to learn to trust my reads!

Interesting observation of Peter. He is very aware of his table image and capable of making some nice value bets heads up, but all in all he seemed to relish being a tricky dicky more than winning money. You definately gave me some food for thought though.

If I was Henry, not sure If I would have 3-bet the turn, even though I knew peter was capable of raising, and capping, the turn with a pair + flush draw or straigh + flush draw. Mainly becuase he limped pre-flop, but also because I hate giving his type of player excessive action. I feel that going passive encourages them to continue being cukoo.

[esspo]

[ QUOTE ]
You are THAT certain that we are ahead of the major villain

[/ QUOTE ]

Peter is THAT cukoo, and had been playing out of control for the past hour or so. He was up big earlier because he kept sucking out on the river, but over the last hour he had lost nearly 3 racks. He was starting to reak of desperation.

[J.A.Sucker]

I thought this was a very interesting hand, indeed - lots going on.

Preflop, Peter doesn't have any kind of decent hand. He limped after the worst player in the game limped. There was one good player behind him, and a good player in the BB. He has a limping hand, which for him is quite marginal. Something like T9 or the like. He doesn't have a pocket pair, unless it's really small (44 or lower) becasue he would raise them to isolate DG.

Henry's initial raise preflop means pair JJ or higher or AK. DG's reraise means whatever it means. Frankly, I don't think that one could really say for sure, and I never put him on a big hand while sitting there. That isn't to say that he doesn't have one, you just can't say. People do strange things when they have been going all-in on every hand, even though he has plenty of chips to play the hand out.

Henry's cap is only QQ or better. He won't do it with JJ or AK, which is a mistake on his part, IMO. I don't know if Peter knows this or not, but I suspect not.

The flop action was interesting. If I'm Henry, I cap it up and fire any non-heart turn. His decision to call is OK, but I don't prefer it too much to jamming it. The question is what would you do if you're Henry here and you have AK (no hearts)? Folding on the flop is giving up way too much.

As the action went down, the turn became the most intersting street of all. Henry checked because he thought he was beat! DG isn't aware of any of this, but he bet his hand. I was really shocked when he did, BTW. Peter raises of course, because he knows Henry is looking for the escape hatch. Henry's choices at this point (in his mind) are to fold or call. He made the crying call, as did DG.

If I were playing it and I had not capped the flop, I guess I could check the turn. However, I would not do this because I would be worried about it getting checked around. I think Peter has a pair and a heart, or possibly even an open-ended straight. Yes he would play that hand the same way. He may also have the Ahx, and lastly he may have flopped a monster hand (flush, 68, or a set of 3's). I think it's far more likely he has a draw, almost obviously so. Therefore it DG doesn't oblige him with a bet, he'd check behind, since he knows that Henry has a big pair, since he would have folded AK (no heart) on the flop.

Once it's two bets back to me, I'd 3 bet it in a flash. No better place to get the money in. You have the biggest pair and are getting a price on your money. Plus, you can bet the river the full amount. Easy 3 bet. For those of you thinking that calling was good, I suggest that playing like that will get you broke when players like Peter are in the game. You CANNOT let these things happen, especially when you have a big hand.

The thing that becomes really interesting is if Henry would have had AK (any kind) here on the turn. This hand I would have played the same way. I might get it headsup with Peter and have the best hand (especially if I don't have the Ah, since he probably has it at that point) if the river rags off. Think about it, a huge pot and you put in this kind of action with no pair, no draw. I can't think of many places where this isn't suicide, but this is a great spot.

The river was fine. Peter had no more tricks in his sleeve because of the funky rule at Bay 101. If he did, he may have popped it one more time.

DG turned over KhKc but lost to Henry's AA.

In summary, I think that failing to cap the flop and leading the turn is too risky, not because you are losing, but because there's too big a risk it gets checked around on the turn, a true disaster. Henry's check worked out, but he didn't take advantage of it. This was a huge mistake, as Ray and mike l both pointed out.

One last point is about people running over you. For those who think it's not a bad thing to have people play with you, I think you're on crack. The problem is that in hold em, you usually miss your hand. You win a lot because you can profitably steal and make thin bets. Against a trickster, you can't. You have to tighten up preflop, especially if they have position on you. You play less hands = less money. They will put you to the test in every big pot. Not great, unless you're flopping the nuts. You have to check-call down in every heads up pot. Notice this is how a live one would play - now you have to as well. How can this all be good for you? Think about it. That's reason enough to play big pots here with Peter. Let him know that you won't back down. The fact that you probably have the best hand, by far, makes it even easier. Henry has this problem with aggression as Ray pointed out, and that's why he doesn't do as well as he should.

[J.A.Sucker]

Who were you? I have the big hair.

[J.A.Sucker]

Peter gets more money than you realize. John does too, and they both play the same way. One of the main reasons is because people don't want to play big pots with marginal hands with them. Failing to gamble here is a terrible mistake. Being passive allows them to continue to give that action, but you don't want that at all. See my thoughts above.

Also, your read of Peter going on monkey tilt is wrong. He doesn't do that at all, and I've played a lot of poker with him. He will make "bad calls" preflop, but always with "good hands" for this, where he isn't dominated, like medium suited connectors, and always he has position. This is a disaster for people raising who don't have a big pair, and he knows it, since most of them play like sissies when they miss the flop.

[Noo Yawk]

Henry should lead the turn so DG can raise. Now although Peter isn't worried about DG's raise, he has to worry about Henry's actions if he stays in the pot. Henry needed to take a bit more controll here and give Peter the option of folding at some point.

[J.A.Sucker]

I like your thinking on all aspects of this hand, mike. I knew you'd like this one, I hadn't seen this flow of action ever before in my life.

[mike l.]

"I think Peter has AhJ"

that is completely absurd, to use your word. okay players dont limp after a limpy DG with AJ in 80-160 games. that's completely absurd.

[mike l.]

wow we really see eye to eye on this. maybe i am getting good at this game.

[J.A.Sucker]

... or I'm losing my mind. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[jayheaps]

I think JA's analysis is great. I think the biggest variable in the hand is "can DG lay anything down?" If he can't lay down a lay no pair, there may be some calling for value on the turn.

Generally, I don't believe its good poker to make crying calls for multiple bets on the turn, however, this may be a good exception. (I would like it a bit better though if Peter's hand was a bit more disguised.)

[J.A.Sucker]

Check 3-betting AK would have been an incredible play in this big pot. Doing this with AA is too risky, since a free card may be a disaster on the turn. That's why jamming it is better.

[Jeffage]

[ QUOTE ]
Due to the rules at Bay 101, Peter's options are to call, fold, or complete for 1 more chip.

[/ QUOTE ]

This rule is absolutely, jaw droppingly horrendous.

Jeff

[J.A.Sucker]

Tell me what Peter's hand is. I can't say for sure, but I think he's on a draw, though I have no idea what it is. Seems pretty disguised to me. In any event, cold calling is terrible here. There is no value there in a monster pot.

I don't think that DG is laying much down, but you might be able to use him to protect your hand. Then again, if you check 3 bet, he may just surprise you and fold. This may also protect your hand, since Peter would put you on a monster here, since you check 3 bet on the turn with a moron in the pot. If that doesn't scream monster, I don't know what does. Think about this from the perspective of you having AK, too. See what I'm saying?

[J.A.Sucker]

Yep. The other terrible rule there is that you cannot cap headsup in the following situation:

You bet, opponent raises. 3rd guy calls two. You 3 bet, opponenet 4 bets. 3rd guy folds. You cannot go 5 bets with the lone opponenet. However, if the 3rd guy would have folded facing only 3 bets, I think you would be able to. This rule cost me about 2500 yesterday, too. I would've gotten it all in on the flop with top set vs a maniac with a big draw. He called me down after that.

[J.A.Sucker]

Good reply.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think Henry's sick look was an act? He knows at that point, he's bargaining for a tough hand in which he will have to get more involved than expected.

[/ QUOTE ]

No way this was an act. He wanted to fold and he almost did.

[ QUOTE ]
Peter does NOT have AhTx as he would have raised the DG's limp pre-flop with that holding...Ah8x would be more likely. Peter's flop raise is good, but turn play is negligable. He may be able to move Henry off of a big pair, but he is ignoring the fact that DG may very well have an overpair with a heart or even KhTx, QhTx or JhTx.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good read on Peter's hands, but I really don't think he even has the A, because surely he'd raise that preflop to isolate the DG. Pair and a weak heart is my most likely hand for him. I think that his flop play was good, but his turn raise was truly great. Henry almost folded his overpair, and who cares what DG has? Peter is very willing to gamble with DG in this pot headsup for nothing extra. It was a monster pot. This was the best play of the entire hand, IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
Henry is in a tough spot on the turn, but calling is a good play and 3 betting may be even better. We all know that Peter didn't have a hand that beat AA because he folded on the river. Henry didn't know that at the time and all of you need to keep that in mind. If Henry was even entertaining the thought of folding for two bets on the turn (which he knew was a good possibility with a DG and tricky player behind him), then he should have led out to avoid that situation.


[/ QUOTE ]

Henry has a great spot on the turn. See my other posts. Capping the flop and leading the turn is my preferred action, but if I know that DG is betting, then check 3 betting is huge.

[ QUOTE ]
DG sprung up on the turn for one of two reasons. Either he hit a ten with his big heart, or (more likely) he has JJ, QQ, KK and is more relieved that Henry didn't bet. I don't think DG could have a pat hand here for the simple fact that he didn't put his last 7 chips in on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great read on DG. I thought DG did hit a set of T's myself at the time, but I'm willing to gamble in case he's being a fruitcake in a huge pot where I'm not going to get punished by DG since he's all-in. If I were Henry, I feel great about my hand after the last of the money doesn't go in, of course. In a big pot, you can't worry about a few big bets - you have to win the damned thing. Henry didn't do this, Peter did.

[spiral]

You lost your mind in 1998 or earlier

[James282]

Hey JA - I'm comfortable with the fact that you guys think jamming the turn is the best play - whether for metagame reasons or because you actually think that as a hand in a bottle, this is the best play in spite of the fact that even when we are ahead(which is certainly no guarantee), we are only gaining another .65 of a bet or so, whereas when we are behind we set ourselves up to be losing 1 or more full bets. One thing that might swing it towards three bet is that Henry's image is relatively weak, and that Peter might fold a hand with a decent number of outs. That's fine - and I can certainly see the merits of three-betting. In my opinion, it's a lot closer than you all are making it out to be.

As far as absurdities go, nothing is more absurd than overemphasizing how important a three-bet is in this hand. To say that I'd "go broke" with a player like Peter in the game is a pretty condescending and laughable assertion. I've played with players like Peter before and been wildly successful against them - mostly because I don't give them too much action in marginal situations, forcing me to call down when I have either awful reverse implied odds or the worst hand. Keep in mind - while a three-bet is often correct here, that doesn't make it the best play in this specific hand(image concerns aside). It's okay to think outside the box of "I think I'm ahead, better raise!" every once in a while, especially against overaggro thinking players.
-James

[J.A.Sucker]

Call me sometime.

[skp]

[ QUOTE ]
One last point is about people running over you. For those who think it's not a bad thing to have people play with you, I think you're on crack. The problem is that in hold em, you usually miss your hand. You win a lot because you can profitably steal and make thin bets. Against a trickster, you can't. You have to tighten up preflop, especially if they have position on you. You play less hands = less money. They will put you to the test in every big pot. Not great, unless you're flopping the nuts. You have to check-call down in every heads up pot. Notice this is how a live one would play - now you have to as well. How can this all be good for you? Think about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.


[ QUOTE ]
Once it's two bets back to me, I'd 3 bet it in a flash. No better place to get the money in. You have the biggest pair and are getting a price on your money. Plus, you can bet the river the full amount. Easy 3 bet. For those of you thinking that calling was good, I suggest that playing like that will get you broke when players like Peter are in the game. You CANNOT let these things happen, especially when you have a big hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not so sure about this. It's one thing to say "I wont back down, I can't let this guy run over me" etc etc but it's another thing to go nuts on the turn without a heart on a 3 heart flop when 2 opponents have shown strength on both the flop and on the turn.

In some spots, I might fold the AA and not feel bad about it even if it turns out that I was outplayed by Peter. That's position. That's poker. In most spots, I would just grit it out and call. This was probably one of them given the player dynamics and pot size.

It's unlikely that I would 3 bet the turn here against multiple opponents. If it's just Peter alone that we are up against, then the first quote of yours that I have pasted would compel a turn 3 bet.

[J.A.Sucker]

I agree with all that you say, except that DG was a complete moron. This was a really spectacular hand here, and in a big pot, I'm going to always err on the side of aggression. In a smaller pot, I always err on the other side.

[James282]

What I'm realizing talking to gonores about this is that our hero made a classic mistake on the flop with a classic result later in the hand. His wussy sick-looking call on the flop set himself up for this turn play. I think most of us would not be in there looking sick on the flop in the first place, and therefore our images wouldn't be such that we could be run over. I stand by my original analysis of the turn play in the setting of "if I sat down at the table at the turn and the hand had been played out the way it did," but Henry makes the classic mistake of underplaying his hand earlier in the hand causing himself a headache later on.
-James

[siegfriedandroy]

"J.A., nice to meet you. I was sitting to your right before you moved to seat #1. I swear I almost asked if you were J.A. Sucker, but decided I probably wasn't right. I have to learn to trust my reads!"

How do you guys make it say 'quote'!?

[siegfriedandroy]

JA-

Im still confused about why the 3bet is so important against someone like Peter? Apart from the (unlikely, i think) chance that DG folds, what is so crucial about getting the extra bet in there? Are we thinking it's possible that Peter will fold? Doesnt seem likely at all. As long as Henry doesnt fold, then I dont see this huge (possibly the difference between beating the game or losing) difference between calling and 3 betting. Like you said above, we can simply become the fish and call down against Peter. Why is this advice so horrible here?

[skp]

I gather from JA's posts that the "3 bet Peter" line of play is more metagame than hand specific. Well, it is hand specific too in the sense that Henry should know that Peter may well be raising light because the guy he is raising is a loon.

Loon opens the door with a bet. Peter seizes the opportunity to try and knock off Henry's overpair. Henry should read this and 3 bet for (a) value and (b) to tell Peter "don't F*ck with me".

[siegfriedandroy]

fair enough. just doesnt seem to earth shattering enough of a decision to say that calling v. raising is the difference between winning and losing in such a game.

[J.A.Sucker]

skp's points are all correct, of course, but I think there's some more to it.

You state one of the points that is most important when playing big pots: if the loon folds (or even if Peter does), it's worth taking a chance to do so. Even if it may cost you some bets on that hand, you can't worry about it. When the pot is big, you need to do strange things. This is the thinking behind all of my talk about having AK. If you played the AK like I said, you will probably lose, and lose more money than a more conservative player would. If the flush comes, you will lose more too. However, if you can get some guys to fold that shouldn't have and pick up the pot, it's huge. Finally, even if you have AK, you still have a chance to spike and suck out. In this case, you have the likely best hand, and this makes it much easier to get the money in. Saving pots is way more important than saving bets.

The offshoot of all this aggression in big pots when playing with the same, thinking players, is that they know that the pot will be big and you won't back down. You make them have to think, and this is worth a ton in the long run. Finally, when you play bigger, many people are on short money, and they won't want to play pots with you as much, so they will fold or shut down early with marginal hands and not put the screws to you, since many people don't like to play big pots when they have to put in 1500 bucks that may disappear with the turn of a card. You dig?

[Tommy Angelo]

Henry played the hand perfectly. I don't care how long he tanked, after he called two-cold on the flop, he was never folding on the turn, unless a fourth flush card came, and then only maybe. What happened this hand was Henry got dealt a big pair, then he announced that he had a big pair (preflop), then he confirmed that he had a big pair (by calling two cold on the flop), and then he says okay fine, enough out of me, I'll see you at the river. He was on the gas and the brake at exactly the right times against those opponents. His betting was unimprovable. His tempo was unexusable.

Tommy

[mike l.]

"He was on the gas and the brake at exactly the right times against those opponents."

could you explain this a little further because the rest of your post only redescribes what happened in different words and says that you like how it was played, but not precisely why you liked it.

sucker, zee, and i all agree that a 3 bet on the turn is the superior play. do you feel differently, and, if so, why?

thanks.

[Boris]

If Henry 3 bets, what hands does Peter fold that he should call with?

[Boris]

I agree.

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
"He was on the gas and the brake at exactly the right times against those opponents."

could you explain this a little further because the rest of your post only redescribes what happened in different words and says that you like how it was played, but not precisely why you liked it.

sucker, zee, and i all agree that a 3 bet on the turn is the superior play. do you feel differently, and, if so, why?

thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wrote several paragraphs why I thought a call was best, but you didn't address any of my points. Now you want Tommy to write the same stuff? You feel like you can dismiss my analysis out of hand but want more from him? Nice.
-James

[mike l.]

if i missed your post please direct me to it and ill take a look at it. i didnt mean to diss you. i thought i had replied to all the things you posted and/or pointed you to my posts where i stated how i saw it.

[Boris]

[ QUOTE ]
being scared against wild super laggy players with an overpair is bad limit hold em.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one in this hand was as you described.

[mike l.]

"No one in this hand was as you described."

yeah i realised that after JA sucker went further into detail. when i think of a revved up game i think of things ive seen in LA, which around here is like trying to describe a peckinpah film to a secluded sect of buddhist monks.

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]

I guess I'm having trouble seeing which bets you are leaving on the table. You are THAT certain that we are ahead of the major villain that you want to put in 1-2 more bets in on this hand to find out? Because forget about DG. His money is there - consider this hand HU. Consider also that even if we are ahead, we aren't winning a full bet from our opponent when we 3 bet. We're getting like .65-.75 of a bet depending on where he is. We could also be losing 1-2 full bets if he reraises us with a hand we are drawing dead or slim against(unlikely he has such a hand, but still possible). The only way we are getting a side pot, it seems, it when we are behind. The more I think about it, the more I think that a simple cold call is better.
-James

[/ QUOTE ]

This coupled with the fact that a thinking player never pays us off with a worse hand on the river makes just cold calling as much of a stand as three-betting. I see these LAG thinkers profitting off of otherwise good players because they think the way to counter their aggression is to overplay marginal hands. I'm not saying that THIS is such a case necessarily, just a general statement.

Also, consider that when we do three bet, we need to be ahead of both DG and Peter - as our side pot is only going to be 2 chips. Ugh, there is more but I'm getting tired and 7 tabling /images/graemlins/smile.gif If parts of this are unclear respond and I'll try to make them clearer. Probably tomorrow though as my eyes are getting heavy.
-James

[J_V]

[ QUOTE ]
What I'm realizing talking to gonores about this is that our hero made a classic mistake on the flop with a classic result later in the hand. His wussy sick-looking call on the flop set himself up for this turn play. I think most of us would not be in there looking sick on the flop in the first place, and therefore our images wouldn't be such that we could be run over. I stand by my original analysis of the turn play in the setting of "if I sat down at the table at the turn and the hand had been played out the way it did," but Henry makes the classic mistake of underplaying his hand earlier in the hand causing himself a headache later on.


[/ QUOTE ]

This makes a lot of sense.

[mike l.]

"You are THAT certain that we are ahead of the major villain that you want to put in 1-2 more bets in on this hand to find out?"

not to find out. it's not for info once you get that far into the hand. you play AA here like the winner. period. these guys have a history of getting out of line and spewing. reraising them helps them put in money with the worst of it. if the guy 4 bets then you play it like the crying call loser.

"even if we are ahead, we aren't winning a full bet from our opponent when we 3 bet. We're getting like .65-.75 of a bet depending on where he is."

sounds good to me.

"We could also be losing 1-2 full bets if he reraises us with a hand we are drawing dead or slim against(unlikely he has such a hand, but still possible)."

fine by me. he likely doesnt have such a hand and it's clear he's trying to mess with me (if im bb) so now he has to pay for his laggy tricky games. you dont make lags pay by call call calling them to death, you have to raise them back sometimes and make them pay when they were raising with draws they must now call with. and if it makes the guy fold a 3 or 4 outer or something then brilliant!

"The only way we are getting a side pot, it seems, it when we are behind."

no. the whole point is the guy who raised the turn is clearly likely to be getting out of line. punish him with a reraise.

a lot of this is rehash of stuff i already posted btw.

"This coupled with the fact that a thinking player never pays us off with a worse hand on the river"

what?? where'd you get that from? the pot is really really big. he crying calls there with some hands AA beats.

"I see these LAG thinkers profitting off of otherwise good players because they think the way to counter their aggression is to overplay marginal hands."

as you said that's not the case here, and clearly that's the sort of thing we see a lot online. i do know what youre talking about, it's the sort of play ive championed for years, and im less and less fond of it as the games change and i mature. anyway, again, this is truly not the case here because hero has AA.

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
"I think Peter has AhJ"

that is completely absurd, to use your word. okay players dont limp after a limpy DG with AJ in 80-160 games. that's completely absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that you would expect a raise there. Maybe he was just mixing it up. The guy has been described as tricky. Limping AJ seems a lot more reasonable to me though than limping K9 and then calling 2 cold. Wouldn't you agree?

Good luck.
Eric

[Lawrence Ng]

[ QUOTE ]
Henry played the hand perfectly. I don't care how long he tanked, after he called two-cold on the flop, he was never folding on the turn, unless a fourth flush card came, and then only maybe. What happened this hand was Henry got dealt a big pair, then he announced that he had a big pair (preflop), then he confirmed that he had a big pair (by calling two cold on the flop), and then he says okay fine, enough out of me, I'll see you at the river. He was on the gas and the brake at exactly the right times against those opponents. His betting was unimprovable. His tempo was unexusable.

Tommy

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this option for the sake of sanity, but I don't like it for reason being that cold calling 2 bets OOP on the turn against this line up is just absolutely weak. Yes, it's not a bad option, but Henry is just pretty much telegraphing the fact that he has a good chance of laying down overpair against aggressive action vs. tricky players and any good tricky player is gonna smell that like a shark smells the blood from it's prey and use that knowledge well to their advantage for future game considerations.

Perhaps the only thing I would do different if I were Henry is bet out the turn after calling a 3-bet on the flop.

At that point I am implicity saying to Peter, "I definitely have an overpair here and you better have a real hand to pump me back here as I have pot committed myself."

This post has a simple message. Aggressive poker is still the best poker for a plethora of reasons. Peter demonstrates this well, and Henry not so well.

Lawrence

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
you dont make lags pay by call call calling them to death, you have to raise them back sometimes and make them pay when they were raising with draws they must now call with.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is the crux of the argument on the turn 3-bet. I'm not convinced this statement is true, but you've certainly made me think about it.

Mason often posted hands designed, I believe, to demonstrate the principle of doing a lot of calling against a LAG. Many of these hands were heads up, that's different, etc etc. My point is simply to say that I've always thought that you beat LAGs with the call, but am willing to consider the possibility that I am wrong.

I'd say that a raise would be more appealling if I though I might actually make DG fold soething that could draw out on me... since he's been given the name "degenerate gambler", I'm not convinced the 3-bet is as clear as you all make it out to be.

Thought-provoking discussion though, thanks.

Good luck.
Eric

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
Failing to gamble here is a terrible mistake. Being passive allows them to continue to give that action, but you don't want that at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me play devil's advocate here for a minute. If I read your thoughts correctly, you are suggesting that in big pots, you should give aggressive players more action than you think your hand deserves, so that they will stop being aggressive with you in the future.

Presumably, you mean that, having given all this action in the past to let them know that you are not a person to be messed with, you can then take advantage of that at some point in the future and stop giving all so much action, because you know that their raises are more likely to represent real strength. Is this right so far?

I see two arguments against this plan.

1. If a player is too aggressive, convincing him to mess with you less simply makes him play more correctly. Surely you don't think that you can actually make him too passive with this line of play, do you? A LAG is still going to bluff at you from time to time. There won't ever be a point where you fell comfortable folding the turn with AA against this guy, will there?

2. There is no point where you could take advantage of the image you've created, or you would immediately expose yourself to his aggression again.


It seems to me that the best solution would be one that involves encouraging him to continue bluffing too often, but that keeps you from being run over. How would this work? Well, I've always thought this involved calling with your big hands a little more often than you normally would, in an attempt to give your opponent the feeling that you might fold if only he'd bet or raise. I also assume the best strategy involves calling or raising unimproved more often than you normally would as well, since it's more likely than normal that your hand is best and that he has nothing.

I find it appealling that this strategy doesn't ever have me giving up EV now to send a message. I'm never playing for metagame edges on future hands. I'm just playing big hands more slowly because I think that I can make more by letting him bluff. I'm calling more with weak hands becuase the odds they are good is higher than normal.

This is how I've always looked at handling LAGs. I'm willing to be convinced that I'm wrong. What say you?

Thanks,
Eric

edit: by the way, I read Ray Zee's 3-bet suggestion as being a simple "we're ahead so often that we should 3-bet this for value" argument. That may be true, I don't know. But that's a very different argument from the one I think you are making, which seems to be that giving up a little value is ok to send a message. I would argue that you may not even want to send that message in the first place, much less pay to do it!

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as absurdities go, nothing is more absurd than overemphasizing how important a three-bet is in this hand. To say that I'd "go broke" with a player like Peter in the game is a pretty condescending and laughable assertion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. 3-betting may be slightly +EV (unclear IMO), and maybe there is some psychological advantage to it (again unclear, IMO). Making it out to be the critical move you must have to win in this game goes too far. I'd say the critical move was made, and that is simply not folding. Reraising, if it's best, is just icing on the cake.

my 2 cents.
Eric

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
Loon opens the door with a bet. Peter seizes the opportunity to try and knock off Henry's overpair. Henry should read this and 3 bet for (a) value and (b) to tell Peter "don't F*ck with me".

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, Peter and Henry play together often, and Henry says this a lot. Now Peter's raise actual represents a flopped flush. Too bad Henry has to keep raising in order to make sure none of Peter's raises are an attempt to f*ck with him. If he wasn't constantly telling Peter to back off, his raise would have more value.

-Eric

[Tommy Angelo]

"sucker, zee, and i all agree that a 3 bet on the turn is the superior play. do you feel differently, and, if so, why?"

If you and sucker and zee think that the best play for you and sucker and zee would be to three-bet the turn, then I'm sure you're right. For me, playing it as Henry did would have been correct. And because Henry and I play and think and project ourselves similarly in the ways that are relevant to this hand, I believe Henry's line of play was correct for him as well.

Tommy

i dont like the way henry played it. in such a weak posistion, the raise can only make the pot larger, it will not narrow the field. i think that henry should have checked the BB and if the flop came favorable he could have played his AA accordingly. However, with three limpers and a flop like that, he's in dangerous waters. I like the call he made on Peters raise, however, i dont know that the DG didnt possibly flop a small flush, with a suited connector. I think that it was bad timing for AA in the blind, and i think Henry should have disguised the strength of his hand rather than advertise it by four betting pre-flop.

[Gabe]

I don't know the people in the hand, as you guys do, but I would agree with Tommy, except that Tommy doesn't seem to like Henry's tempo, and I do.

[haakee]

I am curious as to who DG was...

Anyway, I think Henry's decision to just call the flop 3-bet, see what the turn brings and presumably check-raise a non-heart is fine. It looks almost certain that Peter or DG is going to fire at the pot on the turn. Then, when DG bets and Peter raises, your two choices are call or 3-bet. 3-betting opens the door to Peter 4-betting which he will surely do with a set, any flush, and sometimes with an ace-high flush draw + a pair. If you just call, DG may go all-in right there and... this is important... Peter can't 4-bet, he can only complete the 7 chips. Also, if you 3-bet Peter will fold some hand that was trying to make a ridiculous play at the pot, but might bluff on the river. So I would play this hand the same way that Henry did.

Like you allude to, there are certainly meta-game aspects here which would push me in favor of being more aggressive here against Peter to prevent him from constantly trying to toy with me. However I think the presence of all-in guy pushes my decision in favor of Henry's actions.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
it's clear he's trying to mess with me (if im bb)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
the guy who raised the turn is clearly likely to be getting out of line.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are these things so clear?

[mike l.]

"if I though I might actually make DG fold"

DG will never ever fold. he is almost all in and has a history of going all in. he will never fold the turn almost all in having liked his hand enough to already bet the turn.

[mike l.]

""I definitely have an overpair here and you better have a real hand to pump me back here as I have pot committed myself.""

why is everyone in this thread so concerned with trying to define to your opponents what your hand is? it's like you dont want them to get out of line because you might pee your pants when you get raised again? hell with it man. youve got pocket aces and they are loose and aggressive. but forget what i think.

the question is not "what's the best way to make sure they are afraid of you and slow down and play honestly?"

the question is "how many bets and raises should *you* pump the pot with before you finally slow down and call down given all the factors present?"

[andyfox]

First time through this thread, I agreed with you and Tommy on the turn. And I'm afraid I too would have just called in this spot. But looking at it again, I like the 3-bet on the turn.

Peter's pre-flop and flop play say "draw" to me more than they say monster. I don't think Henry's "sick" look on the flop was an act; if Peter noticed this, his turn raise makes even more sense as a semi-bluff (i.e., a hand that he suspects might have DG beat and/or is a draw but is definitely behind Henry's obvious big pair) than as a monster.

So I'm not saying "I wont back down, I can't let this guy run over me"; I'm saying in this particular case against these two guys there's a better chance my hand is good than in a "typical" situation where two guys have shown strength on a 3-heart flop.

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
why is everyone in this thread so concerned with trying to define to your opponents what your hand is?

[/ QUOTE ]

We are concerned about defining his hand because what his hand is makes a difference as to whether we win the money in the pot or not.
-James

[vmacosta]

"We are concerned about defining his hand because what his hand is makes a difference as to whether we win the money in the pot or not."

Don't mean to be mean, but this is silly. Henry is going to showdown no matter what so how the other players "define his hand" is unimportant. Furthermore, as other posters have mentioned, the hand was defined on the flop (DG doesn't care what Henry has and Peter knows he probably has a huge pair).

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
"We are concerned about defining his hand because what his hand is makes a difference as to whether we win the money in the pot or not."

Don't mean to be mean, but this is silly. Henry is going to showdown no matter what so how the other players "define his hand" is unimportant. Furthermore, as other posters have mentioned, the hand was defined on the flop (DG doesn't care what Henry has and Peter knows he probably has a huge pair).

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not silly. Have you ever played in a high limit game?
-James

[golferbrent]

[ QUOTE ]
This was a very interesting hand that I witnessed in the 80-160 game at Bay 101 tonight. I had just gotten there, but judging by the cast of characters, it was clear this game was unhinged.

It's 10 handed and folded to Degenerate Gambler, who limps in MP. On his left is Peter, who is a very tricky, thinking player. Many people think Peter is very live, and he does play too many hands, but he is one of the best card readers that I've ever seen, and will apply lots of pressure on all streets. He changes gears with the best of them, and it's not always pedal to the metal. Anyway, he limps, too. The button (terrible) limps. The SB (bad local high limit player) completes. The BB is Henry, a thinking prop. He raises with AcAd.

DG now springs to life. He's been losing his a$$ and has been going all in every hand, but he tripled up recently and now has some chips. He 3 bets. Peter calls. Button calls. SB folds. Henry caps it. DG, Peter, and Button all call. 4 players see the flop.

Flop: 8h 6h 3h. Henry bets out. DG raises. Peter 3 bets. Button folds. Henry looks sick and calls. DG calls.

Turn: Tc. Henry checks. DG springs to life again and bets. Peter raises. Henry goes into the tank for about 45 seconds and finally calls. DG calls, leaving him with 7 chips left.

River: 2c. Henry checks, DG goes all-in for his last 7 chips. Due to the rules at Bay 101, Peter's options are to call, fold, or complete for 1 more chip. He mucks. Henry calls.

Comments on all streets welcome. How would you have played it if you were Henry? How about if you were Peter? What did DG have?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very interesting hand. I believe that the action got complicated for the hero (Henry) b/c of the way that he played his hand early. I don't know how often Peter and Henry play together, but from reading the thread... it sounds like they play together a fair amount.

I believe that Peter makes the play that he makes on the turn b/c he has a flush/st8 draw with a pair type of hand. I would put him on something like 8-9 with the nine of hearts. With Peter ascribing to the theory of doing whatever it takes to win a big pot and the way the flop play played out with Henry just calling the 2 cold on the flop. He has incorrectly misread Henry's hand as A-K with one of them being a heart.

On the turn Peter is putting Henry to the test to get him to lay down his bare heart draw b/c if figures that there is a decent chance he is ahead of the DG, but if he isn't he wants to clear up some outs. Peter, knowing Henry as he does, thinks that he could get Henry to lay down the bare draw for 2 bets cold on the turn. When Henry, makes the call on the turn now Peter correctly realizes that Henry has a hand and now he has to improve on the end inorder to win against the DG, thus the result on the river of him folding for 7 chips instead of calling is indication that he knows Henry will overcall and he knows he cannot beat Henrys hand since he did not improve on the river.

In summation: Henry has complicated the hand by his play of his hand on the flop. He makes it appear as though he may have A-K with a heart or he has a big hand, but with no heart. Peter reading Henry's check on the turn as an indication of the fact that he doesn't have a big hand w/o a heart b/c he chose not to bet the non-heart turn.

Peter is thinking that Henry is thinking that if Henry had lets say A-A with no heart as he does... and just chose to play a stop-n-go on the flop, he would have led at the non-heart turn, but since he did not lead at the non-heart turn... Henry is now portraying to Peter that he has A-K with a heart and now Peter is making a play at the pot on the turn. I think Peter played the hand optimally for the perceived messages that Henry is sending to the field.

Henry I believe has played the hand terribly b/c he has allowed himself to be put to all the tough decisions in the hand. I like his play preflop and I don't mind his cold-call on the flop, if he has the intention of leading a non-heart turn card. He also could of easily capped the flop and lead a non-heart turn as well. The stop-n-go as a play here seems valid.

However, he creates his problems by CC'ing the flop and checking the turn, which implies he doesnt have a big hand and now Peter makes a play to clean up his outs if Henry has a heart in his hand and no pair. Henry needs to lead the turn and then he would of had to make no difficult decisions here.

[golferbrent]

[ QUOTE ]
"We are concerned about defining his hand because what his hand is makes a difference as to whether we win the money in the pot or not."

Don't mean to be mean, but this is silly. Henry is going to showdown no matter what so how the other players "define his hand" is unimportant. Furthermore, as other posters have mentioned, the hand was defined on the flop (DG doesn't care what Henry has and Peter knows he probably has a huge pair).

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually disagree with the fact that Henry has defined his hand. Sure he capped preflop, but there is the rare occasion the he could cap vs. this field with A-K and how he has played the flop and initially the turn, he portrays his hand as A-K with a heart, not what it is actually (A-A) no heart.

If Henry had led at the turn then he would of properly defined the nature of his hand and then Peter would not of made a play at the pot. Therefore, I believe that Henry has confused his opponents, which is a good thing, except when it results in them playing in a manner which makes your own decisions more difficult.

[siegfriedandroy]

good response

[J.A.Sucker]

My point is simple. In big pots, aggressive players can make things easier or more difficult for you. Usually they make it difficult for you. Here he does the opposite.

The time to go limp is headsup with these guys. I think it's really hard to give too much action in huge multiway pots.

[haakee]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's really hard to give too much action in huge multiway pots.

[/ QUOTE ]

I almost always adhere to this logic. I just think other factors (presence of nearly-all-in donk) are at play here that make me favor Henry's actions on this hand.