I have trouble OOP against LAGs [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

TheHammer24

09-14-2005, 01:14 AM

Villian is 40/9/2 His pfr was autoraise if that changes your opinion.

Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (10 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is MP1 with K/images/graemlins/spade.gif, J/images/graemlins/spade.gif.
3 folds, Hero raises, 3 folds, Button 3-bets, 2 folds, Hero calls.

Flop: (7.50 SB) 9/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, Q/images/graemlins/heart.gif, J/images/graemlins/club.gif (2 players)
Hero checks, Button bets, Hero raises, Button 3-bets, Hero calls.

Turn: (6.75 BB) 4/images/graemlins/club.gif (2 players)
Hero checks, Button bets, Hero calls.

River: (8.75 BB) A/images/graemlins/diamond.gif (2 players)
Hero checks, Button bets, Hero folds.

Final Pot: 9.75 BB

This one really bothers me. I generally have trouble against these kind of opponents where their raise could mean anything. I am looking on advice, not just in this particular hand, but this situation in general. Fair hand OOP against a loose and aggressive opponent. Would c/c the whole way be better? In the hand as played was folding the river good or bad?

SackUp

09-14-2005, 01:24 AM

I play the flop the same way, but I am probably folding the turn.

His pfr is very high, but is he 3betting as much as he is just raising?

Also, given that he didn't bat an eye at your c/r on the flop I don't know that there is much merit in continuing past the turn unless you have a read on him that he will way overplay hands postflop. His aggression is high but not out of control.

The pot is fairly large but your hand is not that strong and he has not slowed up from the start. I don't think you are winning enough here to make calling down profitable unless you really have a rock solid read on this guy as a maniac.

On another point. Say you c/r the flop and he just calls and then he raises your bet on the turn, I'm folding this on the turn as well.

Sarge85

09-14-2005, 01:59 AM

If he has manical tendancies - i think your river fold sucks.

You can't play a maniac hard on the flop or PF, and then back down when you have a hand worth a showdown.

Sarge/images/graemlins/diamond.gif

TheHammer24

09-14-2005, 11:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If he has manical tendancies - i think your river fold sucks.

You can't play a maniac hard on the flop or PF, and then back down when you have a hand worth a showdown.

Sarge/images/graemlins/diamond.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I think playing the hand as I did, I have to call the river.

This kind of hand plauges me. First, is the flop c/r standard against this aggressive of a player? Do I call down unless the board goes to hell if he three bets it?

Secondly, let's assume that villian will 3-bet any c/r and raise any donk bet. Playing the same board, what becomes the correct line?

09-14-2005, 11:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If he has manical tendancies - i think your river fold sucks.

You can't play a maniac hard on the flop or PF, and then back down when you have a hand worth a showdown.

Sarge/images/graemlins/diamond.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I think playing the hand as I did, I have to call the river.

This kind of hand plauges me. First, is the flop c/r standard against this aggressive of a player? Do I call down unless the board goes to hell if he three bets it?

Secondly, let's assume that villian will 3-bet any c/r and raise any donk bet. Playing the same board, what becomes the correct line?

[/ QUOTE ]
Headsup against a superaggressive opponent your best strategy is to just check and call the whole way. By checking and calling you induce him to bluff or bet weaker hands then you, and you can never get outplayed if you just check and call. And when you do have the best hand, you never miss out on a bet anyways since the villain will always bet your hand for you. Against an aggressive opponent like this, checking and calling takes away all his powers.

TheHammer24

09-14-2005, 11:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If he has manical tendancies - i think your river fold sucks.

You can't play a maniac hard on the flop or PF, and then back down when you have a hand worth a showdown.

Sarge/images/graemlins/diamond.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I think playing the hand as I did, I have to call the river.

This kind of hand plauges me. First, is the flop c/r standard against this aggressive of a player? Do I call down unless the board goes to hell if he three bets it?

Secondly, let's assume that villian will 3-bet any c/r and raise any donk bet. Playing the same board, what becomes the correct line?

[/ QUOTE ]
Headsup against a superaggressive opponent your best strategy is to just check and call the whole way. By checking and calling you induce him to bluff or bet weaker hands then you, and you can never get outplayed if you just check and call. And when you do have the best hand, you never miss out on a bet anyways since the villain will always bet your hand for you. Against an aggressive opponent like this, checking and calling takes away all his powers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand this logic, but I'm apprehensive to agree with it in this case, because it is not WA/WB, we both a fair about of out if the other is ahead. Does it still apply?

Fat Nicky

09-14-2005, 11:32 AM

Yes, villains stats indicate that he is loose and aggressive, but he is far from a maniac. I think you have to take a good amount of stock in his pre-flop 3-bet as his PFR is only 9 (far from over aggressive).

The flop is kind of tricky as we have middle pair and a gutshot. We can pretty much expect a raise everytime if we bet out, so I think I dig a flop c/r. After getting 3-bet, I'm convinced we are behind at the moment.

We have between 4 and 9 outs on the turn, so we have the odds to see the river.

I'd fold the river, as there is hardly anything in the villains range of hands that we beat.

09-14-2005, 11:34 AM

you're not "taking away all his poweres". if you check and call the whole way you are giving him the option to take free cards when he pleases. but this isn't so bad because he won't take them - he'll bet way too much even when he's behind.

Aces McGee

09-14-2005, 11:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
am looking on advice, not just in this particular hand, but this situation in general. Fair hand OOP against a loose and aggressive opponent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Against aggressive opponents (but who aren't total maniacs) when I have a hand that I want to showdown with but isn't top pair or better, I think simply calling all streets is best. You can really punish them later, when you do wake up with a strong hand. But in the meantime, use their aggression against them and let them bet your hand for you.

It's important, though, to recognize when it you need to up the aggression; that is, when you're not heads up. When it's just you and him, it's okay to let the aggressive player draw to his 3- or 6-outer, even if you lose the pot once in a while, because you will win extra bets much more often (by having them keep betting when they would have folded). However, when the pot is 3-way or more, your opponents collectively have more outs against you, and it becomes important to get it heads up with the aggressive player. Depending on position, you may be able to get the third player to fold a better hand than yours.

[ QUOTE ]
In the hand as played was folding the river good or bad?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think the fold is horrible -- those who are saying it is are reading too much into the stats for this guy, in my opinion. You're behind to a lot of hands. However, you don't provide us with a postflop read, and combined with the chance that you're best some of the time, it may be worth calling just to get a better read on him postflop. I wouldn't recommend this type of call with ace-high or anything, but middle pair on the flop is enough hand to call here.

[EDIT: I missed that he three bet preflop. I think a fold is fine on this board. And I think I'd check/call the flop and consider check/folding the turn]

-McGee

jat850

09-14-2005, 12:49 PM

By definition you have a problem. No one suggested the obvious, seat change or table change to get better position.

But once you are in this situation, IF you are going to stay at that table, this is where I find that online play and stats fall short of live reads. Some other people asked some good questions, particularly about villian's prior behavior in 3 bet situations compared to his regular bet or raise pattern. Poker tracker stats don't help you there, you have to be observant. In general, there is less BS on a 3 bet or cap, but does that apply to THIS villian at THIS time?

I feel that I do not have the information to answer your question about this being a good fold or not without having you look back on your experience with this player in this session. If you lack observations about the villian, and your hand is not that strong, once you are re-raised, choosing a time to fold is OK. UNLESS you are planning to stay at that table and seat a while. Then, is it worthwhile to pay the last bet to: a) put him on a range of hands, b) tell him through your call that aggression alone won't win hands. (Be careful, your position to do that still sucks.)

I also look to the theme of the table. Are there other players cooperating to bring this moderate maniac under control? Many times I have seen a table "tag team" maniacs or near maniacs successfully. Is this hand part of such an effort? If each other player takes 1 shot at the moderate maniac, the pressure on you is 1 hand, the pressure on him is 9 hands. Sooner or later, playing bad hands under these conditions will cost him and it takes some luck get your share of his money if everyone else is tacitly committed to not let him run the table.

These are ways to gain control and the ability to read a moderate maniac's cards over a session.

I hope these thoughts help.

EgoSlasher

09-14-2005, 01:08 PM

I'm not sure how many hands you have on villian but his pfr stats aren't completely out of line, 9% is about what you should raise with preflop. But, for the sake of argument we'll take the line that villian is a maniac since you asked for help in this general siutation. You can't really play vs low limit maniacs like you do vs an average players, they raise too much and go too far with their hands, which means your holdings are ususally stronger than they appear.

Preflop you can either go with a call or cap vs him depending on whether or not you have a read telling you what he's 3 betting with. If no read I would just call.

Your flop play is FPS, you have middle pair on a coodinated board, even if villian raises with crap(which there's been no indication yet that he does) it's still possible he hit this board. I'd lead out and call a raise here, you don't want to be in a 3 bet situation on that board with your holding.

Turn I would check/call

The river is a harder decision, if you've decided that this player is a maniac capable of bluffing at you with a lower PP, bottom pair, or a busted straight draw then you must call. Although I would likely fold that river since there isn't a very large hand range that you're beating at that point, and villian has shown nothing but strength.

Bill C

09-14-2005, 01:19 PM

Bet-call the flop; bet-fold the turn if UI.
You have too much against you: easily dominated hand, OOP, highly coordinated flop with an over card to your Jack.

Pick another hand to fight this guy.

Just my $.02 worth...
bc

dblgutshot

09-14-2005, 01:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure how many hands you have on villian but his pfr stats aren't completely out of line, 9% is about what you should raise with preflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah I was wondering where that came from. 9% is actually kinda low.

SeaEagle

09-14-2005, 01:23 PM

Excellent thread. Lots of good discussion in this one.

It appears to me that we're talking about two different situations. How do we play a hand like this against a standard lag (as villian's stats represent)? And how do we play a hand like this against a total maniac?

In the first case, I like your line and I don't mind the river fold (hands you're beating start at K9 and below) and I, personally, would have folded at the turn. I think the back to back 3-bets from a normal lag (9% PFR/2 PFA) is going to mean a hand that beats 2nd pair.

Against a true maniac who is always raising the flop and always betting the big streets then, as already mentioned, getting your mediocre hand to showdown as cheaply as possible is generally the best course, which means checking and calling.

TheHammer24

09-14-2005, 01:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
By definition you have a problem. No one suggested the obvious, seat change or table change to get better position.

But once you are in this situation, IF you are going to stay at that table, this is where I find that online play and stats fall short of live reads. Some other people asked some good questions, particularly about villian's prior behavior in 3 bet situations compared to his regular bet or raise pattern. Poker tracker stats don't help you there, you have to be observant. In general, there is less BS on a 3 bet or cap, but does that apply to THIS villian at THIS time?

I feel that I do not have the information to answer your question about this being a good fold or not without having you look back on your experience with this player in this session. If you lack observations about the villian, and your hand is not that strong, once you are re-raised, choosing a time to fold is OK. UNLESS you are planning to stay at that table and seat a while. Then, is it worthwhile to pay the last bet to: a) put him on a range of hands, b) tell him through your call that aggression alone won't win hands. (Be careful, your position to do that still sucks.)

I also look to the theme of the table. Are there other players cooperating to bring this moderate maniac under control? Many times I have seen a table "tag team" maniacs or near maniacs successfully. Is this hand part of such an effort? If each other player takes 1 shot at the moderate maniac, the pressure on you is 1 hand, the pressure on him is 9 hands. Sooner or later, playing bad hands under these conditions will cost him and it takes some luck get your share of his money if everyone else is tacitly committed to not let him run the table.

These are ways to gain control and the ability to read a moderate maniac's cards over a session.

I hope these thoughts help.

[/ QUOTE ]

C'mon man, seating arrangements prior to me sitting down make it impossible to sit to the right of every aggressive player. In this specific case, I was already sitting when he sat down.

The player is not a maniac, and if he was, I would not worry about settling him down. I think it's beneficial to have a maniac against you sitting across the table. Especially if he's tilting others.

Everything else you said can be summed up by saying it is important to have reads on your opponent.

TheHammer24

09-14-2005, 01:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Bet-call the flop; bet-fold the turn if UI.
You have too much against you: easily dominated hand, OOP, highly coordinated flop with an over card to your Jack.

Pick another hand to fight this guy.

Just my $.02 worth...
bc

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the worst line. Villian will raise flop 95% of the time here. It tells us nothing. Considering his aggressiveness he will often raise the turn too so bet folding cannot be correct. At least how I feel. If you could describe your reasoning behind that line, I would appreciate it.

09-14-2005, 02:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
you're not "taking away all his poweres". if you check and call the whole way you are giving him the option to take free cards when he pleases. but this isn't so bad because he won't take them - he'll bet way too much even when he's behind.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your statement is exactly why I check and call all the way vs a maniac. And what I mean by "checking and calling takes away all the aggressors powers" is that you can never get outplayed when you check and call. And many super aggressive people can only make money when they pressure their opponents off better hands since most of the time a super aggressive player wont have much. When ever you have a marginal hand, in a heads up situation, that you think has a good chance of being best, it should be routine to just check and call all the way vs these type of players. Not only does this strategy encompass the lowest risk, it actually makes the most money too.

deception5

09-14-2005, 02:24 PM

I think I agree with the way you played this hand. He limps too much preflop, but his pfr% is definitely lower than many tags, so his vp$ip isn't really relevant to this hand. He's not crazy and he doesn't raise a lot preflop. He's not 3-betting here with much you beat on the river. I like planning to call down on the turn with your outs and the fact that you're ahead of AK/AT/TT/maybe a lower pocket pair or something crazy like JT. The river though kills your hand against 95% of his range and I don't think you're good even 10% of the time here. I'd probably check/call any other card that didn't improve your hand.

09-14-2005, 02:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If he has manical tendancies - i think your river fold sucks.

You can't play a maniac hard on the flop or PF, and then back down when you have a hand worth a showdown.

Sarge/images/graemlins/diamond.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I think playing the hand as I did, I have to call the river.

This kind of hand plauges me. First, is the flop c/r standard against this aggressive of a player? Do I call down unless the board goes to hell if he three bets it?

Secondly, let's assume that villian will 3-bet any c/r and raise any donk bet. Playing the same board, what becomes the correct line?

[/ QUOTE ]
Headsup against a superaggressive opponent your best strategy is to just check and call the whole way. By checking and calling you induce him to bluff or bet weaker hands then you, and you can never get outplayed if you just check and call. And when you do have the best hand, you never miss out on a bet anyways since the villain will always bet your hand for you. Against an aggressive opponent like this, checking and calling takes away all his powers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand this logic, but I'm apprehensive to agree with it in this case, because it is not WA/WB, we both a fair about of out if the other is ahead. Does it still apply?

[/ QUOTE ]
yes this still applies even though you are not in a WA/WB scenario. The key to this problem is that you have a somewhat marginal hand(middle pair) that you think might be best and your against a super aggressive opponent. Since you think you may be best you want to get to the showdown as cheaply as possible, and youre not worried about free cards since the super aggressive player will always bet when checked to. By checking and calling you induce your aggressive opponent to bluff or bet a weaker hand than you, and you never allow him the chance to push you off a better hand. This concept is very import especially when it comes to online play where you will encounter these type of opponents at .50-1.00 and 100-200. Heres an good example of a hand I played. I openraised preflop in the 8 seat with 77, a super aggressive player just called on the button and both blinds folded. The flop came out K66. I bet and he called. The turn was a T making the board K66T, I checked, he bet, I called. The river was a Queen making the board K66TQ, I checked he bet I called. He showed A2o and my hand was good. Do you see why I check called the turn? It was becuz I had a marginal hand that may be best so I wanted to see a showdown, and I didnt care about giving him a free card with my vulnerable holding cuz I knew he would bet if i checked. Lastly by checking, he could never bluff raise me on the turn and put me in a tough spot where I could possibly make a pot size mistake. These situations come up all the time vs tricky aggressive opponents online, and it is vital for your bankroll to recognize them.

ellipse_87

09-14-2005, 02:35 PM

Because his pfr% is actually reasonable, I put him on the normal range of 3-bet hands. Therefore, your K outs are heavily dominated and the return on your straight is significantly diminished. For those reasons I don't see a strong enough draw to raise the flop, and I would check-call, check-fold UI.

EgoSlasher

09-14-2005, 02:43 PM

"yeah I was wondering where that came from. 9% is actually kinda low. "

Your preflop raise stat isn't going accuratly converge until you have several hundred hands on someone. The point I was making is that 9% doesn't really qualify him as a maniac.

Jake (The Snake)

09-14-2005, 02:49 PM

I don't understand what check-raising the flop does for you.

Fat Nicky

09-14-2005, 02:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what check-raising the flop does for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

The flop is definitly the most interesting part of the hand for me. While I understand what you're saying about a check/raise, I think that line is more effective than betting out as this villain seems aggressive enough that we can be sure he's going to raise our flop bet almost every time. My point is, that check/raising seems to tell us more about our hand relative to villains than betting out does.

Another option is check/calling, to me, this tells us the least about our hand.

I am not sure either way...

johnnycakes

09-14-2005, 02:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Because his pfr% is actually reasonable, I put him on the normal range of 3-bet hands. Therefore, your K outs are heavily dominated and the return on your straight is significantly diminished. For those reasons I don't see a strong enough draw to raise the flop, and I would check-call, check-fold UI.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is probably what I'd do.
I think "Because his pfr% is actually reasonable, I put him on the normal range of 3-bet hands." is the key here.

Other arguments presented in this thread would make more sense if his PFR% was >20%

Aces McGee

09-14-2005, 03:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The flop is definitly the most interesting part of the hand for me. While I understand what you're saying about a check/raise, I think that line is more effective than betting out as this villain seems aggressive enough that we can be sure he's going to raise our flop bet almost every time. My point is, that check/raising seems to tell us more about our hand relative to villains than betting out does.

Another option is check/calling, to me, this tells us the least about our hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Nicky

I think you need to consider just how much we're going to learn about where we stand by betting or checkraising the flop, the price we're going to pay for that information, and whether or not it's worth it.

-McGee

TheHammer24

09-14-2005, 03:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what check-raising the flop does for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

The flop is definitly the most interesting part of the hand for me. While I understand what you're saying about a check/raise, I think that line is more effective than betting out as this villain seems aggressive enough that we can be sure he's going to raise our flop bet almost every time. My point is, that check/raising seems to tell us more about our hand relative to villains than betting out does.

Another option is check/calling, to me, this tells us the least about our hand.

I am not sure either way...

[/ QUOTE ]

The Check raise is precarious because of his agg but its our best choice for the same reasons.

09-14-2005, 03:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what check-raising the flop does for you.

[/ QUOTE ]
What it does is it engages the enemy and makes it more likely that the hero will lay down the best hand. Check-raising the flop vs a super aggressive opponent with this holding was simply a bad move. Super aggressive people are like your average animal. Most animals will not harm a human. But if a human backs any animal into a corner, that same placid animal will now attack with unbridled ferocity. When the hero checkraises the aggressive opponent with his marginal holding he puts himself in the same predicament. Now when the super aggressive player 3 bets the heros checkraise, the hero still has no idea where he stands since the hero backed the aggressive player into a corner by engaging him with his checkraise. So the hero has spent a lot more money and learned nothing, and if the hero now folds the best hand in this much larger pot, his mistake will be even that much more costly. Moral of the story? Dont play back at a super aggressive opponent with a marginal holding, check and call all the way. Back him into a corner when you have a strong holding that will welcome his aggression.

silkyslim

09-14-2005, 03:29 PM

Why not just call the flop? Since he is a maniac, you can just play WA/WB. He aint folding, so whats the point in raising if you are ahead? he will just slow down. let him bluff at you the whole way. Im interested to see his WSD%

Bill C

09-14-2005, 03:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bet-call the flop; bet-fold the turn if UI.
You have too much against you: easily dominated hand, OOP, highly coordinated flop with an over card to your Jack.

Pick another hand to fight this guy.

Just my $.02 worth...
bc

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the worst line. Villian will raise flop 95% of the time here. It tells us nothing. Considering his aggressiveness he will often raise the turn too so bet folding cannot be correct. At least how I feel. If you could describe your reasoning behind that line, I would appreciate it.

[/ QUOTE ]

40/9/2 is loose-aggressive but not maniacal IMO. Yet in discussion, with each of your posts he becomes MORE maniacal. You describe his pfr as an autoraise. How do you know that? And "40/9/2" doesn't tell me he'll "raise the flop 95% of the time" nor does it tell me that he will "often raise the turn" (presumably you mean with nothing).

Your starters are a "Top Pair" kind of hand, and a hand that can be dominated, and you are OOP. You want to flop either a flush draw or top pair. You did neither. Instead you flopped second pair on a board that is highly coordinated and contains an overcard, plus all three cards are in the "playing zone". You may be a little bit ahead, or way behind. I thought your CR was pretty much FPS and bravado, and played into his aggression.

I bet and call the flop hoping to see a good turn card, sort of a "Stop 'N Go". The 4c is no help. Some of the cards that will help your hand on the river are tainted (ie a K if he has a T; any club if he has two in his hand; another overcard.) Your draw to a third Jack is a two-outer.

My thought is I don't want to put a lot more money into this hand. A check here invites a LAG to bet; a bet-out, on the other hand gives him something to think about, as I am representing a made hand. If he calls the bet on the turn, I'm going to the river, where I would check-call.

But a raise by him on the turn would get my attention, and if he raises the turn bet, I'm going to have to put more money in on the river, with a hand that is not very strong.

So for me here, the turn bet is like a test. And a raise by him here means he probably has me beat. I'm not crazy about my chances at this point.

It is true that LAGs and even maniacs get cards once in a while, too. When I go to war with them, I like to have a little better hand than you had here.

After you check-called the turn, and if you were so convinced he had a hand full of crap, why did you fold the river?

In reading over the hand again, it seems to me like you decided when you looked at your starters that you were going to the river because he was "a maniac" and you were probably going to beat him. If that were so, then why the bravado on the flop? Why not just cc at each step, flop, turn, river?

bc

edit: changed "river" to "turn" in next to last paragraph
bc

ellipse_87

09-14-2005, 03:50 PM

As far as cr'g the flop to find out where we are...

If we liberally extend his three-betting range out to AJo & KQo, we're behind AA-JJ, 99, AQ, AJ, & KQ. We're ahead of only TT and AK. Everything that he's ahead with, except for AJ, is top pair or better. He's three-betting the flop with those hands. He's also three-betting TT with his OESD. We can be sure he's three betting AK a good portion of the time, too, and MPTK somewhat less often than AK, but still quite often. (Edit: Or maybe vice versa, actually. I don't know. Aggresion confuses me.)

I don't think his flop three-bet tells us anything except what we already knew, that we're much, much more likely to have to draw out to win this hand than we are to win UI.

TheHammer24

09-14-2005, 05:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]

40/9/2 is loose-aggressive but not maniacal IMO. Yet in discussion, with each of your posts he becomes MORE maniacal. You describe his pfr as an autoraise. How do you know that? And "40/9/2" doesn't tell me he'll "raise the flop 95% of the time" nor does it tell me that he will "often raise the turn" (presumably you mean with nothing).

Your starters are a "Top Pair" kind of hand, and a hand that can be dominated, and you are OOP. You want to flop either a flush draw or top pair. You did neither. Instead you flopped second pair on a board that is highly coordinated and contains an overcard, plus all three cards are in the "playing zone". You may be a little bit ahead, or way behind. I thought your CR was pretty much FPS and bravado, and played into his aggression.

I bet and call the flop hoping to see a good turn card, sort of a "Stop 'N Go". The 4c is no help. Some of the cards that will help your hand on the river are tainted (ie a K if he has a T; any club if he has two in his hand; another overcard.) Your draw to a third Jack is a two-outer.

My thought is I don't want to put a lot more money into this hand. A check here invites a LAG to bet; a bet-out, on the other hand gives him something to think about, as I am representing a made hand. If he calls the bet on the turn, I'm going to the river, where I would check-call.

But a raise by him on the turn would get my attention, and if he raises the turn bet, I'm going to have to put more money in on the river, with a hand that is not very strong.

So for me here, the turn bet is like a test. And a raise by him here means he probably has me beat. I'm not crazy about my chances at this point.

It is true that LAGs and even maniacs get cards once in a while, too. When I go to war with them, I like to have a little better hand than you had here.

After you check-called the turn, and if you were so convinced he had a hand full of crap, why did you fold the river?

In reading over the hand again, it seems to me like you decided when you looked at your starters that you were going to the river because he was "a maniac" and you were probably going to beat him. If that were so, then why the bravado on the flop? Why not just cc at each step, flop, turn, river?

bc

edit: changed "river" to "turn" in next to last paragraph
bc

[/ QUOTE ]

I described it as auto-raise because villian had raise any box checked..k?

I don't get your bet/call the flop. 95% of the time, if not more, villian raises your bet. If you are willing to put in two bets c/r is better IMO. C/R represents a lot more strength. People are less willing to raise a c/r then they are a bet. You can learn more. If he 3-bets you're likely behind, if he calls then his hand may not be strong, if he calls and raises the turn you could be in trouble. That was my reasoning.

I don't know if my line is best, but I am rather certain it is better than bet/calling, leading a blank? Your logic is flawed.

Your plan on the turn. What do you do if he raises? fold with that many outs? If you lead the turn, why are you c/c river instead of bet/folding?

I called the turn because, in real time, I thought I had about 6-8 outs which made calling correct.

I wish I had called the river..I think it's about even EV. But by folding I generated a good post /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

SeaEagle

09-14-2005, 06:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I wish I had called the river..I think it's about even EV.

[/ QUOTE ]
Really? What range of hands do you give him where you're ahead of 10% of that range?

DrewOnTilt

09-15-2005, 01:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]

The river is a harder decision, if you've decided that this player is a maniac capable of bluffing at you with a lower PP, bottom pair, or a busted straight draw then you must call. Although I would likely fold that river since there isn't a very large hand range that you're beating at that point, and villian has shown nothing but strength.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem that I have with this line is that it's not consistent. It makes no sense to me to call the turn then fold this river.

If we are good on the flop with middle pair then we are likely good on the river. This is where postflop reads are crucial. The Ace is not the nicest of cards but it doesn't complete any draws. Unless Villain has AK or A9 or has been firing away with some other Ace-rag, then this river card might as well be the 14 of Purple Horseshoes.

SackUp

09-15-2005, 02:23 AM

c/r the flop helps define the other players hand and puts the hero in control of the hand. Further we get mone in the pot when we are ahead, but get out cheaper if behind. What is this guy 3 betting that we are ahead of on the flop? His stats really are not that aggressive.

I think folding the turn is pretty easy. Any outs you have a tainted and I would be shocked if you are ever ahead here.

TheHammer24

09-15-2005, 09:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
c/r the flop helps define the other players hand and puts the hero in control of the hand. Further we get mone in the pot when we are ahead, but get out cheaper if behind. What is this guy 3 betting that we are ahead of on the flop? His stats really are not that aggressive.

I think folding the turn is pretty easy. Any outs you have a tainted and I would be shocked if you are ever ahead here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the c/r logic, but I went against it by calling the turn. I was getting 7.75:1 and I had up to 9 outs. Probably more like 5 though. I thought I had the odds to call even though I figured to be behind. Thats why I check folded the river UI. I don't know why I said I thought it was neutral EV to call the river a few posts agao. I'm pretty sure I'm behind everything but a pure bluff at this point. I guess I just wish I had kept my santity and called.