Interesting Queen High

[Schneids]

3 folds to me on the button and I raise Qc 7c. SB folds, TSP calls.

Flop 9s 4h 8c.

He calls my bet.

Turn 9d. He checks I check. I have it already decided I'm calling any river that is an ace, King, Queen, 8, 7, 4, 3, 2.

River 8s. He bets, I call.

The main difference maker is he does not know it is me he's playing against, and it's the first time he's played against this name.

[Robb]

[ QUOTE ]
3 folds to me on the button and I raise Qc 7c. SB folds, TSP calls.

Flop 9s 4h 8c.

He calls my bet.

Turn 9d. He checks I check. I have it already decided I'm calling any river that is an ace, King, Queen, 8, 7, 4, 3, 2.

River 8s. He bets, I call.

The main difference maker is he does not know it is me he's playing against.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah it's a little dicey with Q high but I think it's +EV if you would raise the button with a large percentage of hands (meaning TSP can put you on things like J high and T high) and also because TSP should check A high to you (unless it's common for you to call with K/Q high).

[dopp16]

ehhhh.....wishful thinking? A little too early to decide anything, what hands did you put him on. Any reads? was he a blind protector? can u give us anything more?

[Jeffage]

What about raising the river to fold another Q or K (KQ, QJ, etc). Since you're already playing this hand kinda edgy anyway...

Jeff

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]
ehhhh.....wishful thinking? A little too early to decide anything, what hands did you put him on. Any reads? was he a blind protector? can u give us anything more?

[/ QUOTE ]

Months ago in the "is anybody beating the 30 game" thread (i think it was that one) he said he never tries to put moves on unknowns because they don't fold (ie doesn't semibluff), therefore, I think he almost always has check/called with a straight draw. Although possible he only has ace high, it's quite likely he will 3 bet a lot of them preflop.

Also, I didn't include description of him because a lot of people have played against him and still more can be deciphered from his posts on here. Yes, he liberally defends blinds.

[Robb]

[ QUOTE ]
What about raising the river to fold another Q or K (KQ, QJ, etc). Since you're already playing this hand kinda edgy anyway...

Jeff

[/ QUOTE ]
I think that totally depends on their history since it would appear a little transparent if Schneids would normally bet the turn with any ace or pair. But transparent or not it's a tough call for TSP - I think I like it.

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
Months ago in the "is anybody beating the 30 game" thread (i think it was that one) he said he never tries to put moves on unknowns because they don't fold (ie doesn't semibluff), therefore, I think he almost always has check/called with a straight draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

He doesn't semi-bluff a straight draw against unknowns, but he does bluff against them on the river if he misses?

[Catt]

[ QUOTE ]
I have it already decided I'm calling any river that is an ace, King, Queen, 8, 7, 4, 3, 2.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've thought about it some but can't get there. Why is 7 in this list but neither 5 nor 6? Is it purely that the 7 is so much more bluffable than 6 or 5? Thanks.

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Months ago in the "is anybody beating the 30 game" thread (i think it was that one) he said he never tries to put moves on unknowns because they don't fold (ie doesn't semibluff), therefore, I think he almost always has check/called with a straight draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

He doesn't semi-bluff a straight draw against unknowns, but he does bluff against them on the river if he misses?

[/ QUOTE ]

The dynamic of the hand changes when I check the turn. On the flop and turn I don't think he'll semi-bluff but I think when the turn gets checked through he will bet the river as that is *supposed* to often be a pair that gets bet for value after a ch/cal, ch/ch flop and turn. However, I base my river call on the decision that he'd have checkraised pairs on the flop and check/called draws.

[DangerGoodson]

I take back every nit comment I have ever made towards you.

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have it already decided I'm calling any river that is an ace, King, Queen, 8, 7, 4, 3, 2.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've thought about it some but can't get there. Why is 7 in this list but neither 5 nor 6? Is it purely that the 7 is so much more bluffable than 6 or 5? Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

My hand range for him: JT, T7, T6, 76, 75 and 65 (and occasional hands such as AA or Ax that didn't 3 bet PF). The 7 makes me a pair so I call. The 6 means I can only beat JT, and the 5 means I can only beat the JT, T7, and T6. Maybe you can push the 5 to a call too since that one is a little closer, but when a 7 falls I can still beat almost every hand on that list (but T6 and 65). So when the is the river I'm losing to 3 of them, but the 7 only two.

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]

The dynamic of the hand changes when I check the turn. On the flop and turn I don't think he'll semi-bluff but I think when the turn gets checked through he will bet the river as that is *supposed* to often be a pair that gets bet for value after a ch/cal, ch/ch flop and turn. However, I base my river call on the decision that he'd have checkraised pairs on the flop and check/called draws.

[/ QUOTE ]

schneids,

when you make a decision like this, are you do a calculation in your head over his possible hand range, or are you just going by a gut feel that he would bet alot of hands on the river that you beat?

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The dynamic of the hand changes when I check the turn. On the flop and turn I don't think he'll semi-bluff but I think when the turn gets checked through he will bet the river as that is *supposed* to often be a pair that gets bet for value after a ch/cal, ch/ch flop and turn. However, I base my river call on the decision that he'd have checkraised pairs on the flop and check/called draws.

[/ QUOTE ]

schneids,

when you make a decision like this, are you do a calculation in your head over his possible hand range, or are you just going by a gut feel that he would bet alot of hands on the river that you beat?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't ever do math in my head while playing, it is all by feel. The only time I will ever stop and do calculating during a hand is if I _know_ I have a hand with X outs and I am figuring out what my calling odds are and then comparing that to what I expect to earn if I hit (ie last night in the 2p2 game I made a borderline call with a gutshot to the nuts in a kinda big pot on the turn which took me a long time to make because I was doing some math).

I feel like I have a pretty good intuitive grasp in most spots. And in the post above where I described why I'd call with certain river cards (the 5 vs 6 vs 7) that is quickly done on the spot though I wouldn't call it math, since I have no idea off hand if him only winning with two of the hands vs 3 (depending on the river) makes one a +EV call and the other a -EV call or not. Since I can't figure it out in my head but feel like it's probably close enough, I don't think it will matter too much.

[Jeff W]

On a double paired board, isn't he going to be much less likely to attempt a river bluff(he's certain to get calls from Ace high and probably King High)?

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]
On a double paired board, isn't he going to be much less likely to attempt a river bluff(he's certain to get calls from Ace high and probably King High)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. I basically have to hope he thinks of me at the table as someone who'd bet those again on the turn. It should be factored into my decision but I don't know how to represent such in a mathematical manner.

[Turning Stone Pro]

From a 'normal' opponent, i would not expect a call from K or Q high. But, since Schneids has the experience of playing 1000s of hands with me (including 2+2 games), and reading my ridiculous commentary on this fine site, he had the upper hand.

Well played.

TSP

[gonores]

[ QUOTE ]
he said he never tries to put moves on unknowns because they don't fold

[/ QUOTE ]

Shouldn't you just bet the turn then and get him reeling with 7-14 outs? Or are you so sure of the bet on the river that you're willing to give up your equity on the turn?

[SGS]

[ QUOTE ]
Months ago in the "is anybody beating the 30 game" thread (i think it was that one) he said he never tries to put moves on unknowns because they don't fold (ie doesn't semibluff), therefore, I think he almost always has check/called with a straight draw. Although possible he only has ace high, it's quite likely he will 3 bet a lot of them preflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that he never puts moves on unknowns, wouldn't it then be better to bet the turn and charge him for his draw seeing as how you should be able to safely fold to a raise? Grant it if he calls and then donks the river on a bad card for you, you kind of have a dilemma. However couldn't a turn bet still be argued for given your description?

SGS

[DcifrThs]

perfect.

nothing better than owning TSP in the morning

he'll bluff that river so often (at least he would vs. me) that you gotta call on many of those cards.excpe the three though

i wouldn't call if a 3 hit the board. he ALWAYS has that card in his hand

Barron

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
he said he never tries to put moves on unknowns because they don't fold

[/ QUOTE ]

Shouldn't you just bet the turn then and get him reeling with 7-14 outs? Or are you so sure of the bet on the river that you're willing to give up your equity on the turn?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he will bluff lots of rivers, so I'm still getting a bet out of him. Since the other outcome on the turn is check/bet/call, I'm still getting exactly 1BB out of worse hands w/o the risk of getting bluffed on the turn (which I consider unlikely on the turn but still greater than 0% likely). Since I think he's check/calling with all gutshots on the turn I see no harm of giving him a freecard when he is going to bluff his misses on the river, but by checking the turn I always get a showdown when I want to, and if the river sucks then I can get out (though yes I do let him successfully bluff me out some of the time).

Hmmm, I now see it's pretty close... If I bet the turn and check river I sometimes have put in a bet and then get rivered, and occasionally get bluffed out on the river, but this is countered by sometimes winning the pot when it goes check/check on the river and the river brings a card I would have folded to had the action went my route... But if I check the turn and call the rivers I said I would, I sometimes get bluffed out but sometimes save a bet when I fold and he did in fact river me, but avoid putting in a bet and still getting bluffed out on the turn (though my read I think is pretty accurate, nothing in poker is 100%). My head is spinning.

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Months ago in the "is anybody beating the 30 game" thread (i think it was that one) he said he never tries to put moves on unknowns because they don't fold (ie doesn't semibluff), therefore, I think he almost always has check/called with a straight draw. Although possible he only has ace high, it's quite likely he will 3 bet a lot of them preflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that he never puts moves on unknowns, wouldn't it then be better to bet the turn and charge him for his draw seeing as how you should be able to safely fold to a raise? Grant it if he calls and then donks the river on a bad card for you, you kind of have a dilemma. However couldn't a turn bet still be argued for given your description?

SGS

[/ QUOTE ]

You beat me by a few minutes. My head is spinning now. I need a math guy to take over and figure out some EVs /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[mike l.]

i like it. you pick off 54 when the board pairs again.

[ALL1N]

Betting also gets him off KT (and maybe KJ, although he's probably be 3-betting this one a lot preflop).

[Catt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have it already decided I'm calling any river that is an ace, King, Queen, 8, 7, 4, 3, 2.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've thought about it some but can't get there. Why is 7 in this list but neither 5 nor 6? Is it purely that the 7 is so much more bluffable than 6 or 5? Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

My hand range for him: JT, T7, T6, 76, 75 and 65 (and occasional hands such as AA or Ax that didn't 3 bet PF). The 7 makes me a pair so I call. The 6 means I can only beat JT, and the 5 means I can only beat the JT, T7, and T6. Maybe you can push the 5 to a call too since that one is a little closer, but when a 7 falls I can still beat almost every hand on that list (but T6 and 65). So when the is the river I'm losing to 3 of them, but the 7 only two.

[/ QUOTE ]

My question makes more sense if you assume I posted thinking "Q high and TSP called the flop" and forgetting that I posted without thinking "7 gives us a pair." But glad to see that my estimate of hand ranges wasn't too far off.

[Paluka]

I agree with betting turn based on your read. Betting the turn almost has to be better unless you think there is a chance he would checkraise you with one pair or less.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
On a double paired board, isn't he going to be much less likely to attempt a river bluff(he's certain to get calls from Ace high and probably King High)?

[/ QUOTE ]

unlesss he can't beat those hands...and/or doesn't want to showdown.

Barron

[Turning Stone Pro]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with betting turn based on your read. Betting the turn almost has to be better unless you think there is a chance he would checkraise you with one pair or less.

[/ QUOTE ]

As Schneids and many others know, he would definately get check-raised by me with top or second pair on the turn. Sometimes I will do this on the flop, but more likely the turn. I believe that a flop check-raise looks like two overs, a straight draw or gutshot. A turn check-raise looks like a pair that is likely ahead of whatever the pf steal-raiser came in with, on that flop.

Also, keep im mind I was playing at a significant disadvantage based on the fact that I didnt know my opponent, and he knew me. This was paramount in this hand.

TSP

Come to think of it, i think it's time to start changing screen-names! /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[arod15]

So im assuiming it was good. I wouldnt do this without a good read....

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with betting turn based on your read. Betting the turn almost has to be better unless you think there is a chance he would checkraise you with one pair or less.

[/ QUOTE ]

As Schneids and many others know, he would definately get check-raised by me with top or second pair on the turn. Sometimes I will do this on the flop, but more likely the turn. I believe that a flop check-raise looks like two overs, a straight draw or gutshot. A turn check-raise looks like a pair that is likely ahead of whatever the pf steal-raiser came in with, on that flop.

Also, keep im mind I was playing at a significant disadvantage based on the fact that I didnt know my opponent, and he knew me. This was paramount in this hand.

TSP

Come to think of it, i think it's time to start changing screen-names! /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if you would checkraise the turn with top pair, it isn't clear to me that that makes betting wrong.

[Turning Stone Pro]

That's true. I'm not going to check-raise the turn with an A or K, in all liklihood. But, lets say he bets the turn and I call, and he doesnt improve on the river. I then check the river, do you fire again on the river? It could easily turn into a chip-spewing exercise for Schneids in this scenario.

TSP

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
That's true. I'm not going to check-raise the turn with an A or K, in all liklihood. But, lets say he bets the turn and I call, and he doesnt improve on the river. I then check the river, do you fire again on the river? It could easily turn into a chip-spewing exercise for Schneids in this scenario.

TSP

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't think I would fire the river.