Is this guy a fish, or is he brilliant?

[Gamblor]

Interesting Party hand the other night

I'm fairly certain UTG is an idiot but I could use verification.

2/4, tight passive table - not a lot of raising, but not a lot of limpers either.

I'm in the cutoff and find A /images/graemlins/spade.gif J /images/graemlins/diamond.gif. UTG limps, MP limper, I limp along. SB completes and BB checks his option.

flop: J /images/graemlins/spade.gif5 /images/graemlins/spade.gif5 /images/graemlins/club.gif .
UTG bets, MP calls I raise. SB and BB fold. UTG calls, MP calls.

turn: 6 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif.

Check, check. I bet, UTG calls, MP calls.
River is a non-threatening 2 /images/graemlins/club.gif.

Checked to me, I bet, only UTG calls.

He flips over QQ for the 9 BB pot.

[smd]

I don't know if I would call him a fish or brilliant- weak more than anything. He chickened out and feared you had trip 5s. At least he saved you probably 1 big bet.

[MaxPower]

He is passive. I don't think a passive player could be brilliant.

If he was truly brilliant he would have raised the river.

[Gamblor]

He is passive. I don't think a passive player could be brilliant.

'sfunny...

I thought the same

At least a raise in somewhere.

At worst, reraise the flop, and if he gets raised on the turn then he can get away.

[Bokonon]

There are a lot of passive tables on Party, and on those tables a reraise on the flop often -- if not *usually* --means two-pair+ . . . hence his paranoia.

That being said, he's still a fish -- I mean, it's not like another spade hit. Just saying he's a fish I can empathize with in my own weak-tight way /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[DrSavage]

Fish.
Limping UTG with QQ is much like dropping a soap in prison cell.
If this guy ever raises you he has quads.

[crockpot]

whether or not you think the guy is a fish, he plays the hand the exact same way i do (except for the absence of a preflop raise). when my flop bet gets raised on that board in a loose game, my suspicion is trip 5's, unless i know that my opponent will slowplay flopped trips. remember that if he raises you, he is laying 2:1 because you will probably reraise with the trips.

[ElSapo]

whether or not you think the guy is a fish, he plays the hand the exact same way i do (except for the absence of a preflop raise).

You wouldn't raise with a spade or a Jack-good-kicker? I don't think anyone has done anything to indicate they have a third 5. He played this too passively.

[chesspain]

You said this was a tight-passive table. Then why not raise PF after it was limped to you in the CO? It wouldn't have made the QQ fold, but you might have gotten rid of a few of the others who could have beaten you with worse hands to start.

[davidross]

Pretty hard to tell from one hand, I hate the limp with QQ, but I don't see anything wrong with the way he played it after that. If he raises the flop, he probably loses MP who gave him 1 1/2 BB's more, and gives you the chance to make him pay another BB if you have the 5 or 2 pair he fears.

THere is no doubt he seems weak tight on this hand, but weak tight can beat those low limit games.

[crockpot]

maybe, but i look at it this way, holding the QQ: if my opponent has an ace-high spade draw, he has 11 outs to beat me, and i will be charging him one more bet. if my opponent has a 5, i have 2 outs to beat him and he will be charging me two more bets.

calling the raise and betting or check-raising the turn is a better play than raising now, and i would consider it against an aggressive opponent.

also, when i have raised preflop and bet the flop, a raise indicates a lot stronger hand.

[onegymrat]

Gamblor,

It's hard to answer your question based on one hand. What I've learned in the past is that just because someone does not play the way you do, it doesn't mean he's a fish. Also, someone who plays poorly preflop may be a great player postflop. Assuming he is a good, winning player and the table is tight and passive as you described, his strategy was probably to limp in and not scare off his profits. His passive play postflop surely means he's cautious about trips, and if you didn't have a five, you just did all the work for him.

That being said, I can't imagine me limping in UTG with queens, surely any winning player would raise preflop to protect his hand. So based on that play alone, my opinion is that he's weaker than a paper door in a windstorm.

[Ed Miller]

[MrGo]

Not brilliant at all...very weak/passive.

[GuyOnTilt]

I can't tell if you're being serious with your question or not... /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Styles]

I'd like to ask what sort of thoughts you had about him and what possible hands you put him on when he bet out on that flop before you raised him?

[Gamblor]

First hand I'd played with him, and he'd raised the turn with the nut-flush once (A4s from LP) and called a QT4 flop+turn bet with AT from LMP and hit his A on the river. Certainly had odds for those two calls with 4 in the hand and preflop raise by KQs in LP.

Hadn't lost a hand in the 12 hands i watched him play - but saw I'd guess half of the flops (most were in LP) and folded immediately after the flop.



With an UTG limp, calling the flop raise and calling to the river, I could (at party) put him on anything from KJ/QJ/JT/J9 to TT or 99

[Gamblor]

Well I've always believed that with a dangerous flop, and a strong PF hand, you can safely check and call all the way to encourage semi-bluffs that turn into outright river bluffs - i.e. when you have AA and flop comes something like JT3, or monochrome...

I believe that was in HPFAP somewhere, and perhaps he believed he was allowing me to bluff all the way.

A LP limper could also easily have a 5 - but is there any hand with a 5 that could limp with only 2 others in? even 56s is not a good one for this. A5s? 55? Could he have reasonably put me on those?

I think I would certainly have raised PF and 3-bet the flop. If opponent caps flop, I slow down and consider a turn fold. No PF raise with a big pair at a tight-passive table was the reason for giving him more credit than he may be due.

[Styles]

[ QUOTE ]
With an UTG limp, calling the flop raise and calling to the river, I could (at party) put him on anything from KJ/QJ/JT/J9 to TT or 99


[/ QUOTE ]

hmmm interesting ...

I considered those too. I thought If he had something like KJs obviously it wasn't spades. You also know he doesn't have the Ace Spades. Do you think he would bet out with KJo with the King of Spades and a backdoor flush? Even with a pair on the board? I might check-call, check-raise that on the turn myself, if I were him with KJo.

I can see the overpair there. Now did he play it right, I dunno, but, I wouldn't be shocked to be shown an overpair that didn't preflopraise in a tight-passive game.

I don't think that makes him an idiot per se. If he would normally raise a high pair then it looks to me like he's trying to adjust his play.

I would actually play the way he did but I'm weak-tight too and play $1/$2 - I would be more likely to raise QQ in LP once people were already in, thus knowing that they would call. In EP, I think too many people fold if you raise that.

Interesting Post. Thanks.

[mdw442]

I don't know - I find this typical of the players at the lower limit tables, both in rings and tourneys. He is limping because he is afraid of the AA, but he is certain he has a strong hand so he won't fold.

The ones I get a kick out of are the ones that limp along with the nuts while everyone else beats themselves silly raising and re-raising. They just call along until the showdown and scoop the pot. I have never seen this strategy played a lot in the past, but with the new crop of online players, I see it at every table.

[Gamblor]

LOL:

Find the mistake my opponent made in this hand:
(Not a FTOP mistake, a poor play mistake)

Heads up:
I have KK.
He has AA.

Capped preflop.

Flop: 444

Capped flop.

Turn: 5.

Capped turn.

River: K

Check, bet, call.

[sachinag]

I don't like your raises on the turn. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

This is the thing: I'm with davidross. I'd raise QQ UTG, too, but I think there's nothing wrong with playing to minimize your swings at the 2/4 level, if you choose to do so. I think good, rational players can decide to make that risk/return tradeoff if they want to. I had a really bad day this weekend where all my draws didn't come out even though I had the pot odds to justify it. But calling $6 or $8 to get to that river for your nut flush draw every time hurts. You'll lose money in the long term, but it's a rational way to play for someone who recognizes exactly what he/she's doing. Now, I decided not to play that way, but that's only because I decided to take my swings.

[Ed Miller]

...because the only thing I see in this hand is a horribly overplayed KK.

[CrackerZack]

This is entirely true. When exactly does KK start to figure out, "hey, maybe I'm not winning!" ?

capped PF, flop 444, ok, he doesn't have a 4, capped flop, turn no help, capped turn. I think some time around a single turn raise here I might think, wow, I'm not winning.

Nice 2 out catch. You opponents mistake was having a K come off on the end because he certainly got a ton of money in the pot with the best hand from a single player.

[Bozeman]

His mistake: not playing where headsup pots are uncapped.

[47outs]

He doesn't make you pay out of your ass. He doesn't make the spade draw pay out of his ass. He let the BB in to crack his QQ with junk. He is a fish because he didn't get full value from his hand, and he let people in to crack him. You saved 1-2 BB's assuming you still would have called preflop if he raised(most people would have called, but I spiton AJoff). If you had the QQ and he had the AJ, you would have won a 9 BB pot with less risk of getting cracked (cause you narrowed the field).

[Gamblor]