PDA

View Full Version : laydowns vs. unknown opponents


10-01-2001, 04:59 PM
As we all know, the answer to nearly every HE question begins with "it depends on the opponent." But as we also know, we often don't have the information needed to classify a certain player. So we need to have some basic rules about how to play the unknown, or the little known, opponent. What I'm interested in is when to make a tough but fairly clear-cut laydown.


Example:


15/30 HE- limper from 2nd position, you raise from the cutoff with AdQd. BB calls, limper calls. Flop comes Q-T-4 rainbow, one diamond. BB checks, limper bets, you raise, BB folds, limper calls. You've only seen him play a couple of fairly straightforward hands so far.


The turn is the 9 of spades. He check-raises. Now he's clearly representing at least 2 pair, and you may be drawing dead.


Question 1: Assuming your play here has no effect on future EV one way or the other (let's say it's your last hand, and you're leaving town tomorrow), do you lay your hand down here?


Question 2: Assuming your play here might have a great deal of influence on future EV (let's say you're trapped on an island for a year, and you'll be playing thousands of hours vs. these players), does this change your decision at all on this hand?


I just hate putting in a bet on the turn, knowing I'll have to call the river, just to have him show me a set of nines or whatever. Even when he's semi-bluffing with QJ, I feel like I simply got lucky, instead of outplaying him.


Any general ideas about when to make a laydown vs. an unknown but seemingly sane opponent are welcome. Thanks.

10-01-2001, 05:08 PM
did the 9 of spades put a 2 flush on board?

10-01-2001, 05:26 PM
I would say as a general rule, in limit poker you should be more inclined to call down an unknown opponent. In no limit poker, you should be more inclined to fold.


Also, in a limit game setting, be more inclined to call down if the game is tough, and be more inclined to fold if the game is soft. When you get check-raised on the turn in a soft game, you will RARELY get shown less than two pair.


In a tough game, the information will be valuable, so there's two reasons to call him down. By calling them down, you might beat an overly aggressive player, and this will keep most players at the table from taking a shot at you for at least a little while. Also, you call them down because that info will be valuable and the sooner you get it the better.


Of course, once you know the player better, you will know exactly what to do.


natedogg

10-01-2001, 07:05 PM
This is a difficult situation but against most opponents I play with at the middle limits, a fold is usually right. It is too easy for your opponent to have a straight or a set and have you drawing dead. Even against two pair, you may not be getting the right pot odds to chase. One of the reasons it is frequently correct to follow through with a bet on the turn is not only because you believe your hand is best but to find out where your opponent is at in many cases. As an aside, even in those cases where you guess correctly and he is semi-bluffing a draw you will still go on to lose about 20% of the time when he hits at the river. For all these reasons, I think calling is an overall negative EV play against most opponents.


I might call a maniac, a tricky player, or just a novice who is capable of anything but fold against normal people.

10-01-2001, 08:13 PM
This was an actual situation, and yes it did put two spades on board, but the other spade was the queen, so I wasn't s worried about the flush draw (though I supppose AsTs or KsTs was a possibility). I folded to his raise on the turn, but it bugged me a little, which is why I posed this question. After playing with this opponent for awhile longer though, I'm pretty sure he had me beat and I made the right decision.


Even if I had 6 clean outs, which I probably didn't, I don't think I had pot odds to draw.

10-02-2001, 12:18 AM
My play would not be affected by leaving town or being stuck on an island because I think the common teaching that calling down in order to prevent getting run over later is bad advice.


On your hand for example, after a muck on the turn, the deep thinkers will likely put the folder on an underpair and think nothing of the fold, and the shallower thinkers will figure a bluffer got caught without wondering about what he bluffed with. On to the next hand wo go, with no inkling in their mind's that top-pair-top-kicker just got mucked.


Tommy

10-02-2001, 01:43 AM
nt

10-06-2001, 01:18 AM
I couldn't agree more with Tommy's statement...."because I think the common teaching that calling down in order to prevent getting run over later is bad advice."


This axiom is preached far to often and is "slow" leak in many good players thinking. Clearly there are times when pot-odds, opponent type, and table image demand a call, but don't let it get out of hand.