On the threshold of LAG?

[Schneids]

One of the aspects of my game that I've been experimenting more with in 2004 is raising out of the blinds with a wider range of suited broadway makers (thoughts on this topic?)... However, sometimes, when I do this, I feel like I'm on the verge of becoming a LAG. Here is one such hand. Please give me any comments or statements of reassurance that I'm not on my way to LAGdom:

Party Poker 1/2 (5 handed)
Hero has J/images/graemlins/club.gif, K/images/graemlins/club.gif and is SB

UTG limps, Button limps, Hero raises, BB calls, UTG calls, Button calls

Flop(8 SB): 4/images/graemlins/heart.gif, J/images/graemlins/spade.gif, Q/images/graemlins/spade.gif

Hero bets, BB calls, UTG folds, Button calls

Turn(5 1/2 BB): 4/images/graemlins/club.gif

Hero bets, BB folds, Button calls

River(7 1/2 BB): 6/images/graemlins/diamond.gif

Hero bets...

[stoxtrader]

I would raise here as well with KJs, only complete with KJo. in either event, I would continue to lead out with 2nd pair and an overcard and call down anyone who plays back on this board. Maybe I'm LAG as well, but I sure think I take down pots that I have no right to without having to showdown because of this type of aggression.

[Robk]

I would check the river.

[davidross]

I'm curious to hear more opinions on the blind raise with KJs. I don't do it, but I would with ATs and better. At a full table with 4 or more already in I like it as well, but in your position you might find yourself in a 3 way pot. Now if you're raising because you think you have the best hand thats fine, but I usually raise with suited cards when you want to make the pot big enough to keep people in if you flop your flush or a draw. In shorthanded I don't think you can make the pot big enough, so it would seem to me that you're just killing your implied odds.

I like th eway you played the rest of the hand, especially the river. You're going to call a river bet anyway, and only a 4 will raise you. This way a worse Jack, or pocket pair under JJ will pay you off.

[ZeeJustin]

Maybe this is a leak in my game, but I wouldn't raise with KJs there. I don't raise often from the SB unless I think I can make it heads up, or I have a very strong hand.

[James282]

I would check the river because my opponents are generally not sophisticated enough to think "he will only call if he beats me" and will value bet smaller pairs, and smaller jacks. Dumb opponents like to try to "punish" aggressors on the river when they actually have a pair and think you were pure bluffing with AK. It gives them a sense of power to make you fold even if they have you beat already. You will also get bluffed at by any of the miriad of possible drawers who missed their draw and want to get you off overcards. On the other hand, these missed draws will almost definitely not call your bet. It seems like there is more value in checking.
-James

[naphand]

Yes - I see this play a lot. I would say that a River check would get a lower pair to bet into you more often with a 2-suited flop that does not develop, as it looks like you've been betting the draw. If instead you have the best hand, and your opponent was calling with the flush draw (and missed), they may be tempted to try and bluff.

I would prefer to make this play once I have an idea how my opponents would play draws/lower pairs, but it certainly is a time to think about checking the River. Some players will auto-bet if you do this.

[Schneids]

First, I must apologize -- I'm on my laptop right now which does not have PT data, so, I cannot give you the exact hand of the other player. Anyway, he called, and MHIG. I'll probably come back later today and make an addition about what I was called by.

Anyway, my own thinking, regarding PF:
I remember Clark or JT or somebody saying in an SS post that they will always raise AJs out of the blinds (or maybe I'm just dillusional -- but it was something of that effect), so, that got me thinking about this more -- especially its applicability in SH games... If there's 1-2 limpers in the pot, my KJs hand is almost certainly the best, right? So, why not get more money into the pot? It doesn't mean I have to bet the flop, and it doesn't mean I have to call a bet when the flop misses me and there are other callers (thus increasing the likelihood some of my overcard outs may make a two pair for someone else). So far, I think I like making these raises because it feels like when I win with these hands now, instead of them being little 3-5BB pots, they are almost always 5-8BBs -- all at the cost of one extra SB PF. This, with the important point being, that I must refuse to leak bets to the pot chasing potentially tainted outs. Obviously, it's easier to see why AQs or even KQs could and should often raised from a blind -- I'm starting to think it makes just about as much sense to do so with KJs (when against opponents who don't limp-reraise). Additionally, how many times do you raise an AK or AQ, and hit your ace, only to lose to Ax hitting aces up? Quite often. Well, the times when you hit the king on the board, it's less likely you're going to lose to kings up because there's less potential king hands that (typical/fishy) people are playing against you. This sounded so much better in my head, but hopefully its logic is at least somewhat sound, even if it is still debateable. It sounds like, almost for sure though, most people are willing to agree that AJs or KQs should be raised from the blinds when in a 'good' game?

My thoughts regarding the river play:
At the time of this hand, I remember being very unsure of whether I wanted to check and call a bet, or just bet out. After reading some of the posts I tend to like checking and calling a bet, as the better option.

However, I can think of some times when I would rather bet. Here was my thought process during this hand: I was fairly certain, after I only got called on the turn, that my hand was good. I felt that if the button had a queen of any kind, he'd have raised the turn for sure, if not on the flop. I also felt he'd have raised any significant draw on the flop (Considering the straight and flush possibilities). So this narrowed what I perceived were his potential holdings down considerably -- basically to pocket pairs, or jack-something. I figured he would for sure call a bet, and possibly in a desperation semi-bluff attempt, raise my bet (after all, the turn paired the fours... and some people do wait to the river to raise). I also was not 100% certain he would bet the river if checked to (though the possibility is still highly likely). I think the possibility of getting an extra bet off of his desperation raise (or perhaps a KT that had decided to not raise the flop, and knows he can only win by raising AND only if I have overcards that missed), coupled with the slight chance he would not bet the river when checked to, made me decide to bet. Of course, these factors can all become moot points for the occasional times he does have a four in his hand... I dunno, maybe this is just such a close play where it doesn't really matter whether I check or bet?

All additional afterthoughts on my comments are appreciated. Thanks for the responses. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[naphand]

Interesting point about raising with a K. I can certainly agree with the logic of it, as you really would not expect people to be playing Kx anywhere near as much as Ax. And you probably do have the best hand against limpers, as surely you can expect a raise from AK, AJ or KQ (mostly), and you can still expect to take down the large majority of flushes you hit.

If you are being very critical of the flop, and folding after a raise is not presenting you with psychological problems ( /images/graemlins/grin.gif), then the raise looks fine.

How do you respond to flops like 2nd pair/backdoor flush? or 2nd pair/inside straight? with an A on the board. You are out of position, so are you going to bet this and risk a raise from TP? or check and call a bet?

[wontons]

what does lag stand for? Anyway... I do NOT like this play and consider myself TO BE A GOD in heads up/ shorthanded play...more so heads up...anyway.
My logic is ..your in the small blind worse position possible to raise with this hand...considering KJs is not that much better than 98s or even 98 off...i mean give me a break KJs is not SIGNIFICANTLY better than KJ off of course you prefer KJs to KJ duh...but to value bet KJs while just completing KJ..what the f%%k???? thats like saying im going to limp in with 72 off and raise in sm blind with 72s in a multihanded pot...lol.heck i realize i dont know the acronym for LAG.(lazy ass gopher??) but to my response to attackers on my post...I am not going to play shorthanded anytime in the future and generally don't play with more than 3 people...where I still dont know about raising in the sm blind if all 3 people are going to call...like sumother poster said ..."What implied odds?" theres 3 fu$$king people in the pot!!...also am i wrong here or should this post be nominated for response the the year?

Thank you very much everyone, wontons is signing off for tonite i pregamed at 9pm here and partied all night .(meaning no poker, just grinding with girls and drinking)

[naphand]

I would certainly be prepared to nominate this post for "alcohol inspired rant of the year"...

... for your information wontons (if you can avoid falling off your chair for a moment) LAG is a term used for very advanced poker players, whose mastery of poker and lightning fast reflexes to situations many would find tricky, requires them to deliberately delay their actions (aka introducing a "time lag" into their play) lest they find themselves playing the undealt cards (that is to say, cards that have not yet appeared on the board); such is their mastery of the game of poker.

These players are the true poker Gods, and our only-too-clearly-mortal attempt to understand and dissect the game on the 2+2 forum must appear trivial in comparison to their cosmic poker minds. Thank-you for gracing us with your wisdom, it gives me hope to know that, indeed, the Poker Gods are watching over us. Praise be...!!

[ZeeJustin]

LAG means loose aggressive.

[ggano]

[James282]

Hey wantons, if you think KJs has as much value as 98o from the small blind, you might be the second stupidest person on this forum. Also, if you consider yourself a GOD shorthanded and heads up, but compare raising 72s and limping with 72o to doing the same with KJ, you might actually contend for the stupidest person on the forum.
-James

[Henke]

I find your post very interesting, and I also read your thoughts in the results post. However, I don't think I agree with you. Yes, chances are you probably have the best hand, but not by very much. You need either a monster flop (two-pair, trips) or to some extent a flushdraw to make it incorrect for your opponents to call you with a smaller pair. And if you do hit the flop with say top pair, you won't be able to check-raise to drive your opponents out.

On the other hand, if your opponents are weak, then your pf-raise might enable you to buy the pot on the flop. But from my experience, low-limit opponents are ususally far from weak...

[naphand]

Careful James - my understanding is he is a bit loose and aggressive with the odd bolt of lightning.... /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Maybe he just has a different perspective on the game, you know, like from the inside of a bottle.

[naphand]

A lot of shorthanded play involves pushing small margins, and in an unraised pot KJs is quite likely the best hand. It is a question of whether that any *slight* advantage is significantly handicapped by poor position.

The logic of playing a good K against players who will play Ax is discussed in HFAP; a flop with low cards may have paired the A kicker of someone else, and a strong A may be drawing very thin. At least with KJ you likely have 6 clean outs, so can call a bet/raise on a low flop more easily than, for example, AJ. Unraised PF, all things being equal, should discount hands like KQ, AQ, AK and probably AJ so TP is likely best and from there on it should play the same as any other TP hand, surely, with just the added possibility of an A falling being a concern (how does this affect our play?).

The raise PF will only give 2nd/3rd pair callers odds to chase if there are 4 or more players involved in the hand, and if this is so, he may WANT to raise to keep them in for when he catches the flush draw. I think this was part of the logic of the original proposition. That said, I think the positional consideration is very important, maybe critically so.

This is still an interesting idea, even if only because it concerns the *margins* of what is a raising hand and what isn't, and it could be useful to explore this idea further, even if in the end we discard it. We play the blinds 33% of the time (6-player) short-handed, and I would like a deeper understanding of strategy in this area, it's a big part of the game.