A6s 100-200 hand

[mike l.]

but it may as well have been 20-40 cause it was a table full of guys ive played 20 and 40 with before. there was only one higher limit player that i recognized and since he played about one hand every 2 hours he didnt really come into the equation. this was at hp by the way oh man it was a good game.

anyways a weak tight player raised utg. i have A6s in the cutoff and feeling kind of bored i 3 bet. i remember clarkmeister saying to push weak tight utg raisers around with Axs from late position so i thought id give it a go. the blinds folded and he called.

the flop was A95. he checked and i checked.

the turn is 3. he checks, i bet, he calls.

the river is 7. he checked, i bet.

comments?

[andyfox]

100-200 and you were bored! Cool, mike!

I prefer to bet the flop and check behind on the turn. Then they'll usually bet almost anything on the river into you.

[Diplomat]

Well, I usually don't mess with weak-tight players that much pre-flop, but I'm definitely not cold-calling pre-flop, so meh bleh whatever.

On the flop I like the check. He's folding anything less than an ace.

The rest is standard.

What ever happened to grinding it out at 8-16?

-Diplomat

[Gabe]

"What ever happened to grinding it out at 8-16?"

He got bored

[ML4L]

Hey andy,

Assuming he's ahead, doesn't he win 1/2 BB more this way...? I know we have to consider check-raises, etc. to really do this right, but when I find myself in this situation, I will check the flop a good percentage of the time and am surprised at how often I collect two big bets as a result.

ML4L

[andyfox]

They expect you to bet the flop every time when you 3-bet an UTG raiser pre-flop. I find I often lose them on the turn without collecting anything post-flop because they suspect a slow-played monster. I'm talking 30-60 and 40-80 here, though; I am unfamiliar with 100-200.

[J_V]

You're gonna lose your ass 3-betting this hand. It doesn't matter how well you play really.

I'm not sure when Clarkmeister recommended this play, but I don't run into very many players that play weak enough to make this profitable. I really doubt how weak-tight this guy really is too. If Mason wore a disguise, and hid out in your 40-80 game, I have no doubt in my mind you'd call him weak-tight.


The play after the flop was fine, but really what does that matter when you can't show the discipline to play marginally well pre-flop. How many time are you gonna raise 10-7s 3 off the button before you stop?

Think about this. If I'm playing in a game w/ Clarkmeister, what would I have to do to beat him? There's really no easy answer. I might try making myself seem weaker against other less aggressive players, and make sure I'm more aggressive against him on the turn and river. I might try rope a doping him early on w/ some stronger hands, in hopes I could steal pots later. Whatever, the way is....it's certainly not easy to come up w/ a plan.

Against Mike L, all J_V would have to do is wait for two big cards. Not exactly rocket science. All your post-flop skill would not overcome that strategy.

If you want to be really successful you're gonna have to stop shunning the mathematics of poker, because that's what raising 5-2s in the cutoff is doing, no matter how you justify it. If you want to screw around so much, go find another game...NL perhaps. It's like you're playing chess and trying to move the bishops along the ranks. That's not how the game works.

[andyfox]

The guy checked the flop and check-called the turn. Then he checked the river. If the guy is tough, then mike might get into trouble on the river, but not if he's truly weak-tight. So far, we have no evidence with which to dispute mikes characterization of the guy as weak-tight. The guy opened UTG and didn't make a move after that. mike will eat the weak-tight guys alive.

My sense is mike's not always getting involved willy-nilly with T-7 or A-x. The hand's he's posting feature those more often than not because they're more difficult to play than when you have pocket kings, flop a set and turn a full house. The money's made after the flop.

As for dealing with Clarkmeister when he's in the game, I'd do it just like I would for any top-notch player: avoid confromtations whenever possible.

And, respectfully, I disagree about just waiting for two big cards beig the way to counter a good player's post-flop skill. It's a seven-card game.

[J_V]

"The guy checked the flop and check-called the turn. Then he checked the river. If the guy is tough, then mike might get into trouble on the river, but not if he's truly weak-tight. So far, we have no evidence with which to dispute mikes characterization of the guy as weak-tight. The guy opened UTG and didn't make a move after that. mike will eat the weak-tight guys alive."

The flop came ace high, that's why the action went so passive. Mike L. hit a three outer. I like the way the UTG played his KK, QQ.

Let's see, 6 small bets went in preflop, where Mike l. had three outs. He's lucky those three outs weren't the six because he would have lost a bigger pot. 8 small bets went in after the flop - not exactly killer implied odds for that three outer. (Save the argument that he can bluff the weak-tight guy off his hand if he misses...half the time or so it'll be a big pair...it doesn't happen, if you want to make this argument, it's agree to disagree and have fun w/ your Axs).

As for questioning mike l's definition of weak tight, I'm saying that based on his style of play, I am positive he considers good, tough players, weak-tight - as do most other loose aggressive players.

"As for dealing with Clarkmeister when he's in the game, I'd do it just like I would for any top-notch player: avoid confromtations whenever possible."

People like to say this as an end-all to handling players as good or better than you. "hey justin, I hear you are a pretty good ping-pong player, how do you beat a player who can mix up spin and has a good back-hand slam."

"I just don't play them."

When its folded to me on the button, and I raise and you are trying to avoid confrontations with me, you're ceding the edge. Now for some players, the difference in skill level is too great and they are better off minimizing their loss by avoiding confrontations. But, this is certainly not "solving" the problem of dealing with tough players.

[ QUOTE ]
My sense is mike's not always getting involved willy-nilly with T-7 or A-x.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[ QUOTE ]
And, respectfully, I disagree about just waiting for two big cards beig the way to counter a good player's post-flop skill. It's a seven-card game.

[/ QUOTE ]


Without making this a first person issue, if loose mike l. played tight mike l. Tight mike l. would win. So, let's stop giving our money away preflop.

[ML4L]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm talking 30-60 and 40-80 here, though; I am unfamiliar with 100-200.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I was talking 10-20 and 15-30... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I'm probably even less familiar with 100-200 than you, so maybe you're right. But, since Mike described this as a typical mid-limit crowd, I figured that his opponent would be the type to want to keep Mike honest with some pocket pair after Mike checks the flop. I don't know. Oh well.

ML4L

[mike l.]

i dont think i did an adequate job of describing weak tight utg. i havent read any of the responses yet, but i was thinking about it later today and realised the best way to describe him would be to say he is not as position conscious as he should be, nor is he a very skilled player. he would probably limp with but not raise w/ KJo utg, but he would raise utg in with KQs. hope that helps cause i realised that saying weak tight might make some of you think he must have pocket aces, kings, or queens when he raised utg.

[mike l.]

"if loose mike l. played tight mike l. Tight mike l. would win. So, let's stop giving our money away preflop."

this is the most helpful thing youve ever said to me. thanks i really appreciate it.

[andyfox]

"The flop came ace high, that's why the action went so passive. Mike L. hit a three outer. I like the way the UTG played his KK, QQ."

Maybe. But maybe weak-tight would have checked the flop to the 3-bettor no matter what came. And maybe he would have just called mike's flop bet and checked to him on the turn. So by being weak-tight he effectiely gives mike more than 3 outs (if indeed that's what mike had). If this guy's one of the 20-40 players taking a shot, he may be even more inclined to play passively.

"I am positive he considers good, tough players, weak-tight - as do most other loose aggressive players."

I doubt it. I don't think he considers Clarkmeister, Mason, Gabe, Tommy, Josh W., just to name a few I know he's played with, weak-tight.

"When its folded to me on the button, and I raise and you are trying to avoid confrontations with me, you're ceding the edge."

The last place I want the toughest player at the table is two places to my right. When I decide whether or not to defend my blind, I always consider, among other things, just who is was who has done the raising. The weaker the player, obviously, the more liable I am to get involved. It's a very sensible way to deal with better players, to avoid them more often than weaker players.

"Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm."

I've played 40-80 with him.


Hey, you know I'm a tight player. But I don't think there's any question better players can "catch up," so to speak, playing more hands than their less skilled opponents.

I agree with you that 3-betting a weak-tight UTG opener is putting yourself behind the 8-ball.

[mike l.]

"I figured that his opponent would be the type to want to keep Mike honest with some pocket pair after Mike checks the flop."

that's exactly how i read the situation. i was really hoping for one of those many many flops without an ace where he would check and i would bet and he would fold, or maybe he'd peel with overcards and then fold on the turn. and if he showed any strength on the flop or turn id abandon ship. i really had a clear vision of all those scenarios and how i would play them postflop. that's why i reraised preflop.

but then when the ace fell i figured it would be best to just check the flop and then fold if he bet the turn (or checkraised or bet the river or showed strength in any way), after all he must have A better kicker, this is just not how he plays KK or JJ period. i think this was the best way to play it. i surprised myself with the flop check, i think it was an expert play.

[J_V]

I don't believe your raise was this well thought out. Did you really think about what opponents you could get away with this with. Or did you think, I'm bored, Clark said it was okay, let's gamble. It's too coincidental for me that the UTG player was the "perfect" player to try this on. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm making my read.

[mike l.]

"I don't believe your raise was this well thought out. Did you really think about what opponents you could get away with this with. Or did you think, I'm bored, Clark said it was okay, let's gamble."

a combination of about 65-35 id say between option 1/option 2.

"It's too coincidental for me that the UTG player was the "perfect" player to try this on."

he wasnt. he was only near perfect.

youre gonna love the results.

[mike l.]

i bet the river he called. i showed my A 6 kicker and he took it down w/ ATs.