Passive play in the money

[PrayingMantis]

27$ Turbo NL SNG, we're last 3, in the money. Blinds 400/800 ante 50, Stacks: 6000, 6000, 1500. I'm with 6000.

Small stack folds, and other big stack completes on the SB. He's been a pretty passive player, calls a lot, loves to stay in a hand. Not too aggressive. I check on the BB with 3 /images/graemlins/spade.gif 3 /images/graemlins/heart.gif.

Flop: 2 /images/graemlins/club.gif 5 /images/graemlins/club.gif 4 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif (pot 1750)

He bets 800. As I read him - he probably has something. Whether it's the draw, or a piece of the board (X5, X4, etc). But it's a weak bet, so he could be trying to take it down with some overcards too. Hard to tell. I don't want to raise him or take a risk for all my stack, since 3rd stack is almost out, so I try to be cautious. I believe that if I make my straight, he might pay me with all his stack. I call.

Turn: 4 /images/graemlins/club.gif (pot: 3350)

He bets 800. It's possible he has his flush now, but this is a mini-bet. Doesn't look like it. My OE could still be good. And I have outs for a boat, too. I call.

River: 7 /images/graemlins/club.gif (pot: 4950)

He bets 800. Well, I can beat only over-cards without /images/graemlins/club.gif, or some X2 (A2? K2?) without /images/graemlins/club.gif. The pot gives me more than 7:1. I call.

Results to come. Flame away.

[Pitcher]

Hi PM,

This is an interesting hand. It would have been a challenge for me not to re-raise the flop or even push at that point. That is probably too aggressive but I suspect this player (based on your description) will quicky muck. On the other hand, I can see how you would be trying to get him pot committed and take his stack if you hit.
I would suggest you are the better player and taking it down right away (assuming you believed he would fold) would be the best course.
Also, I would not have called the river despite the odds. It has been my experience that when a player bets like that straight through they caught a small piece of the flop and are simply "value" betting it. That would mean a 4 or 5 to me. I would put this player on something like A5 or A4 at the river and fold.

Pitcher

[PrayingMantis]

Long time, Pitcher!

Thanks for the reply. I did have hard time not to raise him on the flop. My main reason was that I felt he's not a very bluffable opponent, so he might have called all-in with a pair of 5's. Yes, he would have probably folded over-cards, but since we were really close to HU, I felt I can outplay him without pushing. With other stack-counts, I probably raise him. I'm not sure my thinking is correct here, though.

Regarding the river call. I think you are correct, and most of the times, with this pattern of betting, the opponent does have a piece of the board. However, the pot was really big at that point, and the bet was still minimal. I needed him to bluff there not more than 1/8 of the time, for it to be a correct call for me. I would not have called any bigger bet. However, since he didn't show much aggressiveness in the game, even 1/8 could be too high for this player. Pretty marginal spot, I admit.

[Tosh]

Any validity to raising preflop?

[Phil Van Sexton]

I almost certainly would have moved allin on the flop. Here is my thinking...
- I want to finish 1st now that I'm in the money, so I'm not going to wait for someone to go out 3rd. My opponent will often do the opposite with someone on the short stack. This is exactly the spot to take advantage of this.

- You say he might have called an allin with X5, but I really don't think he had that hand. With top pair, you would think he would bet the pot (1600) to shut out the many draws that this hand presents.

If I had to guess, I'd say he had K4 or K3 with the 3 or 4 of clubs. What did he have?

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
I almost certainly would have moved allin on the flop. Here is my thinking...
- I want to finish 1st now that I'm in the money, so I'm not going to wait for someone to go out 3rd. My opponent will often do the opposite with someone on the short stack. This is exactly the spot to take advantage of this.

- You say he might have called an allin with X5, but I really don't think he had that hand. With top pair, you would think he would bet the pot (1600) to shut out the many draws that this hand presents.

If I had to guess, I'd say he had K4 or K3 with the 3 or 4 of clubs. What did he have?

[/ QUOTE ]

There were 2 reasons for me not to move in on the flop:

1) the fact that the small stack was almost out. I know this is sometimes a weak and problematic consideration, but he was about to get into the blinds, that would eat his stack completely (he had 1500, BB+SB+2xante=1300). I'm not playing for 2nd place, but I felt I can wait a bit for a little better opportunity to apply strength.

2) more important: my read of this opponent was that he loves making big calls. So, unless I'm pretty sure he's not betting a 5 here, pushing, without a good chance of him folding a better hand, did not look like a good option. There is also an option of him holding some small over pair, like 66-88. I don't believe he would have mucked it. I'm not sure he would even muck 4 here.

I agree, however, that against many opponents, pushing on the flop is probably the better play.

These two reasons combined, made me play it the way I did. That doesn't mean it's the proper way, of course.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Any validity to raising preflop?

[/ QUOTE ]

I read him as a pretty passive, loose caller. Against such a player, I don't see what I can gain by raising PF with 33. He would have called with such a variety of hands, and so many times I will have 3 over-cards on the flop, that raising PF wont really help me in playing this hand, except from building a pot PF.

Unless you mean pushing PF. The problem is I cannot expect even one hand I'm ahead of to call, but only hands that have me buried or in a coin-flip situation.

[Tosh]

Fair enough against this opponent then, normally I would never let someone limp against me when I hold a pair though.

[PrayingMantis]

He had A /images/graemlins/spade.gif 5 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif and took it down. Pitcher was right on.

Short stack busted one hand later.

I busted 2nd, when blinds were 600/1200: we were about even stacks, I pushed with ATs and he called with J8 and hit a J.

[TheGrifter]

I like the check vs. raise preflop given your read of this player. Against most players I would raise.

However, you need to fold on this flop. Since you feel that you are likely behind there is no point in going to battle with a OESD on a low card draw heavy board.

Sounds like you'll have a distinct advantage if this goes HU. You'll find better spots than this.

A raise on this flop is too expensive and given the nature of your opponent and the action I feel it would be wrong to move in.

[Phil Van Sexton]

What a great read by you. I guess I gave him too much credit. I figured he would have raised from SB with Ax, and then bet the pot on the flop with TPTK plus an inside straight draw. Wrong, and wrong.

Well played.

[Jason Strasser]

Wow, I can't believe some people think that this hand was played correctly. In my book, this is a horrible way to play this hand!

Preflop: Depending on your read, I'd either check, or make a slightly larger than pot bet, trying to take it down. But the way you played it was fine.

On the flop: Wowza. This is second best to flopping a set in my book. You really cant ask for too much better. There is NO explanation for calling. I'd say a solid 75% of the time, your opponent is behind at this point. He probably has over cards, what not. There are bazillions of hands that he could have betting into you. This, for me, is an instant reraise. I'd make it 2k. If he pushes, you either make the correct play and call, or decide to fold and sweat it out for second. I'd tend to call, figuring to be a small dog. If my big reraise on the flop was called. I'd probably check behind on the turn (if missed), and go from there. You have to remember, that most opponents will give up after you raise to 2k.

To me, it sounds like you are being results oriented. Sure he would've beaten you in this case, but I really feel like playing passive in this spot is a bad idea. If you felt really strongly about your read, thats fine. But I don't see why he wouldn't raise an overpair to the board preflop? And even if he had a 4, you could quite easily get him to fold. Remember, he doesnt want to finish third either with the short stack around.

Hope that helped.

[PrayingMantis]

I appriciate your thinking here, but I'm not sure it's such a "horrible" way to play it, maybe just not optimal. But let's see.

[ QUOTE ]
On the flop: Wowza. This is second best to flopping a set in my book. You really cant ask for too much better. There is NO explanation for calling. I'd say a solid 75% of the time, your opponent is behind at this point. He probably has over cards, what not. There are bazillions of hands that he could have betting into you. This, for me, is an instant reraise. I'd make it 2k. If he pushes, you either make the correct play and call, or decide to fold and sweat it out for second. I'd tend to call, figuring to be a small dog. If my big reraise on the flop was called. I'd probably check behind on the turn (if missed), and go from there. You have to remember, that most opponents will give up after you raise to 2k.


[/ QUOTE ]

As I said in the OP and later, I read him as a passive player, not aggressive, and a loose caller. When he bet into me with his mini-bet on the flop, my read of him, then, is that he has *something* most of the time. I do not agree that against this opponent I'm 75% ahead. No way. There is a possibility he's behind, sure, that's why I called on the river, but on the flop I have OE str8 draw with what is practically a bottom pair. I cannot see how you can call it "flopping a set". Very very very different, in my book.

Now, of course I thought of raising. But as I saw this, with my chances of staying HU against this guy, I didn't see what I can gain if he does not fold to a re-raise (and he will *not* most of the time), and my str8 doesn not hit, which is also the scenario most of the time. OTOH, if I did hit my str8, playing my hand as an implied odds hand, I can surely see how he will pay me with all his stack. That was my reason for only calling, very untypical for me I must tell you, and not raising in this spot, plus the fact that the 3rd stack was almost out.

Notice the the whole reason I've posted this hand, was because of the specific nature of my opponent, as I read him. If it was a "typical" opponent (whatever that means), it is an easy raise. However - if you think it is always a raise, no matter how your opponent plays - I believe you are wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
To me, it sounds like you are being results oriented.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could be. I don't think so.

[ QUOTE ]
If you felt really strongly about your read, thats fine. But I don't see why he wouldn't raise an overpair to the board preflop?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I've seen him not raising stronger hands PF.

[ QUOTE ]
And even if he had a 4, you could quite easily get him to fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure why are you so certain. You might be right, of course, but I've seen this player making few terrible calls previously in the game. Again, I mentioned this read in my description of him in my first post.


[ QUOTE ]
Remember, he doesnt want to finish third either with the short stack around.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good point. But not necessarily enough to make me play strong, at this point, against a player that have proven he's not folding easily.

[Jason Strasser]

Praying Mantis:

Maybe my choice of words for "Horrible" was a bit harsh, excuse that /images/graemlins/shocked.gif.

I overlooked your read on this opponent a little, I guess. If you think he will call you down with a four, while risking busting out before the small stack does, than you do have to change the way you play this hand. However, as you said, this player loves to call, AND he will pay you off. This, to me, looks like a perfect time to semi bluff and buy yourself a free river.

If I am correct, if you raise the flop to 2k, he will check to you 100% of the time (I guess less than 100%, maybe if he hits 2 pair or trips he'd bet) on the turn. So play your implied odds! Raise up the flop, let him check to you on the turn. Check behind. On the river, judging again by your read, he will most likely check again. You check behind, and have a very playable stack. And in certain situations, although you aren't convinced of it, your hand may be good.

When passive players are shown agression, they usually shut down. I'm convinced that if you had raised the flop, you could see a showdown for free. He would be in check call mode, very scared of what you could possibly raise him with.

I hope that explanation helped.

[Jason Strasser]

More random thoughts:

[ QUOTE ]
Now, of course I thought of raising. But as I saw this, with my chances of staying HU against this guy, I didn't see what I can gain if he does not fold to a re-raise (and he will *not* most of the time), and my str8 doesn not hit, which is also the scenario most of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are raising to buy yourself a free river, and to shut him down into check/call mode. Keep in mind, when the scare flush card came on the turn, he would most certainly not be value betting on the river. Your passiveness is what caused him to value bet.

You would've saved money by raising him on the flop, and then checking it down (assuming u miss). That is why you raise, even against a certain call.

[PrayingMantis]

Again, you made some goods points.

But, if you say I should have raised the flop in order to buy me free cards, I can show you this isn't necessarily the case here:

He bet 800 on the flop. You say I should raise to 2k, and then get to see the turn and river for free (actually for 2k), IF he does not bet again. However, in the real hand, I paid only 1600 to see the turn and river (calling twice for 800), WITH nice implied odds (to begin with) that I could not have had I reraised 2k on the flop.

So, I paid 400T less to see both streets, comparing to your 2k raise suggestion. It is true on the river I called 800 more, and maybe if I raised on the flop he wouldn't have bet there, but this is not the big issue here, IMO. Anyway, I'm not very fond of my river call.

Again, I would raise on the flop most of the time against other opponents. Here, I thought there is some merit in only calling.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
You are raising to buy yourself a free river, and to shut him down into check/call mode. Keep in mind, when the scare flush card came on the turn, he would most certainly not be value betting on the river. Your passiveness is what caused him to value bet.

You would've saved money by raising him on the flop, and then checking it down (assuming u miss). That is why you raise, even against a certain call.


[/ QUOTE ]

You can see my reply for your other post on this matter. In this specific hand and this opponent, it is not certain I save money by raising on the flop. I want to draw as cheply as possible, and if he keeps mini-betting me, it's better than me rerasing him big on the flop. It is very important to add that I'm chasing here, because I feel he'll pay me if I hit. This might be a problem in my thinking here, because of the obvious flush on the board.

You are right, though, regarding his value-bet on the river. This is a different issue here, and I think I should not have called it.

[Jason Strasser]

You called 800 on the flop, 800 on the turn, 800 on the river, which is less than 2k, which was the point I was trying to make. There is no chance he value bets on the turn, and only a very small chance he value bets on the river if you show agression. Hence, the 2k raise takes you all the way to a showdown--especially with all the flush cards out there. To be honest, if I had somehow played the hand the way you did, I couldn't imagine calling the river bet (in which case you would save 400 as you said).

Maybe its just me, but I like to be in more control of a hand. The more I think about it, you didn't really mess up horrifically (as was my initial impression), but you just played a weak brand of poker.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe its just me, but I like to be in more control of a hand. The more I think about it, you didn't really mess up horrifically (as was my initial impression), but you just played a weak brand of poker

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you very much. Maybe if you keep thinking about it, you'll find out it was brilliant. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

There is one thing you're missing, I think. Being in control is great, and that is how I always try to play. What maks this game so fascinating, however, is that sometimes, rarely maybe, playing passive is the right choice. I'm not saying that this is necessarily the case here, but from your posts in this thread it seems like you're looking at it as if there is only one option: RERAISE! BE IN CONTROL!

Being aware of other options, especially with a strong read, can be good poker too, IMO.