Semi-bluff CR Attempt

spydog · #1 01-24-2005, 01:23 PM

I have played around 120 hands with Villian. He's 28/8 but more passive than aggressive postflop. His WSD% is a very low 17%.

I thought my flop call was borderline.

On the turn, I thought this was a good spot for a semi-bluff CR. I was going to call 1 bet, but why not invest 1 extra bet and gain some fold equity?

Party Poker 3/6 Hold'em (8 handed) converter

Preflop: Hero is SB with K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img].
UTG raises, UTG+1 folds, MP1 folds, MP2 folds, CO calls, Button folds, Hero calls, BB folds.

Flop: (7 SB) 6[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 9[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 9[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (3 players)
Hero checks, UTG bets, CO folds, Hero calls.

Turn: (4.50 BB) T[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (2 players)
Hero checks, UTG bets, Hero raises.....

Fat Nicky · #2 01-24-2005, 01:31 PM

I am iffy about the semi-bluff turn raise here. If UTG limped in here, I think I'd like it a bit more, but since he raised, it's more likely he has a big PP and will call you down.

Actually, this turn might be close to a fold. Comments on this??

spydog · #3 01-24-2005, 01:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Actually, this turn might be close to a fold. Comments on this??

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a close fold. Pot isn't huge and there is a strong chance that Villian has a PP that he will showdown. Because he raised from UTG, I should be more inclined to believe he is very strong. If he had raised from MP, I think it's not a fold.

But....if you decide to call this, is the CR better than calling?

27offsooot · #4 01-24-2005, 01:48 PM

If he were more aggressive post-flop, you would have more fold equity, but u described him as passive post flop, so i don't like it all that much. Do you lead a non-AK river? To Fat Nicky, i prefer this play against a pre-flop raiser, instead of a limper b/c many people feel compelled to bet the flop and turn with unimproved overs, but will fold to a c-r. Also, the board being paired is good for this move, b/c he may fold the turn thinking he's drawing dead with AK (although i'm not sure if he'll realize that u holding a 9 is unlikely). You won't get an overpair to fold here.

spydog · #5 01-24-2005, 02:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If he were more aggressive post-flop, you would have more fold equity, but u described him as passive post flop, so i don't like it all that much.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with this. Against an aggressive postflop player, I don't do this because he'll 3-bet me with an overpair and I have to call.

I would only do this if
1) He folds too much
2) He won't 3-bet me with an overpair.

I felt this opponent matched this description.

Passive in this case means tight-passive, not loose-passive. Two different animals.

27offsooot · #6 01-24-2005, 04:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If he were more aggressive post-flop, you would have more fold equity, but u described him as passive post flop, so i don't like it all that much.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with this. Against an aggressive postflop player, I don't do this because he'll 3-bet me with an overpair and I have to call.

I would only do this if
1) He folds too much
2) He won't 3-bet me with an overpair.

I felt this opponent matched this description.

Passive in this case means tight-passive, not loose-passive. Two different animals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so I didn't explain myself too well b/c when Stellar Wind said almost an identical thing,

"1. The checkraise depends on your opponent betting overcards. It will definitely fail versus a pocket pair. Your somewhat passive opponent may not bet overcards on the turn and that cuts your chances."

You agreed with him. I'll try to break it down so that you can understand my thinking better.

The reason u semi-bluff is b/c 1. there is a decent chance u will win unimproved if your opponent folds (or u actually have the best hand, which here isn't the case), but 2. you still have outs. I'm sure we can all agree on this.

So, if you're against a passive post-flop player, as you had described villain as being, what is the likelihood that villan bets overs both on the flop and turn into two people. Not very likely, IMO. So when u semi-bluff the turn, you are guessing that he has just overs because there is no way that he is folding an over pair. The chances of him having overs instead of an over pair drops significantly if he is a passive opponent. However, if he was aggressive post-flop, the chances of him betting unimproved overs is much, much higher. If he three bets, u can be 95% assured he has an overpair. If he just calls, u can bluff at the river unimproved and oftentimes take it down if a blank rivers. Or if he folds the turn, then even better.

If you are three bet here, that's the cost of such a play, and you're right that a passive player won't three bet here and an aggresive player will with an over pair, but risking three potential extra bets when u have a much better chance of taking the pot down is much better than risking two when u have little to no chance of taking the pot.

spydog · #7 01-24-2005, 05:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If he were more aggressive post-flop, you would have more fold equity, but u described him as passive post flop, so i don't like it all that much.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with this. Against an aggressive postflop player, I don't do this because he'll 3-bet me with an overpair and I have to call.

I would only do this if
1) He folds too much
2) He won't 3-bet me with an overpair.

I felt this opponent matched this description.

Passive in this case means tight-passive, not loose-passive. Two different animals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so I didn't explain myself too well b/c when Stellar Wind said almost an identical thing,

"1. The checkraise depends on your opponent betting overcards. It will definitely fail versus a pocket pair. Your somewhat passive opponent may not bet overcards on the turn and that cuts your chances."

You agreed with him. I'll try to break it down so that you can understand my thinking better.

The reason u semi-bluff is b/c 1. there is a decent chance u will win unimproved if your opponent folds (or u actually have the best hand, which here isn't the case), but 2. you still have outs. I'm sure we can all agree on this.

So, if you're against a passive post-flop player, as you had described villain as being, what is the likelihood that villan bets overs both on the flop and turn into two people. Not very likely, IMO. So when u semi-bluff the turn, you are guessing that he has just overs because there is no way that he is folding an over pair. The chances of him having overs instead of an over pair drops significantly if he is a passive opponent. However, if he was aggressive post-flop, the chances of him betting unimproved overs is much, much higher. If he three bets, u can be 95% assured he has an overpair. If he just calls, u can bluff at the river unimproved and oftentimes take it down if a blank rivers. Or if he folds the turn, then even better.

If you are three bet here, that's the cost of such a play, and you're right that a passive player won't three bet here and an aggresive player will with an over pair, but risking three potential extra bets when u have a much better chance of taking the pot down is much better than risking two when u have little to no chance of taking the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good post. This makes much more sense to me.

bisonbison · #8 01-24-2005, 02:05 PM

I would have folded twice before the turn.

MoreWineII · #9 01-24-2005, 02:09 PM

You fold this preflop?

spydog · #10 01-24-2005, 02:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I would have folded twice before the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

My flop call was pretty loose, especially without a backdoor flush draw.

However, unless I'm at a very tough table, I don't fold this preflop. Usually, the BB will join the dance and I'm getting 4:1, easily enough for a top 10 starting hand against the typical 3/6 crowd.