Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Because the statisical information seems to favor Jason's read.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did you get the impression that a 13/8 is unduly tight with his PFR standards after a limper?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was just wondering what specifically made you think that he was not.

[/ QUOTE ]

8% PFR was enough, for starters. I also took a shot at thinking that a 13/8 might actually be capable of thinking about the game beyond just the cards he's holding, since he appears capable of at least some thought.

[/ QUOTE ]


No, where did this read come from?

[ QUOTE ]
but my read is that he's aggro and decent but overaggro in the wrong spots and definitely capable of realizing his position and concepts like isolation etc)

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you believe he is "definitely capable". I mean you bolded the words, so there must be some specific instance that jumps to your mind that makes you this sure. I am just wondering what made you sure enough to bold your words as if there can be no doubt about this read.

[/ QUOTE ]

My read came from watching him for an hour. Jason's read came from playing with him for an hour and having 2300 hands on him. He had never played with him before. I had no stats but had watched him make a few raises, usually after the limper, and he had played some of those hands quite aggressively (one appeared to be a flush draw that he played quite aggressively after raising preflop, being 3-bet by the SB, calling, then raising after the limper folded on a two rag (372) two club board).

I felt that given what I had seen, he seemed very capable of raising to isolate and playing aggressively. For all I know he could have been getting good cards, etc., but reads are reads.

Rob

Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

The AQ test applies to a tight UTG raiser and looking at your hand against the range of this raiser. In our case the TAG raiser has a much larger range of hands than an UTG raiser so we should 3 bet. If his range includes hands like TT AJs, ATs, 99, 88, KQ then this is an easy raise. I think all these hands are pretty likely and his range might even be a little bit larger

Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

[ QUOTE ]
this isn't a test. this isn't even a [censored] homework assignment. this is the first day of pre-k when you learn how to tie your shoes and hang up your [censored] coat.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is your best post ever.

Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

[ QUOTE ]

My read came from watching him for an hour. Jason's read came from playing with him for an hour and having 2300 hands on him. He had never played with him before. I had no stats but had watched him make a few raises, usually after the limper, and he had played some of those hands quite aggressively (one appeared to be a flush draw that he played quite aggressively after raising preflop, being 3-bet by the SB, calling, then raising after the limper folded on a two rag (372) two club board).

I felt that given what I had seen, he seemed very capable of raising to isolate and playing aggressively. For all I know he could have been getting good cards, etc., but reads are reads.

[/ QUOTE ]

My problem with that statement, which I don't feel has been adequately addressed yet, is that a guy who is very capable of raising to isolate should have a pfr > 8%.

Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

My read came from watching him for an hour. Jason's read came from playing with him for an hour and having 2300 hands on him. He had never played with him before. I had no stats but had watched him make a few raises, usually after the limper, and he had played some of those hands quite aggressively (one appeared to be a flush draw that he played quite aggressively after raising preflop, being 3-bet by the SB, calling, then raising after the limper folded on a two rag (372) two club board).

I felt that given what I had seen, he seemed very capable of raising to isolate and playing aggressively. For all I know he could have been getting good cards, etc., but reads are reads.

[/ QUOTE ]

My problem with that statement, which I don't feel has been adequately addressed yet, is that a guy who is very capable of raising to isolate should have a pfr > 8%.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is kind of what I was trying to point out. That the read Entity gave made raising a no brainer, however there was no specific example that he pointed out which could refute the stats. Digging deeper into the stats could help clarify what type of player this guy is.

However all we have is basically "The stats say this guy is 13/8 preflop... but I disagree"... then a bunch of people say OK.

This is not to say that a case can't be made for three-betting anyway. However the only reason it is a no brainer is because of the read that Entity gives yet does not justify.

Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

This is one case where I agree with all the 2+2 raising stations. It's a 3-bet for me because we have absolute position, we will most likely get the blinds out and have it down to 3-way, and we can define the PFR's range a lot better when we see if he caps or not. If he caps, I HATE my hand. If he just calls, I think we're in pretty good shape.

Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

I'm dead serious when I say this, boys. Your BB/100 will go up by moving seats in this hand than you will worrying about the 3-bet.

I'm sure of it.

Re: I\'m turning jason into a LAG. The AQo test?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

My read came from watching him for an hour. Jason's read came from playing with him for an hour and having 2300 hands on him. He had never played with him before. I had no stats but had watched him make a few raises, usually after the limper, and he had played some of those hands quite aggressively (one appeared to be a flush draw that he played quite aggressively after raising preflop, being 3-bet by the SB, calling, then raising after the limper folded on a two rag (372) two club board).

I felt that given what I had seen, he seemed very capable of raising to isolate and playing aggressively. For all I know he could have been getting good cards, etc., but reads are reads.

[/ QUOTE ]

My problem with that statement, which I don't feel has been adequately addressed yet, is that a guy who is very capable of raising to isolate should have a pfr > 8%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't he be playing slightly different on this particular session? I see this in the cardroom all the time. All of a sudden a loose passive is making a good, yet marginal, raises during a session. A raise that you're suprised that he's doing as he normally doesn't do it. Maybe he read a recent article in a magazine or something. It kind of supercedes any prior reads you've had from other sessions. So you adjust for it until they revert back to their normal way of playing that you're used to. I don't think that is just limited to live play. Btw...I saw alot of this when Hellmuths book came out. Normal passives were jamming lots of hands you'd never have thought they would. Eventually they reverted back to their weak ways, but that doesn't mean you play them the same way regardless.

This is one of the detriments of relying too much on stats. It can make you ignore subtle changes the player may be making for whatever reason during that session(s).

b