On the Edge - IX
 

What does everyone think of this week's article? I'm not sure that it helps with my low limit opponents who are fairly straightforward, but will this help me against the tricky players that I'll see as I move up?

Villain raises the river only to fold to a 3-bet? That is rare indeed as the pot is now huge and he'll likely call with ANY part of the board, despite hero's image and 3-bet.

Barron, what did you think of Villain's image of you (not that you were tight, per se, but of your play and willingness to be tricky?)

I have trouble balancing the "Don't fold when the pot is big" against the "When the opponent is betting when he's sure you're calling, it's not a bluff." Makes for a lot of river spewing on my part.

Re: On the Edge - IX
 

i'm not sure i understood the logic that caused him to think he had no part of the board.

there were rags and high cards out there. if he was read for a total bluff pre-flop, then there was too many ways the board could still have hit him. this includes Q-high, better kicker. i don't like the move on the river and think it will be long term EV-, even against a complete maniac.

i'm trying not to think this is another results oriented article, but that's how i see it.

jmho

Re: On the Edge - IX
 

[ QUOTE ]
i don't like the move on the river and think it will be long term EV-

[/ QUOTE ]

Granny, you are incorrect. The opponent folded after he raised.

Re: On the Edge - IX
 

It looked to me like every street was misplayed.

I think these articles are written to get attention.

Re: On the Edge - IX
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i don't like the move on the river and think it will be long term EV-

[/ QUOTE ]

Granny, you are incorrect. The opponent folded after he raised.

[/ QUOTE ]

i know that. i'm talking about using this move as a habit against similar players.

i could be wrong

Re: On the Edge - IX
 

[ QUOTE ]

Barron, what did you think of Villain's image of you (not that you were tight, per se, but of your play and willingness to be tricky?)

[/ QUOTE ]


Amusingly enough, as I think I wrote to Diablo recently in a PM regarding our OTE 8 discussion, I am NOT a very tricky player in any way. If anything, I am TOO straightforward a vast majority of the time (playing at the limits that I do, it works).

This year, barring the time when I was unable to travel due to my gall bladder shenanigans, I averaged 30 hours per week of live play. Let's just call this 1,000 hands a week in a B&M.

So this year I've seen, taking into account my time recovering at home, 30,000+ hands.

Of those, I've only found 20 or so worth writing about for various articles. Not even 1/10th of 1%. So while those that know me from my writing might have one image of me (good, bad, indifferent, whatever) that doesn't translate to live games, barring those people that are here on 2+2 that I've run into.

This all goes by way of explaining that these types of things are ONLY possible because they are particular spots I pick for particular reasons and, more often than not, because the other 99.9%+ of the time I'm running ABC, it works fine.

For example, I subtitled this article The Mason Move, because after I read his article, I thought this was a genius play on his part. Would he have done what I did? I don't know. I'm guessing if there was a better way to run it he would've.

But it's just an example of a cool thing that I read from him that I've now had the chance to do three times this year (this time that I wrote about, another time when the guy folded on the flop, and a third when another folded on the turn). This is the farthest I've had to push it, and it's never been picked off.

VERY small sample size, but in 30,000 or whatever hands, I've only had the chance to do it 3 times.

But tricky...? I'm FAR from tricky, as I think of tricky as someone who doesn't run textbook poker (invariably, by the book SSH) 99.9%+ of the time.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

Re: On the Edge - IX
 

[ QUOTE ]
i'm not sure i understood the logic that caused him to think he had no part of the board.

there were rags and high cards out there. if he was read for a total bluff pre-flop, then there was too many ways the board could still have hit him. this includes Q-high, better kicker. i don't like the move on the river and think it will be long term EV-, even against a complete maniac.

i'm trying not to think this is another results oriented article, but that's how i see it.

jmho

[/ QUOTE ]

I just have so many questions about this that I'm sure better players can answer them. My games are likely to be calling fests which is why I'm not going to be firing off all these bets at better players. Some questions.

1) Why steal here? I understand the extra money in the pot from the random hand posting, Q6o isn't the best of hands to be stealing with especially if you think it'll get called, which hero is sure of. Sure, you have tight blinds and a good table image, but the pot isn't that big and I save my fight for another hand.

2) Villain's range of hands. I can accept that villian will raise from this spot with any pocket pair, or any Ace (or even any King), but is it too much to think that villain will just check his option with 45o or J2s?

3) "His raise was as all his other check-raises on the flop: indicating a draw." Obviously Barron was at the table and can speak to this better, but why can't it be top pair or 2 pair? 2 pair would surely check-raise, and 1 pair could be check raising hoping to blow you off a missed AK, or trying to find out where he's at vs. a possible overpair.

4) Villain's call on the turn. What does villain have now? If he has a pair, then his call tells me that he wants to showdown the hand. If he has a draw, then the pot is big enough for him to call.

5) Villain's bet on the river. If villain called on the turn with just a pair, why would he bet out here? He wanted to see a showdown, right? The pot is too big for him to bet and fold to a raise. I think villain is on a completely missed draw and was betting to try to steal the pot from you. You didn't oblige, so villain folds "knowing" that you have him beat.

I think this isn't a river value raise. Better hands call you anyways as the pot is now big. Missed draw hands will fold.

- At my games, people are calling me with anything, so I'm very reluctant to put all these bets in the pot here with that kind of hand. I'm not a great player, so my thinking is almost certainly off, but if the great players can tell me where I'm wrong, then I think I can improve as I move up in limits.

Re: On the Edge - IX
 

If one assumes the reads given are 100% correct (as the author apparently does) then Hero misplayed the hand.

The narrative makes it clear that queen-high is the best hand after Villain checkraises the flop. Hero should call the flop checkraise and wait for the autobet on the turn. If a heart or a new small card hits then Hero is in trouble and should call down. His hand may still be good and he has many potential outs. But if the board pairs or a high card hits Hero is in the clear and can raise for protection/value. Obviously this also works well if Hero makes his hand on the turn.

As the hand was actually played folding the river does not merit the slightest consideration because you appear to have the best hand. Most of the time the raise will only succeed in folding out a worse hand. That's actually a very good thing because showing Q6o could be very expensive. A real wake-up call for both the tight blinds and the predictable Villain.

If Hero really has folding chances against an occasional trash four then the river raise may be good. Certainly the pot odds are there for taking a risk. But the author might have at least noticed that the river completes the wheel. Based on the article I would say that 32o is the single most likely hand for Villain to have.

Re: On the Edge - IX
 

[ QUOTE ]
i'm not sure i understood the logic that caused him to think he had no part of the board.

there were rags and high cards out there. if he was read for a total bluff pre-flop, then there was too many ways the board could still have hit him. this includes Q-high, better kicker. i don't like the move on the river and think it will be long term EV-, even against a complete maniac.

i'm trying not to think this is another results oriented article, but that's how i see it.

jmho

[/ QUOTE ]

(Edit: It's been pointed out that I missed the fact that Baron's opponent checked his post pre-flop, which total invalidates my analysis below. Please ignore this post)

I have to say I was troubled by his thought process as well.

First he says that, preflop, he was sure his opponent had a terrible hand, because he raised his post 100% of the time. Myself, that tells me his opponent has any two cards, meaning a few (not many, but some) of his possible hands are actually good.

Then he lists out what his oppenent has shown down:
[ QUOTE ]
He'd shown down hands ranging from one-gappers (six-four offsuit), to suited cards (nine-deuce suited), to Broadway-rag (jack-trey offsuit), to pocket pairs (aces).

[/ QUOTE ]
...the last of which is a pretty good hand.

Next, the flop comes down monotone + straightish. Baron lists out hands his opponent doesn't have:

[ QUOTE ]

1. Any pocket pair;
2. A jack, queen, king, or ace;
3. Any connector or one-gapped connector;
4. And, most importantly, he didn't have two suited cards.

He didn't have a flush, but he could have a straight (not via an eight-six, but possibly by a six-trey).


[/ QUOTE ]

Taking these one by one:
1. Pocket pair - but his opponent played AA before in the same situation
2. A jack, queen, king, or ace - his opponent played J3o and AA here before
3. Any connector or one-gapped connector - his opponent played 64o before.
4. The flush - his opponent had shown down 93s before.

I can't see any information presented up to this point in the hand description that would justify making the above assumptions about his opponent's possible non-holdings.

Now perhaps Baron made these deductions after he had more information when the opponent checked the flop (although his narrative doesn't indicate this). But it does sound to me like a case of putting his opponent on the precise holdings that would justify playing back with air.

My 2 cents,

The Wolf

Re: On the Edge - IX
 

I think you missed the major difference, that being that the villian just checked after posting and having it checked around to him. This indicated he had a worse hand than any of the above mentioned. The only question becomes if the read was correct, was this played properly.

Re: On the Edge - IX
 

[ QUOTE ]

Now perhaps Baron made these deductions after he had more information when the opponent checked the flop (although his narrative doesn't indicate this).

[/ QUOTE ]



But you have to remember is that he CHECKED ... and that the hands I listed are what he had RAISED with.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

Re: On the Edge - IX
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think you missed the major difference, that being that the villian just checked after posting and having it checked around to him. This indicated he had a worse hand than any of the above mentioned. The only question becomes if the read was correct, was this played properly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh. I missed the check pre-flop [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]. I take back everything I said.

The Wolf

Re: On the Edge - IX
 

[ QUOTE ]

But you have to remember is that he CHECKED ... and that the hands I listed are what he had RAISED with.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, I missed that [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]. Back to lurking for me.

The Wolf

Re: On the Edge - IX
 

Sorry for my correction, seems someone did it for me.

Hopefully it's a little clearer...

And no reason to apologize. While I know some people may have gotten the impression that I'm very argumentative (and perhaps I am, to a degree) with my defense of OTE 8, I much rather debate the merits (or lack thereof) than to hear ... nothing.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

Re: On the Edge - IX
 

I did some weighted EV calcs for the last article. They were a pain to do, but I think they answered most of my questions. Anyone want to do them here? Like last time, I'm interested in the strength of BVGTs read at various points in the hand and how he quantifies that strength. Tony's range is bigger than Frank's, so maybe someone just wants to do back-of-the-envelope calculations. Or, maybe this hand isn't as interesting as the last one.

Board:
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)

Hand 1: 64.7629 % 63.99% 00.77% { Qd6s }
Hand 2: 35.2371 % 34.46% 00.77% { T7o-T2o, 96o-92o, 85o-82o, 74o-72o, 63o-62o, 52o }

--------------------------------

Board: 7h 5h 4h
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)

Hand 1: 48.7463 % 44.84% 03.91% { Qd6s }
Hand 2: 51.2537 % 47.34% 03.91% { T7o-T2o, 96o-92o, 85o-82o, 74o-72o, 63o-62o, 52o }

etc.

Re: On the Edge - IX
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Barron, what did you think of Villain's image of you (not that you were tight, per se, but of your play and willingness to be tricky?)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm FAR from tricky, as I think of tricky as someone who doesn't run textbook poker (invariably, by the book SSH) 99.9%+ of the time.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay. I can accept that villain doesn't think you're tricky. Can you attempt to answer 2 questions for me? (from an earlier post)

2) Villain's range of hands. I can accept that villian will raise from this spot with any pocket pair, or any Ace (or even any King), but is it too much to think that villain will just check his option with 45o or J2s?

3) "His raise was as all his other check-raises on the flop: indicating a draw." Obviously Barron was at the table and can speak to this better, but why can't it be top pair or 2 pair? 2 pair would surely check-raise, and 1 pair could be check raising hoping to blow you off a missed AK, or trying to find out where he's at vs. a possible overpair.

You reads once again seem pretty rock solid. Why can't the check-raise be a made hand other than a flush, and why does villain HAVE to raise hands from the post like 45o or J2s just because he did it before? I don't think you can narrow down villain's range of hands (other than not pocket pair or Ax) just because he checked his option.

Of course you were there and I wasn't so maybe you do have a reason.

Re: On the Edge - IX
 

[ QUOTE ]
I did some weighted EV calcs for the last article. They were a pain to do, but I think they answered most of my questions. Anyone want to do them here?

[/ QUOTE ]
I've thought about this a little more, and I don't think that those would be as interesting here as in the last thread. Who knows, though .. it's always interesting to take something like this and see how far you have to perturb hand-ranges/read-strengths before the right play changes.

Re: On the Edge - IX
 

I liked all of the play postflop, but Im not a fan of the preflop raise with trash for two reasons:

(1) villain's failure to openraise his post, after habitually having done so for the past several hours, is suspicious. Given the tightness of the blinds, the lack of an openraise could well signify a big hand;

(2) this opponent is tricky, and I have no preflop equity. Even assuming the blinds are weak-tight folders, villain clearly doesn't like to lay down preflop or on the flop. So based on Barron's reads, if you play a hand against Tony you're going until at least 4th street, and he may well checkraise at some point to take control of the action. The only way to respond to such aggression is to use your position and get aggressive yourself--by three betting, raising the river, etc. While I dont have a problem doing so, taking this approach is best with a hand that has some showdown value, i.e., an ace, a pair, two big broadway cards, etc. Q6o doesn't cut it. It is a below-average hand in terms of preflop equity, so by openraising the blind, you're essentially committing yourself to spewing chips on a substandard hand. The only way this line works is if (1) you think you can "outplay" the villain, AND (2) villain himself misses the flop enough that your aggression can convince him to lay down a better hand. The second point is essential to note--guys like Tony hate folding. They will call down with TPNK, a decent middle pair, a pair and a draw, basically anything with plausible showdown value.

Botton line. Once in the pot, I think Barron played it fine. But I would have avoided the situation entirely by folding preflop, because I think that openraising against players like Tony has zero steal equity, probably close to zero EV, at the expense of adding significant variance to your results.

Re: On the Edge - IX
 

I'm with SW on this one. Given your read, it makes much more sense to wait and pop the turn then 3-bet the flop. Your equity isn't that great. Waiting for the turn allows you to:

1. Evaluate the turn card. a [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] likely kills your hand, and non-paint non-straight completing cards should give you a little concern.

2. Represent greater strength. The flop call turn raise sets off alarms in just about everyone's head. Now he may have a harder time showing down a hand like 43o. Your flop 3-bet could very well just be overs with a [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

What's your plan if he doesn't fire at the river? Bet, I assume?

Re: On the Edge - IX
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hero should call the flop checkraise and wait for the autobet on the turn. If a heart or a new small card hits then Hero is in trouble and should call down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have to disagree here Stellar. If Barron's read is that Tony is c/ring a draw, then three-betting the flop is much better. By 3-betting the flop, you can bet any non-heart turn and river, and raise any scare card donk. If you try "calling down" with queen-high, all you're going to do is pay off Tony's better hands as he proceeds to jam any pair to the river. The only way you make money is when Tony jams a busted flush to the river and you call with a better nothing hand. This happens pretty rarely, since Tony may well check-fold the river UI.

Re: On the Edge - IX
 

[ QUOTE ]

The narrative makes it clear that queen-high is the best hand after Villain checkraises the flop. Hero should call the flop checkraise and wait for the autobet on the turn. If a heart or a new small card hits then Hero is in trouble and should call down. His hand may still be good and he has many potential outs. But if the board pairs or a high card hits Hero is in the clear and can raise for protection/value

[/ QUOTE ]

My thoughts exactly.

Re: On the Edge - IX
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i don't like the move on the river and think it will be long term EV-

[/ QUOTE ]

Granny, you are incorrect. The opponent folded after he raised.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are incorrigible El D. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Re: On the Edge - IX
 

[ QUOTE ]
and the two tightest players were to my immediate left, allowing me to raise if it was folded to me to pick up the blinds.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I knew his hand was terrible as he'd raised every time he'd posted, and it was folded to him. He'd shown down hands ranging from one-gappers (six-four offsuit), to suited cards (nine-deuce suited), to Broadway-rag (jack-trey offsuit), to pocket pairs (aces)

[/ QUOTE ]

These tight ass blinds sure are calling down a lot in the few hours Tony has been raising his after cigarrete cutoff post when the table folds around to him. If this guy shows down every possible hand range imaginable (including aces) in this certain situation, I still think it's wrong to put him on 7-2 or or something of the sort. The guy raised 6-4. I think your most likely hands for a player of this sort are still something like small suited connector or a big pair. Or maybe more likely he has just seen the futility in raising any of the above said hands since these blinds have turned into calling stations in the last couple of hours. I'd make no read and dump the hand. If your read was right, call flop and raise the auto turn bet.

Re: On the Edge - IX
 

Well, it's one or two steps above the last hand, I'll give it that.

Given your read, you have the best hand on the flop, but he has a draw. That's either a 6 or a heart (edit: or 32o, good catch); however, you just said he doesn't have an A through J, so hearts are relatively unlikely. Fine, he most likely has a six and some other crappy card to go with it, maybe a low heart. So he raises and you...

[ QUOTE ]
Unless I caught a queen for top pair or hit my straight, I couldn't comfortably call the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not? You have the best hand...unless you're not as confident in your super duper read as you seem to be up in every post you've ever made in this forum? Nah, couldn't be.

[ QUOTE ]
I couldn't fold due to the likelihood of pushing him off his hand since I knew he had little but a draw (potentially a weak one)

[/ QUOTE ]

If he has a draw and his highest possible card is a ten...what "hand"? What are you talking about? How the hell are you pushing him off a draw on any street in limit hold'em, and why are you implying his hand is better than yours?

[ QUOTE ]
I couldn't call as I would then have to defend against a turn bet

[/ QUOTE ]

Defend what? On just over four out of five turns, you still know you have the best hand! Huh?

Based on this weirdo reasoning, you reraise (I call/raise the turn, but OK, limit's not my game so I could be wrong here). Fine. Let's move on to the turn:

[ QUOTE ]
Pot: $230 (5.75 Big Bets). The turn was the K.

That couldn't have helped his hand. He checked and I bet, hoping he'd fold. I could have lots of hands that made calling another bet unprofitable, but he called.

[/ QUOTE ]

He has a draw and is getting 6.75:1. Do you expect him to put you on a made flush, or is there some other hand you are representing here that he won't have the odds to call with? And are you trying to make a predictable LAG fold? Oh boy.

Blah blah blah river raise blah blah I am brilliant blah. The river's the obvious part, and given the rest of the hand and your read, it plays itself. But given the rest of the hand, you strongly suspect your own read to be false *or* you butchered the reasoning on two streets. Pick one.

Re: On the Edge - IX
 

just curious...how long did the hand take to play out? what i mean is in situations like this how long does each deicision take to make?

Re: On the Edge - IX
 

I don't like the pre-flop play. Even if this guy is going to raise any two cards as a late-position post opener, Q6 off is still too weak to gamble with. Pick a better spot, unless you know the blinds are going to fold AND the raiser is actually weak-tight after the flop and will auto-fold if he misses. But seems like the raiser is a bit more tenacious, and against someone like that, Q6 is not the kind of hand you want to have to contest post-flop with.

But other than that, I thought this was a legitimate poker article anyways, unlike his previous two which read more like parodies of poker strategy.

Re: On the Edge - IX
 

[ QUOTE ]

2) Villain's range of hands. I can accept that villian will raise from this spot with any pocket pair, or any Ace (or even any King), but is it too much to think that villain will just check his option with 45o or J2s?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
He'd shown down hands ranging from one-gappers (six-four offsuit), to suited cards (nine-deuce suited), to Broadway-rag (jack-trey offsuit), to pocket pairs (aces).

[/ QUOTE ]


He obviously COULD have any of the two hands you mentioned, but seeing as how he'd already raised 64o, I assumed that 54o would likewise be raised; likewise, 92s in regards to J2s.

[ QUOTE ]

3) "His raise was as all his other check-raises on the flop: indicating a draw." Obviously Barron was at the table and can speak to this better, but why can't it be top pair or 2 pair? 2 pair would surely check-raise, and 1 pair could be check raising hoping to blow you off a missed AK, or trying to find out where he's at vs. a possible overpair.

[/ QUOTE ]

His check-raise COULD have been that, I guess, but from what I saw up to that point (and saw after the hand in question, and have seen since, as a matter of fact), in these spots, he check-raises draws and bets out on bluffs and "made" hands.


Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

Re: On the Edge - IX
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm with SW on this one. Given your read, it makes much more sense to wait and pop the turn then 3-bet the flop. Your equity isn't that great. Waiting for the turn allows you to:

1. Evaluate the turn card. a [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] likely kills your hand, and non-paint non-straight completing cards should give you a little concern.

2. Represent greater strength. The flop call turn raise sets off alarms in just about everyone's head. Now he may have a harder time showing down a hand like 43o. Your flop 3-bet could very well just be overs with a [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]


This is a very good point and I definitely don't think it would've been bad to do just that. And perhaps it would've been the better play. The reason I didn't go this way is that I couldn't have the river option that I did.

So on the flop, I bet, he CRs, I call, on the turn he bets, I raise, and now he...

(1) folds. Perfect. And this might've happened.

(2) calls. Now there is trouble. I've been thinking about how people sometimes feel "invested" in a pot, and it has psychological ramifications, but it's something like this: some people when they get raised on the turn almost take it as an affront and will call, and then check-call the river (especially in the fear in my article that somewhere along the line he picked up bottom / near bottom pair). If only to get satisfaction to see what I'm raising with. By doing it on the flop, while I'm sacrificing .5 BB (1 SB on the flop vs. 1 BB with the raise on the turn), I don't think you get people as invested as it's much more common.

This has NOTHING to do with my article, by the way, as I didn't make this part of the narrative, even though it was part of my thinking and is in these situations, and I certainly haven't worked out the theory enough to make it fit correctly, but, again, the turn raise is obviously a great play and a lot of times with another situation I would call the flop and then raise the turn, but I wanted the chance of blowing him off his hand IF he caught a piece, and I think (right or wrong) that you get people "invested" sometimes with those turn raises and then they call out of frustration / table image / whatever and then check-call the river.

I could go on ... but maybe you see the point as to why I went my way and not another, as I didn't mind that .5BB since I thought it would increase my chances at the pot.


[ QUOTE ]

What's your plan if he doesn't fire at the river? Bet, I assume?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

By the way, Despot had a good post above as to another reason to go with my line:

[ QUOTE ]

Have to disagree here Stellar. If Barron's read is that Tony is c/ring a draw, then three-betting the flop is much better. By 3-betting the flop, you can bet any non-heart turn and river, and raise any scare card donk. If you try "calling down" with queen-high, all you're going to do is pay off Tony's better hands as he proceeds to jam any pair to the river. The only way you make money is when Tony jams a busted flush to the river and you call with a better nothing hand. This happens pretty rarely, since Tony may well check-fold the river UI.

[/ QUOTE ]

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

Re: On the Edge - IX
 

[ QUOTE ]
I liked all of the play postflop, but Im not a fan of the preflop raise with trash for two reasons:

[/ QUOTE ]


By the way, I should stress, lest it not be apparent, that I'm certainly not saying that my hand is another that should be added to David and Mason's Group 1 holdings.

Rather, as per the article I quoted in this article, I was rather employing (rightly or wrongly) what I dubbed The Mason Move, where he was in this same situation (a post to his right, blinds to his left) and he raised with "trash."

While I certainly was more liberal with my raises in these spots before, this would've been an auto-fold before that article for precisely the thinking you suggest.

And perhaps my 3-for-3 sample size is insignificant (it is) but I think it may be a strategy that, while it doesn't come up much (I have only had the "perfect" opportunity to do this three times in the, approximate, 30,000 live hands I've played this year) can be effective, if you can get away from it if you're obviously going to lose.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

Re: On the Edge - IX
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't like the pre-flop play. Even if this guy is going to raise any two cards as a late-position post opener, Q6 off is still too weak to gamble with.

[/ QUOTE ]


Again: this isn't about Q6, but rather the opportunity.

The cards almost always matter. Almost always.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

Re: On the Edge - IX
 

[ QUOTE ]
just curious...how long did the hand take to play out? what i mean is in situations like this how long does each deicision take to make?

[/ QUOTE ]


I wrote this article something like four or so months ago, so you'll pardon me if these are definite estimates as it wasn't last night, but everything was mere seconds: I knew going into my hand pre-flop that I was raising, the flop went down fast, as did the turn and river. I'm far from Chris Ferguson (in many ways) but especially with the count-to-10-before-making-any-decision gimmick.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

Re: On the Edge - IX
 

Some of the timing here doesn't add up. From the article:

[ QUOTE ]
I was just into my third hour...

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...Tony, who came in two hours after I did...

[/ QUOTE ]
So you and Tony have only been at the table together for about an hour. Then we have:

[ QUOTE ]
Tony took a cigarette break on his big blind a few hours later, as he had done every second orbit to my aggrevation;

[/ QUOTE ]
and
[ QUOTE ]
He'd shown down hands ranging from one-gappers (six-four offsuit), to suited cards (nine-deuce suited), to Broadway-rag (jack-trey offsuit), to pocket pairs (aces).

[/ QUOTE ]

So in the hour you've played together, you've played at least 9 orbits (we have evidence of at least 4 times he has been in this situation, these could be the 1st, 3rd, 5th, and 7th orbits since arriving making the hand the article is based on at least the 9th orbit)? Something's not right here.

Re: On the Edge - IX
 

Please reread the article.

Where I talk about it being the third hour, I am talking about taking the blinds and how I do this due to my image.

Then, a few hours after being able to do this, the hand of this article comes up.

We had been sitting together perhaps for almost four hours by that point.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

Re: On the Edge - IX
 

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm with SW on this one. Given your read, it makes much more sense to wait and pop the turn then 3-bet the flop. Your equity isn't that great. Waiting for the turn allows you to:

1. Evaluate the turn card. a likely kills your hand, and non-paint non-straight completing cards should give you a little concern.

2. Represent greater strength. The flop call turn raise sets off alarms in just about everyone's head. Now he may have a harder time showing down a hand like 43o. Your flop 3-bet could very well just be overs with a


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




This is a very good point and I definitely don't think it would've been bad to do just that. And perhaps it would've been the better play. The reason I didn't go this way is that I couldn't have the river option that I did.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, but this logic is a little fuzzy.

How did you KNOW that you could raise the river when the flop action came out, especially after you 3-bet it and bet the turn? Could you honestly expect him to bet the river so you could "have the river option that [you] did?

[ QUOTE ]
So on the flop, I bet, he CRs, I call, on the turn he bets, I raise, and now he...

(1) folds. Perfect. And this might've happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said that he checkraises draws and bets out his bluffs and made hands. If he has a draw, there is no way he is folding. At all.


[ QUOTE ]
(2) calls. Now there is trouble. I've been thinking about how people sometimes feel "invested" in a pot, and it has psychological ramifications, but it's something like this: some people when they get raised on the turn almost take it as an affront and will call, and then check-call the river (especially in the fear in my article that somewhere along the line he picked up bottom / near bottom pair). If only to get satisfaction to see what I'm raising with. By doing it on the flop, while I'm sacrificing .5 BB (1 SB on the flop vs. 1 BB with the raise on the turn), I don't think you get people as invested as it's much more common.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why does this matter? He has a draw. And FWIW, there are many opponents (especially if you have a tight ABC image, which you said you had) that will fold to turn raises. In future articles which seem to be totally based on reads, I suggest that you make a complete outline of his reads, so this won't be confused later when discussing your article.

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, Despot had a good post above as to another reason to go with my line:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Have to disagree here Stellar. If Barron's read is that Tony is c/ring a draw, then three-betting the flop is much better. By 3-betting the flop, you can bet any non-heart turn and river, and raise any scare card donk. If you try "calling down" with queen-high, all you're going to do is pay off Tony's better hands as he proceeds to jam any pair to the river. The only way you make money is when Tony jams a busted flush to the river and you call with a better nothing hand. This happens pretty rarely, since Tony may well check-fold the river UI.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry but StellarWind is correct and Despot is wrong.

If you 3-bet the flop, exactly how do you plan on raising a scare card turn lead from the villian when almost all players will check the turn to you?

The second line about calling down with Q-high will only pay off Tony's better hands (i.e. a pair) doesn't make any sense at all. I thought that the fact that he must only have a draw on the flop was the key part to your article. Then how is he suddenly having a better hand then you?

Re: On the Edge - IX
 

[ QUOTE ]

How did you KNOW that you could raise the river when the flop action came out, especially after you 3-bet it and bet the turn? Could you honestly expect him to bet the river so you could "have the river option that [you] did?

[/ QUOTE ]


I didn't. Nor did I say that I did. I said "option": if I raise the turn, he invariably goes into check-call or -fold mode on the river. While maybe not likely, his bet out on the river is far more possible with this line than the other. So it's an "option," not a "likelihood."


[ QUOTE ]


If he has a draw, there is no way he is folding. At all.

[/ QUOTE ]


Agreed. He probably doesn't. But it's not a 100% call. (Close, perhaps, but fold is an option that he might take IF he just decides to give up.)


[ QUOTE ]

I suggest that you make a complete outline of his reads, so this won't be confused later when discussing your article.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is a good idea. I notice in the article guidelines they've upped it to 1-2,000 words so, if/when I decide on a new article series for 2006, and if 2+2 likes it enough to publish it, and if it is as read-based, I will be more thorough in this regard (same with the additions I would make to OTE 8-type article with the hindsight of the discussion last month).

[ QUOTE ]

If you 3-bet the flop, exactly how do you plan on raising a scare card turn lead from the villian when almost all players will check the turn to you?

[/ QUOTE ]


You obviously can't raise if he doesn't bet out, but he doesn't always just check, he may bet out (again, it's an option, not a likelihood).


[ QUOTE ]

The second line about calling down with Q-high will only pay off Tony's better hands (i.e. a pair) doesn't make any sense at all. I thought that the fact that he must only have a draw on the flop was the key part to your article. Then how is he suddenly having a better hand then you?

[/ QUOTE ]



Stepping back from the article.

You hold: 6 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 7 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

The board is A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] K [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] Q [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 6 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

Your hand is basically a drawing hand even if you do have a pair of 6's.

The river is a J [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

And now you are facing a bet. Or you bet out on the scare card and you're raised.

See?


Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

Re: On the Edge - IX
 

[ QUOTE ]


He obviously COULD have any of the two hands you mentioned, but seeing as how he'd already raised 64o, I assumed that 54o would likewise be raised; likewise, 92s in regards to J2s.

His check-raise COULD have been that, I guess, but from what I saw up to that point (and saw after the hand in question, and have seen since, as a matter of fact), in these spots, he check-raises draws and bets out on bluffs and "made" hands.


Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine enough. I just think you were too quick to dismiss those types of hands and automatically assume you were ahead. If he's as tricky as you say he is, then he's likely to change up his game occasionally as well.

Re: On the Edge - IX
 

My agreement with BVT on his postflop play had to do with a generic sense that this opponent's play is characteristic monkey play. Based on this quote:

"He'd check-raise on the flop with draws and bet out with decent hands; if he simply called the flop, it was to check-raise the turn. Whenever he check-raised the flop he would lead out on the turn. If any scare card came on the river, he'd either bet out or raise in order to pick up the pot."

So this guy is going to be doing lots of semibluff checkraising on draws, bottom pair, donking scare cards, turn checkraising paired boards, stop-and-gos, etc. Whereas real hands get jammed in a straightforward manner. This is the type of player who will fold on the river if he's sure he's beat, but he likes to try to use c/ring OOP or semibluff raising when in position, on the turn, to take control of a hand and fold out a "tight" player with a better hand.

So when the hand plays out, the "tricky" play on the two-tone flop says IM ON A HEART DRAW OR I HAVE BOTTOM PAIR, and the non-heart river donk at the end says MY FLUSH MISSED BUT IM GOING TO REPRESENT A SCARE CARD.

Against this sort of player, if you choose to gamble, a lot of your equity in the hand comes from planning to re-steal on either 4th street or the river. Granted, a plan to re-steal before seeing the flop and while holding crap, is dangerously close to spewing, but the concept of re-steal against a monkey isn't totally off.

Admittedly, you need to be pretty sure of your read, but if BVT had this guy pegged as a habitual bullshitter, I think his play is fine. The raise on the flop disguises his hand and represent an ace, overcard, or overpair on later streets.

One final note: Given the read of this guy as a monkey, the biggest reason I fold this preflop is because monkeys dont like raising with AA, AK or KK and just winning the blinds. So I found the limp incredibly uncharacteristic for a "tricky" player--and basically saying "I have a big hand". So I would have folded this preflop (also b/c my hand had no real equity edge).

Re: On the Edge - IX
 

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


How did you KNOW that you could raise the river when the flop action came out, especially after you 3-bet it and bet the turn? Could you honestly expect him to bet the river so you could "have the river option that [you] did?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




I didn't. Nor did I say that I did. I said "option": if I raise the turn, he invariably goes into check-call or -fold mode on the river. While maybe not likely, his bet out on the river is far more possible with this line than the other. So it's an "option," not a "likelihood."


[/ QUOTE ]

I think the merits of being able to force a draw to face two cold on the turn outweigh any folding equity you may have on the river IF he suddenly out of nowhere decided to bet it. and why is it so inconcievable that you have no FE with a turn raise/river bet line?

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If he has a draw, there is no way he is folding. At all.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agreed. He probably doesn't. But it's not a 100% call. (Close, perhaps, but fold is an option that he might take IF he just decides to give up.)

[/ QUOTE ]

no. he really won't.

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If you 3-bet the flop, exactly how do you plan on raising a scare card turn lead from the villian when almost all players will check the turn to you?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You obviously can't raise if he doesn't bet out, but he doesn't always just check, he may bet out (again, it's an option, not a likelihood).

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't mean to beat on a dead horse here, but the best way to raise the turn is to not 3-bet the flop and let him continue to lead with his draw as most players would.

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The second line about calling down with Q-high will only pay off Tony's better hands (i.e. a pair) doesn't make any sense at all. I thought that the fact that he must only have a draw on the flop was the key part to your article. Then how is he suddenly having a better hand then you?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Stepping back from the article.

You hold: 6 7

The board is A K Q 6

Your hand is basically a drawing hand even if you do have a pair of 6's.

The river is a J

And now you are facing a bet. Or you bet out on the scare card and you're raised.

See?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not exactly sure how your example relates to my quote. Could you explain it to me like I was a 5 year old? (I'm being serious, I just want it to be clarified.)

The turn card was a King. You already said in your article that 1) he cannot have a king because he would have raised preflop. You also already said that 2) his flop checkraise indicates a draw, not a made hand. With 1 + 2, how exactly does he suddenly have a better hand then you?

Re: On the Edge - IX
 

[ QUOTE ]


The turn card was a King. You already said in your article that 1) he cannot have a king because he would have raised preflop. You also already said that 2) his flop checkraise indicates a draw, not a made hand. With 1 + 2, how exactly does he suddenly have a better hand then you?

[/ QUOTE ]



My example shows this precisely.

He could have what is effectively a drawing hand (like 48o - a gutshot) that is STILL "better" than my hand.

There are other hands he could be drawing with as well that still would have a random 4,5,7 in them.

See?

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

Re: On the Edge - IX
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't like the pre-flop play. Even if this guy is going to raise any two cards as a late-position post opener, Q6 off is still too weak to gamble with.

[/ QUOTE ]


Again: this isn't about Q6, but rather the opportunity.

The cards almost always matter. Almost always.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[/ QUOTE ]

Barron I think the preflop play is perfect. However, if you have a chance to edit these type of things, the preflop action was rather unclear. When I first read it I also thought that you had 3bet his raise with Q6 rather than just raised after he checked.