Trainwreck
 

I'll call it 4 handed 250/500.

Button is def a losing player (ie in a 5 handed game many months ago he was 52/35 PF and not great postflop) though I speculate he's a lot better than he used to be.

Boutros is a top-notch player. IMHO perhaps the best 4-6 handed player online (I can think of mb 2-3 others who I'd say are in the same league). He plays pretty tight and is very tough postflop.

Button opens, I call in SB with Qd9d. Boutros calls in the BB.

So far in this game I have 3 bet the button twice from the SB, missed on both flops in which he's raised my continuation bet both times, and I've check/folded the turn because the board has sucked for my hand. I have also defended my BB against button once and folded to his flop bet. So in his eyes, I have the image of being run-overable, so I'm toning it down PF. Also, one of the reasons to 3-bet -- getting Boutros out PF -- isn't quite as important because he is tight and most of the hands that he'll fold for three bets he'll fold for two bets anyway. However, maybe I should still be 3 betting this time though given my image I felt calling was best. OK, no more PF.

Flop: Qc 6c 3s.

Check, check, button bets, I raise, Boutros 3 bets, button folds.

What's a good plan the rest of the way? Also FWIW I really think he expects I have a hand like 76.

Re: Trainwreck
 

[ QUOTE ]

What's a good plan the rest of the way? Also FWIW I really think he expects I have a hand like 76.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like the preflop call simply because Boutros will get out of the way with most hands without you needing a 3-bet.

I think I'd check raise the turn and expect him to call down with a PP.

Is he capable of 3-betting the turn with a worse hand? If you've been folding a lot on BB streets I think image will protect you from 3-bets by worse hands.

I thought briefly about checkraising the river. I guess if he is on a bluff of some sort that might be better than checkraising the turn. I think he'll bet the river with most hands he call a turn check raise down with. Waiting till the river has the disadvantage of scare cards interfering with your play. I think a turn cr is the way to go.

Krishan

Re: Trainwreck
 

i would fourbet and bet all the way until he raised again... then i usually start calling (unless i caught a 9, of course)
edit- against described button, i almost always call Q9s in the sb in 4handed.

Re: Trainwreck
 

Your rational for preflop seems ok. I think one reason for 3-betting though is to have less of a chance of being in a pot with this good player.

As for your plan... You say he thinks you could have 76, but he must also expect that sometimes you do have a Q. The call preflop disguises the fact that you have a Q as often, because most people would 3-bet with Q9s+. Nevertheless, he might be raising with A6s (only 3 combos), but he could also have something like QT (8 combos), or QJ (another 8 combos). He also would probably play like this with 77-TT (or does he 3-bet 99 and TT preflop?), which would be maybe 21 combos, but discounted for the possible 3-bet preflop, so only about 15 combos? He might also have 66 for 3 combos. All in all, you are about as often ahead as behind.

Check raising the turn doesn't have too much value, and you risk getting 3-bet when you are behind. Furthermore, he might give up on his hands that he would of otherwise bet on the river.

I guess a case could be made for betting the river to prevent free showdowns, but does he really check behind on the river after betting the turn often at all? Betting the river puts us in that tough spot of having to call a raise, and most often losing money when he has us beat.

Re: Trainwreck
 

[ QUOTE ]
So far in this game I have 3 bet the button twice from the SB

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoops I forgot to mention this is in like 10 hands at the table, so, having 3-bet him twice already is pretty substantial.

Re: Trainwreck
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think I'd check raise the turn and expect him to call down with a PP.


[/ QUOTE ]

He has a PP just about as often as he has a higher Q.

Re: Trainwreck
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So far in this game I have 3 bet the button twice from the SB

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoops I forgot to mention this is in like 10 hands at the table, so, having 3-bet him twice already is pretty substantial.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't this mean that it might be good to 3-bet once more for image purposes? 3-betting him twice is pretty substantial, but doing it three times is quite a bit more substantial. Just incase anyone had missed, or forgotten that you are being so agressive. Or are you trying to tone down your image?

Re: Trainwreck
 

I agree with 3 betting preflop. Just adjust a bit postflop.

I cap and lead on the flop here. Maximize value, give him no options for free cards.

Re: Trainwreck
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with 3 betting preflop. Just adjust a bit postflop.

I cap and lead on the flop here. Maximize value, give him no options for free cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I forgot that he could have a flush draw, and be trying to go for a free card. This doesn't happen all that happen, but I think it puts us over the line of being ahead of him more often. Capping and leading would be good then. Calling and leading may also be correct, as it would make him less hesitant to lay down his PP.

Re: Trainwreck
 

good post mikey.

first, when you say you dont need to 3bet pf to get buotros out you state that "i dont need to worry about him b/c he'll fold the same hands for 2 bets as he would for 3..." but he's getting 5:1 now, closing the action.

he's not playing fewer hands now..he's playing MORE! many more if he knows you think he's that good and he knows he's that good then he'll be looking for more spots to tango, not turn in his dance card when at 5:1 its lookin pretty full.

on the flop i dont mind a cap and a turn bet. but given how it really looks like you have 7xs or something i think you can consider calling and c'ring the turn. he may 3 bet for a SD and u may have to call this down but given how you've been playing that move looks both strong AND odd.

it looks strong simply b/c you haven't done it before. and he knows you know you haven't done it yet this session in this situation. so he may call down light. or he may raise light, so you may have to call down.

or you can try the call and donk bet call down, which is popular for showdown reasons and not spewage reasons, but sometimes in this spot a little spewage is a good thing.

Barron

Re: Trainwreck
 

im oop and i like my hand, and i dont want to show any free rivers.

i will make it 4 bets.

if he 5bets (or if there is a cap ignore this) i call at least until the river and decide.

if he calls my bet and raises the turn i look at the size of the pot and decide how often my 5 outs are good.

Re: Trainwreck
 

This hand seems pretty tough to answer because I don't know how Boutros plays against you and how he perceives your cold call.

You say he puts you on a hand like 76, but if he's played a lot with you, he should know that you're cold calling few hands containing 6s in the SB(I assume you're 3-betting A6s...which ones are you cold calling). OTOH, if you have any pair in the whole you would have 3-bet pre flop, so it seems likely that you have a middling queen or a club draw. If you are doing a lot more cold calling than I indicate, that changes the dynamic of the hand.

I think your plan for the rest of the hand depends a lot on how Boutros is going to react to your various lines with a worse hand.

If you check-raise the turn, can he get away from a middle pair? Can he play back at your turn check-raise with a worse hand? I don't think he's going to check through on the turn with anything because he uses his tight image to generate fold equity with his draws and he's too good to miss value bets with his made hands.

My default would be to check-call down, but I can see how this is a tough spot against this player.

Who would you say are the other comparably skilled 4-6 handed players?

Re: Trainwreck
 

How about calling down and donking the river?

Re: Trainwreck
 

[ QUOTE ]
How about calling down and donking the river?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think donking river can be good, but it depends on his calling frequencies with worse hands, his bluff raising frequency and his bluff betting(or "value" betting a worse hand) frequency.

Re: Trainwreck
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with 3 betting preflop. Just adjust a bit postflop.

I cap and lead on the flop here. Maximize value, give him no options for free cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

This may be complete obvious but if he pops you on the turn are you still getting to showdown?

Re: Trainwreck
 

Schneids, is boutros just calling PF with a lot of hands that he might three bet, or would he just go ahead and three bet with hands like KQo, KQs, AQs, JJ, 1010, and maybe 99. Would he three bet PF with QJs?

Your call PF has to throw him off a little bit as its been 10 hands and you have three bet this guy twice. Have you played against Boutros before for him to have a certain image of you?

Re: Trainwreck
 

Interesting because you have a few options. It seems like your characterization of him as "very tough postflop" is coming into play. Being OOP sucks here.

You're looking at a big queen, a mid PP (he probably 3-bets JJ, TT, 99 preflop), a small set or a club draw the majority of the time here. Against that range, your best play is probably to call the flop 3-bet and c/r the turn (if you're sure he would fire a continuation bet with a draw), folding to a turn 3-bet. If he would check the turn with a draw, donking the turn would be better although I don't know how comforatable you are folding to a turn raise.

Calling down and donking the river doesn't serve much purpose in this hand considering that most of the hands you beat are flush draws that he can't call the river with, and only a few combinations of 44-88.

Re: Trainwreck
 

[ QUOTE ]
Also, one of the reasons to 3-bet -- getting Boutros out PF -- isn't quite as important because he is tight and most of the hands that he'll fold for three bets he'll fold for two bets anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also FWIW I really think he expects I have a hand like 76.

[/ QUOTE ]
This seems to be an odd combination of ideas.

Re: Trainwreck
 

I'm a simple soul. I would reraise my nice hand and keep betting it until I got raised again. Then I would call down.

In view of the thread title I suppose my locomotive will reach the end of the track going full speed [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img].

Re: Trainwreck
 

I'm with the cap/lead guys.

A question - will he call down with a A6/76/midPP-type hand barring a club falling? If so I like 4betting better because he has to keep you honest, though you do have to contend with a possble turn FSD raise if he's also got any Q. If you think he'll let go of these hands on the turn I think you should start semibluff capping your FDs OOP [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Surf

Re: Trainwreck
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm with the cap/lead guys.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why are we worried about a free card? Hero has folded to turn bets in the past and there is no reason to think Boutros won't try and take advantage of this by betting his draws on the turn in this hand as well.

Krishan

Re: Trainwreck
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm with the cap/lead guys.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why are we worried about a free card? Hero has folded to turn bets in the past and there is no reason to think Boutros won't try and take advantage of this by betting his draws on the turn in this hand as well.

Krishan

[/ QUOTE ]

I am with the cap/lead group because I think it maximizes value. I'm not worried about free cards.

Surf

Re: Trainwreck
 

I don't understand why someone would call with the same hand range in the BB getting 5:1 as 7:2 Everything I have read says that's not right but you say this guy is one of the best SH players online. Whatever.. it's not about the pf.

Given he was getting 5:1 he could easily have 45 for the oesd or any 2 clubs for the flush draw. That calls for a cap.

Re: Trainwreck
 

[ QUOTE ]

What's a good plan the rest of the way? Also FWIW I really think he expects I have a hand like 76.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is what you think he thinks you've got, isn't a turn c/r for value the play here? Unless you have him on a hand like A [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]x [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] and he is trying to buy some outs, then I'd say 4 bet the flop and keep the gas on.

Re: Trainwreck
 

[ QUOTE ]
If this is what you think he thinks you've got, isn't a turn c/r for value the play here? Unless you have him on a hand like A x and he is trying to buy some outs, then I'd say 4 bet the flop and keep the gas on.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hero could have the flush draw. Wiping out the button could buy a lot more than outs for the nut flush draw or a small pair. That's why I'm not going to spend too much time worrying what BB has for his checkraise. It could be a lot of things both good and bad for us.

Re: Trainwreck
 

If you think you look "runoverable, why not bet out on the flop?"

Re: Trainwreck
 

i dont like capping and leading. my main problem is that we're playing against an extremely good opponent with a pretty marginal hand. what is our capping range here? if schneids got tricky with AA-KK or had a set, would he 4 bet it here? i doubt it. if schneids was bluffing, he'd probably want to put a move in on a later street. so if boutros is a good hand reader, i think he'll be able to put schenids on a really narrow range of hands if we 4bet and lead, and he'll play his hand "perfectly"

stealthcow-

Re: Trainwreck
 

[ QUOTE ]

I don't understand why someone would call with the same hand range in the BB getting 5:1 as 7:2

[/ QUOTE ]


I also would think that he would call with at least a FEW more hands at 5:1.
Is his range of hands that he would call with REALLY going to be about the same? That strikes me as pretty odd.

Re: Trainwreck
 

[ QUOTE ]
Being OOP sucks here.

[/ QUOTE ]


to that end...I'm assuming the donk-who-has-likely-improved guy on the button must make it pretty gosh-darned worthwhile to sit at a table where one fo the best short-handed players in the universe is usually going to have position on you.

Re: Trainwreck
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Being OOP sucks here.

[/ QUOTE ]


to that end...I'm assuming the donk-who-has-likely-improved guy on the button must make it pretty gosh-darned worthwhile to sit at a table where one fo the best short-handed players in the universe is usually going to have position on you.

[/ QUOTE ]

He has position on us when we are in the SB. We have position in the BB and the button - our relative position to him is the best it could be.

Surf

Re: Trainwreck
 

[ QUOTE ]
He has position on us when we are in the SB. We have position in the BB and the button - our relative position to him is the best it could be.

[/ QUOTE ]
Eh? First off it's 4-handed. But this makes no sense anyway. He acts after us preflop unless we have the BB. He acts after us postflop unless we have the button.

But I've generally believed game selection is about the bad players. The monetary difference between an outstanding player and a good player is much smaller than the difference between a good player and a fish.

Re: Trainwreck
 

Yes.

I suspect you go into it hoping to hold your own against the WCP who usually has position on you...and the two of you are pretty much dividing up the fish's money (and you have better position on the fish then the WCP does).

I understand that....I just would hate playing against a super-star who is usually going to have position on me.

Re: Trainwreck
 

I'd rather be seated where I am than Boutros and I trading seats. He left the game pretty quickly and I did too when I realized the fish wasn't as fishy as he used to be (though still a losing player in this game).

Re: Trainwreck
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He has position on us when we are in the SB. We have position in the BB and the button - our relative position to him is the best it could be.

[/ QUOTE ]
Eh? First off it's 4-handed. But this makes no sense anyway. He acts after us preflop unless we have the BB. He acts after us postflop unless we have the button.

But I've generally believed game selection is about the bad players. The monetary difference between an outstanding player and a good player is much smaller than the difference between a good player and a fish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only did I misread the game info(I thought it was 3handed) I thought boutros was the button. My last post is essentially gibberish b/c of my lack of reading comprehension.

Surf

Re: Trainwreck
 

[ QUOTE ]
I suspect you go into it hoping to hold your own against the WCP who usually has position on you...and the two of you are pretty much dividing up the fish's money (and you have better position on the fish then the WCP does).

I understand that....I just would hate playing against a super-star who is usually going to have position on me.

[/ QUOTE ]
In any sport or game you improve fastest by playing against the strongest possible opposition. This is the poker miracle of being paid while you learn.

Re: Trainwreck
 

[ QUOTE ]
where one fo the best short-handed players in the universe is usually going to have position on you.

[/ QUOTE ]

um, are we talking about Schneids here?

Re: Trainwreck
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
where one fo the best short-handed players in the universe is usually going to have position on you.

[/ QUOTE ]

um, are we talking about Schneids here?

[/ QUOTE ]
read the post?

Re: Trainwreck
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
where one fo the best short-handed players in the universe is usually going to have position on you.

[/ QUOTE ]

um, are we talking about Schneids here?

[/ QUOTE ]
read the post?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes. just confused as to who this WCP is, cuz it clearly can't be Schneids.

Re: Trainwreck
 

the BB.

Re: Trainwreck
 

[ QUOTE ]
the BB.

[/ QUOTE ]

ahhhhh