Re: ATs against a LAG
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hi JJNJustin,

Fantastic analysis. Very well thought out. I think the preflop 3-bet is closer than you are giving credit, but your thoughts on the river 3-bet are great. I agree that this is too aggressive.

I'm a little more inclined than you to value bet the T though. The OP's "history of aggression" with the villain may well have the villain calling down here with only ace high, any 9 or a lower pocket pair.

good luck.
eric

[/ QUOTE ]

Eric,

I'd be curious what you think his full range is here on the river for the checkraise. Just from general observations and trying to remember what a 31/16/2.1 player plays like (that seems passive to me now [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]), I think his river c/r range is something like the following:

JJ,99-88,66,ATs-A9s,KTs-K9s,QTs,ATo. These are all reasonable I think given his PFR range, though K9s might be pushing it. Jason didn't mention whether he's folding to a 4-bet or if he's capable of it, but I think we've got value for a 3-bet here if we can feel ok folding to a 4-bet, and we don't have enough value otherwise. Even if I include A7s and 87s into his UTG raising range, we're still ahead > 55%. If we're up against someone who caps indiscriminately on the river here, I don't like it though.

Rob

Re: ATs against a LAG
 

read eyore's response and a bunch of people just criticizing that post, but not a ton of analysis other than nh.

So...
PF: How big was the table? If this is SH, 3 bet is easy. If this is full ring and his PFR is position adjusted, then i don't like the three bet. If he's one of those, "raise when I feel like it, but limp-re-raise my good hand" kind of donkeys then I like the three bet. Unfortunately, a 16 PFR can mean a whole lot. You say u have a long history, but need to say something about his tendencies.

Flop: His bet could mean a whole lot. I don't like raising because i think u get three bet a lot. And folding would be bad, so flop looks good.

Turn is also good.

River: I don't really get this c/r by villain. He should three bet the turn with a 7. But i really don't see a bluff on this board given that he's sane and the aggression u've shown. Your turn raise is very strong on this board. He's not calling a three bet with ace high, so u have to hope to get paid off by a wierdly played 9 or smaller pocket pair. You also have to call a cap, but u're behind a huge percent of the time when he does cap. He could also have been getting cute with AA/ KK/ QQ PF and then thought u might have a 7 for some reason and then thought it less likely for whatever on the river. In summation, I don't like the river because u will have to pay off a cap of a better hand and I don't think there are enough hands that u'll get value from.

Re: ATs against a LAG
 

I kind of like it. But I wouldn't play it this way because I would have to call a cap on the river so I just call hoping to chop the pot or win, and hope not to see AA/KK/KK/TT or a 7. His checkraise on the river looks strong, and I would have to respect it.

The play does do something for enhancing your table image though.

Re: ATs against a LAG
 

I didn't think about his hand range too much, I just noted that your hand is pretty well defined, and we are chopping with weaker tens, so a raise is, in my mind, a hope that our opponent is just terrible.

Let's use your range though:


[ QUOTE ]
JJ,99-88,66,ATs-A9s,KTs-K9s,QTs,ATo.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, I notice that you don't think it's possible he has a 7. Ok. Also, I note that you think he's check-raising 88 and 66. Hmmm. I don't know about that. Why would he do that? Finally, you think it's impossible that he has a pair higher than jacks. I agree they should be discounted, but everybody mixes it up with aces at least, don't they? LAGs are notorious for getting tricky with big hands. But ok, moving on...

combinations that beat us:

JJ: 6
99: 4

for 10 combos.

combinations we beat:

88: 6
66: 6
A9s: 3

So it's 3:2 in our favor. Now, that's making some pretty bold assumptions about him check-raising with hands weaker than a T that I'm not comfortable with personally. Even if we give it full credit, raising and folding to a cap against a player who is capable of check-raising 66 here is dangerous, no? If you are comfortable that

a) he will frequently check-raise 88 and 66 and A9s
b) he will pay off with these hands
c) he will not cap them

then yeah, go ahead and 3-bet/fold. Personally, I'm not comfortable with any of these assumptions, so I just call.


[ QUOTE ]
Even if I include A7s and 87s into his UTG raising range, we're still ahead > 55%. If we're up against someone who caps indiscriminately on the river here, I don't like it though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Barely, and we open the possibility of being capped. Remember, your 55% figure gives full value to all the weakest hands in his range always check-raising the river. This is a major assumption.

-Eric

Re: ATs against a LAG
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On the turn, you might be behind 3 sevens so why on earth would you raise? You cant beat trips with this hand. I would probably call for my image but then fold the river.

[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.cardplayer.com/uploads/authors/slotboom.jpg
I fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

I confirm this.

Re: ATs against a LAG
 

I think the fact that he didn't three bet the turn tells you he doesn't have an overpair or a seven.

i think 99% (this has to be accurate) of lags would three bet the turn if they had either of those hands.

Re: ATs against a LAG
 

Preflop is close IMO. If this is 6 max I 3 bet; full ring I may fold this since the raise came from UTG and if villain has any sense of position he probably has a hand here.

I just call the river raise. You showed you had at least a pair of tens by raising the turn, so when he checkraises the river, I start to think you're beat or chopping.

Re: ATs against a LAG
 

Regarding the river:

He has a history of hands in which he's seen you be aggressive. So he's harboring some suspicion of your turn-raise--you may just have overs, he's thinking. Now the river comes and you make a move consistent with a bluff: you bet instead of checking behind. So, the thing is, with what worse hands does he respond to a possible bluff with a raise-call as opposed to a raise-fold? It's possible he has missed overs and wants to fold your 66/88/X9. And, if he's one of those players who "notices things" too much, then maybe he'll call with AQ like a knucklehead.

So in short I think the 3-bet is in order if this is that type of player who, once he gets the idea in his head that he's being pushed out by a bluff, clings to that idea notwithstanding the texture of later streets.

I personally discount him calling with a 9 pretty strongly, because not many hands containing a 9 are raising UTG, except 99 which beats us.

Re: ATs against a LAG
 

[ QUOTE ]
31/16/2.1 who I have a long history of aggression with opens UTG. I 3-bet A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] T[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] otb. He calls.

The flop is 9[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 7[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
He bets and I call.

The turn is T[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]
He bets and I raise.

The river is 7[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]
He checks, I bet, he raises, I 3-bet

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand why there are some people praising this hand. I really don't like it. Is everyone banking on Villain having a hand like A9 or worse here? With the river c/r (after Hero raises the turn), Villain has the ten or better here most of the time. Just because he's LAG doesn't mean he has [censored] here 100% of the time.

imagine this hand from LAG's point of view:

Ok, I have pocket aces. I raise UTG. Some douche is threebetting me! HAHA! I'm not going to cap because it's heads up and I'm going to trick him... TEehee.

Ah [censored], the flop has a pair on it. I'll donk the flop to uhh try to figure out if he has a 7 or not. Ok he didn't raise the flop. I'll bet the turn again. WTF, he raises? Ok he might have a 7. I completely neglecting he's TAG and it's unlikely he has a 7 in this spot, but since I'm a stupid LAG I don't notice these things so I'll play scared because of the 7. I call. River is a 7. Nice. Odds are he doesn't have quads. Probably a worse full house. I'll c/r.

The main problem is that Hero raised on the turn, showing a lot of strength, and Villain STILL c/r'd on the river. I think threebetting is spewing here.

As for preflop, I think folding is fine. So is calling. So is raising. The difference in EV is so little that it probably doesn't matter.

Re: ATs against a LAG
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's nice to finally see people criticizing the play in this hand because I did not like it. I hope we keep talking about preflop and the river. Thank you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that PF argument is a red herring.

I hate the river 3bet, and am shocked that Rob said you played this fine.

Your oppo either:

1) has a high PP
2) has a PP lower than tens
3) is bluffing

In case 3) your 3bet has no value. In case 2) your 3bet has value only if this guy sucks. In case 1) you're throwing away money. I really don't get it.