Giving up small pots - theoretical question
 

Hey MHUSH,

I'm currently LAGing it up at 15/30 and 20/40. You've seen my spew-fest posts recently, i'm certainly no model of weak-tight TAG play.

But something's bothering me, and it's that my play is changing to the point where i give up small pots. Here's why:

70/35/3 lag open-limps on the button. TAGy guy completes, I knock QTo in the BB.

Flop: A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 9[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Tag checks, I check, LAG bets.

Now, the LAG is betting every single time here, regardless of his holding. I've seen him autobet every time when checked to. I also know he doesn't have an Ace, because he'd raise any ace preflop.

But i can't do anything about it! In this instance, I decided to take a stand. I c/r, he calls. I bet the turn(blank), he raises. I fold. He shows KTo. I tell him he had the best hand, and he continues to gloat over his "bluff."

But if he had 93 he'd call down. If he had K6 he might raise the turn or call down. If he has any draw he's throwing another semibluff raise in there somewhere.

Now it certainly would have been cheaper to just c/f the flop. But how much am I giving up by c/fing every flop I miss? These guys are really starting to mess with my head.

I understand intellectually that if it were a TAG vs TAG battle where neither of us pays off any more than our cards make us, the game would be won and lost in the small pots. But, against these unfoldable megalags, do I make up more than I give away by value-betting when I actually hit a hand? I'm starting to wonder.

Any and all input would be appreciated. Thanks! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Surf

Re: Giving up small pots - theoretical question
 

One of the advantages of LAG play is its relative invulnerability to reads. By definition, playing too LAG for a game is not a good strategy overall, but this very irrationality becomes a benefit in particular situations. One of those situations is where neither of you really has a "showdownable" hand. His erratic behavior is practically undefendable. [Much of this thought was inspired by my recent reading of Thomas Schelling's cold war classic _The Strategy of Conflict_. Somewhat long-winded, but highly recommended. Also great for understanding what made Reagan so effective against the USSR, though it was written 2 decades before.]

Anyway, as you said, the big confrontations where you have the goods (little as they might be) more than make up for hands like this. But that doesn't change the fact that in these circumstances, the LAG is indeed outplaying you, whether he knows why or not [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img].

P.S. [ QUOTE ]
I tell him he had the best hand

[/ QUOTE ] Why?

Re: Giving up small pots - theoretical question
 

I understand your frustration completely.

My only suggestion is that if you are going to take a stand, its best to just bet the flop. In my experience superlags are often willing to let one of these little pots go when faced with aggression if they have air and haven't made a move on the pot. But they are completely unwilling to let go if they have already been the aggressor and attempted to claim the pot as theirs. Or at least, when comparing these two situations, the behavior of the maniac tends to skew in this direction. I think its just their nature - everything turns into a pissing contest once they hit the bet or raise button for the first time, so the only way to take down little pots unconstested is for you to piss first.

Re: Giving up small pots - theoretical question
 

Check-folding the flop most of the time and taking a stand occasionally, as you did, seems fine to me. Keep in mind the obsurdity of the play he just made with respect to your possible holdings. There's almost a 50% chance of you having a pair **without any reads at all**.

Re: Giving up small pots - theoretical question
 

I posted this so you could look at my avatar.

Re: Giving up small pots - theoretical question
 

P.S. [ QUOTE ]
I tell him he had the best hand

[/ QUOTE ] Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because i've been at the table for 10 minutes and all he's done is run me over. I haven't won a single showdown, and the last thing I need is him thinking he can push me off a pair.

I solved the problem by getting up from the table and going to eat dinner, though.

Surf

Re: Giving up small pots - theoretical question
 

[ QUOTE ]
I posted this so you could look at my avatar.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. I'm soooooo guilty of that. Thanks for the illustrative example. I'll confidently return to my scheduled "A-game" now. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Surf

Re: Giving up small pots - theoretical question
 

Did you mean to reply with the other account?

Re: Giving up small pots - theoretical question
 

Being cold-decked against stubborn LAG's is an interesting spot...I'm fairly convinced that patience is the operative virtue.

Yeah, wait and wait and wait and wait some more. Pair-mine, if necessary. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Giving up small pots - theoretical question
 

I like to use this against them when you really have the ace. That way you can get in a good amount of bets and it keeps them from bluffing you all of the time.