Metagame play of “QQ vs. Jason_t”

In the recently discussed QQ-hand of Entity against Jason_t, a part of this very interesting discussion was the metagame play. Unfortunately, the discussion later went off, so I post my questions in a new thread. This is the hand:

Folded to Jason who raises on the Button. SB folds and Entity 3-bets Q [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] Q [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] . Jason calls.

The flop comes A [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 3 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 6 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] . Entity bets and Jason calls.

The turn is a T [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] . Entity checks, Jason bets, and Entity calls.

The river is the 4 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] . Entity checks, Jason bets, and Entity checkraises.

I don’t want to discuss the action here. Read the first pages of the thread itself. I just want to discuss the question, whether the check-raise on the river has any advantage in future hands. Because some people assumed, that this line will add +EV for future hands like AK or better.

Let’s assume, villain (Jason_t) has Ax and calls. He sees hero (Entity) do this move with QQ, smiles and wins.
Some time later, hero has AK or better, the board is the same, and the action also. What will villain, holding Ax, think?

a) Hero did this move before, but he saw, that I don’t fold. So, this time he must have a stronger hand. I can safely fold my Ax this time.
b) Hero did this move before without even having an Ace. So I can profitably call again.

What will hero do, if he has QQ again on exactly the same board again?

a) If I go the same line again, I will again be called and loose.
b) Villain will not think, that I didn’t learn from my mistake, so he will assume, that I now have a stronger hand and fold this time.

This thread is not to discuss only this special hand. I rather want to know, if you were not successful with some line and everybody has seen it on showdown,
a) whether you should change your play, if the same situation comes again?
b) Or, because people assume, that you changed your play and act accordingly, whether you should not change your play?

Do most people usually change their play, if they are not successful or not?

[jason_t]

I won't get into a metametagame discussion because Entity will read it and use it against me, but I hope others try.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
I won't get into a metametagame discussion because Entity will read it and use it against me, but I hope others try.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. I thought you were refusing to play against me anymore. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I won't get into a metametagame discussion because Entity will read it and use it against me, but I hope others try.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. I thought you were refusing to play against me anymore. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

No, [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img].

[W. Deranged]

I think the general tone of your post sort of hints at the real value of this play for future hands: it's confusing!

Jason would probably be very poorly served attempting to make hard-and-fast rules about his river play against Rob based on that one play. For example, for him to think that "Rob did this last time and saw I called, so he must think I'm calling this time, so I should fold" is not a good approach and might lead Jason to fold too many hands.

Rather, the value Rob gets is that he now knows that Jason is going to have to think about this play all the time. In future plays, usually he will not be check-raising with hands as weak as he did this time. But Jason knows he's capable of check-raising with worse, and will have to account for that.

The basic point is that by adding a substantial psychological variable to Jason's decision making process, Rob has made it harder for Jason to play against him: he has more things to think about, more questions to answer, and so on. This process of complication is going to basically make it more likely that Jason MAKES MISTAKES, which is precisely the point. It's not so much that Rob is trying to get Jason to make a specific mistake in the future (such as calling down too much or folding too much), but simply that by getting inside Jason's head he is going to add more uncertainty to Jason's thinking and hence increase the chance that he makes an incorrect decision.