I have trouble OOP against LAGs

[EgoSlasher]

"yeah I was wondering where that came from. 9% is actually kinda low. "

Your preflop raise stat isn't going accuratly converge until you have several hundred hands on someone. The point I was making is that 9% doesn't really qualify him as a maniac.

[Jake (The Snake)]

I don't understand what check-raising the flop does for you.

[Fat Nicky]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what check-raising the flop does for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

The flop is definitly the most interesting part of the hand for me. While I understand what you're saying about a check/raise, I think that line is more effective than betting out as this villain seems aggressive enough that we can be sure he's going to raise our flop bet almost every time. My point is, that check/raising seems to tell us more about our hand relative to villains than betting out does.

Another option is check/calling, to me, this tells us the least about our hand.

I am not sure either way...

[johnnycakes]

[ QUOTE ]
Because his pfr% is actually reasonable, I put him on the normal range of 3-bet hands. Therefore, your K outs are heavily dominated and the return on your straight is significantly diminished. For those reasons I don't see a strong enough draw to raise the flop, and I would check-call, check-fold UI.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is probably what I'd do.
I think "Because his pfr% is actually reasonable, I put him on the normal range of 3-bet hands." is the key here.

Other arguments presented in this thread would make more sense if his PFR% was >20%

[Aces McGee]

[ QUOTE ]
The flop is definitly the most interesting part of the hand for me. While I understand what you're saying about a check/raise, I think that line is more effective than betting out as this villain seems aggressive enough that we can be sure he's going to raise our flop bet almost every time. My point is, that check/raising seems to tell us more about our hand relative to villains than betting out does.

Another option is check/calling, to me, this tells us the least about our hand.



[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Nicky

I think you need to consider just how much we're going to learn about where we stand by betting or checkraising the flop, the price we're going to pay for that information, and whether or not it's worth it.

-McGee

[TheHammer24]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what check-raising the flop does for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

The flop is definitly the most interesting part of the hand for me. While I understand what you're saying about a check/raise, I think that line is more effective than betting out as this villain seems aggressive enough that we can be sure he's going to raise our flop bet almost every time. My point is, that check/raising seems to tell us more about our hand relative to villains than betting out does.

Another option is check/calling, to me, this tells us the least about our hand.

I am not sure either way...

[/ QUOTE ]

The Check raise is precarious because of his agg but its our best choice for the same reasons.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what check-raising the flop does for you.

[/ QUOTE ]
What it does is it engages the enemy and makes it more likely that the hero will lay down the best hand. Check-raising the flop vs a super aggressive opponent with this holding was simply a bad move. Super aggressive people are like your average animal. Most animals will not harm a human. But if a human backs any animal into a corner, that same placid animal will now attack with unbridled ferocity. When the hero checkraises the aggressive opponent with his marginal holding he puts himself in the same predicament. Now when the super aggressive player 3 bets the heros checkraise, the hero still has no idea where he stands since the hero backed the aggressive player into a corner by engaging him with his checkraise. So the hero has spent a lot more money and learned nothing, and if the hero now folds the best hand in this much larger pot, his mistake will be even that much more costly. Moral of the story? Dont play back at a super aggressive opponent with a marginal holding, check and call all the way. Back him into a corner when you have a strong holding that will welcome his aggression.

[silkyslim]

Why not just call the flop? Since he is a maniac, you can just play WA/WB. He aint folding, so whats the point in raising if you are ahead? he will just slow down. let him bluff at you the whole way. Im interested to see his WSD%

[Bill C]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bet-call the flop; bet-fold the turn if UI.
You have too much against you: easily dominated hand, OOP, highly coordinated flop with an over card to your Jack.

Pick another hand to fight this guy.

Just my $.02 worth...
bc

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the worst line. Villian will raise flop 95% of the time here. It tells us nothing. Considering his aggressiveness he will often raise the turn too so bet folding cannot be correct. At least how I feel. If you could describe your reasoning behind that line, I would appreciate it.

[/ QUOTE ]

40/9/2 is loose-aggressive but not maniacal IMO. Yet in discussion, with each of your posts he becomes MORE maniacal. You describe his pfr as an autoraise. How do you know that? And "40/9/2" doesn't tell me he'll "raise the flop 95% of the time" nor does it tell me that he will "often raise the turn" (presumably you mean with nothing).

Your starters are a "Top Pair" kind of hand, and a hand that can be dominated, and you are OOP. You want to flop either a flush draw or top pair. You did neither. Instead you flopped second pair on a board that is highly coordinated and contains an overcard, plus all three cards are in the "playing zone". You may be a little bit ahead, or way behind. I thought your CR was pretty much FPS and bravado, and played into his aggression.

I bet and call the flop hoping to see a good turn card, sort of a "Stop 'N Go". The 4c is no help. Some of the cards that will help your hand on the river are tainted (ie a K if he has a T; any club if he has two in his hand; another overcard.) Your draw to a third Jack is a two-outer.

My thought is I don't want to put a lot more money into this hand. A check here invites a LAG to bet; a bet-out, on the other hand gives him something to think about, as I am representing a made hand. If he calls the bet on the turn, I'm going to the river, where I would check-call.

But a raise by him on the turn would get my attention, and if he raises the turn bet, I'm going to have to put more money in on the river, with a hand that is not very strong.

So for me here, the turn bet is like a test. And a raise by him here means he probably has me beat. I'm not crazy about my chances at this point.

It is true that LAGs and even maniacs get cards once in a while, too. When I go to war with them, I like to have a little better hand than you had here.

After you check-called the turn, and if you were so convinced he had a hand full of crap, why did you fold the river?

In reading over the hand again, it seems to me like you decided when you looked at your starters that you were going to the river because he was "a maniac" and you were probably going to beat him. If that were so, then why the bravado on the flop? Why not just cc at each step, flop, turn, river?

bc

edit: changed "river" to "turn" in next to last paragraph
bc

[ellipse_87]

As far as cr'g the flop to find out where we are...

If we liberally extend his three-betting range out to AJo & KQo, we're behind AA-JJ, 99, AQ, AJ, & KQ. We're ahead of only TT and AK. Everything that he's ahead with, except for AJ, is top pair or better. He's three-betting the flop with those hands. He's also three-betting TT with his OESD. We can be sure he's three betting AK a good portion of the time, too, and MPTK somewhat less often than AK, but still quite often. (Edit: Or maybe vice versa, actually. I don't know. Aggresion confuses me.)

I don't think his flop three-bet tells us anything except what we already knew, that we're much, much more likely to have to draw out to win this hand than we are to win UI.