ATs against a LAG

[JJNJustin]

I wouldnt three-bet an UTG raise pre-flop with ATs. Most times I would just fold. If the game were loose, I would just call. But most times I would fold to an UTG raise. Most times you are in bad shape pre-flop. Even if you have the UTG LAG beat, you could easily run into a better hand behind you in a player with better position on both you and the UTG. I would not make this play pre-flop for those two reasons. Sometimes against a LAG, you will have hands that you feel are better than his raising standards and you will want to 3-bet him, but given your position, it can be risky because you still have many players behind you to act. If your position were better I might take this line, but not if you're in early position yourself.

Raising the turn when you spike your ten is okay, although very aggressive. When he calls your raise, however, you have to be thinking he must have a pair here, and is afraid you are sandbagging trips or a bigger pair.

Betting the river for value is questionable. It's true there is some chance you have him beat, especially if he holds a hand that beat you pre-flop like AK, AQ, AJ. But There are many hands that still beat you, like TT, JJ, QQ, KK, and AA. He will have a hard time calling you with something like AK high on the river and an easy call if his pair beats the high card on the board (in this case the ten). I would expect your river bet to be called by a better hand more frequently than it is called by a worse hand, especially since you raised the turn and were called.
Therefore, I probably would just check it down on the river, unless another ten fell.

Him check raising you on the river tells could mean one of three things. A) He is sandbagging a monster B) he cant beat your hand by just calling or betting (i.e. he is bluffing) C) He now realizes with the third seven falling that it is more likely for you to be holding the Ten and not the case 7 and has decided his hand is good and wants to punish you for making him sweat this hand on the turn.

No matter which case, raising is bad in all three circumstances. You will be raising a better hand who will call your raise and will probably re-raise you, or raising a hand you had beaten (a bluff) that cant call your raise so you wont win anymore money.

Calling is ok, if you think there is good chance his is check-raise bluffing. Since the pot is being contested heads-up there is a greater than usual chance of this occuring. However, given your aggressive stance on the turn, I dont think a player would consider this line because he expects you to call. My guess is that, given all factors in this hand, situation C has arisen. Your opponent holds a pair higher than TT and has realized you are betting the ten and not the case 7. But since you made the original bet, I would not fold to the check-raise because the pot now is very big and hold a hand that could still win often enough for a call to be correct.

I hate folding your hand on the river for the following reasons: the pot is huge, you hold a full house with the top pair on board, your opponent could be check-raise bluffing in desparation, you threw the original bet out to begin with when you could have checked it down. I usually wont make a bet on the river if I cant call a raise unless I'm bluffing. In this case, you are not bluffing. You mistakingly tried to get a value bet in a situation where it is unlikely for an opponent to call you with something worse, and have opened yourself up to either a check-raise value bet or a check-raise bluff, either of which you cant be sure. Three-betting the river I feel, is like last ditch desperation.. You want to beat this guy, you hold a full house, but your instincts are telling you it's not good enough.

I know I'm going to catch hell for saying this, but to me the way you played this hand is typical of beginner's play, although I dont mean that in a derogatory way and please dont be offended by that. From your other posts, you seem to be a much more experienced player than me. However, in this hand, I think you are playing too aggressively against an early position raiser with a marginal hand. You hit your ten and end up trapping yourself in the hand for a lot of bets??? I'm sorry if I'm sounding inflated or lofty. Perhaps I missed something in the OP. Maybe you just have a good read on this guy and want to punish him for bad play.

However, all this being said, I still would have folded this hand most of the time pre-flop in early position, even against a donkey. All the subsequent errors in the hand just compound that initial error.

best of luck
-J

[elindauer]

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

[Entity]

[ 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

[elindauer]

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