80-160 Blind Defense

[Bob S.]

[ QUOTE ]
So Clarkmeister is either going to be 3-bet or get a fold

[/ QUOTE ]

Is a fold such a bad thing against AJ or AT after getting a little out of him??? I'm not saying these are the hands his opponent holds specifically but very possible candidates.


Bob S.

[AceHigh]

I meant check/raising the river.

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
2) it's no disaster to give up free cards, as he may only have 2-3 outs 3

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand where you get this 2-3 out number. The only hands that have only 2 or 3 outs are Ax and pocket pairs.

[Andy B]

[ QUOTE ]
The only hands that have only 2 or 3 outs are Ax and pocket pairs.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which constitute a significant percentage of the hands opponent will raise with pre-flop.

Check-and-call is my current favorite way to play top pair/no kicker in short-handed games, especially against an aggressive opponent. I like the way Clark played this hand a lot.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that it's just not very likely you have the best hand here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm...we will have to wait to find out, but my guess is Clarkmeister won the hand.

It's a 5 handed games with an aggressive player in the CO. So his raising standards are probably pretty low. The problem with the check/raising the river (the more I think about it) is the turn check probably means a very weak or a very strong hand by the aggressive player. So Clarkmeister is either going to be 3-bet or get a fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is definitely correct. Given that he checked he turn, he has 2 pair or better, or is bluffing. I really don't think I gain anything by checkraising the river.

[PuffsNutz]

Flop check is OK.
I would lean towards CR'ing if he often checks
his draws on the turn (Especially with this type of board).

Now with this flop texture and the turn hitting in the
board zone, your opponent is very unlikely to
fire away unless he has a K or Q (or better).

Based on the range of hands you just indicated,
leading the turn is best.


Flop play was marginal.
Turn check was bad.

(I like a check-call flop vs an aggressive
non-thinking post flop player better).

[Gabe]

Slowplaying K’s with weak kicker, I like. This flop more likely to play fast. May think I’m on a draw have a small pair etc. More likely to play it like this if the Q was a 3.

On river, I'd call, but expect to see something like T9.

[Clarkmeister]

Preflop, I think this is an easy call.

On the flop, I agree that the queen makes it more likely that I get action. It also makes it very likely that I blow off many worse hands if I come to life. With a flop of Kxx, I may get tons of action from middle pair, medium pocket pairs, or even a naked big ace. With the king and queen both on the board, all of these hands will simply shut down and go away.

Also, and I am finding this to be important, it really is critical in this game to just check-call with something decent once in a while. Otherwise they will just run all over you every time you don't go to war on the flop. It's something Mason has harped on before and while I really don't think its an important concept in most games I play in, as I find good opponents in this game, it has become a meta-hand play that I have had to add into my overall approach.

The turn is obviously a bad card for me, as it is going to look scary to him no matter what. But I must let him take another stab at it. I don't think betting is wrong, especially if I am going to bet out as a bluff sometimes, but frankly, I am too likely to get raised and I am not mucking top pair. Paying 3BB's to see his hand wasn't something I was interested in, especially when I would likely scare away many hands that would bet on their own anyways. The trapping element and the "get to showdown" outweigh the prevention of a free card. If I was really worried about the freebie, I should just bet or checkraise the flop instead.

The river is a brutal card, but I have done nothing but look weak, so obviously I must call.

After I called his river bet, he turbomucked and I took it down. I assume he had 67s that turned open-ended and decided to take the freebie rather than fire the second barrel since he picked up 8 outs.

[RydenStoompala]

I've never played 80-160, but I hit this same short-handed situation in a 10-20 game and check-called through to take it from a very agressive pre-flop raiser. The check-calling made him tilt a little; he came back at me a few hands later, raising as I bet out. I blasted back right through the river and it cost him 6 big bets to find out I had a set. That changed the dominance of the table enough to make a better game, for me. The check-call approach should tell the raiser that you're coming with some kind of hand. You seem to know each other's play. It's a good debate whether you get an extra bet playing the top pair calling or use the check-raise to hopefully knock out a hand that's on the come, but I think the way you played can be the most irritating to the agressor, so I like it.

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
The trapping element and the "get to showdown" outweigh the prevention of a free card. If I was really worried about the freebie, I should just bet or checkraise the flop instead.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is pretty much the bottom line here.

Although your concern about paying off 3 bets to see his hand is reasonable, I think the free card becomes a bigger concern when the 9 hits the turn. I like a bet on the turn.

Nasty river card, but I think you're check-calling whether you showed weakness on the turn or not, based on the fact that your belief on the turn is that he'll bet some hands that are behind.

Can we assume that he'll follow through on the river enough to make a check-call correct, even with this nasty river?

I think so.