Part I of an interesting (and odd) opponent-dependant hand - Page 2

elysium · #11 08-22-2004, 09:17 PM

hi mm

no no. that's not the issue. the issue is avoiding a dangerous situation against a very good, highly experienced pro. you can beat him. but you first must stay outside of his range in marginal situations by suppressing his ability to throw punches at you.

if you have had an opportunity to study mason's playing style against these type opponents, you would see how mason contains their aggression early on by putting them into a position of only being able to show a strong move by betting out, not being raised. the pro bets, and mason will envelop him in a cocoon with a suppression call, keeping the pro away from playmaking ammo that he would know how to use with deadly effect; and it's their ability to levy devestatingly strong, crushing plays, when afforded a check-raising opportunity or reraising opportunity, that must be taken into consideration. you must first respect these type opponents before you will find occasion to beat them. the value of betting sags considerably when you take into consideration losing control of the table to the person under whose control you would least like the table to be. you'd rather lose to ralph or henrietta since they will not make you pay the fullest amount those times you find yoursellf trailing. they will make mistakes that find you saving a bet or two, albeit that you still do lose; but when facing jim "texas tweezers" dandy, or martha "sandbag" moneyhouses, if you bet into either one of them with so much as a tail light out, you will be made to look embarrassingly deficient in ability. they will make you pay the fullest. and whether you think that he or she might be making a move on you when the A hits, you still must accredit them with holding two unknown hole cards of some value. when the A hits, there aren't many other non-made hands that they could have called the flop with, and no draws. this is very, very bad. when you get check-raised, highly experienced opponent is thinking the same thing about your hand. he knows that you have at least something and that you will call his check-raise. he is making a check-raise for value.

could it be a bluff? yes it could. even if you knew that it wasn't, however, you must still call. you need to be aware of this beforehand. when he checks on the turn, he is doing so to check-raise or fold often enough that together with the lack of value a bet by you has on the turn, the better play is to check it down, avoid a nasty big mo shifting event and in so doing perhaps induce a shot by him on the river, instead of a fold (although here you want him to fold), and give yourself the ability to limit your risk to 1BB rather than 2, on the one hand, and pick up perhaps 1 or 2BB rather than none on the other. if he has something like a big double over-carded pocket pair that he would have called you down with, it will be tough for the table to figure that out, and they will likely think you got in the maximum amount yet again, in keeping with your mystique of invincibility; which, by the way, can be of great assist in close spots.

you beat these type opponents by getting into marginal situations against the weaker opponents who you might draw-out on or nose out on at the wire. when the better players see you consistantly showing down slightly better hands than those of your opponents, and getting into cyclical steamroll events against the table when the situation finds you betting and them collapsing under the weight of your bets, the pros fire up. but they come in weak tight. in mid-firefight, you can feel their knees weaken as your betting. when they are induced to jump in out of a sense of sportsmanship, rather than from an arousal induced by the greed factor of good hole cards, you can catch these pros momentarily forgetful that it took a lot of hard work on your part to condition the table as thus, and they find themselves amidst the formidable incline of plane necessary to get up to the top of the hill and as they are scaling upwards, the heavy burden they must shoulder in addition to their own cumbersome weight as you pile on the weight of your betting action, forcing them to make decisions at improptu times. if instead, you make it footrace on level plane, the pro will win often enough to prevent your taking control of the table.

betting when checked to on the turn, gives this highly experienced pro the terrain needed to run the race on his terms. he can fold or check-raise. he can call. he can do whatever he likes. ralph or henrietta will call. pretzel pete findaway will make you pay the fullest. that type opponent must be kept at arms length of ammo. that type of opponent must be contained in these marginal areas, and bet into strongly when you have the better of it. you don't knock these type out, you wear them out.

mmcd · #12 08-22-2004, 09:55 PM

Elysium, great post, I see what you are getting at about checking behind on the turn:

Party Poker 30/60 Hold'em (10 handed) converter

Preflop: Hero is SB with A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img].
8 folds, Hero raises, BB 3-bets, Hero calls.

Flop: (6 SB) 4[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 6[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 6[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (2 players)
Hero checks, BB bets, Hero raises, BB 3-bets, Hero calls.

Turn: (6 BB) 2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (2 players)
Hero checks, BB bets, Hero raises, BB 3-bets, Hero caps, BB calls.

River: (14 BB) 3[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (2 players)
Hero bets, BB calls.

Final Pot: 16 BB

Results in Hero shows As Ac (two pair, aces and sixes).
BB shows Qd Qc (two pair, queens and sixes).
Outcome: Hero wins 16 BB.

I realize how much I can usually drill people who bet in this spot, and I think getting all the extra action in these T AG games is at least largely a function of table image and control over opponents.

I think a difference here though is that I took a flop line that would induce extra action on the turn.

Also see my reply below about inducing bluff raises. Against some opponents I can play a hand in such a way, be it through the line I take or the way in which I bet the hand, as to almost cause them to bluff raise me.

I think here this probably wasn't a good player/spot to attempt this. Whether it works right or not I almost certainly hurt more when it fails than I am helped when it succeeds. Especially since this player has position me at the table.

Though I could certainly shake it off psychologically if I happen to get outplayed here or there, I absolutely do not want this player to decide to get more frisky with me when I open raise or isolate a limper.

Thanks,

mmcd

Ms 45 · #13 08-22-2004, 11:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
In terms of inducing a bluff:

This hasn't been widely written in any poker books or anything, but it's something in my arsenal that I use fairly successfully against tough and very agressive post-flop players. I was inducing a bluff here by betting the turn. I was inducing a bluff raise (or even an overplay) with the chance of a 3rd bluff bet going in the river possibly. Against certain types of players, you'd be surprised how well this can work as long as you pick your spots carefully . Obviously if you make a habit of doing this against the wrong players in the wrong ways at the wrong times, you will just get drilled. [I have some more to say about this, but not until after Part II of this hand.]

[/ QUOTE ]

According to my understanding, you induce a bluff by feigning weakness to coerce a bet out of your opponent on a later street. I don't see how you can feign weakness by doing anything other than checking because a bet represents strength. Your explanation above seems to be describing something very different. Also, this subject has been thoroughly covered in poker literature, most notably in HEPFAP. It is an excellent chapter and I suggest you read it if you haven't.

You seem to be describing a different concept: betting marginal hands against over-aggressive players (or players who will always bluff in a certain type of situation). Against a loose/aggressive player I agree with you that this is a good play, but I see it more a function of value betting a loose player and then calling down a player who is likely to raise with little.

[ QUOTE ]
Given the action so far, what specific hands can you put her on that have me beat here.
(Please rule out Ax that hit on the turn because with this player in this situation given how the preflop and flop rounds played out, I would have at the time bet my left nut that she did not have Ax)

[/ QUOTE ]

You may have to start considering what life will be like for you with only one testicle. Ax is a hand a lot of players will flat call with pre-flop, and then bluff with post-flop... especially if they think you are weak.

The other possibilities are a big hand that she's waiting to raise on an expensive street (AA-QQ). A medium pair is also slightly possible, (very probable on the flop, but much less probable given the cards on board). Garbage is the other possibility, especially if she thinks you're weak.

[ QUOTE ]
What do you think the percentage of the time she has me beat is vs. the percentage of the time she is on a bluff/semi-bluff or has some sort of second best hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

Before your turn bet, it is very difficult to determine the percentage you are beat when you're facing someone who has just called twice. What you do know, however, is that when you have her beat you have her badly beat, and when she has you beat she has you badly beaten.

[ QUOTE ]
Given these estimated percentages how do I get MAXIMMUM VALUE out of my hand in the aggregate?

[/ QUOTE ]

When I gave you my original response, I was referring to how I think you'll get maximum value out of your hand. Granted, I was referring to maximum value with all small letters and without the extra "M," but I think it is fairly obvious that when someone posts an opinion about how a hand should be played they don't feel their method will minimize profit. I think inducing a bluff (my way, not your way) gets the most +EV out of the situation. Judging from your response, I assume you don't agree with my assessment, but regardless who is right I don't think there is a single poster here who makes plays or recommendations that he or she feels are less than optimal.

mmcd · #14 08-23-2004, 09:18 AM

Just a quick note:

If the turn had been a blank, I might have checked behind to induce a bluff (or hope she pairs up on the end) in the classic sense of the term because basically, I don't think this player would check-call me 3 times with a hand that has some showdown value (obviously that I beat). She would not expect me to bet a worse hand on all 3 streets for her, and if her hand was vulnerable, as in A-high, small pairs, etc. The action would not have went check-call-check. A-high hands would have either checkraised or bet that flop every time.

I think part of the reason for my turn bet was because of the A showing up (and the fact that I completely discounted Ax as being in her hand). A lot of players will try to push people off their free showdown type hands when this happens, whereas there is no real way they can show any false strength if I check behind. If they bet the river it would look like a like a bluff after my turn weakness. I might have done the same thing here if any Q or J showed up on the turn also, otherwise I thing checking behind is far superior.