Anyone play this differently?

[TStoneMBD]

i think its an easy fold, but if you want to get to the showdown i like the 3bet check the river/fold to a raise line. it should work often enough to get sb to fold his JJ, and you should be pretty comfortable laying down to a 4bet after this action.

[Tommy Angelo]

mmcd and AviD,

I would have checked the turn. More on that later maybe.

Our lingo is ever-changing and I have a question in the spirit of trying-to-keep-up. It used to be that the word “rock” was the highest one-syllable rating a player could have. And “weak-tight” meant “a rock with less style.” Okay, I made that definition up. I have no idea what weak-tight means and I never have. But I fancy myself a rock. Which I guess explains my curiosity about the following exchange:

Mmcd wrote: “sb is a rock of the 14/6 variety.”

AviD wrote: “I see a rock (weak-tight) …”

Mmcd wrote: “Weak Tight players don't think like you or me.”

What this exchange says to me is that both of you use the words “rock” and “weak-tight” interchangeably, and that you both presume that both of you do so, and that neither of you are “weak-tight” nor would you want to be, and so therefore neither of you are “rocks,” which used to be what everybody wanted to be.

I guess what I’m asking is, Do rocks still win?

Tommy

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]

I would have checked the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

please explain. right now, I can't see any good reason to do that.

[sthief09]

if UTG folded, I might've had to pay him off. but him calling and the likelihood that this guy has AA-QQ makes it a pretty easy fold IMO (I just realized UTG is loose, but I'd still fold). people are noting that his check-raise is weak because he's trying to clear out the field. well, even though you raised preflop, he has no reason to expect you'll bet without a pair here, and often you'll have AJ or AK. I don't think this guy is scared. much much more often than not, this guy is FPS-playing QQ or at least AA

[AviD]

[ QUOTE ]

I would have checked the turn. More on that later maybe.


[/ QUOTE ]
Later is here baby, where's the more? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]

I guess what I’m asking is, Do rocks still win?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, IMO they just don't win as much as they could.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there there too small a chance of him having AKs here to make checking behind on the turn not a viable option?

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that the turn brought a rainbow board?

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
Our lingo is ever-changing and I have a question in the spirit of trying-to-keep-up. It used to be that the word “rock” was the highest one-syllable rating a player could have. And “weak-tight” meant “a rock with less style.” Okay, I made that definition up. I have no idea what weak-tight means and I never have.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was going to respond about this part as well. All we know is that this guy doesn't play (or raise) many hands preflop. That in no way means he is weak tight. I think based on how many hands I play in a normal live game, most people here would say I'm a "rock". I have a variety of reasons for playing tighter preflop than some here think is optimal, many relating to what people here call the "meta-game" (I hate that term and believe it is inaccurate and dangerous, but I'm going to start a thread on that another time), so if you could see my preflop stats, you would call me a rock. (Actually, my preflop play is very situational, so in good situations, like being folded to lateish and having a chance to attack the blinds, I may play a wider range than many people on this board, and when I have the chance to isolate a bad playr who has limped, I am capable of raising an extremely wide range of hand, but in the "general case", which for me means early position, which like Tommy, I consider to be the majority of the table, I don't play very many hands).

Sorry for that long paranthical digression, but the point is that I am tight preflop. That's tight. That's not "weak". Searching the web I found these attributes of weak-tightness that Mason supposed had listed (obviously, could be wrong since this from some web site):
- Plays fairly tight (not a lot of hands)
- Plays in very predictable patterns
- Has the ability to fold marginal hands
- Bluffs very little
A rock is someone who merely fits the first criterion. Being a "rock" has nothing to do with how you play post-flop. "Weak-tight" is much more about his postflop play. It means that he plays very straightforward, predictable and mechanical and is easily pushed around. For example, if you raise a weak-tight player on the turn, he will almost always fold. In many ways (but not all), I would consider "weak-tight" to be the opposite of "tricky" rather than the opposite of "loose preflop".

This isn't just a semantic issue. I think the people saying that the opponent in question must be "weak tight" based on his preflop history, and who are using that to decide how he will play postflop, are making a mistake. Although there is some correlation, and I am going to expect a guy who is a rock preflop to be much more likely to be weak-tight postflop than a guy who sees 80% of flops, it is definitely wrong to act as if these preflop standards are "proof" that he is a "weak-tight" player.

[mmcd]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, IMO they just don't win as much as they could.


[/ QUOTE ]

[mmcd]

[ QUOTE ]
- Plays fairly tight (not a lot of hands)


[/ QUOTE ]

Like a 14% VPIP?

[ QUOTE ]
- Plays in very predictable patterns

[/ QUOTE ]

Like betting out the flop and checkraising the turn with big hands?


I agree that rock doesn't necessarily equate with weak-tight, but in my experience online, players that play very-tight and not too aggressive preflop don't tend to be tricky/aggro postflop. They are tryinfg to avoid variance like it's the plague.


Preflop, here I honestly don't think think this guy 3-bets with anything I'm beating on the turn, but I bet anyways just sort of automatically. Had it been heads-up against the sb with me being an ep raiser, I would have checked behind and just got the hand to showdown cheaply, but 4-way, betting felt right (as a general rule in this situation) but in hindsight, it was almost certainly wrong against this player.


Paluka said he put the guy on QQ. I'm 95% sure he was right, since the river came Q and the guy bet into the turn cold-caller anyway, who folded. I am 100% percent sure this guy doesn't 3-bet me out of the sb preflop w/ AQ.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
- Plays fairly tight (not a lot of hands)


[/ QUOTE ]

Like a 14% VPIP?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. That was my whole point. Out of the four criteria, we only know he meets the first one. We have no evidence that he meets the other three yet. People are trying to use the fact that he matches the first one as proof that he must match the other three, and I think that is ridiculous. "But don't you see that he matches the first one" is not a convincing counterargument.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
- Plays in very predictable patterns

[/ QUOTE ]
Like betting out the flop and checkraising the turn with big hands?


[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. Have you seen a predictable pattern of him doing that? If so, you didn't mention it. As far as I can tell, you have seen one hand where he bet the flop and checkraised the turn. And we don't know that he has a big hand. That's what we are trying to determine. You are begging the question: assuming that he is a big hand, he played predictably, so he is weak tight. Thus, I should lay down. Well, yeah, if we assume he has a big hand of course we should lay down. But that was the question in the first place. And again, betting the flop and checkraising the turn on one occasion with an unknown hand is not a pattern and is not "weak-tight". And as a general note, I would expect a true weak-tight player to lead again if he had something like AA.

I'm not disagreeing with the fold. I play this hand exactly the same way as you did. I'm just disagreeing with people saying trying to reach definitive conclusions about someone's postflop play and psychology based on how many flops he's seen in whatever sample size you happen to have observed him for.