An interesting 80-160 hand

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]

I guess I'm having trouble seeing which bets you are leaving on the table. You are THAT certain that we are ahead of the major villain that you want to put in 1-2 more bets in on this hand to find out? Because forget about DG. His money is there - consider this hand HU. Consider also that even if we are ahead, we aren't winning a full bet from our opponent when we 3 bet. We're getting like .65-.75 of a bet depending on where he is. We could also be losing 1-2 full bets if he reraises us with a hand we are drawing dead or slim against(unlikely he has such a hand, but still possible). The only way we are getting a side pot, it seems, it when we are behind. The more I think about it, the more I think that a simple cold call is better.
-James

[/ QUOTE ]

This coupled with the fact that a thinking player never pays us off with a worse hand on the river makes just cold calling as much of a stand as three-betting. I see these LAG thinkers profitting off of otherwise good players because they think the way to counter their aggression is to overplay marginal hands. I'm not saying that THIS is such a case necessarily, just a general statement.

Also, consider that when we do three bet, we need to be ahead of both DG and Peter - as our side pot is only going to be 2 chips. Ugh, there is more but I'm getting tired and 7 tabling [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] If parts of this are unclear respond and I'll try to make them clearer. Probably tomorrow though as my eyes are getting heavy.
-James

[J_V]

[ QUOTE ]
What I'm realizing talking to gonores about this is that our hero made a classic mistake on the flop with a classic result later in the hand. His wussy sick-looking call on the flop set himself up for this turn play. I think most of us would not be in there looking sick on the flop in the first place, and therefore our images wouldn't be such that we could be run over. I stand by my original analysis of the turn play in the setting of "if I sat down at the table at the turn and the hand had been played out the way it did," but Henry makes the classic mistake of underplaying his hand earlier in the hand causing himself a headache later on.


[/ QUOTE ]

This makes a lot of sense.

[mike l.]

"You are THAT certain that we are ahead of the major villain that you want to put in 1-2 more bets in on this hand to find out?"

not to find out. it's not for info once you get that far into the hand. you play AA here like the winner. period. these guys have a history of getting out of line and spewing. reraising them helps them put in money with the worst of it. if the guy 4 bets then you play it like the crying call loser.

"even if we are ahead, we aren't winning a full bet from our opponent when we 3 bet. We're getting like .65-.75 of a bet depending on where he is."

sounds good to me.

"We could also be losing 1-2 full bets if he reraises us with a hand we are drawing dead or slim against(unlikely he has such a hand, but still possible)."

fine by me. he likely doesnt have such a hand and it's clear he's trying to mess with me (if im bb) so now he has to pay for his laggy tricky games. you dont make lags pay by call call calling them to death, you have to raise them back sometimes and make them pay when they were raising with draws they must now call with. and if it makes the guy fold a 3 or 4 outer or something then brilliant!

"The only way we are getting a side pot, it seems, it when we are behind."

no. the whole point is the guy who raised the turn is clearly likely to be getting out of line. punish him with a reraise.

a lot of this is rehash of stuff i already posted btw.

"This coupled with the fact that a thinking player never pays us off with a worse hand on the river"

what?? where'd you get that from? the pot is really really big. he crying calls there with some hands AA beats.

"I see these LAG thinkers profitting off of otherwise good players because they think the way to counter their aggression is to overplay marginal hands."

as you said that's not the case here, and clearly that's the sort of thing we see a lot online. i do know what youre talking about, it's the sort of play ive championed for years, and im less and less fond of it as the games change and i mature. anyway, again, this is truly not the case here because hero has AA.

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
"I think Peter has AhJ"

that is completely absurd, to use your word. okay players dont limp after a limpy DG with AJ in 80-160 games. that's completely absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that you would expect a raise there. Maybe he was just mixing it up. The guy has been described as tricky. Limping AJ seems a lot more reasonable to me though than limping K9 and then calling 2 cold. Wouldn't you agree?

Good luck.
Eric

[Lawrence Ng]

[ QUOTE ]
Henry played the hand perfectly. I don't care how long he tanked, after he called two-cold on the flop, he was never folding on the turn, unless a fourth flush card came, and then only maybe. What happened this hand was Henry got dealt a big pair, then he announced that he had a big pair (preflop), then he confirmed that he had a big pair (by calling two cold on the flop), and then he says okay fine, enough out of me, I'll see you at the river. He was on the gas and the brake at exactly the right times against those opponents. His betting was unimprovable. His tempo was unexusable.

Tommy

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this option for the sake of sanity, but I don't like it for reason being that cold calling 2 bets OOP on the turn against this line up is just absolutely weak. Yes, it's not a bad option, but Henry is just pretty much telegraphing the fact that he has a good chance of laying down overpair against aggressive action vs. tricky players and any good tricky player is gonna smell that like a shark smells the blood from it's prey and use that knowledge well to their advantage for future game considerations.

Perhaps the only thing I would do different if I were Henry is bet out the turn after calling a 3-bet on the flop.

At that point I am implicity saying to Peter, "I definitely have an overpair here and you better have a real hand to pump me back here as I have pot committed myself."

This post has a simple message. Aggressive poker is still the best poker for a plethora of reasons. Peter demonstrates this well, and Henry not so well.

Lawrence

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
you dont make lags pay by call call calling them to death, you have to raise them back sometimes and make them pay when they were raising with draws they must now call with.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is the crux of the argument on the turn 3-bet. I'm not convinced this statement is true, but you've certainly made me think about it.

Mason often posted hands designed, I believe, to demonstrate the principle of doing a lot of calling against a LAG. Many of these hands were heads up, that's different, etc etc. My point is simply to say that I've always thought that you beat LAGs with the call, but am willing to consider the possibility that I am wrong.

I'd say that a raise would be more appealling if I though I might actually make DG fold soething that could draw out on me... since he's been given the name "degenerate gambler", I'm not convinced the 3-bet is as clear as you all make it out to be.

Thought-provoking discussion though, thanks.

Good luck.
Eric

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
Failing to gamble here is a terrible mistake. Being passive allows them to continue to give that action, but you don't want that at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me play devil's advocate here for a minute. If I read your thoughts correctly, you are suggesting that in big pots, you should give aggressive players more action than you think your hand deserves, so that they will stop being aggressive with you in the future.

Presumably, you mean that, having given all this action in the past to let them know that you are not a person to be messed with, you can then take advantage of that at some point in the future and stop giving all so much action, because you know that their raises are more likely to represent real strength. Is this right so far?

I see two arguments against this plan.

1. If a player is too aggressive, convincing him to mess with you less simply makes him play more correctly. Surely you don't think that you can actually make him too passive with this line of play, do you? A LAG is still going to bluff at you from time to time. There won't ever be a point where you fell comfortable folding the turn with AA against this guy, will there?

2. There is no point where you could take advantage of the image you've created, or you would immediately expose yourself to his aggression again.


It seems to me that the best solution would be one that involves encouraging him to continue bluffing too often, but that keeps you from being run over. How would this work? Well, I've always thought this involved calling with your big hands a little more often than you normally would, in an attempt to give your opponent the feeling that you might fold if only he'd bet or raise. I also assume the best strategy involves calling or raising unimproved more often than you normally would as well, since it's more likely than normal that your hand is best and that he has nothing.

I find it appealling that this strategy doesn't ever have me giving up EV now to send a message. I'm never playing for metagame edges on future hands. I'm just playing big hands more slowly because I think that I can make more by letting him bluff. I'm calling more with weak hands becuase the odds they are good is higher than normal.

This is how I've always looked at handling LAGs. I'm willing to be convinced that I'm wrong. What say you?

Thanks,
Eric

edit: by the way, I read Ray Zee's 3-bet suggestion as being a simple "we're ahead so often that we should 3-bet this for value" argument. That may be true, I don't know. But that's a very different argument from the one I think you are making, which seems to be that giving up a little value is ok to send a message. I would argue that you may not even want to send that message in the first place, much less pay to do it!

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as absurdities go, nothing is more absurd than overemphasizing how important a three-bet is in this hand. To say that I'd "go broke" with a player like Peter in the game is a pretty condescending and laughable assertion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. 3-betting may be slightly +EV (unclear IMO), and maybe there is some psychological advantage to it (again unclear, IMO). Making it out to be the critical move you must have to win in this game goes too far. I'd say the critical move was made, and that is simply not folding. Reraising, if it's best, is just icing on the cake.

my 2 cents.
Eric

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
Loon opens the door with a bet. Peter seizes the opportunity to try and knock off Henry's overpair. Henry should read this and 3 bet for (a) value and (b) to tell Peter "don't F*ck with me".

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, Peter and Henry play together often, and Henry says this a lot. Now Peter's raise actual represents a flopped flush. Too bad Henry has to keep raising in order to make sure none of Peter's raises are an attempt to f*ck with him. If he wasn't constantly telling Peter to back off, his raise would have more value.

-Eric

[Tommy Angelo]

"sucker, zee, and i all agree that a 3 bet on the turn is the superior play. do you feel differently, and, if so, why?"

If you and sucker and zee think that the best play for you and sucker and zee would be to three-bet the turn, then I'm sure you're right. For me, playing it as Henry did would have been correct. And because Henry and I play and think and project ourselves similarly in the ways that are relevant to this hand, I believe Henry's line of play was correct for him as well.

Tommy