Good blind D, or awful poker? - Page 2

LazyRobot · #11 06-17-2005, 06:13 AM

if you think he is passive why would he raise out the SB?

Not many passives raise AA out of the SB, it's pretty common for them to check. He's got something considering the action.

Calling might not be horrible here but I'd be concerned about him opeing the pot on the flop.

Malachii · #12 06-17-2005, 06:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Not many passives raise AA out of the SB, it's pretty common for them to check. He's got something considering the action.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Calling might not be horrible here

[/ QUOTE ]
I think calling is fine here... he's getting 9-1 on a call that only needs 8.2-1 to be +EV. If you're concerned about him having AA or KK, I agree it's possible. I still think taking a card off here is okay... it's not going to break him one way or the other.

LazyRobot · #13 06-17-2005, 06:23 AM

Yes, calling is fine.

I am just saying, if you read him as completely passive he's not raising out of the SB. Ever. So either you're reads probably wrong /

aK13 · #14 06-17-2005, 07:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, calling is fine.

I am just saying, if you read him as completely passive he's not raising out of the SB. Ever. So either you're reads probably wrong /

[/ QUOTE ]

Passive players (preflop) include PFR levels of about 0-4, which usually constitutes AA, KK, QQ, AK, and JJ, and passive players actually tend to raise more often than limp with these hands.

LazyRobot · #15 06-17-2005, 07:12 AM

so what are you saying? Passive player raises out of the SB.

Clearly he is going to only raise some premiums if your read is correct. A and a K flop.

Joel_Fish · #16 06-17-2005, 08:28 AM

Why would you want better single pairs to fold?

A passive player raises PF and bets out on the flop when AK comes down. We are definitely behind at least one person here, and probably more, and there's no way in hell we are going to push everyone off their better hands than us. Thus the only chance we have to win this is by drawing out, in which case we want to keep others in the hand to increase our pot odds. That's why calling is better than raising on the flop.

Right? I mean, lets just say for argument sake that we are up against AJ [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] and QQ. If the turn comes a 6, I'd rather have QQ in the pot so I can take his money too.

dogfishhead · #17 06-17-2005, 11:29 AM

Thanks for all the comments. Regarding my lack of a real read after 75 hands, that's probably one of my biggest problems. I have a hard time keeping track of individual people over the course of an hour or so when I play more than one table, or when I play while I'm doing something else. I don't like to look at the numbers while I'm playing, because I don't want to become dependent upon them.

SB's numbers are 35.62/6.85/1.54, so I'd assume from that that he's capable of raising a few hands from the SB and that his flop 3-bet guarantees I'm behind an A or K or better.

I think my raise sucks, but it does serve to make SB define his hand. If I spike two pair or trips on the turn, I feel a lot more certain that I'm not still behind AA, KK, or AK if he just called my flop raise instead of 3-betting. Is this more stupidity?

Here's the rest of the hand, but I think it's pretty straightforward:

Turn: (7 BB) 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (2 players)
SB bets, Hero calls.

River: (9 BB) T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (2 players)
SB bets, Hero raises, SB calls.

Final Pot: 13 BB

In light of the way it played, I think my flop raise now really sucks. As someone mentioned, I would have liked to have kept weaker hands in for those times, like this one, where I draw out.