AQ off

[naphand]

dude you don't know what SB does this with.

some players do not adjust (much like the advice proferred here). I have made some pretty stupid-looking moves against players who I assumed were loosening their standards when they weren't.

[Spicymoose]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I think pondering that this hand could might be standard is a huge leak. There are several problems with it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nice to see you've joined the elite of posters who think it's okay to say that there are problems without saying what they are, why they are problems, and what you should do instead. You're really cool now [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img].

Seriously, this kind of post is just not helpful. If you've got something useful to say, say it. Otherwise, why not just move on without posting?

This has been a public service announcement from someone who preferred 2+2 in 2000.

Guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I realize I may have come off harsh, but I was serious. His hand is by no means awful, but thinking that it might be standard means some seriously flawed thinking. I am not trying to be elitist, and I thought it was important for him to realize that this can in no way be standard. I guess next time I should lay out some reasoning as well.

I think the hand could be changed in a few ways, and although I don't know exactly which one is best, this one definetly isn't. Other posters have already suggested some alternatives. Definetly cap preflop. Given that he didn't, raise the flop. Given that he didn't, I think a turn raise might be right against certain opponents.

[naphand]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a turn raise might be right against certain opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

He does not have a read.

[Spicymoose]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think a turn raise might be right against certain opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

He does not have a read.

[/ QUOTE ]

This I know. That Sucker Guy wanted me to post some strategy. Sometimes when replying to posts it is helpful to give advice for similar, but not exactly the same situations. For example "if a different river hit, I would bet."

[naphand]

[ QUOTE ]
Not having a read on SB is fishy...

[/ QUOTE ]

[Spicymoose]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not having a read on SB is fishy...

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. While having reads is better then not, we can't always have reads. Sometimes you are at a wonderful table, but there is still an unknown or two. Granted, you want to find out about SB ASAP, but not having a read isn't necessarily fishy.

[wheelz]

i really can't think of any reason why you wouldn't cap here PF naphand.

i'm trying to think of maybe some strategy to add to this post so i don't look like an [censored], but i can't.

i would just like to know why you think not capping is more beneficial.

[naphand]

The problem is that so many posters just naturally assume that SB has adjusted to 4-handed and is liberally 3-betting.

BUT

We do not know anything about SB's 3-betting standards.
We do not know how long the table has been 4-handed.
We do not know what Hero has been SD.
We do not know if SB will go to SD with A-high or any PP etc. or dump it easily on the Flop.

Capping here is either for value or to allow you to push off a better hand/one with valid outs against you when you miss the flop. I wonder what the so-called value of _taking control of the hand_ is against some players, such as those we play for value against rather than trying to control.

I have played the $5/$10 at Stars and know well enough there are players you can should cap AQo here and there are numbers where you are in trouble.

AQo is in trouble here against an opponent who 3-bets AA-88, AKo-AQo, AKs-ATs, KQs.

Too much assumption not enough question. Too little information from poster.

I see a lot of people advising _calling down_ or _capping_ as standard when I simply do not find many opponents against whom this is the best line, even at $5/$10. I do not play at Partyscum, maybe things are different there, but most seem to assume a really aggro and close to correct 3-bet standard for players that I just do not come across that often.

We should be encouraging poster to think about his situation, his opponent and his options.

[Guy McSucker]

[ QUOTE ]

I realize I may have come off harsh, but I was serious.


[/ QUOTE ]

Harshness is not a problem. It's the elliptical nature of your post that gets my goat. "You don't know what you're doing and I do... but I'm not telling you". Pointless.

I also realize that you didn't mean it that way; at least I hope not. I was just trying to encourage you (and by extension everybody else) to put valuable stuff in their posts. I can't tell you the number of posts I write out in detail and then don't send because I don't think they contribute enough. (And I only submitted that one thanks to a misclick!)

Okay let's talk strategy.

Capping preflop might be good. Why though? As naphand says, it's not obvious that we get value from the extra bet. Are there other advantages? We have the button and to a certain extent capping preflop gives up your positional advantage on the flop because everybody knows you will bet, so they check to you, so you have to act first!

I don't think the argument for a preflop cap is compelling. I'm happy either way. I'd also like to be convinced if it is indeed the best move; and I don't care how many people say "cap preflop" without an argument to back it up...

You suggest raising the flop. Why though? What are you putting SB on? He 3-bets preflop and bets this flop. We have ace high. There's a decent chance we are losing and a very good chance SB is taking his hand to showdown. We might back him into a shell with a raise but there are no prizes for that.

The raise is good if he's dominated since he will likely call. But in that case, if we don't raise, he will often bet the turn. Maybe waiting and raising the turn is good?

On the other hand maybe the flop raise is good because of the potential for a freebie on the turn. But do we really want to show weakness with a turn check? Sure makes it easier for him to play the river accurately.

I think there's a lot to discuss here if you start thinking about it, and I hope people who are less close to falling asleep at the keyboard than I am are able to contribute.

Guy.

[naphand]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the argument for a preflop cap is compelling. I'm happy either way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel the same. As the game gets more SH reads become even more important - and I personally consider 4-handed is the where _short-handed_ really starts. This is because you are either trying to steal the blinds or defending them in every hand; there is no UTG any more IMO.

I would estimate at Stars $5/$10 roughly 20% of the players are capable of 3-betting a wide range of hands here, and another 20-30% are capable of 3-betting with less than AA-QQ. But of course, I need to have identified those players.

A lot of the 3-bettors on Stars are terrible post-flop players; as Guy says, why give away our hand and make ourselves first to act on the Flop? I prefer raising the Flop but given the board a raise Turn/check River UI line has a lot of merit too.

I think poster played this hand fine against an unknown, at least from an odds perspective his calls were all correct (I accept the inital PF call is debatable). However, I think a Flop raise is better, and see how SB reacts. A 3-bet on the Flop I call and hope to improve on the Turn. If checked to I will often take the free card - particularly against aggressive players (though we do not have the luxury of knowing this here).

If the game is likely to stay 4-handed a while then always capping PF with big hands, sometimes calling and raising the Flop with just overs/big hands is a good way to keep opponents guessing. Against an unknown I want to get to SD with this hand, which means playing slower on the big streets unimproved.

I just do not see SB calling down with AJo/A9o/KQo enough here to make pumelling all the way the best line. Do we want SB to fold a hand like AJ/KQ? Nor do I see him folding a better hand to our PF and Flop pounding. The Flop texture is very important here against a re-steal, and I am happy for SB to retain the intitative when I have position.