Trusting your read

[peterchi]

I strongly disagree with this fold.

You say he ALWAYS LRRs with AA and ALWAYS checks a set.

But do you know that he DOESN'T do this with anything else? How about KK or QQ? AKs-AJs? Does he NEVER check TPTK or top two pair?

You know that he has to have exactly AA or JJ for us to be behind here. I really don't think we can rule out the large number of plausible hands that he could have, unless you have observed that he NEVER LRRs with them and NEVER checks the flop with them.

And even then, as SeaEagle pointed out, the number of times you have seen each individual hand under the exact circumstances where he has the opportunity to LRR and check the flop, is not very high.

[JerseyTom]

I don't think I could ever make this particular fold (a set), but I congratulate you for trusting your read enough to act on it (and of course being correct [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]).

The closest I've come to a "really big laydown" is something like this (it's not that "big")...

I'm SB with AA. UTG+2 is a weak-tight rock on whom I have about 450 hands. Only caps with AA/KK (not QQ), always slowplays monsters on non-threatening boards. BB is kind of unknown but a bit loose.

UTG+2 raises, folded to me, I 3-bet, BB calls, UTG+2 caps, all call.

Flop (12 SB) 3 players: K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
I bet, BB raises, UTG+2 cold-calls, and I just call, because I already know. I have good implied odds to spike an A.

Turn (9 BB) 3 players: 9[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
I check, BB bets, UTG+2 raises, I fold, because I already know. Turn gets capped.

River 6. Gets capped. UTG+2 shows KK, BB has 22.

Now if I play this normally, I'm 3-betting the flop and probably getting capped by BB, then leading the turn and probably folding when it's two back to me. So I "saved" 2 BB by tossing I guess.


Not much to really add here... sometimes you "just know" and the numbers go out the window.


Tom

[SeaEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
Not much to really add here... sometimes you "just know" and the numbers go out the window.


[/ QUOTE ]
Wow.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm SB with AA. UTG+2 is a weak-tight rock on whom I have about 450 hands. Only caps with AA/KK (not QQ), always slowplays monsters on non-threatening boards. BB is kind of unknown but a bit loose.

[/ QUOTE ]
Color me skeptical. In 450 hands, when villian would have had big pairs on average twice each and probably not always shown them down, and usually wouldn't get to cap with them, how do you know he only caps with AA and KK but not QQ?

[TheHip41]

[ QUOTE ]
Couldnt get the converter to work so Ill try to type it how it happened.

Party 3/6 9 players

Hero is CO with 9 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]9 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]
UTG limps, 2 more limpers, Hero raises, SB folds, BB calls, UTG reraises, all call.
5 players, 15.5SB
FLOP A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]J [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]4 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]
All players check
5 players, 7.75BB
Turn 9 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
UTG bets, 2 calls, Hero folds, BB folds.

Heres my thinking. UTG is a 14/7/4.2 over 3600 hands.I look at my notes on UTG and all I have on him is this:
ALWAYS limp reraises AA.
ALWAYS checks flop when he is PFR and hits a set.
I dont really remember making these notes but when I have ALWAYS in caps it usually means that Ive seen this play made over and over by the player.
So I folded my hand and congratulated myself on folding a hand that anyone else at the table would have lost a lot of money on.
The next card off is the 9 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] and I kick myself in the ass. The river is capped 2 way and UTG shows A [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. Other player shows K [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]Q [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img].
The play turned out to be worst case scenario but I was drawing at one out. I like the fold still even though I would have taken down a monster.
When discussing the hand with a friend later on we disagreed on the play. Figured Id get as second(third and fourth) opinion.

Anyone else able to make this fold??

[/ QUOTE ]


I'll make this my last imput on this topic.

Don't ever fold a set on a rainbow/non paired board for 1 bet on the turn. Seriously.

[SeaEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't ever fold a set on a rainbow/non paired board for 1 bet on the turn. Seriously.


[/ QUOTE ]
Not even when no one bets the flop?

[TheHip41]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't ever fold a set on a rainbow/non paired board for 1 bet on the turn. Seriously.


[/ QUOTE ]
Not even when no one bets the flop?

[/ QUOTE ]


Ok, not my last post in this topic [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
Remind me not to say that anymore.

Yes, even when no one bets the flop. When he checks, it means he has AA, JJ or some random trash that completely missed the board.

I was LRR 6 times today 2/4 over 1000 hands.

I was shown these at showdown

AA
AJs
44
J9s


So yes, he's going to have AA here, but not enough to justify folding the third nuts.

Notice I didn't advocate 'raising' the turn, as you are going to get 3-bet by AA and JJ, and pretty much everything else is going to fold.

I'd call the turn, and if he bets the river, call the river. If he checks the river, bet/call a raise.

These are Party donks, he might have AJ and be 'slowplaying'

[SeaEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't ever fold a set on a rainbow/non paired board for 1 bet on the turn. Seriously.


[/ QUOTE ]
Not even when no one bets the flop?

[/ QUOTE ]


Ok, not my last post in this topic [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
Remind me not to say that anymore.



[/ QUOTE ]
Ummm. Left my sarcasm tags off again...

[TheHip41]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't ever fold a set on a rainbow/non paired board for 1 bet on the turn. Seriously.


[/ QUOTE ]
Not even when no one bets the flop?

[/ QUOTE ]


Ok, not my last post in this topic [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
Remind me not to say that anymore.



[/ QUOTE ]
Ummm. Left my sarcasm tags off again...

[/ QUOTE ]


Thought you were the OP. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Time to get some sleep

[Tk79]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How is it positive feedback if the play didnt work out. I would have make quad 9s.


[/ QUOTE ]
If you knew for a fact your opponent had AA, then your laydown on the turn was correct. I think you're justifying your laydown based on the results - villian showed AA. But, I wonder if you would have posted this hand had villian shown, say, AK or KK.


[/ QUOTE ]I see what your sayin.

Thanks everyone for your input. After reading the responses I guess that I would have to be pretty sure that he had aces or jacks in this spot to make this laydown. I later looked in my PT database and found that this player had 7 LRRs. He played aces(that were shown down) 9 times. Never open raised with them. LRR 5 times with them, called 2 times in unraised pots, and cold called once. His other LRRs were not shown down. I think this information would lean more towards a fold here, but since I didnt have the info at the time(8 tables) a call was probably in order.

[ellipse_87]

[ QUOTE ]
I later looked in my PT database and found that this player had 7 LRRs. He played aces(that were shown down) 9 times. Never open raised with them. LRR 5 times with them, called 2 times in unraised pots, and cold called once. His other LRRs were not shown down.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is interesting. The confirmation of villain's behavior with AA simply repeats the mistake in logic that was made in the original post. (This isn't a flame. I missed it too until the 2nd or 3rd post to point out the mistake.)

We still don't know the range of hands LRR'd by this opponent! Having confirmed to the n-th degree of certainty that this one particular hand indeed constitutes a subset of LRR'd hands, we still can't extrapolate from that subset to make conclusions about the entire set.

If we had a 20-year history with 10,000,000 hands, with AA LRR'd every time, we're still not approaching the problem correctly.

What I find particularly interesting, however, are two things.

First, the fact that your guess was right presents certain questions. It'd be great if someone mathematically inclined could give a model for computing the likelihood of AA constituting the entire set of LRR'd hands, post-guess. In other words, what are the probabilties that OP would guess correctly given a range of various LRR'd hands? Does his correct guess confirm to a certain extent that AA indeed constitutes the entire range?

Second, reasonably anticipating a call-down of two bets (the actual capped river was an anomaly), what effective odds are we getting, and are they sufficient given that no other LRR'd hand has come to OP's attention?

If hero anticipates 1 caller on the river, he's getting like 6.5-1 to call down. So hero, when he's making that decision in real time, has to ask himself if he's confident that non-AA hands make up less than ~ 15% of villain's LRR range. I think the question answers itself--a handful of experiences with LRR'd AA hands can't conclusively put AA at 85% of villain's LRR range.

Extremely interesting post and responses. Thanks.

Edit: Did you find KK or other LRR candidates that were open-raised? If you have a history of such hands, and no instances of them LRR'd, that might increase the certainty that your read was robust. On the other hand, if you found no raised KK hands, that might push those hands into the LRR category.