Pedal to the metal with trips...

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm check-calling the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is true then I assume also that you wouldn't have capped the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup.

[/ QUOTE ]

That seems like shutting down too soon with a great hand against a retard.

[/ QUOTE ]

The lack of information you get out of your flop check is one of the consequences of checking the flop. In general, when someone 3-bets the turn, they've got a good hand. Especially when they 3-bet a turn checkraise. I completely disagree with your flop and turn play because I think they're absolutely transparent, but whatever.

I know that you say you've seen him make some "idiotic floater" moves, but I fail to see how either of those situations detract from his possible range of hands here. If you tell me that he'd raise A4o here or that he was generally overaggressive, that's going to change my read and play accordingly. But you didn't. You mentioned two situations, one which wasn't a great raise but was far from terrible, and another which might be good but might be terrible, depending on contexts, and neither of those seem to have much applicability here.

You've shown extreme strength here and he's responded with more strength. If I had a read that he'd play lots of hands this way on the turn, then yeah, I'd cap the turn and lead the river (though I think 3-betting the river is asinine). But you don't provide a read with the equivalent of that.

Rob

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]

The lack of information you get out of your flop check is one of the consequences of checking the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm amazed that you think that a flop raise (or his response to my possible three-bet) would give me any reliable information here.


[ QUOTE ]
In general, when someone 3-bets the turn, they've got a good hand. Especially when they 3-bet a turn checkraise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume he has a good hand...but so do I. I'm not quite ready to give him credit for a hand better than an ace or a worse nine as soon as he three-bets the turn.


[ QUOTE ]
I completely disagree with your flop and turn play because I think they're absolutely transparent, but whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I wasn't playing against you. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]


[ QUOTE ]
I know that you say you've seen him make some "idiotic floater" moves, but I fail to see how either of those situations detract from his possible range of hands here. If you tell me that he'd raise A4o here or that he was generally overaggressive, that's going to change my read and play accordingly. But you didn't. You mentioned two situations, one which wasn't a great raise but was far from terrible, and another which might be good but might be terrible, depending on contexts, and neither of those seem to have much applicability here.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's true that I hadn't seen him go crazy previously on the turn/river. What I have seen is that he has made a number of seemingly illogical decisions. In addition, you seem to be forgetting that there are a number of hands that he could have here which he thinks are great but are second best--such as a weaker nine or an overplayed ace. In other words, he doesn't have to be on a bluff to be showing such aggression on the turn.


[ QUOTE ]
I think 3-betting the river is asinine

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough.

[Skadet]

[ QUOTE ]

I assume he has a good hand...but so do I.


[/ QUOTE ]
No way, man. How many times have you played A9? even K9 from late position? Even if you're against another 9, dude. Lousy kicker. Definatly not warranting ultra-aggressive play.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]


I'm amazed that you think that a flop raise (or his response to my possible three-bet) would give me any reliable information here.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you bet the flop and he raises, then you checkraise the turn and he 3-bets, do you think he's got an "overplayed Ace" as often as when you check-call the flop, then check-raise the turn and he 3-bets?

I lead this flop often but that's because I seem to get paid off well when I do -- the information is really only a small ancillary benefit.

On the turn, you need to have the best hand 2/3 of the time for a cap-lead combo to be great. Other lines that you might want to consider include calling and betting the river regardless, since it makes it a lot harder for him to fold a worse hand.

Yeah, you've got a good hand here. But it's not a great hand. You're behind AA (3), K9 (4), 96 (3), A9 (4), and 66 (3), and are ahead of 92 (4), 93 (4), 94 (4), 95 (4), 97 (4), 98 (4), T9 (4), and J9 (4). That's behind 17 and ahead of 32, but some of those need to be discounted pretty significantly as he probably doesn't have 92o, 93o, or 94o. 95o and up become playable in the range of someone playing ~80% of their hands.

If you really think there's a significant chance he 3-bets you on the turn with a hand that doesn't include a 9 and he'll never fold a hand like an overplayed Ace, then I don't mind the cap-lead, but if he'll slow down with some of these hands or is capable of folding a worse hand, then I like considering that you may have to slow down yourself.

My math could be off as I'm getting ready for bed. It's close either way, but I generally slow down sooner against this sort of player.

Rob

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I assume he has a good hand...but so do I.


[/ QUOTE ]
No way, man. How many times have you played A9? even K9 from late position? Even if you're against another 9, dude. Lousy kicker. Definatly not warranting ultra-aggressive play.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Remember that opponent plays 75% of his hands preflop.
2. A queen is very rarely a lousy kicker.

[imported_leader]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I assume he has a good hand...but so do I.


[/ QUOTE ]
No way, man. How many times have you played A9? even K9 from late position?

[/ QUOTE ]

The question is how many times does Button play 9T-92 from the Button. Given his stats I'd say every time.

[ QUOTE ]
Even if you're against another 9, dude. Lousy kicker. Definatly not warranting ultra-aggressive play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Q is not a lousy kicker.

[Skadet]

[ QUOTE ]
You're looking to get maximum value out of every hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't mean pissing away your chips on mediocre hands when the payoff is tiny (the pot is small).

[ QUOTE ]

[Quote]
I prefer to make moves when I am likely to be ahead.


[/ QUOTE ]


Apparently not.


[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, man, I don't know what your problem is. Think about the range of hands that beat him. 66, AA, JJ, 69, A9, K9, J9, and any two clubs. He's at BEST 8th place. If making a move seems like a good play to you, feel free to sit with me anytime.

[Skadet]

[ QUOTE ]

1. Remember that opponent plays 75% of his hands preflop.


[/ QUOTE ]

That said, think of the number of hands that beat him (taken from my earlier post): 66, AA, JJ, 69, A9, K9, J9, AND any two clubs. He's at BEST 8th place if his opponant has a legitimate hand, and he's sure betting like he does. The size of the pot vs. holding the "8th nuts" just doesn't make this an appealing hand to play to me.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]

On the turn, you need to have the best hand 2/3 of the time for a cap-lead combo to be great. Other lines that you might want to consider include calling and betting the river regardless, since it makes it a lot harder for him to fold a worse hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting.


[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, you've got a good hand here. But it's not a great hand. You're behind AA (3), K9 (4), 96 (3), A9 (4), and 66 (3), and are ahead of 92 (4), 93 (4), 94 (4), 95 (4), 97 (4), 98 (4), T9 (4), and J9 (4). That's behind 17 and ahead of 32, but some of those need to be discounted pretty significantly as he probably doesn't have 92o, 93o, or 94o. 95o and up become playable in the range of someone playing ~80% of their hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a hand like A6o (15 hands) has to be considered, given the real possibility that he might misread the strength of his counterfeited two-pair. But I guess we can disagree on whether this type of player could be holding a hand like AQ/AJ/AT--which would certainly increase the number of hands against which I'm ahead.

Unless someone can convince me otherwise, I still tend to think that capping the turn and betting the river is the right way to go, although I can see how just calling the river raise would be prudent.

[Nick C]

Villain sounds erratic, and there's a good chance he's not particularly observant.

A couple of thoughts, though:

(1) Anyone who plays Party 3/6 and pays much attention at all should be aware of the check-call flop, checkraise turn line with flopped trips. I know you don't do it all that often, but that doesn't mean Villain doesn't see it all the time.

(2) It seems like when someone is willing to put in this many raises against me heads-up postflop, he usually has something very good.

I often have trouble figuring out when to slow down with a strong hand -- especially against the kind of player your opponent is. But I don't think you should have put quite as many postflop bets in as you did.

That said, if you won the hand (maybe because Villain was going nuts postflop with KK or 95s or something), well, then you went with your instincts based on your read and were right this time. I do think that sometimes a play that can be correct at the table can look wrong in a posted hand, because sometimes a read can contain subtleties that are hard to describe in a post.

Edit: For instance, if Villain seems to take it personally and gets carried away when someone checkraises him, of if he tends to either play his hands passively or continue raising indefinitely, with some disregard for his hand's actual strength, then those would be reasons to keep playing back at him with a hand as strong as trips.

Probably he can usually bully someone into just calling him down eventually, if he raises persisently enough, since he won't usually be up against the nuts. So if he's a player who lets his ego get involved once he shows strength in a hand, then your river 3-bet starts to seem less reckless to me.