On the Edge - IX

[jedi]

What does everyone think of this week's article? I'm not sure that it helps with my low limit opponents who are fairly straightforward, but will this help me against the tricky players that I'll see as I move up?

Villain raises the river only to fold to a 3-bet? That is rare indeed as the pot is now huge and he'll likely call with ANY part of the board, despite hero's image and 3-bet.

Barron, what did you think of Villain's image of you (not that you were tight, per se, but of your play and willingness to be tricky?)

I have trouble balancing the "Don't fold when the pot is big" against the "When the opponent is betting when he's sure you're calling, it's not a bluff." Makes for a lot of river spewing on my part.

[GrannyMae]

i'm not sure i understood the logic that caused him to think he had no part of the board.

there were rags and high cards out there. if he was read for a total bluff pre-flop, then there was too many ways the board could still have hit him. this includes Q-high, better kicker. i don't like the move on the river and think it will be long term EV-, even against a complete maniac.

i'm trying not to think this is another results oriented article, but that's how i see it.

jmho

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
i don't like the move on the river and think it will be long term EV-

[/ QUOTE ]

Granny, you are incorrect. The opponent folded after he raised.

[ChicagoTroy]

It looked to me like every street was misplayed.

I think these articles are written to get attention.

[GrannyMae]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i don't like the move on the river and think it will be long term EV-

[/ QUOTE ]

Granny, you are incorrect. The opponent folded after he raised.

[/ QUOTE ]

i know that. i'm talking about using this move as a habit against similar players.

i could be wrong

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]

Barron, what did you think of Villain's image of you (not that you were tight, per se, but of your play and willingness to be tricky?)

[/ QUOTE ]


Amusingly enough, as I think I wrote to Diablo recently in a PM regarding our OTE 8 discussion, I am NOT a very tricky player in any way. If anything, I am TOO straightforward a vast majority of the time (playing at the limits that I do, it works).

This year, barring the time when I was unable to travel due to my gall bladder shenanigans, I averaged 30 hours per week of live play. Let's just call this 1,000 hands a week in a B&M.

So this year I've seen, taking into account my time recovering at home, 30,000+ hands.

Of those, I've only found 20 or so worth writing about for various articles. Not even 1/10th of 1%. So while those that know me from my writing might have one image of me (good, bad, indifferent, whatever) that doesn't translate to live games, barring those people that are here on 2+2 that I've run into.

This all goes by way of explaining that these types of things are ONLY possible because they are particular spots I pick for particular reasons and, more often than not, because the other 99.9%+ of the time I'm running ABC, it works fine.

For example, I subtitled this article The Mason Move, because after I read his article, I thought this was a genius play on his part. Would he have done what I did? I don't know. I'm guessing if there was a better way to run it he would've.

But it's just an example of a cool thing that I read from him that I've now had the chance to do three times this year (this time that I wrote about, another time when the guy folded on the flop, and a third when another folded on the turn). This is the farthest I've had to push it, and it's never been picked off.

VERY small sample size, but in 30,000 or whatever hands, I've only had the chance to do it 3 times.

But tricky...? I'm FAR from tricky, as I think of tricky as someone who doesn't run textbook poker (invariably, by the book SSH) 99.9%+ of the time.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
i'm not sure i understood the logic that caused him to think he had no part of the board.

there were rags and high cards out there. if he was read for a total bluff pre-flop, then there was too many ways the board could still have hit him. this includes Q-high, better kicker. i don't like the move on the river and think it will be long term EV-, even against a complete maniac.

i'm trying not to think this is another results oriented article, but that's how i see it.

jmho

[/ QUOTE ]

I just have so many questions about this that I'm sure better players can answer them. My games are likely to be calling fests which is why I'm not going to be firing off all these bets at better players. Some questions.

1) Why steal here? I understand the extra money in the pot from the random hand posting, Q6o isn't the best of hands to be stealing with especially if you think it'll get called, which hero is sure of. Sure, you have tight blinds and a good table image, but the pot isn't that big and I save my fight for another hand.

2) Villain's range of hands. I can accept that villian will raise from this spot with any pocket pair, or any Ace (or even any King), but is it too much to think that villain will just check his option with 45o or J2s?

3) "His raise was as all his other check-raises on the flop: indicating a draw." Obviously Barron was at the table and can speak to this better, but why can't it be top pair or 2 pair? 2 pair would surely check-raise, and 1 pair could be check raising hoping to blow you off a missed AK, or trying to find out where he's at vs. a possible overpair.

4) Villain's call on the turn. What does villain have now? If he has a pair, then his call tells me that he wants to showdown the hand. If he has a draw, then the pot is big enough for him to call.

5) Villain's bet on the river. If villain called on the turn with just a pair, why would he bet out here? He wanted to see a showdown, right? The pot is too big for him to bet and fold to a raise. I think villain is on a completely missed draw and was betting to try to steal the pot from you. You didn't oblige, so villain folds "knowing" that you have him beat.

I think this isn't a river value raise. Better hands call you anyways as the pot is now big. Missed draw hands will fold.

- At my games, people are calling me with anything, so I'm very reluctant to put all these bets in the pot here with that kind of hand. I'm not a great player, so my thinking is almost certainly off, but if the great players can tell me where I'm wrong, then I think I can improve as I move up in limits.

[StellarWind]

If one assumes the reads given are 100% correct (as the author apparently does) then Hero misplayed the hand.

The narrative makes it clear that queen-high is the best hand after Villain checkraises the flop. Hero should call the flop checkraise and wait for the autobet on the turn. If a heart or a new small card hits then Hero is in trouble and should call down. His hand may still be good and he has many potential outs. But if the board pairs or a high card hits Hero is in the clear and can raise for protection/value. Obviously this also works well if Hero makes his hand on the turn.

As the hand was actually played folding the river does not merit the slightest consideration because you appear to have the best hand. Most of the time the raise will only succeed in folding out a worse hand. That's actually a very good thing because showing Q6o could be very expensive. A real wake-up call for both the tight blinds and the predictable Villain.

If Hero really has folding chances against an occasional trash four then the river raise may be good. Certainly the pot odds are there for taking a risk. But the author might have at least noticed that the river completes the wheel. Based on the article I would say that 32o is the single most likely hand for Villain to have.

[WhiteWolf]

[ QUOTE ]
i'm not sure i understood the logic that caused him to think he had no part of the board.

there were rags and high cards out there. if he was read for a total bluff pre-flop, then there was too many ways the board could still have hit him. this includes Q-high, better kicker. i don't like the move on the river and think it will be long term EV-, even against a complete maniac.

i'm trying not to think this is another results oriented article, but that's how i see it.

jmho

[/ QUOTE ]

(Edit: It's been pointed out that I missed the fact that Baron's opponent checked his post pre-flop, which total invalidates my analysis below. Please ignore this post)

I have to say I was troubled by his thought process as well.

First he says that, preflop, he was sure his opponent had a terrible hand, because he raised his post 100% of the time. Myself, that tells me his opponent has any two cards, meaning a few (not many, but some) of his possible hands are actually good.

Then he lists out what his oppenent has shown down:
[ QUOTE ]
He'd shown down hands ranging from one-gappers (six-four offsuit), to suited cards (nine-deuce suited), to Broadway-rag (jack-trey offsuit), to pocket pairs (aces).

[/ QUOTE ]
...the last of which is a pretty good hand.

Next, the flop comes down monotone + straightish. Baron lists out hands his opponent doesn't have:

[ QUOTE ]

1. Any pocket pair;
2. A jack, queen, king, or ace;
3. Any connector or one-gapped connector;
4. And, most importantly, he didn't have two suited cards.

He didn't have a flush, but he could have a straight (not via an eight-six, but possibly by a six-trey).


[/ QUOTE ]

Taking these one by one:
1. Pocket pair - but his opponent played AA before in the same situation
2. A jack, queen, king, or ace - his opponent played J3o and AA here before
3. Any connector or one-gapped connector - his opponent played 64o before.
4. The flush - his opponent had shown down 93s before.

I can't see any information presented up to this point in the hand description that would justify making the above assumptions about his opponent's possible non-holdings.

Now perhaps Baron made these deductions after he had more information when the opponent checked the flop (although his narrative doesn't indicate this). But it does sound to me like a case of putting his opponent on the precise holdings that would justify playing back with air.

My 2 cents,

The Wolf

I think you missed the major difference, that being that the villian just checked after posting and having it checked around to him. This indicated he had a worse hand than any of the above mentioned. The only question becomes if the read was correct, was this played properly.