how often do you do this? (long)

[J.R.]

apologies for putting lots of stuff here. feel free to answer as little as u like. This is a spot I feel like I am not playing optimally and making posts like these helps me clarify my thinking and to gain exposure to some new or reassuring ideas, so if you see anything odd...

30/17/2.1 Button open-raises, his steal % is 35 over 2000ish hands. sb folds, you have A smallish kicker, say < 9, in the BB.

1) what percentage of time do you 3-bet?

against whom do you prefer either line?

Are baby aces different from middle aces, and does suitedness matter?

2) assuming no 3-bet, what is your postflop plan?

- fit or fold?

- plan to check-call a ragged board?

- plan to check-raise a ragged flop?

- against what kind of raiser do you think putting on a move is bad, i.e. how loose/aggro do they need to be before its not worth playing back at them, if there is such an opponent (ignoring when a rock raises)?

In the actual hand I had A6o. I just called. Flop ragged, Q73 rainbow. I check - raise.


3) comments on the plan?

-Its kinda my default to check-raise when I call with A rag v. a liberal stealer and the flop is without an A but with one broadway card and otherwise ragged. I fold to a flop 3-bet.

-this is anticipated to be a 2 street move a lot of the time, does that change things? Do opponents fold to flop check-raises often enough so this is not a 2 street move?

4) is there much merit to just leading the flop here.

-Its cheaper, although I feel its a less powerful move as it is: (I) less likely to get a fold and (II) its more likely that I get the initiative taken away (i.e. my oppoent raises my flop bet, perhaps even with worse hands), leaving me out of control with A rag high.

Do I check-fold most turns unimproved if I lead and am raised?

-I'd also need to lead more often with decent hands, and look to 3-bet them as well to make leading with A high (and less) in spots like this effective. But I rarely lead into pfrs, but have felt annoyed lately by a lot of poeple doing it to me. Maybe the muppets are unwittingly on to something that I should get into too?

4) How would the presence of a 2-flush on the flop effect your decision.

-I am less inclined to check-raise with a airballed non-ace holding in this spot with a 2-flush on the board, as opponenet is more liekly to call me down. But with an A on a ragged one broadway card board with a 2-flush I think I have the best hand.



Anyway, back to the hand. Turn is a J. I bet. He calls.

5) Other than an A, is there any turn card you might not bet at? Do you check a turned A?


River is a blank (I didn't pair my kicker). I check intending to call.

If I had paired my kicker on turn or river I bet river for value.


thanks for making it thru this. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[marand]

This is a very interesting and common situation and I often feel lost in it.

I very rarely 3-bet with A9 or less. If he has been stealing like every time I might 3-bet such a hand a plan on going to SD (unless it's a very scary board).

I hate playing Ax on the BB, if the raiser is tight I just muck it. But, if he steals a lot I feel I "have" to play. I most often just play fit or fold on the flop, but I really don't like that with Ax (I much rather have JT than A4).

Sometimes with a hand like A4 that misses I check/raise a flop with one high card and two rags. If I hit my kicker I generally check/raise the flop and if I hit my ace I generally use the ch/c ch/c bet line.

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
-Its kinda my default to check-raise when I call with A rag v. a liberal stealer and the flop is without an A but with one broadway card and otherwise ragged. I fold to a flop 3-bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this plan! Maybe I like it simply because I feel like I never have one. With a baby Ace, I have no problem calling, generally would not raise preflop. But then I find myself reflexively giving up on the flop (fit or fold), which feels like a total waste. I will try your line for a while.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
But I rarely lead into pfrs, but have felt annoyed lately by a lot of poeple doing it to me. Maybe the muppets are unwittingly on to something that I should get into too?

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course you are annoyed. You hoped to bet the flop and be handed the pot. Now you know that can't happen.

But were you damaged by his flop bet? The preexisting reality is that this player likes his hand enough to fight for the pot. That would be true regardless of whether he expressed this belief by betting, checkcalling, or checkraising. All the bet has really done is dispelled your happy dream.

If Button opened J9 and got your Q73 flop, the BB's bet is a real break. Now Button can just fold, secure in the knowledge that he has no hand, no draw, and no bluff equity. Much better than throwing chips into a black hole by autobetting the flop.

[ QUOTE ]
its more likely that I get the initiative taken away (i.e. my oppoent raises my flop bet, perhaps even with worse hands), leaving me out of control with A rag high.

[/ QUOTE ]
You may think you are in control after you bet the flop and Button just calls. However I see strings attached to your limbs. You are more or less obligated to bet the turn without any idea what is going to happen. Villain is the one with the freedom to play the turn any way he likes.

Summary: If you bet the flop with A-high and he raises you have a problem. If he calls you have a problem. If he folds he just saved himself some money.

And why should any of this be surprising? Against a typical opponent who will autobet the flop, your flop bet is a de facto bet out of turn. Button knows that he was going to bet and you would have the option to call. He now has the option of just calling and reproducing that situation, in which case you have gained nothing by your bet, or he can try for a better result by raising or folding. So unless you think he is going to outsmart himself and make a mistake, betting cannot ever accomplish anything.

This is all assuming that you trust that this Button will autobet the flop.

[J.R.]

[ QUOTE ]
But were you damaged by his flop bet? The preexisting reality is that this player likes his hand enough to fight for the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

i was more thinking when they have nothing and do this as a bluff as opposed to check-folding (or at least when I am off my A game and think/hope they are bluffing). I agree its better they do this v. me than check-raise, assuming I can let go airballed flops when lead into (i.e. not outsmart myself)

[ QUOTE ]
You may think you are in control after you bet the flop and Button just calls. However I see strings attached to your limbs. You are more or less obligated to bet the turn without any idea what is going to happen. Villain is the one with the freedom to play the turn any way he likes.


[/ QUOTE ]

I like initiative as opposed to control as to me it is kinda like who has the burden to catch a card or make a tough call most of the time- the one without initiative. When I check-raise and he calls I am in essentially the same shoes, obligated (so-to-speak) to bet the turn, but opponent has also had to put bets into the pot, so that is generally good for me.



But I really like the point about letting him off the hook. The flop bet is almost always a given so the lead is silly.

[ QUOTE ]
Against a typical opponent who will autobet the flop, your flop bet is a de facto bet out of turn. Button knows that he was going to bet and you would have the option to call. He now has the option of just calling and reproducing that situation, in which case you have gained nothing by your bet, or he can try for a better result by raising or folding. So unless you think he is going to outsmart himself and make a mistake, betting cannot ever accomplish anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

yay! I was thinking along the lines of the outsmart himself notion, cause I outsmart myself all the time (its not hard to do) and wondering if it was right to give some of this medicine to others. But your're right, a lead is a generally a good thing for the pfr given the straightforwad nature of most players. KISS works for me.

[Wynton]

Bump. I think this is an interesting topic.

[TStoneMBD]

this is a great thread. i have trouble with these situations myself. this is how i handle it:

i fold A4o-A2o here. I call A5o-A7o. I call A2s-A5s. I 3bet A8o+, A6s+.

i have no problem playing fit or fold with the smaller aces. i think its gigantic losing proposition to try and play a weak ace high out of position strongly.

there are reverse implied odds in doing this. not only is the pot small, but you can easily be manipulated if your opponent 3 bets the flop with a weaker hand or raises the turn with a weaker ace in an attempt to get a free showdown.

i think that its ok to just call preflop with marginal aces and just call the flop trying to peel sometimes. this is often a line i take when i flop a very strong hand. i will call the flop and checkraise the turn. this in turn allows me to have the opponent check the turn very often with a weaker hand than my ace high, and i get to take the pot down for 1sb rather than 2BBs.

[arkady]

Overall I think 3-betting frequently against a liberal button raiser is a good meta game approach. You are sending a message and in a very short while will see the button either leave/limp or fold. The SB then goes for the steal instead and the ball is in your court there. However calling has its many merits and will often accomplish the same goal.

Unlike Tstone, I do not fold any A to an aggro button stealer. My hand is figuring to be better than the average crap he is raising with.

Yes, I know I am generalizing, but that is really the only to approach this problem. Blind defense and stealing relies too much on "feel" to provide any kind of solid answer. Even a loose template of rules to follow is generally ineffective. There are some opponents who get very weak on the turn, if the button raiser is one of those, you can just call the flop and watch the turn get checked through. There are others who love to check the flop and bet the turn with anything, thinking your flop check means weakness. There are yet others who will fire on all 3 streets no matter what they have.

What distinguishes us from other poker players is hopefully our ability to adjust quickly. If you can identify your non tricky aggro button stealer as any of the 3 aforementioned, should be simple enough to adjust your strategy. I use the word simply here, very loosely. Nothing is simple.

All I know is that in the long term, after an hour, day, week, if people recognize you as someone against whom stealing becomes a mental chore, they might drop the activity all together. And that is the best solution, for it relieves us of these complicated decisions. Do what you must to attain that.

[TStoneMBD]

arkday, open raising A2-A4o on the button has shown a negative expectation through my 100k database. i have stopped doing this an only openraise A5o on the button now, unless the BB is a known weaktight.

if raising these hands show negative expecation in position against a random hand, how can the same hands show positive expectation out of position against the top 35% hands against a tricky, loose aggressive player?

yes, the fact that you are investing half the money preflop sounds like an enticing proposition to playing these hands. however, the fact that these hands are showing negative expectation on the button for me has nothing to do with preflop equity. ace high has positive expectation against 2 random blind hands. it has to do with reverse implied odds. this will be an even greater disadvantage when out of position, and i would imagine the disadvantage is greater than the .5BB edge you have by money already invested.

i will take 98o, J7s, K7o, and 56s before I take A2o.

[arkady]

i am not sure we can exclusively determine that it has a negative expectation only because your DB is showing you red. Regardless of that, I am talking about an overall meta game and if we are break even or maybe SLIGHTLY in the red with those hands, I think it can go along way. All those hands you listed are good too.