Screen name Croccoa - leaks?

Nietzsche · #1 09-13-2005, 07:54 AM

I just changed my screen name so I thought I'd ask if anyone have spotted leaks or have certain notes on the fish previously called Croccoa [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

I've played about 20K hands in the last 6 weeks on this name split evenly between 5/10 and 10/20 so there should be a good chance I've had encounters with some of you.

Catt · #2 09-13-2005, 02:56 PM

I have ~40 hands on you at 5/10. In only two of those hands did you see a showdown, and I wasn't involved in either hand. One of them looked to be played somewhat poorly / erratically. Want me to post it? - it's just one hand and unlikely to say much about your game or any leaks.

Nietzsche · #3 09-13-2005, 03:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I have ~40 hands on you at 5/10. In only two of those hands did you see a showdown, and I wasn't involved in either hand. One of them looked to be played somewhat poorly / erratically. Want me to post it? - it's just one hand and unlikely to say much about your game or any leaks.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, please do. It may expose a leak I am unaware of.

Catt · #4 09-13-2005, 03:58 PM

OK.

Croccoa is Button. MP open-limps. MP in my DB (also only 40 hands) is 35/2 with post flop AG of 0.6 (remember - very small sample). Croccoa raises with K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 9 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. Blinds fold and it is HU to the flop.

Flop: K [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 7 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 7 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (5 sbs)

Check. Bet. Call.

Turn: Q [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (3.5 bbs)

Check. Check.

River: 8 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (3.5 bbs)

Bet. Raise. 3-bet. Call.

Villain turns over AT [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] for BD flush.

My thoughts in looking at the hand were:

Turn: I'd probably bet the turn, since this guy appears really passive and lots of these guys peel paired flops with nothing. If he raises your turn bet, I think his hand range skews stongly to those that include a 7 and I could find a fold from this guy without much heartburn in this pot. If he calls again and you can check behind on river or value bet - but betting the turn now can collect a bet from worse hands that want to see a river.

River: When he leads into you he's either betting a made hand (most likely), or stepping out of charcater and trying to steal the pot (unlikely). Raising seems like a mediocre decision at best -- if he's stealing he folds, and if he has a made hand, I'm not sure you're ahead often enough to risk 2 to win 1. When he 3-bets you, I think you have a clear fold. As I said, I'm not a big fan of your river raise after checking the turn (I prefer a call) although I can see doing it since some of these guys will call with a turned Q or a rivered 8; but I especially don't like it if you're going to call a 3-bet. This guy appears to be too passive to 3-bet any hand you beat, and the three-bet looks to me like the donk missed his turn C/R and won't let it happen again (of course in this hand he didn't miss a C/R, but I think the 3-bet means pretty unequivocally that he's beating your TP middling kicker). I know the stat read is over a small sample, but I think I'd give it more weight from a guy who manages to see ~40% of all flops.

Finally, I changed my SN not too long ago. To the extent you can decipher who I was at the table (or who I might likely be) I'd appreciate it if you'd keep it to yourself.

Nietzsche · #5 09-13-2005, 04:41 PM

Thanks for the analysis, Catt. The idea behind the turn check was to let him catch a second best hand and/or induce a bluff due to my weakness. I thought he would fold lots of hands on the turn and I did not want that to happen since there was so little chance he would catch up if behind at this point. Lots of passives peel the flop with nothing even on boards like this and then fold the turn unimproved.

I agree with you that this turn check only works if I can comfortably let it go if he 3-bets the river. I don't have access to the hand and can't remember the opponent (but I suspect he is looser than your stats suggest because I don't always isolate with K9o) but that must have been my plan. Only I didn't follow through on it (leak, leak!!), perhaps I thought he used it to represent a runner runner flush which I didn't believe or that there was a slight chance this was a K that I would split the pot with (only A kicker wouldn't). If he is a passive the call is questionable, maybe even a significant mistake, but sometimes I do see passives pull crazy 3-bet stunts on the river where they never do on the flop or turn. Do you agree or is this me trying to defend a defenseless position [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]
Do you prefer to simply call his bet on the river? Or do you also raise and then fold to a 3-bet?

This was a great hand to post, Catt, because I do sometimes put myself in these wierd positions where I overplay a marginal hand, get played back at and refuse to believe when the pot has become decent size on the river (due to my overplaying the hand!). It does look slightly like a late session hand though [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

tolbiny · #6 09-13-2005, 04:54 PM

The board is drawy enough for you to bet this turn. He will call with any Q and any combination of J,T,9/ AJ/AT (i don't know his riasing standards) and a flush draw. Ther eare plenty ofhands that he can have to call with (some of with may have as many as 7 - 12 outs).

EDIT: i also don't like the river raise- besides chopping any K- he also might have a missed c/r with the 7 as well as the possibility of the flush.

Catt · #7 09-13-2005, 04:58 PM

I missed the fact that the Q counterfeited almost all kickers.

I would still generally call the river bet against only a thin statistical read. If you're hoping that the turn check allows him to make a second best hand or induce a bluff, I think you're generally better off calling the river lead - he folds any bluff, so you're risking 2 to win 1 and it works only when he hits enough of a hand to call the river raise but doesn't have enough of a hand to 3-bet you. A read would defintiely help, and I can think of a lot of guys where I agree that a river call would be a mistake and raising is the correct play. But even against most of those guys, a three-bet means you're toast an overwhelming portion of the time. A paired board on the flop (he calls), a check-through on the turn, and then a bet - 3-bet from most passive guys means trips, or, in some circumstances where a BD draw got there, the winning draw the vast majority of circumstances IME. So if I decidce he is an appropriate guy to raise on the river with this hand, I almost certainly decide at the same time that I have to fold to a 3-bet (partly because guys I think it appropriate to raise the river are generally passive enough that a 3-bet will be exceedingly rare). I'm not terribly good at raising and folding to 3 and this sometimes induces me to call even when I think raising is slightly more +EV. BTW this hand was from a while ago -- like a month+ or something, so I really have no memory of your play or the table (and no notes).

Catt · #8 09-13-2005, 05:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The board is drawy enough for you to bet this turn. He will call with any Q and any combination of J,T,9/ AJ/AT (i don't know his riasing standards) and a flush draw. Ther eare plenty ofhands that he can have to call with (some of with may have as many as 7 - 12 outs).

[/ QUOTE ]

My thoughts, too. If we put any stock in his PFR after only 40 hands (not terribly wise, but if we've seen him showdown some of those hands that he limped with, we might find a lot more confidence that he really is a very tight raiser). If that's the case, he can have all sorts of hands that call a turn bet that you're really crushing.