Standard?

[POKhER]

Oops yeah sorry mistyped that, i've got a bad habit of forgetting the hand when responding.

However this makes it even more aggressive, hes simply saying "So you capped preflop, ill bet into you because i hold a monster" Although your flop call kind of says "i'm scared/drawing".

Your turn call probably(assumption)makes him think your goign to SD and he value bets... It just looks horrible losing call down.

The turn decision is tough but now the river action has affected my thinking i can't give a unbiased response on what your turn action should be.

Right now i really want to fold. (Specially as we have no draws except Q/A and he may hold a T or a higher ace = Very few outs). Even worse a PP(AA - QQ)

[thesharpie]

I think the question is will he bet the flop and turn with nothing, or is his range wide enough that we have enough outs to call when we're behind. The fact his range is real wide and means we're likely to hold at least 4 outs if we're drawing, and the fact we sometimes hold the best hand makes me want to call the turn, which in turn commits me to calling the river since the pot is so large.

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
The decission is on the turn. if we see a river then we are seeing a showdown.

I don't mind the way you played it but I'm not sure wether a fold would be fine too since the board just paired.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is precisely why I didn't find a fold on the turn.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[thesharpie]

You fold a 2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] turn? The pairing doesn't seem to make much of a difference to me, what is he 3 betting with PF, ATs? You had the A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] anyway so it doesn't realy narrow his range down much unless you think he'd 3 bet with less. Even if it does narrow his range down it means you have no outs when he does have it sort of evens itself out, I think.

I hate taking lines like this. I probably fold the turn UI, or alternatively, I might raise the flop, call a three-bet, and fold the turn UI.

[dealer_toe]

[ QUOTE ]
I hate taking lines like this. I probably fold the turn UI, or alternatively, I might raise the flop, call a three-bet, and fold the turn UI.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like raising the flop the most. You capped pf and raised the flop, if he doesn't slow down, I'm pretty sure I'm beat.

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hate taking lines like this. I probably fold the turn UI, or alternatively, I might raise the flop, call a three-bet, and fold the turn UI.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like raising the flop the most. You capped pf and raised the flop, if he doesn't slow down, I'm pretty sure I'm beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

I’d like to share my thought process with you all, because of some discussion that went on outside of the thread.

• UTG open-limped and got caught in the pre-flop action. He is a rational player so far, seems semi-tight, and probably has good pre-flop standards. I’d say his hand range from his pre-flop action is most likely a medium pocket pair, or suited Broadway. I think we can rule out a monster such as AA for obvious reasons, and at the same time we can also assume he may have got caught in the pre-flop action but feels pot-committed to see the flop

• BB has the makings of a possible maniac. His previous action in the same position (open-capping A6s from the BB into a multi-way pot, and then betting all streets including the river when his A hit) showed me that he is capable of tricky play.

• I chose to cap pre-flop to try to take the initiative in the hand, and my position was a factor that I also considered. We know that BB’s hand raising standards are poor, better to take the initiative now because UTG is between us. If UTG was last to act, I would have chosen to call. Admittedly this is a marginal decision, one I don’t always choose. It is highly situational.

• The flop of T65 rainbow is a great flop for BB to bluff at, but it is also a good flop for my hand. When BB donks into the field after I capped pre-flop he most likely is either on a draw, or has over cards (I believe he would be the type to check-raise here otherwise). But in between us is UTG who once again called. If UTG does in fact have a hand such as QJs, KQo, or KJ then he is getting the odds he needs to call the flop. There is the other possibility that UTG connected with the T and is afraid of my action to come do to the pre-flop cap.

• Raising the flop would be a mistake, it would inflate the pot to 20 SB at least, giving any opponent the odds to call down with a gutshot, and UTG is rational enough to fold the flop rather than call the flop if he doesn’t have at least some hope of wining the pot. The best action is therefore to call, and wait for the turn for more information.

• UTG folds the turn, which simplifies the decision process. The T pairing is actually good for my hand if BB has overcards or is on a draw, now the decision is to either fold, call down or raise for a free showdown. Since we are heads up I chose to call since there is a chance I may still hold the best hand. Folding the turn unimproved here is not a decision I would make considering who the opponent is, and its also not a good place for a free showdown.


I'd love some opinions on my insight, when I explained my rational I convinced one naysayer already but that doesn't necessarily mean I am correct. I was short on time when I wrote this reply, point out any errors if necessary (didn't have time to proofread).

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
BB has the makings of a possible maniac. His previous action in the same position (open-capping A6s from the BB into a multi-way pot, and then betting all streets including the river when his A hit) showed me that he is capable of tricky play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Capping from the BB then leading all the way up to, and including, betting ace-nokicker is aggressive, sure. Is it maniacal? Harder question. If he flopped his draw, then his postflop play is not too bizarre. Preflop, while an error, Im not entirely convinced this means he is a "maniac". If his intention had been to build a big pot, but check-fold an unhelpful flop, it's not a totally crazy plan. In any event, your later reads suggest a totally different kind of maniac.

[ QUOTE ]
I chose to cap pre-flop to try to take the initiative in the hand,

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no objection to your preflop cap, particularly given the suitedness. (You characterized it as a "marginal" decision, and I dont think its marginal at all). However having taken the initiative, your flop play was totally inconsistent. You had the opportunity to raise the flop and signal overpair. If he plays back at you, you're behind almost 100% of the time. If he slows down, you could well be ahead, in which case it might make sense to look him up with ace high. Not raising the flop is a big error compared to the calldown approach you took.

[ QUOTE ]
The flop of T65 rainbow is a great flop for BB to bluff at, but it is also a good flop for my hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

You and I must have taken different hand reading classes, because given the preflop action, I think this is an awful board to bluff at, and I think it is a craptacular flop for your hand. You have 6 outs, where aces are not clean, and no backdoor flush draw.

[ QUOTE ]
When BB donks into the field after I capped pre-flop he most likely is either on a draw,

[/ QUOTE ]

This board is utterly drawless, unless you're now going to claim that he might have three-bet from the BB with 78s or 34s. Of course you can't give me this read based on your previous experience of seeing him cap A6s from the BB. Youre talking a different kind of maniac in order to 3 bet a small suited connector from the big blind. Bottom line here is that he is not on a draw, and if you're saying things like "He could be drawing" when the flop comes like it did, you're just trying to justify LAGging it up. He either has a pair, or AK, or maybe AQ the vast majority of the time.

[ QUOTE ]
or has over cards (I believe he would be the type to check-raise here otherwise).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is total crap, TT. You've indicated that you had only 54 hands on this guy, so there's no way you can have this precise of a read.

[ QUOTE ]
Raising the flop would be a mistake, it would inflate the pot to 20 SB at least, giving any opponent the odds to call down with a gutshot,

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you talking about? There are no gutshots on the board unless somebody is playing exactly 78 or 9T.

If you're talking about gutshots that appear on the turn, even if you just call the flop, at the turn there will be 8.5BBs in the pot. Against any turn bet, the players will be getting 9.5:1 to call, which is pretty close as is with implied odds for gutshots to call the turn. Any player overcalling the turn will be getting 10.5:1 to call. Thus, as a practical matter, the price for gutshots on the turn was created by the preflop action. So whether you raise the flop or not has really minimal value to whether you create the odds on the turn for gutshots to call.

The reason to raise the flop, as others have said, is that you define your hand as a top pair/overpair hand, and for the price of 2 SBs you completely define the BBs hand. If he plays back at you, he's telling you he can beat TP and/or he has AK. If he slows down, you get a free turn, and another chance to spike an A or Q.

[ QUOTE ]
UTG folds the turn, which simplifies the decision process. The T pairing is actually good for my hand if BB has overcards or is on a draw, now the decision is to either fold, call down or raise for a free showdown. Since we are heads up I chose to call since there is a chance I may still hold the best hand. Folding the turn unimproved here is not a decision I would make considering who the opponent is, and its also not a good place for a free showdown.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree that your hand becomes "stronger" once the top card pairs and the UTG players folds (or it least it becomes more WA/WB), the problem with taking the line you did is that since you didn't define your hand on the flop, you dont know whether you're up against AK, KK, 88, KJ, or whatever. Youre ahead of some hands, behind others but drawing live, and crushed by yet others.

Furthermore, if you were doing a hand distribution, I think you'd conclude that based on the villain's preflop and flop action, you're likely behind. You are

- behind 22-44 and 88-99 and JJ but drawing live (36 combos)
- crushed against AA, KK, QQ, TT, 66, 55 (19 combos)
- crushed against anybody holding a broadway T (AT,KT,QT,JT) (28 combos)
- reverse dominated by A6 and A5 (18 combos)
- dominated by AK (12 combos)

You are ahead of

- A7-A9, AJ (48 combos)
- KQ, KJ (32 combos)

Thus, you are most likely behind in 113 combos (but drawing live 31%), and ahead of 80 combos. (My combo math might have some errors, since Im not double checking it, but it is directionally right).

Even this distribution is optimistic, since frankly the play you've described by the BB is not very consistent with how a LAG would play the hands youre ahead of, but it is consistent with how he'd play the hands you're behind. Bottom line: you made no effort at hand reading, or if you did, you made lots of mistakes.

In summary, TT, this post relies entirely on superhuman "reads" to justify atypical play. (Reads that, by the way, are impossible given that you have only 54 hands on villain.)

You wrote "Standard?" as the title to this thread, and I'd suggest that your play is anything but standard. Like Barron's articles in the magazines, when you rely on these superhuman reads, there is very little instructional value to the discussion. You're basically using ex post justification for bizarre, some might say indefensible, play.

The standard play here would be to raise the flop and/or call the flop and fold the turn.

If you're going to reply to my detailed response to your justification, please take the time to use math and analysis, and not pronouncements on high based on "reads". TYVM.

[callmedonnie]

nh.

[colgin]

Despot,

I just wanted to note the following:

1. I agree with many of the substantive analytical points you made here.

2. At least to my "ears" your post veered into ad hominem attack territory. It might not have been intended that way but it sounded that way to me at least. Frankly, TT gave more of his thought proceess than many here do on these forums so I don't think he should be attacked per se for failing to do a Bayesian analysis (although I think doing one to show why you think he is wrong is, of course, very helpful).

3. With respect to your hand distributions and the decision at hand, you failed to take into account the effective odds that TT is getting to call down (5.25:1). Now you suggest that things are likely much worse than even your analysis (and I do agree with that), but if he was behind 113 (drawing live approx. 1/3 of the time) and behind 80 then this should be an easy call down (or at least turn call) given the pot odds, and assuming villain bets all the losers on the river. However, what makes this tricky is that villain may be bluffing/semi-bluffing on the turn with hands we beat but may not do so again on the river. Accordingly, we may need to look at this as separate turn and river decisions. Even if TT has correct odds to call a turn bet against villain's range given his immediate pot odds (which is not clear to me as I think he is a much bigger dog here than he believes), he may still need to fold to a river bet as a follow-through on the river by villain may cause us to further narrow the range of hand he has (increasing the ratio of hands that beat us to hands we beat) (see below).

I think things are much worse since unless BB is, in fact, a complete maniac (which I do not think has been establihed here) then there are VERY few hands TT beats on the river here. I tend to just fold the turn here as you suggest but I think one can make an argument for calling the turn (if you think BB is sufficiently LAGGY) give the possibility of being ahead and the live outs if you are not, but still folding the river (unless villain is a complete maniac).

BB has bet into the pf capper on a fairly drawless board and bet all the way. Given the way he has played it, TT's hand screams of overcards which he intedns to call all the way down with (or a monster slowplayed) and villain's river bet sure looks like it is for value and not a last bluff. Regardless of whether TT had correct odds to call the turn here, I think he is pretty much toast on the river (again, unless villain is much more maniacal than we have reason to believe).