Making him fold a better hand

[Saborion]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm starting to think that with a 11 PFR, though, he's generally not going to be capping too light, say with 9s or AJ or less. He's almost always betting this flop (with a PF cap and Tot-A of 2+) if you check, so a free card isn't an issue.
So, upon looking at this, I'm leaning towards a check-call on the flop.
-d

[/ QUOTE ]

Check-call the flop, then re-evaluate on turn?

But you seem to agree with me about this player not capping light, so what about check-raising the flop since he's very unlikely to 3-bet with a worse hand? So if he 3-bets we can check-fold the turn unimproved?

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]

By the tone of your post it sounds as though you don't consider a flop bet +EV, which is interesting since most people that have responded so far said that I should 3-bet the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would have check/raised the flop, I'm somewhat surprised by everyone bet/3betting

IMO when you lead a lot of players are smooth calling with AK here

[Saborion]

[ QUOTE ]


I would have check/raised the flop, I'm somewhat surprised by everyone bet/3betting

IMO when you lead a lot of players are smooth calling with AK here

[/ QUOTE ]
Ditto. That combined with his low PFR made me think a 3-bet would be very -EV. Would be a bit different if we were holding QQ+, but when we only beat 99 or overs, I think a check-raise is the way to go.

[meep_42]

I think check-raising is pointless as it only bloats the pot when our equity edge (if it exists) isn't that great. The only reason to bet out is to hope to get raised by a worse hand or to deny a free turn, neither of which (in my estimation) is happening all that often after the pre-flop action.

I honestly think check-raising is the worst of the non-folding options. (I'd rank them check/call, bet/call, bet/3bet, check/raise with the last 2 being close)

-d

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
You think someone with a 11 % PFR and 2.1 AF will cap 99/AK/AQ/AJ/KQs etc UTG in a 3-way pot and then raise the flop so often that we may be ahead here? I'm still learning, but I'd like to think that 99 is very unlikely, and so is AQ/AJ/KQs as well, based both on the preflop and the flop action. Please straighten my thinking and hand reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are making a common, understandable mistake. Believe it or not, a person who raises a small percentage of hands preflop (say 7%), often does not raise with the best 7% of hands. Strange, but true.

Also, the cap doesn't necessarily mean much either; frequently, those who initiate the pf raising will thrown in a cap, when reraised. Then, with all that action pf, the same type of player (i.e., the apparently extra tight player) might well suddenly show his teeth by raising the flop, now that the pot is pretty big.

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I would have check/raised the flop, I'm somewhat surprised by everyone bet/3betting

IMO when you lead a lot of players are smooth calling with AK here

[/ QUOTE ]
Ditto. That combined with his low PFR made me think a 3-bet would be very -EV. Would be a bit different if we were holding QQ+, but when we only beat 99 or overs, I think a check-raise is the way to go.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think that people will smooth-call with overs, yet fold to a c/r on the flop? The fact is that someone with AK is very likely seeing the turn either way. We are lead betting because there is a decent chance we are ahead and, if given the opportunity to 3-bet, we want to take it. After 3-betting, a lead turn bet might finally make the overs fold (not to mention get a bigger pot for us).

And perhaps most important, if we 3-bet and lead the turn, it is much easier to assess the strength of our hand thereafter. If you check/call the turn, how will you have any idea whether you are ahead or not?

[Fabian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You think someone with a 11 % PFR and 2.1 AF will cap 99/AK/AQ/AJ/KQs etc UTG in a 3-way pot and then raise the flop so often that we may be ahead here? I'm still learning, but I'd like to think that 99 is very unlikely, and so is AQ/AJ/KQs as well, based both on the preflop and the flop action. Please straighten my thinking and hand reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are making a common, understandable mistake. Believe it or not, a person who raises a small percentage of hands preflop (say 7%), often does not raise with the best 7% of hands. Strange, but true.

Also, the cap doesn't necessarily mean much either; frequently, those who initiate the pf raising will thrown in a cap, when reraised. Then, with all that action pf, the same type of player (i.e., the apparently extra tight player) might well suddenly show his teeth by raising the flop, now that the pot is pretty big.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree somewhat with your post. The key often when evaluating someone else's stats is to ask yourself "is this person sane or insane?" I definately agree that a 56/7/1.2/38 guy could have a lot of different hands when he raises or caps, like you say. However, this player tries to play well but is much too weak tight. When he becomes a little better he'll be like your average 2+2 poster.

Many players who try hard to be good but doesn't have enough experience (especially true for sh games) will end up like this. This particular opponent is playing with too much of a fit-or-fold mindset with his limping hands. Instead of taking control and raising preflop he limps instead, and he folds alot when he doesn't hit. This coupled with how strong he will play his good hands (remember, this is someone who tries to play well) gives him his high agression factor, since he seldom calls hands he should be calling postflop.

Ok kinda an off topic rant there. In this hand, after the flop action, I think UTG has a very strong hand. I'd have betcalled the flop planning on checkcalling the turn and river.

Once the ace shows up the turn is an easy checkfold.

Edited to clarify: I just realized what the title of the OP was. The reason UTG has such a ridiculous WSD number is not because he can be blown off overpairs. It's because he waits for those overpairs/TPTK hands before going to showdown. Don't try to bluff him here.

[Saborion]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I would have check/raised the flop, I'm somewhat surprised by everyone bet/3betting

IMO when you lead a lot of players are smooth calling with AK here

[/ QUOTE ]
Ditto. That combined with his low PFR made me think a 3-bet would be very -EV. Would be a bit different if we were holding QQ+, but when we only beat 99 or overs, I think a check-raise is the way to go.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think that people will smooth-call with overs, yet fold to a c/r on the flop? The fact is that someone with AK is very likely seeing the turn either way.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I don't think he'll fold to the check-raise. But I think that a) he'll bet his overs on the flop if we check to him, and b) he'll hardly ever 3-bet our check-raise with a worse hand, which means we can check-fold the turn those times he do 3-bet. It would be different if we had QQ or better imo.

[ QUOTE ]

We are lead betting because there is a decent chance we are ahead and, if given the opportunity to 3-bet, we want to take it. After 3-betting, a lead turn bet might finally make the overs fold (not to mention get a bigger pot for us).

[/ QUOTE ]
Although he sometimes will raise overs on the flop, he will not always do that, meaning that when we bet and he raises we're not 100 % sure where we're at. At the same time I don't think we're ahead often enough to 3-bet.

[ QUOTE ]
And perhaps most important, if we 3-bet and lead the turn, it is much easier to assess the strength of our hand thereafter. If you check/call the turn, how will you have any idea whether you are ahead or not?

[/ QUOTE ]
Who said anything about check-calling the turn? I was advocating a check-raise and lead on the turn if our check-raise is called, which it will be. If we're 3-bet on the flop I was suggesting that we check-fold the turn. The information you get by bet/3-betting should be the same kind of information as you get by a check-raise against a player with this stats.

[Wynton]

Maybe I've been misinterpreting your comments. First, I thought you were concluding that you were behind on the flop, because you put this particular player on a narrow range of hands. And I opined that your range was too narrow.

Yet, in light of the hand range you put villain on, you advocate: c/r the flop and (a) lead the turn if villain doesn't 3-bet the flop; or (b) c/f the turn if villain does 3-bet the flop. Is that a correct interpretation?

If so, Idon't think that line is bad (though it seems to contradict your assumption that you are behind a vast majority of the time on the flop). My only real objection to that line is that you are potentially giving free cards on the flop, or alternatively missing an opportunity to 3-bet against someone who is actually behind.

[Saborion]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I've been misinterpreting your comments. First, I thought you were concluding that you were behind on the flop, because you put this particular player on a narrow range of hands. And I opined that your range was too narrow.

Yet, in light of the hand range you put villain on, you advocate: c/r the flop and (a) lead the turn if villain doesn't 3-bet the flop; or (b) c/f the turn if villain does 3-bet the flop. Is that a correct interpretation?


[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, correct.

[ QUOTE ]

If so, Idon't think that line is bad (though it seems to contradict your assumption that you are behind a vast majority of the time on the flop). My only real objection to that line is that you are potentially giving free cards on the flop, or alternatively missing an opportunity to 3-bet against someone who is actually behind.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, in my experience it's very rare that someone who caps preflop don't bet the flop when checked to and not being last to act. Being behind a vast majority of the time is not the same as always being behind, and if he 3-bet, we should be able to narrow his range of hands to something that has us beaten.