On the Edge - IX

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]

Now perhaps Baron made these deductions after he had more information when the opponent checked the flop (although his narrative doesn't indicate this).

[/ QUOTE ]



But you have to remember is that he CHECKED ... and that the hands I listed are what he had RAISED with.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[WhiteWolf]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh. I missed the check pre-flop [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]. I take back everything I said.

The Wolf

[WhiteWolf]

[ QUOTE ]

But you have to remember is that he CHECKED ... and that the hands I listed are what he had RAISED with.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, I missed that [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]. Back to lurking for me.

The Wolf

[BarronVangorToth]

Sorry for my correction, seems someone did it for me.

Hopefully it's a little clearer...

And no reason to apologize. While I know some people may have gotten the impression that I'm very argumentative (and perhaps I am, to a degree) with my defense of OTE 8, I much rather debate the merits (or lack thereof) than to hear ... nothing.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[poincaraux]

I did some weighted EV calcs for the last article. They were a pain to do, but I think they answered most of my questions. Anyone want to do them here? Like last time, I'm interested in the strength of BVGTs read at various points in the hand and how he quantifies that strength. Tony's range is bigger than Frank's, so maybe someone just wants to do back-of-the-envelope calculations. Or, maybe this hand isn't as interesting as the last one.

Board:
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)

Hand 1: 64.7629 % 63.99% 00.77% { Qd6s }
Hand 2: 35.2371 % 34.46% 00.77% { T7o-T2o, 96o-92o, 85o-82o, 74o-72o, 63o-62o, 52o }

--------------------------------

Board: 7h 5h 4h
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)

Hand 1: 48.7463 % 44.84% 03.91% { Qd6s }
Hand 2: 51.2537 % 47.34% 03.91% { T7o-T2o, 96o-92o, 85o-82o, 74o-72o, 63o-62o, 52o }

etc.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay. I can accept that villain doesn't think you're tricky. Can you attempt to answer 2 questions for me? (from an earlier post)

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.

You reads once again seem pretty rock solid. Why can't the check-raise be a made hand other than a flush, and why does villain HAVE to raise hands from the post like 45o or J2s just because he did it before? I don't think you can narrow down villain's range of hands (other than not pocket pair or Ax) just because he checked his option.

Of course you were there and I wasn't so maybe you do have a reason.

[poincaraux]

[ QUOTE ]
I did some weighted EV calcs for the last article. They were a pain to do, but I think they answered most of my questions. Anyone want to do them here?

[/ QUOTE ]
I've thought about this a little more, and I don't think that those would be as interesting here as in the last thread. Who knows, though .. it's always interesting to take something like this and see how far you have to perturb hand-ranges/read-strengths before the right play changes.

I liked all of the play postflop, but Im not a fan of the preflop raise with trash for two reasons:

(1) villain's failure to openraise his post, after habitually having done so for the past several hours, is suspicious. Given the tightness of the blinds, the lack of an openraise could well signify a big hand;

(2) this opponent is tricky, and I have no preflop equity. Even assuming the blinds are weak-tight folders, villain clearly doesn't like to lay down preflop or on the flop. So based on Barron's reads, if you play a hand against Tony you're going until at least 4th street, and he may well checkraise at some point to take control of the action. The only way to respond to such aggression is to use your position and get aggressive yourself--by three betting, raising the river, etc. While I dont have a problem doing so, taking this approach is best with a hand that has some showdown value, i.e., an ace, a pair, two big broadway cards, etc. Q6o doesn't cut it. It is a below-average hand in terms of preflop equity, so by openraising the blind, you're essentially committing yourself to spewing chips on a substandard hand. The only way this line works is if (1) you think you can "outplay" the villain, AND (2) villain himself misses the flop enough that your aggression can convince him to lay down a better hand. The second point is essential to note--guys like Tony hate folding. They will call down with TPNK, a decent middle pair, a pair and a draw, basically anything with plausible showdown value.

Botton line. Once in the pot, I think Barron played it fine. But I would have avoided the situation entirely by folding preflop, because I think that openraising against players like Tony has zero steal equity, probably close to zero EV, at the expense of adding significant variance to your results.

[kidcolin]

I'm with SW on this one. Given your read, it makes much more sense to wait and pop the turn then 3-bet the flop. Your equity isn't that great. Waiting for the turn allows you to:

1. Evaluate the turn card. a [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] likely kills your hand, and non-paint non-straight completing cards should give you a little concern.

2. Represent greater strength. The flop call turn raise sets off alarms in just about everyone's head. Now he may have a harder time showing down a hand like 43o. Your flop 3-bet could very well just be overs with a [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

What's your plan if he doesn't fire at the river? Bet, I assume?

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have to disagree here Stellar. If Barron's read is that Tony is c/ring a draw, then three-betting the flop is much better. By 3-betting the flop, you can bet any non-heart turn and river, and raise any scare card donk. If you try "calling down" with queen-high, all you're going to do is pay off Tony's better hands as he proceeds to jam any pair to the river. The only way you make money is when Tony jams a busted flush to the river and you call with a better nothing hand. This happens pretty rarely, since Tony may well check-fold the river UI.