Giving up small pots - theoretical question

[Surfbullet]

Hey MHUSH,

I'm currently LAGing it up at 15/30 and 20/40. You've seen my spew-fest posts recently, i'm certainly no model of weak-tight TAG play.

But something's bothering me, and it's that my play is changing to the point where i give up small pots. Here's why:

70/35/3 lag open-limps on the button. TAGy guy completes, I knock QTo in the BB.

Flop: A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 9[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Tag checks, I check, LAG bets.

Now, the LAG is betting every single time here, regardless of his holding. I've seen him autobet every time when checked to. I also know he doesn't have an Ace, because he'd raise any ace preflop.

But i can't do anything about it! In this instance, I decided to take a stand. I c/r, he calls. I bet the turn(blank), he raises. I fold. He shows KTo. I tell him he had the best hand, and he continues to gloat over his "bluff."

But if he had 93 he'd call down. If he had K6 he might raise the turn or call down. If he has any draw he's throwing another semibluff raise in there somewhere.

Now it certainly would have been cheaper to just c/f the flop. But how much am I giving up by c/fing every flop I miss? These guys are really starting to mess with my head.

I understand intellectually that if it were a TAG vs TAG battle where neither of us pays off any more than our cards make us, the game would be won and lost in the small pots. But, against these unfoldable megalags, do I make up more than I give away by value-betting when I actually hit a hand? I'm starting to wonder.

Any and all input would be appreciated. Thanks! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Surf

[Zele]

One of the advantages of LAG play is its relative invulnerability to reads. By definition, playing too LAG for a game is not a good strategy overall, but this very irrationality becomes a benefit in particular situations. One of those situations is where neither of you really has a "showdownable" hand. His erratic behavior is practically undefendable. [Much of this thought was inspired by my recent reading of Thomas Schelling's cold war classic _The Strategy of Conflict_. Somewhat long-winded, but highly recommended. Also great for understanding what made Reagan so effective against the USSR, though it was written 2 decades before.]

Anyway, as you said, the big confrontations where you have the goods (little as they might be) more than make up for hands like this. But that doesn't change the fact that in these circumstances, the LAG is indeed outplaying you, whether he knows why or not [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img].

P.S. [ QUOTE ]
I tell him he had the best hand

[/ QUOTE ] Why?

[Surfbullet]

P.S. [ QUOTE ]
I tell him he had the best hand

[/ QUOTE ] Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because i've been at the table for 10 minutes and all he's done is run me over. I haven't won a single showdown, and the last thing I need is him thinking he can push me off a pair.

I solved the problem by getting up from the table and going to eat dinner, though.

Surf

[Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
P.S. [ QUOTE ]
I tell him he had the best hand

[/ QUOTE ] Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because i've been at the table for 10 minutes and all he's done is run me over.

[/ QUOTE ]
I sometimes do this too but I think it is a mistake EV wise and that as soon as I stop completely I will have become a better poker player.

The psychological consititution of a LAG just gets to me for some reason. Probably outside life related.

When I am clear headed I can take advantage of it and then I let him think he can dominate me. Let him think he is king. Let him think I am weak tight and then take advantage of it later when I have something or with marginal holdings in bigger pots. Usually he still thinks I'm weak tight and push way more than he should.

When I'm less clear headed, or have taken some beats, I have a tendency to engage in a struggle for domination with LAGs, usually only on a psychological level, i.e. in the chat, but every once in a while even in pots against the non-folding LAG type, in other words play bad poker. This happens less and less frequently, but it still creeps up once in a while and is a leak that needs to be plugged on the impossible road to perfection.

The higher the limit, the more important to have this leak plugged. There are few passives as they get slaughtered so fast so the LAGs start becoming the only exploitable fish available.

I know this is a note to self kind of post. Maybe some can relate to it though.

[sam h]

I understand your frustration completely.

My only suggestion is that if you are going to take a stand, its best to just bet the flop. In my experience superlags are often willing to let one of these little pots go when faced with aggression if they have air and haven't made a move on the pot. But they are completely unwilling to let go if they have already been the aggressor and attempted to claim the pot as theirs. Or at least, when comparing these two situations, the behavior of the maniac tends to skew in this direction. I think its just their nature - everything turns into a pissing contest once they hit the bet or raise button for the first time, so the only way to take down little pots unconstested is for you to piss first.

[kiddo]

[ QUOTE ]
everything turns into a pissing contest once they hit the bet or raise button for the first time, so the only way to take down little pots unconstested is for you to piss first.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, this is true. Bet this flop (or checkfold). Checkraising is meaningsless because he will never fold and u got no idea where u are and he is good at using this.

Also I would start with raising this preflop because they would raise preflop with Ax so now any Axx, Qxx and Jxx flop will be yours and megaLAG will pretty often fold Axx if he isnt hit, but not Qxx and Jxx, which is perfect.

The upside of playing every pot aggressivley until showdown (of being a megaLAG) is that u will win a lot small pots when noone got a hand and u will win a lot more then others when u actually hit a good hand against another good but not so good hand, because noone gives u credit for it.

Downside is that u will lose much more then u should every time u come to showdown with a worse hand, and that is most of the time, at least as long as it isnt HU.

If a megaLAG was a good player we could say to ourselfs: "Ok, I got to call/attack a little when I got nothing at all because otherwise he will not give me action when I attack." (This is how we play agains a good LAG)

But this is how we would think. We would think that if a guy only bet against us with a real hand he would be easy to read and we would stop betting nothing.

But this is not how the megaLAG thinks. He is betting/raising because people fold when u do that. In his mind he will adapt to us calling/attacking a little more (like in this QJo hand) with betting/raising a little less, because now people suddenly folds less. And then he starts to play better, not worse.

If u play against a megaLAG u must let him win if u want him to keep playing like an idiot. If u call him down every time u think its +-0 u will not only get much higer swings, u will also get him to think u are boring, never folding when he bets. His style suddenly has less effect.

The easy way to play a megaLAG is to fold when u got nothing, call with little and bet/attack with ok hands. Dont go into a mindwar with him, dont try to outthink him. Just play your cards like you did when u started out at $.50/1, u need best hand to win and they are so bad that u can forget about handreading, u just have to put them on a range of hands and play against that (if that range is "any2", thats just fine).

[disjunction]

Check-folding the flop most of the time and taking a stand occasionally, as you did, seems fine to me. Keep in mind the obsurdity of the play he just made with respect to your possible holdings. There's almost a 50% chance of you having a pair **without any reads at all**.

[rory]

I posted this so you could look at my avatar.

[Surfbullet]

[ QUOTE ]
I posted this so you could look at my avatar.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. I'm soooooo guilty of that. Thanks for the illustrative example. I'll confidently return to my scheduled "A-game" now. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Surf

[Zele]

Did you mean to reply with the other account?