Big semi-bluff vs. known overpair

[creedofhubris]

A better long-term plan against tight guy is to bluff him out of pots (like you did, nice!), rather than to set him up to call a big bet when you've got it.

I'm slowly learning the crush-the-tight-guy-with-bluffs strategy. It helps that my table image is tighter'n'[censored].

Whatfor you see flop with Q5s for $30 bucks for? Is bad hand, yeah.

[Spladle Master]

The stacks are 400xBB. There are no bad hands.

[flawless_victory]

[ QUOTE ]
The stacks are 400xBB. There are no bad hands.

[/ QUOTE ]beat me to it...

[AJo Go All In]

[ QUOTE ]
Whatfor you see flop with Q5s for $30 bucks for?

[/ QUOTE ]

the pot was unraised.

[Ghazban]

[ QUOTE ]
The stacks are 400xBB. There are no bad hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

This line is the bomb. I normally play a capped 1/2 blind live NL game and, when the stacks get deep, you wouldn't believe how many times I've been able to bust a huge stack with a trash hand just because he didn't understand how to play deep. I'm no expert at it, myself, but in the small capped NL games, there's nothing that makes me salivate more than a guy who plays well enough to build a stack (from a 50xBB start) but has no idea how to play with it once he has it.

[Shaun]

[ QUOTE ]
I was under the impression that you want to show a huge bluff like that, so that the next time you bet like this they don't give you credit and you stack them...? Do I have it wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that depends how often you are going to have it against them. If the guy is very tight, that probably isn't all that often.

It might be more profitable to have him think that you have him beat in that spot. In fact, you might want to show him bluffs in smaller pots later to reinforce the idea that, in the big pot, you had him beat (otherwise you'd have shown). This way you can steal large pots from him more often.

[turnipmonster]

[ QUOTE ]
The most interesting thing to me about this hand (and my toughest decision by far) is my decision to follow through on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's definitely the most interesting point in the hand, since as you said once he calls the turn and the river is not a scare card you're usually getting looked up. for what it's worth, I think calling the turn and not calling the river is a bad play.

cero, do you think he would have looked you up for half his remaining stack? it seems like another 500 might have done the trick, but you were the one there.

--turnipmonster

[Post-Oak]

Is anyone else struck by the bizarreness of this hand?

The villain's MO for playing big pairs is ludicrous. Limp along with several other players and then overbet the pot by 50% with your overpair. Hope for callers of this overbet. Huh?

<<<<Then, when we got to the main game, I'd forgotten all about him, and had gone to work on the much weaker opposition to be found there.>>>

How much weaker can a player possibly be? His whole strategy is a recipe for disaster.

Also, how can you be sure he had an overpair on the flop? Did he only over bet the pot with high overpairs? I am assuming he would limp with AsKs or a hand like 77 (a set here) if he didn't even raise with KK. Was it his physical tells which identified his hand as an overpair, or was it the fact he overbet the pot by 50%?

Calling the turn only to fold on the river is also strange. I guess he was hoping to check it down. If he really had a high pair, then he must lose a ton with this miserable strategy. Most of the time several people see the flop, and your 50% over bet of the pot is called, you are beat. He is setting himself up to lose big pots with hands like AA and KK.

[Utah]

I find his fold on the river interesting as he pretty much committed himself on the turn. In fact, I think he played the hand very poorly. I cant think of a hand he should call with on the turn. I think he either folds or pushes. There are two cases: 1) you have a made hand or 2) you are bluffing or semi-bluffing.

In the case of a made hand - you are likely to go allin on the river. If there is a reraise hand by you on the turn that you are not likely to go allin with on the river then his turn allin might win him the pot immediately.

In the case of a bluff or semibluff - he is going to pick up the pot immediately or make you pay a very steep price to draw. He cant expect you to bluff on the river after his call so there is not much added value in getting you to fire again. More likely too is that you have a draw if you dont have a made hand.

There are very few scenarios where I think a call by him is warranted here.

Now, to the river bet or yours. You were at the table so you had the read. However, it seems to me when a tightish player calls a turn bet like that then he is going to call the river too. I would rather steal the pot when the opponent is weak instead of forcing them to make a big laydown. However, he does need to laydown about half the time to make this play profitable (+ you are likely to get paid off on your good hands).

[coltrane]

[ QUOTE ]

I think consistency is hugely overrated in gambling and in life. Flexibility is much more valuable. War mindfulness, though.

[/ QUOTE ]


to a certain extent, I think you were consistent......you're in position, the pot is getting big, you're committing to the hand, you've read your opponent correctly.......by making the same exact play with a missed draw as you would with a monster, I think you show consistency.....how would you have played Ts9s?.....probably pretty similar I assume......keep THEM guessing and on the defensive....