Flop Isolation Raise

sdw · #1 01-23-2005, 07:33 PM

UTG is LA-P (94/18/1.09)

Party Poker 0.5/1 Hold'em (10 handed) converter

Preflop: Hero is UTG+2 with K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img].
UTG calls, UTG+1 folds, Hero calls, MP1 folds, MP2 calls, MP3 calls, CO calls, Button calls, SB completes, BB checks.

Flop: (8 SB) 2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 5[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 2[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (8 players)
SB checks, BB checks, UTG bets, Hero raises, MP2 folds, MP3 folds, CO folds, Button folds, SB folds, BB folds, UTG calls.

Raised to isolate UTG. Was this a good move? I felt that this was a raise or fold situation.

Turn: (6 BB) J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (2 players)
UTG bets, Hero calls.

Here's my jack, so why didn't I raise? Isn't that the whole point of isolating this guy?

River: (8 BB) 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (2 players)
UTG bets, Hero calls.

Final Pot: 10 BB

I'll post my thoughts after a few responses.

royaltrux · #2 01-23-2005, 08:21 PM

Raise on the flop was great since it got you what you wanted with a llllllllllllaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaggggggggggggg.
but yeah you should have followed through with a raise on the turn.

by your commentary you already know that though. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

SA Goon · #3 01-23-2005, 08:25 PM

With such a passive player I might be wary of raising the turn, but you definately need to do it.

Aaron W. · #4 01-23-2005, 10:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
With such a passive player I might be wary of raising the turn, but you definately need to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

Whirly · #5 01-23-2005, 10:46 PM

Firstly, I reckon KJo is a little weak to be calling pre-flop from early position. I don't agree with the raise-to-isolate here; I think you need a stronger hand as there are lots of possibilities for stronger hands out there - in short, you got lucky that you managed to isolate this guy.

The point of isolating this guy is to improve your chances to win by knocking other people out - raising the turn is now down to whether you believe you are likely to have the best hand at that point - what happened on the flop really has no bearing. I'd need to have seen how this guy was playing other hands to make that call, but given no other info, I'd probably raise the turn and call him down if he re-raises back.

sdw · #6 01-23-2005, 10:57 PM

I think that whether or not this is a good play comes down to two main factors:
- Chance of the isolation being successful – no cold callers
- What range of hands the Villain has

With 8 players total seeing the flop, there is a good chance that at least one cold caller is going to come along for the ride.

When deciding to make this play, I was drawn in by the Villain’s 94% VPIP figure, however, I neglected to take into account the post-flop aggression. Given his relatively low post-flop aggression level, I needed to restrict the range of hands he would be betting with.

Given that he is LA-P without a PF raise, I think his range of hands is:
2x, 5x, TT, 99, 88, 77, 66, 55

The chances of me winning against this range of hands are pretty grim – this raise was clearly a mistake.

If the Villian was a LA-A verging on a maniac without a PF raise and fewer people saw the flop this might be a marginal play.

I did a rough calculation putting the villain on the following range of hands:
Ax, Kx, Qx, Jx, 5x, 2x, TT, 99, 88, 77, 66, 55

And I figure I’d have about a 45% chance of winning the hand. Add in a chance that the Villain is bluffing (as a Maniac would likely do) and this becomes good play.

Not that it matters, but Villian had a 2 and MHING.

sdw · #7 01-23-2005, 11:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Firstly, I reckon KJo is a little weak to be calling pre-flop from early position. I don't agree with the raise-to-isolate here; I think you need a stronger hand as there are lots of possibilities for stronger hands out there - in short, you got lucky that you managed to isolate this guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't always limp with KJo from early position, but this table was particularly loose and passive pre-flop.

I agree that I got lucky being able to isolate the UTG player. See my post above - for this play to be correct a few conditions need to change (less players seeing the flop, more agressive opponent, stronger hand certainly would have helped as well)

[ QUOTE ]
The point of isolating this guy is to improve your chances to win by knocking other people out - raising the turn is now down to whether you believe you are likely to have the best hand at that point - what happened on the flop really has no bearing. I'd need to have seen how this guy was playing other hands to make that call, but given no other info, I'd probably raise the turn and call him down if he re-raises back.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think when he bet out on the turn I started thinking a little harder about the range of hands he could have and decided there was a good chance I was still beat. That is why I went into call-down mode. Against an agressive player I should be raising the turn.

btspider · #8 01-23-2005, 11:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
With such a passive player I might be wary of raising the turn, but you definately need to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

passive? the guy is aggro as often as he calls with NINETY-FOUR PERCENT of ALL hands dealt. remember AF for LA PF players is nearly always passive.

hero must raise one of the big streets.. possibly capping the turn given the lack of the flop 3-bet. he's just betting an overcard "scare" card. i doubt this guy folds the turn, so there is no need to wait until the river here.

i fold PF and probably fold the flop. too many opponents to fight for this pot. i'm amazed you got heads-up here since pretty much everyone has overcards to the flop.

sdw · #9 01-23-2005, 11:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]

passive? the guy is aggro as often as he calls with NINETY-FOUR PERCENT of ALL hands dealt. remember AF for LA PF players is nearly always passive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Spider, are you saying that I need to evaluate the AF numbers differently depending on the players VPIP? If someone plays 94% of all hands dealt to them, is their AF number always going to look low because the flop will outright miss their crappy cards so often?

btspider · #10 01-24-2005, 12:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

passive? the guy is aggro as often as he calls with NINETY-FOUR PERCENT of ALL hands dealt. remember AF for LA PF players is nearly always passive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Spider, are you saying that I need to evaluate the AF numbers differently depending on the players VPIP? If someone plays 94% of all hands dealt to them, is their AF number always going to look low because the flop will outright miss their crappy cards so often?

[/ QUOTE ]

AF is a relative aggression number. this guy is around 1.0 AF.. which means he bets about as often as he calls... what's this mean? it means he's postflop betting nearly 47% of all the hands he is dealt.. *very* roughly speaking.

maybe a better way of thinking about is it who would have a better quality average hand on the flop after betting? a 90/5/1.0 or a 30/5/1.0 player? what about a 10/5/3.0 vs a 90/5/3.0 player?