HOH Hand Question - Why play it like this?

[tpir90036]

So I decided to pick this book up after hearing people rave about it. I like the text where he discusses the factors he thinks about at the table. But some of the hand examples seem a little off to me. Here is an example:

p.81, hand 2-8
Blinds T1,500/T3,000/150 ante

An aggressive "table captain" (T250K) raises to T8,000 in MP and you (T150K) defend your BB with K [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] Q [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Flop (T18,700) K [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]9 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]2 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
you check, opponent overbets T20K, and now he tells you to check-raise this harmless flop where we are no doubt a mile ahead of our aggro opponent.

Why on earth would we want to play it this way? Are we trying to define our hand and be able to get away from it if he pushes? Our opponent likely has very few outs if we are ahead and very well may fire again on the next street. I understand that we don't want to go broke check-calling every street if we could have gotten away from it... is our hand not strong enough for the rope-a-dope technique he talks about earlier?

Maybe I am just making too much of this one hand. There are others that did not sit well with me that I will post when i reread the book.

Thanks in advance,
-tpir

[bugstud]

[ QUOTE ]
So I decided to pick this book up after hearing people rave about it. I like the text where he discusses the factors he thinks about at the table. But some of the hand examples seem a little off to me. Here is an example:

p.81, hand 2-8
Blinds T1,500/T3,000/150 ante

An aggressive "table captain" (T250K) raises to T8,000 in MP and you (T150K) defend your BB with K [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] Q [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Flop (T18,700) K [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]9 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]2 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
you check, opponent overbets T20K, and now he tells you to check-raise this harmless flop where we are no doubt a mile ahead of our aggro opponent.

Why on earth would we want to play it this way? Are we trying to define our hand and be able to get away from it if he pushes? Our opponent likely has very few outs if we are ahead and very well may fire again on the next street. I understand that we don't want to go broke check-calling every street if we could have gotten away from it... is our hand not strong enough for the rope-a-dope technique he talks about earlier?

Maybe I am just making too much of this one hand. There are others that did not sit well with me that I will post when i reread the book.

Thanks in advance,
-tpir

[/ QUOTE ]

he has some interesting plays in the book, partially because Dan has such a rock image that he can get away with it.

His thoughts seem to be that you want him out of the pot now, you may be ahead here but don't want to face a tough decision on that later streets, and if he reraises here you should be completely dominated.

[ghostface]

Also isnt this early in the tournament when you dont really want to be risking your whole stack on TP 2nd Kicker. The pot is a sizable addition to your stack and you cant really know what your opponent has since hes aggro. Take a good stab at the pot to either find out you are done with the hand or take down the pot.

[tpir90036]

Well as it stands you are risking more than a third of it. The fact that you have top pair second kicker is irrelevant... the point is that against out opponents range of hands we have him destroyed.

[tpir90036]

Which is silly because earlier in the book he gives almost the exact same example and tells you to flat-call every street and then raise the river.

[PokerSponge]

I think the reason you check is because you expect the aggressive player to bet and then you make him pay with the big check raise.

[tpir90036]

Wow. Not sure what else to say other than that.

[PukaPlaya]

I just ordered this book and am hoping it comes in the mail today.

Yeah this sounds a little strange to me as well. I think I just call and then if a brick hits or I improve on the turn I probably check again or maybe make a under bet that he will most assuredly raise at which point I reraise.

I do sometimes just call down to the river where I will then make a decent sized bet he can call as well.

What would you have done?

[tpir90036]

[ QUOTE ]
What would you have done?

[/ QUOTE ]
Assuming my opponent was trying to run the table over.. I would definitely give him a chance to run me over on this hand. If he had me beat or sucked out... oh well. Also, assuming he is smart he is not betting the turn anyway since there are no draws and once we call our hand should be obvious to him. But, I am certainly going to let him take another shot if he wants to.

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
Which is silly because earlier in the book he gives almost the exact same example and tells you to flat-call every street and then raise the river.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't have the book, but I'll bet that in that earlier example, we have position. That's what makes the difference.