Amateur Poker Association & Tour
Poker Forum => Strategy => Topic started by: noble1 on July 22, 2010, 18:32:38 PM
-
Another hand taken from somewhere else so you can compare your thoughts...
We raise in CO with qd td , BTN calls. [no reads on villain, assume this is in a cash game which u can apply to most stakes]
Flop comes 6c ts 9c 6C,TS,9C
We bet, villain calls.
Turn comes 8h - so the board now looks: - 6c ts 9c 8h 6C,TS,9C,8H
We bet, villain calls.
River comes qh so the board now looks: - 6c ts 9c 8h qh 6C,TS,9C,8H,QH
What would u do and why?
Also would anyone play the flop or turn different? if so why,what is your logic/reasoning?
edit - is it me or are these cards sometimes hard to distinguish? lol
-
There are no amounts given but I"ll assume that"s deliberate to concentrate on the "theory" but I"m unsure on what "theory" you are trying to expound.
To my mind, I"m firing the 3rd barrel and putting him to the test. The board is SO wet I doubt the villain knows where we are and unless he"s found the nuts he can"t raise.
Of course, it"s a bluffable board if he so chooses but I think he would have value raised the turn if he was going to do that.
FWIW, I play it the same way as shown.
-
Stack sizes are important, I assume full stacks 100 bb".
No reads either, optimum play versus player A may be spew versus player b. That said, I will check this flop almost 100% and calling if villain makes a bet.
Why check flop? Our hand is weak and we may have to fold to a flop raise, usually on this board villains range contains lots of hands that can raise us, sets, two pair, pair draw combo"s, straight and flush draws.
We weaken our range by checking and more importantly weaken villains range to include bluffs and semi bluffs.
-
I"m NEVER checking this flop...if i get raised, so be it, I"ll re-evaluate then.
Raising pre, hitting and then checking is way to weak for me.
-
OK shoot me but I am all in post flop
-
I think I"d be betting this flop most of the time 50-60% pot.
The turn is a check/call check/check for me.
If the turn goes check/check I may "turn my hand into a bluff" and bet out the river. He can"t call/raise unless he has the goods, or a good read on us, or is a sophisticated opponent capable of a bluff river raise.
If the turn goes check/call my action would be determined on reads/prev history etc. I"d probably check/call check/check river depending on my/his stack size/reads/prev hands etc etc.
The way its played I can"t see how the turn or river could"ve helped him.
-
not too fussed about the lead on both flop and turn, although would tend to check at least one of the streets to keep the pot under control.
A lead on the river is only usually getting called by better hands, and our two pair can"t stand up to any raise on the end, but really wants to get to showdown.... so check/call the river, assuming he doesn"t do some massive overbet looking for value.
-
A lead on the river is only usually getting called by better hands
I agree with this BUT my earlier point was, absent a Jack...he can only call and he"d have to be pretty confident that WE don"t have a Jack to raise. We minimise a potential loss by leading IMO and maximise our fold equity.
Yes, our hand is now essentially a bluff but we"ve shown strength all the way and our villain has played it pretty passive. Is he letting us build the pot for him....possibly, but I still think with the board texture on the turn he"d have raised for value rather than waiting for a potentially disastrous river.
-
A lead on the river is only usually getting called by better hands
I agree with this BUT my earlier point was, absent a Jack...he can only call and he"d have to be pretty confident that WE don"t have a Jack to raise. We minimise a potential loss by leading IMO and maximise our fold equity.
Yes, our hand is now essentially a bluff but we"ve shown strength all the way and our villain has played it pretty passive. Is he letting us build the pot for him....possibly, but I still think with the board texture on the turn he"d have raised for value rather than waiting for a potentially disastrous river.
By leading, we are giving him the chance to bluff raise.... in his position, given that we led every street on this board, he can be fairly safe in his assumption that we are unlikely to show up with a J..... so he knows that a position raise is going to get through most of the time. However, by checking, unless he overbets, we can get our marginal hand to showdown cheaply.
-
I"m NEVER checking this flop...if i get raised, so be it, I"ll re-evaluate then.
Raising pre, hitting and then checking is way to weak for me.
Why are you betting, value, bluff, protection?
-
By leading, we are giving him the chance to bluff raise.... in his position, given that we led every street on this board, he can be fairly safe in his assumption that we are unlikely to show up with a J..... so he knows that a position raise is going to get through most of the time. However, by checking, unless he overbets, we can get our marginal hand to showdown cheaply.
Its highly unlikely you"ll get raised here as a bluff and if you suspect villain will bluff if you lead, not leading would be a mistake.
-
OK shoot me but I am all in post flop
I rest my case ;D
-
Why are you betting, value, bluff, protection?
Yes.
-
Why are you betting, value, bluff, protection?
Yes.
Insightful.
-
Insightful.
Why not all three..., OK well, at least two of the choices? Seriously, I bet because I think I have the best hand, which also gives me value & protection if he calls when behind PLUS I want to represent more strength than I actually have.
;D
-
By leading, we are giving him the chance to bluff raise.... in his position, given that we led every street on this board, he can be fairly safe in his assumption that we are unlikely to show up with a J..... so he knows that a position raise is going to get through most of the time. However, by checking, unless he overbets, we can get our marginal hand to showdown cheaply.
Its highly unlikely you"ll get raised here as a bluff and if you suspect villain will bluff if you lead, not leading would be a mistake.
thing is Brendan, if he does raise the river, he could have any number of hands that beat our weak two pair hand, but is just as likely to have air.... but we really want to get this hand to showdown. We are going to be asked to call a lump reliant on a read, wheras by checking we get our marginal hand to showdown safely and cheaply.
I appreciate that missing value when we"re ahead is as bad as losing chips, however I think there are some circumstances, particularly when out of position, that getting a marginal hand to showdown cheaply is the better option.
-
tough one this
I initially thought bet fold river as you could get called by some worse hands and raised by better ones and would lose the minimum compared to chk calling a bigger river bet where we are behind.
But that board looks a great one for a river bluff too and I"d rather pick off one bet rather than 2 on the river so I"m for check calling this one.
I also would be check calling the turn as well but I am a station
-
Depends on stack sizes at start of hand, and also ratio of our 2 barrel bets. because with all the action so far looks like the pot has taken up a large % of stack if we didnt started with 100bbs. (havent had time to read others replies, this may have been mentioned)
Could be hard to bet this river. So hard to do blocker bets nowadays, because agressive players with position will just raise on you with nothing because you bet looks obvious. And checking will induce either a bluff or you will get value towned. Hes probably gonna check behind show down hands.
Read a hand from a couple of years ago very similar to this on Daniel Negranues blog, and he found himself oop with top pair off the flop vs agressive player, turn brings 4 cards to a gutshot, and he acually check min-raised turn to slow his opponent down, and induce a check check river. Cant actually remember outcome, but i know his opponent checked river behind because he didnt want to get check raised twice in the hand.
Hope this makes sense to you guys.
-
By leading, we are giving him the chance to bluff raise.... in his position, given that we led every street on this board, he can be fairly safe in his assumption that we are unlikely to show up with a J..... so he knows that a position raise is going to get through most of the time. However, by checking, unless he overbets, we can get our marginal hand to showdown cheaply.
Its highly unlikely you"ll get raised here as a bluff and if you suspect villain will bluff if you lead, not leading would be a mistake.
thing is Brendan, if he does raise the river, he could have any number of hands that beat our weak two pair hand, but is just as likely to have air.... but we really want to get this hand to showdown. We are going to be asked to call a lump reliant on a read, wheras by checking we get our marginal hand to showdown safely and cheaply.
I appreciate that missing value when we"re ahead is as bad as losing chips, however I think there are some circumstances, particularly when out of position, that getting a marginal hand to showdown cheaply is the better option.
Just to clarify Steve, I would definately check call essentially to bluff catch. I don"t think we get bluffed very often if we lead, though if this is another high stakes hand the reverse is likely the case and leading is best, but thats a whole other level of play. Looks like I misinterpreted your post. Apologies.
-
Insightful.
Why not all three..., OK well, at least two of the choices? Seriously, I bet because I think I have the best hand, which also gives me value & protection if he calls when behind PLUS I want to represent more strength than I actually have.
;D
You raise pf and on the flop you have a weak top pair hand on a draw heavy board that is all over villains pf calling range. Whether you currently have the best hand is not clear just yet.
You may well be ahead and often you will have the best hand currently yet have as little as 45% equity with 2 cards to come.
against a wide continuing range like...
TT-66,QJs,Jc9c,Tc9c,Tc8c,9c8c,8c7c,8s7s,7c6c,QJo,JTo,T9o,98o
we have 52% equity, in position this plays out a lot easier but oop and likely facing a competent opponent. Pot control is my main objective and folding to any significant action can never be too big a mistake and is more often correct. In summary, villain is in control of pot size throughout the hand and if it the pot gets big, its because he wants it that way.
I want to represent more strength than I actually have.
Villains calling range contains X% hands that beat us and Y% hands we have value against, the ratio of X:Y is largely dependent on the strength we represent, this is a basic poker concept.
representing more strength than I actually have = Bluff
-
if the pot gets big, its because he wants it that way.
Possibly and you are probably correct..and yet we have no information on this villain..is he donk, station or a pro?
This is why I question the value of this particular thread...what point is noble1 trying to make.
There is just so little information on which to base the "proper" decision and without that we can argue all day without coming to a "decision".
In the end it comes down to a person"s style of play...what might seem spewy to some would seem insightful to others. I don"t claim to have the final answer and anyone who does is...just...wrong because the only answer in poker is, as we all know..."It Depends".
I want to represent more strength than I actually have.
representing more strength than I actually have = Bluff
Yep...and yet I might still be ahead.
-
i"m not making a point Paulie, just giving u a hand to disect with no reads or level/stakes info etc and hoping u guys discuss different concepts when villain is agg or tricky etc etc...
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/69/micro-stakes-pl-nl/theory-looong-how-beat-micros-2nl-50nl-367707/
i took this from a post made about value betting , of course in poker there is more to it with reads especially but i thought this post was well thought out.. [QT from example 3]
In fact its probably better than any book i know of as a way to explain value betting , anyone else know of any?
When WYoung83 mentioned the check raise turn it reminded me of Neil Channings turn check raise in the big game shown a few days ago versus Sam Trickett , does any1 think Neil should bluff river? luvved the 200 bet lol lol , would be interesting if Sam had raised river and Neil shoved lol , now that would be one sicko move :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSpxtinR0Xk
hand in question is about 7+1/2 mins in , personally i like to see non std moves , but does anyone check flop 2pair here?
Maybe he thought viffer would cbet? meh messy hand in the end...
-
I get it but your premise is based on micro-stakes and without stack sizes.
At micro-stakes ANYTHING is possible....which changes the hand/play dynamic completely and that, IMO, weakens any argument..especially mine. ;D
Are we value betting here, bluffing or just trying for showdown? TBH...I"m leaning towards the latter but I think that we can maximise any FE by betting again.
Horses for courses, I suppose and as I said, it depends...after all, it"s not as though there is a "right" answer..just one that works..or not.
-
Pretty sure b/f is really bad otr against good players.
Checking back flop is better w/ history to induce so we can c/c c/c but still not terrible to pot control
Stack sizes are very important to river action...but c/f isnt as bad as a lot of people think w/ no history.
-
Thank you :)
-
thank you
-
Impossible to say without stack/bet/pot sizes, but presuming we"re fairly deep and the bets so far have been "standard" I"m probably making a blocker bet on the river here - just under half the pot or so. by check/calling we"re likely making it more expensive get the hand to showdown.
EDIT: oops - just noticed date of OP ::)