Amateur Poker Association & Tour
Poker Forum => Strategy => Topic started by: noble1 on June 09, 2010, 15:11:56 PM
-
Hero has few post flop reads , pre-flop he feels he has been run over by villain in spots and that he has not adjusted well to him .. He remembers raising utg and getting 3bet by villain in which he called and then folded eventually post-flop upon which villain showed him a bluff with 54s.. Hero has also described a situation when villain made a 4bet and hero called with QT leaving only a pot size bet in his stack , villain check folded a KJx flop to heros bet , hero showed villain his QT after which villain made remarks that hero sucked .. Villain is thought of as crazy by hero [villain is a good player though]
Villain and hero do not run into each other in a hand for quite while when this hand occurs -
PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $20 BB (8 handed)
Hero ($2266.50)
Button ($4795.50)
SB ($8009)
BB ($2652)
UTG ($1230)
UTG+1 ($7836)
MP1 ($3981)
MP2 ($2271)
Preflop: Hero is CO with ah, :as:.
4 folds, Hero raises to $80, 1 fold, SB calls $70, 1 fold.
Flop: ($180) : :2s:, kc, 6d (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $120, SB calls $120.
Turn: ($420) 9s (2 players)
SB checks, Hero checks.
River: ($420) th (2 players)
SB bets $180, Hero raises to $440, SB raises to $7809, Hero...? [hero has $1626 behind]
What do u think to both players lines of play? ..
I"ve lifted this from another forum so that u can compare thoughts afterwards to the replies that hero got in original thread , i"ll give it 2 or 3 days before i post the thread .. If theres plenty of debate/interest and discussion with each other then i"ll post every now and then different threads/situations like this but at different stakes/buy ins to try and keep the strategy forum ticking over...
-
Pretty dependant of villains views on hero and history. History given doesn"t really affect this hand too much. Villains views on hero"s river tendancies are pretty important.
Against an unknown, I think it goes bet turn and b/f river. I dnt think r/c river is too profitable against many players.
Villains small bet-sizing on the river seems to be inducing also, but with history this could be a pure leveling war. Heros raise also leaves plenty of f/e for villain, but I cnt c too much air in his range as played.
-
Seems all fairly standard until the river, my line of play would have been exactly the same as the Hero, up until the river. By checking the turn, Hero has shown villain that he is now not sure if he is in front, and as such the villains river bet is assured, but how much? The small bet seems to me to be screaming for a raise, I would just be calling here. Having raised Hero should be willing to get away from the massive bet on the end. But it is read dependent, if Hero has seen Villain make this move light then he might feel inclined to make the call.
-
Horrible situation, especially with history between the 2.
Tbh I"d rather just flat call the villians river bet. Think not betting the turn is a mistake. Maybe lead the turn for 1/2 pot. If I"m repopped thn I"m in a sticky spot
As played i would have to fold and hate myself for it. Bit then again alot of ifs and buts due to level of bankroll etc
-
I dont think the check behind on turn is a mistake, it sort of disguises hero hand and there are no draws out there anyway, (apart from the gutshot off the flop, and the 7-8 or q-j runner runner) but villain is supposed to be a good player so he is not usually on a draw here.
Pot controll check behind is not always too bad. Remember the villan check called the flop oop, so it seems likely he has a made hand already (Like a set of 6s) or is going to make a meta game style of play later on based on previous hands etc, ( It is just to unlikely that he has the gutshot) And if he is floating the flop oop with the 8-7 and picks up the 8 outer, then good luck to him, and hes probably going to bet the river if he misses anyway, so your check is the perfect way to pick up his bluff on the river.
I think calling the river bet was the best play imo, and now folding to his raise. Villain will either show up with the really sick k-10 or a set from the flop too often for aces to be any good. But im not very good at cash games so surprise me noble1.
Also love the idea of bringing hands here, becuase the forum has been dead these last coupple of months.
-
As played i would have to fold and hate myself for it. Bit then again alot of ifs and buts due to level of bankroll etc
This should never be a factor while in the middle of a hand, and if it is then you are playing to high for your roll. Even the best players like Ivey and Antonius dont think of it as money when they are playing ( i have read interviews with them and all they see while playing, are chips with numbers and not actually $$ values)
-
Its high stakes and likely a top standard of adjusting and hand reading, Gameflow is a huge factor so very wide ranges and most likely, lots of factors we can"t possibly capture in a HH review.
Villain likely 3 bets his nut hands (unlikely to slowplay given history) and some hands that don"t quite make his calling range.
So his flatting range is something like, 22-TT, TJs+,QJs+,KQs,AJo,KQo.
On the Flop. Villain is oop so he is less likely to float light though he may feel comfortable enough versus hero to do so sometimes. Its high stakes so unlikely to play fit or fold.
22 & 66, again are unlikely to slowplay given history, and of the broadway hands, any pair or backdoor straight or flush & combo type hands are more likely to continue.
That's, AcJc,AdJd,AsJs,ATs,KQs,KcJc,KdJd,KsJs,KcTc,KdTd,KsTs,QcJc,QdJd,QsJs,QcTc,QdTd,QsTs,JcTc,JdTd,JsTs,KQo,
TT-77,55-33.
Turn is checked through so no change to the villains range at the river. Betting the turn will further narrow villains range, balances hero"s barrelling range and makes the river easier to play.
Villain weak leads the river, he's unlikely to do this with his air or showdown value hands, leaving TT-99 more likely.
Villain needs to be bluffing 45% for a call to break even. Is this an elaborate weak lead bluff reraise 45% of the time, my at least 3 poker levels below these guys brain says no way.
-
Read the hand a few more times and Villain cant possibly value bet a hand worse than aces, that is a fact if he is a good player. back doors got there by the river and there is a chance he has complete airball. But it would be a brave call with AA.
-
Given the history Villains calling range is huge on the flop.
Hero"s bet looks like a continuation bet, so given stacks it is more than possible Villan is floating.
Hero"s check on the turn, puts Villain in a really tricky situation, especially if Villan was floating. Also Villain still has no real idea of Hero"s range or hand. Given stack sizes, if Villain now bets, and faces a check-raise push, he will probably have to lay down anything less than 2 pair.
At this stage Villan checks and in effect takes control of the pot and the hand.
On the river Hero still only has one pair so when villain leads Hero should be calling whist he still has show-down value, so Hero"s raise is awful.
Villain has owned Hero thoughout the hand. Given history, and Hero"s stack size, Villain is surely expecting Hero will call, so the overshove only makes sense with a hand that is beating Aces.
Having said all of this I"m still none the wiser as to Villains hand.
-
Villain has owned Hero thoughout the hand. Given history, and Hero"s stack size, Villain is surely expecting Hero will call, so the overshove only makes sense with a hand that is beating Aces.
^This^
On the river Hero still only has one pair so when villain leads Hero should be calling whist he still has show-down value, so Hero"s raise is awful.
...but especially ^this^!!
-
Villain has owned Hero thoughout the hand. Given history, and Hero"s stack size, Villain is surely expecting Hero will call, so the overshove only makes sense with a hand that is beating Aces.
^This^
On the river Hero still only has one pair so when villain leads Hero should be calling whist he still has show-down value, so Hero"s raise is awful.
100 percent. did he have KT
...but especially ^this^!!
-
Does this
Hero"s check on the turn, puts Villain in a really tricky situation, especially if Villan was floating. Also Villain still has no real idea of Hero"s range or hand.
Contradict this
Villain has owned Hero thoughout the hand.
Having said all of this I"m still none the wiser as to Villains hand.
TBH I don"t really get the impression that hero was owned or that he played the hand poorly.
On the river Hero still only has one pair so when villain leads Hero should be calling whist he still has show-down value, so Hero"s raise is awful.
It really depends on villains range for that bet. If he"s really good and you"d expect so at 2000nl, his range will be very well balanced between nut hands, weak made hands looking to showdown cheaply and God knows whatever else given that these guys play at elite reasoning levels way beyond most of us mere mortals.
On the other hand I suspect a huge part of the profitable players edge is in eeking thin value from these type of spots. There is lots of value to be had from one pair hands in villains range, and hero is likely at the very top end of his perceived range given the turn check back.
-
Does this
Hero"s check on the turn, puts Villain in a really tricky situation, especially if Villan was floating. Also Villain still has no real idea of Hero"s range or hand.
Contradict this
Villain has owned Hero thoughout the hand.
Having said all of this I"m still none the wiser as to Villains hand.
TBH I don"t really get the impression that hero was owned or that he played the hand poorly.
On the river Hero still only has one pair so when villain leads Hero should be calling whist he still has show-down value, so Hero"s raise is awful.
It really depends on villains range for that bet. If he"s really good and you"d expect so at 2000nl, his range will be very well balanced between nut hands, weak made hands looking to showdown cheaply and God knows whatever else given that these guys play at elite reasoning levels way beyond most of us mere mortals.
On the other hand I suspect a huge part of the profitable players edge is in eeking thin value from these type of spots. There is lots of value to be had from one pair hands in villains range, and hero is likely at the very top end of his perceived range given the turn check back.
Snapper- I really do think Hero was owned. Villians check on the turn was perfect pot control given stack sizes and previous history.
By the river villian has played the hand so well, he has never given hero a chance to narrow down his range, and therefore what villains hand is is irrelevant, given stack sizes.
Even if Hero wins the hand by calling the All-in and being ahead, in my opinion this would be a terrible call and long term the wrong decision!
You can still win a hand whilst being owned!
..........just as..........
You can still lose a hand despite playing it perfectley and doing everything right!
-
I assume from this
Snapper- I really do think Hero was owned. Villians check on the turn was perfect pot control given stack sizes and previous history.
That this, from your original post.......
Hero"s check on the turn, puts Villain in a really tricky situation, especially if Villan was floating. Also Villain still has no real idea of Hero"s Villains range or hand.
Is a typo and should read.......
Hero"s Villains check on the turn, puts Villain Hero in a really tricky situation, especially if Villain was floating. Also Villain Hero still has no real idea of Hero"s range or hand.
Villain is oop, hero is ip as preflop raiser and has the initiative in the hand, a villain turn check is hardly owning. So not much scope for villain to pot control as hero has the last say on whether the pot inflates.
lets look at villains check for the various hands he check calls the flop with.
- Air hands he floated with. = super standard,
- Weak made one pair hands. = again super standard
- Flopped set, turned two pair (K9s fairly likely and a hand I didn"t really consider much earlier) = Planned check raise foiled by heros check back. Who owned who in this scenario?
By the river villian has played the hand so well, he has never given hero a chance to narrow down his range, and therefore what villains hand is is irrelevant, given stack sizes.
Villain made an action on every street and two actions on both the flop and river, pf call, flop check call, turn check, river weak lead reraise, each of these actions if interpretted correctly, further defined villains range.
Again though, this is 2000nl and the levels of adjusting and deception are likely beyond us mere mortals and may in fact look ridiculously bad when viewed in a vacuum.
That said, I wouldn"t be at all surprised if on the river.......
and in this order,
Hero puked and reluctantly folded.
Hero made a hero call and villain showed 99,TT,K9s to scoop several healthy bankrolls.
Hero made a hero call and villain showed complete air and berated hero for making a donkey call.
-
http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=plnlpoker&Number=6157344&fpart=1&PHPSESSID=
http://uk.pokernews.com/poker-strategy-theory/poker-strategy-keeping-control-pot-holdem.htm
http://www.pocketfives.com/articles/considering-variables-against-ranges-489859/
This hand is fairly straight forward until durrr bets river and decides to raise the river , convential thinking says that if you have a marginal hand with showdown value, you might as well check the river since your opponent will never call with a worse hand than the one you're holding , i think durrr leads because he has/believes that there is little chance that he has the best hand in this spot so the only way he can win the pot is to turn his hand into a bluff plus u still get some folds sometimes from QQ JJ etc all read dependent , basically i quite like durrrs lead and the sizing because if he had a read that Ariel "FoxwoodsFiend" Schneller made a few to many thin river raises then durrr adjusted very well imho... Likewise if Ariel or whoever just calls river then it sets up future plays for durrr... [agree / disagree?]
Meh good one to look at imo , what did u guys think to Ariels bet sizing on the river [agree or disagree?] , would any1 fold river if villain had chosen a check raise river line instead?
hope u enjoyed disecting this one..
-
basically i quite like durrrs lead and the sizing because if he had a read that Ariel "FoxwoodsFiend" Schneller made a few to many thin river raises then durrr adjusted very well imho... Likewise if Ariel or whoever just calls river then it sets up future plays for durrr... [agree / disagree?]
Thanks for that Noble1, trying to dissect the play of the worlds very best cash game player is a guaranteed fail. Enjoyable though.
Its interesting that Durrrr said he wasn"t sure his play was good in the hand and that he reckoned hero"s play was fine. Possibly just lip service though. Regarding adjusting to hero"s thin value bets, if hero bets thin too often or not often enough, Durrrr will exploit it either way since he adjusts so well and so quickly. Its what makes him such a sick player he is capable of exploiting the smallest of mistakes. Its unbelievable he actually gets guys to play against him.
It was said on the 2+2 thread and I agree, the hero"s river bet is sized around the villains value calling range and as result points to hero"s own hand strength. I spoke with a top player about this recently because I was afraid I was leaking information in this way too, but I play at a level were players are unlikely to pick up on it and exploit it. Though I didn"t pick up on it myself when analysing this hand. I was suprised that hero doesn"t balance his value bet size similarly for thin value bets and Nut hands, If he raises more on the river I don"t think Durrrr makes the sick move on him.
Meh good one to look at imo , what did u guys think to Ariels bet sizing on the river [agree or disagree?] , would any1 fold river if villain had chosen a check raise river line instead?
I"m not sure the lead raise move is any scarier than a check raise. They both scream so much strength. I suppose by leading he gave the hero more chance to err with his betsize.
-
I"m not sure the lead raise move is any scarier than a check raise. They both scream so much strength. I suppose by leading he gave the hero more chance to err with his betsize.
i tend to view the check raise oop on the river after the turn has been checked through as a more bluffy range .. as mostly with villains oop with a set say , will lead river perhaps fearing that the river will get checked down , meh all ifs and buts , reads and player tendencies to be taken into account etc etc as ever with the wonderful world of poker there are good articles written but SR"s quote on getting value on the river - if your opponent puts in a third raise, you must instantly throw your hand away, as he has you beat.
is a bit absolutist imho...
Foxwoods river bet sizing is i agree too small , again i agree it makes it difficult to get more value from your stronger hands and your thin value/bluffs ... Although i dont think it would deter durrr from making a move , afterall the guy has balls and enough smarts to balance out moves like this if called... Cannot agree that durrr is the best cash game player though :) Ivey all the way imho is way ahead in finding ways to adjust his strategy to get some poor suckers cash :)
Galfond is up there imo , i luv his logic to it all and is more forthcoming to it all in explaining his thoughts..
If anyone has missed it , Galfond has started this - http://www.pokerstatic.com/shows/ , the podcasts are a tad dodgy imho at the moment, but the strategy section has potential...
Heres some of my favourite Galfond articles for those interested - the bottom 2 especially...
http://www.pokerplayer.co.uk/poker-players/player-interviews/8836/phil-omgclayaiken-galfond-exclusive-interview.html
http://www.bluffeurope.com/interview/en/Nik-Persaud-meets-Phil-Galfond_6913.aspx
http://www.bluffmagazine.com/magazine/You%2Dare%2Dbad%2Dat%2Dpoker%2E%2E%2E%2DYes%2C%2DYou%2DPhil%2DGalfond-1133.htm
http://www.bluffmagazine.com/magazine/You%2Dare%2DBAD%2Dat%2DPoker%2DPhil%2DGalfond-735.htm
-
Was it dwan who was the villian?
If so then I"m defo only flatting the river as he appears to have an image of putting others to the sword when raised rather than call himself