I do, but would have done something at the turn most of the time. x/r is fine, but I would lead sometimes too. Haha, throw a pot size bet at him and let him think about that.
I’m just calling that river because raising lets him fold most of the hands I beat and call or re-raise hands I don’t want to see. If you are saying he 3! pre with 55+ and A5s, there’s a lot more to worry about.
I would love to see the bet timing of his 1/2 pot bets. In the tournaments I play, I see a lot of “dwarven fighter” guys who take that exact line with overpairs. 1/2 pot swing of the axe, one step forward, swing again, and so on. These bets come fast and rhythmically. Maybe you fancy guys don’t see that kinda thing up there in Valhala, but down here in the trenches, we see it all the time.
Anyway, just calling also gives you the best chance of that perfect movie ending. This is where he 3! pre with 63o, hoping for some revenge for the other day. He flops 2nd pair, turns 2 pair, and thinks he’s good, maybe he eats an Oreo or something. You show him the set and wink at his girlfriend. Come on, that’s the stuff of movies right there.
I’m calling the river and don’t care if I’m not quite getting the right price. I want to see what he has. The information is worth something to me
I don’t like checking the turn because it gives him the chance to check behind and see the river free. That wouldn’t be horrible here usually, but it could be. For example, you don’t want him having a free card with pocket 9s. I generally don’t like giving people free cards there.
If he does have some sort of draw, the turn is the last place he will pay you for it. I might not get the chance to check-raise, but if he 1/2 pots it, then folds to the raise, I make less than if he calls 3/4 to full pot when I lead.
Leading the turn also helps you to define his hand better, gives you control, and can influence the river action in ways that are good for you.
Don’t forget we’re in cash game though, this hand of Torelli was taken from the WSOP Main Event like you’ve just said.
CG I would say 3-3.5x IP (in position) and 4-5x OOP… 2.58x seems smallish for me too, like SPG has said, I don’t see him 3-betting light in this spot.
If this is a tell, this is just a huge info to be considered, and which will make our decision making way easier… But do we take the risk, have we got notes on the 3-bet sizings of bbkids when in and out of position, and also when he’s 3-betting light ? Notes are golden.
Flop : check-call
Turn : I love a check-raise
River : lead NOT too big or hope on a check/check. If we check, we’ll really look so weak, making our decision difficult afterwards, so I don’t like it neither.
If we lead, what value have we got ?
What you guys said with 56s, A5s, 34s, 23s, 24s, 67s, etc etc, all these lights, there are some bluffs and some value hands.
Does he really bet 56s and A5s 50% pot on the flop for example ?
I just don’t see anyone described as “tight” 3 betting the 20% of his hands it would take to get him to A5s or 55, let alone all these other small connected hands he “could” have. If he’s 3! 10% of the time, he won’t have any 5s or 6s, if he 3! 20%, he will sometimes. I guess it depends on what you mean by “tight.”
@SunPowerGuru, it looks to me like you read @dayman’s post incorrectly. He described bbkids as someone who x-bets light, not tight. Pretty much the opposite meaning.
Its on the small side but not quite a min-raise thing. To be honest, I thought the open was 3.5x (pot) and not 3.1x. Considering the actual open size, its not so far out of line as to be “bad” but it does create a host of issues that can and should be exploited the heck out of. Most notably, it should instigate light 4-bets pretty regularly - assuming the table is active and competent. Unless someone is playing back regularly, its a cheap way to build a HU pot in position.
Don’t worry about missing the stack depth when you posted. We all make mistakes (like in reading the open size). Also, don’t worry about misapplying concepts as you go along. Everyone does it. I just went through a year+ of learning new strategies and then promptly using them - in the wrong spots. Oops. The learning process isn’t easy and requires us to make errors along the way. Better to be reminded about SPR’s in a forum than when you just put your stack at risk because of it in a real game.
I agree. I was getting to caught up in finding ways to justify this but in the long run it’s not profitable. I don’t think we have to triple barrel though, we can x/r some and give up. I would do this some and go for a double x/r vs this player.
He barrels a ton but he does have some strong hands in his x/back ranges. I’ve put him tough spots x/r rivers often on him. Hopefully somewhat balanced, it’s tough though because I always want to go after him…
@WannabeCoder@1Warlock fwiw I think some of this has been carried over from tournament poker. I personally do not size down 3! on FR but in position on a short handed table with semi deep stacks it makes sense vs active players. bbkids knows I’m opening a lot to iso these weaker players, (the other 4 were either too splashy and pay off light or really face up with their play) bbkids is not going to let me get away with that.
Pretty sure @1Warlock was referring to this specific holding… 33, but I do 4! quite liberally vs bb’s 3! range, he has a lot of bluffs. This hand would never be in my 4! range vs him as I’m pretty polarized. Stacks here make it tough for him to 5! without committing so his position is somewhat neutralized if I do 4!
Angle shooter! He knows his stuff, but he did get caught.
I think this is where I’m coming down to my mistake in the hand. The flop is fairly dry and I could see x/r flop if it was two toned because he can and will call with more of his range if I have more bluffs in mine.
This I find interesting and I think I’ll explore it more. Thanks @SunPowerGuru for your input.
He 3!'s a ton so he is light often and his smaller sizing lets him have a better price. He mixes up his sizing though according to table dynamics. I have notes on bbkids but I have not picked up on any 3! sizing tells.
Yes
May have read something wrong in the OP. This guy is polar opposite of thight and has all the A5’s and the 65 suited. He’ll be 3! the A5o for it’s blocker value and he’s in position.
Yep, lol.
I 4! bb a ton. It’s much tougher to do oop. No one else on this table was really interested in even opening a pot for a raise, let alone 3! and 4!. When no else has any fight and bb has position on me 5 out of 6 hands he can and does make my night hell.
Everyone, thank you all for your input. Now because I called out the other 4 players as pretty much weak I won’t give the Replay. While I did not like the way I played the hand I do think x/r turn is mandatory and x/r flop definitely has some merit. I think on the river for me to x/r I could get some value some of the time, but probably get value owned and folds from weaker more often so I think I like my call on the river the most in this hand. Turn is a D- and Flop is a B-.
RESULTS. bbkids had the As5s and flopped a straight. Sometimes you play bad and it actually saves you chips as I’ve shown in a couple of HH’s so far. lol Cheers everyone!!
It takes 2 to x/r. Planning a check-raise allows V to control your plan and dictate the action. If you want more money in the pot, make a bet and let’s see what he does. If I see it as a mistake to check here, I can’t think check-raising is mandatory. In this hand, the “mistake” of checking gave you the opportunity to x/r, and you probably should have.
Check-calling tells you nothing. You still don’t know where you stand, don’t have a great idea what he has, and are spending chips without getting anything in return.
And yes, I had it in my head that the guy was a trappy TAG. My guy didn’t have A5s, 55, or 66 in his 3! range, so looked like an overpair to me.
That betting line though… that’s pure dwarven fighter there. I see that line a lot and it always means one thing… they like the flop and want to drive home a win. Head down, half pot, step forward. Same on turn and river, half pot, one step closer. Almost always an overpair, flopped set, or some made hand.
I guess there just isn’t a whole lot of subtlety or finesse on display in the mid-level tournies I play. It’s all pretty straightforward down here.
This is another reason to check-raise in these spots. If you have a fair number of check-raises in your arsenal, and your opponent knows that, he’s less likely to read your checks as weakness, and will bet his thinner value hands and draws less frequently, allowing you to better realize your equity when you’re out of position. @Ilovecat has an aggressive image, and players will shift into a defensive stance to counteract that aggression. From what I understand, that’s been fairly profitable.
LOL indeed - get that 4-bet stick out and take a bunch of whacks. OOP just size up vs a light 3-bet range and he will have to adjust to you.
Fun hand to go over. I don’t think you played it badly at all. You know the player and you made relevant adjustments for the information you had. x/r flop or turn or x/c all the way will depend on which hands you are putting in which category. The only “bad” x/r would have been river here IMO.
As to the need to triple barrel if you x/r flop, I wouldn’t x/r unless I had the intention of triple barreling almost every runout. You can fire small and pot control a bit that way but the bet-bet-check line gets people killed OOP vs good, aggressive players. I’m glad you changed your mind on using those middling pairs as candidates though.
Keep the hands coming - you are getting great responses by not showing the actual hand.
In cash games, that 50% pot bet is nearly meaningless in terms of actual holdings. For a while, the 50% pot c-bet was ubiquitous. Things have changed quite a bit but there still are tons of players using that size and a nearly 100% frequency, regardless of their hand. It can be effective to a degree vs more passive straightforward players but it is no longer effective at even 100NL online. We are seeing more variety in sizings and frequencies, especially online now.
I have to say thank you very much @1Warlock, I really appreciate the time you take to post here. I will continue to tag you in my HH’s if that is okay with you in order to insure that you see them. Cheers! And yeah, most of the way I played here was non standard for the population and pure adjustment to bbkids.
EDIT: I should be getting back into the casino over the next couple of weeks so I’ll have some LLSNL HH’s to post if that’s not an issue with Replay. I don’t see how it could be as they have staff posting WSOP trip results.
So how is he reading it when I bet? If I lead there 30% or 40% of the time, of course I have less chances to check-raise him. Now a check on the river presents a real risk of a check-raise, so you could say that leading on the turn actually gives a later check more authority, not less.
People who know me know I once check-raised a fella 3 times just for thinking about disrespecting one of my checks. My arsenal is chock fulla check-raises I could whip on someone should the need arise. I can assure you.
My point was that checking gives him the chance to check behind. This not only foils your whole “check-raising” scheme, but also gives him a free card. If I want to control his pot odds, charge him for his draws, get more in the pot, and all that other pokering stuff, I might as well stick a bet out there and see what happens.
As far as “thinner value” and all that other stuff, no, not so much. It’s all perfectly reasonable and I have no doubt it’s 100% correct. The vast majority of the people I play aren’t paying enough attention, and even if they were, the tables are re balancing so often that you can’t get that level of detail on your opponents. Where I play, what happens in the hand stays in the hand. No notes will be taken, no changes of any kind will be made pretty much whatever I decide to do.
Anyway, blame Tacos, not me. He suggested leading a turn not long ago, and it’s something I have been playing with ever since.
On a real money site, i would be automatically scraping every hand to a database with a good analytical tool set, and have good stats on every hand I have ever played with you. Your exact tendencies and frequencies would be laid bare before me, by position, and color-coded. You should vary your bets, but if you do it with any kind of pattern, expect it to be detected and exploited.
This was what was happening with HUD’s and databases until very recently. As the game became more about who had the better HUD stats, a backlash was created. Now we have sites with anonymous tables and/or with limitations on the use of HUD’s. Going farther still, some of the most popular games currently are Zoom formats - you are transported to a new table the moment you fold your hand. Anonymous players and you only see them for a single hand. You never have any stats on another player - all you have are your hand histories to analyze. I’m hooked on these games.
No, it certainly isn’t. Lots of tendencies from real games are picked up by players here though. Same thing with low-stakes players mimicking things they see on television, without knowing why they are doing it. The 50% pot c-bet is just one of those things. How people play flush draws is another. 2nd pair and an overcard is 1 more.
I guess the point is that as trends develop at the higher stakes, they are copied down through the ranks and wind up in the hands of recreational players, here and elsewhere. Some stick around for a long time and some are quickly abandoned. Most aren’t understood, or aren’t understood well. Ask 100 recreational players why they bet 50% pot and you probably won’t get 2 who have any idea, other than that’s what they’ve seen other people doing.
