Online 5-10...Three-way blind steal tussle with 88.

[chesspain]

CO in this hand is unknown to me. The SB is fairly tight and doesn't play a lot of hands--maybe I'ld call him a sort of invisible TAG.

Preflop action is folded to the <font color="red"> CO who raises</font>, folded to the <font color="red"> SB who three bets</font>, I call in the BB with 8 /images/graemlins/heart.gif 8 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif, CO calls.

Flop: (9 SB) J /images/graemlins/heart.gif 9 /images/graemlins/heart.gif 4 /images/graemlins/spade.gif (3 players)
<font color="red">SB bets, </font> <font color="red">I raise, </font>CO folds, SB calls.

Turn: (6.5 BB) T /images/graemlins/club.gif (2 players)
SB checks, <font color="red">I bet, </font>SB calls.

River: (8.5 BB) 9 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif
SB checks, I check behind.

I think that every street but the turn is debateable.

[Haupt_234]

I think I would cap preflop with this hand since CO will be raising lightly and even though the SB is an "invisible TAG", he should be aware of the CO's stealing postion. You may get the CO to laydown some overcards.

Given that you didn't, I would raise the flop too since calling sucks and the SB could still be making a continuation bet w/ overs. You also need to force out the CO.

The turn is pretty standard, you definitely don't want to give a free card considering SBs action so far in the hand. You might win the pot right there and, even if called, could still be ahead (and have many outs if behind).

I would check through the river too, since SB either has you beat or won't call with a missed draw (unless you would consider him one to look you up with AK/AQ which is doubtful given his description).

All in all, I think the hand was well played but I would cap 88 preflop in this spot a lot of the time. The hand would play out differently from there.

Haupt_234

[VORP]

I would bet the river. You almost have to have sb beat and the pot is large enough to possibly induce a crying call.

[GrahamW]

D'oh, I didn't read the post right first time. I'm surprised with calling two from the BB, but I like the rest of the hand. Your flop raise puts the most pressure on the CO to fold, and further defines where you're at in the hand.

[James.]

i would cap or fold pf.

[slavic]

Would he CO have folded for a cap preflop? If I had seen him her do that before I think a 4th bet has to go in preflop. Cutting down overcards for the flop aids you a ton. Otherwise I like the call preflop just because we get more information about the CO's hand, and leaves you in decent position to drop him if he doesn't raise.

The river doesn't scream bet to me.

[ClarkNasty]

[ QUOTE ]
i would cap or fold pf.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Your hand is too big to fold. Calling is superior to folding. Capping vs Calling is close and dependant on lots of variables.

[ClarkNasty]

[ QUOTE ]
I would bet the river. You almost have to have sb beat and the pot is large enough to possibly induce a crying call.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd bet the river also. I mean, if he's got a super scared QQ-AA here, so be it, but I think it's far more likely he's got AK, AQ or some lower pair like 77 that is tied to the pot.

[James.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i would cap or fold pf.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Your hand is too big to fold. Calling is superior to folding. Capping vs Calling is close and dependant on lots of variables.

[/ QUOTE ]

my statement has everything to do with the opponents involved and not the fact that this is a "raise or fold" situation. against this cast i am playing, and i am semi-cold capping. if i am against tight passives that are not position aware that only raise monsters pf i am in a position to fold only getting 3-1. i'm almost never just calling here because 88 is a strong hand, but it is alot stronger in position HU when we can control the action. our cap will often fold out a light-raising CO(who usually has live cards against us)and i feel like we can maximize our play so that quite honestly we will drag the pot a little more often as a result. this is not a raise or fold situation, but i tend to raise if i'm playing for the reasons above, or fold if a tight, uncreative weaky mcweak comes alive(which is not the case here). sorry for the confusion and if i am off base please correct me.

[James.]

and i bet the river, also.

[raze]

I would lean towards betting the river.. but it's close.

[five4suited]

[ QUOTE ]
The SB is fairly tight and doesn't play a lot of hands--maybe I'ld call him a sort of invisible TAG

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I'd fold preflop here, unless I was confident I could push the SB off his hand. I really don't like cold calling, but capping seems like a bit of a spew. I like the way you played it, but I'd bet the river too. I think overs and Ax/images/graemlins/heart.gif will pay you off. You might see a ten if SB is "invisible" like you say, but any sort of made hand should have played back at you with the coordinated board. imo.

[dano]

I might just lay this down preflop. 88 isn't that great against SB's 3-betting range. As Haupt suggests, if you're playing a cap could be best giving you control of the hand and often knocking out CO. If I was CO, I fold at least 50% of my stealing hands to a cap.

Given the preflop, I like every street except I bet/fold that river every time for value.

[sharpie]

I have no idea how often he calls with AK/AQ, but I think he almost always has these, and the pot is big, so I would bet and hope he pays off. Rest looks good.

[JustZak]

Depending on how tight the SB is I might fold this flop. If he's tight enough pf, eventhough he will be 3-betting with a wider range than usual here... best case scenario we get HU with the SB when he has two overs and we're still dodging bullets. But often we're already dominated/drawing slim to the SB, and we still have the CO behind who is going to have a playable hand here a good chunk of the time. This is a pretty coordinated board and a lot of broadway/suited cards that he may be stealing with will have a reason to continue even for 2 bets. I guess for me the flop play here really depends on a read/stats. If I think the SB is capable of 3-betting here with something like A7s or 66 then I might lean more toward a raise...but Im still not sure if I would raise under those conditions. But certainly against a tighter tag SB Im dropping this flop.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
Depending on how tight the SB is I might fold this flop... best case scenario we get HU with the SB when he has two overs and we're still dodging bullets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but if he has overcards, I'm still a significant favorite in a pot already padded with 9 SB.



[ QUOTE ]
But often we're already dominated/drawing slim to the SB...

[/ QUOTE ]

By calling him an "invisible TAG," you may have gotten the erroneous impression that he is a rock, which I don't think is a fair assumption. Remember, the SB was facing a steal, and has no idea that I have a good hand I'm going to play.



[ QUOTE ]
...and we still have the CO behind who is going to have a playable hand here a good chunk of the time. This is a pretty coordinated board and a lot of broadway/suited cards that he may be stealing with will have a reason to continue even for 2 bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

The CO was in a steal position, and given the SB's PF reraise and my flop raise, the CO may well be inclined to fold hands even as good as AQ, TT, etc.--but chances are that his hand is a lot weaker than that.


[ QUOTE ]
I guess for me the flop play here really depends on a read/stats. If I think the SB is capable of 3-betting here with something like A7s or 66 then I might lean more toward a raise...but Im still not sure if I would raise under those conditions. But certainly against a tighter tag SB Im dropping this flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I think that dropping the flop because the SB might have simple overcards is way too weak, especially when we position on him.

[JustZak]

Well I suppose then I still don't know how I'm supposed to interpret "Invisible tag". What is it that's making him invisible? Certainly if he has normal taggish stats, then like I said I might lean more towards a raise. However, if he is tighter I think the combination of the SB's range being smaller and the board being pretty draw heavy, and having the CO left to act behind you makes this a fold. Since I'm not sure how to interpret invisible tag, what kind of a range do you give him here?

[slavic]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no idea how often he calls with AK/AQ, but I think he almost always has these, and the pot is big, so I would bet and hope he pays off. Rest looks good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sharpie, I'm not calling you out on this, your just the person who expressed your view of the river the best.

I have to believe that the SB knows we at least have a pair, and if he has a pair also higher than a 4 he feels he's obligated to call. He doesn't seem to have an overpair, and frankly a BB cold call has to have him a little on edge. I don't think he calls with an unimproved ace enough to make this good. Just a rough count makes the times he calls with a pair slightly to his favor, so I have to think our bet is a slight loser.

Now on the flip side there is something to be said for not having to show this hand. check, Bet, Fold saves a lot of information in this case because your opponents don't expect this playing pattern.

[Haupt_234]

[ QUOTE ]
I have to believe that the SB knows we at least have a pair, and if he has a pair also higher than a 4 he feels he's obligated to call. He doesn't seem to have an overpair, and frankly a BB cold call has to have him a little on edge. I don't think he calls with an unimproved ace enough to make this good. Just a rough count makes the times he calls with a pair slightly to his favor, so I have to think our bet is a slight loser.


[/ QUOTE ]

I also think there is an outside shot that the SB 3bet PF w/ ATs or A9s and played it postflop this way, although it will be close with the read given.

Haupt_234

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
Well I suppose then I still don't know how I'm supposed to interpret "Invisible tag". What is it that's making him invisible? Certainly if he has normal taggish stats, then like I said I might lean more towards a raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't have "stats" because this hand is not from a PT-supported site. By invisible I mean that he is familiar to me over maybe one hundred hands or so, yet he is nothing more than a name in a chair who doesn't seem to do anything outlandish, nor even much of anything. So I guess that means he could be a rock, a weak-tight TAG, or just someone in the midst of a run of cold cards.