Was this really THAT bad a play?

[ldjonesbruins]

This was Villain's first hand in, but spent some time talking crap before he actually started playing, and based on that I had him figured for loose/aggressive. I had him something sooted or a weak A. Turned out he had A /images/graemlins/club.gifT /images/graemlins/club.gif.

This hand had him calling me names for a while after, but IMO based on the read, the draw on the flop, and esp. after the turn, I figured he was trying to push me off the pot. I'm a n00b. What could/should I have done differently?

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.02 BB (7 handed) Hand History Converter Tool (http://poker-tools.flopturnriver.com/Hand-Converter.php) from FlopTurnRiver.com (http://www.flopturnriver.com) (Format: 2+2 Forums)

Button /images/graemlins/frown.gif$4.45)
SB : ($1.06)
BB /images/graemlins/frown.gif$1.69)
UTG : ($4.83)
MP1 : ($3.17)
Hero ($2.89)
CO : ($3.50)

Preflop: Hero is MP2 with 3/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, A/images/graemlins/diamond.gif. CO :#A500AF(Villain)/ posts a blind of $0.02.
<font color="#666666">2 folds</font>, Hero calls $0.02, <font color="#CC3333">CO /images/graemlins/frown.gifVillain)/ (poster) raises to $0.09</font>, <font color="#666666">3 folds</font>, Hero calls $0.07.

Flop: ($0.21) 4/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 5/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 5/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Hero checks, <font color="#CC3333">Villain bets $0.09</font>, Hero calls $0.09.

Turn: ($0.39) 3/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Hero checks, <font color="#CC3333">Villain bets $0.32</font>, Hero calls $0.32.

River: ($1.03) 7/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Hero checks, <font color="#CC3333">Villain bets $0.3</font>, Hero calls $0.30.

Final Pot: $1.63

[Pavan]

yes

[Tickner]

its pretty bad. fold preflop and if not definitely the flop. what do you think hes betting 3 streets with that you beat?

[ldjonesbruins]

Ok, my logic PF was that he was attempting a steal, based on my read of him. Like I said, I had him on nothing much better than Ax, hence the call. On the flop, I figured we had the same 1st kicker, and I had the gutshot str8 draw, and after I paired up, I had him figured to try to push me off the pot.

Looking at it again, I should have been more wary of str8 or flush. This is why I'm a n00b.

[Bonesy]

Very bad. Don't misinterpret my tone, just trying to make the point to be clear.

PF: Limping with this hand first in is bad. Everyone plays Ace rag at this level and their kicker will be higher than yours. Raise it (which I don't advise) or fold it (which I do advise)

Flop: Fold flop. You have that lame gutshot draw with ace high. Fold. You have nothing and are priced out. You can make moves later on in your career on a flop like this if you think he has missed overs (which he did), but save it for later. Learn the ABC's first.

Turn: I guess at this point, given your read, the call is ok. If he has the missed overs, you are ahead, but you did suck out at this point. He was ahead the whole time. That is why you can't limp in with weak aces or call raises pf with those hands.

River: Same as turn. The 7 probably didn't help so you may as well call.

Ultimately, you will be giving up a ton of chips playing hands like this. You mentioned that you are a newbie and that is just fine. This is the place to be. Keep posting and reading and you will improve dramatically.

[Genz]

Please. Don't call down with bottom pair. Especially when villain is making PSBs all the time after raising preflop. This is the safest way to go broke. He wants to push you off what hand? You don't have a hand that it would hurt to be pushed off. And a gutshot-draw needs 10:1 odds to draw profitably. Having the same "first kicker" is worth nothing. Every turn card other than a 2 takes your 3 kicker out of the race completely. And you only split if that card is higher than his kicker too. And you don't play for splits anyway. Every PP beats you. Every 6 beats you. You have no real reads apart from some trash talk. Fold on every street.

[Leviathan101]

If think he is stealing preflop, the raise him.
If you think he's stealing the flop. RAISE HIM.
If you don't know, just fold.
Calling a possible bluff through 3 streets is not a winning play. You need to know where you stand as soon as possible.

The way you played the hand was horrendous imo. consider this a chance to improve. You were a bit lucky on this hand, but now you know what not to do.

[Grunch]

[ QUOTE ]
Like I said, I had him on nothing much better than Ax, hence the call.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't beat Ax. You do see this, don't you?

This hand was played badly, but IMO the worst street was the turn. It actually tells me that you vastly overvalue marginal hands, even in terrible spots. This isn't a leak, its a river.

[Pokey]

Let me start off by saying that I agree with the basic sentiment in this thread: hero goofed up this hand and got lucky. OP, don't kid yourself -- you didn't have a "read," you had a "hunch." A read is when you've seen a person play and you recognize behaviors based on their playstyle; a hunch is when you think someone might do something despite having no empirical evidence whatsoever. Reads are POWERFUL reasons to make strange plays at a table -- hence the 2+2 mantra "but I had a REEEEEEEEEEEEAD!" Hunches are a bad player's way of saying "I wanted to gambooool and I needed to justify it to myself so that I wouldn't feel like a loser when I turned out to be wrong." Don't play your hunches -- play your reads.

Now, that having been said: I think a few people in this thread are making some pretty big and pretty fundamental mistakes with their analysis in this hand. I'll use Leviathan101's post arbitrarily, but please don't take this personally -- you just said the same things that other people said/thought in a concise way that makes it easy for me to respond to it. These are commonly-held believes at uNL, and I think they represent some expensive mistakes that need correcting.

[ QUOTE ]

If think he is stealing preflop, the raise him.
If you think he's stealing the flop. RAISE HIM.


[/ QUOTE ]

Don't do this, and don't think this way. If you had AA with position and the flop came AAJ and your opponent bets the pot with 9xPot behind, would you quickly raise? You shouldn't....You know your hand is best, but you also know that a bet will let your opponent escape with the majority of his stack remaining safe. Calling and waiting for a later street (possibly the river) to raise is often a more profitable approach. Now, in this particular hand, our holding is markedly weaker and markedly more vulnerable, but realize that the reason we're betting is not because we think villain is bluffing -- the reason we're betting is because our hand is best-but-vulnerable, and we want to end the hand before our opponent sucks out on us. Note also that this "bet to end the hand" approach is not our best line under a wide variety of circumstances. A very common example: if we just call down, we'll be all-in by showdown, and we're happy to play for our stack. Why alert our opponent to the fact that his hand is no good? Another very common example: villain bets EVERY hand on EVERY street for the same amount whether he's got a hand or not, but villain can fold a garbage hand to a raise. In that case, we get much more EV out of calling down (assuming we're ahead of villain's range) than we would out of raising at any point.

Folding out worse hands is an important part of poker, and one that we should do regularly, but betting into someone "because he's bluffing" is a mistake. If you KNOW your opponent is bluffing, and if your hand beats a bluff, you should never bet.

[ QUOTE ]

If you don't know, just fold.


[/ QUOTE ]

Another common mistake. Uncertainty often means that folding is better than calling (or raising). However, folding BECAUSE we're not sure where we stand is a weak-tight mistake. Unless we're peeking, we'll never know exactly what our opponent has; anybody who tells you otherwise is full of it and self-delusional. Our goal is not to put an opponent on a hand; our goal is to put him on a RANGE of hands based on his play style, his betting pattern this hand, and the board. Then, we make a comparison about how well our hand does against that likely range and respond accordingly. There are many times when I say to myself, "he could have just about anything here," and I call anyways, because my hand beats more than half of "just about anything." This will commonly be the case when you're playing against maniacs -- you'll never know for sure if your hand is good until the showdown, but if you're strong enough to beat his range, you call down and cross your fingers.

[ QUOTE ]

You need to know where you stand as soon as possible.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, "knowing where you stand" is an overrated concept in poker -- doubly so in no-limit. It is rarely wise to spend money just to find out if you are truly ahead or not. Besides, with no reads how would you ever know "where you stand"? The obvious exception, of course, is if you bet a decent hand and villain folds. In that case you pretty much know where you stand: you probably screwed up and lost value against an opponent who would have bet his (worse) hand again if you'd given him the chance to bluff. Knowing where you stand won't happen until he folds or you see a showdown. Betting for information is a common mistake that players make. Instead, try betting for pot-size reasons. For instance: you have 98o in the BB and the flop comes QT7. The hand is heads-up between you and the SB. Villain bets the pot: strongly consider raising. Are you trying to "find out where you stand"? Heck no! You know where you stand -- in a pile of dog crap, but with potential to get out and wipe your feet clean on villain's face. Don't raise for information -- raise for a free river card, raise for deception if you hit on the turn, raise for a semibluff steal.

NOTE: the differences in reasoning may seem irrelevant to you. "Heck, I made the right choice! I knew I was supposed to raise -- what does it matter WHY I raised? My feelings aren't part of the game." It's actually a critically important distinction: if you make the right decision for the wrong reason, it implies you fluked your way into the right decision, and in future similar-but-just-different-enough situations you'll use the same flawed logic to come to the WRONG decision. If you're making the right decision for the RIGHT reason, your thought process will be correct in later, similar-but-just-different-enough situations.

[Genz]

I don't want to hijack this thread. So if this is inapropriate here, we should open a new one.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't do this, and don't think this way. If you had AA with position and the flop came AAJ ... ... and if your hand beats a bluff, you should never bet.


[/ QUOTE ]
Am I correct, that this is Chapter 20 of ToP? You want to stop someone, who rarely bluffs from bluffing and make him bluff even less than he normally would and you want to make someone who is bluffing very often bluff even more. You don't want to crossover that, i.e. make someone who rarely bluffs, bluff you more often or make someone who fires a lot of chips on bluffs stop doing it and play solidly.

[ QUOTE ]

Instead, try betting for pot-size reasons. ... raise for a free river card, raise for deception if you hit on the turn, raise for a semibluff steal.


[/ QUOTE ]
Could you elaborate on what you mean by "pot-size reasons"? I have to admit I find myself endorsing raises to "define your hand" often recently, which is basically nothing else than raising for information (or is it?). So I'd be curious what the correct reasons to raise are, when most people say, you should raise to define your hand. E.g. the typical example when you as the preflop raiser have an overpair IP on the flop and someone bets into you. Many people (including me) would advise to raise here to define where you are with your PP and make the decision on the turn easier. Would the "correct" reason then be that you raise to keep the villain from betting into you on the turn, so that you can get to the sd cheaper? Something like a blockox praecox?

[Pokey]

[ QUOTE ]

Am I correct, that this &lt;not chasing someone off a bluff&gt; is Chapter 20 of ToP? You want to stop someone, who rarely bluffs from bluffing and make him bluff even less than he normally would and you want to make someone who is bluffing very often bluff even more. You don't want to crossover that, i.e. make someone who rarely bluffs, bluff you more often or make someone who fires a lot of chips on bluffs stop doing it and play solidly.


[/ QUOTE ]

What you say is true, but it's not my main motivation here. Rather, what I'm trying to say is that your play should attempt to maximally EXPLOIT your opponent's mistakes. If you have an opponent who has a huge leak coming from bluffing too frequently, you should be trying to take as much advantage of that leak as you can. How do you exploit someone who bluffs too often? Well, you encourage them to continue doing so (as you mentioned, and as Chap. 20 of ToP mentions), but you should also try to get him to bluff as large a fraction of his stack as possible. That means that you should not alert him to the fact that his bluff has/will fail; rather, you should let him continue to bet hopelessly so that his bets build to the largest possible level. With position against this sort of opponent, I will check/call to the river with a flopped hand that I like, only putting in a raise on the river if I think it's appropriate. Why chase him off? It's -EV to do so.

[ QUOTE ]

Could you elaborate on what you mean by &lt;betting for&gt; "pot-size reasons"?


[/ QUOTE ]

How big would you like the pot to be with your hand? Once you see the flop, you should be able to come up with an answer to that question. If you flopped a set, the answer will be "as big as freakin' possible." If you flopped TP2K the answer will be "as small as I can keep it." If you flopped a nut draw the answer will be "just large enough that I can play for stacks if I hit my draw." That sort of thing. Once you've decided how big you want the pot to be, you can then go about trying to engineer a pot of that particular size. Your bets should always be with the intention of manipulating the pot in a way that serves your best interests.

[ QUOTE ]

I have to admit I find myself endorsing raises to "define your hand" often recently, which is basically nothing else than raising for information (or is it?). So I'd be curious what the correct reasons to raise are, when most people say, you should raise to define your hand. E.g. the typical example when you as the preflop raiser have an overpair IP on the flop and someone bets into you. Many people (including me) would advise to raise here to define where you are with your PP and make the decision on the turn easier. Would the "correct" reason then be that you raise to keep the villain from betting into you on the turn, so that you can get to the sd cheaper? Something like a blockox praecox?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea what a blockox praecox is, sorry. However, if you have an overpair to the board, you raised preflop, and someone donks into you on the flop, I do NOT automatically raise. This will depend on several factors:

1. How strong is my overpair? The bigger the overpair, the more I'll tend to smooth-call. Smaller overpairs need protection against overcards falling. For example: with 88 on a 6-high board, you're worried about 24 possible scare cards on the turn (and river, potentially). You'll want to raise to deny draws profitable pot odds, to reduce or eliminate their implied odds, and to end the hand before you have to deal with a nasty decision on a scare card on the turn or river. With AA on a Q-high board, you're not nearly as afraid, since no overcards can come. You're happy to let your opponent continue bluffing or "value" betting with the second-best hand, rather than alerting them to the fact that they are beaten.

2. How dry is the board? The more draw-heavy the board, the more likely I am to raise, potentially big. If I've got QQ I'm much more likely to call and wait for the river to bet if the board is J/images/graemlins/spade.gif 7/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 2/images/graemlins/club.gif than if the board is J/images/graemlins/spade.gif 9/images/graemlins/spade.gif 8/images/graemlins/diamond.gif. Again, it's a matter of the odds that a scare card (combined with opponent's aggressive play) pushes me off a hand. As a corrolary, an opponent will find more reason to call (and therefore will pay off bigger with lighter holdings) on the second board than on the first one. That makes me more willing to accept a bigger pot size in the second scenario than the first, though I'm still hesitant with a hand as weak as QQ.

3. Who is my opponent? I raise most frequently when my opponent has a middling post-flop aggression. If I've got a mediocre hand and a player with an aggression factor of 8 bets at me, I'll call, intending to call down with a hand that's way ahead of his range. If I've got a mediocre hand and a player with an aggression factor of 0.3 bets at me, I'll usually fold, since villain isn't betting with anything mediocre and I'm probably up against something nasty. If villain has a moderate aggression factor -- say, between 1.2 and 2.5 -- I'll be more likely to raise, knowing that it will slow him down but not necessarily fold him out. This lets me regain control of the hand without automatically pushing him off an inferior hand, and it also lets me know if I'm beaten, since this type of villain will frequently three-bet if I'm in trouble.

4. What is my table image? People play back at us according to how they think we play. If I have been raising wildly preflop because I've had a good run of cards, I will be more likely to reraise in this situation, knowing that my opponent will call down quite lightly (since he'll assume I'm FOS). If I've had an absolute dry run, folding everything in sight, I'll be more likely to smooth call and reevaluate, since most opponents won't fire a second barrel at a calling nit without the goods. If I've been pushed off second-best hands frequently, or made some heroic folds, or lost to suckouts, or somehow if people think I'm frustrated or tilting or angry or fed-up, I'll be more likely to raise (probably BIG) and hope they decide I've got nothing. This can also serve to "repair my image" if I think people are playing back at me in ways I'd rather they didn't do.

In short (it's always funny when I say that), there are MANY reasons for betting and raising, and MANY reasons for checking and calling. While "to gain information" is potentially one of them, it's one that people put FAR too much importance on, and usually it is only a pleasant side-benefit of a good bet or raise, rather than the primary reason for making the play. Focus on the primary reasons.

[ldjonesbruins]

Thanks to all respondents. I obviously have a lot to learn.

I also have to remember that I should play the HAND, not my feelings.

On the bright side, I tilted Villain badly enough that I was able to get him to call down on other hands when I really did have the nuts.

Again, thanks to all, especially Pokey.

[Genz]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no idea what a blockox praecox is

[/ QUOTE ]

A joke (a premature blocking bet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejaculatio_praecox)). /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Thanks for the great reply. Great advice, as usual. /images/graemlins/smile.gif