To Induce, or Not to Induce

[James.]

[ QUOTE ]
i'm not sure what i do on hand n°2, but i would be interested to know what do you think he flat-calls the flop with, and therefore given his hand what are the advantages of checking the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think we see a hand like QJ, JT, QT, some flush draw or a PP most of the time. HU the flushdraw is less of a concern, but if it is against me it's only putting one bet in on the turn and river UI, anyway. the other hands have 2-4 outs.

edit to say of course i am behind to an ace or some other hand that beats me at times as well. above i was just referring to the hands i would be attempting to induce a bet from.

[JJNJustin]

Both of these hands represent situations I try specifically to avoid playing low limit poker against poor opponents. The reason is they can be very frustrating, can be costly, high variance, rake feedings, and involve a high degree of aggression with marginal holdings. I feel that in higher limit games these types of plays have much more value, overcome the rake, and provide some sort of advertising, however to poor low limit players it just provides frustration and general feelings of duress. They make tons of more errors in multiway pots, why play them heads up and make their calling station tendancies and terrible bluffs more or less correct?

Anyways. That is just my opinion. Hand 1 I fold pre-flop because this hand sucks ass and you are oop. I dont care suited connected you are heads up and not getting enough odds.

Hand 2 I let the blinds chop because K7s is another multiway hand that doesnt have a strong enough edge and may be behind against hands they will defend against in the blind.

I cant comment on your post flop play because I try to avoid situations like these, and have limited experience.

-J

[James.]

[ QUOTE ]
Both of these hands represent situations I try specifically to avoid playing low limit poker against poor opponents. The reason is they can be very frustrating, can be costly, high variance, rake feedings, and involve a high degree of aggression with marginal holdings. I feel that in higher limit games these types of plays have much more value, overcome the rake, and provide some sort of advertising,

[/ QUOTE ]

so never move up in limits.

[ QUOTE ]
however to poor low limit players it just provides frustration and general feelings of duress. They make tons of more errors in multiway pots, why play them heads up and make their calling station tendancies and terrible bluffs more or less correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

actually in multiway pots that are more sizeable than the SH/HU type, their calling-station tendencies are more correct because they are often getting sufficient odds to draw if behind, as well as pay off with a weaker hand that might beat a bluff with enough frequency to show profit. in a HU pot they are hopelessly drawing or chasing when the best move is to just let it go given the horrible odds. the pot's smaller size has more of an effect of magnifying their errors to a greater degree. this is especially true when you get into evaluating effective odds for their hand in the HU situations vs. the overlay they get in a multiway hand.

[elindauer]

Hmmm... I think you played both of these hands pretty poorly.

First, hand 1. Don't fall for that lame flop 3-bet... most players with big hands tend to just call the flop c/r, intending to raise the turn. That flop 3-bet is almost always a free card play with a hand that wants to showdown cheap. In that spot, I cap and lead, or call and donk, but call and check is right out.

Having called and checked, and having had him essentially turn his hand face up as a hand that very likely wants doesn't believe you but wants to showdown cheap, you MUST bet the river. This gets checked behind way too often by a hand that would call a bet (any A, middle pocket pair, etc).

ok, hand 2. First, if you're going to induce bluffs, why not start right on the flop? There's no point in waiting until he tells you he has a hand to start inducing bluffs. Second, once he calls the flop, there aren't really any bluffs to induce any more. I mean, what do you think he called the flop with? Maybe QT or JT, but then, he's not bluffing the river with those, is he? Maybe a 6, but again, no river bluff is coming. If he bets the river, you're probably toast, but will likely pay off anyways.

In light of that, given the way you played the flop, your best plan here is to bet the turn planning to take a free showdown. Charge hands that are behind, while limiting your losses to 1 BB. Sure, you give him a chance to outplay you this way, but this is the best way to spend the 1 BB you have left in this hand. Fold if you are required to put in any more money.

good luck.
Eric

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
hand 2

i raise K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]7 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] on the button, sb folds, bb(21/8/2.6)calls.

Flop(4.5sb): A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]6 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] K [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

he checks, i bet, he calls.

Turn(3.25bb): 2 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

he checks, i check?

[/ QUOTE ]

i royally screwed up the board as i was posting from memory. this is the actual board. i don't know why i thought it was a ten on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

ah, that does change things... now there are a number of drawing hands that can still bluff the river (ie, QT, QJ, JT as well as all diamonds are all still in play for river bluffs).

In this case, your turn check has a lot more merit. For me, it would be opponent dependent... against passive players, I bet. Against aggressive players, I check, or sometimes, bet / call down. Knowing your opponent is key to hand 2. Hand 1 is still a significant misplay IMo.

-eric

[TommyO]

Can we please have Tomlin back? We'll give you Childress and a first round pick.

[James.]

[ QUOTE ]
Can we please have Tomlin back? We'll give you Childress and a first round pick.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm glad to hear the support he is receiving. apparently he has drawn respect from most people associated with him. maybe he can follow in his predecessors' footsteps.

[James.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
hand 2

i raise K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]7 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] on the button, sb folds, bb(21/8/2.6)calls.

Flop(4.5sb): A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]6 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] K [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

he checks, i bet, he calls.

Turn(3.25bb): 2 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

he checks, i check?

[/ QUOTE ]

i royally screwed up the board as i was posting from memory. this is the actual board. i don't know why i thought it was a ten on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

ah, that does change things... now there are a number of drawing hands that can still bluff the river (ie, QT, QJ, JT as well as all diamonds are all still in play for river bluffs).

In this case, your turn check has a lot more merit. For me, it would be opponent dependent... against passive players, I bet. Against aggressive players, I check, or sometimes, bet / call down. Knowing your opponent is key to hand 2. Hand 1 is still a significant misplay IMo.

-eric

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks, elindauer. yeah, i often call the flop and donk the turn in hand 1 but this opponent was very, very aggressive, but also capable of folding a ton of hands i beat when i play back. the river check to him is going to solicit a bet out of any hand that would have called on the river and more, IMO. you see it differently and i really respect you so i'm going to think about it some more.

[elindauer]

Hi james,

To go with your read in hand 1, I'd need a read that the opponent was really aggressive. Not just standard, TAG aggressive, but kind of a semi-maniac at least. I've just seen SOOOO any players 3-bet the flop, check the turn, and then call the river with hands like AJ, AT, sometimes Ax, mid pocket pairs... and all of these are likely to check behind, as they are putting you on missed spades or a missed straight draw and see no value to betting.

I know they check behind because every once in a while i get tricky with a big hand and end up regretting it.

good luck.
eric

PS note that I tend to play reasonably decent and aggressive players, which of course taints everything I write.

[James.]

[ QUOTE ]
PS note that I tend to play reasonably decent and aggressive players, which of course taints everything I write.

[/ QUOTE ]

duly noted. what i have found since i started playing a bit more LHE online(i started a hiatus of serious online play back in July)is that the tighter players on the site i play are hyperaggro. they spew chips in all the wrong spots, as well as get uncharacteristically passive in wrong spots. hopeless semibluffs or pure bluffs that would never work with the frequency needed to make them viable plays.

case in point the AA hand i posted. i was raised on the turn there by A [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]9 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]. he had picked up a flushdraw with his gutty, and even when it was pretty obvious that both of us were never folding on that turn, he raised it. at that point my image would not be one that had bet/folded much, but i had been playing tight.

as a result i have become a showdown monkey in these certain small and medium stakes games. why? because the players are tight and aggressive, but they suck. they bluff/semibluff raise way too much, so in lots of HU spots i'm showing down most anything reasonable. the biggest difference i've noticed in the lower stakes vs. the medium or higher stakes TAGs, is the ability(or lack thereof)to hand read and put pressure on in the right spots. all of this said, my point is i think these lower stakes TAGs have the grrr bet, bet, try to be aggressive-mentality that is exploitable in various ways. since i read this as such, i thought i could get a bet out of him that i otherwise would not have. the flip side of the coin, is that often players that have this mentality are very paranoid of getting bluffed themselves, so they(as you alluded to)will call very light(Ax, pp, etc.)on that river.