Re: Blinds, damn blinds...
 

I have seen so many retarded river beat bluff bets in 1/2 Full Tilt 6 max lately, I can't imagine they aren't happening in full ring. As played I think you are beat. He probably has the 5 of hearts just in case the flush didn't beat you the straight does.



shuinthehouse I think you have it backwards here you open your range against a guy like this not tighten.

Re: Blinds, damn blinds...
 

smurph i don't get it. Against tighty mc-tight who will fold anything but premium hands I can profitably raise ATC since he's folding 90+% of the time. Against loosey-mcloose who will call with any 2 I only want to raise with top 50% hands as I am on average behind with the rest. (Ignoring ability to outplay after flop, which is offset by my being OOP)

Re: Blinds, damn blinds...
 

I really like the way this hand was played.

Preflop looks good.
Against Tighty McTight, you need to raise K7o first in as a blind steal, since he’ll likely fold. But against Loosy McLoose, this is actually a raise for value, since he’s calling anyway and we’re ahead of his range so much it hurts…
This guy seems pretty aggro, and he may be well aware that we are trying to steal his blinds, and is likely just re-stealing. There’s no indication that he has a premium hand.

I like the flop check-raise. He’s likely not re-raising THAT lightly, so we can reasonably assume he missed the flop. We have middle pair, which HU is a monster. He was the preflop 3-bettor and he’s pretty aggro, so he’s betting out. We have hit the board, so c/r is a-ok!

After our check-raise on the flop, we need to lead any turn card. Him raising us there is representing either a straight or a flush, or another made hand screwplaying with us after the flop.
There’s still a good chance we’re ahead, but now we must assume he could very well have us beat.

Thus I’m calling his turn raise, and calling the river bet, and then I’d make a note on villain’s HU-play.

nh, sir!

Re: Blinds, damn blinds...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not folding 2nd pair in a blind steal situation when there is no broadway on the board.

[/ QUOTE ]

Give a few hand ranges at the two critical moments:

1) Villain's 3-bet preflop
2) Villain's turn raise after smooth calling the flop

Try giving 3 hand ranges:

* Villain is defending "lightly"
* Villain is an "average" defender
* Villain is a "tight" 3-bettor

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a blind steal situation against basically an unknown. If we had a read on what he had defended with and how he had defended my answer would be different, but there have been too many times when I see naked aces played like this for me to fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why I think it's good to give villain a range of hands based on different types of playing styles. It gives you a better sense of what the value of your hand is in this spot.

Calling down because "I see naked aces" isn't very solid reasoning. Basically, your line has turned into "I has a pair, I show down regardless of action."

Re: Blinds, damn blinds...
 

If I fold, I don't think I'm doing it on the river. At that point there has to be at least a 10:1 chance that the villain is betting A4, Ax or a whiffed flush. On the turn, your combination of outs plus possibility of being ahead is at least worth 8:1. So I think I call the river and expect to lose.

Re: Blinds, damn blinds...
 

i c/c the flop and might continue on other streets

Re: Blinds, damn blinds...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not folding 2nd pair in a blind steal situation when there is no broadway on the board.

[/ QUOTE ]

Give a few hand ranges at the two critical moments:

1) Villain's 3-bet preflop
2) Villain's turn raise after smooth calling the flop

Try giving 3 hand ranges:

* Villain is defending "lightly"
* Villain is an "average" defender
* Villain is a "tight" 3-bettor

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a blind steal situation against basically an unknown. If we had a read on what he had defended with and how he had defended my answer would be different, but there have been too many times when I see naked aces played like this for me to fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why I think it's good to give villain a range of hands based on different types of playing styles. It gives you a better sense of what the value of your hand is in this spot.

Calling down because "I see naked aces" isn't very solid reasoning. Basically, your line has turned into "I has a pair, I show down regardless of action."

[/ QUOTE ]

It is exactly like that except I don't sound like a Neanderthal when I say it... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

My point is that blind steals are a separate situation from regular play. Since we don't have notes on whether this guy realizes that or not, or what he plays in this situation, folding a legitimate hand for one bet isn't a play I'm going to make. Reads from non-steal situations often won't carry over to steal situations. I don't remember how many hands we have on this guy, but I didn't think it was all that many.

Re: Blinds, damn blinds...
 

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that blind steals are a separate situation from regular play. Since we don't have notes on whether this guy realizes that or not, or what he plays in this situation, folding a legitimate hand for one bet isn't a play I'm going to make. Reads from non-steal situations often won't carry over to steal situations. I don't remember how many hands we have on this guy, but I didn't think it was all that many.

[/ QUOTE ]

My counter-point is that blind steal situations don't lead to the neglect of hand reading and thinking about your hand strength. Many players made (continue to make?) this sort of mistake moving from full ring to 6-max. All of a sudden, any pair was the nuts and A-high was a good enough hand to showdown in every situation. But it's simply not the case. A blind steal in a full ring (well, 8 handed) game is not the same as a blind steal in 6-max, and is not like playing a heads up match. To call down here is to gamble that a player with 41/13/1.6 stats will turn into a super-aggro-monkey in a blind steal situation AND that the super-aggro-monkey didn't have a hand this time.

Re: Blinds, damn blinds...
 

K7o is a definite stealing range hand from the sb against most opponents but against a loose semi passive player? It's a lock.

Its a loser this time because his crap outhit your crap but I would raise this everytime against this guy.

I don't like the way the hand was played at all after the flop but preflop I have no problem with it.

Re: Blinds, damn blinds...
 

[ QUOTE ]
K7o is a definite stealing range hand from the sb against most opponents but against a loose semi passive player? It's a lock.

[/ QUOTE ]

This guy is NOT passive, he is 41/13/1.6, his AF is high relative to the number of hands he plays. There is a great thread on analyzing AF, which suggests multiplying VPIP * AF and comparing that to a base, likely your own, to judge relative aggression. Most people consider e.g. 20/10/3.0 to be aggressive, and 20*3=60, villain here is 41*1.6 = 65.6.