maybe too opponent specific to get a constructive thread
 

Warning - this hand might not be too interesting.

HU 25-50. Opponent has about 12K and I cover. Very aggressive - especially preflop, but good.

I raise on the button with 33. Opponent re-raises from small blind. He has been reraising a fair amount - probably all pairs, all aces, any two broadway cards, occasionally suited connectors, and the occasional junk reraise. Flop 9-8-4, two diamonds. He bets pot. I call. Turn is an offsuit deuce. He checks, I check. River is an offsuit 8. He bets pot. ... I???

Re: maybe too opponent specific to get a constructive thread
 

looks like an obvious call to me.

Re: maybe too opponent specific to get a constructive thread
 

You should call sometimes and fold sometimes.

Re: maybe too opponent specific to get a constructive thread
 

fold. yay for constructive advice

Re: maybe too opponent specific to get a constructive thread
 

looks like an obvious fold to me.

Re: maybe too opponent specific to get a constructive thread
 

I would call

Re: maybe too opponent specific to get a constructive thread
 

Depends on the flow of the match. If you have not looked him up in these type of spots before, u need to do it now(i.e. low boards where a call is expected but opponent still tries to bluff).

By river your hand is clearly and underpair, 8, or 9(draw is probably raising flop if opponent is aggressive as u say). He should realize that and unless you are real passive(which you arent), he should expect to get looked up. So it's just a question of does he bluff on dry boards when a call is expected?

Re: maybe too opponent specific to get a constructive thread
 

by the way, who bets the turn and what are the reasons for not betting it?

Re: maybe too opponent specific to get a constructive thread
 

fold/call depending on what level both of you are on. your hand is clearly defined, and if he's decent, he knows you checked for pot control/to induce.

Results
 

I posted this hand, because I feel a reasonable argument can be made for all three of the possibilities - calling, folding, or raising (as a bluff of course). I chose to call, but in retrospect, I think folding and raising might be better options. The result was kind of interesting: he had the other two threes.

Re: maybe too opponent specific to get a constructive thread
 

sam,

first thing i thought was raise.

second, call.

third, fold.

it's all terribly flow dependent though. i saw your results. doesn't change my answer.

matt

Re: Results
 

[ QUOTE ]
I posted this hand, because I feel a reasonable argument can be made for all three of the possibilities - calling, folding, or raising (as a bluff of course). I chose to call, but in retrospect, I think folding and raising might be better options. The result was kind of interesting: he had the other two threes.

[/ QUOTE ]
hmm intresting. sick value bet.

Re: Results
 

i agree w matt i think

Re: Results
 

so we're repping an 8 with a raise?

Re: Results
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I posted this hand, because I feel a reasonable argument can be made for all three of the possibilities - calling, folding, or raising (as a bluff of course). I chose to call, but in retrospect, I think folding and raising might be better options. The result was kind of interesting: he had the other two threes.

[/ QUOTE ]
hmm intresting. sick value bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but it's obviously a bluff to get out some other mid-pairs. I don't think he feels like you'd look him up here with AK high - would you?

Re: maybe too opponent specific to get a constructive thread
 

i'd prefer to raise here.

Re: Results
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I posted this hand, because I feel a reasonable argument can be made for all three of the possibilities - calling, folding, or raising (as a bluff of course). I chose to call, but in retrospect, I think folding and raising might be better options. The result was kind of interesting: he had the other two threes.

[/ QUOTE ]
hmm intresting. sick value bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but it's obviously a bluff to get out some other mid-pairs. I don't think he feels like you'd look him up here with AK high - would you?

[/ QUOTE ]

if 33 is a call, so is AK. they're obviously not identical here since 33 is counting on AK being shown a good amount, but they're pretty damn close.

Re: Results
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I posted this hand, because I feel a reasonable argument can be made for all three of the possibilities - calling, folding, or raising (as a bluff of course). I chose to call, but in retrospect, I think folding and raising might be better options. The result was kind of interesting: he had the other two threes.

[/ QUOTE ]
hmm intresting. sick value bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

More like bad bluff.

Re: Results
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I posted this hand, because I feel a reasonable argument can be made for all three of the possibilities - calling, folding, or raising (as a bluff of course). I chose to call, but in retrospect, I think folding and raising might be better options. The result was kind of interesting: he had the other two threes.

[/ QUOTE ]
hmm intresting. sick value bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but it's obviously a bluff to get out some other mid-pairs. I don't think he feels like you'd look him up here with AK high - would you?

[/ QUOTE ]

if 33 is a call, so is AK. they're obviously not identical here since 33 is counting on AK being shown a good amount, but they're pretty damn close.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even though AK may be a better hand than 33 to float with, paradoxically it's way more likely in my experience that players will float with small pairs rather than overcards. A lot of players seem to give up with AK because of the possible reverse implied odds of continuing past the flop.

Re: maybe too opponent specific to get a constructive thread
 

Sam,

Against opponent described raise less pf and see flops with position and a stack behind.

And yeah, if opponent is good i like a fold more than a call in the hand.

but its close and as you said arguments for calling, folding and raising could be made althoguh i dislike raising.

Re: maybe too opponent specific to get a constructive thread
 

fwiw, I bet the turn which lets the river decision be easier. In a bubble, I think it is a fold here. Although I agree that in a HU match a lot about this decision has to do with the flow of the play, which is hard to comment on just based on this post.

Re: maybe too opponent specific to get a constructive thread
 

I call. 2:1 on your money plus information.

Raising is possible so long as you wont get 3 bet bluffed.

Folding i dont like - too weak.

Re: maybe too opponent specific to get a constructive thread
 

for anyone who can just say they call, they are wrong. this is 100% opponent and moreso match specific.

a raise is a good play every once in awhile, but unless you have a pretty standard image (which my guess is you dont) you wont get him to fold reasonable hands and if you are raising then you are telling yourself you think he has a reasonable hand (because if he didnt you would just call).

i cant tell you any more about this situation without having seen the whole match.

tc

Re: maybe too opponent specific to get a constructive thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
for anyone who can just say they call, they are wrong. this is 100% opponent and moreso match specific.

a raise is a good play every once in awhile, but unless you have a pretty standard image (which my guess is you dont) you wont get him to fold reasonable hands and if you are raising then you are telling yourself you think he has a reasonable hand (because if he didnt you would just call).

i cant tell you any more about this situation without having seen the whole match.

tc

[/ QUOTE ]

yah what he said.....

Re: maybe too opponent specific to get a constructive thread
 

i'd fold.

this sounds like an ideal opponent to me.......
Opponent re-raises from small blind. He has been reraising a fair amount - probably all pairs, all aces, any two broadway cards, occasionally suited connectors, and the occasional junk reraise.

Re: maybe too opponent specific to get a constructive thread
 

Could someone explain to the bad players why his hand is face up. And in observable logic. Thanks

Re: maybe too opponent specific to get a constructive thread
 

Public stance is I would never fold(isnt image everything)
True stance is that I completely agree with Taylor

Re: maybe too opponent specific to get a constructive thread
 

the reason you made the turn check should make the river play easy once a blank comes. the way hes played the 3's makes the turn check dubious. i cant imagine this is the 1st time hes gone rr/bet/check w/ weak holdngs. if you honestly beleive he wasnt giving up here w/ holdings as weak as 33 then check robo call the river is best play.

Re: maybe too opponent specific to get a constructive thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
You should call sometimes and fold sometimes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you please elaborate ? I think its the other way around.

Re: Results
 

I don't know that it was a value bet - I think he was bluffing.

Re: Results
 

excellent point FF. I thought that I would see AK/AQ frequently enough to call. Moreover, because of the various missed draws on board, I didn't think raising would be good (since he could put me on a missed draw and call kind of light).

Re: maybe too opponent specific to get a constructive thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
fwiw, I bet the turn which lets the river decision be easier. In a bubble, I think it is a fold here. Although I agree that in a HU match a lot about this decision has to do with the flow of the play, which is hard to comment on just based on this post.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't like betting the turn, because there are way too many hands - some of which I beat that can check-raise the turn in an aggressive hu match.

Re: maybe too opponent specific to get a constructive thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
for anyone who can just say they call, they are wrong. this is 100% opponent and moreso match specific.

a raise is a good play every once in awhile, but unless you have a pretty standard image (which my guess is you dont) you wont get him to fold reasonable hands and if you are raising then you are telling yourself you think he has a reasonable hand (because if he didnt you would just call).

i cant tell you any more about this situation without having seen the whole match.

tc

[/ QUOTE ]

Very good points Taylor. That is why I hesitated even to post the hand. Not a lot of constructive discussion can be had over this hand since the play is so dependent on the flow. I guess I just thought it was interesting that we had the same hand in this weird spot.

Re: maybe too opponent specific to get a constructive thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
i'd fold.

this sounds like an ideal opponent to me.......
Opponent re-raises from small blind. He has been reraising a fair amount - probably all pairs, all aces, any two broadway cards, occasionally suited connectors, and the occasional junk reraise.

[/ QUOTE ]

why is this the ideal opponent?? I thought he was quite good actually.

Re: maybe too opponent specific to get a constructive thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
Could someone explain to the bad players why his hand is face up. And in observable logic. Thanks

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't tell if this is serious. His hand is far from face up - pretty tough to decipher really.

Re: maybe too opponent specific to get a constructive thread
 

it just reminded me a hand , but It is at 5/10 ( sorry if it is the wrong forum, but I thought this would fit well after your hand).
no particular reads on opponent yet.


Full Tilt Poker Game #1141195587: Table Snow Flat (6 max) - $5/$10 - No Limit Hold'em - 0:28:45 ET - 2006/10/24
Seat 1: villain ($777)
Seat 2: Wyteazn ($2,137.50)
Seat 3: Piston_Honda_25 ($1,050)
Seat 4: hero ($3,386.50)
Seat 6: nomed ($2,327)
nomed posts the small blind of $5
villain posts the big blind of $10
The button is in seat #4
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [Jd Jc]
Wyteazn folds
Piston_Honda_25 folds
hero raises to $35
nomed folds
villain calls $25
*** FLOP *** [9d 5s Td]
villain checks
hero bets $56
villain raises to $112
hero calls $56
*** TURN *** [9d 5s Td] [2h]
villain bets $155
hero calls $155
*** RIVER *** [9d 5s Td 2h] [4s]
villain checks
hero ???

I will post results later.

Re: maybe too opponent specific to get a constructive thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
it just reminded me a hand , but It is at 5/10 ( sorry if it is the wrong forum, but I thought this would fit well after your hand).
no particular reads on opponent yet.


Full Tilt Poker Game #1141195587: Table Snow Flat (6 max) - $5/$10 - No Limit Hold'em - 0:28:45 ET - 2006/10/24
Seat 1: villain ($777)
Seat 2: Wyteazn ($2,137.50)
Seat 3: Piston_Honda_25 ($1,050)
Seat 4: hero ($3,386.50)
Seat 6: nomed ($2,327)
nomed posts the small blind of $5
villain posts the big blind of $10
The button is in seat #4
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [Jd Jc]
Wyteazn folds
Piston_Honda_25 folds
hero raises to $35
nomed folds
villain calls $25
*** FLOP *** [9d 5s Td]
villain checks
hero bets $56
villain raises to $112
hero calls $56
*** TURN *** [9d 5s Td] [2h]
villain bets $155
hero calls $155
*** RIVER *** [9d 5s Td 2h] [4s]
villain checks
hero ???

I will post results later.

[/ QUOTE ]

raise da turn.

Re: maybe too opponent specific to get a constructive thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i'd fold.

this sounds like an ideal opponent to me.......
Opponent re-raises from small blind. He has been reraising a fair amount - probably all pairs, all aces, any two broadway cards, occasionally suited connectors, and the occasional junk reraise.

[/ QUOTE ]

why is this the ideal opponent?? I thought he was quite good actually.

[/ QUOTE ]

yea this def wouldnt be the ideal opponent imo.. holla

Re: maybe too opponent specific to get a constructive thread
 

the guy had JJ