Blinds, damn blinds...
 

Villain is 41/13/1.6 AF after 100 hands.

Full Tilt 1/2 Hold'em (8 handed) Full Tilt Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: 2+2 Forums)

Preflop: Hero is SB with K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img].
<font color="#666666">6 folds</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="#CC3333">BB 3-bets</font>, Hero calls.

Flop: (7.50 SB) 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 9[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Hero checks, <font color="#CC3333">BB bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, BB calls.

Turn: (5.75 BB) 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">BB raises</font>, Hero calls.

River: (9.75 BB) 6[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Hero checks, <font color="#CC3333">BB bets</font>, Hero...

Re: Blinds, damn blinds...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Villain is 41/13/1.6 AF after 100 hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't look absurdly aggressive. You played your hand in a way that leads you to folding the river. If you wanted to showdown your hand, you can play for showdown by checking and calling the whole way.

You only beat A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] x that played for a turn semibluff and is now on the desperation river bet.

Re: Blinds, damn blinds...
 

I like the way you played this hand. On the river I think you need to call. You are winning only rarely but I think you may run into a flush draw that semibluffed the turn or a one pair gutshot hand that missed often enough to make it profitable. You need to be good 10% of the time and I think you will be.

Re: Blinds, damn blinds...
 

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

Re: Blinds, damn blinds...
 

Eh, I don't think you can call the river. About the only thing you beat is an outright bluff, which isn't likely.

Re: Blinds, damn blinds...
 

And what do you guys think about my line ? Would you play it differently ? how ? Aaron already mentioned the check call line as somehting to consider about.

Re: Blinds, damn blinds...
 

[ 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

Re: Blinds, damn blinds...
 

[ 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.

Re: Blinds, damn blinds...
 

41/13/1.3 is aggressive enough for to call down in this spot (even after 100 hands)

against this guy (assume aggro) I likely c.c the turn (with that card) ... and maybe donk the river (or c.c or c.f card depending)

this spot is hard and comes up all the time ... I think you should mix up your play

Re: Blinds, damn blinds...
 

Am I the only one who does not like PF? I will raise K7o 1st in SB against a typical 1-2 villain, and worse against a tight villain, but against a villain who is 40% overall, there is virtually no chance he is folding, so I'm almost definitely playing a crappy hand OOP.

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.

Re: Blinds, damn blinds...
 

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Link? I'm not sure if I buy that VPIP * AF is a reasonable measure of aggression.

Re: Blinds, damn blinds...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Link? I'm not sure if I buy that VPIP * AF is a reasonable measure of aggression.

[/ QUOTE ]

too busy to do it the first time, but I've learned so much from your posts I had to research it for you [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. You will note there are some heavy hitters weighing in on this, which is why I put so much faith in it.

http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/...te_id/1#import

Also note I discovered it in this 'legendary posts' thread, which is a fantastic source
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...e=0&amp;fpart=1

Re: Blinds, damn blinds...
 

I remember that thread...I think it was Kwaz (I know, I could just click the link and look it up, but I like to test my recall) that put forth this idea. The problem I've always had with it is that the PT aggression factor is so strongly influenced by other factors that using it is excessively prone to exponential error.

Take, for instance, Player Tightie-Whitey: you've watched him play 100 hands...he's folded all but 18 of them preflop, including in the blinds, so his VPIP is around 14. Out of those 18 hands he's check/folded 14 on the flop, bet or raised 3 and folded the table, and called one after which he rasied the turn and his only opponent folded. His PAF is 4, meaning his aggression quotient or whatever you want to call it is 72! Is he aggressive, playing weak-tight at a weak-tight table, or playing at a LAGgy table that doesn't like tight players that won't go along with them so they aren't giving him any action?

Re: Blinds, damn blinds...
 

Good points Boz, it is well documented AF takes a while to converge and should not be relied on without sufficient hands. But in the instant case that means we should be saying villain appears aggressive FWIW after 100 hands, not be saying he appears passive FWIW after 100 hands.

Re: Blinds, damn blinds...
 

I think I said semi passive as in SLPA. I would raise preflop

Check/call the flop and check/raise the turn against this type of opponent.

Anyone who limps 3 times more than they raise is playing too many hands. His aggro is defined by the hit factor more than anything.

If I don't see betting patterns this is exactly the kind of player that stats are poor in using as reads.

Check/raise of the turn as a semi-bluff can win the hand but either way removes all doubt as to what he has.

If he calls I essentially get a free card look at the river because I can't call a bet unless a heart comes.

The way its played I have to fold but I don't know if I am beat and it cost me 1/2 bb more.