Two Plus Two Newer Archives - NL25: QQ and ATs vs. a big LAG

Two Plus Two Newer Archives (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/index.php)

- Micro Stakes (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/forumdisplay.php?f=71)

- - NL25: QQ and ATs vs. a big LAG (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/showthread.php?t=387443)

NL25: QQ and ATs vs. a big LAG

Villain in these hands was new to the table but racked up stats of 73/32/8 after 22 hands. He wasn't making huge overbets or anything, but, as his stats indicate, he was betting and raising a lot. And while I really enjoy playing against guys like that in limit (so long as the table isn't full of them), they still make me uncomfortable at a NL table.

In the first hand, I thought I was probably ahead on the flop (although who really knows), but I decided to immediately go for pot control (and bluff induction) because of that king. In the second hand, when I bet the flop, I was considering a bet/3-bet-all-in play, but I hadn't really decided yet, and then Villain didn't raise anyway and I felt lost.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.25 BB (5 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: 2+2 Forums)

Hero ($19.05)
MP ($9.40)
Button ($36.40)
SB ($19.40)
BB ($24.65)

Preflop: Hero is UTG with Q[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], Q[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img].
Hero raises to $1, 2 folds, SB calls $0.90, 1 fold.

Flop: ($2.25) 7[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 4[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (2 players)
SB checks, Hero checks.

Turn: ($2.25) 4[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (2 players)
SB bets $1.5, Hero calls $1.50.

River: ($5.25) A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (2 players)
SB bets $2.25, Hero calls $2.25.

Final Pot: $9.75

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.25 BB (5 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: 2+2 Forums)

Hero ($25)
BB ($9.75)
UTG ($36.40)
MP ($23.95)
Button ($24.30)

Preflop: Hero is SB with A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img].
1 fold, MP calls $0.25, 1 fold, Hero raises to $1.25, 1 fold, MP calls $1.

Flop: ($2.75) 2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 8[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (2 players)
Hero bets $2.5, MP calls $2.50.

Turn: ($7.75) Q[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (2 players)
Hero checks, MP bets $3.5, Hero calls $3.50.

River: ($14.75) A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (2 players)
Hero checks, MP bets $6.5, Hero calls $6.50.

Final Pot: $27.75

Thoughts? Suggestions?

Re: NL25: QQ and ATs vs. a big LAG

1st hand, I c-bet this flop. If I was going to try to induce a bluff, I'd rather do it by checking behind on the turn. 2nd hand looks pretty standard to me.

Re: NL25: QQ and ATs vs. a big LAG

[ QUOTE ]
2nd hand looks pretty standard to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

It could be. What's the standard play if the 3c falls on the river instead of an ace? I hadn't decided yet what I was going to do. (I mean, I didn't trust my 73/32/8 opponent at all, but no one had really played sheriff against him yet during his 20 or so hands at the table, and I wasn't getting to see his cards very often.)

Re: NL25: QQ and ATs vs. a big LAG

The ATs hand is still kind of troubling to me from a strategy perspective. I'll explain why later, but I was hoping to get a little more in the way of responses first. So I'm bumping the thread.

I lost to K9s in the first hand.

In the second hand, I snapped off Villain's Js5s (for the air float followed by two barrels). After being "exposed" in this hand, he didn't remain at the table much longer.

What bothered me about the second hand, from a theoretical perspective, was that, unless I'm going to call a $6.5 river bet with ace-high, Villain's turn/river sequence is a profitable one, given my actual cards (he's investing $10 to win $11.25, and I'm only going to improve to a pair of T's or better 1/3 of the time). I might have in fact called the river with ace-high, because I had reached the point where I didn't trust this Villian at all, but I would have needed to do so about 1/4 of the time that I was UI just to bring Villain's turn/river play down to neutral EV.

Now, in limit, I would check-call the river with ace-high against this guy without even thinking about it much, but I haven't really worked out yet which players to call $6.5 river bets against with just ace-high in NL. So one annoying thing about the hand, from a strategy perspective, is that I was building a pot preflop and on the flop (and with my turn call, which of course was an obvious call) for Villain to potentially steal from me on the river.

It depends on the river bet size, but I typically wait till I see more than 20 hands to call w/A high on a river even if I check the turn and river weakly. The problem with loose players is that it's hard for the board to NOT hit them by the river. For instance, on this board, if the river was a blank and the villian fired a PSB, I would concede this hand; you need to be good 33% of the time, but even given someone who is betting ALOT, I don't know that Ace high is good that amount. If the villian fired that same barrel, 6.50, I would probably still fold, because you still need to be good 25% of the time and I rarely assign that high of a bluff percent to any barely known villian.

This kind of brings to light the disadvantages of being OOP in No Limit. You are totally in the dark as to a loose opponents holdings and his betting patterns reveal little.

So I opt, however, to exploit the fact that he appears to take control of every hand once you show weakness by value-betting the flop light and letting him take control afterwards and calling down most hands that have connected or haven't been hurt too bad by the board (unimproved pocket pairs in certain circumstances.)

I guess my point is, that in NL this type of opponent is best exploited by means other than calling down w/Ace high.