[Heisenb3rg]

Ok looks like the post is falling down so Ill just post the answers now (its closer than I originally thought so dont be offended if its different than yours [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] )

#1
You should not re-raise the maniac or the passive fish period. The maniac will very likely be putting in just as much agression post flop despite the size of the pot.
The correct strategy for your holding in a larger pot is to be more agressive with your draws.. which the maniacs natural style counters hard.
Your value against him comes from when you hit your pairs/straight/flushs and he spews at you.. Most of the time youll have to fold postflop, so you dont want to build a big pot.
You have very little fold equity.

The fish will very likely call the scariest boards on the flop as well as peel the turn very light. They arent folding a pair no matter how scary the baord. His range is also a fair bit tighter.

I would certaintly re-raise the LAGTAG, but its close. They know you will be re-raising with a wide range and wont settle down postflop. However their PF range is often so wide that you must be ramming on them back when you have good playable hands.

The semi-nit is the best target to reraise because, they will still be raising preflop with a wideish range since its SB vs BB (not as wide as the LAGTAG) but are much more likely to fold and play passive to your raise postflop. However other people brought up a good point. There is certainly value in just calling and raising most flops as well..

Conclusion: T9s is a great resteal hand if you have fold equity. Semi- Nits with a wider than their comfort zone PF range (SB vs BB) are perfect targets. The key idea that many people missed is that Nits can still play poker, and adjust positionally. They are likely raising a fairly wide range in the SB, and have plenty of hands that wont hit flops or have showdown value.
Just dont mess around with their UTG/HJ range.

#2

This was the key question that initially inspird me to post this thread because I figured a lot of people would get it wrong... I was right.

The answer to this question is IMO not very debateable.

B wins by a landslide, with A coming in second, C and D are close to equally terrible

This may surprise some of you since its easy to think generally "WTF we're most inclined the bluff the passive calling station?"
The key to this question comes with how the player profiles play the previous streets.

It is extremly likely the LAGTAG would have reraised you with any open ended straight draw or flush draw (especially on that turn) so his range rarely compose of those hands.
His range is very very likely ace high, the occasionaly gutshot, small pairs, or a 4 planning to check/raise the river.

However, the passiver player on the other hand, while may have been more passive with his made hands, is also much less likely to re-raise his draws. There are TONS of missed draws here. Note I also gave the passiver fish a decent PFR% so his hand can include many cards like KT, K9 etc that are planning to fold the river.

A key hand reading tool to extract from this:
When a very agressive player is playing passivly when he has no reason to expect great strength from you, he very likely has a weak made hand.

#3
I think this one is the "debateable" question and depends a lot on subtle tendencies and assumptions. So, I will state my assumptions and explain why I made my assumptions.


Ahead of the most?: The Nit
Who has you beat the most?: The passive player or LAGTAG
Who should be most inclined to raise?: The passive player


Assumptions about Nit:
1) Not sneaky/tricky enough to be betting ace high here
2) Would have likely reraised a Q earlier (unless waiting for the turn and got scared, which is one thing I didnt consider). Would also possibly check/raise a Q on this river. A Q is in his range though.
3) Would likely bluff a busted pair trying to fold out worse draws.
4) Is not likely to bluff a hand like K9 because it folds out no better hands... More likely to c/c with it.

The key debateable assumption is #3. I could certaintly see a semi-nit taking a stab , trying to fold out busted draws as a desperation shot, thinking you are incapable of calling like KT.

I think the passive player has you beat the most because from my experiences passive players LOVE to bluff when boards pair to rep that card. They have TONS of draws in their range right now and most of them beat yours. They would also very likely play any Q besides AQ/KQ like this too.

I also think you have a slightly profitable raise bluff against them because all of those better draws that they are "bluffing with" they will now likely fold (possible exception of ace high).

Maniac is too likely to rebluff you... Horrible to raise.

I think raising the LAGTAG is bad because:
1) There werent many busted draws in his range in the first place
2) If he has a low countefit pair your ahead of it anyways
3) He could easily be betting ace high FOR VALUE PLANNING TO CALL A RAISE

Yes betting ace high for value. I would certainly do it in his shoes and I think its the correct play.

He would likely put your range as Jx, Qx, draws, 4x

He would assume you probabily wont raise a J since hes trying to rep the Q. So he loses the same as c/c.
He would likely also bet his busted low pairs so he could easily see you calling with a lot of your K hi draws to snap off a bluff, that may check behind.

He could also see you raising your counterfit hands/bad draws to try and fold out his busted pairs.

Betting Ax, busted pairs and sometimes Qx is a great way to have a strong distribution in the LAGTAGS spot.
If you count combinations, more often than not, hero will have a busted draw with showdown value! than Qx.

Maniac = Call
Nit = Call (or fold if you take out the busted pairs assumption)
LAGTAG = Call
Passive = Raise or Fold

#4

Ive discussed what I think the players hand ranges likely are in #3.. From that its pretty clear what to do with Jx.


LAGTAG = Raise and grit your teeth as you call the 3-bet
Maniac = EASY EASY raise and laugh while u call the 3-bet
Nit = Call
Passive = Call


I think VMAcosta had the closest to my thinking?