5/10 - A9o - Weighing contradictory ideas

[Heisenb3rg]

SB is a reasonable LAG 40/23/1.5 , his stats were somewhat passive post-flop for his pre-flop LAG play.
Button was kind of nitty and not very good. (probabily read some books on full ring play or something) about 25/7/1.4

Only hand that stood out on SB:
He 3-bet J9s in HJ vs UTG vs my TT. I capped.

954, flop got capped,
turn x he bet,
I called.
river K, check check.
He showed J9.

I knew he was a LAG who had some idea what he was doing, was not a spazz.. But I'm sure is capable of a bluff.
I thought it would be really unlikely he'd 3-bet a queen or a bluff here.


Poker Stars
Limit Holdem Ring game
Limit: $5/$10
6 players
Converter

Pre-flop: (6 players) Heisenb3rg is UTG+1 with 9[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]
UTG folds, <font color="#cc0000">Heisenb3rg raises</font>, CO calls, Button calls, SB calls, BB calls.

Flop: 2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 9[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 5[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (10SB, 5 players)
SB checks, BB checks, <font color="#cc0000">Heisenb3rg bets</font>, CO folds, Button calls, SB calls, BB folds.

Turn: Q[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (6.5BB, 3 players)
<font color="#cc0000">SB bets</font>, <font color="#cc0000">Heisenb3rg raises</font>, Button folds, SB calls.

River: 5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (10.5BB, 2 players)
SB checks, Heisenb3rg checks.

Results:
Final pot: 10.5BB

There were about 5 things that went through my head and I had no idea how to prioritize them.

1. This isn't a common bluff spot, only 1 strong draw was created and the Queen is a scary card to a made flop hand. I think it's likely he would raise the flop with most flop draws. I think theres a decent chance im behind.
The player behind me may very well have hit the Q too.

2. Protecting hand or folding out the best hand:
Raising may fold out the player behind me if they has QT or QJ sometimes (he seemed nitty). It's also a good way to proect the hand from KJ. Hell he may even fold JT.. If not he's contributing money to the pot when we're ahead. Because of his tightness I think these are his likely hands too...

3. I don't know the donker too well and am not positive he is incapable of a 3-bet bluff here or an overagro Q raise, causing me to fold the best hand, (or put in 3 bets). I am confident, but not very confident. I think he's very unlikely to have a monster here though.

4. If he does play passivly with a Q to a raise, I can collect an extra bet on the river if I improve.


I think there's an argument supporting all 3 options.

[Oink]

I agree about raising if you want to continue. You protect your hand and you may fold a better hand.

But am I weak for folding here? Its such a weird bet by the LAG in a 3-way pot. If it gets HU, you have 66% eq against JT and about 11% against Qx. If your play works you get 7.5:2, but there is a reasonable chance that button calls and/or SB 3-bets a worse hand.

BTW, I would love to hear the outcome of this hand when the discussion is over.

[Sheakspeer]

I'd hate for 3 bets to go in with me holding a pair of 9's on this board. Our hand is not too good to fold here and I really cannot read either opponent to be weak here on the turn (I'm stealing a couple quotes from TOP in that last sentence - from pages 134 - 135).

I think you are underestimating the tightness of the button - if he has AQ or even JQ??? he's definately calling the turn because he carried his hand past the flop, . . . Also this donk looks more like a "donk to 3 bets" more than it is a donk bluff into two players.

In terms of prioritizing your ideas we don't want any of the following things to happen 1. Button to suckout 2. 3 bets to go in 3. Fold the best hand. In this case I put button and SB on the same type of hand ranges so I don't think raising necessarily "protects" our hand . . . AND calling the turn avoids 2 and 3, plus we can accomplish 4. folding out a better hand (which we're more concerned with from button) by raising a safe river.

Bottom line - call here because raising usually protects absolutely nothing because the same river cards kill us for SB or button.

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]

In terms of prioritizing your ideas we don't want any of the following things to happen 1. Button to suckout 2. 3 bets to go in 3. Fold the best hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given these three goals, I think raising works best for 1 and 3, and 2 is bad but not terrible for us. For that reason I raise. The one concern is that if he is a thinking LAG, he will start to donk/3-bet us when he does catch a turn this way.

[jt1]

If button has 6 clean outs then your raise protects/earns you (8.5*.13) 1 bb

1bb * 100 times = 100 bb

Therfore villain has to steal this pot 100/8.5 = 12.

If you don't think the LAG with bluff 3-bet you 12% of the time then the raise is correct.

Obviously the LAG isn't 3-betting you with a worse hand more than 12% of the time. If he was then you'd probably know that he's capable of that and would call down his 3-bet or just call the original bet. However, Button will quite frequently fold incorrectly to the turn donk with his hypothetical 6 outs. If he does this 1/2 the time then LAG only needs to bluff 3-bet you 6% of the time. And that's a far more reasonable probability.

Heisenberg, I understand you have a B.S. in physics. How's my problem solving here? Is it solid or am I missing something?

[Municipal Hare]

jt1,

Good work, but more needs to be done.

The cost of being 3-bet bluffed is in fact higher than 8.5 bets, because your raise becomes part of the pot you lose.

More problematically, your calculation focuses on a strict subset of turn scenarios in which Button and SB have 6 and 0 outs respectively. Making a turn decision with only that subset in mind would be a severe mistake. I'd go back to the drawing board and give SB a flexible range of split pairs, big draws, queens(!), etc.

[jt1]

[ QUOTE ]
jt1,

Good work, but more needs to be done.

The cost of being 3-bet bluffed is in fact higher than 8.5 bets, because your raise becomes part of the pot you lose.

More problematically, your calculation focuses on a strict subset of turn scenarios in which Button and SB have 6 and 0 outs respectively. Making a turn decision with only that subset in mind would be a severe mistake. I'd go back to the drawing board and give SB a flexible range of split pairs, big draws, queens(!), etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for responding. I should have made villains 3-bet bluff maximum 100/9.5 or 10.5%

Overall, I can't seem to figure out this problem. I started it several times and I end up quitting or getting answers I'm not confident with.

[Heisenb3rg]

There's no way to "solve" the problem, it's too complex.

Im just looking for a convincing argument for one decision.
For example, if the chance im behind is too high, then all the other factors don't matter anyway.

The fact that he's a LAG makes me uncomfortable raise/folding.
The fact the he's a LAG makes me uncomfortable straight folding.

But I also want to protect my hand against the nit (or fold out a better hand) both real possibiltiies. (or am I overestimating the nit)

I have no f*in clue. I posted 2 hands with A9o, but this hand I was far more confused about and think the decision is far more interesting.

[Transference]

[ QUOTE ]

There's no way to "solve" the problem, it's too complex.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your misunderstanding the purpose of the analyses presented.

I also think your over valuing your numbers and over reaching lag definition. If villian is capable of three betting the turn with a worse hand a significant percentage of the time you ought to know it.

Futhermore, lag != maniac and i assume you != lag so why is he going to three bet on this board with a worse hand and expect you to fold?

Your turn raise is solid and pretty standard against a wide range of villians.

[Apanage]

I think you played the hand very well.
Besides the obvious need to protect our hand I also feel very strongly about punishing donk bets.
If you don´t punish donk bets the donk bettor never ever has anything to lose since he is putting in a bet anyway. It becomes a win-win situation for him to donk since when you have nothing he takes down the pot (sometimes with a worse hand)and if you call that was a bet he would have payed anyway.
Making people stop donking without raising them is hard. It is easy to become a "donk victim" if you play that way.
I also think that we must agree that the donk in this hand the vast majority of time has a Q or a worse hand which both are very unlikely to 3-bet us.
By the read you provided in the hand I don think we ever going to be 3-bet so many times that it becomes unprofitable to raise turn.
Looking for a free showdown in this spot is the correct decision IMO.