lol why did I sit in this game 2/4 PL 5 card draw

[HOWMANY]

So this game is 3 handed and one of the players looks like a complete sucker. I saw him open limp in the sb stand pat with Q high, bb draws 3 and it goes c/c BB wins. In another hand he stacked off with 1 pair against trips. Action went pot, villain repots and other guy repots to put the other guy in, I'm not a 5cd expert but I'm guessing that getting the money in here with 1 pair is a mistake since the other two players had basically been folding every hand until they had something playable (I never saw a showdown where someone started weaker than KK). The best way I can characterize villain from the short bit I watched is aggressive/spazzy and not very willing to fold.

One player sits out and I sit in the HU game. A few hands pass with not much happening. The other tight guy played a KK hand from the small blind against my AA in bb and won nothing after the draw from me because I'm a nit and wanted to take down the easy mark. On to the hand:

Button folds, I have AAJ85 in the small blind and pot it. Villain calls. I draw 3 (right?), villain draws 3. Pot is $24

I catch JT8. I check (I assume this is right). Villain pots. I don't know what to do, and this game is confusing, so I decide that whether I win or lose this hand I'm quitting after my button.

Is this a call? A fold? I'm guessing it's not a raise just based on the fact I'd probably do best not to bluff the moron. This whole game feels backwards/counterintuitive to me, especially when OOP.

[Murakawa]

No way a reraise is putting anything but a complete bluff down.

2/3 Pot from SB, even a min raise is technically acceptable but I don' want him calling with TT and catching trips.

I would fold this unless I'd seen more hands from him. He could have trips, or be overplaying two pair just as easily as he's bluffing. You're paying 24 to win 24. Do you think you're going to catch him bluffing more than half the time?

[Big Limpin]

one of the key stats to know:
when drawing 3 to a pair. its 30% to improve. so 70% of time its still the same pair. That goes for him too. So if you started with AA, you are usually still ahead.

Of course thats not the same as saying are you still ahead in hands where he bets. Here i'd give u a 1 in 3 times your AA is still good. Ballaprk. U said he was a little spazzy...so thats about the price the pot lays you. Call or fold, probably pretty close, i'd lean call if he's at all likely to bet when u act weak.

I really think leading out AA unimproved (for a small bet, quarter of pot or something) is a better line. You do forgo winning bluffs from him...but we are iffy on calling anyways. I think its best,because it will take a REALLY good hand from him to raise you. He'll often just call the winner. So you'll be able to get off way cheaper when you're beat, yet still charge something he can call with his QQ.

If you always take the check-when-unimproved line from OOP, after being the aggressor, then you are really going to be playing a guessing game all night long. You earn nothing when you still best, and you could make bad folds/ bad calls, if villain is crafty.

Out of position SUCKS in this game [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

[Big Limpin]

ur paying $24 to win $48

[Murakawa]

ooh oops got the money wrong. yeah waht big limpin said

[List]

[ QUOTE ]
I really think leading out AA unimproved (for a small bet, quarter of pot or something) is a better line.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Admitadely I'm pretty anti blocking bet, but I doubt you're using these bets in a balanced strategy, and it's very easy to read very quickly. I think it's pretty horrible against a "spazzy" opponent, who's more likely to raise your transparent bet. I'd rather make a decent sized bet and induce a call from a worse 1 pair hand from a spaz.

I think check calling is fine. It isn't a big hole in your game, in that a lot of the time you'll be check/folding here with worse pairs. You reduce the profitability of him bluffing to a certain extent by check calling here with your stronger 1 pair hands, and sometimes even weak 2 pair hands. Against certain opponents, check calling here is significantly +ev.

A lot of opponents at these stakes have easy to read bet sizes. Some of them won't pot when they don't expect you to payoff. The fact that he expects you to fold here leans you more towards a call, but he is a spaz so who knows. There's a weird psychological component here, where he's less likely to have a big two pair/trips than he is a small/mid two pair, and crap pair hands you beat.

When you get deeper into metagame you'll be making a lot of pot sized bets to induce calls, when your opponent likely would have folded for a smaller amount. You obviously haven't reached that point with this specific fish.

2/4 pl draw and below seem pretty soft to me, and I'm not a particularly amazing pldraw player. I've sat in 5/10 pl draw before, which is way above my normal games, because I thought it was sufficiently fishy.

[kurto]

(A) ** Raise predraw

(B)
limping said:
[ QUOTE ]
Of course thats not the same as saying are you still ahead in hands where he bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Based on his description of the villian in the OP (this guy bet and called a repot with a pair) the guy is going to bet all the time if checked to.

Against a player that will, as a course, bet when checked to. Isn't he better check/calling here every time with AA unimproved?

If hero bets-
(1) villain will no doubt raise anything that beats 1 pair
(2) possibly raise with worse hands (putting hero to test for significantly more with a 1 pair hand)
(3) villain may simply fold weak hands.

Isn't the better strategy to use the villians bad judgement and over aggressiveness to our advantage? By checking to the overaggressive villain don't we gain the advantage of:
(1) allows his instinct to bluff/bet weak hands to act (This seems the type of player who might fold a pair of twos if someone bets but can't resist betting them if someone else shows weakness)
(2) we can't be put to the test for a larger pot (ie- we can't be reraised)

NOTE- I think this is a good STARTING point. If at any point we see the villain begin to adjust his strategy, we adjust as well.

[ QUOTE ]
If you always take the check-when-unimproved line from OOP, after being the aggressor, then you are really going to be playing a guessing game all night long. You earn nothing when you still best, and you could make bad folds/ bad calls, if villain is crafty.


[/ QUOTE ]

Another way to balance this is to occasionally checkraise (with or without a monster). Let the opponent know a check may also be a trap.

In general, I do like to mix up leading with my Aces unimproved and checkcalling. But against an opponent who can't resist betting when checked to but who will fold a hand like a pair of eights if bet into... I prefer the checkcall.

Final notes to the OP- You said you were going to leave this game. It sounds like you were up against the IDEAL opponent. He's the kind of guy you can set a trap for and he'll pay you off everytime.

[Big Limpin]

those last 2 post were well written. So you guys both hate my leading out small? It feels like its been working great for me, but perhaps its not best?

I feel like this all hinges on how likely villain is to bet KK if checked to - alway/sometimes/never. Do we forgo tons of value be shutting him down? So if this guy is for sure going to be when checked to, improved or unimproved, then checking does seem best, i agree.

I guess i'm just used to dying a little every time i check AA, he check behind with KK. And after all this IS the most likely post-draw holdings for you guys. He'd surely have called a 1/4 pot bet (it lays him 5:1 that his KK-good kicker might beat my QQ...he'll call for sure).

The times he makes KKK... you check, he pots, you call/fold. U lose lots. if you bet small, he pots, you fold easy. U lose way less.

List, i agree its easy to see though what i'm doing, but i dont think my opponents are that observant. I'm lowstakes witht he fish. My concerns are not metagame, counter-metagame, or anything like that. If he comes potting it overtop of me, i give him credit for the hand. These are so rarely bluffs.

I just want to avoid losing a bigger pot than i have to when my AA got outdrawn. The blocking bet seems tailor made. Its about the size he's willing to call with KK, and with KKK, you get away the cheapest.

- you guys have made a pretty good argument, list and kurto, so perhaps i'll be trying more checkcalls, ESPECIALLY if i think villain is more likely to bluff me.

[Big Limpin]

.

[mindflayer]

YOu forgot to say where you quarter pot it and villian Pots it with his high trips kkk or qqq after drawing 3 and you hold AAA after drawing 3.