Thinking about.....third level thinking (a little long, sorry)

Kyriefurro · #1 07-27-2006, 05:10 PM

I'm reposting this hand because several comments were made that in the original post got me to pondering...and I'd like to change the direction the conversation was going in and move off on a bit of a tangent. Also, the other post was long enough that people might be inclined to ignore it. If everyone thinks this is a new hand they'll at least take a peek [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img].

Villain in this hand is a rock...TAG preflop, tight/weak post flop. I think his play is mostly the result of being overly afraid of getting run down. He is DEFINATELY capable of second level thinking, and has, on occassion made some rather good plays based on his reads.

Most of the time in SSNL our villains don't think past the first level, at least not on a consistant basis. So as long as we're capable of estimating villain's holdings, we do rather well. But when we run into someone like this particular villain, we have to move up to third level thinking in order to hold a consistent advantage.

0.50/1.00 NLHE 6-max (5 players)

Stacks:
Hero - $224
BB - $109

Hero is on the button w/ A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

Preflop: UTG folds, CO folds, Hero raises to $6, SB folds, BB raises to $11, Hero calls.

In the original posting of this hand, a lot of people advocated a 4th bet(with or without actually pushing), reasoning along the line of "he'll call with Kings all day." But why would I want him to call with just Kings, when I can also get him to call with Queens, Jacks, Tens (maybe), and AK/AQ? More important is, what hand am I representing with a 4-bet? With a villain who consistantly thinks second level, this is an important question.

Villain has played 1200 hands against me. He knows that I'm not 4-betting with anything but a monster. A 4-bet could be only one of two possible hands - KK and AA. But if I just call? Well, then I could have any PP, any SC's, any A + Broadway combo, KQ, and maybe KJ. Yes, this range is a bit larger than what I'd actually call a raise with from this villain, but I'm trying to estimate how villain thinks. And even if my range is overly generous, it illustrates the point. By just calling, instead of 4-betting, I've significantly disguised my hand.

($22.50) Flop (2 players): 7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
SB bets $13, Hero raises to $26

Again, a lot of people questioned using a min-bet here instead of a larger PSR. It goes back to the question of, what hand am I representing and why? I am fairly confident that I'm ahead of villain's range. He's NOT playing a draw here. Most likely I'm looking JJ+. I want to get all in on this hand, but if I'm too agressive, this weak/tight opponent will fold everything but JJ. A min-raise has several advantages over a big raise. First, if villain just calls, it bloats the pot enough that I can easily move in on the turn. Second, it looks weak, which might induce villain to raise, and if he does, then we can get all in now. On the other hand, a large pot-sized raise could easily frighten my villain out of the hand, causing him to fold QQ and maybe KK.

The one weakness of my reasoning here is that, if villain's REALLY been paying attention to me, he knows that I min-raise almost never. If that's the case, the min-raise will have the opposite effect, and villain will become extra cautious. 

My thoughts here are by NO means meant to be authoritative. Nor am I trying to imply that my play was superior in any way. Because I'm just not sure, one way or the other. We've already talked about the technical merits of how I played this hand. What I'd really like now is some thoughtful critique of my reasoning and my logic. And if there are holes in my analysis, please point em out to me [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]