Blind defense checkup

[drbk2]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would bet the river, if you're going to play this aggressively might as well continue. Even if youre beat you will get info.

Plus for later hands he will think twice about stealing your blinds.

[/ QUOTE ]

huh? From the blind stealer's perspective, why would I NOT want to steal someone's blind when he is giving me a lot of action with bottom pair?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well for one thing, If he sees you playing very loose to LP raises, he will have to adjust (since hes a pro right?). There is no point in trying to steal a loose players blind if he defend every time or nearly every time. This mean that the 'pro' will only raise with strong hands as oppose to weak hands because you will be calling quite often and therefore make his steal attempts not very profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the big blind is prone to calling me with weak hands in the big blind and gives me a lot of action with weak hands, I will take a flop in position as the aggressor with almost any two cards.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would bet the river, if you're going to play this aggressively might as well continue. Even if youre beat you will get info.

Plus for later hands he will think twice about stealing your blinds.

[/ QUOTE ]

huh? From the blind stealer's perspective, why would I NOT want to steal someone's blind when he is giving me a lot of action with bottom pair?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well for one thing, If he sees you playing very loose to LP raises, he will have to adjust (since hes a pro right?). There is no point in trying to steal a loose players blind if he defend every time or nearly every time. This mean that the 'pro' will only raise with strong hands as oppose to weak hands because you will be calling quite often and therefore make his steal attempts not very profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the big blind is prone to calling me with weak hands in the big blind and gives me a lot of action with weak hands, I will take a flop in position as the aggressor with almost any two cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's more of an NL approach than a limit approach. As a LHE player, you should be stealing with almost any two when your opposition defends lightly, but as they begin defending more optimally (i.e. more often and more tenaciously), you will have to steal less than you would if they simply folded very often. Obviously as they approach defending 100% of the time you can more liberally steal again, but if they are defending well you are going to have a more difficult time "taking a flop with any two" than you would if they were tight-passive and predictable.

Rob

[AragornX151]

I think your line is perfect. Without a read, he could have AJ, AT, or JT pretty easily, and take a stab on the river which you can pick off. You could easily be beat (a hand like QT is very reasonable, for instance), but I don't think you can fold to a button raiser for one bet in this spot, given that he hasn't shown any real strength.

[RudeboyOi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think check-calling allows him to play way too close to perfect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Crap, this is a good point. It probably looks like I am making a defensive check/call when the board pairs the 4 on the river, like I have a weak K or Q and am afraid of A4 or something, so he'll never bet a worse hand here on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont understand your logic here
how does it look like a defensive c/c
with a weak K or Q when
the board plays as a good kicker

it looks more like a defensive c/c
IMO if the board goes runner runner
and puts 3 to a flush on board
or if another low card rolls off

with the description of the player
id tend to play the hand the same way

[HOWMANY]

Why would the villain bet AT/AJ here when OP has a read on him that he isn't retarded?

[private joker]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would the villain bet AT/AJ here when OP has a read on him that he isn't retarded?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I only have to fold my small pair 1/7 times for it to be a profitable bluff.

[jfk]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would the villain bet AT/AJ here when OP has a read on him that he isn't retarded?

[/ QUOTE ]

Plus PJ's description of him,

[ QUOTE ]
Villain in this hand is an aggressive blind-stealer and probably a pro. Doesn't play brilliantly but is probably a winner. Skinny, middle-aged Armenian who always seems to be looking for a table change to get the best of it. He yelled at a drunk Arab

[/ QUOTE ]

would tend to fit the type from whom he might invite a "bluff" with AJ or AT.

Note: it bothered me that I described the villain as an "unknown" in the earlier reply. Per PJ's villain description I think a check might induce a river bet from a hand he beats but he won't get a worse hand to fold with a bet except the relatively rare times the villain is holding a medium pair and waiting to see if he gets a third barrel.

[Godson]

pretty standard vs this guy.

[AragornX151]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would the villain bet AT/AJ here when OP has a read on him that he isn't retarded?

[/ QUOTE ]

As PJ said, it only has to work one out of seven times but if he doesn't bet, you (almost always) win at showdown anyway. Checking is clearly better than betting; he's very unlikely to call with anything you beat. You induce a bluff far more often than your bet with 6's are for value. I think the line is excellent.

[Bad Lobster]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why would the villain bet AT/AJ here when OP has a read on him that he isn't retarded?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I only have to fold my small pair 1/7 times for it to be a profitable bluff.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason a bluff is profitable for him is because you shouldn't be playing such a weak hand in the first place. 86s is a TERRIBLE hand to defend the blind with; and then you go and check-raise to protect a pot with only 4 small bets in it.

You should fold pre-flop, you should fold post flop. Your hand is too weak to be trying to extract value like this. Just give him this one. He'll pay you off some other time when you show up with a real hand.