A hand vs Rizen in stars 109 double stack

[Ansky]

[ QUOTE ]
If this helps at all, its pretty common knowledge that Rizen uses PT/PAHUD while playing and we've been at the same table enough that he should have a good sample size.

On stars i run at 16.5/10.5 which means i'm not a full on LAG but definately not nit/TAG, would people be willing to agree that say some of the time i flat call the flop and some of the time i raise?

[/ QUOTE ]

16/10 isnt a nit?

[uclabruinz]

[ QUOTE ]
being a cubs fan you are used to losing and accepting it :-p. I can see your attachment to evg the cubs of online poker lot of promise every day but never winning what matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cubs are just experiencing the bad end of variance.

[Nogatsira]

I would take a coin and flip it.
Head => raise
Tales => call

Seems impossible to say the correct thing, cause you cant put him on a hand here. And even if you knew his hand, then they still seem both good.

[Rizen]

Seems like most of the productive discussion is over...

In the end, I think people vastly underestimate the holdings that I will re-raise with here against a button raiser (even a TAG one) pre-flop with. I think people vastly overestimate my ability to fold JJ/QQ to a 3 bet here pre-flop against a button raiser (I probably shouldn't say that though).

Post flop though, most of you are right on. On this flop if he raises me I think I get away from JJ/QQ a lot of times against this player, and his best line was probably to flat call me. The top end hands in my range here I'm goign to be firing a lot of turns, and the mid/low end hands I'm probably done with when he calls the flop anyways, so he's not getting another dime from me. Note that this is probably exclusive to Bond and there are a handful of players who may make more from me from raising, although even a nath or an aejones i'm probably not going to let stack me on the first hand with JJ here.

In the end I had AQo. Also FWIW, some set hands are in my range here, and I'm not sure if Bond is capable of getting away from this post flop if he pops the turn and I 3-bet all in, but calling may also potentially save him if he's beat.

-Rizen

[Mr.Poker]

[ QUOTE ]
Seems like most of the productive discussion is over...

In the end, I think people vastly underestimate the holdings that I will re-raise with here against a button raiser (even a TAG one) pre-flop with. I think people vastly overestimate my ability to fold JJ/QQ to a 3 bet here pre-flop against a button raiser (I probably shouldn't say that though).



[/ QUOTE ]

I find the most interesting part of this hand to be PF tbh.

Rizen, given the same circustances (play players, positions, 1st hand of touny etc..), would you say that Bond 3-betting PF is going to get more of your chips when you hold 1010-QQ or would flat calling your reraise?

Thanks
Mr.P

[Ansky]

[ QUOTE ]
In the end, I think people vastly underestimate the holdings that I will re-raise with here against a button raiser (even a TAG one) pre-flop with. I think people vastly overestimate my ability to fold JJ/QQ to a 3 bet here pre-flop against a button raiser (I probably shouldn't say that though).

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree w/ all this, and if bond is adjusting well then you really shouldn't be playing overly tight vs a 4bet. But the fact is that most ppl, even good players, aren't really capable of 4betting light in tournaments. It's fine and all if ppl don't 4bet light, as long as a few conditions are met. 1) they hardly ever 4bet anyway, or 2) they are playing against players who the metagame implications are irellevent against. So Bond: if you 4bet here it better be because Rizen thinks you are capable of 4betting relatively light.

Still, I doubt Rizen will suspect you are going to 4bet light the first hand of the tournament, and no offense (not really an insult anyway), but I wouldn't think you are capable of 4betting light in your spot. Whether that's a correct assumption or not I don't know.

Regarding the flop, re:Rizen. Rizen if you are truly 3betting w/ a wide range preflop, then the only way you should be folding QQ on a 239 board or whatever it was is if once again, the villain is incapable of playing properly vs you. So if you know/suspect that a) bond is smart enough to open up post and pre flop, and do things like bluff raise then folding is simply awful w/ QQ. Still, as has already been said, i just don't think most ppl bluff raise here enough, especially in tournaments.

If you were playing this hand vs me or nath, I think we have played enough that you would not be in a position where you would want to get away from QQ post flop here.

But back to the hand itself, I am not sure what you mean when you say "On this flop if he raises me I think I get away from JJ/QQ a lot of times against this player."

Is the plan to call and check/fold the turn, because you will have basically turned your hand face up and no one tries to bluff people off of big pairs here? I think if we were deeper thatd be alright, but the fact is if Bond raises to 1000 on the flop, and you call, there is 2400 in the pot and you have 1800 left on the turn. So i'm not sure what the plan would be there... calling flop and folding to a 75% psb seems ridiculous.

But the point I am trying to make here is that if you are "capable" of folding QQ here post flop it's cause 1 of you is playing real bad in reraised pots.

Though this a tournament hand, it definitely reminds me a lot of a 6max nl hand-- in that 3bets from the blinds are often relentless, and you are facing spots like these literally every 5 minutes. In a standard 5/10 or 10/20 game, there is NO way you are folding QQ, let alone JJ or TT (TT is where it gets close) vs regulars. However, given that it's a tournament and there is a different dynamic, and bond probably isnt in rage mode in 3bet pots, I think your thinking is reasonable. But going back to what I said before, bet/folding JJ+ here vs good aggro players is ridicously bad.

AAAAAAAND finally bond: Obv if Rizen thinks you are so tight post flop then you should be bluff raising a lot here post flop, clearly then he will adjust and things change, but this isn't really the point of my next point. Metagame and inexploitability is in essence about perceptions. You can't act in a metagame vacuum in a spot like this, where you would raise AA on the flop because you "should" raise light if you perceive Rizen's post raise range to be nitty. That'd only be relevent if you knew Rizen's perceptions to be such that he would suspect you are raising light, but if he thinks you are gonna be a nit w/ post flop raises, you gotta just call. It's perfectly reasonable to just call w/ a lot of hands here, as long as it's balenced. ie, if you are calling w/ AA, you should mix in floats, sets, a9, etc. If you are raising a lot here, you should be raising most hands in your range some x% of the time, but also sometimes calling w/ everything.

This means of course, that this isn't a RAISE or CALL situation in 100% of situations, especially if you expect to have a lot of confrontations in the future w/ Rizen. Playing tough means varying your play in a way that is attempting to be inexploitable, but also pouncing on other players exploitabilities-- even if that puts you in a situation where shania might get mad at you. In other words, act according to your image and your opponents perception of you to maximize profit, even if it means playing in an exploitable way here-- but DO NOT think it's ok to raise here if you aren't raising a relatively wide % of your post flop range.

It seems a plague of 2+2 to look at every situation in a god damned vacuum, and ppl like 0evg0 get ulcers arguing about what is RIGHT AND WRONG, when in essence there isn't a 100% right or wrong answer. Ideally, there is only 1 right way to play a hand, but we are trying to maximize our G-bux (if you havent read jman's lil gbux article, read it), and this means playing vs someones range, not their exact hand. And obviously in return, people are going to play vs your range not your hand. The best players apply smaller and more accurate ranges, so it changes things, but the concept remains. Decisions 150bb deep like these aren't about "the right answer," but more about the right approach.

[Mr.Poker]

Very nice post Ansky.

Link to Jman article?

Found it- http://www.bluffmagazine.com/onlinefeature/gbucks.asp

[aejones]

[ QUOTE ]

In the end I had AQo. Also FWIW, some set hands are in my range here, and I'm not sure if Bond is capable of getting away from this post flop if he pops the turn and I 3-bet all in, but calling may also potentially save him if
he's beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just poor thought process.

I haven't read the hand in a while, but it's what, 150 bbs deep?

In that case, we should be so much more worried about stacking TT-KK, since they make up the majority of your 3-bet range, than we are about getting stacked by a set.

If I have AA, I am getting stacked by a set on certain boards if my opponent is aggro/capable of moves and competent postflop.

The bottom line is, we need to worry more about extracting value from the hands we beat than minimizing losses.

Now, if there is a line that does both at the same time, great. If not, I would utilize the distance between 9 and A, and use it to my advantage to milk my opponent for everything I could.

[hard2tel]

miniraise.

[Eagles]

Ansky,
Great post. The only thing I would say is that I've talked to some very good players about this and I think in most situations in tournaments metagame is irrelevant.