Pooh-Bah Post: Playing Junk From Late Position

[Jurrr]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah but the raise is pure -EV if you are just trying to extract money from a bluffer. What does he call you with.

[/ QUOTE ]He calls me with draws or he decides to float the c/r with bottom pair or air because he doesn't believe me as checkraises are supposed to be bluffs here.

[ QUOTE ]
Just call and check again if you think he has 3-4 outs on average and will hang himself. You are not giving a free card by calling.

[/ QUOTE ]What if the board is so wet I will hate a lot of turns, but I believe that unless he's on a draw then I am crushing his range?

[ QUOTE ]
The answer to your second question is no. You are OOP with a dangerous hand. The mission is keep the pot small. Check/raising with a low overpair in these spots is very bad unless you are working a line that does not get its value from your holding (i.e. bluffing). This is very basic TOP type stuff unless I am missing your point.

[/ QUOTE ]I think the point was that I am being a tad results oriented as the blind stealer in the hand I was referring to had an OESD and thus checkraising would have been good against that particular holding. That does not necessarily mean it is good against his range.

Still, if our overpair figures to be the best but we believe villain has more outs (e.g., 6 to 8 and we will not know which ones; so tons of bluff outs) but will still cbet with the majority of his range, isn't checkraising best?

Or to rephrase the question: I see your point about keeping pots small with one pair hands, but I am not convinced that there isn't a situation where a checkraise for value/protection is best even though we hold a one-pair hand.

Do you see what I'm saying?

[Capone]

nh

[tannenj]

[ QUOTE ]
There are a few leaks as expected but a lot of good info, gj.

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks. i found it interesting to read through the op again after it was bumped because i think my game has advanced quite a bit since i wrote this up.

with that said, i stand by almost all of the logic in the op.

i'm thinking about making a belated c/t theory post about turn play. would there be interest in this?

some quick thoughts about the first 54o hand...

it's worth noting that in this hand, 1) i provided a very strong read on the villain, and 2) the villain is nonthinking and extremely predictable. if the villain is a tricky, thinking player and i raise the button with 97, flop top pair with my 7, and make a continuation bet that gets check-raised, i'll give strong consideration to continuing because i know it's unlikely that he'll check-raise me here with hands like 88 and A7s (of course, if he's aware that i know this, he can level me by making tricky value check-raises at times with hands like these in these spots). when most thinking players check-raise flops like the one in the op, their range is something like sets, air, oesds, slowplayed JJ+, etc.

however, if i continuation bet a 672 flop against the nitfish for whom i provided a read in the op, he's either folding 33-55 or check-raising 88+/a set (given this, continuation betting a hand like top pair against this guy makes no sense whatsoever). i acknowledge that a playing style this formulaic is somewhat contrived, but i find it useful when thinking theoretically to create distinct rules and consider the extremes, even if they are sometimes unrealistic.

anyway, what i'm trying to get at is that depending on reads/flow/metagame, raising stuff like 88 in the hand above can either be a bluff or a tricky value raise. given the dynamics that exist between hero and the nitfish, when the nitfish check-raises 88, he's not value raising (because i'll never call with worse). i'll certainly fold hands like AQ that have six outs against a small overpair (so in a way, he's "protecting his hand"), but that doesn't mean his check-raise isn't a bluff.

i'm not trying to argue that there's never merit to taking hands like small overpairs and turning them into bluffs (especially against players like me who'll fire lots of turns and put you in tricky spots with marginal hands). but it's notable that the villain in this (fabricated) hand isn't thinking on this level; he's barely thinking at all.

that turned out to be long-winded. hopefully it makes some sense.

[Jurrr]

I agree with everything that you said except I think I define a bluff differently. If he believes he is ahead of your range and then raises then it isn't a bluff even if when called he's behind.

It may or may not be a bad raise as he could get more value by letting you bluff more or something, but it's a raise for value/protection and not a bluff according to the way I think about the game.

A bluff is most commonly a bet/raise that obtains a significant part of its value from FE when you believe that you are behind a villain's range. Check-raising 88+ overpair against a blind stealer's cbet does not fit that definition IMHO.

ymmv.

[beset]

[ QUOTE ]

Still, if our overpair figures to be the best but we believe villain has more outs (e.g., 6 to 8 and we will not know which ones; so tons of bluff outs) but will still cbet with the majority of his range, isn't checkraising best?

Or to rephrase the question: I see your point about keeping pots small with one pair hands, but I am not convinced that there isn't a situation where a checkraise for value/protection is best even though we hold a one-pair hand.

Do you see what I'm saying?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I think I do. I just think the player against whom the value/protection from a check/raise with a low-overpair such the example in the OP pretty much has to be a fish. The main point being that such a c/r against a good player on said board is a bluff. Can you think of a "good" player type where your flop check/raise is not a bluff? Also, the 6-8 outs thing doesn't worry me too much because he just potted it.

Sorry if I am off-track here I forgot about this thread.

[zaphod]

Thank you. Very good post.

[ QUOTE ]
i'm thinking about making a belated c/t theory post about turn play. would there be interest in this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, please do this.

[Jurrr]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah I think I do. I just think the player against whom the value/protection from a check/raise with a low-overpair such the example in the OP pretty much has to be a fish. The main point being that such a c/r against a good player on said board is a bluff. Can you think of a "good" player type where your flop check/raise is not a bluff? Also, the 6-8 outs thing doesn't worry me too much because he just potted it.

[/ QUOTE ]You have 88 on a low flop. His range (let's assume) is heavily skewed to high unpaired broadway cards. So even though in effect he has 6 outs most times there are 20 cards that hurt your hand and that you don't want to see. Why doesn't that worry you?

[cheekyboy]

Sorry for the uber noobish question but could someone explain to me (1st day using pokertracker..) where the xx/xx numbers u r telling about urself refer too. Also the xx/xx/xx stats the initial poster is stating when for example he is calling someone a lagfish etc.

How do u categorize opponents depending on those numbers?
Which numbers are the most critical when u make a 4sec lookup for an opponent while playing.
Thanx and sorry for the probable stupidity of my question.

[Kimpan]

attempt to steal of 31%? that seems kinda low?