Donkey Test

[cheburashka]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The BB is very tight and generally shows down very strong hands. He's playing about 15% of his hands and raising about 5%, and is reasonable in his aggression on the flop. What is your best move?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a hard question to me. What is "reasonable in his aggression on the flop" mean exactly? Is he going to 3-bet 40% of his stack with 2-pair or an over pair? That doesn't seem very reasonable to me. He's not going to fold any hand that is better than ours now. So, does he think we would fold a set here, and by representing the straight get us to fold a better hand? In low-limit games, you'll see people doing this with 2 pair & over pairs. Does our opponent suck? Or does he think we suck? I'm not sure. I voted fold, with the assumption that our opponent is good, and thinks that we will not fold a set here. But, I could be wrong. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I just read Doyle Brunson for the first time (wanted to give HOH a long time to sink in, first). If Brunson were in BB with a 6x in this situation, he would certainly play it as the villain has (actually, Brunson would probably shove), assuming hero has an overpair or strong overcards. So if Brunson is "reasonable in his aggresssion", then I think a scenario like that is what this question is getting at. Also, as villain checked from the BB, his tightness pre-flop isn't relevant here (other than that he would have raised pre-flop had he held AA/KK).

So my answer is: We have villain beat on the holdings (OESD, two pair) that best explain his betting, and we should move in.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
So my answer is: We have villain beat on the holdings (OESD, two pair) that best explain his betting, and we should move in.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, you are saying that Doyle would 3-bet 40% of his stack (or probably shove) on a draw or a weaker hand -- in order to get us to fold (right?) -- so we should therefore move all-in. As I said in my first reply, if the villain thinks we would fold here, we should call/push. As played, and assuming the villain isn't stupid, it sure looks like he wants us to call/push. So, we should fold.

[cheburashka]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So my answer is: We have villain beat on the holdings (OESD, two pair) that best explain his betting, and we should move in.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, you are saying that Doyle would 3-bet 40% of his stack (or probably shove) on a draw or a weaker hand -- in order to get us to fold (right?) -- so we should therefore move all-in. As I said in my first reply, if the villain thinks we would fold here, we should call/push. As played, and assuming the villain isn't stupid, it sure looks like he wants us to call/push. So, we should fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Kip,

Look, I don't want to represent myself as an expert here, and you've shown yourself to be extremely smart about these things. I was just trying to give a possible explanation for what I thought the question was driving at.

The direct answer to your question is that Brunson (who doesn't know that we have a set, BTW), partially is looking for fold equity and partially doesn't care if we call because he's willing to gamble as long as he has outs.

In the book, he gives an example of playing 7d6d, which is a reasonable guess at what the villain in our situation has. Brunson writes:

"A good (or even great) flop to 6d7d would be a pair with a straight (or flush) draw, two-pair, trips, a straight, or a flush (even though it's a small one.

With any good flop to two small connecting cards...I'd play the hand as if it was complete -- whether it was or not. I'd lead with the hand in early position, and I'd raise in late position.

I'd play the hand to get all my money in the center to start with -- even if I flopped a pair with a draw. In the latter case, I'd play it that way because I'd have two chances to win it...when I bet or raise (and my opponent throws his hand away) -- or when I improve (if my bet or raise is called).

Naturally, you'll be in some jeopardy -- even when you get a very good flop. But you're almost always in some jeopardy. So you can't worry about somebody having the nuts all the time. If you did...you would never get to play the pot."

That's the passage I was relying on--you can judge for yourself whether it's relevant for this question or not.

[gedanken]

[ QUOTE ]
So if Brunson is "reasonable in his aggresssion"...

[/ QUOTE ]

If Brunson was reasonable in his aggression, you never would have heard of him.

This style defines unreasonable aggression. The gameplan is to take lots of uncontested pots (primary way to win), get people to play back hard with vulnerable made hands, and stack them with an unlikely holding.

[cheburashka]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So if Brunson is "reasonable in his aggresssion"...

[/ QUOTE ]

If Brunson was reasonable in his aggression, you never would have heard of him.

This style defines unreasonable aggression. The gameplan is to take lots of uncontested pots (primary way to win), get people to play back hard with vulnerable made hands, and stack them with an unlikely holding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, now we're getting into Bill Clinton territory of defining what "reasonable" is. You're obviously right, from one perspective--but from another, how unreasonable can a style that wins 10 bracelets be?

[Fiepoto]

5/10 NL. $1,200 stacks. A tight/passive player limps in early. Folded to you in the BB. You hold:
K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

You raise to $40. The early position limper calls. Flop:
2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

You bet $60. The limper calls. Turn:
K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

You bet $140. The limper raises to $280. You call. River:
9[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]


You check. The limper moves all-in for $875.

[Fiepoto]

So, I think this one is a clear fold.

Key information here is that the villain is tight/passive

I don't see the tight/passive player raising on the turn, without at least the K or pocket 22. Because the player is tight, the only thing we beat is KJ or maybe K 10 (but then, that's not what I would call tight). I really think we are up against KQ or pocket 22 here. He is obviously not pushing all in on the river without at least 3 kings, so at best we are hoping for a split AK.

But he's got a boat. Fold.

[cheburashka]

[ QUOTE ]
So, I think this one is a clear fold.

Key information here is that the villain is tight/passive

I don't see the tight/passive player raising on the turn, without at least the K or pocket 22. Because the player is tight, the only thing we beat is KJ or maybe K 10 (but then, that's not what I would call tight). I really think we are up against KQ or pocket 22 here. He is obviously not pushing all in on the river without at least 3 kings, so at best we are hoping for a split AK.

But he's got a boat. Fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this answer is (a) correct in its logic and conclusion, and (b) further evidence of why this game sucks.

[Fiepoto]

10/20 NL. Approx $2,200 stacks. UTG limps. You are in middle/late position with:
A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

You raise to $80. The button calls and the BB calls. UTG calls. Flop is:
A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]10[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

UTG leads out for $200 into the $330 pot. You raise to $600. The others fold and the UTG player moves all-in for $1,900 total.

The all-in player limps too much pre-flop but is not out of line with raising pre-flop, is generally passive post flop, and seems to be an inexperienced player.

[jasonfish11]

Ok maybe ill answer one and see what everyone thinks.

I call because if UTG limps too much the only hand you are worried about is KJ. He probably wouldnt limp with TT or QQ. He is very likely to limp with AT or QT and KJ if he limps too much from UTG and likes this flop.