|
|
#11
10-04-2007, 12:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 20/40 foxwoods passive 88 vs LAG
88's a limp preflop UTG. You want multiple opponents. Providing the opportunity for a 3 bet takes that away.
|
|
#13
10-04-2007, 03:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 20/40 foxwoods passive 88 vs LAG
[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't everyone 3-bet AK pre-flop now? When unknowns 3-bet preflop I put them on AK first. So my gut here was to bet-out the flop. But, then again I also know that there are 30 combos of TT,JJ,QQ,KK,AA, and only 16 of AK. Despite the combo logic, i'd probably bet out the flop. And then I'd wonder why I did it later. I think the only situation where betting out the flop is good is if villain just calls. Because then if the turn card is a non-A or K, non-heart, then I think you can bet/fold the turn with confidence. But, in general I really hate bet/folding the turn when you have 88 or 99 HU OOP. (Maybe some of the more experienced posters can explain why I'm wrong here, but I hate it.) I think you are just in a spot where you have to be passive cuz you don't wanna get raised, and you don't want to fold, especially vs. a laggy player. So the turn is a clear check/call to me. (It just about always in with 88 or 99 HU OOP.) On the river I think you can fold becuase you are now killed by his range. I assume you were going to call any non-broadway heart, and for that matter, just about any non-heart? [/ QUOTE ] Why would you even think about betting out here on the flop w/the description? You're going to get raised way too often w/naked A high as well as real hands to get any sort of information. He's goin to be 100% of the time when checked to so c/r him and make him pay or make him 3 bet you, which he is less likely to do w/A high. Also you fail to include AQ and KQs in your analysis, both of which are likely 3 betting hands. I can also see occaionally 77, 66, and AJs play pf like this if he's a true lag.
|
|
#14
10-04-2007, 04:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 20/40 foxwoods passive 88 vs LAG
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Doesn't everyone 3-bet AK pre-flop now? When unknowns 3-bet preflop I put them on AK first. So my gut here was to bet-out the flop. But, then again I also know that there are 30 combos of TT,JJ,QQ,KK,AA, and only 16 of AK. Despite the combo logic, i'd probably bet out the flop. And then I'd wonder why I did it later. I think the only situation where betting out the flop is good is if villain just calls. Because then if the turn card is a non-A or K, non-heart, then I think you can bet/fold the turn with confidence. But, in general I really hate bet/folding the turn when you have 88 or 99 HU OOP. (Maybe some of the more experienced posters can explain why I'm wrong here, but I hate it.) I think you are just in a spot where you have to be passive cuz you don't wanna get raised, and you don't want to fold, especially vs. a laggy player. So the turn is a clear check/call to me. (It just about always in with 88 or 99 HU OOP.) On the river I think you can fold becuase you are now killed by his range. I assume you were going to call any non-broadway heart, and for that matter, just about any non-heart? [/ QUOTE ] Why would you even think about betting out here on the flop w/the description? You're going to get raised way too often w/naked A high as well as real hands to get any sort of information. He's goin to be 100% of the time when checked to so c/r him and make him pay or make him 3 bet you, which he is less likely to do w/A high. Also you fail to include AQ and KQs in your analysis, both of which are likely 3 betting hands. I can also see occaionally 77, 66, and AJs play pf like this if he's a true lag. [/ QUOTE ] how can the same mistake be made in every single post? please read the OP. the villian is a lag post flop who hasn't 3bet preflop in the 2-3 hours OP has been sitting at the table in a 20/40 game where probably 80-90% of hands are raised pf how is this not hugely significant info? you really think this guy hasn't seen a hand like AQs/KQs/AJs in the 3 hrs he's been there? his range is extremely narrow given this info. it is probably AK (16, possibly discounted), AA/KK/QQ/JJ/TT/99 so without even taking ito account that he may not even 3bet AK to a tight player's UTG open, its 2.25:1 against him having AK. why would you bet out the flop here? the fact that he is a lag postflop makes the hand interesting. given he did 3bet AK pf, would he bet flop and turn? what % of the time overall can you expect to see that? how many times will a heart come and he bets again? given everything my gut says i'm fine with c/c, c/f on the flop/turn here Barron
|
|
#15
10-05-2007, 10:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 20/40 foxwoods passive 88 vs LAG
[ QUOTE ]
how can the same mistake be made in every single post? please read the OP. the villian is a lag post flop who hasn't 3bet preflop in the 2-3 hours OP has been sitting at the table in a 20/40 game where probably 80-90% of hands are raised pf how is this not hugely significant info? you really think this guy hasn't seen a hand like AQs/KQs/AJs in the 3 hrs he's been there? [/ QUOTE ] 3 hours is nothing [ QUOTE ] his range is extremely narrow given this info. it is probably AK (16, possibly discounted), AA/KK/QQ/JJ/TT/99 so without even taking ito account that he may not even 3bet AK to a tight player's UTG open, its 2.25:1 against him having AK. why would you bet out the flop here? [/ QUOTE ] You don't have to have the best hand every time for leading to be correct. [ QUOTE ] the fact that he is a lag postflop makes the hand interesting. given he did 3bet AK pf, would he bet flop and turn? what % of the time overall can you expect to see that? how many times will a heart come and he bets again? given everything my gut says i'm fine with c/c, c/f on the flop/turn here Barron [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#16
10-05-2007, 10:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 20/40 foxwoods passive 88 vs LAG
[ QUOTE ]
Villain has been pretty lag postflop, playing his made hands really hard and making some stupid bluffs. Hes missed a couple easy value bets on the river however, and as far as I recall, this is the first time hes 3 bet since ive been at the table which was about 2 or 3 hours. Preflop Hero raises UTG with 8 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 8 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], folded to villain in late middle who 3 bets, everyone else folds, I call Flop 2 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 6 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 2 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] Hero c/c Turn J [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] Hero c/c River 5 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] Hero c/f [/ QUOTE ] Not often that I prefer a bet/fold but I would try it on the turn. It would have a greater win% if you had showed strength on the flop.
|
|
#17
10-06-2007, 10:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 20/40 foxwoods passive 88 vs LAG
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] how can the same mistake be made in every single post? please read the OP. the villian is a lag post flop who hasn't 3bet preflop in the 2-3 hours OP has been sitting at the table in a 20/40 game where probably 80-90% of hands are raised pf how is this not hugely significant info? you really think this guy hasn't seen a hand like AQs/KQs/AJs in the 3 hrs he's been there? [/ QUOTE ] 3 hours is nothing [/ QUOTE ] ummm, yea...3 hours is nothing for a lag postflop who is in a ton of hands to have never been seen 3betting a preflop raise. that is a lot of time...like 120 hands... [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] his range is extremely narrow given this info. it is probably AK (16, possibly discounted), AA/KK/QQ/JJ/TT/99 so without even taking ito account that he may not even 3bet AK to a tight player's UTG open, its 2.25:1 against him having AK. why would you bet out the flop here? [/ QUOTE ] You don't have to have the best hand every time for leading to be correct. [/ QUOTE ] yea but by leading you don't gain any new info b/c OP said he is a lag post flop meaning that he would likely raise w/ AhK or AKh (and AKhh) so of the 16 (undiscounted ) times he has AK, half of them he's raising plus all the times he has any of the other hands (read: all pairs). he certainly isn't folding lol. and now you've put n 2 bets on the flop going into the turn with almost exactly the same info that you had if you just check called. Barron
|
|
#18
10-06-2007, 03:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 20/40 foxwoods passive 88 vs LAG
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] how can the same mistake be made in every single post? please read the OP. the villian is a lag post flop who hasn't 3bet preflop in the 2-3 hours OP has been sitting at the table in a 20/40 game where probably 80-90% of hands are raised pf how is this not hugely significant info? you really think this guy hasn't seen a hand like AQs/KQs/AJs in the 3 hrs he's been there? [/ QUOTE ] 3 hours is nothing [/ QUOTE ] ummm, yea...3 hours is nothing for a lag postflop who is in a ton of hands to have never been seen 3betting a preflop raise. that is a lot of time...like 120 hands... [/ QUOTE ] Like maybe half of that. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] his range is extremely narrow given this info. it is probably AK (16, possibly discounted), AA/KK/QQ/JJ/TT/99 so without even taking ito account that he may not even 3bet AK to a tight player's UTG open, its 2.25:1 against him having AK. why would you bet out the flop here? [/ QUOTE ] You don't have to have the best hand every time for leading to be correct. [/ QUOTE ] yea but by leading you don't gain any new info b/c OP said he is a lag post flop meaning that he would likely raise w/ AhK or AKh (and AKhh) so of the 16 (undiscounted ) times he has AK, half of them he's raising plus all the times he has any of the other hands (read: all pairs). he certainly isn't folding lol. and now you've put n 2 bets on the flop going into the turn with almost exactly the same info that you had if you just check called. Barron [/ QUOTE ] You aren't leading for information although you will get it since his 3-bet isn't automatic. You are leading to pjut pressure on hands with no [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] or pair.
|
|
#19
10-06-2007, 06:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 20/40 foxwoods passive 88 vs LAG
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] how can the same mistake be made in every single post? please read the OP. the villian is a lag post flop who hasn't 3bet preflop in the 2-3 hours OP has been sitting at the table in a 20/40 game where probably 80-90% of hands are raised pf how is this not hugely significant info? you really think this guy hasn't seen a hand like AQs/KQs/AJs in the 3 hrs he's been there? [/ QUOTE ] 3 hours is nothing [/ QUOTE ] ummm, yea...3 hours is nothing for a lag postflop who is in a ton of hands to have never been seen 3betting a preflop raise. that is a lot of time...like 120 hands... [/ QUOTE ] Like maybe half of that. [/ QUOTE ] so you're saying that you get 20 hands/hour live? that each hand takes on average 3 full minutes? i'd be willing to make prop bet on that. i'll take the over on 20hands/hour. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] his range is extremely narrow given this info. it is probably AK (16, possibly discounted), AA/KK/QQ/JJ/TT/99 so without even taking ito account that he may not even 3bet AK to a tight player's UTG open, its 2.25:1 against him having AK. why would you bet out the flop here? [/ QUOTE ] You don't have to have the best hand every time for leading to be correct. [/ QUOTE ] yea but by leading you don't gain any new info b/c OP said he is a lag post flop meaning that he would likely raise w/ AhK or AKh (and AKhh) so of the 16 (undiscounted ) times he has AK, half of them he's raising plus all the times he has any of the other hands (read: all pairs). he certainly isn't folding lol. and now you've put n 2 bets on the flop going into the turn with almost exactly the same info that you had if you just check called. Barron [/ QUOTE ] You aren't leading for information although you will get it since his 3-bet isn't automatic. You are leading to pjut pressure on hands with no [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] or pair. [/ QUOTE ] hands w/ no heart? you mean put pressure on AcAd-9c9d? interesting logic. or do you mean no hand AND no pair...like AcKd-AsKc (i.e. 9 total hands vs. 36 hands that you are behind)? that doesn't make sense. the odds aren't anywhere near enough in your favor even if you've only seen him play 60 total hands. out of 169 (or whatever that # is i forget) hands, that means if you assume he always 3bets AA/KK/QQ/JJ/TT/99/AK/AKs, that he went 60 hands in a 20/40 game without a raise in front of him and having those hands, or a raise in front of him and him not seeing AQ(s), AJs, KQs, 88. with 60 hands he can get a little more leeway, but even so, the man has never 3 bet and that is significant enough to narrow his range down on the flop (and given that he 3 bet a tight player's UTG open). i think leading the flop ehre is wrong for all the reasons i've already mentioned. especially given the 2 last bits of logic you've stated. neither of those are a case for leading. he has 6 outs and is correct to call if he doesn't have you crushed already. Barron
|
|
#20
10-06-2007, 10:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 20/40 foxwoods passive 88 vs LAG
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] how can the same mistake be made in every single post? please read the OP. the villian is a lag post flop who hasn't 3bet preflop in the 2-3 hours OP has been sitting at the table in a 20/40 game where probably 80-90% of hands are raised pf how is this not hugely significant info? you really think this guy hasn't seen a hand like AQs/KQs/AJs in the 3 hrs he's been there? [/ QUOTE ] 3 hours is nothing [/ QUOTE ] ummm, yea...3 hours is nothing for a lag postflop who is in a ton of hands to have never been seen 3betting a preflop raise. that is a lot of time...like 120 hands... [/ QUOTE ] Like maybe half of that. [/ QUOTE ] so you're saying that you get 20 hands/hour live? that each hand takes on average 3 full minutes? i'd be willing to make prop bet on that. i'll take the over on 20hands/hour. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] his range is extremely narrow given this info. it is probably AK (16, possibly discounted), AA/KK/QQ/JJ/TT/99 so without even taking ito account that he may not even 3bet AK to a tight player's UTG open, its 2.25:1 against him having AK. why would you bet out the flop here? [/ QUOTE ] You don't have to have the best hand every time for leading to be correct. [/ QUOTE ] yea but by leading you don't gain any new info b/c OP said he is a lag post flop meaning that he would likely raise w/ AhK or AKh (and AKhh) so of the 16 (undiscounted ) times he has AK, half of them he's raising plus all the times he has any of the other hands (read: all pairs). he certainly isn't folding lol. and now you've put n 2 bets on the flop going into the turn with almost exactly the same info that you had if you just check called. Barron [/ QUOTE ] You aren't leading for information although you will get it since his 3-bet isn't automatic. You are leading to pjut pressure on hands with no [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] or pair. [/ QUOTE ] hands w/ no heart? you mean put pressure on AcAd-9c9d? interesting logic. or do you mean no hand AND no pair...like AcKd-AsKc (i.e. 9 total hands vs. 36 hands that you are behind)? that doesn't make sense. the odds aren't anywhere near enough in your favor even if you've only seen him play 60 total hands. out of 169 (or whatever that # is i forget) hands, that means if you assume he always 3bets AA/KK/QQ/JJ/TT/99/AK/AKs, that he went 60 hands in a 20/40 game without a raise in front of him and having those hands, or a raise in front of him and him not seeing AQ(s), AJs, KQs, 88. with 60 hands he can get a little more leeway, but even so, the man has never 3 bet and that is significant enough to narrow his range down on the flop (and given that he 3 bet a tight player's UTG open). i think leading the flop ehre is wrong for all the reasons i've already mentioned. especially given the 2 last bits of logic you've stated. neither of those are a case for leading. he has 6 outs and is correct to call if he doesn't have you crushed already. Barron [/ QUOTE ] We aren't that sure of his range. Even if we were, I was suggesting that leading the flop puts more pressure on him to fold if he does not have a heart.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
