Blind defense checkup

[private joker]

[ QUOTE ]


haha... wow that is suprising. Who was the floorman? Archie?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup. I love Archie. I think he's the best floorman in all of Los Angeles, and one of the best I've seen anywhere around.

[Bad Lobster]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I make plenty of mistakes and I still have a lot to learn in poker. But this post you wrote is simply awful, I'm afraid. I'm worried about your game if this is how you think about poker, so in order to help you I can only recommend you


[/ QUOTE ]

What is this, jump on the guy who disagrees week? You seem to be implying that if I haven't read the latest book then I'm not qualified to have an opinion--sorry, it isn't so.

[ QUOTE ]



start reading books and thinking about the game a little more deeply -- most especially please pick up the new book Winning in Tough Holdem Games by a guy who responded in this thread: Stoxtrader. You apparently missed his post the first time, so go back and read it and then read 300 pages more. He has a lot to teach you and it's never too late to learn.



[/ QUOTE ]

You know what--I did read his post and I agree with him but his endorsement of your play only goes so far: the check-raise was only a marginally ok play given that so many of his likely hands beat you. Your line after the flop was ok given the situation (like he said, it's close all round) but not being in the hand at all would have been an even better line.

---

Here's a little social engineering for you: if your villain chased a drunk on tilt away from the table, then he's not a pro. He's acting like a stereotypical Middle Eastern poker player: he wears his ego on his sleeve and takes all beats (as well as his own monster hands) personally. Inviting him te engage in a battle of wits is not the way to bring out his most "generous" behavior.

And playing at a table where clowns are rassling with drunks, I seriously question whether "tough hold'em" principles apply.

[private joker]

[ QUOTE ]


I looked through the BB defense section in the Stoxtrader book and didn't really find an example that came close to comparing to this in weakness of initial hand coupled with a flop this bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

His examples are created to make the decisions a bit more clear, since that makes for better writing. But read his response in this thread where he mentions that this hand is a lot closer. I think the fact that this is so thin in many ways is what makes the hand interesting (it's actually more interesting than I thought it was when I posted it; but that's probably because I still suck at blind defense).

I would only take exception to your theory that villain has to have an A, K, Q, or pocket pair here. If you look at the charts in the book, even a moderately aggressive pro will have a much wider opening range in that spot (stealing from the button). And if he does have an A, then I have the best hand unless he paired his kicker on the flop.

A guy like this should play back at me on the flop or turn if I'm beat: a K should raise the turn, and a Q might 3-bet the flop for a free card and get a cheaper showdown. Or obviously a K could 3-bet the flop and a Q could raise the turn for a free showdown. But I can't simply assume that I'm behind because there are two overs.

[Bad Lobster]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

People I play with say things like this all the time to me and like clockwork they almost always manage to leave the casino a lot sooner than I do and with a lot less money because while they are sitting around and waiting for a good spot I'm turning lemons into lemonade.


[/ QUOTE ]

Did I mention that I'm a brain surgeon in my day job? And I moonlight as a rocket scientist on the side. This only leaves me alternate Tuesdays to display my genius as a poker player, but you should not class me with those other hapless peons who were so unfortunate as not to see things your way.


[img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[private joker]

[ QUOTE ]

What is this, jump on the guy who disagrees week?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I jump on the people who convinced me to check-fold this river or maybe check-call the turn? No, I actually considered those lines and may use them next time.

This is jump-on-the-guy-who-is-incorrect week.

[emerson]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I looked through the BB defense section in the Stoxtrader book and didn't really find an example that came close to comparing to this in weakness of initial hand coupled with a flop this bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

His examples are created to make the decisions a bit more clear, since that makes for better writing. But read his response in this thread where he mentions that this hand is a lot closer. I think the fact that this is so thin in many ways is what makes the hand interesting (it's actually more interesting than I thought it was when I posted it; but that's probably because I still suck at blind defense).

I would only take exception to your theory that villain has to have an A, K, Q, or pocket pair here. If you look at the charts in the book, even a moderately aggressive pro will have a much wider opening range in that spot (stealing from the button). And if he does have an A, then I have the best hand unless he paired his kicker on the flop.

A guy like this should play back at me on the flop or turn if I'm beat: a K should raise the turn, and a Q might 3-bet the flop for a free card and get a cheaper showdown. Or obviously a K could 3-bet the flop and a Q could raise the turn for a free showdown. But I can't simply assume that I'm behind because there are two overs.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could be right, I don't know the exact probability, but the flop is ugly.

One thing I don't know about is the notion that he would play back at you. This depends on how aggressive he thinks you are and what he has. If I were he, and I had a king with a weak kicker, or a queen, I'd just let you bet all the way. It makes the most if you are bluffing and loses the least if he is beat.

[AragornX151]

What book is this? Gotta order it, it sounds like.

[AragornX151]

[ QUOTE ]
You could be right, I don't know the exact probability, but the flop is ugly.

One thing I don't know about is the notion that he would play back at you. This depends on how aggressive he thinks you are and what he has. If I were he, and I had a king with a weak kicker, or a queen, I'd just let you bet all the way. It makes the most if you are bluffing and loses the least if he is beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel like your range for the button raiser here is too tight, especially given his description. No doubt this flop hits plenty of hands that he would have raised with, but it misses plenty too; lots of suited or two gapped connectors, Ax, etc.

[ssmallz]

[ QUOTE ]
Its pretty damn weak against this flop. The steal ranges with big cards have kickers as low as 2 or 3 for an Ace or King, and as low as a 5 or 7 for a Queen. The probability of the raiser having them is much higher than him having a J or T, for example. He probably has an A,K or Q, or a pocket pair. Bottom pair of sixes with an 8 kicker is in trouble.

I looked through the BB defense section in the Stoxtrader book and didn't really find an example that came close to comparing to this in weakness of initial hand coupled with a flop this bad. In most of the examples Stox has a big card. But looking at a few where he doesn't: In #12 he has 3,2 of spades, but the small blind had also called giving him better pot odds... and then he flopped a flush draw. #14 Stox has 7,8 but flops trips on a 772 flop. Hand #26, Stox calls in the BB with 7,6 suited. The flop gives him top pair with an open end straight. Hand #32, Stox has a weakie here, 8,6 offsuit. Here comes the flop, 966, wow. Hand #42, Stox has T,8 offsuit. Flop is T42... top pair.

There is only one example in the book that is even remotely close to this one when combining the weakness of the starting hand with the flop. #37. Stox has 6,4 of spades in the BB and the flop comes QJ5 with two spades. He has a flush draw and backdoor straight draw on a QJ flop, which is not nearly as bad as a KQ flop. Also, he has stats on this opponent and puts him on a 40% stealing range. I don't know how you can be close to that accurate live.

This all just looks very loose to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, he steals w/a lot of Ax, Qx, Kx, but he also steals w/a lot of PPs, Jx, Tx, 9x and other suited crap.

Lets say he's got JJ on this flop, after you c/r him, he's hating his hand. Same with A9o or A5o. Even Q8 isn't loving their hand so much once you c/r. Thats what playin poker is all about, sometimes you've gotta take a risk or 2. For the record I would also c/r Kx, Qx, JT, and even some gutters if the guy was tight enough to lay down a hand. Part of the reason you make this play is b/c it disguises your hand. If you're going to be playing against the same players for a while, you can't only c/r your good hands like Kx. You've gotta be willing to c/r with a wide vairety so you can get value out of your good hands and/or fold players when you don't hit the flop.

Lets say you don't c/r the flop, what is your plan? C/f? definatly not a good play cause he's betting the flop 100% of the time and your good here more than 1 in 5. C/c? not a bad play, but what happens on the turn? Any hand that you were behind, he just value bets. If you were ahead, he may decided to check behind and take a freebe. In this case you let him have a free shot at a 6 outter. There's no perfect way to play this flop but c/ring it allows you to find out where you are as well as put your opponent in a situation where he can make a mistake.

[emerson]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You could be right, I don't know the exact probability, but the flop is ugly.

One thing I don't know about is the notion that he would play back at you. This depends on how aggressive he thinks you are and what he has. If I were he, and I had a king with a weak kicker, or a queen, I'd just let you bet all the way. It makes the most if you are bluffing and loses the least if he is beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel like your range for the button raiser here is too tight, especially given his description. No doubt this flop hits plenty of hands that he would have raised with, but it misses plenty too; lots of suited or two gapped connectors, Ax, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to put myself in the position of the PFR and tell you what you could expect with my various hands vs an aggressive blind defender.

1. I have squat. I either fold to the flop check raise or take a look at the turn and fold to his turn bet.

2. I have a weak draw. Same as above. I call the raise on the flop. I fold to the turn bet if I don't improve. Any improvement I probably make a semi-bluff raise.

3. I have a strong draw. I probably 3 bet him on the flop, hoping for either a fold or to get a free card. I bet again on the turn if I improve.

4. I have two pair or top pair with good kicker. I call the raise on the flop and raise on the turn.

5. I have middle pair or top pair with weak kicker. This is where my line looks most like what happened in this game. I make my continuation bet when checked to on the flop. I just call the check raise. I have a decent hand but worry he has a better one. I also call on the turn, most of the time.

I say most of the time because sometimes I might make a free showdown raise with queens or the weak king. But this depends whether I think this guy is aggressive and will usually fire the third barrell. If I read him as an aggressive blind defender who will push a small edge all the way, then I just call the turn as well hoping that he'll bluff on the river. As I said in another response, this wins the most if he is bluffing and loses the least if I'm beat.

6. I have a pocket pair 77 to JJ. In this case I probably 3 bet the flop, take the free card on the turn, and call on the river unless an Ace shows, in which case I likely fold to a river bet.

7. I have a pocket pair 55 or smaller. I fold to the check raise on the flop.