FLO8 - Pre-flop play from Blinds

[RobNottsUk]

Both situations full ring, in a basically TAG game with 2 1/2 poor 'value' players. Most opponents are somewhat loose (especially on post-flop), somewhat passive; expecting their "Basic Strategy" to see them through.


Situation 1

Maniac UTG limps, TAG player late middle positon raises :

BB has A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 2 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 3 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 4 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

In the game the BB chose to 3-bet it, which seems a poor choice with a great drawing hand.

On a flop of KQ5, the BB check-ed and then chose to revenge 3-bet on the flop (TAG player had AA2x), letting maniac 4 bet, and finally show down a great Hi hand (2 pair on flop, str8 on river; no Lo possible).

Seems to me, that smooth calling is superior, happy to keep pot small on draw, and seeing if the Maniac limp/3bets or just calls.

1) UTG Maniac has shown weakness by limping, so might fold pre-flop

2) Raising building the pot, makes Maniacs fault of betting too much and not folding with any kind of a hand, closer to correct play

3) TAG player knows the Maniac, might 3 bet it; so wouldn't re-open the betting without a real hand.

Am I missing something?


Situation 2

TAG player open raises (3 seats off the button), a tricky rather loose-aggressive player in BB. It folds to SB holding A [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 2 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 4 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] T [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

In the game the SB smooth called, flopped Nut Lo draw with counterfeit protection + A-hi non-nut Flush draw on paired board. Played passively on flop and then proceeded to lose the maximum, against the BB who flopped an unlikely fullhouse with a trash hand.

In this case, it seems the SB is better to re-raise.

1) Struggles for iniative HU, against TAG opponent; showing strength will help read responses and might scoop the pot

2) Cuts the implied odds of tricky loose-aggressive opponent who has position on SB

3) Charges the TAG more to see flop, might easily have raised with A3sxx, or A45xs; or even be raising deceptively with a good Hi hand.

Am I missing something?

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
Am I missing something?

[/ QUOTE ]Hi Rob - Your post to which I am responding doesn't make sense to me.

Buzz

[RobNottsUk]

Uhh OK. The numbered points are argueing a case for a different decision than the one taken in the game. I've tried to use 'standard' poker terminology.

Would it help if I stripped out those hands and asked what you'ld do?

Situation 1)

Maniac UTG limps.
TAG player 3 from button raises.
BB has A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 2 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 3 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 4 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

What's your preferred usual play?

[bbartlog]

It seems like you're questioning both BB's decision 3-bet and SB's decision to smooth call. But like Buzz says, your post is really hard to understand - hand histories in some usual format would make things easier. For what it's worth I think both BB's 3-bet and SB's smooth call are good plays, though it's more cut and dried in the second case than the first. A24Ts is a pulling hand, period.

You also describe the game as TAG and then say the majority of players are somewhat passive. I don't think it actually makes much difference to the preflop play, but make up your mind [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[RobNottsUk]

Life isn't black & white. I'm describing a game mainly TAG pre-flop, but on flop players are somewhat loose / somewhat passive; with some loose-passive and some weak-tight.

If you just look at the cards in isolation against a 'typical opponent', it's clear what the normal play is.

But as UTG in 1) is a Maniac (and good value); and in 2) BB is a tricky, clever, skillful LAG type player, I'm arguing to reverse the 'rote' decision.

The problem with these forums (any poker forum) if you post hands, the cards, stacks etc become prominent and the situational ppl stuff is not seen or discussed.

It's why I hesitate to post hand-histories...

Furthermore often there's a cross purpose argument, all based on different understandings of typical games and opponents.

[facialabuse]

as you've answered very well yourself, this situations are too read/dependent on rapidly fluctuating dynamics to generalize, as you've described the situation, your "alternative" approaches seem like a good low-variance approach that is only slightly exploitable, and at the limits you're referring to, is virtually unexploitable

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
Situation 1)

What's your preferred usual play?

[/ QUOTE ]Hi Rob. Yes your re-explanation makes situation 1 clear.

It would be highly dependent on what cards I thought the TAG player held. (Some TAG players usually have AAXY when they raise from late middle position, some have crap like QJTTo, some have A2XY, some have A3XY, some have A4XY, some usually or often raise when they enter the action regardless of their cards, some are totally unpredictable). And it would also depend on the other players still in the hand. And it would depend on how I thought it would affect my table image.

My raises before the flop generally are more dependent on my opponents than on the cards I hold myself. But they are somewhat dependent on my own cards. This hand is a rainbow lacking in high card strength, but it does have ABCD. It does connect with a high percentage of flops, and then goes on to get a share of the pot. And it's easy to play after the flop. And there is something to be said for occasionally re-raising your big blind as a sort of attacking defense. (Some of my opponents use the raise-from-your-own-big-blind tactic too often for their own good, in my opinion, but I like it once in a while and this hand, despite it's flaws, supports a re-raise before the flop.

Thus I might either call or re-raise.

Situation 2 is still not clear to me. Start with the opening paragraph. [ QUOTE ]
TAG player open raises (3 seats off the button), a tricky rather loose-aggressive player in BB. It folds to SB holding
A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img],2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img],4[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img],T[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]The first "sentence" is unclear. Is TAG three seats off the button? Is BB the player who is tricky and rather loose-aggressive?

If I've interpreted correctly, isn't "TAG player (3 seats off the button) open raises a tricky rather loose-aggressive player in BB." clearer?

And then what or who is "it" in the second sentence?

O.K. after further thought I guess everyone folds to SB who holds
A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img],2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img],4[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img],T[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img].

[ QUOTE ]
In the game the SB smooth called, flopped Nut Lo draw with counterfeit protection + A-hi non-nut Flush draw on paired board. Played passively on flop and then proceeded to lose the maximum, against the BB who flopped an unlikely fullhouse with a trash hand.

[/ QUOTE ]O.K., I think I see.

If you just replace the period in the middle of the paragraph with a comma, and then make the next word (played) small case, and then put another comma after the word "flop" (although the second comma isn't absolutely necessary), then the paragraph makes sense to me.

O.K. I think I see, but that was a struggle.

Then you write:[ QUOTE ]
In this case, it seems the SB is better to re-raise.

[/ QUOTE ]I rate the two starting hands about the same in overall value. Maybe the A234o hand is slightly better. If the second hand was A23Ts rather than A24Ts, then it would be better than either of the hands in your post.

At any rate, I'd just call from the SB with the second hand, rather than raise.

[ QUOTE ]
1) Struggles for iniative HU, against TAG opponent; showing strength will help read responses and might scoop the pot

[/ QUOTE ]That's a good point.

[ QUOTE ]
2) Cuts the implied odds of tricky loose-aggressive opponent who has position on SB

[/ QUOTE ]Excellent point!

[ QUOTE ]
3) Charges the TAG more to see flop, might easily have raised with A3sxx, or A45xs; or even be raising deceptively with a good Hi hand.

[/ QUOTE ]Agreed.

You make a good argument for raising, such good reasoning that it's worth wading through you wording. But whew!

Buzz

[RobNottsUk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Situation 1)

What's your preferred usual play?

[/ QUOTE ]Hi Rob. Yes your re-explanation makes situation 1 clear.

It would be highly dependent on what cards I thought the TAG player held.


[/ QUOTE ]
Bingo!

That's the exact point, and yesterday I got the impression noone cared about that.

A234 is much less strong, against a solid TAG exploiting a limping maniac. In my view, that player is much more likely to have AA2, A23, A3s than usual. A limp makes more sense with a Hi hand, and there's not value in playing trash, when the maniac's problems will be exacerbated in a multi-way pot, and reduced in a jammed pot pre-flop Heads Up or 3-way.

Finally as the Maniac failed to raise you know, he does not have an ALxx hand, probably has Trash but may be a Hi hand he didn't want to raise with.

As everyone else folded that makes AAWx much more likely, and furthermore, there's probably duplication of the 2 making counterfeiting of Nut Lo draw less likely.

As GrandmaD did, I checked my gut instinct through 2 Dimes, and as A234 is a drawing hand, and this TAG is good enough player to fold a Nut Lo draw rather than get quarted, your expectation is improved by flopping the big Lo draw + Wheel chances and then going to war.

There's no point in splitting the Lo pot with A2, which happens most of the time. And you have a very predictable, player on your left who can use to have counter-position on.

In the game, the TAG had AA2 so was in the best shape pre-flop.

[RobNottsUk]

[ QUOTE ]
as you've answered very well yourself, ... and at the limits you're referring to, is virtually unexploitable

[/ QUOTE ]
Thank you, I'll take that as a compliment and the "hint of menace" at the end about being exploitable at higher limits, made me chuckle [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[RobNottsUk]

[ QUOTE ]
The first "sentence" is unclear. Is TAG three seats off the button? Is BB the player who is tricky and rather loose-aggressive?

If I've interpreted correctly, isn't "TAG player (3 seats off the button) open raises a tricky rather loose-aggressive player in BB." clearer?

And then what or who is "it" in the second sentence?


[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, if the grammar slips were unclear. It is hard in a forum to write perfectly, most native speakers tend to write as they speak here, rather than correctly.

I'm not sure about whether the suggestion of defining the position before the action, rather than after is any better. Your approach is systematic, but doesn't seem natural, in English (and German) often the verb part is the 2nd clump in the sentence; though English has a lot of flexibility and wiggle room.

On TAG players, it is their right (due to their patience) to sometimes raise with absolute filth, to mix it up and either make you fold incorrectly on flop, or make you raise incorrectly if they catch big with a surprise holding. If they do it too often, they're becoming LAG, if they do it too little, they're becoming Rocky and not TAG (thought that might be the optimum strategy in this hand at that table).

Having a Maniac in the pot, means it's not a steal though, so I wouldn't give much credence to the player raising a weak player, with a trash hand.