1-2NL Hand At The Taj

[jjshabado]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But it's a lot easier going through the hand knowing what he had. If he didn't show what he had, I would have put him on a straight, two pair, or possible ace after the river bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try to improve your hand reading. Someone who puts his opponent on every possible made hand is never going to be making good decisions. For example, you can definitely rule out him having an Ace or two pair by the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't play live much, do you? Ace or two pair would be very typical from a player like this.

[jcl]

[ QUOTE ]
Villain is not going to be bluffing or calling with a worse hand often enough here to make this profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm aware he's never calling with a worse hand. The thing is: HE'S NOT CALLING a lot of the time. and the times he does, we have outs (hence why it's better to get it in on turn when your equity is at its peak). and those odds you make them sound bad but 350 to win 400 is like excellent and so standard it's not like ur shoving 1000 on over a pot of 200.

[jjshabado]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Villain is not going to be bluffing or calling with a worse hand often enough here to make this profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm aware he's never calling with a worse hand. The thing is: HE'S NOT CALLING a lot of the time. and the times he does, we have outs (hence why it's better to get it in on turn when your equity is at its peak). and those odds you make them sound bad but 350 to win 400 is like excellent and so standard it's not like ur shoving 1000 on over a pot of 200.

[/ QUOTE ]

He'll be getting odds of almost 4 to 1, and OP describes him as someone that calls too much so I'm pretty sure he's almost never folding here unless he's on a pure bluff. After the way the action has progressed I'd be pretty confident we're beat here more than half the time we make this play. The times we're beat and he calls and we suck out are probably balanced out with the times he's beat (he has a lower pair, or a straight draw) and he sucks out.

[klezmaniac]

[grunch]

Check/raise the flop. Lead the turn. If he plays back at you, fold and wait for a better spot.

--klez

[SellingtheDrama]

I do agree that you under-repped your hand so badly that you gave him the chance to outplay you. Especially out of position, you have to take the lead and keep it.

If I had to play, I'd bet/call preflop, and check/raise big on the flop. There's 180 in the pot counting the call part of your check/raise with about $380 behind...I'd make it $150 more (200 total) with the intention of not folding.

Don't be a passive player live, I see so many people in my games that are just check-call...check-call...they are capable of being perfectly good players, but just don't let themselves.

[FoxInTheHenHouse]

You were definitely too passive.

You gave villain control of the pot and the hand.

All in after the flop was your correct move with scary board. Put villain to the decision.

[VeraN]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But it's a lot easier going through the hand knowing what he had. If he didn't show what he had, I would have put him on a straight, two pair, or possible ace after the river bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try to improve your hand reading. Someone who puts his opponent on every possible made hand is never going to be making good decisions. For example, you can definitely rule out him having an Ace or two pair by the river.

Put yourself in his seat. Give yourself AK. Do you truly triple barrel on this board?

Now imagine he has two pair or even a set. You have played this hand like a draw. You might have busted spades but you equally might have a hand like T9s with middle pair and a straight draw. A busted flush draw isn't going to call the all-in but a straight certainly will. Do you really think he is going to push two pair/set there when it looks like you've made a straight?

In general, if the board keeps getting scarier yet your opponent keeps mashing the pot at you then his range is very polarised. It's either the nuts or a complete bluff. In this case, he needs a 9 to bet this river. Is a 9 consistent with his play? This will depend on your reads - e.g. does he semibluff every time he can or does he sometime take a free card on turn. In any case, a 9 is very rare here especially since he 3-bet preflop. So this is a bluff a lot of the time.

What does this mean? By the river, you shouldn't be thinking "man, I can't beat a straight, two pair, a set, an Ace, KK...". You should be thinking "he either has a straight or a air, is his play consistent with a straight". What you have barely matters. QQ here is about as good as AJ (and I'm sure you woulda called with top 2). If you think he has it, you fold QQ as quickly as you should fold AJ there, if you don't then you can call with midpair (though I wouldn't stretch it too much...calling with pocket 55s might be a stretch in case he's "bluffing" with a pair of tens or something lol)

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for the very detailed response. He's been bluffing a lot and also getting lucky a lot (caught two pair with triple barrel bets with 38o three times). I put him on a 9 for a straight or A - although on the turn I was pretty sure that he did not have an A for reasons you and others have noted about the scary board and his over-sized bet.

I called the $200 bet knowing strongly that I was ahead until the river where I put him on a 9. I was hoping that by calling on the turn and checking on the river, that he would have no choice but to check on the river with me if he did not have a straight.

However due to what he had (74o), going all in was the only move for him if he wanted to push me out which he did.

As for hand reading, you'll have to trust me that it's almost impossible to put him on a hand. He's three bet several times with wide range of hands that were barely stronger than 27o.

[jjshabado]

[ QUOTE ]
As for hand reading, you'll have to trust me that it's almost impossible to put him on a hand. He's three bet several times with wide range of hands that were barely stronger than 27o.

[/ QUOTE ]

So in these situations you just tell yourself he's got a wide range of hands and jam when you're in a good spot. Preflop and the flop were the spots where you should have done that.

Never, (and I mean like 99.9% never), fold when playing live getting 4:1 because you've put someone on a specific hand. Live 1/2NL players are horrible, and you can't give them too much respect.

[jcl]

[ QUOTE ]
As for hand reading, you'll have to trust me that it's almost impossible to put him on a hand. He's three bet several times with wide range of hands that were barely stronger than 27o.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where a lot of new players get tripped up too. Hand reading isn't about working out what your opponent HAS. It's working out what he doesn't have, or more precisely, what he can't possibly have yet is representing. Cool as it may be to put him on exactly 74, does it matter to your decision making if he in fact has 75, 27, K2? Of course not. His 'hand' is 'air' (which includes anything that isn't the straight) or the straight. The way he has played it there is virtually no in between. If he were hard to read, it wouldn't be because you couldn't put him on 74 precisely but rather because he could have a good mix of bluffs, weak hands, medium hands AND strong hands (the straight) in this very spot. However, few people can merge their range this well (I can't) so his range is indeed polarised and not particularly hard to read.

[jjshabado]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As for hand reading, you'll have to trust me that it's almost impossible to put him on a hand. He's three bet several times with wide range of hands that were barely stronger than 27o.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where a lot of new players get tripped up too. Hand reading isn't about working out what your opponent HAS. It's working out what he doesn't have, or more precisely, what he can't possibly have yet is representing. Cool as it may be to put him on exactly 74, does it matter to your decision making if he in fact has 75, 27, K2? Of course not. His 'hand' is 'air' (which includes anything that isn't the straight) or the straight. The way he has played it there is virtually no in between. If he were hard to read, it wouldn't be because you couldn't put him on 74 precisely but rather because he could have a good mix of bluffs, weak hands, medium hands AND strong hands (the straight) in this very spot. However, few people can merge their range this well (I can't) so his range is indeed polarised and not particularly hard to read.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, this isn't true. Live he could have almost anything and his range isn't particularly polarized.