Waiting for some stats before getting yourself into a tough situation?

[n4rf]

Would it be wise to wait till you have stats on a person before facing a really tough decision?

For instance I had AK in the CO and 2nd position just put in a raise. I reraised him and he goes all in (he had me covered). Now without any stats, do you call here or throw them away?

Now If I had seen his stats which were 60/7 (a few hands later), I would have defiantly thrown them away...

I find it very hard to lay hands down such as QQ, JJ, or AK vs big raises with no stats on the player, yet it gets to be much easier with stats.

So would it be wise to just wait until you know how villain plays before commiting all your chips in a very tough situation?

[Milky]

I will typically throw away JJ/QQ/AK to a big 4bet from unknown unless villain is shortstacked, then I'll call. I like to play it safe until I see a reason not to.

[kaz2107]

kinda depends on ur situation. if u r a reg and play a ton u should know of all the solid people at the site. so therefore if he is an unknown then he prolly sucks. thus i call. if this is not the case then it is tougher but i prolly still call. people just suck and do retarted things. prolly am folding JJ but calling QQ and AK

[corsakh]

Its really not that tough of a decision. You dont have a hand to begin with. AK is far from calling hand in this scenario unless villain is a proven tool. AK is similar to QQ in this case. I do 3bets, but I almost always fold to further action without reads (or tilt on my part [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]).

[bozzer]

OP,

basically you just need to be familiar with what an unknown's range is then call or fold. it's not easy, and it'll vary by site/stakes/time etc..

what about when you have a few stats but not many? a couple of months ago i posted some thoughts on this:

Instareads

not essential, but it might give you a few things to think about.

[nutstoyou]

When you say you later had stats on the villain of 60/7, how many hands of his did you have to base the stats on? I see posts all the time where people refer to stats based on, for instance, 50 hands.

I personally don't think these stats are meaningful and can even be misleading. I play 6-handed or less and my own stats can vary greatly based upon a small sample of hands. If the cards are running good for me, I look like a crazy player, if the cards are running bad, I look like a rock.

I think you need at least 200 hands to really make a valid judgement, but maybe I'm wrong and someone can convice me otherwise.

[Quester]

I think stats converge at different rates depending on the type of player. Initially I'm looking at behavioral issues to categorize a player. If I see a player limp from UTG, then check/call with mid pair all the way, I'm tagging him as a loose passive until he proves otherwise. But on the other hand, if I see someone raise CO and then c-bet the flop I don't just mark him as a TAG right away. Point is, the bad players make themselves known right away and this is the most valuable information. Good and marginal players require a good deal of hands to come to any sort of conclusion about their play based on stats. Without catching an obvious behavioral indicator from a player, I'm cautious against them until I have more information.

[Pokey]

I want to make a comment about three-betting and then folding to a push. This concept might not be terribly relevant at the uNL tables, but I think it's worth considering, and I think it's definitely worth remembering as you move up in stakes.

As a general rule, you REALLY don't want to three-bet and then fold to a four-bet very often. Why?

1. You want your three-bets to carry some weight. It's a rarely-used move, and you want it to have maximum potency when you make it. Folding out an opponent and scooping up 2.5 PTBBs without a fight is a good result with damned near any holding you could have; don't be upset about winning that kind of money uncontested, even if you did have AA. Also, for those times when you three-bet with 77 you REALLY want to have folding equity. If you back your three-bets to the bone, people will give them more respect.

2. Frequently folding to a four-bet makes four-betting easier for your opponents. They'll see they've got good folding equity so they'll play back at you lighter as a semibluff, knowing they get some equity from hand value and additional equity from folding potential. If you won't let go, they'll be less likely to push back.

3. If a three-bet is a suicide pact from you, your opponents will dramatically tighten up their four-betting range, letting you play more correctly against them. If a three-bet is just a gambit, your opponents might play back much more broadly, leaving you strongly wondering what your best move should be.

4. If you've got a hand like AKo or QQ, you're usually flipping, occasionally dominating, and occasionally dominated. Overall equity is about even calling a four-bet, so you might as well look strong.

5. If you put your stack in play "gamboooling" with a hand like AKo or JJ, people will assume you're a loose idiot; this can get you much more action later on at the table when you catch something unstoppable. If you risk your stack as a 2-to-1 dog you're really only costing yourself about 30 BBs, and you can make that up in a single mediocre pot when you flop top set and your opponents know that you are a persistent gambler. Even better, if you WIN that hand as a 2-to-1 dog you'll not only get a big win, but you'll also have just proven to the entire table that you're a heavy gambler, and now you'll get action from everybody, including players who are generally tight nits.

I'm not saying you always-and-forever have to commit your stack any time you three-bet, but for metagame reasons you should be calling a push far more often than you fold to one. The higher the stakes, the more true this becomes.

[n4rf]

Thanks for the replies.

Quester: No, the Hand range wasn't very big, maybe only 40. I know it's a small sample but with numbers that extreme I would have been a little more skeptical about calling a push. He just seemed like a loose-passive player, playing almost every pot and never raising much at all.

Great post Pokey and I know this would be much different at higher stakes (Playing 10NL). Sometimes I think that I might play much better at higher levels where you don't see as many "wtf?" things.

I wouldn't usually fold a 4 bet, but when it's all in it gets tough. It wasn't like the 4bet was an extra $4 or $5, it was about an extra $10. He raised $.40, I re-raised $1.35, and he pushed all-in for about $11 more (I only had about $9 left behind).

Sometimes I REALLY have to give them credit for a monster when they commit a huge stack preflop because they're hoping that I have AK, KK, QQ, etc. Obviously they put me on a big hand and they know I might be willing to call that huge All-in.

Of course when it comes to short stacks, this would be a much easier call since many try to get it in with low PP or a weaker Ace.

[fozzy71]

Its nice to have Pokey back. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

NH Pokey