Comments on this hand please (PLO8 $400)

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
Assani, I appreciate your comments and hope this doesn't come across as impolite. That's not my intention.

I don't want to turn this into a debate about the pfr. I thought I adequately explained the reasons for the pfr, but perhaps I didn't, and I fully understand that nothing on a message board can substitute for being at the table. Suffice it to say that, while I can see disagreeing with a pfr, to call it a "mistake" is really wrong, IMHO, for a number of reasons. While I think I listed some of them, to respond briefly to one that you raised ... by raising pre-flop, I believe I make it *less* likely that he will get involved in the hand with me. As I mentioned, one reason I raised is to buy position. If I thought I was not likely to get position, I would have been less likely to raise.

I should have mentioned that Button's VPIP is low 40s ... so he does seem to show some kind of selection pre-flop.

I'm going to save responding to comments about the rest of the hand (and giving results) until others post. I appreciate everyone that has responded so far.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not impolite at all man, and I can understand that you just want to focus on the turn aspect of the hand. Icy pots, friend.


[ QUOTE ]
The turn was not "horrible for our hand", it might have given us 9 more outs to the high

[/ QUOTE ]

In my haste I failed to notice the club draw we added on the turn. Point noted.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that way you exploit bad players is to shove all the chips in with small advantages (which may be the right play against good aggressive players). The way to exploit bad players is to get the money in when you are WAY ahead and they are too dumb to realize it. Players like this you can just murder on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed, but if hes on a draw and misses then obviously hes not going to pay us off on the river. Do agree with your overall point.

[ QUOTE ]
Would a blocking bet work against this guy?

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You could bet 1/2 pot on the turn and then check/fold if you miss or set him all-in on the river. It will save you a few dollars if you miss but still give you the full upside if you hit.


[/ QUOTE ]
This is an interesting aspect. Perhaps its overthinking here to use 3rd level thinking with this opponent, but I would think that you betting a small portion of your stack could make it look like you definitely want to make sure you get it all in and are trying to string him along slowly to have it all in at the river.

The more I think about it, the more I like a bet in the $75-100 range.

[ QUOTE ]
As I thought would be obvious -- but I guess not -- the "99% sure" statement is a bit of an exaggeration. My read is that he bets when an aggressive player shows weakness, so I'd expect him to do that here. But there's no guarantee. Better?


[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is a totally different situation though for 2 reasons:

1. He'd be betting into a dry side pot(and furthermore even if he eliminated you, the guy thats still in the hand has shown a lot of strength by check raising the flop)

2. Its possible that he is on a draw with a hand like 23 of spades.

While #2 alone doesn't guarantee a check, I think that when you couple it with #1 it does. Like I said earlier, if you're up against a set then all of the money is getting in here regardless of what you do, so you should focus on how he would play other hands.

The only other hand than a set or a draw would be 2 pair. I guess I could kinda see how if you bet big even when the straight came out that would show extreme strength and would cause him to think that you must have AA and fold. But even still you have no hand at the moment(king high) and have an all in opponent to beat.


Edited to add:

[ QUOTE ]
I've got to guess that he's folding a river that's a high spade

[/ QUOTE ]
If he also has 2 spades, based upon your description of him, I think you could get it all in with a check/raise on the river.

[davebreal]

personally, i'd probably end up betting the pot here on the turn, although there is probably no fold equity as you said. a major factor for my own play is i like to be the aggressor and hate when people try to run me over instead. for metagame principles at $2/$4 and above, i think it's important to demonstrate some backbone... and in the long run it will probably get you more free cards and free showdowns if you can instill a little fear in your opponents. you are no rookie to these games, so i'm sure this isn't a foreign concept to you either.

i then probably proceed to punch the wall when the board pairs on the river.

___________________________________________
[ QUOTE ]
Villain Button is an aggressive donk who goes to showdown way too often

[/ QUOTE ]

i was actually scared you were talking about me originally... luckily this hand does not sound familiar [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Assani Fisher]

I feel silly asking this and I can kinda figure it out by context, but....

Two of you have used "metagame" in this thread. What exactly does it mean?

[davebreal]

[ QUOTE ]
I feel silly asking this and I can kinda figure it out by context, but....

Two of you have used "metagame" in this thread. What exactly does it mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

from wikipedia:

[ QUOTE ]
Another game-related use of Metagaming refers to operating on knowledge of the way a game is played within a particular geographic region or tournament circuit. This local or circuit-specific context is often referred to as the metagame. A player who is aware of the metagame for their particular gaming environment may make play choices that are objectively inferior for the game in general, but are optimized against the play styles of the majority of players they are likely to face in that specific competitive arena. This usage is common in games that have large, organized play systems or tournament circuits and which feature customized decks of cards, sets of miniatures or other playing pieces for each player.

[/ QUOTE ]

i would relate it to establishing a certain type of table image when playing the same opponents repeatedly... and attempting to use that table image to manipulate them in future hands.

[TomG]

The side pot is empty. In this case, getting the button to fold doesn't win the pot. We still have to win at showdown against the all-in small blind. So the idea of betting to generate "fold equity" in this situation is worth less than usual. However, we know that the button is often going to bet all-in if we check. Therefore, it remains the better option to lead out. The question then becomes, will a blocking more effectively handle the situation? The more I think about it, the more I like betting about 1/2 of button's remaining stack. There isn't much downside to this bet since if button wanted to go all-in, the blocking bet doesn't make it any easier for him to do so. A blocking bet effectively commits button to a showdown for a lesser price than betting the full pot.

[Mendacious]

[ QUOTE ]
i would relate it to establishing a certain type of table image when playing the same opponents repeatedly... and attempting to use that table image to manipulate them in future hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good definition. I would only add that when people use this term, they are almost always referring to one of 3 things.

1) Betting or raising so as to promote an aggressive image;
2) Calling a little thin to keep people from thinking they can push you around; and
3) Loosening up pre-flop (calling or raising requirements).

Essentially it means making your play more aggressive and less predictable to make it harder for opponents to predict your actions or probably holdings.

[Mendacious]

I misread the size of the pot on the turn (didn't see the all-in by SB). So given that all the money can get in on the turn, I think you are kinda stuck with the meta-game push. I certainly would not want to face a big bet on the river if a high club fell.

[niss]

I think Tom's approach sounds best. A small enough bet (1/2) probably guarantees a call on the turn and a call on the river should I hit, while saving me money should I whiff; and if he raises, that's fine.

[rando]

I liked a 1/2 pot turn lead until examining the stacks and realizing button has an amount left that minimizes your creative options. If you're behind his hand, he'll surely be raising this bet, and you're stuck getting it in bad, albeit with plenty of equity. The questions that need answers here, IMO are what bet tells him I have aces... scared aces (rainbow perhaps no low) and confident aces (at least a low and probably plus FD)? Does he suspect we have aces? If the latter, second level question is "probably" or "yeah, duh!" then I think this needs to be exploited. Getting more yield from the ballsy raise preflop is probably key in this spot, since his stack isn't deep enough to leave you enough options to make this thread chock full 'o choices on the turn.

[niss]

I understand Tom's question about the point of the OP, since it's likely the money is going in. Obviously I disagree with it, but I understand it. The way I played the hand bothered me all night, and I think perhaps the 1/2 bet on the turn would have been the right move, but he probably would have raised me with anything there so it may all just be academic.

Anyway, I pushed the turn for the pot. With the hands I expected him to show, I figured I was slightly ahead ... and getting 2 to 1 if he called I felt I was not making a big mistake if I was wrong on what I thought he most likely held. But what I've been thinking about is that I risked losing him by betting, and perhaps should not have bet the pot.

He called all in, and showed A-8-8-K with A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 8[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]. Both the set and the clubs really surprised me. A set of 8s? Jesus. And the clubs too? Not that I should have been able to expect that one way or the other, but I felt good that the club turn increased my equity meaningfully. Yet I still was (slightly) better than 2-1.

But f him. The river was Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], I scooped, and he berated me. In caps this time.

Edit -- I should have mentioned that the SB had a 2-3 hand. Maybe A-2-3, I don't recall.