$5/10 Razz--Three Pair

[big e]

Nicely played.

Just one question is this play dependant on your view of the OP and only used after several hands or is this a standard play, that can be used with an unknown villain.

[*TT*]

Question: What does Andy think of his play?

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[LandonM]

[ QUOTE ]


What you call stylistic I call contrary to the advise in Sklansky on Razz. To date that is the most spot on book about any poker game I have read, he nailed 3rd street so well there is no need to deviate from the recommended course.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Two things.

1) The play very well may be contrary to what a book says (even Sklansky on Razz!)

2) You don't seem to understand that calling 3rd in this situation isn't a gesture of "passivity" (since you keep calling it "tight passive"). It is a trap, meant to mask a monster hand and to elicit more action.

Juicing the pot early on in order to have the 'proper odds' to call another street is a reasonable philosophy for people who lack sufficient right brain skills to deviate from "standard play" in certain situations.
Here, even in spite of the pot odds, calling 3rd to obtain better action would indeed imply a degree of "tactical commitment" to the pot even if you bricked on 4th.

Sometimes, I forget that all poker players are, fundamentally, either creative or procedural in nature. While creative players can be aware of the proper procedural plays and act in spite of them, procedural players are usually stymied by the creative play, since their methodology is functionally rigid.

Again, let me address the three critical precepts that you don't seem to be getting which warrant a call in this very specific situation.

1) Welcoming action while holding a monster. Implied Odds.
2) Masking your monster hand. Deception.
3) Establishing the ability to bluff paired 2's and A's in the event of a brick, without telling your opponent on 3rd that's what you have.

For the rest of my life, I wish nothing more than to have ABC gamers to my table. Their play is infinitely manipulatable and they're easily deceived, and the beauty of it is, they just don't know it (and they never will)
I know precisely what they're doing (because I've read the books too), but they have absolutely no idea what I'm doing.

[Johnny#5]

Landon, I think one big problem with the 'smooth call 3rd' argument is that the majority of the time the 9 will fold anyway which then means all that happened was you missed getting another SB in from the stealer which you can expect to win about 60%, so there goes an immediate 2 tenths of an SB I'd say about 75% of the time or so. In order for your argument to be complete you will need to address this as well.

[HOWMANY]

I'd reraise third here, but since I didn't I'd fold fourth.

If UTG raised and you were UTG+1 I'd just call with this ante structure, in this spot you have to raise to make stealers pay.

[WhiteWolf]

[ QUOTE ]

...
1) Welcoming action while holding a monster. Implied Odds.
2) Masking your monster hand. Deception.
3) Establishing the ability to bluff paired 2's and A's in the event of a brick, without telling your opponent on 3rd that's what you have...


[/ QUOTE ]

For #1, others have pointed out that the bring-in is probably folding anyways, so calling with our monster is more often giving away action rather than getting it.

For #2, the only good defense against a possible steal is to raise with any playable hand. If you're playing that way, raising with A23 doesn't give away any information beyond that you have a 3-card hand, because you'll be doing the same thing with 875 here. Sometimes deception means taking the same hand and playing it different ways. Sometimes it means taking different hands and playing them the same way.

Because a 3rd street raise tells our opponent nothing more than we have 3 cards eight or lower, we still retain our ability to bluff our paired hands, taking care of #3...

[LandonM]

[ QUOTE ]
the only good defense against a possible steal is to raise with any playable hand. If you're playing that way, raising with A23 doesn't give away any information beyond that you have a 3-card hand, because you'll be doing the same thing with 875 here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't disagree with this concept more (generally speaking, barring opponent-specific information that might dictate otherwise). Since it's basically the predicate for your entire rationale, I guess it's what I should address.

I believe that it is "usually" proper to raise any playable 3 card hand, however, it is far, far from being a "rule".
I suppose that for those who play a "trained ape" style of Razz where certain stimuli elicits a certain specific reaction in hope for being rewarded with the banana, this might be a simple and easy rule to abide by. However, I can think of, oh, i'd say a bazillion situations where raising "any playable hand" is not the appropriate response or play. I guess i'm one of those Donks who give Razz a bit more credit as a nuanced game than maybe "the book says".

So, in this respect, I guess that yes.. If your response is to raise any playable hand on 3rd in order to achieve sufficient pot odds to potentially call a brick on 4th and then reevaluate depending on what hits on 5th, then raise A/2/3 (which in and of itself is a remarkably unsophisticated style that will, as Eli Elezra says, "leave your children unprotected" in any situation where you don't improve, or, force you to perpetually bluff your paired bricks and pray your opponent folds.

If your style is such that 3rd and 4th are more carefully evaluated, then raise or call are equal, depending on the specifics.

I agree 100% that getting the 9 to call is marginal. However, when I have A/2/3 against reasonable opponents who are capable of folding, the more people in that pot, the better and ill gladly forgo the one bet on 3rd to potentially get another person in with a marginal hand like 9/Low/Low. If 9 is a real rock, then I suppose I might lean towards raise, but absent that, i'm calling 100% of the time for more action.

[Andy B]

I used to have a moderately thorough discussion of various books in the FAQ. Mason didn't want any book recommendations in any FAQ, because he doesn't want the forum to appear biased. It's part of the reason that the book forum doesn't have an FAQ.

[Andy B]

Well, I'm not unhappy with how I played, and I certainly was pleased when the other guy folded. Maybe he couldn't beat AA anyway. I definitely agree that I should have popped third street, and I'm not sure why I didn't. Especially with the pair showing, I should have ditched fourth, but A23 is just so damned pretty I couldn't do it. All the more reason to pop third street as you say. On fifth, maybe I should just give up, but the Trey appears to be a good card, and maybe the other guy is weak. I doubt that I'll buy the pot there, but maybe I can take it away from him on sixth. Sixth doesn't come down especially well and I chicken out. On the river, my hand is hopeless, not even good enough to catch a bluff. Maybe I have a 20% chance of buying the pot, maybe I don't. I thought it was an interesting hand, debatable on pretty much every street, and it looks like I was right.

[WhiteWolf]

[ QUOTE ]
...If your response is to raise any playable hand on 3rd in order to achieve sufficient pot odds to potentially call a brick on 4th...

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not the reason to raise 3rd street (although it is one (of many) reasons for raising A23). We raise any playable hand here because there is a good chance that the villain is on a steal. Since we raise a wide range of hands facing a possible steal, we already have deception when we raise with A23, and there is no reason to give up our equity edge by smooth calling the completion.

If the completion came from early position, and the villain was much more likely to have a legitimate hand, then just calling with A23 on occasion would add deception to my play, because I'll be just calling with a lot of weaker hands in that situation as well.

Out of curiosity, when facing a possible steal, what hands do you raise with? What hands do you call with?