Trying to lose less chips against another big stack at Niagara

FieryJustice · #1 10-31-2007, 02:18 PM

So this guy gets moved to my table with like 700k chips 2 to my left. I have about 1.5 mil. He seems to be super respectful/nitty of my raises but he also also bets kinda big and aggro into everyone else. I also think he might be the type to turn into a check caller against internet kids that always bluff. Anyways, here are 2 hands.

I raise 88 from co to like 2.5bbs and he calls in the sb. It comes K94. He checks and I bet like 3/5 pot and he instacalls. Turn is a 7. We check, river is a 2 or something and we check.

A few hands later, I raise from co with KQ again and he calls in sb again. It comes AAQ. We check, turn is a 3, we check river is a 7 and he bets pot and I just call.

Are these super bad or should I be trying to get in there and make him fold and stack him, etc etc?

gobboboy · #2 10-31-2007, 02:21 PM

Looks fine to me, when he checks three streets in hand one there's 0 chance he's folding a nine on the river and it's unlikely he has a worse hand that can call a bet.

Hand two looks good.

mikeJ · #3 10-31-2007, 02:48 PM

Hand 1: I don't think 2-barreling or 3-barreling will end up being profitable. It's uncertain whether villain will fold Kx to a 3-barrel and 9x to a 2 barrel.

Hand 2: Unless you think he might c/r bluff you on turn, I'd just vbet turn/river. Your description of villain would indicate you may get two streets of value from a 66/7x/Qx type hand. You lose the ~same amount vs. Ax, cause you're calling a river lead, but bet/folding here. Flop check for pot control / inducing bluffs on turn / preventing yourself from getting c/r bluffed.

Just to put some #'s on 3-barreling in Hand 1. Suppose he has Kx and he will rarely fold to a 2-barrel, how often do you need him to fold river?

If you bet 3/5 pot on turn (which we're going to assume villain ~always calls), and your river bet is twice the size of your turn bet, then you're risking 9 to win 8, or you need your 3rd barrel to succeed 9 out of 17 times, or roughly <u>53% </u> of the time. Of course, this is just a rough number, as I've ignored when his Kx makes two pair/trips (which would make the actual required success rate higher), there are probably better bet sizes you can choose, and we assumed he is ~rarely folding to a 2 barrel when there might've been a 10% chance he does.

Lastly, you need to turn a profit on your two barrel vs. 9x and/or your 3 barrel vs. Kx to cover what you lose when villain has two pair/set on turn and ~never folds to turn/river bets.

DLizzle · #4 10-31-2007, 04:55 PM

hand 1, you could fire three barrels but he might not fold, its very possible he has a king and doesn't want to get in a big pot with you but will call down. i'd just stick to taking a lot of small pots off him and not trying to run large bluffs on him until you are more sure of how he will react to postflop aggression from you.

hand 2 is fine, you could bet turn, but your line is ok too i think

Irieguy · #5 10-31-2007, 06:22 PM

Hand 1 I would actually prefer to check flop and call turn if bet into, though a portion of the time I would c-bet the same amount you did. It depends on how likely I felt he was to c/r. I imagine you had very little idea about his c/r frequency at this point.

Hand 2 looks super standard to me.

Clearly you could profitably play either hand more aggressively but I much prefer your lines. Especially vs. another big stack who not only seems like he may know what he's doing but also shows a willingness to stay out of your way.

It looks as though he's trying to do what a lot of pros do with one another in tournaments (even if they won't admit it or it is even a bit unconscious):

He's letting you know that he won't surrender his blinds to you but in exchange he will not try to outplay you every time you are in a pot together. What he expects is for you to tighten your pfr against his blinds in exchange for him allowing you to pluck chips from the table donks as well.

I'm not sure whether this is implicit collusion or not, and I'm not sure it matters. I just think that it happens frequently enough that you are well served by acknowledging it. There are a lot more chips to be gained by striking this silent deal with him than by trying to stack him. Two people realizing together that it is more profitable to attack the others does not seem to be an ethical problem to me as long as all of the obvious qualifiers for cheating are not present (communication, premeditation, etc.)

Irieguy

Requin · #6 10-31-2007, 08:31 PM

Super standard. I don't check the flop in hand 1 vs. someone who's playing straightforward vs. you

MaverickUSC · #7 10-31-2007, 08:37 PM

Love hand 1.

I like hand 2 because I think you'll get c/rd on turn by a wide range enough of the time.

Why'd you post these hands out of curiosity? Was something else going on here? Just a check-up? Feel like you missed bets when it got to showdown?

Devo

FieryJustice · #8 10-31-2007, 08:41 PM

meh, he had QQ 1st hand and AQ 2nd hand. I just dont know if I should be betting a bit more.

bdbeatslayer · #9 10-31-2007, 11:42 PM

would never bet hand 1, hand 2 maybe bet turn, but doesn't seem bad at all.