Help plug the leak...

J.A.K. · #1 05-29-2006, 10:26 PM

AAAAAAAAARGHHH...I am getting put out of trnys (and losing in cash games) when action is folded to button or blinds. How can I keep giving credit for strong hands when button and SB steal so frequently? The following is one example of not just a "suckout" but a recurring theme in my play. Any advice?

No Limit Holdem Tournament
Blinds: t75/t150
8 players
Converter

Stack sizes:
UTG: t2385
UTG+1: t6162
MP1: t5245
MP2: t11680
CO: t6193
Button: t6270
SB: t4130
Hero: t3995

Pre-flop: (8 players) Hero is BB with 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
6 folds, SB calls t75 (pot was t225), Hero raises to t300, SB calls t300 (pot was t450).

Flop: K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (t600, 2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets t600, SB calls t600 (pot was t1200).

Turn: J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (t1800, 2 players)
SB checks, Hero checks.

River: 6[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (t1800, 2 players)
SB is all-in t3080, Hero calls all-in t2945.
Uncalled bets: t135 returned to SB.

Results:
Final pot: t7690
SB showed Kh Js
Hero showed 6h 6c

Supwithbates · #2 05-29-2006, 10:31 PM

After the PF play, where he limped, you raised, he called, there's not much he could have here but a Kx. Either way, this guy's an idiotic donk. I'm guessing he had KQ, and you're being results oriented? That right there is probably leak #1, and not posting a read on playing style is leak#2.

Other than that I can't help you, the fact that you're posting says to me that he was a slowplaying donkey that had you beat. River is a call minus specific read on the opponent, which would be really nice to have.
What's the buyin to this MTT?
Edit: Didn't see the results in white at the end.

It happens... I mean, the way he played this, there isn't much that could have helped you on that river, and you hadn't represented much... I'm actually seeing this happen more and more in the lower buyins, where they'll try to slowplay this way and every time they push the river they have more than a set, they have the boat. These kind of donks royally piss me off because I know that if I were ever to play so donkishly, the river would come an ace and my opponent would flip over AK.

My advice to you is to try to build reads on an opponent; see if they like to bet or be bet into with made hands, because it's usually one or the other at the lower buyins. If he's one that likes to be bet into, this is an easy fold, because he's got you beat. The ones that like to be bet into are particularly annoying because they're practically impossible to read, a check/call could mean the nuts or could mean they're drawing with 2 overcards, a gutshot. If he's aggressive, call. If not, fold. If no read, it's a tough decision, but I think I'd have to fold... if he's simply on a set, he wouldn't have slowplayed for so long, and then pushed the river. Generally, when these donkeys check/call to the river then push, it means they've got a monster. I suppose that's easy to realize in retrospect, but I see it all too often.

J.A.K. · #3 05-29-2006, 10:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
After the PF play, where he limped, you raised, he called, there's not much he could have here but a Kx. Either way, this guy's an idiotic donk. I'm guessing he had KQ, and you're being results oriented? That right there is probably leak #1, and not posting a read on playing style is leak#2.

Other than that I can't help you, the fact that you're posting says to me that he was a slowplaying donkey that had you beat. River is a call minus specific read on the opponent, which would be really nice to have.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thought the "recurring" part of original post would make it read neutral...but player was TAG (imagine that)...after the flop call I gave her credit for a K... then got a free River. Nevertheless, I consistently lose HU blind/button play with decent hands (i.e. 2nd pair to TP, TP to overpair, etc.) It seems my choices have become get run over by the stealers...or take a stand and lose. Yes, I could post every hand and you could find fault in retrospect...but we are talking blind/button play only.

Supwithbates · #4 05-29-2006, 10:42 PM

The problem is that no hand is read neutral, no such thing in poker.

The more I think over this hand, the more the river bet confuses me. You showed weakness at every step, why would the SB ever expect a call on the river unless he somehow knew that the 6 helped you? A river value bet makes so much more sense... perhaps he hoped you'd see it as him trying to steal the pot? But the way you played the hand, you represented a PP all the way, because you certainly wouldn't have checked behind on the Turn with AK. Maybe AQ? But it would be an easy fold, even if you figured it to be a steal, if you only had 2 pair, Kings and Queens or Kings and whatever pocket pair.

J.A.K. · #5 05-29-2006, 10:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that no hand is read neutral, no such thing in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Same hand and action against TAG, LAG, Maniac,...what is the play?

My point being...is that I cannot treat every Blind/Button bet as a UTG or MP bet...can I?

Supwithbates · #6 05-29-2006, 10:55 PM

Well, there's a lot more to a read than LAG, LAP, TAG, TAP, Maniac...
I think that putting a label like "TAG", "LAG", etc. are counterproductive, because they don't necessarily tell you how a person plays each situation; what I instead classify are betting patterns:
When a player has a made hand, do they prefer to bet or be bet into?
When a player shows down a monster, how aggressively did they play it?
How do they play nuts/2nd nuts/3rd nuts?
How consistent are their stories when they bluff?
How do they play monsters preflop?

I play on pokerstars, and write down every hand and how players play it. If I am in the hand, I go back to IHH and look from there. Then I know how to classify the villian, and then I better know what the villian has. I don't see many TAG players slowplaying monsters this donkishly, but I play in low buyin events were there aren't many TAG players. Most of what I run into are LAGs, Maniacs, and weak/tight donks, or some combination thereof. Regardless, I know many TAG players on this board would not play KJ the way this donk did, but that doesn't mean that your villian wasn't a tag. Understand my point? Saying "How would you play this vs. a TAG" doesn't really give enough info to make a good decision. Again, this is why no hand is read independent; every player is different, each plays hands different ways, and each should be played against differently, when it comes down to it. Grouping players makes playing against them easier, but in the longrun, if your groupings are too exclusive then you may as well not even have them.

RoundTower · #7 05-29-2006, 11:00 PM

I don't like the minraise preflop but the rest of the hand is fine, you just got unlucky. I don't think villain played it too badly either.

J.A.K. · #8 05-29-2006, 11:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Well, there's a lot more to a read than LAG, LAP, TAG, TAP, Maniac...
I think that putting a label like "TAG", "LAG", etc. are counterproductive, because they don't necessarily tell you how a person plays each situation; what I instead classify are betting patterns:
When a player has a made hand, do they prefer to bet or be bet into?
When a player shows down a monster, how aggressively did they play it?
How do they play nuts/2nd nuts/3rd nuts?
How consistent are their stories when they bluff?
How do they play monsters preflop?

I play on pokerstars, and write down every hand and how players play it. If I am in the hand, I go back to IHH and look from there. Then I know how to classify the villian, and then I better know what the villian has. I don't see many TAG players slowplaying monsters this donkishly, but I play in low buyin events were there aren't many TAG players. Most of what I run into are LAGs, Maniacs, and weak/tight donks, or some combination thereof. Regardless, I know many TAG players on this board would not play KJ the way this donk did, but that doesn't mean that your villian wasn't a tag. Understand my point? Saying "How would you play this vs. a TAG" doesn't really give enough info to make a good decision. Again, this is why no hand is read independent; every player is different, each plays hands different ways, and each should be played against differently, when it comes down to it. Grouping players makes playing against them easier, but in the longrun, if your groupings are too exclusive then you may as well not even have them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not being contrite...but are there not "first principles" of poker? I can take copious notes on several players but that does not mean my notes will hold true. Online players (the good ones) realize that they need to shift gears and not get pegged into a particular playing style. I was wondering if there was a "fundamental" problem in playing the blinds as a short handed situation.

Supwithbates · #9 05-29-2006, 11:12 PM

I dunno, check/calling a flopped set with 2 suited connecting paints seems pretty donkish to me.

Pushing the river is a better play now that I realized the river came a spade... that meant that any 2 spades would call, AA might make a bad call, 66 would call, KT or AK might call, all of which are slightly reasonable expectations given the way the hand played out (although you'd have to be a huge donk to check behind on the turn with AK, AA, or KT with two spades). Folding 66 is hard to do, and a bad idea minus a specific read, but that's exactly why I like to make precise reads in my MTTs, because they can give you a great idea of whether or not you've got the better hand. I dunno, the way you played, he'd have to put you on a pocket pair or 2 spades, with the PP being more likely... unfortunately, pushing 3200 into a pot of 1800 seems like a pretty big tell to me if he's checked the turn and river... I think the only hands I'd muster up a call with are 66, JJ, QQ, KQ, KJ, or KK... and 66 or maybe JJ are the only two hands that might have been played this way... I think he'd have been better off value betting the river, hoping for a call, because I would never expect an opponent to make the call here, if I didn't know your cards I'd put you on AQ or a random PP by the time we got to the river, and I wouldn't REALLY expect either of those hands to call a push (save JJ or 66, and JJ would be unlikely as 2 J's were showing).

THEOSU · #10 05-29-2006, 11:15 PM

hitting poison cards is a horrible leak of mine, too.

I wouldn't always bet this flop, btw.