Hand of the week: December 10th

[GlasgowBandit]

OK. Some of the theories about this hand are losing me.

Firstly, the cl has just arrived at the table and we have never played with him before. How do we even begin to put him on a hand....where would we start? I don't think plucking a range of hands from thin air and pasting them into this situation is at all helpful. The cl could have anything and his style of play is unknown.

So what do we KNOW? We know he is the cl and he has been winning pots-a-plenty....so he will be feeling confident about now. His eagerness to carry forward what was happening on his previous table to this one is clear because he limps into the first available pot he can. He is not looking to settle in and size the table up, he wants to get involved and he wants to do that by limping early. He does not choose to get involved in his first pot aggressively. I think that is an important fact.

When the raise comes in everyone gets out of the way (because they don't have raising hands) apart from the cl. He calls with a hand he wouldn't raise with. The information we have is scant for sure...but we can assume from what information we do have that the cl is not the most aggressive player. He is limping and calling rather than betting and raising. What's more his cl status and current high confidence mean that he is not going to be pushed out of a pot he wants to play.

So with this in mind where does the check on the flop come from?? I would bet the flop regardless of any other information actually....for all the reasons that have already been stated. But using the information we do have suggests pot-building can begin immediately. Why check to the caller hoping he suddenly finds the balls to take the lead when he has already shown he doesn't do this? But if you take the lead he has shown an inclination to follow! Information is there to be used and this is the ONLY information we have. He is CALLING your bets so why wouldn't you bet?

Very good post mate. 

I sometimes get put off reading some of your posts, as i think they can be too analytical although generally they have all the correct info.  But above post is concise and to the point.  More of the same. 

[Royal Flush]

Firstly, the cl has just arrived at the table and we have never played with him before. How do we even begin to put him on a hand....where would we start? I don't think plucking a range of hands from thin air and pasting them into this situation is at all helpful. The cl could have anything and his style of play is unknown.

He could but he is the CL in a $1000 FO that has been running 7hrs, chances are he knows how to play enough for us to make a pretty comfortable assumption about his range. Poker is a game of incomplete information, forming assumptions is part of the game, if you only make assumptions once you have seen x amount of hands you are missing out on some key information gathering.

So what do we KNOW? We know he is the cl and he has been winning pots-a-plenty....so he will be feeling confident about now. His eagerness to carry forward what was happening on his previous table to this one is clear because he limps into the first available pot he can. He is not looking to settle in and size the table up, he wants to get involved and he wants to do that by limping early. He does not choose to get involved in his first pot aggressively. I think that is an important fact.

He may well be very aggressive but he has limped because a short stack who he doesn't know has limped in EP, i consider myself to be pretty aggressive and i would also limp the villans hand here given an unknown short stack limping, on a new table which is 10 handed and after we had just gone through the bubble.

So you won't make assumptions about his range, but you will make the assumption that he is eager to play lots of pots based purely on limping his first hand at the table?!?! "He wants to get involved and wants to do it by limping early" is it not also possible that he just has a hand that is a must to play, and is a standard limp from his position?

When the raise comes in everyone gets out of the way (because they don't have raising hands) apart from the cl. He calls with a hand he wouldn't raise with. The information we have is scant for sure...but we can assume from what information we do have that the cl is not the most aggressive player. He is limping and calling rather than betting and raising. What's more his cl status and current high confidence mean that he is not going to be pushed out of a pot he wants to play.

I don't understand either how you can make the assumption that he is 'not going to be pushed around' based on 1 play where he limp calls in position after an EP limp from a short stack.

So with this in mind where does the check on the flop come from?? I would bet the flop regardless of any other information actually....for all the reasons that have already been stated. But using the information we do have suggests pot-building can begin immediately. Why check to the caller hoping he suddenly finds the balls to take the lead when he has already shown he doesn't do this? But if you take the lead he has shown an inclination to follow!

Given my analysis of how our assumptions about an unknown player vastly differ i hope you can now understand why i chose the check line. You bet the flop to pot build, i would 100% do this if the pot was 20k, however its 39k! It's already a pretty big pot and a bet followed by a raise leads to either folds or 3 bet ai's at this stage of a tournament, a pot building bet is not relevant here.

I am not checking to him on the hope that he has found his balls, i am doing it as i gave him a rough range pre and i think he has either smacked it or missed it, checking here is optimal against that range (unless he is an aggresive lunatic who is going to start smashing in 70k on a bluff on his first hand at the table, even if he is he will prob do that if i bet a blank turn anyway)

If i take the lead he has shown an inclination to follow?!?!?! Eh? What the hell does that mean? He just wants to copy me and so what ever i do he will do?

Information is there to be used and this is the ONLY information we have. He is CALLING your bets so why wouldn't you bet?

Why don't i just shove then given he is showing a 100% call rate against my bets?

[MANTIS01]

Posted by: Royal Flush

So you won't make assumptions about his range, but you will make the assumption that he is eager to play lots of pots based purely on limping his first hand at the table?!?!

I don't understand either how you can make the assumption that he is 'not going to be pushed around' based on 1 play where he limp calls in position after an EP limp from a short stack.

Ok, allow me to clarify why this is a credible assumption to make. In fact you answer this question yourself here...

Posted by: Royal Flush

He may well be very aggressive but he has limped because a short stack who he doesn't know has limped in EP

The CL of the tournament feels wary of the EP short stack limp and this makes him limp as well. So firstly, the big stack being apprehensive about the short stack are the first signs that he is more of a caller then a bettor. Either this is true....or alternatively he just wants to limp with a limping hand and this can also be classed as passive big stack play.

More importantly....it gets to the sb, namely yourself, and you jam in a raise!! You are not only unfazed by the EP short stack limp but ALSO by the CL limp behind!! Not only this...but you are also happy to surrender position to anyone for the rest of the hand.

It is crystal clear to everyone that you have a bigger hand than the CL right now...including the CL himself...and yet he still calls anyway!! So he is prepared to chase you down...so he wants to play pots...so he wont be pushed around. These are pretty good assumptions to make based on the fact he knows he's behind but limps then calls anyway. A better assumption to make than he has been playing for 7 hours and so we can put him on a range at any rate.

As an unknown player the CL MUST put you on a big pair or at the very least AK/AQ....like you said, you were hoping for a shove from someone...and this is what it looks like. This is why the check on the flop is confusing!! What hand wouldn't bet the flop? Considering the CL has been playing for 7 hours it's reasonable to assume he's won many-a-pot by coming over the top of standard AK/AQ missed c-bets and this is what he may well have done here. By the turn AQ has now hit...so he's behind to any big pair and now AQ as well...I just don't know what hand WE are representing that will give the CL any inclination that he has us beat. Betting the flop encourages him to come over the top if aggressive...or may induce a call if passive...and it pot builds which is always important...and it protects the equity already in there...it shows the table who's still the daddy...and it disguises your hand better. All good reasons to bet.

Risking an outdraw and our tournament life when a little under the chip average is sitting in the middle is senseless unless we have a mighty convincing story to tell. And I don't know what that story is. 

[LuckyLloyd]

[The CL of the tournament feels wary of the EP short stack limp and this makes him limp as well. So firstly, the big stack being apprehensive about the short stack are the first signs that he is more of a caller then a bettor. Either this is true....or alternatively he just wants to limp with a limping hand and this can also be classed as passive big stack play.

Risking an outdraw and our tournament life when a little under the chip average is sitting in the middle is senseless

These were the parts I laughed loudest at. Solid Gold.

[MANTIS01]

Lloyd the original sentence is this....

Risking an outdraw and our tournament life when a little under the chip average is sitting in the middle is senseless unless we have a mighty convincing story to tell.

but you only want to quote half the sentence....

Risking an outdraw and our tournament life when a little under the chip average is sitting in the middle is senseless

So the point is why indulge ANY risk at all when the story will be less convincing than c-betting anyway? Risking everything is always worthwhile if it is backed by credibility. I don't know what the credibility is here...so I asked the question...and contributed to the discussion.

You have not answered that point...but have chosen to chop a sentence in half, take it out of context and then laugh at it. Now that really is funny....and rather childish come to think of it.

[LuckyLloyd]

You have not answered that point...but have chosen to chop a sentence in half, take it out of context and then laugh at it. Now that really is funny....and rather childish come to think of it.

Oh, I fogot the "story to tell" part. My bad.

[Royal Flush]

More importantly....it gets to the sb, namely yourself, and you jam in a raise!! You are not only unfazed by the EP short stack limp but ALSO by the CL limp behind!! Not only this...but you are also happy to surrender position to anyone for the rest of the hand.

Well i have been playing with the short stack for the last 3 hrs and have seen him limp pass on a few occasions so i am happy to raise, also i have only 1 player behind me and a lot more money in the pot, as well as being OOP. I am not "happy to surrender position to anyone for the rest of the hand" i am in the SB i AM oop for the rest of the hand, if you know any way i can somehow not 'surrender' position when in the SB that would be fantastic to know.

It is crystal clear to everyone that you have a bigger hand than the CL right now...including the CL himself...and yet he still calls anyway!! So he is prepared to chase you down...so he wants to play pots...so he wont be pushed around. These are pretty good assumptions to make based on the fact he knows he's behind but limps then calls anyway.[/b] A better assumption to make than he has been playing for 7 hours and so we can put him on a range at any rate.

So he limps with a limping and and see#s the 2nd cl raise, now he knows he just has to call 12k to play a pot in position with a hand that plays well against my perceived range, i don't think that is just because he 'doesn't want to be pushed around'

As an unknown player the CL MUST put you on a big pair or at the very least AK/AQ....l

I thought it is stupid to "pluck a range from thin air" against an unknown oppo? Please can you get one side of the fence or the other! At any rate my raise here is easily just limper's tax.

This is why the check on the flop is confusing!! What hand wouldn't bet the flop? Considering the CL has been playing for 7 hours it's reasonable to assume he's won many-a-pot by coming over the top of standard AK/AQ missed c-bets and this is what he may well have done here. By the turn AQ has now hit...so he's behind to any big pair and now AQ as well...I just don't know what hand WE are representing that will give the CL any inclination that he has us beat. Betting the flop encourages him to come over the top if aggressive...or may induce a call if passive...and it pot builds which is always important...and it protects the equity already in there...it shows the table who's still the daddy...and it disguises your hand better. All good reasons to bet.

Risking an outdraw and our tournament life when a little under the chip average is sitting in the middle is senseless unless we have a mighty convincing story to tell. And I don't know what that story is. 

You won't let me assume his range but we can assume he is a regular raiser of C-B's?? Although earlier you stated he is a passive player given his rather condeming 100% VPIP rate and 0% PFR

Right so he is supposed to put us on a big pair or AK, so we should lead? So that he can try to bluff of us a big pair?!!??!?! I check here so it looks like i either have AK/AQ or a complete rank hand that i tried to squeeze with but gave up, reason being its pretty obvious to even the most average of players that the flop is smack in the range he is likely to be. Or do you just always C-B with no thought to your oppo's range?

How does betting protect equity that is already in there? In fact what does that even mean? Building the pot is not important for reasons stated previously. I really don't care about being 'the daddy'. As for disguising my hand, all it says is i probably have an over pair rather than a set, not much use against a hand that might well be air.

[MANTIS01]

Oh Jesus, now the wife has woken up to continue the Mantis flaming. Look I've already had your husband nagging me for basic explanations today....but as ever I am happy to give you some stuff to think about

Well i have been playing with the short stack for the last 3 hrs and have seen him limp pass on a few occasions so i am happy to raise

Please try to appreciate the difference in mentality a short stack has before and after the bubble has burst. Relying on pre-bubble info is well flaky here. The difference matters because it adds credibility to your raise.

I am not "happy to surrender position to anyone for the rest of the hand"

I'm not saying you are...but this is how the rest of the table see the situation. You have a hand that you are prepared to play OOP against a finger-on-the-trigger short stack and the CL...this adds credibility to your raise.

i don't think that is just because he 'doesn't want to be pushed around'

I don't think it's just that either but two table captains are meeting in a pot for the first time and as such the battle for dominance is a factor.

I thought it is stupid to "pluck a range from thin air" against an unknown oppo? Please can you get one side of the fence or the other!

I have just provided the evidence as to why your raise has supporting credibility and as such the ability to narrow a range is far easier for your hand. You must be able to see the difference in the evidence?

You won't let me assume his range but we can assume he is a regular raiser of C-B's??

Feel free to assume a range and if you can decipher that the flop is smack in his range 1st hand at the table then fair play to you. But assuming this guy has experienced missed c-bets in 7 hours of play is a reasonable assumption to make.

I mean I could go on indefinitely but it's pointless because I don't want to ping pong ideas you don't get backwards and forward.

Right so he is supposed to put us on a big pair or AK

This is all I wanted to know. What hand do you think you are representing? We have just reached the most gambletastic point in the tournament...one short stack is in the pot, along with the CL who could knock you out...as well as the button limper and another player still to act. Despite this you raise, and you raise in the sb with the intention of playing your hand OOP. It looks like you have a big pair or AQ/AK...if not then what does it look like...particularly to the newly arrived CL? A limper's tax move would take balls here...balls you loose on the flop...seems strange.

I thought my contribution was fair enough...why does it have to get picked to bits? Stating what range you are selling to your opponent here would help. In your last HOTW I wanted to know how the aggressive maniac being scared of the Ace was a good story to tell and the same question about your line applies here. Your preflop actions are that of a big hand...that disappears on the flop...only to presumably resurface again later in the hand. Whilst you and Lloyd may take turns reading these stories to the kids at bedtime I'm interested to know how they stack up at the table. So what are you representing?

Incidentally, when are Blonde's answer to Terry & June going to realise they are never going to be able to ruffle my feathers?

[byronkincaid]

Oh Jesus, now the wife has woken up to continue the Mantis flaming.

 

[kinboshi]

[LuckyLloyd]

Incidentally, when are Blonde's answer to Terry & June going to realise they are never going to be able to ruffle my feathers?

lolz.

Mantis, a poker hand analysis board is not about ruffling other people's feathers, or stopping in for a quick ego boost so that your feathers are in pristine shape. It's about improving your game through discussion and debate. I don't give a fuck about being proved right or wrong, I just want to talk and think poker so that it improves my theory base which translates into money won at the table in practice. And that's what it comes down to. Strive to improve so that you win more money.

I don't ridicule your posts because I take some pleasure from knowing that I am better at poker than you or whatever - or out of a desire to prove that as a fact. It's just that your advice would prove costly for any beginners reading the board if they followed it too closely and gave it the gravitas you seem to think it deserves.

But whatever, carry on talking about "tournament life" and "making -EV plays in order to dig yourself out of holes" and "betting to find out where you are in hands" etc, etc. I'll continue to tap the tank.

By the way, it may interest you to note that Terry and June are in disagreement with regards to this hand. Just saying.

[MANTIS01]

Posted by: LuckyLloyd

Mantis, a poker hand analysis board is not about ruffling other people's feathers, or stopping in for a quick ego boost so that your feathers are in pristine shape. It's about improving your game through discussion and debate. I don't give a fuck about being proved right or wrong, I just want to talk and think poker so that it improves my theory base which translates into money won at the table in practice. And that's what it comes down to. Strive to improve so that you win more money.

We agree on something Lloyd.

The reasons you say you post are the reasons I do post. A debate incorporates a range of opinions and those opinions often differ...I don't mind that. However, while I have posted my strategy here, explained it, and left it open for debate your total response to those thoughts were...

Posted by: LuckyLloyd

These were the parts I laughed loudest at. Solid Gold.

So forgive me for taking the all I want to do is talk and debate poker comment with a pinch of salt.

If you are indeed concerned about novice players and new members I would suggest a well-reasoned argument to show them why you disagree would be more beneficial to their education. In addition, comments like that discourage those very same members from getting involved and posting their own thoughts. If all you want to do is talk poker then talk it and allow others to draw their own conclusions from the ensuing debate. But even in this post that details your healthy intentions you can't miss an opportunity to have a dig.

But you're right, my feathers are in pristine shape as always.

[ifm]

Another great thread, thanks June

[Colchester Kev]

Another great thread, thanks terry

Flushy has to be June .... doesnt he ?

[ifm]

Another great thread, thanks terry

Flushy has to be June .... doesnt he ?

Doh!! my bad