standard?

[MANTIS01]

The text I just got back from AQA says solid Norman and tight Theresa would make a fitting couple???

[gribbo]

apologies if your a devout catholic mantis... anyway did you have anything to say about the hand? or just crack a  joke?

[cambo]

yes its the same guy who has a bad back, hes not as ultra tight as you think having played loads with him over the last 4 yrs, he is capable of re popping the flop with total air against a player like steven espec on a board like that

[easypickings]

I know these were not thoughts from the same person, but let's look at the two statements:
 well "steven shoved for value"  and "some were saying how its a great move by steven and dunno how norman calls with kj"

These are completely opposite comments. It wouldn't make any sense at all to subscribe to both at the same time, but at the same time I think neither on its own is quite true:

I think it's a bizarre spot if this really is a great "move." Did he really mean to turn his top pair into an intricate bluff, trying to get his opponent off top pair with a slightly better kicker?
At the same time, it's pretty thin to call this a value shove, because the range of worse hands that his opponent can call with is pretty thin.

I think what the combination of these two factors means is that this is a very awkward spot to have got in to. What is absolutely crucial in this type of spot is to be thinking two stages ahead of the action. In this spot, there is only any sense in a flop bet if there is a pretty clear plan of action for when a) opponent flat-calls, b) opponent makes a standard raise and c) opponent goes all-in.

In tournament poker, I think the stack sizes can often change what is normally the standard move into the wrong one. This is a classic example, because of the fact that a standard 12k flop bet can lead us into the scenario described above where we seem to have no winning line.

This is not a standard spot to slow play, but I think the stack sizes make a check on the flop the winning move here. It has a number of other advantages; if our opponent bets a blank turn, I would always flat-call, and plan to call a river bet. This can on one hand lead our opponent to bluff where he would not have done on the flop, and on the other hand means we do not have to go bust against KJ.

[MANTIS01]

apologies if your a devout catholic mantis... anyway did you have anything to say about the hand? or just crack a  joke?

I have already posted my thoughts about the hand so yes, on this occasion my intention was to just crack a joke.

I am not religious, so apology unecessary gribbo.

Posted by: easypickings

This is not a standard spot to slow play, but I think the stack sizes make a check on the flop the winning move here. It has a number of other advantages; if our opponent bets a blank turn, I would always flat-call, and plan to call a river bet. This can on one hand lead our opponent to bluff where he would not have done on the flop, and on the other hand means we do not have to go bust against KJ.

The issue I have with this strategy Stuart is the image of the raiser. Why would a LAG check a flop ripe for a c-bet? Would that not strike you as suspicious? I don't think checking is an effective strategy for LAG's to induce bluffs really. I wouldn't fancy bluffing the raiser after the absence of the expected c-bet, would you? Furthermore, the oppo is super tight so it makes bluffing even more unlikely. So really the only reason you check this flop is in case you are beat and that can't be a good reason to check. When your oppo makes 2 pair on the river the merits of the strat collapse.

[Royal Flush]

This is not a standard spot to slow play, but I think the stack sizes make a check on the flop the winning move here. It has a number of other advantages; if our opponent bets a blank turn, I would always flat-call, and plan to call a river bet. This can on one hand lead our opponent to bluff where he would not have done on the flop, and on the other hand means we do not have to go bust against KJ.

What games are you playing in where this is profitable? People just aren't that bad, its 2008!

[easypickings]

Flushy, I don't think a check to slow play is the right strategy in any good standard game, but it can be a good pot control move in live poker. On an internet 6-max game, the suspicion about c-bets and likelyhood of an opponent chossing to check-raise this dry flop as a bluff means that you have to play your hand as the nuts, and be willing to go broke. Correct move is therefore to flat-call a check-raise in case opponent wants to fire another barrel.

I agree to a large extent Mantis, but I just think that sometimes akwardness of a spot can mean that a transparent or over-conservative strategy the right one.

Really interesting about the image of a LAG player, as I sometimes think that players are too aware of what their image is, and let their action depend too much on it. Fact is, most opponents just do not think that much; they play their hand, or at best play the spot. I think the image of a LAG will definitely mean that opponents will start to discredit their c-bets, but I don't think there are too many opponents who will start to worry about the absence of a c-bet.

 I think it's a real fishy strategy when you get an aggressive player who then slow-plays his biggest hands, but I still think  a LAG can allow himself use some pot control with marginal hands if the situation dictates.

As the pot is played out- a bet of 12k and a raise to 26k, I think there is some chance to get away from the hand. It depends on knowledge of opponent, but this near min-raise should be of real worry. If you think you can trust that opponent on a blank turn will terminate a bluff or slow down with a hand like K8 or 65, I think you can call and maybe pass the turn if opponent shows further strength.

[MANTIS01]

What would happen if you played this hand conservatively a thousand times in a row? Sometimes you will be beaten on the flop...and you will call a turn & river bet...losing chips. Other times you will let your opponent outdraw you....and you will lose those bets again. Problem is we have to make some chips when we do have the best hand, more chips that we loose in these scenarios overall, in order to win...And how do we do that if we don't bet?

The images on display are in favour of an aggressive strat I think. Because the loose guy can bet more than the tight guy and expect to get called by worse more often. That is where the profit is in the hand. It is easy to say that you can counter the value you lose early in the hand by v-betting big on the river when just 3 cards are out. Because when the board straights and flushes on the end you wont be so happy to put a chunk of chips in the middle with 1 pair

Playing the hand slowly does mean you stay in the tournament. Which is ok. But if you aren't getting the best of situations in the tournament anyway you're only really buying a bit more time imo.