Simple hand, but did i allow the pot to get out of control

[MANTIS01]

I think calling the 4 bet- even with position, is a mistake.

elaborate pls

[George2Loose]

I think calling the 4 bet- even with position, is a mistake.

elaborate pls

I think against an unknown AK may be a call but against an accomplished player like Tim Blake he can only really be 4 betting 4 hands. I think his range is narrowed toward AK, AA, KK, QQ. I even think he may flat early with just QQ or AK.

But let's assume it's those 4 hands for arguments sake. I think AK, even in position, plays badly against those hand ranges. Stu was let off the hook by Tim (who maybe got levelled into thinking Stu had KK) which explains the lack of post flop betting (FWIW I think Stu should deffo be value betting river as played!)

I would much rather call the 4 bet with suited connectors, smaller pairs which obviously have the implied value of stacking our opponenet or at least winning a big pot if we can get the right flop.

[MANTIS01]

I think calling the 4 bet- even with position, is a mistake.

elaborate pls

I think against an unknown AK may be a call but against an accomplished player like Tim Blake he can only really be 4 betting 4 hands. I think his range is narrowed toward AK, AA, KK, QQ. I even think he may flat early with just QQ or AK.

But let's assume it's those 4 hands for arguments sake. I think AK, even in position, plays badly against those hand ranges. Stu was let off the hook by Tim (who maybe got levelled into thinking Stu had KK) which explains the lack of post flop betting (FWIW I think Stu should deffo be value betting river as played!)

I would much rather call the 4 bet with suited connectors, smaller pairs which obviously have the implied value of stacking our opponenet or at least winning a big pot if we can get the right flop.

Makes sense. But I don't agree with it. The reason an accomplished player is accomplished is because he doesn't need to have one of 4 hands in situations where his oppos believe he can only have one of 4 hands. He only needs to believe his oppo doesn't need premium to 3-bet his button and/or his oppo will think like you do. Early on when the stakes are low and boudaries are being established the perceived tight opener can look like a monster cheaply and get the initiative in the hand. If he folds to a small 3-bet it will make the job of opening harder as the game progresses. Similarly, folding premium on the button to a small 4-bet is gonna make playing the button harder as the game progresses. Image and experience mean he doesn't need to have such a thin 4-betting range at 25/50 imo.

Sunny Chatta said to me over dinner at Walsall GUKPT that he wishes he had my table presence because he said "you get away with murder - I know you are at it"

[George2Loose]

I think calling the 4 bet- even with position, is a mistake.

elaborate pls

I think against an unknown AK may be a call but against an accomplished player like Tim Blake he can only really be 4 betting 4 hands. I think his range is narrowed toward AK, AA, KK, QQ. I even think he may flat early with just QQ or AK.

But let's assume it's those 4 hands for arguments sake. I think AK, even in position, plays badly against those hand ranges. Stu was let off the hook by Tim (who maybe got levelled into thinking Stu had KK) which explains the lack of post flop betting (FWIW I think Stu should deffo be value betting river as played!)

I would much rather call the 4 bet with suited connectors, smaller pairs which obviously have the implied value of stacking our opponenet or at least winning a big pot if we can get the right flop.

Makes sense. But I don't agree with it. The reason an accomplished player is accomplished is because he doesn't need to have one of 4 hands in situations where his oppos believe he can only have one of 4 hands. He only needs to believe his oppo doesn't need premium to 3-bet his button and/or his oppo will think like you do. Early on when the stakes are low and boudaries are being established the perceived tight opener can look like a monster cheaply and get the initiative in the hand. If he folds to a small 3-bet it will make the job of opening harder as the game progresses. Similarly, folding premium on the button to a small 4-bet is gonna make playing the button harder as the game progresses. Image and experience mean he doesn't need to have such a thin 4-betting range at 25/50 imo.

Sunny Chatta said to me over dinner at Walsall GUKPT that he wishes he had my table presence because he said "you get away with murder - I know you are at it"

People approach the game differently. Some are nits early- some aren't. I'm not saying this in a derogotory way but I very much doubt Tim's 4 bet range here is anything but those 4 hands. People generally use a solid image in later levels- not when all that's on the line is potentially another 400 chips.  Look at the way he played the hand post flop- should give you some info.

[MANTIS01]

I think calling the 4 bet- even with position, is a mistake.

elaborate pls

I think against an unknown AK may be a call but against an accomplished player like Tim Blake he can only really be 4 betting 4 hands. I think his range is narrowed toward AK, AA, KK, QQ. I even think he may flat early with just QQ or AK.

But let's assume it's those 4 hands for arguments sake. I think AK, even in position, plays badly against those hand ranges. Stu was let off the hook by Tim (who maybe got levelled into thinking Stu had KK) which explains the lack of post flop betting (FWIW I think Stu should deffo be value betting river as played!)

I would much rather call the 4 bet with suited connectors, smaller pairs which obviously have the implied value of stacking our opponenet or at least winning a big pot if we can get the right flop.

Makes sense. But I don't agree with it. The reason an accomplished player is accomplished is because he doesn't need to have one of 4 hands in situations where his oppos believe he can only have one of 4 hands. He only needs to believe his oppo doesn't need premium to 3-bet his button and/or his oppo will think like you do. Early on when the stakes are low and boudaries are being established the perceived tight opener can look like a monster cheaply and get the initiative in the hand. If he folds to a small 3-bet it will make the job of opening harder as the game progresses. Similarly, folding premium on the button to a small 4-bet is gonna make playing the button harder as the game progresses. Image and experience mean he doesn't need to have such a thin 4-betting range at 25/50 imo.

Sunny Chatta said to me over dinner at Walsall GUKPT that he wishes he had my table presence because he said "you get away with murder - I know you are at it"

People approach the game differently. Some are nits early- some aren't. I'm not saying this in a derogotory way but I very much doubt Tim's 4 bet range here is anything but those 4 hands. People generally use a solid image in later levels- not when all that's on the line is potentially another 400 chips.  Look at the way he played the hand post flop- should give you some info.

I think you're trying to solve this problem with some personal knowledge of the player and how he played the hand on later streets.

Stuart says....

I recognised Tim but had not played with him before.

I think saying he plays no hands early is complete rubbish, he was as active as anyone at the table and we had just had a little tussle in the previous pot where he passed on the river to my value bet. I wouldnt say he was agro, but at this point I had no reason to believe he was a rock.

So we can't use this extra stuff to come to those conclusions in this hand. We have to treat villain as random. If we did know this extra stuff I still wouldn't be swayed to fold a premium hand on the button for 600 more. While the experienced rock would like you to believe he can only have one of 4 hands in this spot I doubt that is abs the case. Or he would be predictable. And that's not what accomplished players are.

[George2Loose]

I think calling the 4 bet- even with position, is a mistake.

elaborate pls

I think against an unknown AK may be a call but against an accomplished player like Tim Blake he can only really be 4 betting 4 hands. I think his range is narrowed toward AK, AA, KK, QQ. I even think he may flat early with just QQ or AK.

But let's assume it's those 4 hands for arguments sake. I think AK, even in position, plays badly against those hand ranges. Stu was let off the hook by Tim (who maybe got levelled into thinking Stu had KK) which explains the lack of post flop betting (FWIW I think Stu should deffo be value betting river as played!)

I would much rather call the 4 bet with suited connectors, smaller pairs which obviously have the implied value of stacking our opponenet or at least winning a big pot if we can get the right flop.

Makes sense. But I don't agree with it. The reason an accomplished player is accomplished is because he doesn't need to have one of 4 hands in situations where his oppos believe he can only have one of 4 hands. He only needs to believe his oppo doesn't need premium to 3-bet his button and/or his oppo will think like you do. Early on when the stakes are low and boudaries are being established the perceived tight opener can look like a monster cheaply and get the initiative in the hand. If he folds to a small 3-bet it will make the job of opening harder as the game progresses. Similarly, folding premium on the button to a small 4-bet is gonna make playing the button harder as the game progresses. Image and experience mean he doesn't need to have such a thin 4-betting range at 25/50 imo.

Sunny Chatta said to me over dinner at Walsall GUKPT that he wishes he had my table presence because he said "you get away with murder - I know you are at it"

People approach the game differently. Some are nits early- some aren't. I'm not saying this in a derogotory way but I very much doubt Tim's 4 bet range here is anything but those 4 hands. People generally use a solid image in later levels- not when all that's on the line is potentially another 400 chips.  Look at the way he played the hand post flop- should give you some info.

I think you're trying to solve this problem with some personal knowledge of the player and how he played the hand on later streets.

Stuart says....

I recognised Tim but had not played with him before.

I think saying he plays no hands early is complete rubbish, he was as active as anyone at the table and we had just had a little tussle in the previous pot where he passed on the river to my value bet. I wouldnt say he was agro, but at this point I had no reason to believe he was a rock.

So we can't use this extra stuff to come to those conclusions in this hand. We have to treat villain as random. If we did know this extra stuff I still wouldn't be swayed to fold a premium hand on the button for 600 more. While the experienced rock would like you to believe he can only have one of 4 hands in this spot I doubt that is abs the case. Or he would be predictable. And that's not what accomplished players are.

Perhaps I am giving too much creedence to the fact that the villian is a successful TAG but I don't see much value in peeling with AK here. We're just going to have to agree to disagree....

[dousche]

i was at the table at the time, and having not played with tim before (but not recognising him as anything other than a mateyboy) i guess i had similar experience of his play to stu - he had played pretty tight/solid up to this point - i disagree that he had been as active as anyone at the table, but thats just nitpicking really as it was all pretty tight up until then. im now aware that he plays highish stakes cash online therefore more than likely knows how to mix up his range but wasnt doing so prior to this hand. another important point is that stu had not been getting out of line at all during this first level. as such i think ak is probably a pass here. we're almost never against AQ and if JJ/QQ are in his range then we're unlikely to be able to extract much value (1 bet?) when we're ahead.

when checked to on the flop leading out is a mistake too. that line gives QQ/JJ (the only hands we're beating) the green light to instamuck. i think i prefer checking here and making a medium then small value bet on turn and river (i check an ace turn and go larger with both value bets if a king hits) - i think this line with contingencies means that he's uncertain as to whether we've got a smaller pair than his or whether we're running a bluff with AQ or something similar. the only issue with this line is that if he check raises the turn then we have to call imo as our hand is massively under-repped, but probably have to pass to the river value bet. if he leads the turn then we have to call (obv) and have a tough decision to make if he leads the river too, but i think we have to call as his range is pretty much QQ/AK/AA/KK (with KK and AA being the least likely due to cards already out)

fwiw ive just kinda bashed out all my thoughts into one post, its possible that it makes no sense whatsoever or could just be completely wrong.

[salfi]

Does he play as t88ml or something akin to that online? If so hes not a huge nit. 3b pre > call. forsure you can call his 4bet since hes given you a pass with his betsizing assuming stacksizes are deepish. As played check back the turn you have the deck crushed, the pot is so big he wont risk trying anything funky or stacking light with a cr but might bang the river.

yes he does

please note - i think Tim is an excellent player - and my nitty comments soley relate to the first few levels - he is as crazy as any high stales on line player when the antes kick in - but i have never seen him go crazy in level 1 ( as proven by this hand)

i agree with the call pre sentiments - but once we have 3 bet - i still 5 bet fold

if your turning ak into a bluff  after 5betting wp im sure thats a proffitable play here . wtf?

Yes but you can 5 bet to say 2800  - if he raises again you know what he has - very few people will make a move here

whereas if you take the flop - and hit your A or K - (as we did here) you could put in alot more than your 2.8k

Im not saying its a great play, but i think it is better than flatting now - he might even lay down a reasonably big hand himself
 very few people woud 4bet with less the aa so hardly proffitable play

[salfi]

Does he play as t88ml or something akin to that online? If so hes not a huge nit. 3b pre > call. forsure you can call his 4bet since hes given you a pass with his betsizing assuming stacksizes are deepish. As played check back the turn you have the deck crushed, the pot is so big he wont risk trying anything funky or stacking light with a cr but might bang the river.
[/quote]

yes he does

please note - i think Tim is an excellent player - and my nitty comments soley relate to the first few levels - he is as crazy as any high stales on line player when the antes kick in - but i have never seen him go crazy in level 1 ( as proven by this hand)

i agree with the call pre sentiments - but once we have 3 bet - i still 5 bet fold
[/quote]if your turning ak into a bluff  after 5betting wp im sure thats a proffitable play here . wtf?
[/quote]

Yes but you can 5 bet to say 2800  - if he raises again you know what he has - very few people will make a move here

whereas if you take the flop - and hit your A or K - (as we did here) you could put in alot more than your 2.8k

Im not saying its a great play, but i think it is better than flatting now - he might even lay down a reasonably big hand himself
[/quote] yes he wil lay down qq but he prob never has qq here . yes 5bet is better then flatin ak in pos

[T8MML]

FWIW just some further thoughts on how the hand played out as it did.

I chk the K high flop to induce a bet from a holding such as AK with the intention of raising. At that point unless Stu has got me firmly on AA and believes I will stack off he chks his top set but has to bet AK to find out where he is. As someone says earlier any action with QQ, JJ is lost with a bet but that early a 12-13% stack increase is OK imo. As he bets I'm certain I am up against AK so I bet out and additional 25% of my stack. At this point I believe I have turned my cards face up which is why I was suprised to get a call - a reraise ok but a call I'm not so sure. That was why I checked the turn to hopefully look as if my flop action was a move and when Stu chks behind I was a bit miffed. The chk on the river - a value bet would have been a better play in hindsight - was again to induce a bet after the apparent weakness from me on the turn - it didn't happen and wp that man.

[salfi]

Does he play as t88ml or something akin to that online? If so hes not a huge nit. 3b pre > call. forsure you can call his 4bet since hes given you a pass with his betsizing assuming stacksizes are deepish. As played check back the turn you have the deck crushed, the pot is so big he wont risk trying anything funky or stacking light with a cr but might bang the river.

yes he does

please note - i think Tim is an excellent player - and my nitty comments soley relate to the first few levels - he is as crazy as any high stales on line player when the antes kick in - but i have never seen him go crazy in level 1 ( as proven by this hand)

i agree with the call pre sentiments - but once we have 3 bet - i still 5 bet fold
[/quote]if your turning ak into a bluff  after 5betting wp im sure thats a proffitable play here . wtf?
[/quote]

Yes but you can 5 bet to say 2800  - if he raises again you know what he has - very few people will make a move here

whereas if you take the flop - and hit your A or K - (as we did here) you could put in alot more than your 2.8k

Im not saying its a great play, but i think it is better than flatting now - he might even lay down a reasonably big hand himself
[/quote] yes he wil lay down qq but he prob never has qq here . yes 5bet is better then flatin ak in pos
[/quote]ignore this post as i have no idea what happened its not my thoughts and makes no sense.

[outragous76]

[  ] knows how to quote

[salfi]

i need to learrn how to post. how do i delete posts ? i feel like im filling this thred with nonsense when i try copy and paste stuff it just makes no sense in how it comes up in the post . i dont know tim never hurd of him or have no idea why my posts look like i know the guy.. i want to delete my posts on this thred can any  one do this for me? dont mind deleting posts when they have no reason to be there.

[StuartHopkin]

i need to learrn how to post. how do i delete posts ? i feel like im filling this thred with nonsense when i try copy and paste stuff it just makes no sense in how it comes up in the post . i dont know tim never hurd of him or have no idea why my posts look like i know the guy.. i want to delete my posts on this thred can any  one do this for me? dont mind deleting posts when they have no reason to be there.

Your missing the open quote code at the start of the quote it looks like

quote author=salfi link=topic=43675.msg1026179#msg1026179 date=1250598576

but in square brackets

it also says quote,modify, delete on your own posts if you need to edit or remove

[StuartHopkin]

FWIW just some further thoughts on how the hand played out as it did.

I chk the K high flop to induce a bet from a holding such as AK with the intention of raising. At that point unless Stu has got me firmly on AA and believes I will stack off he chks his top set but has to bet AK to find out where he is. As someone says earlier any action with QQ, JJ is lost with a bet but that early a 12-13% stack increase is OK imo. As he bets I'm certain I am up against AK so I bet out and additional 25% of my stack. At this point I believe I have turned my cards face up which is why I was suprised to get a call - a reraise ok but a call I'm not so sure. That was why I checked the turn to hopefully look as if my flop action was a move and when Stu chks behind I was a bit miffed. The chk on the river - a value bet would have been a better play in hindsight - was again to induce a bet after the apparent weakness from me on the turn - it didn't happen and wp that man.

Thanks for posting your thoughts on this Tim.
I dont think I can blame my play on anything but inexperience of being 200 blinds deep in tournaments. Obviously Ive played a fair few but until these hands arise you have no reason to doubt what your doing.

FWIW my thoughts were:

Pre im happy to raise my button here, i take on board some peoples thoughts about flatting, but do I want everyone in and do I not want some value from Tim? At this point we have no reason to believe he has anything more than A10+ 44+ ish?

When Tim reraised to 1100, i definately wasnt tightening his range to AA and KK, that may be a flaw but I dont know him, and personally Im tempted to reraise with a slightly wider range than this. I dont like the 5-bet to define my hand? Just seems like a waste of chips, invites a shove?

I think betting the flop was a huge error from me. When he re raises the flop I hate it, but to fold I am know putting him directly on two hands. From whats been said my call of his reraise is a terrible spew as we all seem 99% sure we know his hand.

As for betting the turn or river, it was never going to happen, I was praying you didnt bet as I knew it was a fold, saying that i was surprised we checked it down. If you make a small value bet on the river im going to struggle to fold. If I bet my hand what do i get called by on the river?

For when we meet again though if I did have KK I make the same bet on the flop.