how do you deal with this (deep stacked)

PokerStars Game #7290437071: Hold'em No Limit ($0.25/$0.50) - 2006/12/03 - 22:03:58 (ET)
Table 'Tea V' 6-max Seat #6 is the button
Seat 1: akromix ($57.95 in chips)
Seat 2: moneymike029 ($120.25 in chips)
Seat 3: Rosha ($25 in chips)
Seat 4: jkopp984 ($113.05 in chips)
Seat 5: mronepercent ($20.95 in chips)
Seat 6: redgrape ($104 in chips)
akromix: posts small blind $0.25
moneymike029: posts big blind $0.50
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to redgrape [Tc Jc]
Rosha: folds
jkopp984: raises $1.50 to $2
mronepercent: folds
redgrape:????
1) what do you do here?




redgrape raises $4 to $6
akromix: folds
moneymike029: folds
jkopp984: calls $4
*** FLOP *** [6d 5s As]
jkopp984: checks
redgrape: ????

i actually think a check is good here.

another strange place where i reraised, villan is 26/10 over like 80 hands:

PokerStars Game #7290800881: Hold'em No Limit ($0.25/$0.50) - 2006/12/03 - 22:26:17 (ET)
Table 'Claudia II' 6-max Seat #4 is the button
Seat 1: malarcher ($123.30 in chips)
Seat 2: TomasQ ($45.75 in chips)
Seat 3: Blais77 ($10 in chips)
Seat 4: redgrape ($73.35 in chips)
Seat 5: PMcMahon27 ($39.70 in chips)
Seat 6: Brattski ($123.10 in chips)
PMcMahon27: posts small blind $0.25
Brattski: posts big blind $0.50
Blais77: posts small & big blinds $0.75
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to redgrape [Qs As]
malarcher: calls $0.50
TomasQ: raises $2.50 to $3
Blais77: folds
redgrape: raises $4.50 to $7.50
PMcMahon27: folds
Brattski: folds
malarcher: folds
TomasQ: calls $4.50
*** FLOP *** [2h 9h 6h]
TomasQ: checks
redgrape:???????

1) I reraise part of the time, but not all the time, it really depends a lot on how the PFRer is playing at the time. As played Im never checking that flop, why is a check good there? If we fold out a hand like QJ, we make money and the same goes for PPs.

2) This isnt that strange of a reraise and Id pot it on this flop as villain is going to have a hard time continuing with much. Most peope seem not to suggest cbetting a monotone flop, but I think I get the most folds on those flops simply because they scare people so much. Also, in reraised pots in general I dont like checking that much, this should be a standard bet.

bet bet bet

obv these are light re-raises, but fine. Not betting these flops is bad because
a) you are checked to
b) you have no hand and no draw

What sucks is when your c-bet is called because now you are in a big pot with all sorts of nothing.

Doing this alot is high variance.

Both hands I think a call and a reraise are both fine. I also c-bet both flops when checked to.

always cbet when you have 0 showdown value as in hand 1-

in hand 2, reraise to 10 or 11 preflop. Im cbetting here (about 4/5 pot) like 2/3 of the time and checking 1/3 of the time. Here you have some showdown value and position so you dont ALWAYS have to bet but in general you should be betting almost every flop after reraising pre and getting it HU.

I hate the check in hand 1, A high flops are great ones to bet at in reraised pots. Hand 2 sometimes I don't mind a check here at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aislephive

I hate the check in hand 1, A high flops are great ones to bet at in reraised pots. Hand 2 sometimes I don't mind a check here at all.

---

since i dont usually bet KK on flop 1 i dont always bet air here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aislephive

I hate the check in hand 1, A high flops are great ones to bet at in reraised pots. Hand 2 sometimes I don't mind a check here at all.

---

since i dont usually bet KK on flop 1 i dont always bet air here

---

I agree, but I think that fact is of little importance in this hand.

balancing is important

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aislephive

I hate the check in hand 1, A high flops are great ones to bet at in reraised pots. Hand 2 sometimes I don't mind a check here at all.

---

since i dont usually bet KK on flop 1 i dont always bet air here

---

But you can win with KK in a showdown, so you don't need to cbet, but you can't (or likely won't) win in a showdown with JT?.. so thats why we should cbet here?

Unless we are checking, and folding to a turn bet?

If his PFR is < 13 I'm inclined to call PF. If it's > 13 I'm inclined to raise PF.

I bet the flop 99% of the time.

gabe, i really disagree about balancing by checking behind hands like JT no draw here to balance with KK. This isn't balancing at all because JT is completely hopeless and even KK cant take two barrels of serious heat from most players. To balance with KK you should be checking behind with AK a decent percentage of the time, because youre generally not folding that hand no matter what he bets on turn +river. Now he cant fire away with rags knowing he can probably push you off KK or worse because you may have a good hand-that is balance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nutsinho

gabe, i really disagree about balancing by checking behind hands like JT no draw here to balance with KK. This isn't balancing at all because JT is completely hopeless and even KK cant take two barrels of serious heat from most players. To balance with KK you should be checking behind with AK a decent percentage of the time, because youre generally not folding that hand no matter what he bets on turn +river. Now he cant fire away with rags knowing he can probably push you off KK or worse because you may have a good hand-that is balance.

---

for record, i bet here with JT 90% of the time, same goes for AK.

the points you make are good and everyone should take the time to understand what you write. but, thats not perfect balance! i know i keep using the word balance but it makes you so tough to play against when everything is balanced...it becomes more and more important as you move up, but its worth learning for everyone

I don't see how checking behind a hand without showdown value is good for balance. Let's assume Hero's betting range in hand 1 is 20% air, 70% Ax, 10% 2p+. How is that exploitable?

its not about exploiting you when you are betting, its about exploiting you when the times you are checking

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnny_fish

I don't see how checking behind a hand without showdown value is good for balance. Let's assume Hero's betting range in hand 1 is 20% air, 70% Ax, 10% 2p+. How is that exploitable?

---

i find it hard to believe that that would actually be anyone's betting range

i just happened upon this recent post by sklansky. its game theory related so it can be applied here.

"He asks if he can flat call an UTG opener who makes it 400 to go with the blinds at 100-200 in a NL tourney when he has 17,000, the opener has him covered, and he is in early position as well. His hand is 54 suited.

The reason I'm answering this relates to the fact that he already posted this question AND NOT ONE PERSON ANSWERED THAT THE HAND SHOULD RANDOMLY BE PLAYED A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THE TIME. Is this what happens when posters don't expect me to visit a forum occasionally to discipline them? Yes many of the answers gave good reasons for and against this call. Noting what parameters needed to be filled to make the call right or wrong. But no one seemed to grasp the fact that in a no limit game against decent opponents there are many marginal hands that should be played SOMETIMES even if the parameters aren't exactly right. That's to prevent opponents from being sure you don't have a certain hand, or alternatively to give yourself a chance to bust them when they are sure you can't have that hand. 54 suited certinly fits the criteria for an at least sometimes hand under all but the most adverse circumstances (such as knowledge that the button often reraises). In other words the answer should have been something like "I'll definitely play the hand if such and such, otherwise I'll play it maybe one in four times". But nobody answered that way. Not acceptable. "

sure its a different type of hand, but makes you think more about the big picture

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aislephive

I hate the check in hand 1, A high flops are great ones to bet at in reraised pots. Hand 2 sometimes I don't mind a check here at all.

---

since i dont usually bet KK on flop 1 i dont always bet air here

---

that was exactly what i was thinking. But i feel varying your play at lower limits like this doesn't really matter.

But i guess if i bet 10 here i only need to take down the pot less than half the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Massimo

But i feel varying your play at lower limits like this doesn't really matter.

---

yea, was just posting some stuff to think about as you get to tougher games

I probably fire two strong barrels on hand 1.

On hand 2 I'm wondering how you play if he calls the flop? C/f? That kinda seems like a waste doesn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

I probably fire two strong barrels on hand 1.

---

a second barel here would be spewage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

sure its a different type of hand, but makes you think more about the big picture

---

Answer truthfully:

How often do you do this and for this reasoning, and for how long have you been doing this?

i started working on this type of stuff when i started playing the party 5/10 game, which was beginning of summer. i dont think i can say im playing optimally according to game theory but the more i play the better i get at it.

i probably dont fire with air 5-10% of the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

balancing is important

---

This is just a question for Gabe, regarding balance. So you speak of balance, and making sure that villain is unsure of what you could have here in a paritcular scenario.

But it seems to me that keeping this balance requires villain to see your hand played a certain way. If villain only ever calls down and see's kings.. then from villains perspective there is no balance, and that is just the kings line.

So should we ever "show" our JTc, if not called down by villain? does anyone ever show hands, or is that just some form of "look at me, i'm trying to advertise my bluff" .. too transparent?

I'm not sure if my question makes sense. I guess I'm just saying that from the villain's perspective, we are only unpredictable if villain has called down the same line from hero, and been shown very different results.

i think showing vs good players is too transparent. it lets them know you are trying to manipulate them.

youre right about the balancing though...it doesnt really matter if our hand doesn't get showndown. this is one of the reasons it doesnt apply so much at low stakes because you dont play with the same regulars as much. once you start moving up and there are 3 of the same guys on each of your tables they start taking notes and remembering the very few times your trashy hand did get shown down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

its not about exploiting you when you are betting, its about exploiting you when the times you are checking

---

So checking behind doesn't always mean you're calling at least one bet on later streets.. Makes sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by griffey24

I'm not sure if my question makes sense. I guess I'm just saying that from the villain's perspective, we are only unpredictable if villain has called down the same line from hero, and been shown very different results.

---

It doesn't matter. The whole point of balancing is to taint the information you are giving. It's like encrypting your email. Sure, there's no point of encrypting it if no one is trying to read it... but in poker you have to assume that people are listening.

Also, what you mention "he will assume that's your KK line" is exactly the point. It's NOT always your line - so if he assumes it is, you have to make sure he is mistaken sometimes. You win both ways - if he assumes his info is good - he's wrong, and if he assumes it's BAD, then he cannot use it all.

The only time it doesn't matter is if it's your last hand ever or something.

Concerning the first hand, Lets talk about pot odds. Lets say he'll call the flop with any Ace, and pocket AA, 66 and 55.

He was semi-loose, kind of donkish, and he would sometimes fold to my reraises so i'll say his range is AA-22, AK-AJ, KQ, 67s-QJs. If this is true, pot odds wise this is definitely a bet. Although that range is probably a little to loose?

Anyways, how tight would his range have to be for a check behind to almost always be good?

I think a tight range wouldn't make much of a difference because JJ-KK still doesn't call.