Cowboys vs a camper

UTG is just terrible. It's embarassing that I doubled him when I pissed away an extra $50 on the river a few hands ago. Plays just about any 2 cards. I've since taken back most of my losses.

I've been very aggo when UTG is not in the pot, stealing blinds/pots from the more passive players who are waiting him out. Also, I've been buliding pots with pretty good hands against UTG. My range here is wide.

Button is a terrible Nit. We haven't gotten in any hands yet. Not sure if she's playing back at me. For now, I'm gonna say no and put her on AK/QQ+ maybe JJ/TT.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $1.00 BB (6 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver Cards)

UTG ($196.45)
Fnord ($191.95)
CO ($29.90)
Button ($101.35)
SB ($155.60)
BB ($79)

Preflop: Fnord is MP with , .
UTG calls $1, Fnord raises to $4, 1 fold, Button raises to $12, 2 folds, UTG folds, Fnord calls $8.

Flop: ($26.50) , , (2 players)
Fnord checks, Button checks.

Turn: ($26.50) (2 players)
Fnord checks, Button bets $15, Fnord calls $15.

River: ($56.50) (2 players)
Fnord bets $30

wow id have bet more....

c/r ai? AK/AQ(?)/AA will bet anyway, TT-QQ might bluff but won't call a bet.

Originally Posted by johnny_fish

TT-QQ might bluff but won't call a bet.

Given what I know so far, and lets say she has QQ-TT hence didn't bet the flop, why might I expect her to fire another round? So I pretty much ruled out checking here. I also doubt I get a bet out of AQ if I check.

are they nitty enough you are folding to a push? because of UTG you want to have as much on the table as you can

Originally Posted by gabe

are they nitty enough you are folding to a push? because of UTG you want to have as much on the table as you can

UTG folded pre-flop. Yeah, a river all-in re-raise would really really suck.

The pieces all fit for AA, how often does AK play like this?

AA - 4 ways
AK - 3 ways (discount?)
88 - 1 way discounted

After I took a look back, I think I blew too many hands out of the pot and should block for another $15, hoping that AA just does something lame like min-raise.

Also, I wonder if I should have played on my table image and just re-popped it to $30 pre-flop.

Originally Posted by Fnord

Originally Posted by gabe

are they nitty enough you are folding to a push? because of UTG you want to have as much on the table as you can

UTG folded pre-flop.

i meant he is a fish and he is almost 200bb deep, you want to have as much money as possible in front of you after the hand. i dont know how this really factors into it all, i just know its something to think about.

Originally Posted by gabe

i meant he is a fish and he is almost 200bb deep, you want to have as much money as possible in front of you after the hand. i dont know how this really factors into it all, i just know its something to think about.

Good point. Hence, I should be even less inclined to play a big pot here? That pretty much covers the first 3 betting rounds. What do you think of the river play? I fucked up too many rivers tonight. Fucking up big pots has been a re-occuring mistake in my NLHE play. Although I think I'm finally figuring out why I do good in full ring, but swing like a monkey short handed (even more than I really should.)

Fnord,

What's the plan on the river? FWIW, the check behind on the flop pretty much rules out AK in my mind, and it seems like you agree with this. I would expect a bad nit to check behind AA here a good amount of the time, and I'd probably put QQ as the next likely hand. When I think of nits, I don't think of players that are 3-betting TT/JJ/AK with much consistency preflop. I can't imagine getting away here without one hell of a read.

Originally Posted by Fnord

Originally Posted by gabe

i meant he is a fish and he is almost 200bb deep, you want to have as much money as possible in front of you after the hand. i dont know how this really factors into it all, i just know its something to think about.

Good point. Hence, I should be even less inclined to play a big pot here? That pretty much covers the first 3 betting rounds. What do you think of the river play? I fucked up too many rivers tonight. Fucking up big pots has been a re-occuring mistake in my NLHE play. Although I think I'm finally figuring out why I do good in full ring, but swing like a monkey short handed (even more than I really should.)

Fucking up big pots is something you need to do less of, and I promise you that you will start making a lot more money.

Originally Posted by Lukie

Originally Posted by Fnord

I fucked up too many rivers tonight. Fucking up big pots has been a re-occuring mistake in my NLHE play. Although I think I'm finally figuring out why I do good in full ring, but swing like a monkey short handed (even more than I really should.)

Fucking up big pots is something you need to do less of, and I promise you that you will start making a lot more money.

lol, and after reading that, did ya think I was up two-buy-ins over the session? I'm such a twisted fuck...

it's cool, I'm up about 50 buyins this week between 1/2 and 2/4 and I fuck up big pots all the time (seriously).

I like it all I think.

is a turn lead bad? thats what i wouldve done.

Originally Posted by Fnord

Originally Posted by gabe

i meant he is a fish and he is almost 200bb deep, you want to have as much money as possible in front of you after the hand. i dont know how this really factors into it all, i just know its something to think about.

Good point. Hence, I should be even less inclined to play a big pot here? That pretty much covers the first 3 betting rounds. What do you think of the river play? I fucked up too many rivers tonight. Fucking up big pots has been a re-occuring mistake in my NLHE play. Although I think I'm finally figuring out why I do good in full ring, but swing like a monkey short handed (even more than I really should.)

i think if hes nitty as you describe, you can bet/fold river. even if you think folding misses out on some EV, it might be evened out by the fact you get to keep some of your stack to battle with the mega fish.

Fun with UTG...

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $1.00 BB (5 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver Cards)

UTG ($262)
Fnord ($101.50)
Button ($38.50)
SB ($101)
BB ($160.90)

Preflop: Fnord is MP with , .
UTG calls $1, Fnord raises to $4, 3 folds, UTG calls $3.

Flop: ($9.50) , , (2 players)
UTG bets $3, Fnord raises to $9, UTG calls $6.

Turn: ($27.50) (2 players)
UTG bets $8, Fnord raises to $20, UTG calls $12.

River: ($67.50) (2 players)
UTG bets $28, Fnord raises to $68.5, UTG folds.

Originally Posted by johnny_fish

c/r ai? AK/AQ(?)/AA will bet anyway, TT-QQ might bluff but won't call a bet.

I thinkt his line has some warrant. I think Id rather do it if I had lead the turn though simply because check on the flop leading the turn and then checking the river is a pretty weak line when we are the PFRer and will often get an extra bet out of the villain on the river. As played I think there is a good chance he will check behind on the river, but if we lead I think we have a better chance of getting a check/raise in on the river. Is my thinking off here?

I didn't like leading the turn because I knew there was a very good chance to draw a bet or get AA/88 to make a terrible slow play mistake. AK/AQ would just call a bet, QQ-TT probably folds when confronted with implied threat from a bet or turn raise. It would be really spiffy to river her into set over set or even a freak gutshot.

I thought about this hand alot and I came to no conclusions

I had a response typed but I dont even like it now

I don't like putting in the third raise preflop against the player described.

Originally Posted by Lukie

I don't like putting in the third raise preflop against the player described.

Why not? Nits don't reraise AQ/AK/22-TT. Basically when the nit reraises you preflop, his range is JJ, QQ or AA, and he's not folding any of those to a 3-Bet, while often pushing with AA, which lets you step off your KK.

I think a lot of flops scare his JJ and QQ, so getting 3-bet value in preflop while solidifying a read is the best play.

I understand the concept of not destroying your postflop value against a wider range, but in this case the villain has a tight exact range, and playing to rope in an unlikely wider one is inferior. Given Fnords image, villain still doesn't get away from JJ or QQ as an overpair to the short board most days. Overpairs are like flypaper to a nit.

Originally Posted by Rondavu

Originally Posted by Lukie

I don't like putting in the third raise preflop against the player described.

Why not? Nits don't reraise AQ/AK/22-TT. Basically when the nit reraises you preflop, his range is JJ, QQ or AA, and he's not folding any of those to a 3-Bet, while often pushing with AA, which lets you step off your KK.

I think a lot of flops scare his JJ and QQ, so getting 3-bet value in preflop while solidifying a read is the best play.

I understand the concept of not destroying your postflop value against a wider range, but in this case the villain has a tight exact range, and playing to rope in an unlikely wider one is inferior. Given Fnords image, villain still doesn't get away from JJ or QQ as an overpair to the short board most days. Overpairs are like flypaper to a nit.

I disagree. A good nit is capable of folding QQ/JJ to a four bet preflop, especially JJ. But when you just call and the flop comes rags, then the nit bets out and you push, he looks and sees that half of his stack is in and he makes the crying call. Sometimes you will lose to AA obviously, but that was destined to happen anyways. I think a four bet against a TAG / nit with KK is a bad idea generally (unless you both have a lot of history, ie three betting each other lightly) because it lets all the hands you beat off the hook and you still go broke to AA. I know that when somebody four bets me preflop JJ/QQ is not a hand I really feel very confident in. But if they just call my reraise and the flop comes rags now it's hard for me to get away from my QQ.

doesn't Kings full here being POSSIBLY beaten by AA happen so infrequently that we shouldn't even consider it? If it does happen, I am still happy to get my money in and consider it a miracle to lose with each of us catching 1 of 2 cards left in the deck for a monster full house - $15 bet on the turn - Doesn't that seem like an info bet? There is $26 in from the preflop raising, so if you have been giving a lot of action he is likely to re-raise you with QQ, AK (like he is trying to wait out the fish) AK doesn't make sense but a $15 feeler bet feels like hes betting a decent but (given the board) vulnerable hand - if he's got quad 8's good for him - I think if we're talking about fucking up big pots, this is one I will happily fuck up - if they have AA here, i give them props and say to myself "thats why i have 20 buyins" - it just seems to me that the Monster vs. Monster situations happen infrequently enough that I would be more than happy to get my money in with Kings full there - the only way I could fold is if another A hit the river - then any ace beats me - otherwise i'm full steam ahead there....

course, im still at 25nl, maybe this is why

Originally Posted by Fnord

Originally Posted by johnny_fish

TT-QQ might bluff but won't call a bet.

Given what I know so far, and lets say she has QQ-TT hence didn't bet the flop, why might I expect her to fire another round? So I pretty much ruled out checking here. I also doubt I get a bet out of AQ if I check.

Why would QQ-TT bet this turn? Checking behind and inducing a river bluff is much more +EV than betting the turn. Plus, he's a nit, so I think it's that much more unlikely he bets the turn with QQ-TT.

I like a c/r ai. Most of the hands that pay off your river donk will bet when checked to imo. If you really think he's getting fed up with you, I like a river shove. Turn c/r is also an option.

Originally Posted by LimpinAintEZ

doesn't Kings full here being POSSIBLY beaten by AA happen so infrequently that we shouldn't even consider it?

Conditional probability. We need to take very seriously the chances he has a bigger boat here. He didn't just get delt 2 random cards on the river.

We have good information that his re-raise range is tight. 2 Kings in hand further cuts down his range. Flop action screams very strong or very weak, we expect lukewarm to almost always bet and bust hands to sometimes bet (although our post-flop read is lacking.) Turned King further cuts down his range. We started with a pretty tight range and as we got information that range kept getting tighter, not wider. The over-full is something that needs to be taken very seriously.

BTW: This is why it's good to widen up your ranges. It stops me from doing this.

Originally Posted by Rondavu

Originally Posted by Lukie

I don't like putting in the third raise preflop against the player described.

Why not? Nits don't reraise AQ/AK/22-TT. Basically when the nit reraises you preflop, his range is JJ, QQ or AA, and he's not folding any of those to a 3-Bet, while often pushing with AA, which lets you step off your KK.

I think a lot of flops scare his JJ and QQ, so getting 3-bet value in preflop while solidifying a read is the best play.

I understand the concept of not destroying your postflop value against a wider range, but in this case the villain has a tight exact range, and playing to rope in an unlikely wider one is inferior. Given Fnords image, villain still doesn't get away from JJ or QQ as an overpair to the short board most days. Overpairs are like flypaper to a nit.

Villain having a tight range is not a reason to 4-bet in this spot. That's just silly IMO. It allows him to play perfectly by pushing AA and folding everything else.

Originally Posted by Fnord

Originally Posted by LimpinAintEZ

doesn't Kings full here being POSSIBLY beaten by AA happen so infrequently that we shouldn't even consider it?

Conditional probability. We need to take very seriously the chances he has a bigger boat here. He didn't just get delt 2 random cards on the river.

We have good information that his re-raise range is tight. 2 Kings in hand further cuts down his range. Flop action screams very strong or very weak, we expect lukewarm to almost always bet and bust hands to sometimes bet (although our post-flop read is lacking.) Turned King further cuts down his range. We started with a pretty tight range and as we got information that range kept getting tighter, not wider. The over-full is something that needs to be taken very seriously.

BTW: This is why it's good to widen up your ranges. It stops me from doing this.

are you saying that I should be thinking about what THEY might have? Wtf? I've been here for months...someone coulda mentioned that before!~
\
Actually, I see what you mean - I think I get a bit excited with my good hands - Also I tend to be results oriented, which is why i say to myself "we have Kings full, lets get the damn money in there however we can" - that leads me to not consider what i could be up against (in this case, i still can't see me folding if he pushes) thanks for pointing that out - I will try to analyze the hand more....

Originally Posted by Lukie

Villain having a tight range is not a reason to 4-bet in this spot. That's just silly IMO. It allows him to play perfectly by pushing AA and folding everything else.

Fair enough I guess. It would be a 3-bet though. I'm just not entirely convinced the nit folds JJ-QQ to 3-bet often enough. Nit has been waiting an hour for a big pair to play a big pot with. I can see the argument for ruining a chance at post flop committment, but doesn't the nit still get committed often enough on rag boards after calling your 3-bet?

Originally Posted by Rondavu

Originally Posted by Lukie

Villain having a tight range is not a reason to 4-bet in this spot. That's just silly IMO. It allows him to play perfectly by pushing AA and folding everything else.

Fair enough I guess. It would be a 3-bet though. I'm just not entirely convinced the nit folds JJ-QQ to 3-bet often enough. Nit has been waiting an hour for a big pair to play a big pot with. I can see the argument for ruining a chance at post flop committment, but doesn't the nit still get committed often enough on rag boards after calling your 3-bet?

big blind (1-bet), raise (2-bet), reraise (3-bet), 3rd raise (4-bet). We're talking about 4-betting here.

Folding QQ- to a 4-bet preflop is pretty standard with these stack sizes, and if we're truly talking about a nit (we have to make sure we don't let this overly influence our decisions), then I think that it's more likely that he folds these hands.

The reason I don't like 4-betting in this spot is because when I think of a nit, I think of a very tight reraising range. One that KK isn't extremely far ahead of, and in some cases, is actually behind. Couple that with always getting action on the only better hand, which isn't the case with worse hands, that's why I don't feel 4-betting in this spot is the correct play. It's possible I can still be convinced otherwise, but I doubt it.

There are really two reasons I'd rather 4-bet in this spot against someone who has been repopping me light.

1) I will be way ahead of their range, and it really becomes a value bet (although one that basically turns are cards face up on the table).

2) This might contradict number 1 a bit, but villain may have the impression that I'm 4-betting me light since I've been getting repopped so much. And as such, I'm guessing would probably be more likely to continue with worse hands.

Results: He folded to my river bet.

Looks like QQ, maybe JJ.

Originally Posted by Lukie

big blind (1-bet), raise (2-bet), reraise (3-bet), 3rd raise (4-bet). We're talking about 4-betting here.

UTG calls $1 (limp not a bet), Fnord raises to $4 (1-bet), 1 fold, Button raises to $12 (2-bet)

Do I not know what a 3-bet is? Perhaps. Hahaha.

Originally Posted by Rondavu

Do I not know what a 3-bet is? Perhaps. Hahaha.

Let me guess, you'd rather listen to me drag forks accross a chalkboard all day than sit down at a limit table?

Originally Posted by Fnord

Originally Posted by Rondavu

Do I not know what a 3-bet is? Perhaps. Hahaha.

Let me guess, you'd rather listen to me drag forks accross a chalkboard all day than sit down at a limit table?

im in

Originally Posted by Fnord

Originally Posted by Rondavu

Do I not know what a 3-bet is? Perhaps. Hahaha.

Let me guess, you'd rather listen to me drag forks accross a chalkboard all day than sit down at a limit table?

I'm much better at limit these days. I actually had a nice run at Stars 5/10 and 10/20 a while back. Dullsetsound refused to sit with me. I kept raping him.

I really don't like defining a limp as a bet in NL though. I agree with it for limit. There is no valid point I'm making here. Can Irish tell another story?