overplaying TPTK wheeeeeeeeee

A little background info on villain... he isn't a regular but he's multitabling and seems decent enough. I wouldn't be surprised if he was a regular somewhere else, possibly full tilt. Just a guess because I have never seen him on stars before the other day.

Anyway, he's your typical agg type player, maybe 20/18ish. We really havn't gotten tangled up yet, but here's a hand he witnessed on another table:

Villain in this hand is mcnasty, and obviously river seems like an easy shove (and I agree), but I was very confident that he had Q9/Q8 a huge percentage of the time so I just called.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $10 BB (6 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

UTG ($853.90)
MP ($1009)
CO ($1033.50)
Button ($995)
Hero ($2231.55)
BB ($2727)

Preflop: Hero is SB with 8, Q.
UTG calls $10, 3 folds, Hero completes, BB checks.

Flop: ($30) Q, 3, 9 (3 players)
Hero bets $30, BB calls $30, UTG calls $30.

Turn: ($120) Q (3 players)
Hero bets $100, BB calls $100, UTG folds.

River: ($320) 8 (2 players)
Hero bets $240, BB raises to $650, Hero calls $410.

Final Pot: $1620

Results in white below:
Hero has 8c Qc (full house, queens full of eights).
BB doesn't show.
Outcome: Hero wins $1620.

bleh, converter isn't working. Villain had Q8 for the chop.

----

Other then this though, I think he has seen me play very aggressive but just short of spewy. I have some big stacks on other tables that I enjoy throwing around, but I usually have the goods in big pots.

Anyway, the hand in question...

I'm posting it because it's played so funny. It looks a lot how your typical small-stakes nit would play a set pretty much every time. Obviously we are both aware of this.

Advice on all 4 streets is welcome. I'll give a quick synopsis for what I'm thinking on each one, but please add your own because I'm looking for some creativity here.

preflop: not a whole lot to talk about here. Folding and 3-betting are both reasonable alternatives.

flop: meh, probably not the best hand to c/r with here, but it definitely looks cool. I'm way ahead of his range here obviously, but I'm probably setting myself up to win a lot of small pots and lose some big ones. I'm not sure how that works out in the end. Leading and c/c'ing are reasonable alternatives. When he bet/calls, his hand is still fairly well concealed, could be something like 88 or Jx or overpair or draw or set, who knows. I really doubt he's floating though.

turn&river: blind, reckless aggression. I think he'd shove a set or straight on the turn a good amount of the time, especially sets. I have no idea what I'm doing on the river really. It's a bit of a 2 way bet, he could call with worse or fold better, especially since he has to know that AJ is such a small part of my range. A lot of players will insta-check back all worse hands and it's hard to get to this river with air if your villain, so c/f is probably the best play. But shit, this looks cool as hell (especially if I get called by worse), and it's GREAT for metagame.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $10 BB (5 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

SB ($1052)
Hero ($2109.50)
UTG ($1172)
MP ($1059)
Button ($1238)

Preflop: Hero is BB with J, A.
1 fold, MP raises to $40, 2 folds, Hero calls $30.

Flop: ($85) 6, J, 5 (2 players)
Hero checks, MP bets $53, Hero raises to $175, MP calls $122.

Turn: ($435) 9 (2 players)
Hero bets $245, MP calls $245.

River: ($925) 3 (2 players)
Hero bets $599, puts villain all-in exactly

Final Pot: $1524

Discuss!

I didn't read your preamble so as not to be too biased.

This hand reminds me of the hand where you overplayed trip A's (I think with a 3 kicker) and got a somewhat fishy opponent to fold an apparent flush on the paired board.

Much in the same way, your line can get a fold from a solid villain's strong hand (obv overpair in this case) or get called by a very marginal holding since thinking villains will put you on a set or 78... or a 3 barrel bluff that started with "you are FOS (you to preflop raiser)" with your flop raise.

So I think it's a fun line, since it's almost impossible to put you on AJ. Good for metagame, yada yada...

It also reminds me of one of Strassa's recent posts where he 3 barrels with 2nd pair HU vs Ivey. He got flamed a lot for it, but defended his play (successfully imo) by stating that, in the long run, it makes it virtually impossible to put him on a hand, since he's no longer either betting a monster or a bluff, which is kind of what you've done with your range by playing AJ this way here.

edit : just read your synopsis. lol@ basically restating what you said in you last paragraph...

Originally Posted by Genitruc

It also reminds me of one of Strassa's recent posts where he 3 barrels with 2nd pair HU vs Ivey. He got flamed a lot for it, but defended his play (successfully imo) by stating that, in the long run, it makes it virtually impossible to put him on a hand, since he's no longer either betting a monster or a bluff, which is kind of what you've done with your range by playing AJ this way here.

That's something I do in limit. I try to make a lot of really marginal value bets partially to induce loose calls later on, but with the added benefit of occasionally getting called by a worse hand if an opponent tries to make a "good" call. It's like advertising with a bluff, but occasionally being awarded with the pot anyways.

Anyways, the problem in thinking that a bet might acheive both of these objectives (folding a better hand, or getting called by something worse) is that if his opponent (who we will assume is reasonably intelligent) thinks there's a good enough chance that T-T is good here to justify a call, there's obviously a better chance that Q-Q is good, since Q-Q is ahead of a larger range, so it would make absolutely no sense to fold Q-Q. And if he thinks a fold of Q-Q would be the right play, it would be completely inconsistent for him to call with T-T.

So, unless his opponent is completely whimsical and irrational, it will either work as a bluff or as a value bet, but it doesn't make sense to think it could serve as both.

Of course, when you don't know what your opponent is thinking, then you might get either outcome (which I assume is what you mean here), but in this case, you're mostly just taking a pure gamble on how the player is thinking at a particular moment. That is, what you mean by, "He might fold a better hand or call with something worse," is, "I have no idea why I'm making this play."

Originally Posted by dsaxton

Anyways, the problem in thinking that a bet might acheive both of these objectives (folding a better hand, or getting called by something worse) is that if his opponent (who we will assume is reasonably intelligent) thinks there's a good enough chance that T-T is good here to justify a call, there's obviously a better chance that Q-Q is good, since Q-Q is ahead of a larger range, so it would make absolutely no sense to fold Q-Q. And if he thinks a fold of Q-Q would be the right play, it would be completely inconsistent for him to call with T-T.

But until you prove to ppl that you're unorthodox, the good players will put you on a hand that makes sense and act accordingly.

If you are villain in hand vs lukie, What do you do with 1010? What do you with AA-QQ? Typically ppl will decide that he has the hand he's repping or he doesn't. If villain decides he's bluffing, he calls with 88+. If he thinks he's value betting, he folds AA in a heartbeat. I don't see what's not credible about this...

Playing AJ like this makes HERO completely unreadable. It forces opponents to play 1st level poker, which can only be a good thing, especially when you know this is how they're forced to play you.

Originally Posted by Genitruc

It also reminds me of one of Strassa's recent posts where he 3 barrels with 2nd pair HU vs Ivey. He got flamed a lot for it, but defended his play (successfully imo) by stating that, in the long run, it makes it virtually impossible to put him on a hand, since he's no longer either betting a monster or a bluff, which is kind of what you've done with your range by playing AJ this way here.

theres a big difference here. in that hand, it was headsup and there were things ivey could call him down with. you'll never see a good villian call down with worse here. also, playing TPTK like a fish (check raise, BET, BET, call push) for metagame reasons doesnt really make sense.

i think i would check call turn and block river, if i decided to call preflop and c/r flop. however, i rr pre and dont usually c/r flop.

Originally Posted by gabe

Originally Posted by Genitruc

It also reminds me of one of Strassa's recent posts where he 3 barrels with 2nd pair HU vs Ivey. He got flamed a lot for it, but defended his play (successfully imo) by stating that, in the long run, it makes it virtually impossible to put him on a hand, since he's no longer either betting a monster or a bluff, which is kind of what you've done with your range by playing AJ this way here.

theres a big difference here. in that hand, it was headsup and there were things ivey could call him down with. you'll never see a good villian call down with worse here. also, playing TPTK like a fish (check raise, BET, BET, call push) for metagame reasons doesnt really make sense.

i think i would check call turn and block river, if i decided to call preflop and c/r flop. however, i rr pre and dont usually c/r flop.

is it really all that different if you think you'll be multitabling SH games with the villain? Lukie mentioned he hasn't played with villain a lot before, so maybe it's a waste of a spewy play... but if the guy's gonna be around a lot it seems like an interesting play to me.

Of course you're right about it being more relevant in Strassa's situation because of the brutality of preflop play HU bringing lots more marginal holdings to postflop play...

But I doubt that Strassa's "long run" will include a whole lot more postflop battles with Ivey than Lukie might have with villain here if he turns out to be playing regularly on Stars.

Originally Posted by Genitruc

Playing AJ like this makes HERO completely unreadable. It forces opponents to play 1st level poker, which can only be a good thing, especially when you know this is how they're forced to play you.

I guess that instead of his opponent thinking he's bluffing or has a monster in similar situations, he might think he's just overplaying top pair top kicker, but I don't see how this is very useful from hero's perspective.

I would rather do this with a hand that has virtually no potential to win money postflop and / or be the best hand. At least that way I'm sure what I'm trying to accomplish.

[quote="dsaxton. That is, what you mean by, "He might fold a better hand or call with something worse," is, "I have no idea why I'm making this play."[/quote]

This is completely incorrect.
Your line of thinking is incorrect.

Lukie knows exactly why he made this play: he thought the EV of pushing, which may induce a mistake two ways, and the added value of metagame for future hands, was greater than 0 (checking and folding). If we held 34s here, your argument is that its better to bluff with this than with AJ because we know why we are making the play. Now, there's only one way the opponent can make a mistake, and the mistake has exactly the same value as before. Also, this does less for metagame because he likely already considered 34s/74s to be part of your range in some way. Thus, pushing with AJ is uniformly better than pushing with air.

Preflop/flop seem good. I def think you can get called by worse when you c/r this flop. I would probably check turn and see what happens, probably call a bet, maybe fold, and obv value-bet river if he checks behind.

As played, I'm not a huge fan of your line. I'd like it a lot more if you had a better image or some history w/this guy.

Originally Posted by nutsinho

Originally Posted by dsaxton

That is, what you mean by, "He might fold a better hand or call with something worse," is, "I have no idea why I'm making this play."

This is completely incorrect.
Your line of thinking is incorrect.

Lukie knows exactly why he made this play: he thought the EV of pushing, which may induce a mistake two ways, and the added value of metagame for future hands, was greater than 0 (checking and folding). If we held 34s here, your argument is that its better to bluff with this than with AJ because we know why we are making the play. Now, there's only one way the opponent can make a mistake, and the mistake has exactly the same value as before. Also, this does less for metagame because he likely already considered 34s/74s to be part of your range in some way. Thus, pushing with AJ is uniformly better than pushing with air.

Do you realize that the play is profitable as a bluff only insofar as opponent is capable of folding a better hand, which is only true when the bet is a negative expectation value bet and vice versa? There's a cancelling effect between these two possibilities, they don't compound each other into huge amounts of "EV."

The idea that his opponent can make a mistake "two ways instead of one" is a simplistic and specious way of rationalizing this play. We can just as easily say that we are potentially making a mistake two ways by either getting called by a better hand or inducing a fold from something worse that would've called a lesser bet.

Also, you need to explain the metagame benefit of playing top pair top kicker like a fish.

Originally Posted by dsaxton

Originally Posted by nutsinho

Originally Posted by dsaxton

That is, what you mean by, "He might fold a better hand or call with something worse," is, "I have no idea why I'm making this play."

This is completely incorrect.
Your line of thinking is incorrect.

Lukie knows exactly why he made this play: he thought the EV of pushing, which may induce a mistake two ways, and the added value of metagame for future hands, was greater than 0 (checking and folding). If we held 34s here, your argument is that its better to bluff with this than with AJ because we know why we are making the play. Now, there's only one way the opponent can make a mistake, and the mistake has exactly the same value as before. Also, this does less for metagame because he likely already considered 34s/74s to be part of your range in some way. Thus, pushing with AJ is uniformly better than pushing with air.

Do you realize that the play is profitable as a bluff only insofar as opponent is capable of folding a better hand, which is only true when the bet is a negative expectation value bet and vice versa? There's a cancelling effect between these two possibilities, they don't compound each other into huge amounts of "EV."

The idea that his opponent can make a mistake "two ways instead of one" is a simplistic and specious way of rationalizing this play. We can just as easily say that we are potentially making a mistake two ways by either getting called by a better hand or inducing a fold from something worse that would've called a lesser bet.

Also, you need to explain the metagame benefit of playing top pair top kicker like a fish.

I think the whole "metagame" benefit of playing a hand like a fish is that you look like a fish. It's unlikely that Lukie is looking to make this his standard line with TPTK OOP. However, by playing it this way once or twice in big pots vs the same opponents, your range is no longer clear.

Also, I like your cartesian logic about justifying a play from two points of view when the reverse logic could seem equally relevant.

However, I think it's important to note that OOP in a big pot on the river, we're never "getting worse hands to fold" since there's no missed draw or medium strength hand that villain will ever bet here that we can call profitably (obv he's not gonna shove with 1010 here to make us fold) and it'd be crazy to say that villain calls 100% of the time with better hands (I know I lay down QQ/KK in this spot if I'm villain a certain % of the time).

Finally, the pot is big (even if it's unnecessarily bloated through our own donkishness) and it's very much worth fighting for, which is another argument for pushing.

Hmm this is really confusing me. I understand why you say "two mistakes instead of one!" is specious, but your interpretation of this comment is different from mine. I was thinking that the value of the mistakes of incorrectly folding to 34 was the same as the value of the mistakes of incorrectly folding to AJ, so if mistake "A" for 34=mistake "A' " for AJ, then any additional mistakes (incorrectly calling) for AJ would necessarily create more EV. Under this condition, it's not specious to say two mistakes are better than one. Now I see that 34 can create more mistakes as a bluff than AJ, so the EV for the play as a bluff is not equal. so the value of that portion of the play for AJ, 34 is not equal.

However...you can't possibly lose more money by going all-in with AJ here than by going all-in with 34. UNLESS you forego value that could be obtained with a smaller value bet. But let's think about this. How could value betting be profitable? Certainly we cannot bet another 250$ and expect this to be called by hands worse than AJ that would not call a push. In fact, we are more likely to get a push called here by a worse hand than a 250$-300$ value bet. If we go much lower, calling becomes a more attractive option to the opponent holding eights, tens, or KJ. BUT, raising as a bluff becomes even more attractive-and Lukie would not possibly be able to call this bluff the way the hand played out. It cannot mathematically be proven because we don't know villains exact propensities on the river facing any given bet, but its pretty certain to me at least that there is no amount between 0 and all in that could be more profitable than both.

But you'll say that it's still a mathematical possibility for 34 to be creating more mistakes than AJ, such as when his calling range is QQ or better. That is true, sir. But I hope you see that this is not correct:
I would rather do this with a hand that has virtually no potential to win money postflop and / or be the best hand. At least that way I'm sure what I'm trying to accomplish.

Talk about simplistic and specious! Just because your bluff with this hand may POSSIBLY be creating more mistakes does not mean you should rather have it here. You NEED to create more mistakes to approach the same EV because your hand is of a lesser value.

The way the hand played out, and assuming opp isnt bad, Lukie's best river bet must be either 0 (accompanied by a fold to a significant bet) or all in. This is also true of 34. These facts by themselves make it blatantly obvious that you should rather have AJ than 34 here.

cool hand...so on the river, if AJ is never in your range, then he has an easier time deciding how to play pairs worse than TPTK, since you normally have either a bluff or better than top pair.

But it sounds like you're not getting that metagame stuff since it isn't someone you play enough, so might as well just play more standard-style with a check on the turn or river.