Because I feel like posting a hand...

[Fnord]

My table image is probably a little LAggy.
Button is a kinda loose/fishy player.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.50 BB (8 handed) FTR converter on zerodivide.cx

UTG ($21.05)
UTG+1 ($59.70)
MP1 ($16.35)
MP2 ($37.65)
Fnord ($32.90)
Button ($26.30)
SB ($23.30)
BB ($66.60)

Preflop: Fnord is CO with J, T.
2 folds, MP1 calls $0.50, 1 fold, Fnord calls $0.50, Button raises to $1.5, 2 folds, MP1 folds, Fnord calls $1.

Flop: ($4.25) 7, 9, 2 (2 players)
Fnord checks, Button bets $1.5, Fnord raises to $5, Button calls $3.50.

Turn: ($14.25) 8 (2 players)
Fnord bets $7, Button raises to $19.8, Fnord calls $12.80.

[Silly String]

Your image helped you out a ton when the guy called the flop raise. Or else you were way behind and got lucky hitting that gut-shot. A lot of the time, I see that guy taking your $5 raise on the flop after the turn doesn't help you. Not a bad play if isolated, but with your LAG image you may get called on that raise with marginal hands. Especially by the numerous fish at .25/.50. I have found bluffing/semi-bluffing to be very -EV at these levels unless you have a monster read on the opponent. I like your de-stacking though.

[CrunchyNuts]

So you're sure the button here doesn't have Axd, Silly String? I could see AQd or AKd being played like this given the reads. If the opp is really lose/fishy, perhaps A9 is his holding? Other then that the only thing that comes to mind is a high pocket pair that he's married to on a coordinated, sooted board against a laggy hero - fishy indeed.

[Silly String]

So you're sure the button here doesn't have Axd, Silly String? I could see AQd or AKd being played like this given the reads.

No I'm not sure of that. But at that point you're still behind, though not dominated, and I wouldn't pull this play too often with a LAG image. Too many fish call my arse down. At these levels, I have lost more money putting on bluffs than any other way. A nut flush draw and two overs, some calling station is going to camp on my arse with my LAG image. IMO, these players aren't into 2nd level thinking, just playing their cards.
Just my $.02 though. I thought I would help Fnord, since he usually helps me on my HHs.

[SwanDawg]

i'm a rookie, but I don't think the Button would raise so strong against a player he think is Laggy until he had a made hand with the fear of being re-raised for more..I think the $1.50 raise PF represents pockets by the button myself.. When Fnord makes the straight he takes the Buttons money.

SwanDawg

[Fnord]

My thoughts

Pre-flop:

My image is getting pretty LAggy, slow down and play a pretty good hand from position against a pretty bad limper and see if my splashing in prior hands gets me paid. Button is loose, but not an idiot so I think I get the button > 50% of the time anyway.

Oh well, he raised, but I think I have odds to call here.

Flop:

That was a weak bet, looks like a pretty standard PS continuation bet. I have lots of outs, lets put him to the test. I don't think calling is bad here, but I think he checks behind a lot if I improve.

Crap, he called. I'm bettting any J,T,8 or heart on the turn. Otherwise I'll check and let him make another PokerStars under-bet (although with a big pot built up, he might go big, but such is NL...)

Turn:

Value! If he's got the flush, I'm paying it off. But it looks like a set or unsuited A

[Demiparadigm]

Button has either KK or AA with a diamond.
AKd, AQd is possible, but less likely. You are good here the vast majority of the time.
I don't like the checkraise on the flop, since so many players will call you down with weaker hands that still have you beat. Turn play is fine.

[Fnord]

I don't like the checkraise on the flop, since so many players will call you down with weaker hands that still have you beat.

I'm still adjusting to the betting patterns in these games and who is laying down what when. So far it's been a mixed bag getting paid off.

BTW, he had none of the hands mentioned so far.

[DogOnMySide]

When I first read it yesterday my initial thought was either a flush, another JT to split it with ( ) or... 5 6?

Well, you did say he was fishy and you had a loose image!

[Silly String]

I was critiquing the play. I didn't know we were playing the guessing game.
I guess A Q , but that was mentioned and Fnord said he didn't have it. If he was a solid player, I give him credit for the flush. But he is not.
So he is loose/fishy eh? Possible other holdings that I think would push here: A + broadway card, 88(prob. wouldn't PFR), JT with 1.

The suspense is kiling me, what did he have?

[johnny_fish]

Seems like a flush, but because he's fishy it's an overpair. AA more likely than KK. Slowplayed AA's.. Nice.

[Fnord]

He had A J

The river blanked and MHIG!

[dsaxton]

If your read was that he was a loose-passive fish, then why are you trying to bluff him out on the flop? It makes even less sense if you felt that you had a loose-aggressive image.

This seems like an obvious check-fold on the flop.

[Fnord]

This seems like an obvious check-fold on the flop.

Folding for $1.5 would be horrible.

[CrunchyNuts]

Folding for $1.5 would be horrible.

Why? You're calling off a 1/2 pot bet with what, 3 clean outs? And against loose-passive, your raise there is for value...so you value bet 3 clean outs. If a J would have hit, would you have trusted it all the way?

However good the turn play was, I do question your evaluation of your flop position.

[Fnord]

You're calling off a 1/2 pot bet with what, 3 clean outs?

The bet was 1/3 pot. I'm getting nearly 4:1 immediate with lots of money behind. Saying I have only 3 clean outs is way too weak tight since it was heads-up to the flop and there is a very good chance he raised unsuited cards. I have 4 outs I can take to the felt, backdoor flush and a couple weak overs.

Since I ruled out folding and I thought the whole line smelled weak-sauce I put in an extra $3.5 to try to win it right there. I probably read the hand well, but the player not-so-well.

[CrunchyNuts]

Gah, those pesky blinds and limpers.

But against an unknown hand...well, you do have 3 clean outs~ We'll just pretend the suits aren't coordinated and say 4 for the str8, then maybe 6 1/2 outs for the overs, and toss one in for the backdoor flush. So 8 total. ~16% to hit on the next card and you're putting in $1.5 to get 6. Close enough with money behind, but yea, certainly not a raising situation unless your opp is capable of folding.

[Fnord]

Close enough with money behind, but yea, certainly not a raising situation unless your opp is capable of folding.

My thought was I could get him to laydown something like A J and under-estimated how fishy he was. Defending against continuation bets requires picking some spots to play back, right? So I ruled out folding and went from there...

[dsaxton]

You're calling off a 1/2 pot bet with what, 3 clean outs?

The bet was 1/3 pot. I'm getting nearly 4:1 immediate with lots of money behind. Saying I have only 3 clean outs is way too weak tight since it was heads-up to the flop and there is a very good chance he raised unsuited cards. I have 4 outs I can take to the felt, backdoor flush and a couple weak overs.

Since I ruled out folding and I thought the whole line smelled weak-sauce I put in an extra $3.5 to try to win it right there. I probably read the hand well, but the player not-so-well.

Why is it good that there's lots of money behind when you have a weak pair draw with an inside straight draw, with zero implied odds if your straight card happens to put a three flush on the board, and may even cost you money if you run into a flush?

As for drawing to one pair, are you just hoping you'll be able to just check the hand down out of position after hitting one pair, or would you just keep check-calling with top pair with a ten or jack kicker? You could easily be faced with a substantial bet on the turn after hitting one of your supposed outs. What do you do then? You're putting yourself in a position to make costly mistakes even in the rare situation where you actually do improve. Saying "I'm getting 4:1 with my pair draw and inside straight draw, so calling is ok" is incredibly simple-minded. You're comletely ignoring the fact that you can end up losing more money by hitting your card, with no prospect of building the pot any further with a winning hand, unless you miraculously hit the nuts on the turn. Since calling is obviously absurd for the aforementioned reasons, and since raise-bluffing a calling station is almost always a mistake, you're forced to minimize your losses and fold.

[Fnord]

raise-bluffing a calling station is almost always a mistake.

No wonder you suck at reads. Players that call more than they should and calling stations are very different profiles. You can still bluff out players who call too much, you just have to be more careful picking your spots. I do it all the time in limit games. Most players won't call with air. By virtue of playing a lot of hands, they're quite often left with just air.

Why is it good that there's lots of money behind when you have a weak pair draw with an inside straight draw, with zero implied odds if your straight card happens to put a three flush on the board, and may even cost you money if you run into a flush?

Putting him on a flush draw based on a PFR + weak continuation bet sucks. I'm taking all 4 gutshot outs to the felt against his 52bb stack and expect to show a profit.

As for drawing to one pair, are you just hoping you'll be able to just check the hand down out of position after hitting one pair, or would you just keep check-calling with top pair with a ten or jack kicker? You could easily be faced with a substantial bet on the turn after hitting one of your supposed outs. What do you do then?

If I hit a pair, I still have my gutter and re-draws to 2pr or trips (if my hand isn't already good.) Given the player profile I expect another weak bet on the turn if I call the flop and can easily let this go to a big bet. A weak player is exactly the kind of guy I expect to get a cheap showdown out of if my hand is good.

Finally, if I don't make these calls/raises, I make it correct for opponents to make small raises pre-flop then small bets on every street (which is how most players in these games at PS are playing) because they fold out my pot equity whenever it's close. The mistake they're making is that they are giving me (implied) pot odds to draw (particularly if they can't make a laydown) and have given me a good value proposition when playing back at them.

It's a cash game, no reason to fold out close spots due to risk.

Then again, maybe I should fire up 8 tables and play 10% VP$IP/2% PFR poker and never put myself into difficult post-flop spots.

[dsaxton]

raise-bluffing a calling station is almost always a mistake.

No wonder you suck at reads. Players that call more than they should and calling stations are very different profiles. You can still bluff out players who call too much, you just have to be more careful picking your spots. I do it all the time in limit games. Most players won't call with air. By virtue of playing a lot of hands, they're quite often left with just air.

Why is it good that there's lots of money behind when you have a weak pair draw with an inside straight draw, with zero implied odds if your straight card happens to put a three flush on the board, and may even cost you money if you run into a flush?

Putting him on a flush draw based on a PFR + weak continuation bet sucks. I'm taking all 4 gutshot outs to the felt against his 52bb stack and expect to show a profit.

As for drawing to one pair, are you just hoping you'll be able to just check the hand down out of position after hitting one pair, or would you just keep check-calling with top pair with a ten or jack kicker? You could easily be faced with a substantial bet on the turn after hitting one of your supposed outs. What do you do then?

If I hit a pair, I still have my gutter and re-draws to 2pr or trips (if my hand isn't already good.) Given the player profile I expect another weak bet on the turn if I call the flop and can easily let this go to a big bet. A weak player is exactly the kind of guy I expect to get a cheap showdown out of if my hand is good.

Finally, if I don't make these calls/raises, I make it correct for opponents to make small raises pre-flop then small bets on every street (which is how most players in these games at PS are playing) because they fold out my pot equity whenever it's close. The mistake they're making is that they are giving me (implied) pot odds to draw (particularly if they can't make a laydown) and have given me a good value proposition when playing back at them.

It's a cash game, no reason to fold out close spots due to risk.

Then again, maybe I should fire up 8 tables and play 10% VP$IP/2% PFR poker and never put myself into difficult post-flop spots.

Clearly I suck at reading hands/styles since I stated that it's usually a mistake to raise-bluff a calling station (which is a fact, does anyone who acknowledges this suck at reads?). That's brilliant logic.

Where did I say I put him on a flush draw?

Was his all-in raise on the turn weak? He wasn't even willing to fold whiffed overcards after being check-raised on the flop, and then raised all-in when you said you expected a weak action. So much for your sophisticated player profile and great reads.

I mean, you classify a player as a loose calling station, and then you start trying to make plays on him. How does this make any sense? You win his money by turning over a hand after he calls you down with overcards, not by hoping for an unlikely fold which involves an amount of risk disproprotionate to what you expect to win.

You don't fold hands in "close spots" (I'm not sure your unimproved jack high against random overcards or an overpair is a close spot, but ok) because of risk. You fold when you can't rationally expect a profit in a situation, like when you have no pair, a crappy draw and are out of position facing a preflop raiser / calling station. How is this not obvious to you?

Don't get pissy when someone points out that your post-flop play / hand analysis were lame. You yourself even admitted you haven't been able to move up to higher levels because of leaks in your game. Maybe you should actually listen when someone has a criticism.

I'm just curious, how much time do you spend studying $50 NL opponents before you realize that the way you beat them is to make a hand and bet it, and not try silly bluffs that only work against better players?