QQ Against Aggressive Unknown

[Rondavu]

Full Tilt Poker Game #1007045825: Table Clifton (6 max) - $0.25/$0.50 - No Limit Hold'em - 14:40:40 ET - 2006/09/16
Seat 1: colourblack ($29.25)
Seat 2: Rondavu ($49.50)
Seat 3: ramrod155 ($50)
Seat 4: SLOpoker ($126.20)
Seat 5: darth_bozo ($49.75)
Seat 6: stvorka ($16.20)
Rondavu posts the small blind of $0.25
ramrod155 posts the big blind of $0.50
The button is in seat #1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Rondavu [Qc Qs]
SLOpoker calls $0.50
darth_bozo folds
stvorka folds
colourblack folds
Rondavu raises to $2
ramrod155 folds
SLOpoker calls $1.50
*** FLOP *** [2d 4d 5h]
Rondavu bets $3
SLOpoker raises to $6
Rondavu calls $3
*** TURN *** [2d 4d 5h] [Kc]
Rondavu checks
SLOpoker bets $8.50
Rondavu: ??

[pantherhound]

What were the circumstances of the previous hand(s) that led you to believe he was aggressive?

I probably raise a little more preflop for a start. I dunno, it obv sucks to be OOP here. i may bet the turn sometimes.

[Miffed22001]

raise 2.50 preflop.
I lead this turn and tell him i have a hand and how much does he like his.
I think their is a case for a c/r all in against a player who will overplay 88/77 here.

[Rondavu]

I folded immediately. I have no right to a big pot with one pair against this unkown who is making claims. He flopped the wheel.

[THaC]

But you really just got owned by 66. Why post hands like this, no reads, nothing. Horrible post.


"Aggressive Unknown" ... Aggressive because he minraised your flop bet and bet half the pot when checked to? Yah, real aggressive. Looks like you missed completely since you played it so ugly.


3-bet flop, shove turn.

[Fnord]

I'm starting to understand why some players swing so darn much.

[NLHE lahooozaher]

I'm starting to understand why some players swing so darn much.

Awesome. Thanks for the laugh.

[NLHE lahooozaher]

But you really just got owned by 66...

I'm pretty sure his opponent showed him A3 and was not guessing.

[Rondavu]

But you really just got owned by 66. Why post hands like this, no reads, nothing. Horrible post.


"Aggressive Unknown" ... Aggressive because he minraised your flop bet and bet half the pot when checked to? Yah, real aggressive. Looks like you missed completely since you played it so ugly.


3-bet flop, shove turn.

Hahaha. I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're a good player, but you have to trust that I am as well, and knew this was not the spot to play for stacks. The point of this post was to show how against an unknown with a reverse implied hand like this it's bad to play for stacks right after sitting down. I'll call my stack off with second pair if I think it's ahead. This QQ was crushed sir.

The thing that tipped me off was that villain was uneffected by the turn K after min raising me (yuck) on the flop. That was a big mistake for him, because it tipped his hand before confirming it's likelihood on the turn.

The overall point Thac is that it's ok if he has 66 here. It's not time to stack him. If he has 66 in this spot, how easily do you think he's gonna give you value later on when you're more comfortable in a hand against him?

I'm starting to understand why some players swing so darn much.

NH sir

[benny999]

thac - maybe ur posting tourny advice?

rondavu - I kinda like your turn play, and might try it out more for this kind of spot. I usually block bet smallish on the turn, like around 1/2 pot, since I trust any major aggression from an unknown and some worse hands call. That might be a little more ev, but this seems lower variance because villain is not as likely to make a play with a worse made hand on a card that possibly helped you.

[THaC]

I don't think flop is good though. Either 3bet or get out IMO. I don't see how this line tells you anything. If he's as aggressive as you say he is, he's gonna bet this turn no matter what the card is if you check it to him. 3bet flop, possibly fold to a push.

[benny999]

I hate playing big pots oop with a semi deep stack, mediocre hand, and iffy reads. IMO if you 3bet here, you should be ready to insta call a push from villain.

[Halv]

I don't like the turn check, lots and lots of villains minraise flops with draws to take the free card on the turn. Because of this I 3-bet flop to 18-ish here and am ready to believe him if he pushes. Sucks if he smooth calls, I probably check fold turn or check call blank river if he checks behind turn.

[Rondavu]

If an unfamiliar villain is going to give me this much action with a hand that QQ beats, even when a K pops, I'm happy to wait until he's a "familiar" villain and stack him directly given his potential of incompetence. Why does nobody understand this concept?

[Halv]

Where do you see all this action? I see a limp call and a flop minraise. I think that if you are going to be this weak tight against unknowns you might be better off just sitting out the first orbit or two collecting reads.

[mcatdog]

The overall point Thac is that it's ok if he has 66 here. It's not time to stack him. If he has 66 in this spot, how easily do you think he's gonna give you value later on when you're more comfortable in a hand against him?

You tell me. If he's bluffing in this particular hand, why does that necessarily mean he'll bluff again when you play another hand aganist him? All tough players make big bluffs at times, but you're making it sound like running a bluff automatically makes someone a fish who will be easy to stack. I don't get it. Besides, if he really is that much of a loony, how do you know someone else won't bust him two hands from now? You don't.

[Rondavu]

Where do you see all this action? I see a limp call and a flop minraise. I think that if you are going to be this weak tight against unknowns you might be better off just sitting out the first orbit or two collecting reads.

This is a good point, but I'd rather sit in and be weak tight for a bit. Hehe. I think people are too used to Party players as well. I'm at Full Tilt, where if someone raises you, they have better than one pair almost always. Very solid play in general. It has it's advantages and disadvantages. I happen to play better against good players than bad ones.

I can totally see why someone who's used to sitting with a bunch of fish (present company excluded), would see this hand as ???.

[Rondavu]

The overall point Thac is that it's ok if he has 66 here. It's not time to stack him. If he has 66 in this spot, how easily do you think he's gonna give you value later on when you're more comfortable in a hand against him?

You tell me. If he's bluffing in this particular hand, why does that necessarily mean he'll bluff again when you play another hand aganist him?

So you propose that the guy will play like a complete fish in one hand against someone he doesn't know who just sat down, and then turn into Phil Hellmuth? Hats off if he does. I'm not buying it.

Besides, if he really is that much of a loony, how do you know someone else won't bust him two hands from now? You don't.

So I'm supposed to pre-suppose loonish tendancies to prevent other opponents from stacking unconfirmed loony?

[mcatdog]

What's so fishy about his play if he's bluffing? The king was a good bluff card for him. I think the flop clearly defined your hand as either a decent overpair or a draw, so he might as well take a shot and try to get you to lay down a pair lower than kings.

So I'm supposed to pre-suppose loonish tendancies to prevent other opponents from stacking unconfirmed loony?

No, you're supposed to do is play the current hand in a vacuum given what you know about this opponent. "I can fold here and bust him in the future" just isn't good thinking IMO. He could leave or get busted before you know it.

[Rondavu]

"I can fold here and bust him in the future" just isn't good thinking IMO. He could leave or get busted before you know it.

First of all, I want you to know I'm enjoying this discussion, and don't want you to take our back and forth the wrong way. I do want to ask you a question. If you continue the flop and the villain sticks his whole stack in the middle, do you call in a vacuum?

I'm trying to make a case for potential long term implied odds regardless of opportunity. My argument is that whether he leaves or gets busted by someone else is completely irrelevant.

[Halv]

First of all, I want you to know I'm enjoying this discussion, and don't want you to take our back and forth the wrong way. I do want to ask you a question. If you continue the flop and the villain sticks his whole stack in the middle, do you call in a vacuum?

If he comes over the top of a 3-bet the situation is entirely different. Not many villains will do that with a hand we don't beat here, although we've all seen villains do it with TT/JJ. But a whole lot of villains will raise a cbet on this flop with a whole lot of hands in position, which is why I don't want to give it up uncontested. I like to peg unknowns as medium strength players until shown otherwise.

And for the record I don't think anyone is entitled to take anything the wrong way in this thread. Good discussion.

[benny999]

My problem with a flop 3bet is it seems like a purely "see where I'm at bet" where worse hands won't call. Is it like that, or do worse hands actually call?

If you are called, is the turn an auto push?

[Rondavu]

My problem with a flop 3bet is it seems like a purely "see where I'm at bet" where worse hands won't call. Is it like that, or do worse hands actually call?

If you are called, is the turn an auto push?

I very rarely 3-bet the flop here. Aggressive players will allow you to check bomb the turn, and other players will rob you of later street value by folding the losing range immediately. The way this hand is, you have to decide where you're at and go far or give up quick. At least half your stack is implied to further action by staying.

Rondavu = Min raise hater. I haven't found one out of ten min raises to be weak at my stakes on Full Tilt. They're so regularly a monster, it becomes meta sense to avoid them.

[martindcx1e]

seems to me like on the turn hero is wa/wb. if villain has a draw he'd probably take his free card. so if hero is wa/wb here then this is either a call or a fold since at this point a worse pair will probably not call a raise and certainly won't call a push.

[BankItDrew]

If min raises are monsters, do you follow along with large raises?

I like the check here on the turn, to see if villain is phased by the K. If it was a J or lower, I would have recommended a lead on the turn.

[Rondavu]

If min raises are monsters, do you follow along with large raises?

Good question, and it depends. Some people don't min raise anything, which is why reads are so important.

[THaC]

I minraise bluff a lot because of tendencies like yours Rondavu.. A lot of people think it's an attempt to get money in the pot, when most of the time he can do that with any two. He could have a flush draw, 56, 67, any pocket pair or even a random holding.

I think folding here is weak/tight though.


Oh, and, just because he bets like he's "not afraid" of the king, maybe that's because he knows you ARE. You cbet and just called his flop bet, pretty much defining that you have a pocket pair over the board. He can get you to fold a lot of hands when that king hits and you check to him.

[Rondavu]

I minraise bluff a lot because of tendencies like yours Rondavu.. A lot of people think it's an attempt to get money in the pot, when most of the time he can do that with any two. He could have a flush draw, 56, 67, any pocket pair or even a random holding.

THaC, you're getting into some multilevel thinking here, which implies a relationship. If you start min-raise bluffing me, I'm gonna catch you relatively fast, unless you correctly judge my competence and flip it on me with good timing.

I think folding here is weak/tight though.

Of course this hand is weak tight in the abstract. This fact isn't a mystery. The question of the matter is whether being weak tight in a trappy stacks spot against an unknown is a big mistake. IMO it isn't. I have no pride when I'm in the trenches. I could care less whether he bluffed me off here. There are two possible scenerios that exist....

A. He has me crushed, and I would lose a lot of money right here

B. I have him crushed, and he's willing to put money in with marginal holdings as a habit.

Habits are exploitable. Spewing is a set back. If he's putting weak money in here, and I'll never have another chance to rape him because of things out of my control (cold cards, he leaves), I can't think about that. My edge becomes larger and larger the longer I sit with my opponents. This fact is many times more valuable.

[KrazyBluffer]

Here is a quote for HOH1:
"A pair of kings is obviously a great hand, but it's not invincible. Your alarm bells need to go off when an ace flops. This is especially true in online poker, where players religiously call with ace-small."

The last sentance "ace-small" is the key part of this. Although Dan is talking about an ace flopping, I see wheels all the time at micro-limits. I even see people raising A5o in MP once in a while.
I think it is a good fold, obviously the right move here vs the unknown.

This guy could have AA, KK, a set, or the str8.
You don't now his calling range was A-small at the time, but even Dan says to watch out for it online.

So be careful!!!!

[mcatdog]

First of all, I want you to know I'm enjoying this discussion, and don't want you to take our back and forth the wrong way. I do want to ask you a question. If you continue the flop and the villain sticks his whole stack in the middle, do you call in a vacuum?

I think you misunderstood me. I would have played this particular hand just the same as you did. What I was taking issue with was your contention that if he was bluffing here, it would make him some horrible fish who'd be easy to stack later on. My point was that first, it's a good spot to bluff so it doesn't necessarily make him a fish at all, and second, even if he is one you have no guarantee of getting anything from him in the future.

I'm trying to make a case for potential long term implied odds regardless of opportunity. My argument is that whether he leaves or gets busted by someone else is completely irrelevant.

An interesting point. But if that's all your saying, those "long-term implied odds" can't really be that high to be a huge factor in your decision-making, can they? Your future EV from him is at best 1/5 of a stack, and probably not even that since he might suck out on someone and hit and run, and he might not even be a fish.

[Rondavu]

Ok so you say he might be a good player making a play. I say he might be a fish giving too much action with weakish hands, or hit the flop hard and have me crushed here. So that brings us to....

What am I to assume? In two of three cases I can fold with massive positive expectation, and in the other I win only what is in the middle when I folded for a smallish expectation.

It pays to be weak tight without a read. I hate to be results oriented, but the guy flashed a wheel at me when I folded. He could be a total fish, and if the exact hand happens again deep into the session, I might have no choice but to stack off. He could be a nit, and I won't show down a loser against him ever.