3bet here is signif better than flatting or folding IMO.

I agree with pretty much all of this obv.

ok peoples

lets have results i think we've picked this one apart as much as possible

Thanks for the discussion. I enjoyed it/learned some stuff. Obv the results don't really mean **** wrt determining whether or not river is a call or fold.

Peace

not often do people post in this thread where they correctly analyze the situation down to the dotted i, but still decide to do the opposite of everything they wrote


that was me

and boom goes the dynamite.

I mean to say, how you are perceived and not necessarily how you are actually playing at any given time.

good hand though

Agreed

Also Id bet more OTR which also reduces the amount of times he bluffs is and just flats

Not sure if we want that more or less though. I wonder if he flats a larger river bet with A good Tx

(X) spazz induced
That was fun

grunching

This hand is of too high an absolute strength for me to fold vs an unknown in live poker. Plain and simple. The hand is equal to A9 or KK in theory but not in practice.

Also this is one of the single worst possible hands to reraise preflop with. I would only do so to isolate the SB if I knew he was a massive fish or something. The only good flop for you that comes reasonably often is the nut flush draw. If you flop an ace you end up having to take some futile pot control line like this. A much better choice would be a hand like J8 suited where you can rep the axx/kxx boards and actually hit boards that whiff AK.

Yeah, but if you play lag sometimes (when stacks are deep/opponents are weak/game is short/you have good position at the table) and tag sometimes (stacks are standard/game is aggro/9 handed/your seat sucks), you should know how to play with both images. Just something to think about. I finally play both styles regularly I think (though I obv seek out games where I can play lag).

I'd agree if I thought his range was stronger/he could call a bigger bet. I really thought he had one pair (and not top pair), so I tried to squeeze just a little value and hope for a crying call. Inducing is a secondary benefit.

I assume this is the Renton that I had some good discussions with about balancing in live poker a couple years ago. If so, thanks for coming in- I've always respected your posts.

I'm surprised you don't like the 3bet (and pizzle- also highly respected, does). Against a tighter opening range or a better player (I can look at this villain and "know" he's not a pro) I'd prob agree with you. Here is why I think it's good here though...

Villains 2.5x button opening range is crazy wide/anything playable IMO (that's where live 10 20 is these days). My Ax is ahead of his range for sure. SB otoh, his range is stronger and he dominates me a ton. If I flat, flopping top pair is going to suck, and I'm certainly not going to float oop in a single raised multiway pot, so I'm going to get bluffed off the best hand a bunch when villain cbets and sb folds. I'll also be in a bad spot to bluff myself, knowing very little about my opponents hands and not having initiative.

When I 3bet to 10x though, I'm going to win the 120 without a flop a huge amount against these two guys- making it immediately profitable IMO. When they both call, my Cbet is going to carry extra fe as the pot will be big (my Cbet will be an amount that inherently carries a lot of fe) and button won't be able to continue light with sb behind him. Sb won't be able to continue light either because I will have essentially led into 2 people (strong) and he will be oop. Also, both players will be approaching stack commitment if they call somewhere around a psb on the flop.

When only button calls my 3bet (what happened here), I will have eliminated the better opponent/stronger range (sb). I will have also gotten it hu against a rec player, enabling me to open up the entire playbook/play post flop very profitably. I will have initiative and can Cbet and win with the worst hand a bunch, and sometimes I'll flop something I like and I will be able to bluff catch or go for value.

Having said all that, I understand the massive rio implications of overplaying Ax and I am by no means an oop bloater in general- I just thought this specific situation called for it. I would like to hear more on why you would flat. Thanks.

I'd like the 3-bet with deeper stacks and obviously its highly profitable since suited Ax are extremely good hands. I just prefer 3-betting preflop with hands that benefit postflop from having been 3-bet. Only being happy on about 14% of flops is not what I'd call a good 3-bet hand. I think people compare this 3-bet with 3-betting a T9s type hand and I think that couldn't be more wrong. T9s can cbet or c/c or c/r on far more flops, can barrel far more turns, etc. It's not beneficial to have an Ax heavy 3-bet range when your fold equity on Axx flops is gonna be so high to begin with. On the other hand, the types of hands A2s makes (nfd's, nut flushes, ace high + bdnfd, bluff catcher pairs + backdoors) play really well with a deeper stack to pot ratio and without initiative.

It's just a matter of setting yourself up for good situations.

I think this is great info and an awesome post.

fwiw I both agree with Renton's analysis, and also think this is a +EV 3b. I think the 3b is +EV, and I think the flat is +EV. I think against good regs I much less likely to 3b this hand as I would expect them to call a dominated range and make my life hell when I check to them on a lot of flops. but against bad players these concerns are mitigated by their likely very poor play in most postflop situations along with the fact that I'm much less concerned with getting 4b bluff.

nice post though renton, maybe the most valuable point raised in the whole thread.

Funny, both DGAF and Renton seem right. Good thread.

If a key benefit of the 3-bet is getting rid of the better SB, who presumably knows you (and your play) as described, how much of the SB's original calling range is folding to the 3B after button calls? Virtually all of it? Is he ever continuing with a hand that has an ace (e.g. suited)?

Renton king of 100bb preflop startegy

I've only read the first 3 pages of this thread, but I wanted to type my thoughts before I got the results. This being a 7 page thread makes me think the results are going to be interesting?

First, the sweater is irrelevant for the most part because he's unknown. Any inference one way or the other is a mistake in my opinion. BUT, I will say in general most people like to show off when being watched. The thing is though, you don't know if this is the kind of guy who is proud of being tight and solid. If he is, he will show off to his friend that he can play snug...

He seems like a recreational player. Just because you've widened his range with your line and bet sizing, doesn't mean that he has actually obliged. (Although, I think it's very likely) It's also very likely he's a typical hit to win older guy, who plays basic tight strategy.

So, here's the thing for me on the river. I think, when two unknowns are playing without history, regardless of your 5 minute history, they tend to play more straight forward. I also think recreational players almost never bluff rivers unless they're stuck/tilted/or just splashy in general and enjoy the act of bluffing. Without reads, I would stick to the typical older guy recreational player classification.

So, when you check the flop, I don't think anyone, (even if this guy is a blockhead) thinks you're giving up. Then, inherently, whether it's subconscious or conscious, people don't think you're bluffing after checking flop then betting turn and river. People tend to see monsters under the bed, and often put you on a slow play when you check flop in a 3 bet pot. When you fire turn and river....it completes that story.

Here's the biggest thing. When he checks back the flop and calls the turn, I think he has something. He would bet his air on the flop most likely. And there are no real draws that miss on the river.

So, because I believe its very likely he has a hand, and that he's a recreational player, I think this is a fold. This is because I don't think he's turning a made hand into a bluff, and he probably isn't a thin value better. I think him shoving AK or AQ is more hopeful/rationalistic thinking than reality, although we've all seen stupid ****, bla, bla bla....

If I put all this information together I think he has a big hand. Plus every time I take these under repped lines and get raised and level myself into calling cause of my image, it's always the nuts.

I think he most likely binked a small set at some point w 44,22, or 66, or he has 1010, A10 but I think those are less likely.

Hmmmm, just read the results.

I think if you come up with a range of made hands he has on the turn, that stuff river, I think this may still be a fold.

I think it's very rare that people turn made hands into bluffs.

If we constructed a range of A10,1010, 66, 44, 22, 64, A6, A4, A2 and a couple random spazzes, its a fold.

I think it would come down to a possible spazz with AK/AQ/ or some random pocket pair below a 10. But without history or reads, it's really hard to put these hands in an unknowns range accurately in my opinion.

I think people are over-valuing a ten minute image in this thread. Now that the results are open, I think people are going to be even more results oriented about this.

I think this is actually a pretty good discussion to have- that's why I listed the details of my entrance/first 10 mins at the table...

I think I have a "rep" already as a serious bluffer/fps/spewtard in most casinos i play in, and when I combine that with some real time evidence that I'm in "that mode", even typically tight/solid players have a tendency to go absolutely bananas against me. And even if I'm a relative unknown, people just always seem to think I'm always up to some sort of shenanigans right away- even in spots where I almost never would be. Something about the way I look or act or talk or whatever- or maybe its mostly just my non-standard lines/sizing that do it, idk. Either way, as I'm sure other spewy "lags" can attest, people just love to get heroic and try to outplay us all the time. And even nits/tags who "aren't capable" of shoving light... They will shove light against us!

Handreading/line analysis takes precedent over tendencies and "what people are capable of" when you are the aggressive guy at the table IMO. And that's why you have to pay off huge bets/raises a lot lighter than a more composed/in line individual might have to. It's a high wire act for sure and incredibly high variance obv, but I still believe it is correct to play this way in many lineups- if it plays to your strengths/skill set to do so. Here are 3 recent examples of the madness:

1. I'm playing 20 40 the other day and I've been 3x more aggressive/bluffy/thin than everyone else at the table. There are a few really good players in the game, but they are more on the solid side, and the fish are pretty passive/fit or fold types.

So I call a rec player's ep raise with AJ on the button. The bb, a high stakes pro who I know thinks I'm a blufftard, and who I've been battling and getting the best of so far in the session with some questionable/weak hands, he calls too in the bb. The flop is J95dd and they check to me. I elect to check back (not my standard play at all, but I felt like doing it for a lot of reasons at the time, so I tarped). Turn is J. Bb leads 300, ep flats, I make it 860 (repping nothing obv but having a monster). Bb, primed to blow up/take a stand, makes it 1860. Ep folds, and after a little time, I min 4bet to 2860. He ships ~ 6k total and I snap, wanting to pelvic thrust like ace Ventura when he explains to LT. Einhorn in front of everyone that Roger Padactor was actually thrown off his balcony and it was NOT suicide (based on his soundproof sliding glass door theorem obv).

Bb turns over J9 and I'm the idiot it appears...

2. My 20 40 breaks this morning and I sit in a shorthanded 10 20 with straddle on for the most part. I win the first 3 hands only showing down the 3rd, where my missed draw that I barreled flop and turn with beats the other guys missed draw when river is check check. Now I get AQo and 3bet a NorCal pro's button open to 500 from the sb. He calls. Flop is KT2r. I c/r his 500 to 1500 and he flats. Turn is a T and I shove 1300 effective. He snaps with A5!!!!

I win the hand and villain snap picks up. I had played with him only once before for a couple hours and we had some good convo that night and he sucked out on me in a huge pot. As soon as he's gone, the other guys at the table were like "wow, wtf, he was playing so solid all night". I shrug like, "idk, gambol lol" and we play the next hand...

3. Very next hand I raise the straddler and a limper to 140 with AA on the button. It folds to limper who makes it 440 and says, "please fold DGAF, I just want to take it down now". I make it 940. He mumbles a bit and makes it 2940. I ship for 7k effective. He calls quickly with 66!!!!!!

This guy is a rec player with whom I have a ton of hours with and he's seen a lot of spewery obv, but still...


In summation, I think image is actually a VERY important factor to consider when making a decision against someone who has put a bunch of money in and isn't repping much. People don't react to aggression well ime, and so lags are usually the recipients of people's uncharacteristic blow-ups. Sometimes it ****s us having to play these huge pots- and we look like huge fish like I did in hand 1, and sometimes it lets us win huge pots that would otherwise be tiny...

I remember limon saying image is overrated somewhere, and it sounds like you think so too worldbofree. I think it's at the very least an interesting discussion. Could it be that having a laggy image is overrated wrt getting paid in hands, moreso than it is overrated wrt inducing blow ups? I'd be interested to hear some people's thoughts.

Edit: I think when you sit down in a game with chips from a bigger game, a lot of people automatically feel threatened that you are going to try and run over the game. I know I used to feel like that a bit- and there's prob some merit to it.

(Tl:dr)

In sum, you are manipulating your perceived range, easier said than done, I suspect. I'm totally with this philosophy, although it certainly requires a precise read on your opponents. Ever feel genuine shame at being perceived as a fish, when you get it wrong? I suspect not, but interested to know how you deal with these situations.

Why feel shame? If you feel your play is a good one - then you should feel good about it. When **** hits the fan, it's pretty much always good for the game. There's certainly nothing to feel bad about there.

The only players who oppose this kind of action are usually wizened nitboxes who are bad for the game. Do you feel good when you stack a nit? I know I do, especially if I had a pos hand that got there. It's even sweeter when he snap exits after.

I think image is actually incredibly important. I'm often sliding on a both sides of the coin depending on how I'm running and feeling. About 75% of the time I have a tighter image and I'm always exploiting people because of it. Other times, I'm the most active at the table and find myself in the kind of hands you describe.

I will say though, that your image as a winner or loser trumps everything.

With respect to the original hand you posted:

I fall in the camp of not assuming until I have evidence. I think even though you raised 3 hands in a row in ten minutes and have had good banter or whatever, it's not enough to know how someone is going to react to it. It's just as likely that he thinks your a nit who is trying to cultivate a gambley image. Who knows what people think wrt this kind of thing after ten minutes? ****, I've waffled myself on profiling people in these situations.

I know there are two camps when it comes to this kind of thing. Some players online will only need 50 hands to infer what kind of 3 bettor a player is, whereas othesr will wait until they have 500. I fall on the more conservative side.

I think if this particular kind of situation came up against unknowns over a large sample, I think folding will be correct (although I do think it's close). I only say this because you're new to the table and have no history with an unknown, and the fact that his range is full of made hands, and your line looks trappy/strong.

That said, only you can have a feel for your image and the way people "feel" at the table. Some people (i think you and I fall into this camp) have an uncanny intuition for reading people and for predicting when their opponents are going to spazz or do something out of the norm.

This is a great hand, because if you take everything into account, the math, the lines, lack of history with an unknown, image.....it's still very hard to know.

Like I said, I like to wait until I have even a sliver of evidence that someone is adjusting to my image before I decide to not give them credit, or to give them a ton of credit. In general, unknowns get credit from me in these spots, and I think overall it's a good way to go. But only you can know when your image has been full harvested at the table.

haven't been on here in a long time. read this hand and just kinda shook my head at the action you get from a 50yr old who stacks his chips like a nit. good seeing you the other night!

Yes, I feel on top-of-the-world when I stack a nit. I'm guessing DGAF does so regularly, as easy as swatting flies.

But, my point is that I know, logically, we shouldn't feel shame when we mistakenly call down light, for reasons to do with the game dynamic, our image, not to mention boring stuff like pot-odds and ranging.

However, shame is an exceptionally powerful emotion. Furthermore, it is an emotion that we instinctively repress. So, the reality is that most mere mortals will be vulnerable, especially when your opponents are preying upon any sigh of weakness. I'm just curious as to how DGAF and others manage to glide-on-through these post-showdown situations when they get it wrong.