Maybe an hour. He hadn't been playing that many hands and the ones he showed down didn't stand out as ridiculous. Just decided to go off on one I guess.

It's like the guy I mentioned in some other thread. Played next to nothing for two hours, then took two to the face pre twice and showed down K8o. There must be a term for them. Selective spaz? Tight-spazzive?

You're right I forgot that. 1 BB is pretty close.

For future hands, certainly.

This play does not look spazy to me, it looks laggy.

He raises A9s UTG. That is a pretty standard laggy play, You should raise ATs UTG. Capping this is the sort of laggy play you see from lots of players with suited hands. Flop c-bet into 2 opponents is pretty standard. Turn c/r with an OESD is a laggy play. He probably thought you had AK after you didn't raise the flop. After the turn c/r, would you have called the river without making the straight? You probably shouldn't given your read on his previous play. C/R the turn with a flush or OESD is a laggy play.

The other factor with this kind of play, it makes your opponents more likely to call down with weaker hands. This looks like a reasonable player that occasionally mixes in some laggy plays to confuse his opponents.

A lot of times people change their minds. Maybe this guy had the plan when he checked to cr late position, but I think it is at least as likely he checked to call and then changed his mind based on a read that you were unsure of the bet and weak.

After you hang out with a group of women long enough you begin to realize that some of them are likely pretty easy. In fact, there's one that you could probably just ask to go to bed and you'd have a decent shot. So which woman do you take a shot with assuming your goal is just sex?

I propose that OP appears to be the easy girl and villian tried to get him to 'just lay down' by being aggressive.

Prolly not the one that 3-bets 99 after an utg open.

Yes, this may not be the best analogy. The point being that once players realize you fold often and are a thinking player then they are more likely to take shots and play out of their normal game against just you.

We disagree on a PF capping and flop leading range for a default 3-6 villain. Neither is right or wrong, as our default villains can vary. The only one who "knows" is OP and he's still shy on his PF/FLOP reads. Typical 3-6 players slow down on the big streets as monsters begin crawling out from under the board. This board has 3 connected and 2 suited. That might be enough for a passive overpair to want to see a safe river before putting any more action in.

If I've got AK in my Villain's PF/FLOP range, I'm full speed ahead on the turn. I just don't ahve AK in my default villain's PF/FLOP range.

Then you gotta go with a default read, in your room, for a

Unless you're in a new room in an unfamiliar area, you must have a feel for the local cultural demographics. "I don't know" doesn't cut it. You gotta do better (for your own welfare, not mine/ours) than that.

Also, you keep citing AKQJ10's PF raising range. But you don't seem to be narrowing this range as Villain caps PF and then leads the turn. If you can see this guy blasting away with AK/AQ, then fine. But that is the sorta play a 2+2er would make (especially checking the turn after both call the flop c-bet). That's not a default play with AK/AQ at 3-6, IMO.

No, the results just refine OP's read on the Villain.

We disagree on our understanding of the definition of a default Villains. Opponents certainly vary, even bad 3-6 ones, but the whole point of developing a default read is to have something to fall back on until we gather more information.

Every reasonable session has a first couple of orbits. Unless we're playing against the same people each time, we're going to have to make inferences based on limited information, mostly observable physical characteristics.

Agreed, and that read in turns settles preflop an flop debates.

Agreed, but that default for a given "observable phyiscal characterstic" can vary from California to Minnesota to New Jersey and points in between.

I think that this board -- while generally tremendous in its insight -- tends to ascribe overly wide ranges to LP villains. At least based upon my reference point (Sacramento). YMMV is a commonly used acronym. A very fitting one for reference points that form the basis for default reads.

In my game, somebody who can play AK/AQ as the villain herein was thought to be doing (until he c/r the turn) is not a default villain. Not remotely close. They're a LAG or just an aggressive opponent. Somebody whose play is remarkable (not necessarily good, just aggressive enought to catch your attention since it isn't default LP). NFW are they a typical LP opponent. Now, OP did not characterize Villain as LP. But he didn't qualify his aggression, either.

What does it mean to not show down "unreasonable" hands? Unreasonable varies for LP/TAG/LAG/TP. A villain who raises offsuit broadway is notable in my (former) 4-8 game because most villains just limp except for monsters. So a guy "who raises a little" and shows down ATo/KJo/88 stands out. And would get a read a little more colorful than what OP provided. Same with a Villain who c-bets the flop without the best hand (overpair of flopped TP). Those are not default villains and I take note of their play.

But when I'm playing 3-6 and a villain for whom I don't have an aggressive read raises UTG, caps PF, and leads the flop, I'm looking for the exit ramp with 99 (assuming I don't odds to call) because I assume I'm behind. I'm not floating AK/AQ. Hell, I don't 3-bet PF unless I have a read that villain is aggressive enough to open raise offsuit broadways (which OP later conceded was in Villain's range).

Right, exactly, from the moment of the preflop cap AK isn't in the range of a typical 3/6 opponent. A substantial minority of 3/6 players feel like they're taking an undue risk to even open-raise a no-pair hand.

See my first post about preflop ranges -- I see no point to 3betting a hand that's way behind his range instead of trying to get a multiway pot for set value. I forget what OP amended his range to, but I'm talking about default 3/6 opponent's range.

Your criticism is fair. Yesterday I tried to think of as many players in my room as I could, and think of their capping ranges pf. I thought of a few who would cap AK pre, but most that I could think of wouldn't. So I'd have to say the default would not include AK.

The default 3/6 player in my room is also not position-aware. So I think it's less a question of his UTG raising/capping range and moreso just his raising/capping range.

I didn't know he was going to cap when I 3!, but once he does, I clearly have to call it.

I'd expect the default 3/6 player who capped pre to bet this flop 100%. Really the only time I wouldn't be surprised to see a pf capper check the flop is if it was Axx. But even though I'm likely behind, the pot is big enough to call for my ~6 outs.

I'd expect the default 3/6 player to bet again on this turn. There's no possible flush. T9 was already made. This card should not scare someone with a big pair (like a J, T, or 9 would), so when this guy checked is when I thought AK.

I understand that some players get mubsy with big pairs. I can think of some in my room who do. But many of those players also wouldn't cap ("I thought you had AA!!1!"). And I wouldn't expect them to get mubsy on a very safe card.