Villain is 63/10/56. LOL hand sample 48 hands. No real reads except he's your typical, limp everything-I don't know how to raise-tilt chat because someone hit 2 pair on the river while I flopped an A and I don't know what to do except call.

$0.05/$0.10 (6 max) - Holdem - 6 players


BTN: $1.19
SB: $1.11
BB: $5.00
Hero (UTG): $2.67
MP: $4.51
CO: $3.10

SB posts SB $0.02, BB posts BB $0.05

Pre Flop: ($0.07) Hero has K J

Hero raises to $0.10, MP calls $0.10, fold, fold, fold, fold

Flop: ($0.27, 2 players) 7 2 5
Hero bets $0.05, MP calls $0.05

Turn: ($0.37, 2 players) J
Hero bets $0.10, MP calls $0.10

River: ($0.57, 2 players) 7
Hero ???

I'm unsure here. The 7 & club sucks. Only because they're the type to call down w/a paired 7 or play exactly the same way holding any 2 clubs. I'm guessing b/f here? I'm unsure he's raising me even if he has a 7 or 2 clubs in his hand. x/c? If he's betting the river, I expect to be beat most of the time (but not ALL the time; I'd feel better if I had a better feel for his tendencies, though). Could they be CC'ing with like 46s/34s and busted their draw? Is the River an easier decision than I'm making it out to be?

To me, Villain's 63/10/56 stats are nowhere near as passive postflop as you're making them out to be if that 56 is AFq. (A 56 AFq is pretty damn aggro for a guy with a 63 VP$IP, isn't it?) But if your read in the passage I just quoted is correct, then, sure, a b/f seems to be the play. If nothing else, it seems like the most reliable way to get paid by Ax.

That said, I think that, to a lot of Villans, your hand is going to look like unimproved big cards if you check, and in that sense it's possible that c/c and b/f are equivalent plays against the 2x, 5x, PP, and Jx parts of Villain's range (assuming he's not the bluff-raising type).

And if all I knew were Villan's stats, and those stats were 63/10/56, I'd be thinking he was a spazz and there's no way I can b/f TP2K against a spazz on a double-scare card, so I would either b/c or c/c.

That's an extremely good point, Nick. Thanks for the insight. Always great content, IMO.

*g*

Value-town. He's going to calldown with so many worse hands. Fold to a raise. NH

Thanks Breich.

*G*

I suspect you're perhaps making too many assumptions of passiveness about him based on a single passively-played tp hand (where he tilt-chatted). 'Cause an agg% of 56 seems pretty high (especially with such a high vpip; somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but agg% should be viewed in light of the vpip, right?).

At any rate, I think river is generally a b/f (could be b/c or at least c/c against any villain with high bluff frequency).

Re the 56 AFq: bear in mind that this is after a small sample, and the outcome of a single hand can really knock the stat out of convergence for rather a while. (E.g., yesterday a particularly passive villain flopped a baby flush, donk-bet, then kept mashing the Raise button until the showdown, raising their AFq [on the small sample I had on them] from something like 20 to 52.) Without at least a hundred hands sample, your sense of the villain's play based on your own observation is just about as accurate as HUD stats.

As to the hand itself, I think this is a clear bet/fold.

I agree that small samples can yield highly misleading stats. All the same, you need a really small sample to go clear from an AFq of 20 to 50 in one hand (unless a player gets into a HU unlimited betting raising war on the river or something). With a 4-bet cap, only 6 aggressive postflop actions are possible from one player during a hand. If he had two aggressive actions out of 10 opportunities going into the hand, and then he flopped a big hand and got to bet and then reraise every street, then his AFq would go from 2/10 to 8/16, or from 20% to 50%.

However, it appears that the Villain in this hand has seen somewhere in the range of 31 flops during his 48-hand sample. And I just did a really quick spot check in PokerTracker, and based on that spot check, I'm thinking it's typical for a player to have (very) roughly 2-3 times as many postflop actions as flops seen. If that's the case, then Villain has probably had about 60-90 postflop actions during his sample.

56% of 60 is ~34. If Villain bet or raised 6 out of 6 times postflop in the hand previous to the posted one to give him a total of 34/60 aggressive postflop actions, then his AFq prior to that big hand would have been 28/54 or 52%.

Anyway, if he's been running hot in general, then that's going to distort things. Even just 3 big hands more than his share during an otherwise typical sample of hands could create a misleading 10- or 15-point swing in AFq from its "true" value. But I think Villain is loose enough over a large enough sample that one hand is not going to have a humongous effect on his AFq.

Personally, I prefer observation over stats just in general (although I feel most comfortable when I have both ). But I think the quality of observation has a big impact on whether I'd rather have the observation or the stats over a 48-hand sample. If I had mostly just noticed one hand and nothing too remarkable during that hand, then I would prefer the stats (while not fully trusting either).

b/c

After reviewing this particular table, whether it's still relevant or not, there were 3 hands that Villain played that spiked his AFq.

1st: Open limp UTG Q9s. Lead/call, donk/call, check. Flopped TP 9's & a FD, missed FD Rvr.

2nd: Complete SB BvB 810s. Lead/call, donk/call, donk. Flopped TP 10's, Trn 3, Rvr 3.

3rd: CC BTN. Bet, bet, bet. No SD.

I'm seeing an AFq of 8/12 or 67 for these three hands taken together.

If Villain's overall AFq over 48 hands was 34/61 (which is a plausible guess), then removing these three hands would pull his AFq down to 26/49 or 53. If his AFq over 48 hands was 50/90 (also plausible, I think), then removing these three hands would pull his AFq down to 42/78 or 54.

FWIW, Hand 1, with its 2/4 AFq, is actually (very slightly) dragging Villain's overall AFq over the sample downward (2/4 = 50, and 50 < 56).

Edit: Also, the three hands you provided do make Villain seem like more of a bettor than a raiser -- at least specifically with top-pair hands (as in Hand 1 and Hand 2).

You, along with the others, make a very valid point. I think I may be confusing "passive" with call-station, maybe? It just seemed when they had position, they were calling. When OOP, they were donking. Never really raising. That's where I think my idea of passive came from. My example in my OP, it's like, well if you feel that way, raise. Don't just call and let someone draw out to a better hand than you. It's as if they seem afraid of the raise button, but can bet & call with ease.