Given your stats, villain raises about 15% pf and here he is in UTG. Of course, everything is very vague with only 90 hands and no hard notice about his play, but really where do these TONS of worse aces come from. Yes, he will have sometimes a bad Axs or a AT or a KJ here, but he will also have have AK, 2pair, a set or a monster draw have here have too from time to time. And if he he is really very weak, well, he might to decide to take a bluff line, what will make it very hard for you as you have a bluffable hand. For at least it is a thin value raise here with a marginal hand.

Arrh, how I hate this word standard that is used here in STT much too often. On the one hand, if it is standard, why did you need to post or think about this hand later. Second, why do you think it's standard to put 4 bets postflops with TPMK in, even against loosier guys. Here, a diamond backdoor draw has arrived, AK/AJ/A8/Axs are all better than you, and some hands that are really bad might still decide to take a bluff line.

Only because someone plays looser, does not mean he is an absolute fool, especially in this buyin. 15 % PFR and here from UTG a bit less, plus you even represent a stronger hand than you have, where do you have the reads of villain that he is that kind of a donk to pay 4 bets postflop against an obvious TPTK or 2pair hand with just bunk. For at least it is a very thin value bet.


You need to have a read that he his a very hard form of a calling station. For at least, you didn't said something like this in your original post. And I doubt, hands of that colour are very general at this buyin on this board.

And did he show up with junk? Maybe he would, if you would have give him the chance to show it up.

Don't misunderstand me, of course you should make valuebets, but a 3rd bet either on turn or river should be enough. Trying to get another bet on this kind of a board with only TPMK is a kind of too greedy. It works in a lower buyin SnG, but it will only work, even against 40/20 guys, very rarely. Here you tried to make 2 thin valuebets in the assumptation that villain is just dumb and you got burned for it for whatever reason. But either talking bad about your neighbor, either greed are evil sins, so try to be a better christian next time.

Board: A J683

If he can have 2 pair, then how are you asking where tons of worse aces come from - 6,8,3 are all crap aces, and if he can have those, then he can have A24579T

Year, it's all weird.
If you bet for value, than you have to take into the account that a lot of 2pairish hands have arrived.

If you don't think he is that loose, you can't bet twice thin your hand for value. Basical, that's what I said.

And just thinking, only because he play 15% PFR over 90 hands and now he is UTG, so he must be really dumb, is not very profitable at a long run.

All you have is TPMK on a 3-suited flop with some cards like the J that enables monsters for villain, so keep it a bit more small. If you think that is a thick value bet, well, that might be the reason you are still playing in these 100s micro-levels, aren't they. I don't play those micros and I really c/r for value here some marginal hands as villain vs guys who might be coming up from downtown and I will have often similiar stats to an unknown in the first orbits and year, if you guess it's fishy enough to valuebet twice here, well then please play really plays 50s or 100s, you are right there.

If this means what I think it does, than lol

But it appears english isnt your first langauge, so props for speaking two languages and sorry if i misunderstood

kamel,

I'm totally with people varying their play early in the higher buy ins with lots of regulars (to some degree), but it kind of sounds to me like you believe that the value of chips in levels 1 and 2 are more valuable for you than for other people, where it'd be a mistake for anyone else to play insane crazay in the first couple levels of a FR SNG. Don't you play a lot of heads up where it's cool to be crazy all the time? Without more info, there really isn't a huge difference between a low buy in and a mid or higher buy in like this hand.

Also, we're sorry we don't play the 5k's in full volume like you do, we're not quite as amazing I suppose.

LJ,

Vs this guy, yep.


kamel,

it is by no means WA/WB on the flop, and it's therefore fine vs a random player overplaying and involved in a lot of pots early to raise/call on the flop. This is pretty generic and typical knowledge in SNGs, and guys like this, as you've mentioned might show up with 2 pair by the time the river arrives here; all the more reason that we can see him overplaying his Ax hands, making it just as fine to raise/call the flop (I don't mind a couple of other lines but, just saying...).

and hence why I think Scotty's comments are spot on here, except I think river is still up for more discussion.

We're also very sorry that we couldn't accommodate your high buy in levels compared to this "micro" buy in, we're not as good as you obv. Especially Scotty, he won't even go above 4 digit buy ins. What a fish.

Well, I only 4table, and you don't want to tell that the jorj- or similiar style of playing pf 8/7 early is not exploitable early. It's frustrating to calculate how much you can gain, allthough it's exploitable - I came to the conclusion that at a steps 6 e.g. with 3 or 4 regs and some fishes, it is like I might start with about t3100 (about t3040-t3070 to be exactly), than with the original size. That's why the massive multitabler are correct in passing thin spots. But don't tell, there is no value early are I won't have an edge on really most of the sng players.

If you 16table or 4table?

You're joking? The play, even of the fishes is much different depending on the buyin, especially if you mean $200+ level. You will have a lot of LAGs there givin' a background of MTTs or cash or live players, but none of them will be dumb enough to pay (perhaps they might bluff you - successful, btw) 4 bets with just TPBK on an ace-board as UTG-PFR. O.K., some are so dumb, but not the majority of them, and we should focus on the more likely situation.

I don't play them for a living (it would be dumb to <= 4tabling SnGs at any level for a living, so I don't it). I just play them for fun, but I also get good ROI results so far, probably because I take more care of some stuff, that might matter in problematic hands like here.

So, if it is no wa/wb, call me some serious and often arising draws we face here? As we have the queen in the flushdraw color, there are not so many suited gappers or so outside and vs a monster draw we anyway can't protect. And do you think villain will have a lot of KQ here or so?
It's of course not a classical wa/wb-Situation, but tell me a lot of plausibel draws here, that have >= 5 Outs, but not less than 12 or so.


It's not fine to overplay the hand and this player is not random. He has payed the buyin to a high stakes SnG. He is in any kind different to the classic $30 SnG fish.

Typical knowledge in SnGs == what? A 2-4% ROI winning rate?
Guys like this?
What, start thinking in high stakes SnGs, not stereotyping, and start assuming it about others.

And in addition, all we have from villain are some loosier stats. If OP would have give a concrete hand where villain overplayed a bad made hand, well that would change anything. But I don't buy that a 15% PFR over 100 hands will be dumb on this flop so hard. Do you really think this guy has A7 so often and will pay off it by calling down on an A-board as UTG-PFR? Such guys might have more ridicoulus stats in general, and given the buyIn I'd give villain a kind of more respect. Make 1 valuebet, but not 2. And don't say it's typical, general, standard or whatever.

Year, but he will rarely show up Top-Pair Bad Kicker, he either will fold or bluff it and only sometimes, but less than the 30-50% you need for a valuebet call it (and the right percentage needs to go up if we could bluffed out).

[quote]ll the more reason that we can see him overplaying his Ax hands, making it just as fine to raise/call the flop (I don't mind a couple of other lines but, just saying...).

Year, raising the flop is not that bad. I just said, calling is fine.


I know scotty is a winner even on 4digits.
Sorry for my harsh words, it had been a long evening yesterday full of bad beats and I've been also a bit frustrated.
I should not handle it that way but it happened, and I would like to apologize for that.

By the time we get to the turn decision, villain has done nothing other than an UTG 3x raise at level 1 to indicate strength. That's 2 streets to 1.

A 38/15 is not a winning SNG player. It's impossible. You keep focusing on the 15% PFR, but the 38 is the more telling # there. You just can't limp over 1/3 of your hands in a SNG. It's not worth it.

Whatever villain has, he has played it oddly, if not very badly, to this point by micro-betting the pot on two streets. If he has a monster he's played the hand horribly. If we call the turn he'll probably bet 2x pot on the river trying to catch up. If he's a decent player, as you suggest we should assume since this a $225, then this is almost always a blocking bet for a draw (c-bet flop, draw picked up on turn), or something he wants to get to a cheap river with like middle pair or TPWK. In all of those cases except monster, we want to bet.

So either he has a monster, which makes him a bad player, or a he's a good player we want to bet over. If he's a bad player, a) that makes the UTG 3x raise a lot less relevant, and b) that opens up a whole new set of possibilities for crap he can have. Bad players do all kinds of goofy crap. So unless we know this guy is either a blocking bet guy, or an underplay monsters guy, imo we still have to figure we're good there and bet.

The more I think about it, I bet he had KK.

I do totally agree that if you 4-table and pay attention you can exploit nitty regs for some gain early.

I don't like the turn raise, but it's o.k.
I hate the turn raise value bet in combination with the river value bet!
I think we can get 1 valuebet from villain (and I'd prefer it on river, but you can get it also on turn), but not 2 unless he is a full idiot.

You're right, but that does not mean he is a complete degenarate. He is perhaps not the best SnG player, but does it mean he plays like a NL5 beginner? I doubt it, and so I focus and the fact that a) he so far only has 15% PFR what is not so much and he has raised here from UTG and b) that Hero does not have seen (probably due to excessive multitabling) a really bad hand postflop.
In general, I don't buy it, that villains are really extremely stupid if there is no real reason to believe it and we are not playing penny stakes any more.

You're right, but that does not give us a license to play bad for our own or start overplaying mediocre hands like Hero did here.

There is nothing wrong, but in average he won't pay you 2 valuebets off here with a worse for >50%.

Year, that is very likely and he might even have turned it into a bluff at the river. And he succeeded. I like in some ways villains play much more (if he has any kind of hand) than hero's one.
A strong live or MTT player that really might have those stats, are capable of turning strong hands in strong bluffs when necessary (allthough villain beeing a sucker is a kind of more likely)

suzzer,
this is L2, he actually minraised preflop if it matters.

Well the MR preflop makes AA/chronic-slowplayer/superfish a lot more likely.

I think you make a valid point about 2 value bets. But I also think it's possible to bet just the right amount to get him pot stuck (as they say in limit) Where he has to make a crying call on the river getting 4-1. As LJ did a pretty good job of here imo.

I feel like we have to bet the turn lest all kinds of assorted crap get there. And once we bet the turn, it's just to tempting to not throw in a river bet. Since people C/R the river 1 in 100 times if that (although I'm sure it happens a little more often at the $225s).

You don't think villain's turn bet adds to the "extremely stupid" possibility?

I have to ask what "Year" means in this context. I guess if this guy's really good and put LJ on exactly something like AQ/AK you could maybe justify the turn micro-lead to get a raise. But that's a big assumption. It's soooo much more often some kind of blocking bet or weakly played monster here.

Minraising from UTG is that bad or a sign of that badness. You wanted that to say?

Even Kelisitaan, the best MSNL grinder raises from UTG and a lot of HighStakes-MTT-100% Winners do that do (or just raise like me 2,2BB).

So, only a minraise from UTG is not enough to mark villain as superdumb. If he does it from CO, o.k., make your conclusions, but from UTG, most strong players will do it too, and if you don't do it or don't think so, well, a more reason to think about, but not to wonder about a UTG minraise from a semi.tight player.

Did villain make a crying call here?
So, did LJ a pretty good job here?
Well, this argumentation is of course, results oriented, but here we did not get 2 valuebets in and we did not get to showdown, despite the fact we thought TPMK vs this 'dumbish' villain should be good.
All I try to explain you here, is that this is no bad luck for >50% of the time here.

Basical, I would be more concerned of how to get value from than how to protect from that, but as said, betting the turn hard can't be that bad.

That's called greediness and an evil sin. (Sorry if it is not right spelled, I'not native english as scotty already pointed).

The river bet is the first bet that might cripple our stack and it is very thin and we need to assume that villain is stupid. Nothing good, so keep better in bible belt IMHO.

[quote]
Since people C/R the river 1 in 100 times if that (although I'm sure it happens a little more often at the $225s).

It happens much more often in 200+ SnGs and especially vs a thinking (maybe he does not, but give him for a minute respect) 15% PFR who decided to play UTG and go up to the river despite heavy action. Sometimes, even these guys might not be good SnG players, but at least they are thinking and tricky.

Year, it makes it more like. But don't you think villain might read here from time to time and adopt. I know, I played e.g. 2x in my life so vs scotty, just as I knew he would NOT respect turn donk bets. And even if villain is not tricky here, how likely is it, he will just pay off the river bet with an underpair. He need to do it >50% to make it a thin valuebet, given that this bet cripples a bit our stack and hard to say what to do against a c/r, I'd prefer it to work >60% or >even 70%

Yep, but neither a block, nor a weak played monster will pay off a thin value bet.

No no not all by itself. Like I said it makes AA/KK a lot more likely because some players always minraise AA/KK regardless of position. I didn't realize villain had minraised. Which argues a little more for WA/WB here. Given villain's chronic underplaying on later streets, inc. river, I think we can assume he either is a bad player with AA/JJ, or a tricky guy who may have had a nit read on LJ with a very exotic bluff. I'm thinking once we know the whole hand, the former seems a lot more likely. Of course we have a completely different picture when faced with the turn decision.

A block of AT certainly will. I'd say I see middle pair/tpwk in these blocking spots a little more often than draws.

It's annoying though. Because when you have a hand, you have to raise enough to price out the draw, that the middle pair blocking guy usually folds. And when you don't have a hand, you gotta risk crippling yourself to get him to fold. And that's the time he decides to keep you honest.

Any ideas for exploiting a blocking bet that you think could be a draw or a weak hand trying to get to the river cheap?

Well I've a few hundred $225s and I don't remember a whole lot of river check-raising. I agree you're going to see more of it than the $60s. But one of the big fallacies you can make when trying to move up is to assume eveyone is now a tricky, thinking player.

You can get in a lot more trouble thinking that way, imo, than you can if you just assume everyone plays the same until you know different.

a) most good ones don't do it with 100% frequency by any means or anything close to it (not saying it can't work though), but moreover, this isn't a big field, high buy in MTT or a mid stakes no limit cash game, so comparing them at all is kind of BS.

b) Most of your argument is hinged on the fact that, with our only information to go off of, it is more likely that a 38/15 over 90+ hands is a good tricky early level smart thinking high buy in reg of some sort, than a random fish or a semi reg or a bad lower level reg or whatever else overplaying hands/playing too many pots in early levels of a SNG vs a solid, thinking reg whom they don't even know or care about specifically. In my experience, this is just a faulty assumption.

I would even argue that someone with more reasonable stats would be more likely to be that "tricky early level reg who plays high buy ins and exploits other tight regs successfully" than this guy, in general.

Year, you're right in this.
But all I want to say is that it gets less likely to find full-dumb idiots when stakes are rising. And you would need such a one if you get to expect 2 thin valuebets paid here very often.
And most fishy players in a 200 SnG are still better than a 16$ SnG fish IMHO, not all, but just more than there.
And I still don't buy it that these guy will here >=62% call two thin valuebets and given that won chips are less worth the lost and that a loss here will cripple us and given a probably weak player is at the player (so we have a higher than usual edge), that's about what I would hope our valuebets are paid off here.

I never said, I guess this guy is a tricky, good SnG player (sometime he will I only said), but I don't think also, he is so dumb as you all think he will be. Yes, he is loose and plays too many hand probably and probably sucks. Yes. But that does not mean he will pay 4bets with an Ace-Rag in >= 2/3rd of the time here allthough you show massive strength and it is obviously that you have >= TPGK.

And year, I think it's a dangerous assumption to think, just as the player is obv a not so good sng player, that he is a real idiot so often to make such thin valuebets at these buyins.

Year, but still this guy still has a brain. That might work allthough he didn't read or follow Collin's book for example.

point taken

and thank you for participating, it's a good discussion even if we end up bowing out/agreeing to disagree, but I do agree/see merit in some of the points that you've made throughout the discussion.


If I might ask- where are you from?

Year, we might end in still having different oppinions, but it's more important to think and discuss about than to come to a final conclusion.

I'm from Germany.

yeah camel, thx for the discussion. good stuff.

I was just going to say the same thing. kamel I hope you hang around and discuss more. It's obvious you put a lot of thought into the game, and it's really refreshing to have someone here who doesn't think exactly like everyone else.

Do you know why you raised the turn?


I would so I could get value from worse aces worse hands, fold out to 3bets, and def. check back every river but an a or queen. Theres no value in betting.