Easy call or just wait for a better time ?

fulltiltpoker Game #900501776: Table Holmes (6 max) - $0.25/$0.50 - No Limit Hold'em - 18:33:41 ET - 2006/08/15 (LOL August)
Seat 1: terran9 ($38.60)
Seat 2: ATLslim02 ($63.15)
Seat 3: tenbob ($74.35)
Seat 4: BostonTerrier ($56.60)
Seat 5: Boxedin ($11.65)
Seat 6: tats694 ($39.65)
Boxedin posts the small blind of $0.25
tats694 posts the big blind of $0.50
The button is in seat #4
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to tenbob [Ad Ac]
terran9 folds
ATLslim02 raises to $1.75
tenbob raises to $4
BostonTerrier folds
Boxedin folds
tats694 folds
ATLslim02 calls $2.25
*** FLOP *** [3c Jc Jd]
ATLslim02 checks
tenbob bets $8.75
ATLslim02 calls $8.75
*** TURN *** [3c Jc Jd] [Kc]
ATLslim02 checks
tenbob bets $17
ATLslim02 raises to $50.40, and is all in
TENBOB ?????????

This hand is from a while ago, and i recently bumped into this guy at a $100NL table, and this hand jumped straight back into my head. Notes say, "solid , TAG, bluffs to often on paired boards."

fold.

check behind turn.

I'd say it's a call given:
a) Solid TAG players don't usually put in large raises in early position with AJ / KJ / QJ
b) You have a read on him saying he's prone to bluff on paired boards (presumably you wrote this note before this hand?)
c) If he has KK he's played it very strangely by not 3-betting pre-flop or betting the flop
d) You have [Ac] for a redraw to the nut flush. It's $33.40 to call a $126 pot, and as long as you're not already up against a full house, you're almost getting pot odds to call anyway

I'm a bit stumped as to what he has though, given his call on the flop - unless it's a) something like TcTx or b) a call with nothing (e.g. AK) so he can bluff you on the turn c) poss AJ suited. Or he could have pocket Jacks...

You say villain 'bluffs too often on paired boards' - in what way have you seen him do this before? Are we talking standard c-bets/leads on the flop into pf raisers or have you seen him try more complex delayed bluffs like this before?

If he's a good player he has to be wondering what you're betting pot on that flop with. Jx or a flush draw may well be more inclined to check behind to respectively encourage him to lead the turn and to get a free card and avoid the possiblity of being pushed out of the pot. Thus, especially with his history, it's feasible for us to think that he thinks we don't have as strong a hand as we do (I'm getting better at this second level thinking malarky zomg). The K on the turn has to be a little scary to him, as it hits many hands we would have nothing on the flop with but be c-betting, but perhaps he thinks it's even possible to push us off AK here? Of course there's also the chance he has AK and his possible planned delayed bluff has turned into what he sees as a value bet now.

If I've seen him trying the delayed bluff before (we're talking in other sessions - if he's a solid player and has tried it 5 minutes ago you have to give him some respect when he plays a hand the same way subsequently) it's an instacall, but even without reads I think the size of the pot and the fact you have the Ac and thus are very likely to have outs even if you are behind dictates that you have to call this.

How come yer posting a hand from August anyway? Trying to plug any 'overplaying AA' leaks you might have? I think this is played fine from start to finish assuming you called the turn push (I really can't see you folding there ).

TB, with your notes, the PF betting and the board, I would put him on AK. There are few other hands that he would raise UTG and call a re-raise with (AA, KK, QQ, JJ and maybe AQs). Going with AK, with the 3rd club he pushes, telling me that he either hit his K on the turn and is scared of the flush or he has trips (not likely with the PF action) and is scared of the flush. Although, with trips he should have been scared of the flush after the flop and bet big, so again I am going with AK. I am giving you the edge that you are already ahead with As and Js - with the nut flush draw and two outs to the nut FH, I have to say call.

Too scared to comment out loud - but told my husband what I think and we are waiting for the result.

The reason i posted this is that i came across this guy again over the weekend, and i had 120ish hands on him, and the note that i seen above when i remembered this hand. I actually had the hand done up ready to post and forgot

As for the next question Chris, EVERY time he was involved in a hand when the board paired he was betting and raising, and forcing some big folds out of opponents. He hadnt gotten to showdown at any stage. Check- call the flop, check-call the turn, push the river, you name it he had done it. Pretty slippery character to be honest.

Again the last night he was at the same thing, betting like crazy, check raising, but gererally only when the board was paired. Any other decent hands he played, TPTK, set etc, he played them very straightforward.

tenbob said:

As for the next question Chris, EVERY time he was involved in a hand when the board paired he was betting and raising, and forcing some big folds out of opponents. He hadnt gotten to showdown at any stage. Check- call the flop, check-call the turn, push the river, you name it he had done it. Pretty slippery character to be honest.

Again the last night he was at the same thing, betting like crazy, check raising, but gererally only when the board was paired. Any other decent hands he played, TPTK, set etc, he played them very straightforward.

Click to expand...

Hand in question is pretty much an instacall then. Heightened chance he's bluffing + chance he has AK and thinks it's good + chance of you sucking out with the flush if you are trailing to trips = lolinstacall

i didnt notice u had the flush redraw which turns this into a call probably, but to me it looks like villian has a jack. he check-calls a pot sized bet on the flop and check-raises the turn all in on a card that looks like it probably helped you. hope you sucked out on the river.

Insta call? Insta fold. Your friend has exactly AJ, probably suited spades or hearts. Absolutely nothing else makes sense.

You say he's TAG but solid, not a total donk then. Probably aware of the table? Does he see you as a maniac? No! So, if you're using PT to define his style, tight means he plays less than 20% of his hands. I can't see him entering the pot from EP with anything less than a mid to high pair or Ace Paint; suited is just more likely for a tight player.

You also say he likes to bluff paired boards; but that's not what he's doing here. If he were bluffing, wouldn't you expect him to bet out, or check raise? But no; he check-called your pot sized raise on the flop and then check-raised the turn after you had shown strength 3 times. He must know you've got a hand. A good player would not be that sure that an all-in bet would not be called, but he pushes anyway. Only AJ or JJ would be that confident.

So why not AK? Again, a good player has seen you show real strength. Assuming he see's you as a solid player as well, he'd have to consider trip jacks on your part a strong possibility. The same goes for AA. How 'bout KK. It still doesn't work. Why? Because now he has the nut full house. His $33 raise is too big. A 1/3 to 3/4 pot sized bet would have a better chance of being called. The same logic applies to JJ (quads).

So, why the over sized all-in bet at all if he's that confident? Because the Kc is a scare card. With only trip Jacks, he's vulnerable to any club but the 3. He's not worried about the made flush as your strong bets before the turn make it unlikely that you're suited. Before the turn, he was perfectly willing to let you take the lead as long as you kept betting, but the flush draw changed everything. Now he must protect his hand. His all-in bet now makes it a mistake to persue the flush. Your getting less than 3:1 odds to call with no money behind.

Too bad you called.

I don't know Four Dogs, there's plenty of times I'll save my bluff for later on if I think my opponent is likely to fold and it'll earn me more. I've happily check/called the flop, then pushed the turn hoping my opponent will use exactly the same logic you're using here.

If you're going to bluff you want your opponent to put you on a strong hand, and a check/call followed by a push on a scare card does that very well.

However, your post has gotten me thinking. I'm now wondering if that betting pattern would also match a tight player who knows he's got a strong hand and bets hard to find out if anyone has trips or force the fold? Tenbob, you say he bluffs too often, but have you actually seen a bluff shown?

With a good read that he bluffs in these situations, and is prepared to bluff huge pots I'd probably take the gamble and call. With any doubt of that read I'd probably fold.

Also, if you haven't shown any tendancy to fold hands, given your stack sizes he'll probably have respect for you as a solid player, and I doubt a TAG player would risk their entire stack on a bluff against such an opponent. Given that I think you're running into a monster here.

What did he have?! I must know!

Good post Four Dogs. The combination of my notes and the fact that i had an overpair + flush draw made a compelling arguement for me to call, even without the Jack. You actually joined this table shortly afterwards. Check for him in you PT, i think he bluffed at paired boards a few times after that.

tenbob calls $33.40
ATLslim02 shows [Qh Qc]
tenbob shows [Ad Ac]
*** RIVER *** [3c Jc Jd Kc] [Ks]
ATLslim02 shows two pair, Kings and Queens
tenbob shows two pair, Aces and Kings
tenbob wins the pot ($124.05) with two pair, Aces and Kings
ATLslim02: lol
ATLslim02 is sitting out
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $127.05 | Rake $3
Board: [3c Jc Jd Kc Ks]
Seat 1: terran9 didn't bet (folded)
Seat 2: ATLslim02 showed [Qh Qc] and lost with two pair, Kings and Queens
Seat 3: tenbob showed [Ad Ac] and won ($124.05) with two pair, Aces and Kings

Wow - paired board = instant villain brain fart? The turn push is pretty hilarious as he's beating nothing but a bluff after playing preflop and flop so passively when he's ahead of most of your range. The turn K completing the flush has to terrify him into check-folding or bet-folding though (one of the few occasions I actually quite like the idea of a donk bet).

4D, I don't really get yer post. You simply cannot put villain squarely on one hand in this situation. AcQc plays this hand exactly the same imo, but we also have to factor in the fact that when a board is paired, villain does not play perfect or even near-perfect poker. There is always at least Harrington's 10% chance that a big bet is a bluff, and with history we can double that here.

We will see AK here too. Has TB really 'shown strength'? Different people read situations in different ways. Leading with a pot sized bet on the flop will be interpreted by some as a huge hand trying for a huge payoff, and by others as a blatant steal attempt. Villain's history with overplaying and/or bluffing hands into paired boards would lead us to believe that in this case there is a significant chance that villain does not believe we are as strong as we actually are, let alone having trip Jacks.

Villain could have KK and have slowplayed preflop and could have KJ and feel that we are pot committed and are calling a push with a sole high club or something like AK/KQ (obviously we're calling with a J).

He might also have a mid-high pocket pair that, like many players, he just can't get away from and ends up really horribly overplaying, as actually happened. Heck, he might be running a crazy bluff with pocket 2s or 84 suited. Saying 'Villain has to have AJ' and advocating folding here is really seeing monsters under the bed. 'Nothing else makes sense'? Well, I suppose not much else would make sense in a world where nobody ever bluffed and everybody played textbook poker, but villain has already shown he is more prone to bluffing and/or overplaying hands on paired boards.

Dorkus Malorkus said:

4D, I don't really get yer post. You simply cannot put villain squarely on one hand in this situation. AcQc plays this hand exactly the same imo, but we also have to factor in the fact that when a board is paired, villain does not play perfect or even near-perfect poker. There is always at least Harrington's 10% chance that a big bet is a bluff, and with history we can double that here.

We will see AK here too. Has TB really 'shown strength'? Different people read situations in different ways. Leading with a pot sized bet on the flop will be interpreted by some as a huge hand trying for a huge payoff, and by others as a blatant steal attempt. Villain's history with overplaying and/or bluffing hands into paired boards would lead us to believe that in this case there is a significant chance that villain does not believe we are as strong as we actually are, let alone having trip Jacks.

Villain could have KK and have slowplayed preflop and could have KJ and feel that we are pot committed and are calling a push with a sole high club or something like AK/KQ (obviously we're calling with a J).

He might also have a mid-high pocket pair that, like many players, he just can't get away from and ends up really horribly overplaying, as actually happened. Heck, he might be running a crazy bluff with pocket 2s or 84 suited. Saying 'Villain has to have AJ' and advocating folding here is really seeing monsters under the bed. 'Nothing else makes sense'? Well, I suppose not much else would make sense in a world where nobody ever bluffed and everybody played textbook poker, but villain has already shown he is more prone to bluffing and/or overplaying hands on paired boards.

Click to expand...

Only AJs fit the betting and TB's description of him as Solid.

AQs might have fit right up to the all-in bet, and as you said, AcQc would have fit perfectly too, even with the all-in except for the fact that TB has the Ac.

What on gods green earth would make a solid player think that this kind of elaborate bluff will work at these limits against another solid player who has shown absolutely zero weakness? Look at that board for cryin' out load. Unless he put TB on exactly one pair and had some tremendous 3rd level read on him, the all-in is a total donk move. (In fact, anyone who tries to apply 3rd level reasoning at these limits is outsmarting himself.) This is just not a good time to bluff. The problem wasn't with my analysis, it was with TB's description of him as solid.
I stand by my post. Time to amend the note TB.

tenbob said:

"solid , TAG, bluffs to often on paired boards."

Click to expand...

The note says a little more than "solid" Four Dogs, "bluffs to often on a paired board" was identified as a big potential leak in his game. He hadnt been called yet, i was on the table a nice while and he bet like he had it every time.

I had the feeling i was beat, and in fairness to his play, my finger was hovering over the fold button for most of my allotted time, I just had to look him up. The funny thing was he went right back to bluffing at paired boards straight away after this, knowing full well that there were only 2 cards in the deck that was calling him at any stage. He was also at it on the $100 NL table the last night.

Still, you must have had something in mind when you decided that he was a solid player. Certainly that should hold as much weight as the paired board note, if not more. Besides, the fact that he check called instead of betting out or check raising, doesn't fit. The all-in on the turn against a very dangerous board seemed more like an afterthought. In your mind, does a solid (good?) player make this move? Do you? Qhr1s? Maybe it was a brain fart on his part, but not a smart bet. You say, to his credit you almost folded. To give him credit for that, you would have to believe he was certain you had only a pair or less. Anything else he's got to expect a call. My "Insta Fold" comment may have been a bit of an exaduration, it may have been worth it to look him up with the overpair, but his bet was just plain bad.

Would a solid player try many of the bluffs that TB has seen villain try before on paired boards? Our specialised read should obviously hold more weight than our general read because the specialised situation (a paired board) has happened here. TB has also said he's seen villain try elaborate bluffs like this before, not just flop c-bets and give up if called. Say you have played with a player for ages and have a mental note that he plays solid/tight Monday to Saturday, but plays ridiculously LAG on Sundays. It's Sunday - do you assume he's going to be playing solid/tight or LAG?

My general point is that is is impossible 99% of the time to put your opponent one one exact hand with a huge degree of certainty, and considering the volatility of villain's play on paired boards this example is not one of those 1% situations.

When i say solid player, he played very straight-forwardly, and strongly. He would raise with his AK, c-bet regarleess, and bet for value if he hit. Button steals, occasional semi-bluffs. Once the board paired however his game totally changed. He couldnt possibly have the goods every time, but no-one had looked him up yet, I just felt that without having the Jack, this was one of the times to do it.

OK, I get it, solid doesn't mean competant. I'm familiar with betting paired boards. Any good player should know when and how to do this, and also not to over do it. But assuming it's a steal attempt, the idea is to make your move on the flop. Once you see 4th street, the opportunity has passed. If the ruse continues, this is something totally different. What he did was try to slow play his queens, and then panicked when he saw the flushed king.
I think I've gone about as far as I can with this, but please, I'd like to know, anyone who considers themselves a good player, particularly TB and Chris, would you ever play a hand this way?

Would i ever play a hand this way, thats a very good question. In a ring game its fairly doubtful, because your more likely to get looked up. In a tournament situation, ive done, but very rarely, the conditions have to be perfect, and i need a good read.

Ill have a look in PT later on and see can i find a HH.

As I've said, I think the turn push with QQ is hilarious.