$2 NLHE Full Ring: QQ on K high board against LAGgy player

[JCgrind]

here you go, just hand the exact same spot and this is how i played it


pokerstars Hand #84746276240: Hold'em No Limit ($0.10/$0.25 USD) - 2012/08/15 17:12:32 AEST [2012/08/15 3:12:32 ET]
Table 'Altais II' 6-max Seat #6 is the button
Seat 1: Xlopec ($6.06 in chips)
Seat 2: sanik89 ($33.42 in chips)
Seat 3: snwmn88 ($26.95 in chips)
Seat 4: jchoop ($29.42 in chips)
Seat 5: MrMenistor ($59.48 in chips)
Seat 6: Bukovskiy ($11.74 in chips)
Xlopec: posts small blind $0.10
sanik89: posts big blind $0.25
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to jchoop [Qs Qh]
snwmn88: raises $0.50 to $0.75
jchoop: calls $0.75
MrMenistor: raises $0.75 to $1.50
Bukovskiy: folds
Xlopec: folds
sanik89: folds
snwmn88: calls $0.75
jchoop: raises $3.75 to $5.25
MrMenistor: calls $3.75
snwmn88: folds
*** FLOP *** [8c 6c Kh]
jchoop: checks
MrMenistor: checks
*** TURN *** [8c 6c Kh] [2d]
jchoop: checks
MrMenistor: bets $2
jchoop: calls $2
*** RIVER *** [8c 6c Kh 2d] [6s]
jchoop: checks
MrMenistor: bets $7.75
jchoop: calls $7.75
*** SHOW DOWN ***
MrMenistor: shows [Js 5s] (a pair of Sixes)
jchoop: shows [Qs Qh] (two pair, Queens and Sixes)
jchoop collected $30.42 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $31.85 | Rake $1.43
Board [8c 6c Kh 2d 6s]
Seat 1: Xlopec (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 2: sanik89 (big blind) folded before Flop
Seat 3: snwmn88 folded before Flop
Seat 4: jchoop showed [Qs Qh] and won ($30.42) with two pair, Queens and Sixes
Seat 5: MrMenistor showed [Js 5s] and lost with a pair of Sixes
Seat 6: Bukovskiy (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)

 

[ovitoo]

NH When he checks behind you on that flop it kinda takes the sweat off the hand.

 

[bgomez89]

Dick swinging ITT

 

[JCgrind]

NH When he checks behind you on that flop it kinda takes the sweat off the hand.

Not rly, I'm check callin the whole way anyway

 

[ovitoo]

Not rly, I'm check callin the whole way anyway

are you saying the +ev thing to do is NEVER put him on the k? (*not sarcasm)

 

[JCgrind]

are you saying the +ev thing to do is NEVER put him on the k? (*not sarcasm)

Yes. Read the whole thread.
Villain in my hand is exactly like the villain described by OP. ie playing too much too aggressively. Therefore, a hand that beats me is such a small portion of his range that check calling down is the best action for ever street, just like in OPs hand. We never want to bet or raise because we then take out a lot of his bluffs. C/c'ing allows him to keep on putting money in the lot with the worst hand

 

[Deco]

I call and probably fold to a decent sized turn bet.
Only calling because of those insane vpip/PFR stats and not the 59% raise c-bet stat which means next to nothing over 30 hands.

How we have 59% a prime number after only 30 hands has me confused. We must have some sort of 58.5 or 59.4 rounded I guess :/

 

[JCgrind]

I call and probably fold to a decent sized turn bet.
Only calling because of those insane vpip/PFR stats and not the 59% raise c-bet stat which means next to nothing over 30 hands.

How we have 59% a prime number after only 30 hands has me confused. We must have some sort of 58.5 or 59.4 rounded I guess :/

If you're calling flop folding turn is kinda retarded man. Not like vil is slowing down like ever

 

[Cafeman]

How we have 59% a prime number after only 30 hands has me confused. We must have some sort of 58.5 or 59.4 rounded I guess :/

Yeah, doomasiggy, stop confusing Deco. At least 2 decimal places from now on please!

 

[Matt Vaughan]

Probably 34 total hands, not 34 hands where he could raise against a cbet.

 

[Deco]

If you're calling flop folding turn is kinda retarded man. Not like vil is slowing down like ever

Are you stacking QQ here or calling a large turn bet with the intention to fold to a river shove?

I find most aggro fish who make tiny raises on dry flops are either bluffing and give up once called, raising a mediocre value hand to "see where they stand" or have the nuts. Only the big hands are locks to fire big on the turn. I see the bluff and mediocre value hands make tiny <half pot bets from time to time but if villain makes a big bet its generally something decent. Sure we will have some nut jobs raise flop, pot turn and shove the river with air but I'd need to be pretty damn sure they're capable of doing this before stacking off with QQ.

Meanwhile he reps too little and has too wild stats for me to take the other extreme and fold QQ to the raise although I prefer it to stacking off and think it's a good alternative.

 

[Deco]

Are you stacking QQ here or calling a large turn bet with the intention to fold to a river shove?

Just read your previous posts and that you are indeed stacking QQ here.
I think this is overkill, fish have merged ranges it's not like Kx is not in his range.

Your example is completely different as you 3bet pre (larger stack to pot ratio) and villain checked back the flop so rarely has Kx so the call down is over standard.

 

[JCgrind]

Just read your previous posts and that you are indeed stacking QQ here.
I think this is overkill, fish have merged ranges it's not like Kx is not in his range.

Your example is completely different as you 3bet pre (larger stack to pot ratio) and villain checked back the flop so rarely has Kx so the call down is over standard.

No I'm not stacking QQ, but I will call 50-70% bets OTT and OTR.

I don't really think either example is really different bc stack/pot ratio isn't relevant when we aren't stacking.
And vs my villain specifically, I'd say the fact that he checked back the flop is actually cause for alarm since he's bet IP vs a missed Cbet every other hand (although this is nullified when he bets like 1/5 pot OTT, lolll)

 

[Deco]

I don't really think either example is really different bc stack/pot ratio isn't relevant when we aren't stacking

Your villain bluffed a total of $9 in to a $12 pot.
OPs villain if following your predictions intends to bluff $2 in to a $0.19 pot.

Your villain took a 1/2pot bet > 1/13th pot bet
OPs villain apparently intends to bluff with a 2.2x Raise > 50-70% pot bet > 50-70% bet

Your villain checked back the flop, almost completely negating Kx from his range.
Ops line contains no weakness and could have anything in.

Your hand is a 4bet pot
OPs hand is a regular pot

Your hand has a stack to pot ratio of 0.8
OPs hand has a stack to pot ratio of ~15

STP ratios are very relevant the hands are gulfs apart.

 

[JCgrind]

Your villain bluffed a total of $9 in to a $12 pot.
OPs villain if following your predictions intends to bluff $2 in to a $0.19 pot.

Your villain took a 1/2pot bet > 1/13th pot bet
OPs villain apparently intends to bluff with a 2.2x Raise > 50-70% pot bet > 50-70% bet

Your villain checked back the flop, almost completely negating Kx from his range.
Ops line contains no weakness and could have anything in.

Your hand is a 4bet pot
OPs hand is a regular pot

Your hand has a stack to pot ratio of 0.8
OPs hand has a stack to pot ratio of ~15

STP ratios are very relevant the hands are gulfs apart.

Way too much unnecessary analysis for a hand against villains whom make plays that have no correlation to logic IMO.
How the betting went post flop is irrelevant, cos I'm saying both OP and myself should see that flop and check w the intention to call down. We will plan on following through with this the majority of the time, but do note in some spots we may have to reevalute and find a fold on later streets.
Sure, for reasons stated mine was an easier call down, but the underlying reasons for calling remain the same. Not really sure why you're arguing w me to prove hands are different :/

 

[Deco]

Not really sure why you're arguing w me to prove hands are different :/

here you go, just had the exact same spot and this is how i played it

^
You say its the exact same spot and use it as an argument for calling a raise + and two subsequent barrels. I think it has zero relevance as you are effectively calling one < pot shove rather than a raise + triple barrel.

Your the one posting this hand as a comparison don't act like I'm the one going off on a tangent by challenging the relevance of said hand.

 

[JCgrind]

^
You say its the exact same spot and use it as an argument for calling a raise + and two subsequent barrels. I think it has zero relevance as you are effectively calling one < pot shove rather than a raise + triple barrel.

Your the one posting this hand as a comparison don't act like I'm the one going off on a tangent by challenging the relevance of said hand.

In both though I advocate c/c'ing and think cbet like OP did isn't as good as check calling. So provided he didn't make this cbet and therefore vil didnt have an opportunity to raise, hands are very similar.