]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
Statistics: Posted by Kuso — Tue Nov 08, 2005 11:25 am
]]>
There seem to be three types of players:
1) weak tight
2) CS/sponge
3) give me blind defense or give me death types
1) Weak tight
There are some weak tighties who will fold to the raise and/or the continuation bet, but I think it's easy to play against these players, so I won't discuss it. I do like the complete and "steal" on the flop against these guys. It doesn't seem to make them feel as pwned as they really are.
2) CS/sponge
I think these players are pretty tough to play against -- you have no idea where you stand. You have very little fold equity except maybe on the river if they don't hit and you fired all barrels. If you try to save some bets, they'll come right back at you, and you've lost any chance of a river fold. Yuck.
The only time they will fold is if you raise and high cards come. Even then, they will call down or chase if they get a part of the board or a draw.
One play I like to do is complete, let them check down, and then bet out the flop (like the WT play mentioned above) or CR the flop. This gives my bet some credibility if the board is mostly low cards. I get A LOT of CSs to fold with this play. Of course, if they call, you have to play them the way you regularly play the CS, but you've only invested .75BB, so it's easy to release.
I love to play some of the middle suited connectors and one-gappers (e.g., 79) and other janky hands (e.g., Q7o). Your flop bets get A LOT of respect when you show one of these down with one or two pair -- they start to realize that they can't just assume that you missed a board with all low cards. Anyway, I tend to play a lot of hands against these players due to the fact that I'll get paid off if I hit.
3) Patrick Henrys
It seems like a lot of people have heard of the blind defense concept. As such, I find that when I raise from the SB, I often get reraised. If I call the reraise and bet out on the flop, I get raised again. Based on the times that i've actually had hands and these clowns showed down with me, they are playing the situation rather than their cards. The only time I can get them to lay down is if a lot of high cards hit on the flop.
Against these players, I prefer to complete much less frequently than with the CS/sponge, but with the similar range of hands. I almost never raise, as they will do it for me. Here are two line of play that I seem to see a lot of:
- I complete with good cards (e.g., two broadway), they raise, I call. I hit a pair on the flop and bet, they raise, I call. Repeat to river. Sometimes you get sucked out on, and sometimes they will fold. Anyway, they sometimes slow down once they realize that you are playing good cards.
- I complete with middling cards (e.g., J8), they raise, I call. I hit top or middle pair on the flop and check, they bet, I CR. They either call or jam. I bet out on the river and typically get a fold. Sometimes they will come back at me, and I will have to call down to the river. Anyway, once they see that I will play non-Broadway cards, they start to have a hard time putting me on a hand and slow down.
Of course, I mix up my play so that it's not easy to put me on a hand -- X% of the time I represent something different than what I actually have.
In response to Mecos' OP...
- I love completing with janky hands like Q7 and 8To -- just not every time I see them.
I get paid of big when I hit, and they are easy to release if I miss.- I don't think completing is as weak as you think. The lack of information caused by just completing can take away a lot of initiative from the BB. For example... I complete, you raise from the BB with AKo, and I call. Flop comes rags. I bet out. What do I have? You raise and I reraise? What do I have? Do this song and dance a few times and show down a raggedy two pair sometimes and TPTK other times, and the BB is going to be completely flummoxed.
- I think it's really difficult to take the initiative from the BB on an SB steal. Anyone with a modicum of experience knows that the BB's positional advantage is huge. I think the best one can do is induce doubt (as described above).
Anyone else have thoughts on these lines?
Statistics: Posted by Kuso — Sat Nov 05, 2005 3:48 pm
]]>
Statistics: Posted by Kuso — Sat Nov 05, 2005 2:26 pm
]]>
Here's a table of heads up odds: http://www.thepokerforum.com/pokermath1.htm
So if I were to actually have a plan about what to do in this situation, does this strategy make sense:
If the BB is tight passive, I raise with anything but the worst hands.
If he's loose passive, I raise the legit ones and limp more sub-par hands because I can get out cheap. Keep it simple because he's just going to flat call most of the time.
If he's loose aggressive I tighten up on raising and loosen up on calling in general, but obviously mix it up a bit. Maybe limp with my better hands more than I normally would.
If TA like self (I disagree with PT on this one), go by that 50% idea I mentioned earlier
If he's TA and better than me, I shouldnt be sitting on his right and leave the table. Interestingly enough, this situation has never come up.
Of course, this is pretty crude and isn't really a reply to to Mecos' post. More of a 'what are the basics?' thing.
Comments?
Statistics: Posted by redhouse — Fri Nov 04, 2005 1:16 am
]]>
]]>
On another note if you are having trouble in a game due to a bad seating arrangement then change seats if possible and if not look for another game. Being in a bad seat even in a good game sucks if you are having to deal with a player you have difficulty with. Getting a good seat in a short handed game has to rank up pretty high in the factors that determine your overall expectation for the game. I am as guilty as the majority of players alot of times in not leaving a game when it turns sour or I have bad position and there is just no damn sense in this as there are hundreds of other games to go to until you find an advantageous spot. I am working very hard to improvie in this area but still fall short many times.
Statistics: Posted by piersmajestyk — Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:49 pm
]]>
I just dont see how your strategy for dealing with being HU in the SB can possibly be the optimal one, from the SB standpoint. You advocate playing very tight from the sb, even folding decent / middling hands to the BB if the BB isnt a pansy. This is fine in a full game, or even a full 6 max table - but i think that in a 3-4 handed game, this is a little too weak- i mean you are giving away 1/2 an SB every 3-4 hands, and thats not a good thing, i dont think.
Obviously there will be where you win the hand, but the pot you win wont be that big, since there will have been no raise, and the BB, unless hes got a legit hand, is not going to get fancy with you, because he's got no odds to do so.
Now you may say fine, in the long run, this is what you want to do from he SB, namely minimize your losses, and get onto the next hand when you are in a better position.
However, i think there is money to be made against a BB who likes to get fancy with you-- I mean if you are constanrly sponging me from the SB and doing that thing you say you are doing, i am really going to stick it to you if i have a hand, or if i decide to go on a counter move, which i definitely will. Also, you will stand to lose a fortune in those hands where you raise the turn with a thin draw or a bad made hand, and i decide to call you and beat you - especially if you were on a stone bluff and have to fire the last barrell at me with 8 high, hoping i fold.
Now obviously, YOU might endup having a hand when i go on a 'countermove' and you may endup winning a monster pot off me, or whatever, and it may endup being a wash in the end. However, the SBs that i have played against that are the toughest to play against are the ones that are very over aggressive. FOr example, they pretty much raise your BB every time with just about any two cards and fire at every pot. These guys screw people up because you cant put them on a hand- I mean lets say you have the usual SB raise, right, the cards you have dont matter. Lets say, the flop comes 257 rainbow and youve got none of it, say you have JT. YOu can usually steal this from the avg PF raisor because you can be pretty sure he doesnt have any of it - but against a guy that raises literally any 2 cards, and stays aggressive on later streets with lots of hands, you cant know for shure where you are, and you will be disincentivezed from mixing it up with a player like this.
In any case, these are the SB players that endup sucesfully tangling with me in the BB- they are the ones that are aggressive and unpredictable enough that i just want to stay outta thier way.
I realize that playing like this is difficult and costly, but i have seen it work. Mind you, i dont play that way, i play pretty ABC poker from the SB, even headsup, and I also do the limping thing with marginal hands. But whenever i get a real maniac in the SB, it seems like he can run me over. This could be because i have been running bad also, i dunno....
Statistics: Posted by MecosKing — Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:07 pm
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>