Not uncommon to see guys 3x reraise someone with barely any equity, just trying to force a fold. But keep in mind—they might be watching us too during the session, looking for spots to pick apart our game.
$2/$5 with KK (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter monkeydog
- Start date
Not uncommon to see guys 3x reraise someone with barely any equity, just trying to force a fold. But keep in mind—they might be watching us too during the session, looking for spots to pick apart our game.
Definitely, but I would usually not label them loose passive. All this said fully acknowledging that I suck at poker.
Not to derail the thread but I thoroughly enjoy firing back at maniacs without having the equity to do so. Even if I get caught every once in a while, it tends to keep them on their toes when you’re in a hand. Psychological warfare!
I’m sure your skill level is well beyond that of the average player.
I’m sure your skill level is well beyond that of the average player.
Rakrul
Flush
So when a passive villain is willing to put all his chips in the middle I'm out. Or rather that's what my brain would vote for. The body has the iq of a toddler and is the one that actually has to do it and it listens to the brain about 70% of the time.
I'm not saying he's never bluffing or behind here but in the cases he is behind, I don't think he's far behind. And since they heavily underbluff we're better off letting him bluff once in a while and then stack him with his middle pair the other times. I don't think he goes crazy with 77 or AQ here, I'd guess his bluffs would be 9x hands, maybe JJ/QQ but most likely he has two pairs/set and he doesn't want to maneuver a difficult turn card.
I'm not saying he's never bluffing or behind here but in the cases he is behind, I don't think he's far behind. And since they heavily underbluff we're better off letting him bluff once in a while and then stack him with his middle pair the other times. I don't think he goes crazy with 77 or AQ here, I'd guess his bluffs would be 9x hands, maybe JJ/QQ but most likely he has two pairs/set and he doesn't want to maneuver a difficult turn card.
I thought that he thought that I had him on a bluff but he thought that I thought that he thought I had a straight draw. He never thought to think that I thought he was thinking I'd fold.
DrStrange
4 of a Kind
Hero writes in his original post "Villain is loose and passive. I've seen him call all to the river with bottom pair no kicker, and stack off on a four straight board with a medium pair." That's the villain read.
I am folding. Villain is saying via a stiff raise that he thinks he has us beaten. maybe he is overplaying QQ or JJ or Tx, maybe he would just call down with an over-pair or top pair. I am not paying to find out.
When a normally passive player goes for a big raise. I have found it best to believe him/her. -=- DrStrange
I am folding. Villain is saying via a stiff raise that he thinks he has us beaten. maybe he is overplaying QQ or JJ or Tx, maybe he would just call down with an over-pair or top pair. I am not paying to find out.
When a normally passive player goes for a big raise. I have found it best to believe him/her. -=- DrStrange
Kain8
Flush
I would've shoved on the flop and make them have a flopped straight / set. But as played, you found out for a lot cheaper.
I'm with the good doctor on this one now.
I'm with the good doctor on this one now.
Very curious to see what happened next given the feedback.
Rakrul
Flush
Who won
How long was I out?
Understandable. Probably easier to get away from this if you have a much bigger stack behind. Happens. Run this same scenario a hundred times in a simulator and I'm sure you'll be pleasantly surprised by the results.
dmoney
Full House
The range you cite in parentheses is far stronger than expected in OP as loose passive. For every time they flop a set or straight, there are many straight draws and top pairs I want money from. I want to tax them before that turn!*taps the sign*
Bet/folding comfortably against a loose passive player aggression, with few bet/calls if I think they're capable.
Edit: Laughing at the sign tap not the strategy, please don't hurt my chips!
Last edited:
DrStrange
4 of a Kind
yeah . . . about setting a range. We have a critical bit of new data that needs to be taken into account.
How do we range a loose passive villain who wakes up with a stiff raise on that flop? Does villain ever have less than two pair? Could it be that a set is the bottom of his range?
Sure, villain has a huge splashy CALLING range. Once we see villain raise, the list of hands villain might show will shrink down to a pretty nutty list. To be sure, there is always a small chance of an out-of-character, tilted sort of raise. If the odds seem close, I will take that small chance into account. But it is not close. Hero is way behind a two pair+ range and crushed by a set or straight only range.
Villain has given Hero a chance to escape the pending misfortune. But only if Hero can figure out the clues. -=- DrStrange
How do we range a loose passive villain who wakes up with a stiff raise on that flop? Does villain ever have less than two pair? Could it be that a set is the bottom of his range?
Sure, villain has a huge splashy CALLING range. Once we see villain raise, the list of hands villain might show will shrink down to a pretty nutty list. To be sure, there is always a small chance of an out-of-character, tilted sort of raise. If the odds seem close, I will take that small chance into account. But it is not close. Hero is way behind a two pair+ range and crushed by a set or straight only range.
Villain has given Hero a chance to escape the pending misfortune. But only if Hero can figure out the clues. -=- DrStrange
donkSTRIKER
Sitting Out
I do respect the analysis going on in here but wondering if it is really necessary for this hand?
Opponent is a station and we have Kings.
Therefore,
Bet. bet. bet.
I suppose we can still debate sizing!
Opponent is a station and we have Kings.
Therefore,
Bet. bet. bet.
I suppose we can still debate sizing!
If the OP posts about it, we may have a rhetorical question on our hands.
I would fold to the 200 dollar raise - most likely, from a passive player it means they have a hand strength at about 2.4 deviations on average, so I would fold. By playing low ball (considering stack sizes) - he / I would have saved money, by folding flop. But, because he did not fold to the flop raise, he doesn't use the option to fold by betting small.
So if you are going to bet flop and call an all in on a raised flop bet , why not do that pre? By betting small you did not use your option to fold to an flopped increased hand strength, from your opponent.
its all about those pre flop decisions and thinking about what will happen on further streets, before you make your first pre flop bet.
I would have raised more pre - blasting all in - with the stack sizes and the betting limit of then game, and then - if get called - would be an 82(ish) % percent favorite against pocket Tens,
Either way - if the opponent folds pre - you pickup a small pot and if he calls pre- you get your money in good - it's a win win - either way.
So if you are going to bet flop and call an all in on a raised flop bet , why not do that pre? By betting small you did not use your option to fold to an flopped increased hand strength, from your opponent.
its all about those pre flop decisions and thinking about what will happen on further streets, before you make your first pre flop bet.
I would have raised more pre - blasting all in - with the stack sizes and the betting limit of then game, and then - if get called - would be an 82(ish) % percent favorite against pocket Tens,
Either way - if the opponent folds pre - you pickup a small pot and if he calls pre- you get your money in good - it's a win win - either way.
Curious - are you indicating that GTO (Nash Equilibrium is a check by the Hero after the villain checks the flop? Or are you indicating that the GTO Wizard or PIO solver (which are Solvers for Nash Distance) would have the Hero Check back the flop?
Can you even run this in GTO wiz? I don't think it has lines for cold calling 3 bets preflop.
Anyways, with this stack depth, losing to top set is just expected. Normally I'd bet flop then jam most turns. Folding to the raise is possible if you're willing to assign very specific tendencies to this player (never aggressive with overpairs, pair+draws, or an OESD). Would they call a 3bet and then raise this flop with JJ? QQ? 99? QJ? JT? T9? 98? 65? If you're very confident the answer is no you can fold.
Anyways, with this stack depth, losing to top set is just expected. Normally I'd bet flop then jam most turns. Folding to the raise is possible if you're willing to assign very specific tendencies to this player (never aggressive with overpairs, pair+draws, or an OESD). Would they call a 3bet and then raise this flop with JJ? QQ? 99? QJ? JT? T9? 98? 65? If you're very confident the answer is no you can fold.
Neither
.I’m just indicating that I believe a solver would check the flop at a decent frequency. Wasn’t naming a particular one and I haven’t actually run it. Also hero is oop so it’s not a check back.
BigDutch888
High Hand
Ive obviously read the finished story but here’s my two cents.
Being OOP against LP-player id check the flop, and call any reasonable bet. His range is wide and I think the board favors his even though you have a strong overpair.
On the turn you bet 75 and he raises to 200. Pretty straightforward raise id say. But what also matters here is your own image at the table. Are you a tight agressive, or also loose? He might try and get value from someone he sees as loose too, willing to call most bets. But for him being passive and then all of a sudden turn aggressive is in my eyes a big tell and I’d probably fold here, even though it stings to throw KK away.
Being OOP against LP-player id check the flop, and call any reasonable bet. His range is wide and I think the board favors his even though you have a strong overpair.
On the turn you bet 75 and he raises to 200. Pretty straightforward raise id say. But what also matters here is your own image at the table. Are you a tight agressive, or also loose? He might try and get value from someone he sees as loose too, willing to call most bets. But for him being passive and then all of a sudden turn aggressive is in my eyes a big tell and I’d probably fold here, even though it stings to throw KK away.
I’m not understanding this logic. If someone is passive, then their threshold for betting is inherently going to be higher. You are most likely going to be behind the range that bets (two pair+?) if you check and let them bet.
What is your definition of passive?
BigDutch888
High Hand
I think we have the same definition. If you’re going to be behind the range that bets, isn’t that useful information to use in your decision to call or fold? I’m thinking that if he does decide to bet it’s a big tell for the strength of this hand
Its useful information, but if they're passive I would rather have their money in the pot or get em out of there. If you check and show weakness and he bets, are you folding Kings? I think betting 1. gives us more info, 2. Keeps betting lead and builds a pot where we're ahead vast majority of the time 3. charges any draws the wide range may have, and 4. sets our own price. Very comfortable folding after a passive player raises here, if they were aggro I would do more checking but I can't expect him to bet my hand for me.
BigDutch888
High Hand
I guess for me it would depend on the bet size. If he would bet the 75 I’d definitely call, if he goes for 200 right away it’s a fold for me because I doubt a passive player would go that size as a bluff or worse hand than my KK. If he checks back, free turn card and asses from there.
Sure, good point on sizing. I don't see him checking as a free card though, I see it as a wasted street. Against passive players betting streets are a currency that I want to take advantage of when I have an overpair. But I see what you mean.
If they bet $75 I have less info than if I bet. This is why I want to be driving against passive players, I told him I was weak through a check and capped my range when I call going to a turn. I think I'd be disoriented going to the turn after calling that from a passive type mook, but I suck at poker so maybe its straight forward for others.
BigDutch888
High Hand
Haha I suck too! But I’m studying so I guess I’m kinda working to get better lol. I enjoy discussing different approaches to the same situation and try to learn as much as I can. That being said, I see your point about wasting a street as well.
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
