Multiple Unconventional Lines Against an Aggro-Fish (1 Viewer)

[Moxie Mike]

NOTE: I'm not posting this looking for advice - I'm happy with the lines I took here whether I was fundamentally correct or not. The purpose of this post is to start a discussion about unconventional lines against certain types of players.

Game: NLHE FR at a local charity poker room. $1/$2 blinds. Game is populated with one nitty TAG and a bunch of sticky, spewy fish. I have played with most of these people numerous times.

Relevant stacks/reads:

HiJack: $400ish. Likes to bluff and bet and call off chips in general; enjoys tabling his hands after uncalled c-bets as if he fooled everyone. Often drinks rather heavily while playing however he was sober on this day. Stack fluctuates greatly due to a high variance style of play. Likes to see flops with a variety of holdings regardless of price - VPIP ~ 35-40%. Stack was $700 at one point due to stacking two opponents when a river completed a RF for him, top FH for an opponent and a flush for another, but has since donked much of it off, mostly to Hero (prior to this hand).

Button=Hero (in the 7 seat): In for $240 - stack ~ $500ish. Button posts straddle of $5, as he does most every orbit. Discuss your thoughts on this if you care to.

5 callers including HiJack. Hero looks down at . Hero checks his option.

Why check you might ask? Because people treat button straddles in this game like the first PFR. Their starting hand strength requirements tightens up a little... to the point that people will fling 2 chips out there, only to realize there was a button straddle on and quickly retrieve the $2 and muck instead. I'd probably make a pot-sized raise against one or two callers, but not 5. Better to take a flop in position with a stronger than average holding that is well camouflaged.

Flop comes . Action checks around to Hero, who bets $20.

Action folds around to the HiJack who casually pushed 4 red chips in front of him, while simulataneously saying the words: "Check dark".

Turn: .

Spoiler: Hero's Action

Hero thinks for 10 or 15 seconds and checks.

Why check when we most likely are ahead and our opponent is likely drawing? There's about $70 in the pot at this point, and while we can certainly lay him a -EV price to chase what's likely a flush or straight draw, we can't reasonably bet enough to make him fold without over-exposing ourselves. So while we can correctly bet $50 or $60 and he'll still call, we might make more money if we give him a free draw and he misses. If he calls this turn bet and misses, he won't put any more money in the pot.

Conversely, if the river is a and he bets any significant amount, we're never calling.

It's also worth noting that I've played this opponent enough to know that by checking behind, he is likely to bet any river, especially if he senses weakness.

Spoiler: The Rest of the Hand

***Important note: This time the HiJack does not check dark.***

The river was . HiJack stares at the river for about 3 seconds. Then, he reaches down with his left hand and uses his thumb and index finger to slide a small tower of neatly stacked red chips in front of him. He then looks in my direction.

Spoiler: My Action # 2

I asked for a count from the dealer, who announced the bet was $90.

I thought for a few seconds and then called. I really only asked for a count to avoid snap-calling, which I personally find disrespectful.

Spoiler: Results

"Nice Call - I just have an ace," he says immediately, flashing the before preparing to muck as I showed him a winner. I tabled my hand and scooped my pot.

So with this line, while very unconventional, I was in position to lose the minimum when he hits, and win the maximum when he misses.

TL;DR: Use your imagination at the table sometimes

 

[Beakertwang]

NLHE FR

What does this "FR" mean?

 

[Moxie Mike]

What does this "FR" mean?

Full Ring. As opposed to 'SH' (short handed) or 'HU' (heads up).

 

[Beakertwang]

Full Ring. As opposed to 'SH' (short handed) or 'HU' (heads up).

Thanks! (I would have gotten there eventually. )

 

[Moxie Mike]

Thanks! (I would have gotten there eventually. )

One would hope

 

[DrStrange]

Button straddles are much better than UTG straddles. This works better for skilled LAGs than TAGs.

One wonders about Hero's table read. The table is filled with "

a bunch of sticky, spewy fish" who quiver in fear facing a $3 blind bet that makes them fold preflop. Yet five of them call. Curious.

Hero wakes up with a notorious hand - one which thrives in short stack play but is vulnerable deep stacked or multi-way. It seems reasonable to play "small ball" here but only because the stacks are rather deep. If hero were playing 100bb effective, I think a preflop raise is nearly mandatory.

Does Hero think a preflop raise is going to go massively multiway? Or is there a check-raise looming?

Again I wonder about Hero's table read given the flop action. Are you sure these guys tighten-up facing the straddle? I guess it is tightening if they go from 80% VPiP to 65% VPiP.

The heads-up portion of the hand runs a lot more to the point of this thread. Bet flop / check turn / bluff catch river is a solid line vs a LAG. Second pair can't stand a raise, let's not give the LAG a chance to put Hero to a test. ​

 

[Moxie Mike]

Thanks for chiming in... I was wondering what you'd think of this hand.

Button straddles are much better than UTG straddles. This works better for skilled LAGs than TAGs.

I seldom UTG straddle unless the table is 4 or 5 handed and I think a straddle will fold out the players in position that might otherwise limp.

One wonders about Hero's table read. The table is filled with "
a bunch of sticky, spewy fish" who quiver in fear facing a $3 blind bet that makes them fold preflop. Yet five of them call. Curious.

I guess I should have elaborated on that. I didn't want the post to run too long.

It's more of a situation where because they have to put more money in the pot preflop, their respective ranges change somewhat. Since we know the results, I know the individual well enough to confidently say that the HiJack would most likely have put in a raise with X... but he wouldn't '3-bet' with it in an unstraddled pot. So their limping range and 3-betting ranges tighten up in that sense.

I guess another way of putting it is their (vs no straddle) limping ranges shrink a little and bleed into their raising ranges. Their normal 3-bet ranges remain unchanged, since at this level they're pretty narrow anyhow.

Does Hero think a preflop raise is going to go massively multiway? Or is there a check-raise looming?

A PFR to $25 or $30 would probably fold out one or two of the limpers, but I'd still end up taking a flop against multiple players whose ranges include AQ.

I've noticed a LOT of limp 3-betting against the button straddle... it almost seems like a standard play when someone wakes up with a premium in EP. On this day though I didn't see anything like that, nor did I expect it in this hand given that despite a 5-hours session against mostly the same players, I might have raised my button straddle once all afternoon.

Again I wonder about Hero's table read given the flop action. Are you sure these guys tighten-up facing the straddle? I guess it is tightening if they go from 80% VPiP to 65% VPiP.

I meant this more as a generalization - most of these players don't make the necessary mental adjustments when there's a button straddle, which is partly why I like to make this play. They're looking to see flops cheaply and often... so there's this 'this is already going to cost more than $2 to see the flop' mentality that comes into play; at the same time they also realize any PFR or flop bet is going to be a higher amount than usual.

The heads-up portion of the hand runs a lot more to the point of this thread. Bet flop / check turn / bluff catch river is a solid line vs a LAG. Second pair can't stand a raise, let's not give the LAG a chance to put Hero to a test.

I think a lot of holdem players - even solid performers just automatically think to themselves that they need to bet this turn to protect against the FD. While there's nothing wrong with this approach, there are other ways to maximize value in the sense that money saved is money earned.

The other side of this is that when a hand is highly likely to go to the river despite any efforts to prevent as much, minimizing exposure is as much as and maybe even more important that charging a premium price to draw. In this particular hand, even if I'd bet $50 into a $70 pot to protect my hand, if the flush hits I lose more by betting the turn than if I check the turn and hero-call a reasonable value bet.

 

[ando5k]

I'm not sure I like the preflop action. Villain could easily have something here like J-X of hearts and have a ton of equity on the hand after hitting the Jack on the flop. Because we didn't polarize his range with a raise preflop, we have no idea what hits his kicker on the river to beat our hand. Even though he was bluffing, that action on the hand is the exact same thing J-8 of hearts would do.
If his VPIP is as high as you say and he is as splashy cally as suggested, we could even give ourselves a little bit of extra equity on the turn with another 50-60 in the pot as you have suggested. Its not so much about protecting your hand as it is increasing the value on the river. If he misses the river as he did, he is still going to bluff it regardless of your turn bet, so you are still hero calling, but doing it for even greater value.

 

[CraigT78]

I don't like a lot of the action, bit one comment in particular stood out to me. You find snap calling disrespectful? Why is that?

I'd rather someone snap calls then Hollywood's with counts and heming and hawing a hand they know they're calling. Is a snap call against poker etiquette? Generally curious as to others though here!

 

[DrStrange]

Hero has other things to fear besides the flush draw - middle pair is not something I want to go to great lengths to protect. There are plenty of Kx hands that leave hero drawing thin. Not value owing himself is one of the reasons to check behind on the turn.

Small hand, small pot is a wiser plan than often given credit for. hero could easily get stung for $100+ over playing AJ vs some trashy king-rag vs a sticky villain. There were five villains in the pot. Kx is as reasonable a holding as a flush draw of QT for the open ended draw.

 

[Moxie Mike]

I'm not sure I like the preflop action. Villain could easily have something here like J-X of hearts and have a ton of equity on the hand after hitting the Jack on the flop. Because we didn't polarize his range with a raise preflop, we have no idea what hits his kicker on the river to beat our hand. Even though he was bluffing, that action on the hand is the exact same thing J-8 of hearts would do.
If his VPIP is as high as you say and he is as splashy cally as suggested, we could even give ourselves a little bit of extra equity on the turn with another 50-60 in the pot as you have suggested. Its not so much about protecting your hand as it is increasing the value on the river. If he misses the river as he did, he is still going to bluff it regardless of your turn bet, so you are still hero calling, but doing it for even greater value.

That is the counter-argument to slowplaying a hand just outside of the ultra-premium range preflop. And it's valid. With my game and what I perceive to be my table image, I value the element of deception more than I value the information gained from a PFR in this particular instance.

As to the turn-check - this particular individual wouldn't bluff if I've shown strength on 2 streets. He'd simply give up when the river bricked because he knows I really don't get out of line much. He only fires at perceived weakness.

The concern that he could spike two pair on the river is always worth consideration, as is the possibility that a modest pocket pair could river a set. The challenge is that even if he does outdraw me I'm more likely to face a more reasonable bet amount. A bet of $90 into a $70 pot usually removes all the mid-value hands from his (or most any player's) range; it's either he has a big hand (top-2 or better) or his hand has no showdown value at all.

 

[Moxie Mike]

Hero has other things to fear besides the flush draw - middle pair is not something I want to go to great lengths to protect. There are plenty of Kx hands that leave hero drawing thin. Not value owing himself is one of the reasons to check behind on the turn.

Small hand, small pot is a wiser plan than often given credit for. hero could easily get stung for $100+ over playing AJ vs some trashy king-rag vs a sticky villain. There were five villains in the pot. Kx is as reasonable a holding as a flush draw of QT for the open ended draw.

It's worth noting that with this villian, and with spewy LAG players in general if after the soft pre and post-flop action they still don't bet this flop in position, they don't have a king. I completely removed all K-X hands from his range the moment he checked this flop. Honestly, I'm kind of surprised he didn't bet the nut flush draw as I look back on it. I fully expected second pair/top kicker to be good here and for a flop bet to take down the pot.

As a little side discussion, what do you guys think it usually means when a player like this check in the dark? In my experience, they're almost always holding a hand that they think needs to improve in order to win.

 

[Moxie Mike]

I don't like a lot of the action, bit one comment in particular stood out to me. You find snap calling disrespectful? Why is that?

I'd rather someone snap calls then Hollywood's with counts and heming and hawing a hand they know they're calling. Is a snap call against poker etiquette? Generally curious as to others though here!

I don't think it's an etiquette thing... it's more of thing where here I have second pair facing a big bet from someone who I know is bluffing. Snapping him off instantly is kind of like showing him up a bit. Besides, I want him to think I at least thought about folding.

If I'm holding the nuts or some other really strong hand and there's literally nothing to think about, then I call without hesitation.

That said, it's not as if I tanked for 45 minutes rechecking my hole cards and wiping the sweat from my brow. I just took a moment to assess the situation, made sure I didn't miss anything and then said 'I call' without moving a chip. The whole thing took maybe 15 seconds.

 

[JustinInMN]

Nh, sir.

I don't actually think this is that unconventional.

Pf I think the flat is fine. Your next best option is to reraise to 25 or so, but if you don't think you have the benefit of fold equity, it's fine to flat imo. Also this hand is probably a bit too good to open yourself to a reraise which you could never continue against.

The flop is a little unconventional. But I understand the bet if you think you can get called by draws and lesser jacks. Problem is your opponents all easily have Kx hands in their range, but you hate to check if you are ahead.

Even though getting called in one spot is probably the best case scenario, I really think all you did was turn your hand into a bluff catcher on the last two streets, which is often a good idea, but in particular against an opponent like this villian.

On the snap call issue, I personally don't think it's bad ettiquette but I understand the argument that it is a bit "showy."

A better reason not to do it is a snap call may alert the villian that he either has a physical tell or is just bluffing too much. You would hate to give villian a prompt to correct this. I always wait a few seconds before acting on a tell or in a spot where I am going for a hero call like this.

 

[Moxie Mike]

Nh, sir.

I don't actually think this is that unconventional.

1) Thank you. 2) It's unconventional in the sense that betting to protect your hand is standard thinking. Deliberately giving a free card to an opponent you KNOW is drawing is not in any poker books I've ever read.

Pf I think the flat is fine. Your next best option is to reraise to 25 or so, but if you don't think you have the benefit of fold equity, it's fine to flat imo. Also this hand is probably a bit too good to open yourself to a reraise which you could never continue against.

I despise the PF limp-3-bet move. It pisses me off every time someone does it even though I admit I've deployed it tactically a time or three to punish hyper aggros here and there. But it's always in the back of my mind when I see a bunch of limpers on my straddle and I wake up with a raising decision.

The flop is a little unconventional. But I understand the bet if you think you can get called by draws and lesser jacks. Problem is your opponents all easily have Kx hands in their range, but you hate to check if you are ahead.

I bet this flop expecting to take the pot down. I'm curious as to your argument for checking back this flop in position after no one bet. Yes, someone could have a king and didn't bet. But that's not super likely with two hearts and a potential broadway draw out there. As much as I don't like getting called at all, I also don't have to put any more chips in the pot.

It's worth noting that this is my style in general - I bet when I think I have an edge. Sometimes I'm wrong and I do run into the spots where they've checked K-x for pot control or out of passivity or whatever. It happens. But in general, I'm confident that I'm good here a good % of the time.

Even though getting called in one spot is probably the best case scenario, I really think all you did was turn your hand into a bluff catcher on the last two streets, which is often a good idea, but in particular against an opponent like this villian.

I encourage you to assign more significance to the fact that the villian checked dark as he called my flop bet... I didn't mention this before but he does this A LOT. This is a huge detail IMO. To be fair, I didn't bet the flop expecting him to call and subsequently check dark, since I didn't think anyone would even call at all. But when he did, he quite literally gave me all the power and revealed way more about his hand that he probably realizes.

Think about it this way: Him checking dark is saying to me that he either has nothing to protect, or he has nothing to fear. It goes back the 'nuts or nothing' thing I mentioned in one of my replies. It really wasn't difficult to come to the conclusion that his hand had no showdown value at all, and a big, desperate river bet only supported that.

On the snap call issue, I personally don't think it's bad ettiquette but I understand the argument that it is a bit "showy."

A better reason not to do it is a snap call may alert the villian that he either has a physical tell or is just bluffing too much. You would hate to give villian a prompt to correct this. I always wait a few seconds before acting on a tell or in a spot where I am going for a hero call like this.

I never said it was bad etiquette - I just said I thought it was disrespectful. Thing is, getting caught bluffing is embarrassing... and so letting him think that he his bluff attempt almost worked is +EV... as is keeping the game friendly. I appreciate that you see this as a 'hero call'... but let's not pretend like I snapped him off holding nut-no-pair

 

[JustinInMN]

I bet this flop expecting to take the pot down. I'm curious as to your argument for checking back this flop in position after no one bet.

To be honest, when I wrote this, I think I misunderstood this was a button straddle.

Last to act I agree you have the green light all day.

I encourage you to assign more significance to the fact that the villian checked dark as he called my flop bet...

You do have hand that is often good here, but it is so hard to get two streets of value it of anything weaker, he would almost have to have exactly QJ, JT, J9, J8.

So you made the evaluation that the best way to get one street of value is to let him bet the river since he will bluff nearly 100% of the time. And if he doesn't bet the river think you have the green light to go for thin value on the the river since you can beat a lot of hero calls.

I do get the conventional thinking is to bet the turn, and the one obvious pro to betting the turn is to collect a bet from the hearts here. But otherwise, not a lot of rivers hurt you, especially because you hold an ace. You either have the best hand or he is playing a king carefully. (Which I imagine you deem unlikely give he has checked twice postflop.)

Also this isn't a hand you want to call a check raise with if villian is maniacal.

So I think playing to set up the bluff and catch it makes a lot of sense in this spot.

Thing is, getting caught bluffing is embarrassing... and so letting him think that he his bluff attempt almost worked is +EV...

I certainly agree with this.

 

[Moxie Mike]

I don't honestly know what I would have done had he checked the river brick. I didn't really have a plan for that when I checked the turn.

But hypothetically, I think I'd check back the river here too. That might seem a little weak-tight since I'm still confident that I'm good here, but I don't think he has anything to call with... So betting comes with the risk that I will only likely be called by a superior hand, and there's always the risk of facing a big CR, which would have been much more difficult to call than his river bet was.