Nasty River Spot: AK good vs Tight Player? (3 Viewers)

[RainmanTrail]

Not sure how many times I can see this in different ways but.. the entire point of the thread is how even tighter players can get out of line. If that is too nuanced for this audience I apologize! Maybe the "tight" players you all play with never raise flop with nothing. But if you play $2/5 or above, I guarantee you that you will find plenty of tight players who "make moves" in spots that are non-standard. This is the beauty of the game.

There are many different flavors of "tight" players though, but none of them are capable of taking these lines all in the same hand. This isn't just "getting out of line", this is maniacal play. Truly maniacal. "OMC tight" is simply never capable of taking all 4 of these betting lines and then rolling over KQ on the river. Not occasionally. Not once in a blue moon. Truly never. I'm a somewhat tight player that definitely mixes up my play with "creative" (some might say "donkey") plays in various spots. If there were ever a version of a "tight" player who occasionally gets "out of line" and shows you a hand at the river that completely baffles you, I'm that guy. I'm even capable of taking all the crazy lines the villain took here with a hand like TT, 99, or perhaps even 65s if I'm feeling frisky. But never KQ. There are tight players out there who are capable of taking some of these betting lines with KQ. But there are effectively zero who are capable of taking all 4 of these betting lines in the same hand with KQ.

Each action a player takes throughout the course of a hand is one chapter from a larger book. If your friend hands you a book that is all taped together with cardboard and duct tape and chapter 1 is printed in Arial font and is about how Billy swims with dolphins, chapter 2 is in Times New Roman font and is about alien drones attacking the planet Hepton, chapter 3 is in Courier New and is about how Jed and Zoe "found themselves" on a trek to Machu Picchu, and chapter 4 is in Calibri and is about Sheryl's battle with eating disorders and body image, then you shouldn't assume the book is actually about a guy named Earl with multiple personality disorder. You should assume your buddy is fucking with you and that he cut up 4 different books and taped them all together then gave it to you to read.

 

[jazzV3]

There are many different flavors of "tight" players though, but none of them are capable of taking these lines all in the same hand. This isn't just "getting out of line", this is maniacal play. Truly maniacal. "OMC tight" is simply never capable of taking all 4 of these betting lines and then rolling over KQ on the river. Not occasionally. Not once in a blue moon. Truly never. I'm a somewhat tight player that definitely mixes up my play with "creative" (some might say "donkey") plays in various spots. If there were ever a version of a "tight" player who occasionally gets "out of line" and shows you a hand at the river that completely baffles you, I'm that guy. I'm even capable of taking all the crazy lines the villain took here with a hand like TT, 99, or perhaps even 65s if I'm feeling frisky. But never KQ. There are tight players out there who are capable of taking some of these betting lines with KQ. But there are effectively zero who are capable of taking all 4 of these betting lines in the same hand with KQ.

Each action a player takes throughout the course of a hand is one chapter from a larger book. If your friend hands you a book that is all taped together with cardboard and duct tape and chapter 1 is printed in Arial font and is about how Billy swims with dolphins, chapter 2 is in Times New Roman font and is about alien drones attacking the planet Hepton, chapter 3 is in Courier New and is about how Jed and Zoe "found themselves" on a trek to Machu Picchu, and chapter 4 is in Calibri and is about Sheryl's battle with eating disorders and body image, then you shouldn't assume the book is actually about a guy named Earl with multiple personality disorder. You should assume your buddy is fucking with you and that he cut up 4 different books and taped them all together then gave it to you to read.

 

[RainmanTrail]

This. This is literally the point of my entire post - I'm just grateful someone finally got it

All joking aside, poker IS situational. There IS a lot of nuance. We DO take different approaches to a similar spot with different hands. The experts in this thread seem to only play one way, the same way, all of the time. I am advocating a slightly different approach.

I think this is the fundamental point of our disagreement. You seem to think this is about meta-gaming someone, or about employing mixed strategies or being able to identify when someone is employing a Nash equilibrium approach to the game. I'm saying, no, you still don't get it. I assure you, I've been on board the Nash equilibrium train LONG before it was ever cool in poker. I've been randomizing my play using the second hand on my watch or from spinning chips for over 25 years. I assure you, I fully understand how and why to mix up my play (and why others might do it as well). I am well versed in game theory. What I am saying to you is that there are no scenarios in this hand where any player who could ever be even remotely referred to as "tight" in any respect whatsoever is capable of these 4 betting lines all in the same hand with KQ that don't involve said player being drunk or deeply distracted to the point where he forgot what his cards were. I would argue that not even a loose player or a complete donkey is going to take these betting lines either. They require entirely inconsistent trains of thought at each point throughout the hand. You only see this type of play from people who are new to the game and who truly just have no idea of how to play poker. People who just take random actions throughout the course of a hand. Tight players are capable of mixing up their play, but they don't combine completely nonsensical betting lines unless they are bluffing. Your friend is bluffing. But the bluff isn't on the flop, turn, or river. It's an ocean bluff in your text conversation.

The degree to which you discount the likelihood that your friend is blowing smoke up your ass is absolutely remarkable. This is why I brought up the fact that @kmccormick100 lies to me nearly every time we discuss hands after the fact. Kyle is a really nice guy. He's an honest guy too. We chat via text outside of poker as well. We discuss poker strategy stuff, hands, life stuff, chip stuff, whatever. We've been playing together for 6+ years now. I consider him a friend too. But the guy is absolutely full of shit a large percentage of the time when he tells me what he had after a hand is over, even when discussing via text days later. And that doesn't make him a bad guy. It's just poker. There is no magical amount of time that can pass by where some sort of honor code kicks in among friends that play poker together. It's all one long session. He's going to play with you again soon. He's setting you up for next time. Your statement that he "has nothing to gain by lying to you" is hilarious. He has EVERYTHING to gain. It's not like you're asking him how to build a fence and I'm suggesting he's sabotaging you by telling you to assemble it with staples. This is POKER. People lie. They do it before, during, and after the session is over. It's just part of the game.

There of course exists some non-zero chance that a tight player did in-fact take all 4 of those betting lines with KQ. We've all seen crazy shit happen before. However, there also exists a chance that your friend is lying to you about what he was holding. In this situation, the likelihood of the former is so greatly outweighed by the likelihood of the latter that it's just completely pointless to even entertain. Yet, here we are. You can go ahead and call your buddy down next time with that AK. I'll keep folding it (on the flop in fact).

 

[JMC9389]

I think this is the fundamental point of our disagreement. You seem to think this is about meta-gaming someone, or about employing mixed strategies or being able to identify when someone is employing a Nash equilibrium approach to the game. I'm saying, no, you still don't get it. I assure you, I've been on board the Nash equilibrium train LONG before it was ever cool in poker. I've been randomizing my play using the second hand on my watch or from spinning chips for over 25 years. I assure you, I fully understand how and why to mix up my play (and why others might do it as well). I am well versed in game theory. What I am saying to you is that there are no scenarios in this hand where any player who could ever be even remotely referred to as "tight" in any respect whatsoever is capable of these 4 betting lines all in the same hand with KQ that don't involve said player being drunk or deeply distracted to the point where he forgot what his cards were. I would argue that not even a loose player or a complete donkey is going to take these betting lines either. They require entirely inconsistent trains of thought at each point throughout the hand. You only see this type of play from people who are new to the game and who truly just have no idea of how to play poker. People who just take random actions throughout the course of a hand. Tight players are capable of mixing up their play, but they don't combine completely nonsensical betting lines unless they are bluffing. Your friend is bluffing. But the bluff isn't on the flop, turn, or river. It's an ocean bluff in your text conversation.

The degree to which you discount the likelihood that your friend is blowing smoke up your ass is absolutely remarkable. This is why I brought up the fact that @kmccormick100 lies to me nearly every time we discuss hands after the fact. Kyle is a really nice guy. He's an honest guy too. We chat via text outside of poker as well. We discuss poker strategy stuff, hands, life stuff, chip stuff, whatever. We've been playing together for 6+ years now. I consider him a friend too. But the guy is absolutely full of shit a large percentage of the time when he tells me what he had after a hand is over, even when discussing via text days later. And that doesn't make him a bad guy. It's just poker. There is no magical amount of time that can pass by where some sort of honor code kicks in among friends that play poker together. It's all one long session. He's going to play with you again soon. He's setting you up for next time. Your statement that he "has nothing to gain by lying to you" is hilarious. He has EVERYTHING to gain. It's not like you're asking him how to build a fence and I'm suggesting he's sabotaging you by telling you to assemble it with staples. This is POKER. People lie. They do it before, during, and after the session is over. It's just part of the game.

There of course exists some non-zero chance that a tight player did in-fact take all 4 of those betting lines with KQ. We've all seen crazy shit happen before. However, there also exists a chance that your friend is lying to you about what he was holding. In this situation, the likelihood of the former is so greatly outweighed by the likelihood of the latter that it's just completely pointless to even entertain. Yet, here we are. You can go ahead and call your buddy down next time with that AK. I'll keep folding it (on the flop in fact).

Which is why, that even on top of it, I tell the truth sometimes when discussing hands, but I also lie sometimes as well. I mix that up too

I'll always talk strategy with others in dissecting hands that I'm not involved in. I'm all about helping others, especially friends with their game, but when you're discussing a hand with me that I was involved in, all bets are off, even among best friends, because at the end of the day, poker is poker, and my objective is to get all of your money at the end of the session.

 

[Stufflymcstuff]

this is just not how tight players get out of line. This is a complete punt that only rank amateurs make, and if someone was inclined to lie this is exactly the kind of hand they’d choose to lie about.

When he said he thought you had / would call the River raise with AJ, do you think that he’s being genuine there? that is not how any tight player would think. That’s not how any marginally competent player would think.

 

[Senzrock]

this is just not how tight players get out of line. This is a complete punt that only rank amateurs make, and if someone was inclined to lie this is exactly the kind of hand they’d choose to lie about.

When he said he thought you had / would call the River raise with AJ, do you think that he’s being genuine there? that is not how any tight player would think. That’s not how any marginally competent player would think.

One of the things I have finally managed to really internalize, after 10+ years of playing, is that most poker players (specially at lower stakes of course), are *way* worse than you assume they are. One of the biggest mistakes that break even or small winning players make is giving Opponents way too much credit for hands. This thread has actually clarified that again and again for me. It’s like people are shocked that someone shows up with a non-premium. It’s wild to me.

 

[Senzrock]

One of the things I have finally managed to really internalize, after 10+ years of playing, is that most poker players (specially at lower stakes of course), are *way* worse than you assume they are. One of the biggest mistakes that break even or small winning players make is giving Opponents way too much credit for hands. This thread has actually clarified that again and again for me. It’s like people are shocked that someone shows up with a non-premium. It’s wild to me.

It’s a $40 rebuy tournament that’s still inside the rebuy period fellas lol - has no one played these? It’s a ton of action, even from the tighter players.

 

[Stufflymcstuff]

One of the things I have finally managed to really internalize, after 10+ years of playing, is that most poker players (specially at lower stakes of course), are *way* worse than you assume they are. One of the biggest mistakes that break even or small winning players make is giving Opponents way too much credit for hands. This thread has actually clarified that again and again for me. It’s like people are shocked that someone shows up with a non-premium. It’s wild to me.

Nobody is shocked when people show up with stupid shit. We’re questioning your read of him being tight. Maybe the difference is that your definition of tight is just much more shaped by microstake home games than the rest of us.

He may well be tight by the standards of your home game and would at the same time be one of the loosest/worst players at $100nl online or 5/10nl live.

 

[RainmanTrail]

One of the things I have finally managed to really internalize, after 10+ years of playing, is that most poker players (specially at lower stakes of course), are *way* worse than you assume they are. One of the biggest mistakes that break even or small winning players make is giving Opponents way too much credit for hands. This thread has actually clarified that again and again for me. It’s like people are shocked that someone shows up with a non-premium. It’s wild to me.

You keep taking these passive aggressive jabs at those of us telling you your friend is lying to you by suggesting that we are "break even" or small winning players at best or that we can't read players or just otherwise don't know what we're talking about. Has it occurred to you that this might be a bad read as well?

 

[Mandos]

I think you can somewhat explain all 4 betting lines from the same person with KQ if you're willing to concede that he was focused on getting a result from H, not on telling a consistent story. He raises and calls pre because "it's a good starting hand". On the flop, he says "H always c bets, if i raise he'll just fold." H calls so V "puts H" on TT (he didn't say this, but I love how they always seem to pick a hand, not a range). On the turn V hits his King, decides to "slow play" it and check expecting H to bet the river which he can raise (thinking his K is good).
Is this what happened? No idea. But I've played against players capable of getting out of line like this who give next to zero thought to telling a consistent story on their side. Especially early in a rebuy tournament if he thinks hero is playing too many hands etc. and just decides he's had enough and takes a stand. I'm curious what happened before this at the table...
That being said if he's ordinarily tight then he would have to be more of a split personality player to pull this off.

 

[Senzrock]

You keep taking these passive aggressive jabs at those of us telling you your friend is lying to you by suggesting that we are "break even" or small winning players at best or that we can't read players or just otherwise don't know what we're talking about. Has it occurred to you that this might be a bad read as well?

Wait - who has been taking jabs this entire thread though? I have (mostly) been open to exploring every angle until the hand was completely over and yes, at that point I defended my position because I feel like everyone just kept saying the same thing "Oh he isn't tight" like... OK sick observation based on one hand!

 

[Senzrock]

I think you can somewhat explain all 4 betting lines from the same person with KQ if you're willing to concede that he was focused on getting a result from H, not on telling a consistent story. He raises and calls pre because "it's a good starting hand". On the flop, he says "H always c bets, if i raise he'll just fold." H calls so V "puts H" on TT (he didn't say this, but I love how they always seem to pick a hand, not a range). On the turn V hits his King, decides to "slow play" it and check expecting H to bet the river which he can raise (thinking his K is good).
Is this what happened? No idea. But I've played against players capable of getting out of line like this who give next to zero thought to telling a consistent story on their side. Especially early in a rebuy tournament if he thinks hero is playing too many hands etc. and just decides he's had enough and takes a stand. I'm curious what happened before this at the table...
That being said if he's ordinarily tight then he would have to be more of a split personality player to pull this off.

Yeah, I think his line actually makes decent sense until his horrible river play (causing me to make a big mistake).

Pre-flop it's 100% standard with KQ in position.
Flop, he min clicked to get me off AK.
Turn, he now seems concerned or maybe checks back for deception? Either way, I can see myself playing it similarly once in a while.
River - his play just goes off the rails.

 

[Senzrock]

Nobody is shocked when people show up with stupid shit. We’re questioning your read of him being tight. Maybe the difference is that your definition of tight is just much more shaped by microstake home games than the rest of us.

He may well be tight by the standards of your home game and would at the same time be one of the loosest/worst players at $100nl online or 5/10nl live.

100NL online and $5/10 are two completely different games. I think this player is a break even or slightly winning player at $1/2. I have seen him make folds that you wouldn't believe (folded TT in the BB when the SB shoved into him and he had 8bbs left in a tournament to name one example that comes to my mind).

 

[Zr1]

100NL online and $5/10 are two completely different games. I think this player is a break even or slightly winning player at $1/2. I have seen him make folds that you wouldn't believe (folded TT in the BB when the SB shoved into him and he had 8bbs left in a tournament to name one example that comes to my mind).

Folding TT in that spot is a huge mistake in a tournament with 8BB left unless the other guy turns his cards over during the hand and shows JJ QQ KK or AA. Terrible player

 

[RainmanTrail]

Folding TT in that spot is a huge mistake in a tournament with 8BB left unless the other guy turns his cards over during the hand and shows JJ QQ KK or AA. Terrible player

By "I've seen him fold TT in the big blind for 8BB to a small blind shove", he means that he asked the other guy what he had after deliberating and then folding, and the guy responded with "I folded TT".

 

[Zr1]

By "I've seen him fold TT in the big blind for 8BB to a small blind shove", he means that he asked the other guy what he had after deliberating and then folding, and the guy responded with "I folded TT".

Hahaha

 

[RainmanTrail]

Hahaha

While I realize it sounds funny, I'm actually being serious. I'm pretty sure @Senzrock said somewhere that he plays with this guy online. He runs a Poker Mavens group that meets weekly online. It's a small poker league among friends. Hence he referred to this guy's raise as a "click" rather than as a "raise". It's not like he's sitting next to the guy as he showed him his TT before tossing them into the muck. Perhaps he'll lie now and say otherwise to save face, but I'm pretty sure this is an online game where the hands are just auto-mucked. And even if you can disable it, what do you think the odds are that old man coffee disabled auto muck so he could show off his TT fold from the big blind with 8bb vs a small blind shove?

 

[Mike mac]

My thought as well. You're both lying to each other lol

liars !

 

[Legend5555]

While I realize it sounds funny, I'm actually being serious. I'm pretty sure @Senzrock said somewhere that he plays with this guy online. He runs a Poker Mavens group that meets weekly online. It's a small poker league among friends. Hence he referred to this guy's raise as a "click" rather than as a "raise". It's not like he's sitting next to the guy as he showed him his TT before tossing them into the muck. Perhaps he'll lie now and say otherwise to save face, but I'm pretty sure this is an online game where the hands are just auto-mucked. And even if you can disable it, what do you think the odds are that old man coffee disabled auto muck so he could show off his TT fold from the big blind with 8bb vs a small blind shove?

I think you're being a bit overly harsh on this point of what the hand really was. It doesn't matter that much at this point. Just let it go.

He either lied since the line was ridiculous, and likely had a set. Or he's telling the truth and he's an idiot. But until @Senzrock ever sees the actual hand when something like this happens, it's pretty irrelevant.

 

[RainmanTrail]

I think you're being a bit overly harsh on this point of what the hand really was. It doesn't matter that much at this point. Just let it go.

He either lied since the line was ridiculous, and likely had a set. Or he's telling the truth and he's an idiot. But until @Senzrock ever sees the actual hand when something like this happens, it's pretty irrelevant.

I might have belabored the point (as it doesn't appear to be sinking in), but it's certainly not irrelevant to the discussion of the hand itself. Believing his friend is telling the truth afterward is in fact THE critical error of the hand, in my opinion. It is what's causing him to question his play, and what is causing him to believe he needs to be calling these spots in the future. It is precisely what makes this hand even remotely worthy of discussion. Without the KQ element, all we have is a rather unremarkable hand where hero has to fold top pair to a big raise after a scare card falls. All good players make this same fold multiple times per session. It's not a noteworthy hand. This river spot isn't even a tough spot, let alone a "nasty river spot". This is a super easy fold. And the only thing causing the hero to consider making a huge mistake next time by calling is the fact that he actually believed his friend when he told him that he had KQ.

If the hero is looking for help with how to improve his game (as opposed to just preaching to the rest of us about why we actually are the ones who need to change ours), then this should be the key takeaway. This is his biggest leak. This is poker 101, day 1, first lesson. You cannot take people at their word in poker. Not your neighbor. Not your brother. Not your father. Not even your spouse or your priest. And sure as shit not your poker buddies. This is just part of the game. You should only make changes to your player reads based on the cards you actually see, never on what they claim they had after the fact.

 

[Stufflymcstuff]

100NL online and $5/10 are two completely different games. I think this player is a break even or slightly winning player at $1/2. I have seen him make folds that you wouldn't believe (folded TT in the BB when the SB shoved into him and he had 8bbs left in a tournament to name one example that comes to my mind).

They’re different games but someone who does this with KQ would come off as tight in neither whchh is the point. And even though most 40$ home games are looser preflop when it comes to post flop, nittiness is the norm especially in terms of aggression.

You could say that your read was only about preflop but then what’s the point of including it in a hand where all important decisions are made postflop? To teach people the finer points of bad generic reads?


The point you’re making is “see even players we label as tight can make retarded moves so you should call down with weak hands”. That’s not bad advice if you incorrectly label spastic players as tight. That’s a horrible lesson if the person actually is tight by any reasonable definition. It plays right into the strategy of every low stakes nit who proudly shows his one bluff an hour, trying to make himself look loose and crazy to get called by casual players who overestimate the likelihoood of him bluffing the next several times. This is live poker 101. Every nit is desperately trying to be seen as a fish. Sometimes they even *gasp* lie about what they had to build that crazy image.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

This is live poker 101. Every nit is desperately trying to be seen as a fish. Sometimes they even *gasp* lie about what they had to build that crazy image.

You mean this isn't a brilliant, original strategy that I came up with?

DAMMIT.