YTD: +$38518.61
I liked my play in this one....any comments? Beside the one that the completion preflop was a little loose :-) BTW the foe was v v loose aggressive.
PokerStars 30/60 Hold'em (10 handed)
Preflop: Hero is SB with 7d, 2d.
4 folds, MP2 calls, 3 folds, Hero completes, BB checks.
Flop: (3 SB) As, 2c, Ac (3 players)
Hero checks, BB checks, MP2 bets, Hero calls, BB folds.
Turn: (2.50 BB) 4s (2 players)
Hero checks, MP2 bets, Hero raises, MP2 3-bets, Hero calls.
River: (8.50 BB) Kh (2 players)
Hero checks, MP2 bets, Hero calls.
Final Pot: 10.50 BB
Hero has 7d 2d (two pair, aces and twos).
MP2 has Td 8c (one pair, aces).
Outcome: Hero wins 10.50 BB.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Hi Dave,
I think you played it perfectly. I suppose there were possibly three different moves that could be made, which may warrant being played less often.
On the flop: You could raise. If the BB was loose enough to flat call to one bet with a K, Q or runner flush (or just to hit a pair). Of course if the BB is ultra loose then you want to flat call and lose him on the turn. But if the BB is solid then the flat call is absolutely right.
The next two concern the turn.
There is an option here to take control of the pot, now the BB has gone and a relatively harmless card hits the turn (although with a loose limper and you with a small pair, what's harmless?), you could now decide to change direction and bet.
The key behind the above variations on a theme is the self-perception of your opponent: is he going to think that you can't put him on an Ace pre-flop? i.e. will he slow down? Doesn't sound like it. If you think he probably will then I like flop-call and turn-bet.
If I was pretty confident he'd raise with an Ace preflop and he would very possibly represent it til the bitter end, I may well have capped the turn. Then check-called the river. In fact I like this play a lot. For one he may have folded the turn to 4 bets (incorrectly given you hand). Secondly, it is possibly a very thin value raise (in general against a maniac). Thirdly it has great implied value.
One thing that is not clear is how he perceives you, does he figure you for making a move? If so then a cap is definitely a good idea.
Ok so what about the maniac. Can I defend him (I feel I should). No, not really. I can probalby state quite cateogorically that I've been hero and foe in this hand.
In isolation you cannot state that the maniac was categorically wrong, without a hint of context. In general this is the sort of hand that
To begin with the maniac-play is a lot more acceptable if the BB is calling on the flop, not the SB. Naturally the position testifies to greater strength and less to opportunism. This should slow him down.
Incidentally, calling from you position with, say 78, is just the sort of creative play I was referring to before (in the last thread) against the right type of foe and of course a hero with the right type of image.
However, given the context you've implied it is still bad even with the BB making your moves. It is overkill and I've done it. Judging from your perception of this guy, the implied value is so small, the market has already been saturated with his advertising. If this isn't a signal for the maniac to change gears and claw back his investment through solid play then I don't know what is. The maniacs play has far higher utility at T-30 hands or T-60 hands etc. That is what makes the play so wrong. The problem is that sometimes you let important criteria drop when playing this way. Maybe you are losing and so you want to play aggressive and so emotions take control of your brain and allow only the rational thoughts it wants to hear. In this case it's 'implied value' (at least for me). Unfortunately there is none here for Mr Maniac.
As I said I won money with this image at PS, but not much at PS. I played sub-optimally: I didn't change gears quickly enough or as often as I should. One of the reasons I came out on top was because my play changed more quickly than my image did. It is a very dangerous game to play, because quite simply, it's an addictive style of play and one that your emotions reinforce at certain times. Of course this is precisely the time that the plays are at their lowest utility because your opponents expect it.
An example or two of the implied beneifts of maniacal plays was something else I wrote about in the post that never was, perhaps another time.
chaos
btw how would you have played K-4, or Q-10 ?
In isolation you cannot state that the maniac was categorically wrong, without a hint of context. In general this is the sort of hand that...... (can't remember what was supposed to go there!)
I think the problem with this intelligent madness approach, its main weakness in fact, is that you have to put in excessive action *to get your hand shown at the showdown* The other day a guy 4 bet preflop with 86o and called to the river when he hit an 8 on the turn. Because the AA bet out he never got to show. This is a nearly infinitely expensive bluff.
cheers
Dave
On the play of the hand, Aksu the situation was unique in how unlikely it was for him to have a hand. It would have been much harder to call him down with a more raggedy flop with just bottom pair.
Chaos, I may have called him down with K high. I did it latter on in fact. Although the problem in that case is noticing the opportunity when playing more than one game. Q high is probably a horse of a different colour, although it shouldnt be really.
cheers
Dave
Post a Comment