Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Calling Down a Player Showing Stone Cold Bluffs

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Calling Down a Player Showing Stone Cold Bluffs

    At my 2/5 table today, there was a player two to my right opening (or calling medium to large raises, and bluffing postflop if others show lack of interest in their hand) with absolute trash, then showing his bluffs when they fold. In one hand, he opened from the LJ for $25 (roughly $650 in stack) and I called from the CO with A5o, having him way covered. I would not normally cold-call 5x openings with this holding, when I suspect their range is mostly bigger aces that dominate me, but did this time because his range was largely trash. A solid player on the button called, and the blinds both folded. Pot $82 going to the flop.

    Flop 953, two hearts, giving me a reasonable bluff catcher with middle pair. He c-bet for $55. I called. Button folded. Pot $192. Plan for rest of the hand was simple. Just call him down no matter what the turn and river are, except jam the river if I hit trip 5’s and he is not yet all in.

    Turn offsuit 9. Good card since it makes it less likely he has the 9. He bet $90. I called. Pot $372.

    River offsuit A. Improves the absolute strength of my two pair, but causes me to lose to 42o (which I would not rule out of his range) and bigger aces, since it counterfeits my 5. He triple barreled for $180. I called. He showed 9s2s. So he did open with absolute trash, but smashed the flop and turn.

  • #2
    A couple of things. This is a recurring theme in your posts. You are playing against a villain who is way left or way right of center, yet you end up in a lot of marginal spots that end up being bad for you. Let's take a look at this hand for example.

    You said "I would not normally cold-call 5x openings with this holding, when I suspect their range is mostly bigger aces that dominate me, but did this time because his range was largely trash'. That tells me that a 5x opening is more than normal for this table. That would mean that his preflop range is probably polarized between junk and very good hands. So what does calling do? If the TAG on the button raises, you have to throw away your hand. If you just call, which you did, you never know where you are in the hand because the villain's range is so wide. Of the three choices, call, raise or fold, I think calling is the worse. If I was going to play sheriff in this hand, which I wouldn't, I would have raised preflop.

    You were absolutely right he did raise with junk, but he still took you for $350. This could have been avoided by folding preflop or as a second option, 3 betting him preflop. Always remember, no matter how bad they are they can wake up with hands or make hands from time to time.

    I always found if I wait for the right opportunity against this type of player, I will get all his money. Do you know what happens when you play a hand like that against a villain like this? He drags you down to his level and beats you to death with experience.

    Thanks!
    Last edited by NJpokermike36; 05-09-2021, 11:45 AM.

    Comment


    • NJpokermike36
      NJpokermike36 commented
      Editing a comment
      I post my hands and respond to people's posted hands because I want to get better and I want them to get better. It sounds like I have offended you because the comment you made about that you could have won $350 if the 9 didn't come is incredulous. I did not intend to offend you. I am only trying to give you an honest assessment of how you played the hand based on your description of it.

      It was a bad play and it was the wrong play pre-flop period. You let your emotions get the best of you and that is why you got involved with this hand in the first place.

      Since his range is so wide, continuing on the flop makes sense. Once the second 9 comes, it is less likely he has one, so it could be a call. Obviously, when the river comes and you make two pair against this type of opponent, you are never folding because he bluffs that card 100% of the time I suspect.

      But here is the whole problem. You never give the villain credit for a hand, which he could have from time to time. He could have has a pocket pair and had you the whole way until the river.

      It's very hard to look at one aspect of the hand and say did I play the hand well from the flop on, when the glaring mistake was pre-flop. It is much easier to say you played fine until the turn or river. Pre-flop sets the tone for the whole hand, IMO.
      Last edited by NJpokermike36; 05-09-2021, 12:25 PM.

    • NJpokermike36
      NJpokermike36 commented
      Editing a comment
      BTW, I am never calling a flop bet with the button behind me. He could very easily have a 9.

    • mriebel
      mriebel commented
      Editing a comment
      Yeah, he could, but a lot of times he doesn’t.

  • #3
    To Mike's point, you do seem to post a lot of hands where you put a ton of faith in a read on someone to make a very out of line adjustment, and you seem to be having issues with it.

    Calling A5o CO v a LJ 5BB open, means you think LJ, B SB, and BB are all legitimately terrible, probably something like -10BB/100 or more losers. It's a hugeeeeeeee exploitative line. Think about it, if LJ is that bad, and you call, B, SB, and BB are now superrrrrrr incentivized to squeeze you. There's probably close to zero tables where this can be a profitable call.

    Comment


    • Dilly
      Dilly commented
      Editing a comment
      I'm reasonably confident LJ could raise 100% of hands and this would still be a clear fold. Closer to a 3-bet but no way this is a call

    • mriebel
      mriebel commented
      Editing a comment
      By Mike, do you mean NJpokermike36?

    • Dilly
      Dilly commented
      Editing a comment
      mriebel yes

  • #4
    With exploitation think of GTO as a center point on a line.

    -5, -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

    All exploitative adjustments are made from 0. Minimally exploitative adjustments are made from 0 to either -1 or 1 depending on what direction you have to go. Maximally exploitative adjustments might go to -2 or 2.

    The problem with maximal exploitation is that you can easily cross the line into the over exploitation category. If you do that you are going to be losing chips.

    In this hand calling with A5o is an adjustment all the way to 5. It crosses the line of over exploitation and therefore is costing you. In cash games with deeper stacks you should be 3 betting this player with blocker hands - ATo, A9o, KJo, QJo, and some suited hands with blockers - A8s, K8s, K7s, Q8s, Q7s.

    If you want to have more calls, when deep stacked, pick suited hands. Almost never pick unsuited hands as an exploitative call when deep.

    Also, you never mention, but how large of a sample size do you have on these players when making exploitation adjustments. with smaller sample sizes, you shoudl really stick to the minimal exploitative adjustments.
    Last edited by jjpregler; 05-09-2021, 05:24 PM.

    Comment


    • mriebel
      mriebel commented
      Editing a comment
      Can exploitation be multi-dimensional, like tight to loose or passive to aggressive, where (0, 0) = GTO, (3, 3) = loose aggressive, (-3, -3) = tight passive, (-3, 3) = tight aggressive.

    • mriebel
      mriebel commented
      Editing a comment
      See my post below for how I exploit players who open marginal and trash hands from too early in position.

    • jjpregler
      jjpregler commented
      Editing a comment
      Yes, I used a line for ease of explanation. In reality it is more like a cartesian graph with 0, 0 being the GTO center. Picture the x axis is the loose tight axis and the y axis is the passive aggressive axis. So if he is x = 4, y = 3, with a small sample you won't be too wrong to continue playing 0, 0, but when the sample gets larger maybe you can shift to the -1, -1 area to exploit.

  • #5
    Here’s how I would exploit a maniac who opens absolute trash and usually calls if 3-bet. I would flat call with QQ+ and AKs to protect my flatting range of someone who is capable to squeezing behind.
    Click image for larger version  Name:	AF62C176-AD13-4759-9C3F-71FFAF57925B.jpeg Views:	0 Size:	120.0 KB ID:	49077

    Here is how I would exploit someone opening extremely wide but folding marginal and trash hands if 3-bet.

    Click image for larger version  Name:	6A340B1E-01E7-4D67-8975-9C4675EA0581.jpeg Views:	0 Size:	123.7 KB ID:	49076
    Last edited by mriebel; 05-09-2021, 05:48 PM.

    Comment


    • jjpregler
      jjpregler commented
      Editing a comment
      The "lesser value" is another term for linear bluffs.

    • mriebel
      mriebel commented
      Editing a comment
      I could change some of the “lesser value” to “value” to keep the same strategy but get a more desirable ratio.

    • Dilly
      Dilly commented
      Editing a comment
      mriebel respectfully, these ranges are wild lol. When we 3-bet linearly, we're expecting to get called often, specifically expecting to get called by hands that are behind the hands we're 3-betting.....what hand worse than A3o is calling a 3-bet? JTo? It doens't make a whole lot of sense to me. I'm also reasonably confident that we're losing more value by not 3-betting our premium hands than we're gaining by getting to play more hands here, especially when a ton of the additional hands we're playing are not strong hands

      The exploitative polarized range -- are we now no longer afraid of getting squeezed? Because that calling range is going to get eaten alive by an aggressive/competent button.

      This whole line of thinking feels like fancy play syndrome. You're trying to make veryyyyyyyyy exploitative plays based on reads from live play which means they're probably not from a large sample size, you're leaving yourself wideeeeee open to counter exploitation, and you would be printingggggg money off these people by just playing well and making more reasonable adjustments. From the CO, we 3-bet linearly, if PFR is a fish with a very junky range, just widen the linear 3-bet range, there's literally almost zero situations where flatting A5o here makes sense

  • #6
    Flop: I call A4o only with the ace of hearts.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	CEE5AD4E-278A-4F27-8FA5-822FF980CC8B.jpeg
Views:	27
Size:	124.6 KB
ID:	49089

    Turn:
    Click image for larger version

Name:	E790FCA0-0785-463E-BDFA-A184224001DD.jpeg
Views:	24
Size:	124.3 KB
ID:	49090

    River: I bluff with 22 since I block the wheel, and 87hh, T8hh, and JThh since I block connected hands containing the 9.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	C03422AD-2672-4DA6-8D7F-4AD8DEA0F8E0.jpeg
Views:	24
Size:	121.9 KB
ID:	49091

    Comment

    Working...
    X