Giving Away Chips for Information

[Dice Man]

Here's a hand I played earlier on Pokerstars. Most of the details aren't important as not much happened. I was on BB (we had pretty big stacks) and the LB had folded, and there were two limpers, and I had AQ. Normally I would raise but I got the impression both limpers would call a middle-sized raise anyway, and I didn't fancy having to follow the bet up under the gun after missing.

So the pot is only like 3.5 BBs, and the flop comes king high. We all check it down to the river, where I still have nothing. Here's the play in question: I wasn't going to raise here with just ace high so the obvious play was to check. But if I did that then what would happen would be either one of the other players raises and I fold, or they both check it, and as I'm under the gun, I have to show my hand first, and even then there's not a massive chance I've won it. Usually people check a small pair they hit on the river or any other bottom pair so ace high doesn't have the best chances there.

So I chose option 3, I folded under the gun to no bet and the other two checked it down. It turns out I would have won the hand, but I think the important thing is that they didn't observe that I'd just checked the big blind pre-flop with AQ. Previous to this hand I'd played my usual tight-aggressive play and was chipleader for it. If they saw that I'd been raising a lot but hadn't raised with AQ then I suppose the obvious conclusion would be that I raise with rubbish and limp with good hands, and I'd much prefer them to fear my raises than my limps in future.

Because I folded they must've assumed I was on the big blind and got dealt the usual 32o or whatever the ante-nuts was by the river. To be honest I can't really speculate what they would have inferred from seeing the AQ. It would probably just encourage them to play even more randomly and mindlessly than normal.

Anyway that's my poker lesson of the day. I ended up winning without having to change my game, so I think sacrificing 3.5BBs, or a chance of winning 3.5BBs was +EV.

[Thor2007]

Isn't it then a good idea for them to not respect your raises and get action with your big hands?

I use this ploy a lot by raising with nothing and then showing them after they fold that I had 4 high. If you do this a few times then you are likely to get action when you have a massive hand and therefor get paid off with it.

If they think you're only raising with the nuts then you are unlikely to get paid e.g David Grey on HSP.

Sklansky has a chapter in his book about table image and table deception. A good read..

And, in relation to the title of the thread, I will pay to showdown to see cards on certain players whom I can't read very well. However, you will normally get a good idea on the players by others taking them to showdown and by the player in question showing his own cards.

[Dice Man]

Isn't it then a good idea for them to not respect your raises and get action with your big hands?

I want respect with every raise I make. I want the image of someone who may be good or may not be good, but is definitely getting very lucky with pre-flop hands. If I only raised when I had premium hands then the data suggests I must be about three times luckier than the average player. I therefore need them to think I am only raising with premium hands, and showing them the AQ in this example would make them doubt that.

If they didn't respect my raises then most of the time I'd get too many callers and wouldn't hit or would be outdrawn anyway.

With your style of play you're relying on getting a premium hand when your opponents have sussed you for a serial rag-raiser and the blinds are bigger. If you don't get that premium hand then there's not much you can do but get blinded out, or continue to raise with rags and get called down. I've played that way before and after you don't get your hands, and raise again with nothing against several callers I would think, "but I should statistically be getting aces about now, and these fish don't believe me." In the righteous universe those fish would be busted, but you don't get aces in every universe.

In most of the games I play if I cash it's usually me and the ones who got lucky along the way who have made the money. I want them to think "well we got lucky at the start, and now he's getting lucky now...that seems normal." I'd prefer to get lucky at the end than at the start because that's where all the money is.

[Thor2007]

With your style of play you're relying on getting a premium hand when your opponents have sussed you for a serial rag-raiser and the blinds are bigger. If you don't get that premium hand then there's not much you can do but get blinded out, or continue to raise with rags and get called down. I've played that way before and after you don't get your hands, and raise again with nothing against several callers I would think, "but I should statistically be getting aces about now, and these fish don't believe me." In the righteous universe those fish would be busted, but you don't get aces in every universe.

First, I play short handed cash tables, 5 players. It's unlikely I am going to get called by four players although it can happen. If I am perceived as a serial raiser with nothing then these callers are likely calling, not reraising, on the basis that they are going to trap me with their superior hands. Any top player would reraise me preflop and take the pot from me there, but it doesn't happen in my experience on poker.co.uk.

So, I've raised 3xbb with 8 6o and I'm called by AK and JJ. Flop comes down A 8 8. These are the money hands, they know I might be raising with junk but are they are a level to throw away top pair top kicker at this stage, I don't think so. The point I am making is that although I caught a lucky flop, these are the money hands and the ones that you need to be involved in to win. How many times has trust_me posted hand histories of him catching an open ended straight draw on the flop with 4 6o to crush my pocket queens.

A sick one I took last night also involved queens. I had been fairly tight but I had to be with these maniacs on my table. QQ, flop comes 228 rainbow. I check to the maniacs and there's a few minor bets and I decide to call. The turn is a 10 of spades. This puts two spades on the board and the maniac in question bets $60 into a $45 dollar pot. I reraise all in for $160. He thought about it for a while and called me. The river was an ace and it was goodnight to me. He had caught one of three outs and it was game over. He then tried to justify it by saying that I was on the steal, 'with a 14% chance of bluffing' LMFAO!

Funny stuff.

[PokerWoody]

What’s so bad about showing that you might not raise AQ from the BB? Isn’t this a good thing?

[Dice Man]

Christopher,

Okay I suppose your method would work on cash tables. I don't play them very often, but as you say, from the posts on this forum it does seem to be true that the money is made in one huge pot where a player is confident enough to bet a huge stack on you being a fish/thief like the last 5 times you raised. Probably a method like mine would only make minimal profit on a cash table.

Woody,

Why would you say it's a good thing to show that you limped with AQ? If I had been forced to show it then I would have changed my game to suit it, but usually the further I stray from my usual game the less well I play. Are you suggesting that they would then respect my raises because they must think I'm stronger than AQ? I don't think they would believe that because I'd still be raising too often to have AA, KK, QQ, AK, JJ every time, and the logical conclusion would be I raise with crap and limp with the nuts. Do you think that is a better image than raising with the nuts and limping with crap?

[PokerWoody]

Why would you say it's a good thing to show that you limped with AQ?

Becuase I can bet more flops, maybe get more showdowns and keep people guessing about my hands, it helps to balance my play. What conclusions would you draw about my play if you saw me show this hand down that you thought you could expliot?

If I had been forced to show it then I would have changed my game to suit it

Why? What change's are you making that are causing you to lose chips? Especially folding a pot where you likey have the best hand! Whatever change you are making, stop doing it, it's a leak!

There is no such thing as a standard way to play, you should always be 'switching gears' (to use a trash term from the telly). In reality this just means adjusting your game to the people sitting around you and how thay are playing...and it should be your 'standard game'. People who don't vary there game are called fish.

Are you suggesting that they would then respect my raises because they must think I'm stronger than AQ?

I'm saying 'respect' is relative. The more you raise the less of it you have, the less you raise the more of it you will have. Checking is different from raising and folding the best hand on the river doesn't have much to do with increasing our fold equity preflop on later rounds.

Do you think that is a better image than raising with the nuts and limping with crap?

limping sucks, we are not limping here.

[Dice Man]

Becuase I can bet more flops, maybe get more showdowns and keep people guessing about my hands, it helps to balance my play. What conclusions would you draw about my play if you saw me show this hand down that you thought you could expliot? Why? What change's are you making that are causing you to lose chips?

If I saw someone show this hand I would make one of two conclusions which would be confirmed by the rest of their play. Either they are a total beginner or fish who has no idea what the value of hands are, or they are somebody better trying to play "tricky", maybe experimenting with different styles of play. I expect this person sometimes to reraise me (and others) with nothing, and make feeler bets, and to check the nuts.

Against this player I would make big raises which he doesn't want to call, and start playing weaker hands to bust what he perceives my range to be, as well as a few other tricks.

If I'm the one showing this hand then I'm likely to be labelled as the tricky one. Pplayers are then going to be raising me more often, and probably start playing like me, which is not what I want at all.

I'm saying 'respect' is relative. The more you raise the less of it you have, the less you raise the more of it you will have. Checking is different from raising and folding the best hand on the river doesn't have much to do with increasing our fold equity preflop on later rounds.

I think that would normally be the case, but seeing AQ checked down is the kind of thing that biases people. They're likely to base their image of me on that one hand than on the hundred previous hands.

{QUOTE]limping sucks, we are not limping here.[/QUOTE]

I think there are a lot of cases where limping is the most rational play. There's no level of poker skill in which people don't limp. I'd much prefer to limp than min-raise, which is really the sucky move.