Trying To Play Lag Gets Sticky

[sierradave 0]

Caesar's AC, $1/2 nlMy table has just broken and I'm seated at another shorthanded table. I know two of the other players and they're loose-passive/make the game very juicy...We're five-handed after I've been there a couple of orbits, there's very little preflop raising. I decide if there's only one limper preflop that I'm going to button-raise with any two cards to start getting a sense of how the table will react to my raises.Villain limps UTG, we both have stacks of ~$400. I raise to $12 with 84o. Both blinds fold, villain calls.Flop (2 players, $27): 852 rainbow.Cool, I was planning on c-betting anyway, and now I've hit top pair. Villain checks, I bet $20, villain calls.turn (2 players, $67): 4, completes rainbow.Villain checks, I bet $35. Villain raises $100 on top, seems very strong/confident.No way he has me on two pair here, but the only hands I can imagine myself being ahead of at this point are 54s and maybe pocket 9s. I have no read on his betting pattern, he has no read on mine. Help?!?

[BlubsRoyal 0]

he had A2 or 67 right

[BrandonPL 0]

Any idea on if hes capable of making a play here if he just puts you on a hand like AK? That would add a lot of information.

[sierradave 0]

Any idea on if hes capable of making a play here if he just puts you on a hand like AK? That would add a lot of information.

No idea. I recognize the guy vaguely, probably played him a year ago. He didn't make my list of tough opponents, significant LAGs or TAGs, or easy marks. This is my first button raise, so I doubt he has me on a steal attempt. No physical tells indicating this as a resteal. I don't think he's the type to make a play here at all.My plan going into the turn was to either check-behind and keep the pot small or bet $30 and fold to a check-raise, taking the free showdown if he called again. Turn card changed everything, so then I started thinking about building a big pot and surprising the hell out of him with my two pair. Problem is, if he genuinely thinks he's ahead, he probably has more than TPTK.

[da_suit 0]

he had A2 or 67 right

67 seems like a very likely hand. Alot of people(right or wrong) love to limp/call raises with 67 and with him flopping an OESD, it makes calling your flop bet a real possibility as well as c/r your turn bet. I think it all adds up to 67 suited.

[Lavitz 0]

Raising 84o p-flop makes me want to puke. No matter how good you think your postflop play is.LAGs don't raise 84o. Noone does.

[KoRnholio 2]

Raising 84o p-flop makes me want to sit down beside you and catch some of the money you are spewing

FYP.

[nomad_monad 0]

this is one of your first attempts to raise from the button with trash at this table, right? if so then fold - this is far less likely to be a move against you just because the other player thinks you have air.you need to realize that when that 4 hits the turn, unless you've already established a reckless image, the only action you're getting is from a hand that wipes the floor with your two pair. don't bet, check behind. call a reasonable lead on most rivers since now you'll be more likely to have induced a bluff.

[antistuff 0]

Raising 84o p-flop makes me want to puke. No matter how good you think your postflop play is.LAGs don't raise 84o. Noone does.

booorrrrinnnngggg

[Lavitz 0]

booorrrrinnnngggg

Lol is this for real? I'm willing to bet that not one single WINNING reg LAG at 2/4NL or above raises 84o from ANY position. It's so spew it is ridiculous. I never imagined anyone would defend raising 84o....

[antistuff 0]

Lol is this for real? I'm willing to bet that not one single WINNING reg LAG at 2/4NL or above raises 84o from ANY position. It's so spew it is ridiculous. I never imagined anyone would defend raising 84o....

mostly hyperbolic

[Scott3705 0]

I don't think this is ever a bluff, and based on a limp preflop, cold call on the flop and C/R on the turn, he's either hit a set, 2 pair or a straight. Only hand I see you ahead of that plays it this way is 45, so I'd really say that I'd have to lay this down.

[sierradave 0]

Lol is this for real? I'm willing to bet that not one single WINNING reg LAG at 2/4NL or above raises 84o from ANY position. It's so spew it is ridiculous. I never imagined anyone would defend raising 84o....

Really? At relatively tight 1-2 nl tables, I find that most of my money is coming from preflop raises followed by continuation bets. Raise to $12 when it isn't a mega-limpfest up front, get a caller or two, fire at an uncoordinated board, take down a nice smallish pot. More importantly, this sets me up to get action when I have a real hand. Pot-sized bets aren't the norm at these tables b/c most players are a little too timid, plus the action is often 8-way preflop, meaning no one wants to get too involved with a non-monster. I find that if I haven't raised and continued very often at a table yet, I'm unlikely to make much money on my legitimately big hands unless someone else has a very big second-best hand.The preflop and flop bets were pretty much programmed. My table image was a null set for all but two players, and both of them are there because they "like to gamble." The preflop raise and c-bet on an 852 board will work 70-80% of the time. If no one else is going to be the aggressive player at that table, there's plenty of money in playing that role. It isn't even generally about "outplaying someone after the flop." It's just a standard play based on the flop missing people 2/3 of the time.When he called my flop bet, the plan was to go into pot control mode. Spiking the 4 changed things because now I beat so much of his check-calling range. I don't beat much of his check-raising range, but happen to have a much stronger-than-expected hand, so I felt I had a challenging decision to make (and thus one worth posting and getting feedback on).Maybe at 2/4nl and above there are enough aggressive/savvy players that this is totally spew. I certainly wouldn't try this once I'd established a loose table image or against players who seem likely to float or set up plays. But this is $1/2 nl in Atlantic City on the weekend. I've been thinking that I don't make this raise-continue play often enough in these settings, because the success rate is so off-the-charts high until people have gotten tired of the raises and decided they want to look me up.With that said, Lag is new to me, so I'd be interested to hear if all the profitable lags think I'm fooling myself about the value of this sort of play in this sort of setting. I thought the early stages of the hand weren't worth discussing, but this just got more interesting.

[Zach6668 513]

Really? At relatively tight 1-2 nl tables, I find that most of my money is coming from preflop raises followed by continuation bets. Raise to $12 when it isn't a mega-limpfest up front, get a caller or two, fire at an uncoordinated board, take down a nice smallish pot. More importantly, this sets me up to get action when I have a real hand. Pot-sized bets aren't the norm at these tables b/c most players are a little too timid, plus the action is often 8-way preflop, meaning no one wants to get too involved with a non-monster. I find that if I haven't raised and continued very often at a table yet, I'm unlikely to make much money on my legitimately big hands unless someone else has a very big second-best hand.

This makes no sense.If you're going to get action when you have a hand, you're going to get action when you don't.Or, if you're going to get folds every time, you're going to get folds when you have a premium hand as well.

[sierradave 0]

This makes no sense.If you're going to get action when you have a hand, you're going to get action when you don't.Or, if you're going to get folds every time, you're going to get folds when you have a premium hand as well.

The action I'm usually going to get is a preflop call, then a fold on the flop 3/4 of the time (the 2/3 they miss the flop completely, plus a few times when they hit a small pair but don't want to get involved). If there are a ton of limpers, that gets dangerous b/c once a couple have called a raise to $15, everyone else does as well, so I only make the play if there are 1-2 limpers in front of me. At these tables, I'm going to get a little action, whether I have a hand or not. But if I've been raising a lot and they've gotten less worried about the likelihood of a monster, they start to adjust their postflop calling range, and that increases the range of situations where I can pick up big money with my real holdings.

[Zach6668 513]

Ok, but the two can't be inclusive.You can mix up your game, if you know the exact time that their minds change to the point where they start making more moves or paying off with worse hands, but you can't just have a game where you always get folds to your c-bets with air, while expecting action on your bigger hands.

[Jennings7 0]

This screams of 67 suited.

[Lavitz 0]

Really? At relatively tight 1-2 nl tables, I find that most of my money is coming from preflop raises followed by continuation bets. Raise to $12 when it isn't a mega-limpfest up front, get a caller or two, fire at an uncoordinated board, take down a nice smallish pot. More importantly, this sets me up to get action when I have a real hand. Pot-sized bets aren't the norm at these tables b/c most players are a little too timid, plus the action is often 8-way preflop, meaning no one wants to get too involved with a non-monster. I find that if I haven't raised and continued very often at a table yet, I'm unlikely to make much money on my legitimately big hands unless someone else has a very big second-best hand.The preflop and flop bets were pretty much programmed. My table image was a null set for all but two players, and both of them are there because they "like to gamble." The preflop raise and c-bet on an 852 board will work 70-80% of the time. If no one else is going to be the aggressive player at that table, there's plenty of money in playing that role. It isn't even generally about "outplaying someone after the flop." It's just a standard play based on the flop missing people 2/3 of the time.When he called my flop bet, the plan was to go into pot control mode. Spiking the 4 changed things because now I beat so much of his check-calling range. I don't beat much of his check-raising range, but happen to have a much stronger-than-expected hand, so I felt I had a challenging decision to make (and thus one worth posting and getting feedback on).Maybe at 2/4nl and above there are enough aggressive/savvy players that this is totally spew. I certainly wouldn't try this once I'd established a loose table image or against players who seem likely to float or set up plays. But this is $1/2 nl in Atlantic City on the weekend. I've been thinking that I don't make this raise-continue play often enough in these settings, because the success rate is so off-the-charts high until people have gotten tired of the raises and decided they want to look me up.With that said, Lag is new to me, so I'd be interested to hear if all the profitable lags think I'm fooling myself about the value of this sort of play in this sort of setting. I thought the early stages of the hand weren't worth discussing, but this just got more interesting.

The key with playing LAG is still raising profitable hands that have the potential to win big pots. Hands like 107s and 78o aren't great but due to their flush/straight possibilities, they have the potential to take down a big pot if they hit. 84o has no real potential other then flopping trips or 2 pair and even when you do have two pair (like in this hand) you aren't sure if you're even good. At the casino I play at the play mixes between loose/passive and loose/aggressive usually. Online is much more difficult. While you might be able to get away with steamrolling the table a bit where you play, you should still never be playing, let alone raising 84o. Even if you make it somehow profitable in the short run, it's almost never going to be a winner long term and once you increase in stakes, people are going to start 3 betting the hell out of you, especially once you show down a hand like that.

[sierradave 0]

The key with playing LAG is still raising profitable hands that have the potential to win big pots. Hands like 107s and 78o aren't great but due to their flush/straight possibilities, they have the potential to take down a big pot if they hit. 84o has no real potential other then flopping trips or 2 pair and even when you do have two pair (like in this hand) you aren't sure if you're even good. At the casino I play at the play mixes between loose/passive and loose/aggressive usually. Online is much more difficult. While you might be able to get away with steamrolling the table a bit where you play, you should still never be playing, let alone raising 84o. Even if you make it somehow profitable in the short run, it's almost never going to be a winner long term and once you increase in stakes, people are going to start 3 betting the hell out of you, especially once you show down a hand like that.

Agreed, no question. I'd like to point out though that, as I mentioned in the OP, the decision process wasn't "hmm, I'm so talented I think I can make money with hands like 84o against my weak opponents." The decision process was "no one seems to be raising here, we're shorthanded, and a couple of these people love seeing flops but are otherwise timid and don't make a lot of moves. If it isn't already a limpfest, I'm going to make a button-raise, probably get one or two callers, and then c-bet any uncoordinated board that gets checked to me." I still think that is very +EV. I'm likely to take down a small pot of $15 or so most of the time, and from a meta-game perspective, I start getting them thinking that I raise loose enough that their one pair or ace-high is good. If I had trickier/more aggressive opponents, it would be -EV. If they'd already seen me show down weak hands on the button, it would be -EV. In both those cases, though, the way to beat my opponents is by inducing bluffs, setting traps, or making them misread my hand. There isn't a lot of value in inducing bluffs or setting traps if an opponent doesn't bluff and/or doesn't raise without an absolute monster.In case anyone is curious, in the actual hand I thought hard and decided A) he probably wasn't making a move here, he probably legitimately thought he had the best hand, B)that included an overpair, 54, any set, and either possible straight, C) there was no way he had me on two pair here, but that doesn't affect his range because he thinks he's ahead of my potential overpair, and D)stupid deep stacks! Stupid two pair! I concluded that folding was better than raising or calling, and raising and calling were virtually equivalent since I shouldn't be calling the $100 if I wouldn't call the next $200. I also decided I likely had no fold equity here. I should decide if I'm ahead or behind, fold if behind, raise if ahead.So, of course, I called. I think the acronym is ISANL, no?River was a 6, villain checked, I checked behind, he showed down his set of 5s, and I started to wonder what all the internet guys would tell me. I'm bound to get better eventually, right? Right?...

[tskillz187 0]

I mean obviously it's spew, but it definitely makes your game sharper being in dicey situations a lot, and if you are playing against players you are better than that also like to pay off big overbets with one pair, have fun.If I played 84o (which I don't make a habit of) I have a really tough time folding it when I make my two pair. Granted his play looks a lot like set and 67 but a problem I have (as do many non-pro Lags) is that we convince ourselves we have to call because no one ever thinks we have anything.

[Lavitz 0]

Agreed, no question. I'd like to point out though that, as I mentioned in the OP, the decision process wasn't "hmm, I'm so talented I think I can make money with hands like 84o against my weak opponents." The decision process was "no one seems to be raising here, we're shorthanded, and a couple of these people love seeing flops but are otherwise timid and don't make a lot of moves. If it isn't already a limpfest, I'm going to make a button-raise, probably get one or two callers, and then c-bet any uncoordinated board that gets checked to me." I still think that is very +EV. I'm likely to take down a small pot of $15 or so most of the time, and from a meta-game perspective, I start getting them thinking that I raise loose enough that their one pair or ace-high is good. If I had trickier/more aggressive opponents, it would be -EV. If they'd already seen me show down weak hands on the button, it would be -EV. In both those cases, though, the way to beat my opponents is by inducing bluffs, setting traps, or making them misread my hand. There isn't a lot of value in inducing bluffs or setting traps if an opponent doesn't bluff and/or doesn't raise without an absolute monster.In case anyone is curious, in the actual hand I thought hard and decided A) he probably wasn't making a move here, he probably legitimately thought he had the best hand, B)that included an overpair, 54, any set, and either possible straight, C) there was no way he had me on two pair here, but that doesn't affect his range because he thinks he's ahead of my potential overpair, and D)stupid deep stacks! Stupid two pair! I concluded that folding was better than raising or calling, and raising and calling were virtually equivalent since I shouldn't be calling the $100 if I wouldn't call the next $200. I also decided I likely had no fold equity here. I should decide if I'm ahead or behind, fold if behind, raise if ahead.So, of course, I called. I think the acronym is ISANL, no?River was a 6, villain checked, I checked behind, he showed down his set of 5s, and I started to wonder what all the internet guys would tell me. I'm bound to get better eventually, right? Right?...

I understand your decision and raising because a lot of weak/tight players limp is usually +EV but I always like a hand that has decent potential to take down a big pot. Usually hands like 84o and other unsuited, uncoordinated hands, just get you into trouble when you flop a piece and the weak/tight players wake up with a hand, just like what happened here.