EV against more aggressive opponent OOP.

Theoretical hand.

BB: very aggressive
- >100 BB stack ~$200
- no crazy showdowns
- does nearly all betting on flop
- (plays much more conservatively on turn, river when the hand progresses that far)
- c-bets nearly all flops checked to him, raises many flop bets when he has position
- takes nearly all of his PF holdings for a raise PF, rarely limp/ limp-calls

You(SB): Qs 9s
- >100 BB stack ~$200

all players fold to you.

you call. BB raises to $8 (4x BB)
(limping with medium strength hands = bad against very aggro BB)

you call.

Flop: Qh Kh 4s

you bet 3/4 pot ($12). BB reraises to $40.

(raise, fold, call)?

this is a tough spot for me, and why i play such a tight range of hands PF; i am not confident in my abilitiy at playing a marginal hand OOP for a big pot, even when i know my opponent could easily be bluffing.

Initially, i would say that raising to $130 would be best since it takes away his correct odds for drawing to both a straight and a flush. It also strongly suggests i am planning to go all-in with my hand, and takes away his option of pushing me out of the pot without a hand.


The problem i see with such a strong raise is that i put a LOT of money in the pot when i only make ~+50 when villain is bluffing/ drawing, compared to losing ~-$140 (and likely my whole stack when he shoves these hands and i am being offered ~6 to 1 odds with no implied threat of future bets) when villain holds A-K (Correct), A-A(Correct) K-Q(close INC), K-K(INC), Q-Q(INC), Jh-10h(Correct), 4-4(close INC), Kx-Jh(CorrectINC).

Folding seems okay, as long as i don't let him run me out of the pot even when i hold top pair on a dry board (for example).

A smart aggressive villain would slow down after i called a well priced flop bet if he were bluffing (no odds to chase any draws but combo draws, which i usually like to raise with anyways). The upside to calling opposed to raising is of that i probably have to only bet ~$40 to force the bluffs and draws and still have the option of folding to a raise ($80 with fold option or $130 no fold).

The downside to calling is that we don't get anything from villain if he folds his outpriced draws and bluffs, and we lose $40 when he raises (assuming that a turn raise from villain isn't likely a bluff due to our notes).

Questions:

1). is it wrong to assume a smart aggressive villain is going to shut down post flop after being called OOP ? Would he peg my turn bet of 1/2 pot as a sign of weakness, after bet/ call on the flop?

2). is playing a tight range of hands against an aggressive BB the best strategy in terms of EV as well as simplicity? Can i play hands like Qs 9s OOP against aggro villains and expect to make money?

3). How often is villain bluffing? More than 65%?

4). If raising to $130 on the flop is -EV(probably close to 0), is calling +EV(also probably close to 0)? Or is 0 EV (folding - lose $2 PF, $20 flop) the best way to play this hand?

Sorry I don't have time to respond to everything right now, but I just wanted to say that you can avoid all of these questions by leaving the table. I strongly believe that table and seat selection are big keys to beating 100NL and above and it's not just about finding fish (although it mostly is).

edit: In the hand in question, I fold. Wait for a hand better than middle pair with almost no outs to improve to tell him that his aggression will not stand. Man.

Raise PF if you're going to play it.

Originally Posted by DaNutsInYoEye

Raise PF if you're going to play it.

Agree. If villain is aggressive, he'll almost always raise a SB that just completes in a blind battle.

I am not real enthused about playinga big pot on a draw heavy board with 2nd pair bad kicker.

Since you know he will bet flop, just check/call. You might have to punt if an A or heart falls. I might be a little cautious with a J or T.

Not that this is not a great strategy if you think he will fire a big turn bet/raise with air/draw

I agree with Zook that finding a more passive opponent to my left would be the best idea, since the majority of flops do the same or less amount of improvement to my hand as this one. Plus, this guy is playing every flop strong and i am not so comfortable in my reads to risk my stack with middle pair/ no kicker or draw. In reality, i of course spent about 6 rounds with an ultra aggro villain on my left and he took about $24 preflop and $40 in c-bets by me before i decided that i needed to switch tables. So, after getting smacked around by this guy i wondered what people thought about such an aggressive strategy as BB against SB in HU? Could you get away with such aggression if you figured your opponent to be a more conservative player? I haven't played since Monday, but i plan on getting a session in on Thursday or maybe a small one tonight. I will report how this strategy goes for me no later than Friday.

Being outaggressed like this just demonstrates what i think is probably the most relevant statement in poker; aggressive poker is winning poker.

Q9s is a terrible hand to play when you are going up against a "known aggro," regardless of your position.

i hope this was not considered in your "why i play such a TIGHT range pf" part of your post.

leave starting hands like these to the donkeys and leave the table when your uber-aggro nemesis is on your left.

Q-9 does not fall into my tighter range of hands i like to play from the SB PF, but it does demonstrate WHY i normally prefer to play a tighter range of hands PF when i am OOP in a HU pot. So, i tried the ultra aggressive strategy today and found it to be only mildy successful for me. It was initially effective at 50NL, where i decided i would experience a smaller loss if i couldn't properly use the strategy. Towards the evening, i found that players were playing significantly looser in these HU confrontations, though i never bluffed the river when the hand got that far. Both times the hands went to the river, my opponent turned over TP GK.