Leading into the PFR

[Fnord]

Leading into a LAG who was the preflop raiser out position as a block bet is like attacking a beehive with a slingshot and a ping pong paddle.

Care to go into more detail here?

100bb stacks.

Aggro player opens from the Cut-off for 4, BB calls.

Flop is 3 cards
Pot is 8ish
BB leads for 6 (86 behind)

Who's getting the best of it?

How often should the BB:
bet/fold
bet/call
bet/raise

How often should the CO raise? Any 2?

Contrast this to...

Aggro player opens from the Cut-off for 4, BB calls.

Flop is 3 cards
Pot is 8ish
BB checks, CO bets 6, BB raises to 18
Pot is now at 32 with 12 to go. BB has 74 behind, CO has 86 behind

For what it's worth:
o I think this is a very fundamental problem
o I know what some of the best players consider the answer to be, but not crystal clear how they get here.
o At least one winner I respect disagrees.
o That answer changes with stack depth.
o Most players who do run weak leads are terrible at balancing it.

[Fnord]

Another popular variation:

Aggro player opens from the Cut-off for 4, BB calls.

Flop is 3 cards
Pot is 8ish
BB checks, CO bets 6, BB calls.

Turn is plastic
Pot is 20ish
BB bets 15 (75 behind)...

[Lukie]

Hehe, I was actually waiting to hear some responses first.

Consider, leading into PFR, when done with a wide enough range of hand, effectively helps you:

picks up pots where nobody hit much of anything.

cheaper and more cost effective to bluff with then a c/r, in general.

disguises the strength of a made hand/big draw much moreso then a very transparent and costly c/r.

gets you a lot of info about villain's hand without putting a whole lot of money into the pot.

builds a pot, fast. Especially if you get raised.

Just another line to help you win the max vs an opponent, and isn't something that I think should be abused.

Looks very cool.

I can think of a lot of good things that can come from this, but in general, when people talk negatively toward this line (leading into the pfr, and i'll admit that MOST situations don't warrant it), it's often because they severely overrate snapping off the oft-overused c-bet and not enough on two very important things:

disguising the strength of your hand
quickly escalating the size of the pot

[Fnord]

It's my observation that most players in the PS100 game don't balance weak leads well enough. Hence the bad rep. There are a couple guys I've run into who weak led into me a lot and both of them played well and had big stacks. Maybe this is a very -EV post for us...

I can think of a lot of good things that can come from this, but in general, when people talk negatively toward this line (leading into the pfr, and i'll admit that MOST situations don't warrant it), it's often because they severely overrate snapping off the oft-overused c-bet and not enough on two very important things:

I agree with your last point about over-rating snapping c-bets, but it took me a while to get there and I'm still shaky. You know he's putting money out there with any 2 and we want to exploit it if he's doing it too much...

I don't get the "MOST sistuations don't warrent it" remark. What's a good balance for the weak lead? Good target? What's our turn line if called?

Lets say we lead any draw, any piece, monsters and air for balance. Pretty much any time we continue past the flop. How do we address checking oop becoming a green-light to bet? Do we care?

disguising the strength of your hand
quickly escalating the size of the pot

I think the last point isn't so much about building a pot, but controling a pot. That 3rd bet is huge in a raised pot with 100ish deep money. That's felt time with anything that stands a chance once it goes in.

[Fnord]

Another thought. Quite often players will call just about any single act of aggression with any non-hopeless hands to see if you follow through on the next street with increased stakes. So the cost of the c/r isn't just the initial investment. Online, you get a lot of reflex calls to see if you follow through.

Consider: AK opens, we call in the BB with TT. The flop is blanks, we c/r. For better or worse, the guys I play against call here with AK a lot.

In our example above, half pot puts nearly half of our stack in as a continuation on our flop raise. We need to be getting worse than 3:1 to fold at that point with no implied odds if raised. That half pot bet is offering our opponent 3:1 + implied.

[Fnord]

Another thought, if it's an un-raised pot with 100bbish stacks and semi-aware players, does being the second guy in the pot go back up in value?

[Miffed22001]

i hate this post because i have so much to say and most of it i cant back up with proper thinking

give me half an hr

but two things to start from me:
1. what does a check-raise represent from a typical ABC player represent? (aka not from me!)
2. what does a player leading into a pfr oop represent?

[Fnord]

i hate this post because i have so much to say and most of it i cant back up with proper thinking

Funny how we play this game for money and many of us are in the same boat.

[Miffed22001]

i hate this post because i have so much to say and most of it i cant back up with proper thinking

Funny how we play this game for money and many of us are in the same boat.

i often consider how much the difference between playing 'for a living' and playing 'for fun' or 'because i enjoy it and am reasonable' makes to how people play.

other thoughts

Rondavu wrote:
Leading into a LAG who was the preflop raiser out position as a block bet is like attacking a beehive with a slingshot and a ping pong paddle.


Care to go into more detail here?

laggs mindset is to raise and the fact CO is lagg and holds any two cards makes leading dangerous. lagg should always raise in the example we have here, simply to make bb either 3 bet and commit to the pot or call and look weak/drawing or fold. As a counter to this, CO learns so much more about bbs hand by raising while using his fold quity well by raising, 3 betting/calling/folding tells CO a lot. Plus if CO raises to 18 in this pot it isnt a lot to be commited to imo, in comparison to bb who now has to call that amount oop or 3 bet upto half his stack. THAT says much more.
(as a note: 3 betting laggs is a very counter effective strategy imo)

[Iwind]

Very interesting posts, against an aggressive PFR I very often lead out with monsters, hoping to get raised, pretty obvious I guess. I often also lead out with good draws when I dont think its likely the flop has hit anyone else. And I sometimes bet out with air heads up with PFR when I dont think he hit.

Another popular variation:

Aggro player opens from the Cut-off for 4, BB calls.

Flop is 3 cards
Pot is 8ish
BB checks, CO bets 6, BB calls.

Turn is plastic
Pot is 20ish
BB bets 15 (75 behind)...

I often do this with hands like top pair good kicker. Laggs often raise flop if lead into, but usually not on the turn unless they have TPTK or even better since several people play good hands like this. If I lead out a top pair decent kicker and get raised on flop, its hard to know where I stand. If I check-raise flop, and get called I will have a hard time figuring out what to do on turn.

I also mix it up a lot, depending on the flop, the players in then hand, etc, etc. And I also often call check-raises on the flop, since Im playing pretty laggy people often do that with real weak hands.. Im sure I should put more thought behind when I choose this different lines, I do it much by feeling, how I think other guys will react to it, I mean there are so many things to consider.[/quote]

[siknd]

i dislike the weak lead as a rule (unless as trap bet) because you lose a lot of options. if you lead into PFR with a draw, and he pops it 3x your raise, you often need to decide RIGHT NOW if youre going to the end with this hand. note that even if you think he is bluffing, its a very difficult spot to be in.

if i think an aggro lag will make a c-bet i will usually go for a CR on the flop with the intention of taking the pot down there. i find this play has more weight behind it, and demands more respect.

the difficulty with playing on reads out of posn is that, if you make a weak lead and theres just a call, what do you do with an unimproved turn? in my experience a check finishes you, and betting is a scary option as well.

?

[Rondavu]

Leading into a LAG who was the preflop raiser out position as a block bet is like attacking a beehive with a slingshot and a ping pong paddle.

Care to go into more detail here?

Your weak blocking bet will almost always get raised by the lagg. It's like clockwork. If you're only ever leading out a block with a weak hand you're unsure of, then the lagg will own you. A true blocking bet is certain weakness on the part of the leader. Lagg's are conditioned to come over the top automatically in a vacuum (I do it all the time), because up to this point in the overall metagame it's profitable. They usually rip the pot down. Obviously not enough people trap with a false block to make it undesirable for the lagg to raise it every time. Not enough people have found this loophole of exploitation which is available, in order to spark an amendment to the overall metagame.

Therefore it's beneficial for you to micromanage this inherent advantage while sitting with a lagg. If you're going to have the block bet as part of your arsenal, then you need to gather respect for it while sitting with a lagg, because a lagg will NOT automatically allow you to employ it for it's intented purpose... to halt false representation when you either feel you have a medium strength winner or you have a strong draw to a winning made hand.

In order to halt the false representation of a lagg, you have to trap them. Making a genuine blocking bet with a weak hand against a lagg is not a trap, it's an invitation to steal. Instead lead weak when strong sometimes, commit the lagg, and show down a beauty. You must punish the lagg for taking control of pots where they're behind.

I should also give credit where credit is due...

Leading into a LAG who was the preflop raiser out position as a block bet is like attacking a beehive with a slingshot and a ping pong paddle.

http://doubleas.blogspot.com/

[Fnord]

i dislike the weak lead as a rule (unless as trap bet) because you lose a lot of options.

Hence my comment on balance. I'm one of those aggro guys who'll auto-raise quite a bit and have gotten a bit of a feel for people who only try this when they hit big.

if you lead into PFR with a draw, and he pops it 3x your raise, you often need to decide RIGHT NOW if youre going to the end with this hand. note that even if you think he is bluffing, its a very difficult spot to be in.

Depends on how deep the money is. If a 3-bet is all-in and they will raise a wide range, then this is a really easy spot.

if i think an aggro lag will make a c-bet i will usually go for a CR on the flop with the intention of taking the pot down there. i find this play has more weight behind it, and demands more respect.

I get called a lot by anything that hit and this does put us in a very difficult spot on the turn.

the difficulty with playing on reads out of posn is that, if you make a weak lead and theres just a call, what do you do with an unimproved turn?

Betting here has the same cost/benefit as c/ring the flop. Now you're forcing him to call twice. People seem to be stubborn about folding to a single act of aggression. Maybe it's all of the limit material out there...

[Rondavu]

if i think an aggro lag will make a c-bet i will usually go for a CR on the flop with the intention of taking the pot down there. i find this play has more weight behind it, and demands more respect.

I get called a lot by anything that hit and this does put us in a very difficult spot on the turn.

I remember a HH you posted a while back Fnord where you had AQ preflop, and lost a stack over it because you were less inclined to believe representation thinking it was merely a case of "play back" commonly experienceced by the lagg.

I think it's important to know that Lagg's are used to being played back at. They swim in these waters. Never underestimate a lagg's ability to stick you on an exact hand and destack you with a weak winner. You'll sit there and wonder "how could he stick around with that?". The answer is "he knew he was still ahead". Use those check raises carefully. Don't try to outlagg a lagg unless you have lagg experience. Remember the lagg tendancy to stick around too long and take advantage of it the right way, by making a hand and letting them put money in.

[SonOfAkira]

I feel very unqualified to participate in this discussion (similar to what miffed said) though this is a play I utilize a great deal. It always struck me as more of a counterplay technique, a form I love when the texture is right. Plus, it seems to obviously work much better with LAGs who are quite simply not very good at LAGging.

A hand from last night:
LAG was PFRing more than statistically probable, overbetting and coming over the top frequently and ending alot of hands at the flop. I had folded most and limped a few hands for about four or five orbits, a little card dead, probably looked very weak. I might even aactually be much of the time, until the time is right.

80BB stacks. 6-max.
LAG opens from the button 5xBB.
We call with from BB with Ad Kd.
Flop is K 2 8, two diamonds.
We lead for 6BB, LAG raises to 20BB.
We push.
LAG calls, turns over Kc 3c.
We make the flush to add insult to injury.
LAG leaves the table.

I guess it's very read dependent. Against a bonafide LAG, I usually have to restate my assumptions, but with the chip spewers/maniacs it's quite profitable. Maybe it's capitalizing on the thinking that 'no one is going to come over the top and outlag me' that gets these pushes called. I don't know for certain, but this is a great thread so far.

[siknd]

i dont really feel thats a read-dependent play. i mean, do yu play it a lot differently against an avg player?

i think for the purposes of this thread, you need to change that flop to Q23, and then explain your actions to his flop raise.

[Miffed22001]

a check raise represents a hand or better yet, it represents on the part of the check raiser a willingness to bet big early in the hand to put pressure on the original bettor to fold.
Often i think, the check raise is both a trap for hands against better hands and/or a defence of a hand that needs a fold.
Therefore, c/r'ing our fair share of these sort of situations has to be effective. Afterall, a 10nl player may have no idea what a check raise means, but at least some 100nl players will.
As a counter to this, as im going to suggest i find myself in the CO's position more often here than the bb's, i think the laggs most effective strategy is to 3 bet the c/r. That maybe pure air but i think it puts substantial pressure on the c/r'er. What bothers me here is that if bb is a standard player, what can he call laggs 3 bet with? Essentially a lag COULD have any two especially on an xxx flop in any given situation. Thats the advantage of my style and my position: i could have any two and i can rep any two despite your show of strength. Thus, i put YOU in a dangerous position on the bb. Now im not stupid enough to 3 bet all c/r'es but i am ballsy enough to try it often enough. Most commonly this is how i play for stacks at 100nl bcoz ppl know im loose on the CO or button and will play for stacks with tptk (which is exactly what i want, calling stations or police!) I wont be playing for stacks without the goods or a read that i have enough to be calling
(note: i made this mistake on martins a few weeks ago with AK on an Ax8 flop vs a lagg on the button. I played for stacks with tptk when i shouldnt have. I also posted two hands with QQ vs a laggy player which is why i now play qq like i do preflop)
In retrospect, if bb leads he then has the option of 3 betting the lagg (all be it oop) that i think is a more effective strategy. If im mr lagg on the CO with tpgk and u 3 bet me from the blinds after leading i am now under serious pressure. Now i effectivly have to play for stacks with tptk etc without a read.
Perhaps then ive gone far enough to take the positional advantage from the laggy CO player but of course by 3 betting my hand (possibly air or a flush draw or a set) i ask lagg to play for stacks at an information disadvantage
Afterall, rondavu pointed out, quite correctly from my experience also playing a laggy style at times, that players who will 3 bet top pair are tough customers, id argue more so for a lagg who expects a certain amount of fold equity with position and lagg table image here.
....spew?

[Fnord]

Problems with the flop c/r:
o What to do on the turn if called. With most common stack sizes that turn bet is going to be a pretty big commitment.
o Auto-raise is in theory more exploitable than auto-bet. That 3rd bet really drops the hammer hard.
o Risk of giving a free card *laugh*

[Rondavu]

There comes a critical point in your relationship with the lagg where he grants you respect. How do you know when this is? How do you maximize value from this point on?

If you continue having 3-bet flop wars, you will lose value as your relationship changes.

[Fnord]

If you continue having 3-bet flop wars, you will lose value as your relationship changes.

Does he keep raising my leads if he knows there is a fair chance of a 3-bet?

[Rondavu]

If you continue having 3-bet flop wars, you will lose value as your relationship changes.

Does he keep raising my leads if he knows there is a fair chance of a 3-bet?

Now he's smooth calling with odds and outs, or just folding when he certainly would have continued when checked to.

[Fnord]

Now he's smooth calling with odds and outs

*shrug* his aggression is what made him difficult.

or just folding when he certainly would have continued when checked to.

Great, now I take back some boards that missed us.

Who has more power in a raised pot with 100bbish stacks. The first guy in or the second guy? Do you want to be putting in 1rst and 3rd bets or 2nd bets?

[Fnord]

As a counter to this, as im going to suggest i find myself in the CO's position more often here than the bb's, i think the laggs most effective strategy is to 3 bet the c/r. That maybe pure air but i think it puts substantial pressure on the c/r'er. What bothers me here is that if bb is a standard player, what can he call laggs 3 bet with?

I only like the play when you need some fold equity. If you have showdown power and think you beat the c/r range, you really want to call and let him hang himself with a turn bet. With position there is no risk of it getting checked through.

[Rondavu]

Now he's smooth calling with odds and outs

*shrug* his aggression is what made him difficult.

Consider this... Hero holds KQ. Hero raies 5xBB preflop. Lagg makes it 10xBB. Hero calls. Pot 20.5xBB. Flop comes KQ7 rainbow. Hero bets 8xBB as per our original strong block scenerio. Villain calls with JT.

or just folding when he certainly would have continued when checked to.

Great, now I take back some boards that missed us.

Who has more power in a raised pot with 100bbish stacks. The first guy in or the second guy? Do you want to be putting in 1rst and 3rd bets or 2nd bets?

If I flop hard and know he'll continue, then I want 2nd bet against the overaggressive player on drawless boards, if I feel he won't give me value for a lead at that point in time. I may even smooth call him on the flop and let him shoot a second barrell.

[Fnord]

Consider this... Hero holds KQ. Hero raies 5xBB preflop. Lagg makes it 10xBB. Hero calls. Pot 20.5xBB. Flop comes KQ7 rainbow. Hero bets 8xBB as per our original strong block scenerio. Villain calls with JT.

Bet more.

[Rondavu]

Consider this... Hero holds KQ. Hero raies 5xBB preflop. Lagg makes it 10xBB. Hero calls. Pot 20.5xBB. Flop comes KQ7 rainbow. Hero bets 8xBB as per our original strong block scenerio. Villain calls with JT.

Bet more.

I agree, but we're still trying to act weak when strong against the lagg. I'm really just trying to define the point where it's time to switch gears against a lagg. The moment you realize the lagg has domesticated himself in hands with you, and it's time to play straight up or else hand value back over.

[Fnord]

I agree, but we're still trying to act weak when strong against the lagg.

None of the examples I gave are weak bets relative to the pot. All are pretty reasonable reverse-continuations (to invent a term) fired at the PFR in an effort to take back some orphan flops and gain more control over when we play a big pot.

[Rondavu]

I agree, but we're still trying to act weak when strong against the lagg.

None of the exmaples I gave are weak bets relative to the pot. All are pretty reasonable reverse-continuations (to invent a term) fired at the PFR in an effort to take back some orphan flops and gain more control over when we play a big pot.

I think we're talking about different things . Someone earlier eluded to flopping relatively strong but vulnerable, leading weak to induce a raise, getting raised and 3-betting back. This is what I was referencing. I am admittedly getting confused now.

[Fnord]

I think we're talking about different things . Someone earlier eluded to flopping relatively strong but vulnerable, leading weak to induce a raise, getting raised and 3-betting back. This is what I was referencing. I am admittedly getting confused now.

Re-read the thread and let me know when we're back on the same page. Great discussion so far, even if it's been a bit confused.

[Miffed22001]

im leaving you two to it, there isnt much i think i can add...

[BankItDrew]

Miffed, wanna catch a coffee? I'm in the same boat.

Except:
Don't lead into the PFR. Checking gives him no information. Him betting the flop and turn gives you enough information to make a good river decision.

[Miffed22001]

2 sugars and milk plz

Whats bothering in this thread is that i want to take laggs effectivness post flop away. Effectivly i do that by 3 betting a lot, either with or without a hand of any strength.
Isnt that the exercise, once lag cant c-bet into a pot for fear of getting c/r'ed or auto-raising a lead bet hes at a loss. Yeh he might have a monster or outs to draw to, but we've effectivly taken away his biggest advantage: aggression with the idea he may hold any two. If i can turn the lagg passive enough im fine with that.

[Rondavu]

Should we consider the primary goal in check raising a lagg to be getting more money/committment in VS taking them off their hand? Granted I still have little idea where this interesting discussion is going. Seems rather improvised.

[Lukie]

Except:
Don't lead into the PFR. Checking gives him no information. Him betting the flop and turn gives you enough information to make a good river decision.

many agressive players make a living off people who have a similar attitude.

[Lukie]

And checking to the preflop raiser DOES give him information, unless you are one of the players (and there are many) who absolutely never lead into them...

[Warpe]

And checking to the preflop raiser gives him FREE information...

fyp

[Miffed22001]

im starting to feel that where possible leading into the PFR and perhaps 3 betting the flop or just calling is a better line than cold calling the flop, especially with a monster hand, set/two pair.
its better than the common cold call the flop raise the turn line we see a lot at the moment.

[bigboy5540]

if your sole reason for leading is to make the lag passive, then your better option would be to check raise the lag. Check raising is much stronger of a move to scare an opponent. It is a different story if you have a hand and you want to make the pot bigger.

[Lukie]

if your sole reason for leading is to make the lag passive, then your better option would be to check raise the lag. Check raising is much stronger of a move to scare an opponent. It is a different story if you have a hand and you want to make the pot bigger.

and THAT'S not exploitable....

[twosevoff]

Very interesting post here, gonna have to look at the whole thread later.

I am somewhat conflicted as to when and how often to lead into the PFR myself. Here is how and when I am currently making this play: I will lead into the PFR maybe 1/4 of the time, for 1/2 to full size of the pot. For balance, I make this play with a wide range (mid/bottom pair, tp/overapair, air, draw, flopped monster).

When I flop a strong draw (10+ outs) or flop a big hand (trapping with KK/AA or flopped top two or better) I will usually lead into the raiser with 3/4 to full sized pot bet with the intention of 3-betting enough to commit me to the hand (unless I have a set and the board doesn't have a 2 flush or likely straight draw in which case I will often just smooth call the raise on the flop and check-raise the turn).

[bigboy5540]

not really unless he has the goods lukie. even most maniacs will tend to slow down at the response of a checkraise.