Cog Dissonance Video 30 - Playing a Poor Tight Aggressive Opponent

I play this guy all the time when i find him. He is a huge station that pays you off with 3th pair on any type of board texture. Never bluff :)

I’ve read somewhere on 2+2  that every bet you make should be either for value from worse hands or for bluff – to fold out better hands. This concept improved my game a lot, since I often caught myself betting just for the sake of betting without even thinking about what I really wanted to accomplish, are there worse hands in villain’s range that could call me. But sometimes when I use this thinking it gets me in some retarded spots. Like for example that hand where you called 3bet with 67, checked back 743 and bet turn 9. If we use that “bet for a reason” rule then aren’t you just turning your pairs of 7s into the bluff since I can’t think of any worse hands that could call your bet there? Same thing goes for a hand where you call his 2x PFR with Q7, check 7K5 and bet (lead) 9. I guess what I’m trying to figure out is are you bluffing or value betting. I know that this sounds like a stupid question.

Everything is clear to me when you call his 2x PFR with T3, and bet turn on K64 8 when he checks back. Like I would think in that spot: “T high has no showdown value, he checked back so he probably doesn’t have much of a hand, so I’ll try to take it away from him. I can see villain folding J, Q, A high so there are better hands that I’m folding out. “

Maybe I’m just overthinking some VERY SIMPLE situations and applying concepts where I shouldn’t. Maybe this whole “either bet for value or to bluff” concept is flawed. Maybe I’m simplifying this game too much. It should be more reasons than just vbet/bluff.  Like I see xscwx a lot of times betting and saying that he does this only to protect his hand. I’d like to hear your and anybody else’s thoughts on this.

I’m sorry for my language, I feel like I made a million mistakes writing this. Slightly drunk… weekend.

Thanks 

When I am betting there is more to it than just hand protection. A lot of players I know (including high stakes ones) completely ignore hand protection as a concept. I think that ignoring it is a big mistake, so I try to make a point of that in my videos.

When I cbet ace high on a board, I expect to get called by all better hands and sometimes worse. However, the worse hands (mostly draws) will have decent equity against me and I will have poor equity against the made hands. In this case I am not really bluffing or value betting. However, if I always check back my ace high hands then my opponents will see that my range for checking back the flop is very transparent and will be able to barrel the flop and turn against me very profitably. Thus, I merge my ace high hands into the rest of my cbetting range so that I am more difficult to play against. As the hand progresses I can decide whether I want to turn it into a bluff or just try to use the ace high for showdown value. As a secondary factor, the fact that I am betting ace high on these boards also prevents the worse hands that didn't pick up draws from turning or rivering me. Getting hand protection helps my equity, but it isn't the sole basis for my decision to bet.

I've heard this idea about betting also, and I have to say I don't fully agree with it. Betting is about manipulating your opponent. Sometimes it is to make him fold a better hand, call with a worse hand, but also to induce him to bluff. Furthermore when you bet and it goes wrong, this creates an image which sometimes you will be able to exploit. So sometimes you bet and then exploit that bet 25 hands down the line. There's a lot more to it that just folding out better hands and getting value from worse.

It's not necessarily even that the idea of betting to gain value or fold out worse hands is totally wrong.  It's just that there is more to it.

Likely every time you bet you can attribute it in some way towards folding out better hands or gaining value.  It isn't even necessarily about folding out better hands on that street.

You may c-bet  A hi on a certain board, knowing you don't fold any better hands nor gain value from any (or most) weaker hands.  Yet, it still may lead to a bet or raise on later streets that accomplishes that. 

What Cog and xSCWx said is good though, it gives you a good base to expand the thinking that you made in your post.  In a lot of situations, particularly on the river, it's healthy to think the way you mention, but you should also be thinking about many other aspects of betting or checking.

 Hmmm... big mistake xSCWx?  Really? :)

(I'm one of those people who doesn't "bet for protection")

A cross-post from 2+2, responding to someone's comment, I once wrote this about the topic:

This is very wrong . Or at the very least misguided. On the river, it sounds fine, but it seems like he was trying to extend it to earlier streets. What about neutral or negative ev plays that force villain to define their range enabling them to be exploited on later streets (ie, multi-street plays)? What about raising 45s preflop? What about raising K3o preflop? The game is not a sum of street-by-street equities because ranges decline or increase in value as cards come out. What about raising because you know the line villain will take with each of the hands in his/her range so that when you hit the next street you'll be able to induce bigger mistakes.

I think MLJ was trying to get at the misinterpretation of "to see where you're at". For example, on KK5, if when facing a check/raise you know that villain will a) fold if they have nothing or b) 3bet if they have a king... a lot of bad players will say "okay well I'll raise A5 to see where I'm at". When really, in this case, you're never showing your hand down if you raise, so the cards in your hand don't matter. Here, this is a case for raising any two cards, but in spots where ranges are wider the correct play can vary.

EDIT: Easy counterexample is preflop raising on the button. You don't always raise to fold out better or get calls from worse. You raise because you may see immediate profit from villain folding more than the necessary frequency, or you might raise because you can play profitably post-flop against the range of hands that your opponent is continuing with. Preflop isn't any different from flop play or turn play, but it's most easily identified.

there is another (3rd) concept for betting: dead money in pot (from Balugawhale 6max cash book):
           (Edited to make quote shorter, per Baluga's request - Rypac)
           So what about protection? Is this not a reason for betting?
           The answer is no - protection is a consequence of betting. Let's say our hand is red QQ on QsTs9c board. We bet for value - there are many  worse hands that will call or raise us. The fact that we're charging draws and "protecting" is nice, but it's hardly the original motivation for our bet. Now let's say we hold 6h6d on Qh9h3c board. We can bet there to collect dead money, but we hardly "protecting". Most draws are either 50/50 with us or are a significant favourite (AhJh comes to mind). the moral of the story is that when we have a set of queens, our hand need protection, but it needs value first and foremost. When we have a pair of sixes, our hand doesn't really need protection because it's not very strong. All we have is a pair of sixes. It seems pretty dumb to protect ourselves from AhJh when AhJh is a favourite over us. Instead, we might bet 66 on the Qh9h3c board as a thin bluff (against hands like 77 or 88) or for thin value (against a hand like Ah4h), but mostly to collect dead money against a hand like AcTc that will fold its 6-outer on the flop."

Sorry for long quote, but i think it's worth.

interesting -- people must play differently vs your unusual style, cog. this villain has been pretty lagtarded in my experience. always interesting to see a different perspective on the same villain though.

oops--double post