A Nasty Beat and a Question

Monteroy · Mar 29,2009, 04:59 PM

This is the type of "trap" play I have been seeing a ton of as of late, and I admit I cannot quite figure out what the thinking process is behind it. Basically a player limps with a bad hand and then calls an all in raise or after he is reraised the initial limper shoves with no fold equity and shows up with a random bad hand. I have seen so much of it lately (and generally have got many chips from it) so I am not upset to see these bizarre trap plays being done, however I would love to have an idea of what triggers them from these players.

Ive seen plays of player A limp for 20 then Player B with 600 left raises to 500 and then Player A (who had about 1100 chips) shoves and has 28 suited (which lost to the short stacks KK). I just can't put my finger on what motivates people to do these plays. Any theories welcome.

This bad beat is not a perfect example, but it is a bad beat so here it is :P The flop did seem reasonable at the time...

PokerStars Game #26509242579: Tournament #149951293, $10+$1 Hold'em No Limit - Level VII (125/250) - 2009/03/29 17:40:47 ET
Table '149951293 580' 9-max Seat #5 is the button
Seat 1: StueyUngar26 (6100 in chips)
Seat 2: energYplaY (7500 in chips)
Seat 3: Priteus (2243 in chips)
Seat 4: I_Barca (7890 in chips)
Seat 5: M_Bowers (6435 in chips)
Seat 6: Luffedau (5687 in chips)
Seat 7: Monteroy (4241 in chips)
Seat 8: MD318 (1575 in chips) is sitting out
Seat 9: Robin Sweet (4862 in chips)
StueyUngar26: posts the ante 25
energYplaY: posts the ante 25
Priteus: posts the ante 25
I_Barca: posts the ante 25
M_Bowers: posts the ante 25
Luffedau: posts the ante 25
Monteroy: posts the ante 25
MD318: posts the ante 25
Robin Sweet: posts the ante 25
Luffedau: posts small blind 125
Monteroy: posts big blind 250
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Monteroy [Qs As]
MD318: folds
Robin Sweet: folds
StueyUngar26: folds
energYplaY: folds
Priteus: calls 250
I_Barca: folds
M_Bowers: folds
Luffedau: folds
Monteroy: raises 2500 to 2750
Priteus: calls 1968 and is all-in
Uncalled bet (532) returned to Monteroy
*** FLOP *** [Ac Ks 4s]
*** TURN *** [Ac Ks 4s] [Th]
*** RIVER *** [Ac Ks 4s Th] [Tc]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Monteroy: shows [Qs As] (two pair, Aces and Tens)
Priteus: shows [Td 8d] (three of a kind, Tens)
Monteroy said, "ok"
Priteus collected 4786 from pot

Cerberus · Mar 29,2009, 08:41 PM

It's definitely an oddball play. First thing that comes to mind is he puts you on a big ace, either AK or AQ, or a small/mid pp, like 5's or 6's. With the stack he has, he's looking for any excuse to get in for anything likely to be a coin flip. I will agree though, there's a lot of people I've played against lately that seem to want to get all in preflop with suited gappers like that. The only way I've found around it is to keep trying to see somewhat expensive flops. I completely agree with the play you made as he was either limping with suited trash, like he was, or he had a small pair and was wanting a cheap flop.

GTA Poker · Mar 29,2009, 10:04 PM

buy in?

Monteroy · Mar 29,2009, 11:13 PM

This was the freak 30,000 player 10+1 today.

I completely understand if someone wants to gamble it up, especially in that tournament. I guess what baffles me is the limp/call all in or limp/reraise all in with no fold equity approach instead of just open shoving or reraising all in (with theoretical fold equity) to previous action.

I have been scratching my head at all of these types of plays I have seen in all types of tournaments. Saw a player do it in a step 4 with 10 60 and no one knew after what that was about (guy with QQ happily took the free 1500ish chips). It's the way they manage to get it all in that puzzles me.

BBC Z · Mar 30,2009, 09:49 AM

It's because there are these people out there called gamblers.. and they like to gamble

Not everyone plays a poker tournament for the same reason.

Monteroy · Mar 30,2009, 03:29 PM

My point is, if they want to gamble and are willing to gamble their whole stack with a very marginal hand, why are they going for the strange limp/call all in approach instead of just shoving first.

Frankly, I even understand it more if they cold call a 50 BB (or whatever stack) all in preflop with J9 instead of doing the limp/call all in play.

Thank you for suggesting that some people like to gamble more then others, until now that never crossed my mind. Nonetheless, if there is a reason or pattern to this type of "gambling" behavior it would be good to know. That's all.

BBC Z · Mar 30,2009, 04:13 PM

The point that you fail your wrap your head around is that it's totally possible that your opponents flat out suck at poker, shake the chicken bones and then press a button based on how they feel.

Stop trying to logically evaluate why they suck, does it matter?

Monteroy · Mar 30,2009, 04:54 PM

Of course it matters, just like knowing if a player sucks because he is a calling station or a maniac spewtard or an ultra nit. All suck, but if you play against them all the same because they suck then bad things are very likely to happen.

I realize this is a variation of this and not quite as direct a situation as "`never bluff a calling station" but if I can get a better sense of what type of crappy player will do this bizarre trap play and when then I can get myself "trapped" more often.

I know they suck. I know many people suck at poker. Knowing why and how they suck makes it easier to extract maximum value from them.

Perhaps I am trying to see a methodology to the suckage here with these strange trap plays when one does not exist, I grant that is quite possible.

BBC Z · Mar 30,2009, 05:22 PM

I refer you back to post #7.

I'll even go one farther and give you the permalink

A Nasty Beat and a Question

If you think about what you are talking about what you'd like to achieve, you'd realise that it's pointless. You got your money in way ahead of a villian by pushing and getting a call. What's the 'Magic trigger that explains his behaviour?' Who gives a shit, spend more time working on your own game than worrying why people play bad.

What outcome would you like to change between you pushing all in and him calling? Do you think you are better off betting less and then having to play against his magic beans on the flop? Cuz then this thread becomes even more annoying about how his shitty hand outflopped you and you went broke.

Monteroy · Mar 30,2009, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBC Z

I refer you back to post #7.

I'll even go one farther and give you the permalink

A Nasty Beat and a Question

If you think about what you are talking about what you'd like to achieve, you'd realise that it's pointless. You got your money in way ahead of a villian by pushing and getting a call. What's the 'Magic trigger that explains his behaviour?' Who gives a shit, spend more time working on your own game than worrying why people play bad.

That`s the thing - part of a good game is adapting to other people`s bad game. Do I fancy slow play vs calling stations with monsters? Never. Do I fancy slow play vs bullys who must bet when checked to them. Sure.

I do not know what triggers this pattern of behavior I have seen lately. In the past all of this limp shove play has usually been tricky played AA/KK type hands and now a lot of 10 6 suited are showing up with no fold equity when they reraise shove. I would like to know what identifiers if any exist to this type of player.

Seriously, I am surprised you of all people suggest basically ignoring other people`s game when developing one`s own game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBC Z

What outcome would you like to change between you pushing all in and him calling? Do you think you are better off betting less and then having to play against his magic beans on the flop? Cuz then this thread becomes even more annoying about how his shitty hand outflopped you and you went broke.

I do not care about the outcome of the hand. I was amused at it because the flop was so insanely good then it went bad. I was only a 2-1 favorite when the chips went in.

The outcome does not matter. Identifying and triggering this type of behavior in opponents is what I am after. Maybe it is just a short run sequence of weird people playing strange, but poker is a game system and often times there are subtle changes in how people play and learning and recognizing those can prove to be quite useful in terms of long term results.

If you think I genuinely care about the outcome of that single hand then you really have misread my post.

ReefAquarium · Mar 30,2009, 10:12 PM

2 weeks ago I saw Priteus lose $600 at the NL10/20 in about 3 orbits.
Add Priteus to your buddy list!

Cerberus · Mar 30,2009, 11:35 PM

Mont and BBC, you guys are of two different minds to solve the same problem. Oddly, both ways work. BBC will spend hours on end trying to figure things out as to why this happens, a very scientific approach. Mont, you'll simply look at it as terrible players will get lucky at times and that's what keeps them giving away their money, a very zen like state of mind to have. Either way, you'll both profit from these crazies in the long run.

And then you'll both give it to me

blackmagicz · Mar 30,2009, 11:53 PM

I tend to agree with BBC Z here. There is no rationalization or analysis needed. Some people are just odd and call because its their favorite hand, they have to go, boredom.

Random hands like this really don't need analysis. As far as I am concerned I will always thank training sites for popping up and teaching everyone that people bluff all the time and if it looks fishy it is probably a bluff.

I think I must have shoved preflop with AA and KK like 40 times this weekend in single table tournies and got called (first level blinds they had no money in the pot) about 75% of the time.

Hands that called me included:

45
AQ
AJ
22
33

Why these people call off their whole stack first level of a tourney with nothing committed is beyond me? No point of trying to figure it out....just hurts the head.