Online Poker Forum - DEFENSE AGAINST SUPER-AGGRESSIVE PLAYER -- BLUFF ON RIVER

searfoss · Two Pair Joined: 19 Oct 2005 Posts: 64

There are super-aggressive players that once invested are virtually incapable of letting the hand go. They may raise pre-flop, then re-raise all in if anyone comes over the top. They may raise pre-flop, then put all their chips in on the flop, or check raise all their chips in on the flop. They may just fire, fire, fire enough chips each time that their bet on the turn or river is all-in or essentially all-in. This defense will not work against these weak players.

I use this defense against super-aggressive players that are conscious of most poker principles and interested in stealing small pots rather than gambling on big ones. Generally speaking, you need a few pre-requisites to make this move:
1. You are the initial aggressor pre-flop.
2. You are in early position relative to the super-aggressive player.
3. You are heads up against that player.
4. You make a continuation bet on the flop.
5. You check on the turn.
6. You are viewed as aggressive but capable of trapping.
7. The super aggressive player has wrestled control of the hand from you on the flop or turn.

Here is one such hand where the defense was successful. I welcome thoughts on this strategy.

Six handed live game, I am second to act and super-aggressive is on the button, he loves to raise pre-flop with any two cards, and loves to steal in last position regardless of the community cards. I'm viewed as generally aggressive but have been caught trapping. UTG player folds. I raise 3x bb, player to my left folds, button calls, both blinds fold.

Flop: 5d 7d 2c

I make a continuation bet on the flop of 4x. Button calls. Pot is now 15.5x bb.

Turn: Js

I check. At this point, it is easy to believe that because I'm aggressive my continuation bet on the flop was merely an attempt to steal the pot because I have decided to check the turn. This is a prime stealing opportunity for the button if he also does not have a hand AND an opportunity to bet for value if he does.

Button makes a probe bet of 4x. His steal attempts had almost always been bigger than 1/4 of the pot, so this bet definitely makes me suspicious that he may be betting for value. But recently the casual chatter at the table had centered around Deeb's comment, "I wish you had bet more," immediately before folding at the final table of a tournament. That comment was made at the same tournament that Nagraneu later managed to bluff Deeb off of TPTK on the river with an ace-high hand because Negraneu's raise appeared to be a value bet (the bet was only 100k). And the button had heard me say how suspicious I am of value bets. I call.

River: Qh

I check. He bets 5x, which is so small it would seem he wants a caller. Before his bet the pot was 23.5x and he only had about 13x in his stack, whereas I had about 25x. I conclude that he has two possible holdings. 1) he missed his diamond draw and thinks he can only win if he bets (this explains the call pre-flop and on the flop but perhaps not the bet on the turn); 2) he has second or third pair and thinks his hand is the best hand (a hand like AJ would maybe explain the call on the flop and the bet on the turn put perhaps not the mere call pre-flop. On the other hand, ajo held by a super-aggressive player that doesn't like to get all-in may warrant a mere call when the raiser bets 3x, a bet big enough to build the pot. Or a hand like JT or KJ may also warrant the pre-flop call). If I'm right about his possible hands then he likely doesn't want to expose all of his chips.

Of course, raising here thinking I can buy the pot is risky. He could have AQ, QJ, or a set, in which case he would most likely call himself all in. But this is the risk that you always face with a super aggressive player. You never really know when they're sitting on a great hand. You may also question my characterization of this player as super-aggressive in the first place. After all, he called twice, and when he did bet he bet small amounts. But I think his actions are consistent with super-aggression given two reasons. First, that I was the initial raiser. He may think he managed to wrestle control of the hand from me (and he did) and is now returning to his usually betting. Second, consider that the size of his bets may be an effort by him to out maneuver me given that I stated I was more apt to fold to a small bet rather than a large one.

I raise him all-in. He laments being unable to push me off of this hand and folds.

Had I raised first on the river, he'd be more inclined to think I was stealing and just call, in which case I can't put him to a decision for all of his chips. If I had bet or check-raised on the turn, he'd be more likely to believe he has at least a few outs and may be more willing to make a move at the pot. For instance, had he been on a diamond draw and I bet or check raised on the turn, he may re-raise all in thinking he can either win the pot right there or win the pot with a diamond on the river.

Waiting until the river means that he has no more cards to see and also that he can chose to believe I decided to slow-play a monster after he called on the flop. Giving someone the pyschological comfort of a "good fold" may make the difference.

Thoughts?

KGBlovesOreos · Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 3:56 pm Post subject:

i often like to employ that strategy of checking on the turn after being the aggressor preflop and on the flop... it tends to throw off aggressive opponents and it really does work...

WatZot · Full House Joined: 23 Jun 2005 Posts: 216

I have done similiar things like that... I also think it keeps the agressive player wondering what you are capable of playing back at him...

Funkay Flex · Straight Flush Joined: 22 Oct 2005 Posts: 487 Location: VA

checkraising a super-aggressive player is effective when you have a good hand

Online Poker Forum at Full Tilt Poker