Play vs. a specific villain

Poker players talk about developing the ability to "read" players. While this is particularly valuable in live play, it is still applicable online. Betting/raising patterns, timing patterns, even the way or when people decide to type in the chat box can tell you things if you are paying attention. That can be hard (particularly if you are multitabling), and a read based on a single hand isn't always indicative of a villain's overall play, but it's still an important skill to try to develop.

I played two hands against a specific villain this past weekend, and the way the first hand played out definitely effected the way I played the second hand (and I'm almost positive it effected the way he played it as well). Both hands occurred small blind (villain) vs. big blind (me) when the table folded around to him, and occurred back to back in that context. It's an $11 tournament - blinds are 600/1200/125. Villain has almost 47K (M ~ 16), I have 50.7K (M ~ 17.25) in the first hand.

Table folds around and villain calls the SB; I check back with 64s. Flop is T75, all clubs (not my suit), giving me an OESD. It's also a very dangerous flop, given the obvious flush draw. Villain leads with a minbet of 1200 into a pot of 3525, and I opt to call with my draw. I'm conscious of two things - if he's got a high club he's never going anywhere this early, but if he doesn't there's no way he can like this board with something like top pair or even two pair. I'm calling both because if I hit my draw I'm fairly certain I'll be best, but also because there's a decent chance I can take the pot away later given the dangerousness of the board.

Turn is another 7. Villain again minbets, this time 1200 into 5925. His minbet indicates, to me, that he has a weak or medium strength hand at best - a hand that probably can't stand up to much pressure. I decide to raise at this point. This is an obvious semi-bluff; unless he has a FH, even trip sevens won't be happy to see another club (unless he has 7x where x is a high club) and will potentially still pay off a straight draw if it hits, so even if he calls I still have the potential to either draw to the best hand or represent the best hand on the river. And he does call. I think I probably should have raised more; I raised to 3600 (3x his bet), but given that he underbet the pot, a larger bet (5500-600) would probably be better in terms of scaring him off (which is what I want) or truly repping something like two pair or trips. I didn't think very clearly about what my line here would represent, which is a leak of mine. I like the raise here, but the sizing is poor, IMO.

The river is the J of clubs, putting a four flush on board. Obviously I have nothing except a low busted straight draw; therefore the only way I can win the hand is to induce my opponent to fold. Villain sets this up by checking. If victim had bet, I don't know that, given the dangerousness of the board, I would have been able to pull the trigger and even tried to push him off the hand (and it's likely if he had led it would not have worked; leading on that board would likely indicate a flush). But since villain bet, checking behind would have been a poor play - I can't win the hand unless I bet. So I bet 6000 into a 13125 pot.

Again, I think my bet sizing is a little off, but not as badly as the turn. It's a little on the small side - I'm attempting to find that middle ground bet, one that's large enough to be scary (thereby pushing the villain to hold) but small enough to look like an attempt to extract value. Too large and some villains will make a hero call, refusing to be pushed around and because an overlarge bet looks more bluffy. Too small and villain may make a crying call due to the odds. I think I probably should have bet more like 55-60% of the pot. Regardless, villain folded, and I took down the pot.

While I think this hand illustrates that I still struggle with bet sizing, it also points to some developments in my game. First, my ability to make pure bluff bets and raises is evident here. This is a very small part of my game, but I do have the ability to do it now, and I think I picked a good spot. The dangerousness of the board combined with the fact that my line was plausible in terms of hitting a flush OTR made this a good bluffing spot. It's possible had I bet it properly, I may have even gotten a fold OTT. Still, this is not a play I could have made 8 months ago. I used my position, reading of the board texture, and pressure to win a pot with air. I'm pretty sure people do this to me all the time, and I have to find spots to do it myself to stay in the game.

The very next orbit when I'm again in the BB, the table again folds around to the SB. Stacks are now 31.5K (M ~ 11.25, villain) and just over 56K (M ~ 20, me). Villain again completes his blind, and I check in the BB with JTo. I could potentially raise here, since JT is pretty good heads up, but default play is to just take a flop and hope to either hit or use my position to take the pot away.

Flop is AQ3, again monotone (hearts). I have the T of hearts for a decent flush draw and a gut shot straight draw. Villain continues his previous pattern, minbetting 1200 into 3400, and I call with my draws. I am conscious that my flush draw isn't the best, and obviously my gutshot isn't likely to come in. However, I opt to make a loose call because, based on the previous hand and other observations at the table, I believe he again has a weakish hand that I may be able to force him to fold later. This call is based much more of my read on the villain than on the actual strength of my hand.

The turn is the K of diamonds, filling out my gutshot straight. I now have a very good but vulnerable hand; it's unlikely he already has a flush, but another heart could either give him a flush (although there are only two higher flush cards than mine he could have, the K and the J) or could completely kill any action. Villain again minbets 1200 into 5800. I probably should have raised here. However, I made the conscious decision NOT to raise here because that is the way I had played the previous hand. This seems pretty bad in retrospect. I raised on a semibluff the hand before and failed to raise with what was almost certainly the best hand here. I'd like to say I did it for balance but that's not the case. I did it because I wanted to extract more money on the river, so I resorted to slow playing with a decent percentage of the deck would either kill my hand or kill the action. I should have raised here.

The river was the 8 of spades, which changed nothing. Villain again minbet (1200 into 8200), and I raised to 4800 with my straight, as I did not believe he had a made flush, and there was no other hand other than a flush that could have beat me on that board. Fortunately for me, he called this raise (which I should have made OTT) with K2, holding the K of hearts.

What did I learn from this two hand sequence vs. this villain, and how did hand one effect how I played hand 2? First, I continue to struggle with bet sizing. Second, I allowed the sequence of hand one (monotone board, two minbets from villain followed by a turn raise by me) to influence me into making what I believe was a bad decision in hand 2 (to NOT raise OTT). Third, I have at least a nascent ability to find spots to bluff to take away pots. Fourth, I was at least correct in my general reads on this villain - his min-betting did indicate weak or middle strength hands. Fifth, I sometimes still "freeze" when I hit a good hand and slow play (even though I hate slow playing in general); this is okay in order to balance vs. a villain who knows your play well, but that wasn't the case here. Here I was just missing value.

I think I played hand 1 well in terms of finding a spot to bluff, and poorly in turns of my bet sizing (the turn raise in particular). I think I played hand 2 a little worse (not raising the turn was pretty bad) but I was at least attempting to vary my play in response to a particular villain, which is a worthy goal.

Good luck to one and all, and I'll see you at the tables.

SGT RJ