Playing with cannons
Something I do every time I go to Quebec City and it seems every time I go to Woodbine these days. And Pockets.
You know the guys. They raise frequently and keep firing. The bets seem much larger than optimal but maybe that's just me. They amass huge stacks, donk them off then build them right back up again. Some of them are pretty good but still get caught once in a while.
I'm curious what strategies people use against these players.
* where do you like to sit relative to them
* do you buy in for a full stack and reload as needed or go short stack
* pf how strong does your hand have to be to call their raises. Do you reraise with a premium hand. How does your play change based on position. Do you 3 bet bluff them
* post flop is more complex. How do you adjust your play based on position. How does the strength of your hand change your play. When do you show aggression vs passivity.
I hope we can get a good discussion going.
Sent from my SGH-I317M using Tapatalk 4 Beta
You know the guys. They raise frequently and keep firing. The bets seem much larger than optimal but maybe that's just me. They amass huge stacks, donk them off then build them right back up again. Some of them are pretty good but still get caught once in a while.
I'm curious what strategies people use against these players.
* where do you like to sit relative to them
* do you buy in for a full stack and reload as needed or go short stack
* pf how strong does your hand have to be to call their raises. Do you reraise with a premium hand. How does your play change based on position. Do you 3 bet bluff them
* post flop is more complex. How do you adjust your play based on position. How does the strength of your hand change your play. When do you show aggression vs passivity.
I hope we can get a good discussion going.
Sent from my SGH-I317M using Tapatalk 4 Beta
Comments
I mix up how I play against them, sometimes slow playing, sometimes raising their c-bet, some times just flatting.
My latest play is to float any flop and bet 50-60% pot if they check the turn to me. But only if I have seen that they can lay their hand down.
If I make top pair against them, I'm in it 'til the river.
Playing with true cannons I like to be on their right or close to it. I need to know what the rest of the table is doing before I make my decision... Mainly to prevent me being trapped between the cannon and a "knowing" player..
Funny but I haven't really experienced any of that at "Woodstock" as yet, albeit with limited playing time.
I call them LAGS - Loose / Agressive. Raise all the time and fire on most streets. You never know if they have it or not.
so, you are talking about me
I could tell you how to beat me, but I would have to kill you
Seriously, a good LAG is very tough to beat, a "cannon" is not
No, I gave the wrong definition. the cannon doesn't know when to fold or slow down.
He's not as good as he thinks but I have seen him run $80 into $1200 in under an hour #pokerjahwinrates
Here is the perfect example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. Jeff knows that top pair is a good hand. He knows that two pair is better, and flushes are REALLY strong. But he doesn't understand pot odds and probability (not saying he couldn't learn, he just enjoys the gambool).
Jeff will bet like $25 into a $12 pot with top pair and a coaster. I find the best strategy (and I only play like 1-2) is the standard tight is right but do NOT bluff more than 1/6 hands, and only when you are one on one. You don't win your money off of bluffs against these guys, you win by check call check call check raise kinda play.
Mark
Still a little off my standard definition, I mean I dont know any cannons that would buyin for any less than the max (unless 80 was the max).
Anyway the standard is the same. Play back at them a few times and they'll generally leave you alone.
I agree with GTA that some hand examples might stir the discussion a bit more.
Some clarification... he buys in for more, loses, and doesn't reload before BOOM magic.
Mark
Cannon: losing :fish: who is very loose and aggressive. As pkrfce9 mentioned, they have a high PFR % and keep firing, sometimes overbets. A winning LAG is very different in that they make +EV aggression plays and know when to correctly fold or change gears.
I loved playing with the live cannons years ago, but haven't had the pleasure of seeing too many cannons left since I started playing live again at Woodstock, Fallsview, Mohawk, Georgian Downs, Western Fair, Brantford & Rama. David Sklansky & Ed Miller wrote about relative & absolute position in their NLHE: Theory & Practice book, but you still have my copy, so you will have to read that section yourself!
Whenever players complain about a cannon in their previous "crazy" table that they asked to be moved from, I immediately move to that table & try to seat-change ASAP to cannon's immediate LEFT so that I get to decide what to do after his action not only pre-flop, but on all 3 streets post-flop. As soon as I see a cannon in the table, I buy in for the max and would keep topping up to the max. Position is very important, so my calling range would depend on how many players are left to act after me. For example, I would fold most hands on the puck vs. an UTG raise, but against a cannon, I may call with hands as weak as 54s, 65s, A2s, & 22 (if getting implied odds to set-mine).
I would not 3-bet light vs. a cannon as they are looking for any excuse to call - "but I was soooted!" :rolleyes: For the same reason, I would 3-bet premium hands.
Cannons love to fire, so check-calling with your made hand is a good option. I would have a higher check-raise frequency on the river, compared to other player types who don't bet on the river. Cannons have a lower folding frequency, so my bluff frequency would be less.
I've never heard you describe a hand where you played LAG in all your years on the forum!
Perhaps the word 'cannon' is not entirely correct. Most of these guys I'm talking about do not appear to be complete idiots. Maybe 'lagtards' would be a better term? Or just 'lags' if we want to be nice? For the most part, these are younger players. I'm guessing with lots of internet experience. Could they be members here?
They never seem to have less than the max buy-in in front of them, often have several times the max buy-in when I sit down. They will reload whenever they dip below max buy-in.
They play probably 50% or more of the hands, raising almost every one they are in. I haven't seen them play a lot of absolute garbage but I have seen hands like T8o, 54s, any Ace, any pair playing big pots. Frequently the raises are in later position but I did see one raise with 54s from SB. The problem with Woodbine is they don't usually show both hands at showdown, only the winner. So when someone calls them down with bottom pair and wins, you don't know exactly what the lagtard was playing but at least you know he couldn't beat bottom pair.
Raises are large for the stakes and stack sizes - often 15-20 at a 1/2 table where the average stack is generally < 200. They take down a lot of pots PF. At most they will get 1 or 2 callers and they always fire on the flop (pot-size and sometimes higher), almost always on the turn (close to pot-size) and again on the river (varies but not cheap). If you get to the river with them, the pot is always > 200 and often > 500. Generally, they are putting a lot of pressure on their opponents on every street. I saw one frustrated tag make a crying call for 150+ on the river with a busted flush draw when he paired his 4 and take down a 500+ pot. I also saw a terrible player call 100+ on the river and lose to the lag's Ace high.
Comp, I have heard your idea of sitting on their right so as to not be trapped by the other players. BF's idea of sitting on their left is more traditional. I'm not sure if it matters that much. Since each hand is usually heads up going to the flop, you really only worry about the others trapping you PF and that shouldn't cost much more than 15 if you have to fold. On the other hand, if you know he's betting almost every street, does position matter that much anyway? I guess I still prefer to be to the left.
I'll post a couple of hands I saw and 1 I was in. I don't necessarily have all the details as you don't get to see both hands and you have to go on what the player tells you he was playing sometimes. I'm interested in comments on best lines to take in various circumstances.
If they're not complete idiots, I think of them more as "hyper LAG", but I know that online players who lose to winning LAGs like to call them LAGtard, spewtard, spew monkey, etc. A hyper LAG can be a winning player if his post-flop skills are that much better than his opponents to overcome his weaker range pre-flop. I played against a lot of hyper LAGs online, but don't notice many in the live games now who play anywhere close to 50% of their hands.
I doubt that many of these players are that good. I rarely see any good LAGs @ 1/2.
Basically, regardless of how you describe them it depends whether you feel they are exploitable. If they are not then switch tables. If they are exploitable, I like to sit about 4-5 seats away from them so that I can maximize pots -- this includes having other players at the table between us donating and using more effective bluffs with > 1 player in the hand. Being far away from this player allows you to profit much more than sitting immediately to his left or right.
Would you agree you play 1/2 a lot different once you get use to playing higher levels? Don't think you would play 60% of your hands at 5/10. I think I was at 40% of my hands on Saturday at 1/2. Think my hand win rate was about 60% of those hands (these are stats you can get during your session on the electronic tables). More likely out of boredom and can't take $7 raises seriously.
I play way less hands at 5/10, but because the players are much better. 5/10 is usually the level where you start getting tougher games. If I could, I would play 2/5 or 5/5 as my regular game, but in AB it was almost always just 1/2. Playing with an appropriate bankroll, playing 1/2 and 5/10 should be identical if the players were also identical. Sometimes there will be a single 2/5 or 5/5 (I can't recall, but it is the same game anyhow) going in a room, but it is a less profitable game than 1/2 so I just stay at a good 1/2 table.
I don't think that I started playing more hands because I got used to higher limits, but I started playing way more hands as I became a better and smarter player. I would look at hand patterns and 3bet frequency and see how people reacted to bet sizes, etc. I started using overbets and reading players. I am pretty sure that I could beat 1/2 for a small amount without ever looking at my cards -- I haven't ever tried this, but it would be a fun experiment if I had 6 months to waste.
Remember that 1/2 in AB is probably as/more profitable than most 2/5 games in most areas. 1/2 in California is a joke and I would always play 2/5 or 5/5 here when I could find a decent structure (most games are 300 or 500max which I hate).
I don't play more hands because I am bored (usually), but because I am usually so much better postflop than my opponents that it is a profitable style. It is also important to play in deeper games where your implied odds are appropriate to play more hands.
If I had to sit in a $200 max game with many shorter than 100bb stacks then I would likely play tighter as I would have to call lots of all ins with Q8 due to getting the appropriate odds to call. Not that this doesn't happen sometimes in deeper games, but it is less common. It is always fun to raise your straddle to $40 with 7 limpers just to have the $90 stack shove and then look down and see that you are holding Q4s. It's even more fun when you win. Either way, I show my hand and benefit from the play later in the session.
It sounds terrible that both hands do not get shown at showdown at Woodbine. You are definitely losing valuable info.
You just described GTA, this is exactly how he plays.
Really good lags put money in every pot, but bad players dont notice they put in way more when they have it.
Like an abortionist?
Maybe on my good days