|
Tough spot, think I played it crappy. Small blind is loose passive. http://www.pokerhand.org/?4997161 I think the flop was OK, but do you think I need to raise bigger given the number of opponents? Or is it OK given that the board was dry? Turn on reflection seems horrible, and i'm wondering what you guys would do as played; the seven was an ugly card and it threw me somewhat. River was probably crappy as well, i'm terrible with overpairs.
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 01:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 19:48 |
|
|
No read on CO? Flop size is maybe a little small but it's only off by a BB or two, don't beat yourself up about that. Betting the turn is fine, probably folding to a raise. River I'm probably leading with a small bet; still plenty of 88-TT, draws like A5, 65 that spiked and might think they have a bluffcatcher, and random garbage being NL10. If you check you ABSOLUTELY have to call. It's an overpair at NL10 on a relatively non-threatening board against a guy who's done nothing to indicate he thinks he's ahead. What were you so afraid of?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 01:26
|
|
|
Preflop and flop are fine, turn bet $3, river shove.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 01:48
|
|
|
Thanks for the comments; the loose passive read was meant to be the CO, not the SB. As for the river fold, I guess I was just finding an excuse to fold as i've been nitting it up due to a lot of recent spewy calls. Definately should have called the river as played. While i'm online: http://www.pokerhand.org/?5003367 UTG+1 is a 50/17/3.0 drooler. After he min-raises the river am I to assume he had the best hand and just flat call? I'm pretty sure my shove was awful in this spot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 00:32
|
|
|
holycrapabear posted:While i'm online: http://www.pokerhand.org/?5003367 I'd lean toward "optional" than awful. The remaining stacks once he raises are so small that he's never folding, so it's a simple 1:1 pot odds scenario you're creating for the rest. Are you good 50% of the time here? It would be helpful to know if he ever raises the river without the nuts, which is where a note or deeper stats than AF can be helpful. Some players will raise here with a wide range including trips and aces up, some might only raise with trips with a high kicker or better. It's kind of a marginal spot either way without a specific read, there's underfulls like 65 in his range at least as much as there's random trips like 76. Bet bigger on the river, by the way - most villains are going to shove instead of minraising with any bet, you're never folding against those stats if he shoves, and villain mostly has pair hands here. He'll call 3 with the same range as 2.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 01:11
|
|
|
holycrapabear posted:Thanks for the comments; the loose passive read was meant to be the CO, not the SB. As for the river fold, I guess I was just finding an excuse to fold as i've been nitting it up due to a lot of recent spewy calls. Definately should have called the river as played. Don't show results, I'm always shoving there
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 01:16
|
|
|
http://weaktight.com/1821522 BTN was 21/13/5 over 60. UTG was 45/0 over 16. std? err fucked around with this message at 13:25 on Dec 22, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 12:58
|
|
|
err, I clicked the link and it said it was private so I couldn't view it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 13:17
|
|
|
ZeroStar posted:err, I clicked the link and it said it was private so I couldn't view it. oops, fixed
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 13:25
|
|
|
err posted:http://weaktight.com/1821522 This spot sucks, so much. Someone could be hiding a monster, like QQ due to the blockers you have, most likely UTG, although he could be c/c with a flush draw or a straight draw. There is no way I'm not getting this in I think but I feel like this is probably a flip at best. AQ could be in BTN's calling range, which kills you, as does KTo+s. You have the ace of diamonds which means none of them are on a top pair + nut flush draw. I'd just get it in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 18:34
|
|
|
err posted:http://weaktight.com/1821522 completely standard
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 20:39
|
|
|
I don't know how I feel about this hand. I don't like calling the turn out of position, but I feel like his turn range has to be very weak after he checks back the flop when the preflop raiser checks to him. http://www.pokerhand.org/?5006220 Sand raises a little light, THA. is a little loose and a little aggro, but I don't have amazing reads on him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 22:53
|
|
|
His range is definitely weak after the flop check multiway but it definitely includes a lot of hands that are better than yours (Qx/higher pairs) and in general without a read the river is going to be hard. Calling the turn is pretty much hoping that he'll check back the river a ton since we don't have a read to let us know if he'll continue firing his bluffs. Basically what I'm saying is I play it the same way because I'm a nit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 23:18
|
|
|
I'd check-raise turn a reasonable amount of the time as played. Just curious - were you going for a check-raise on the flop?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2009 02:36
|
|
|
http://weaktight.com/1825703 CO was like 80/10 over 12. BTN was 15/9 over ~40. Should I have bet turn? As played insta-call right? err fucked around with this message at 08:40 on Dec 23, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2009 08:38
|
|
|
err posted:http://weaktight.com/1825703 That's a massive overbet. Easy fold. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a boat or a higher flush, leaning toward sixes full.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2009 08:45
|
|
|
err posted:http://weaktight.com/1825703 Turn bet would be very optional, it's NL5 and that's kind of a bullshit turn card to improve your hand (even in the BB), so you're going to get looked up by all sorts of crap and then you're OOP with 9-high the 80% of the time you miss the river. As played it's one of the world's easiest river folds unless CO is a complete spaz monkey lunatic and you don't have enough info to even venture that guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2009 10:30
|
|
|
Squibz posted:I'd check-raise turn a reasonable amount of the time as played. I'd much rather have 9To or A3o than 55 when I check/raise the flop or the turn - what is your reasoning for check/raising either spot? For the 92s hand, I probably call just because at low limits I rely less on hand reading, and more on absolute hand strength, since you have so much retard equity. At a high limit I would probably fold.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2009 20:14
|
|
|
If you're going to play small pocket pairs like that OOP, you have to play them more than for set value. Furthermore, you have to check-raise or donk out a good amount of the time when you don't flop a set, in order to ensure that you're going to get paid when you do. For most purposes, your small pocket pair basically is air in that spot, in that it's going to have negligible showdown value. Are you routinely flatting in spots like this with small pocket pairs vs an EP raise and a non-button call? If I were you I'd look into this - if you're not playing aggressively postflop on boards like that, it could be a leak. Calling that massive overshove with a weakish flush on a paired board is probably -EV even at NL5.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2009 22:19
|
|
|
On the pocket fives Ranma hand, is anyone else liking a lead for 7-ish on the turn? We can reasonably have checked to the PFR with a lot of decent hands on the flop, it seems exceedingly unlikely anyone has a king or even a queen and they probably can't call with worse, and we can represent a fair number of river cards if called anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2009 22:34
|
|
|
Squibz posted:If you're going to play small pocket pairs like that OOP, you have to play them more than for set value. Furthermore, you have to check-raise or donk out a good amount of the time when you don't flop a set, in order to ensure that you're going to get paid when you do. For most purposes, your small pocket pair basically is air in that spot, in that it's going to have negligible showdown value. Are you routinely flatting in spots like this with small pocket pairs vs an EP raise and a non-button call? If I were you I'd look into this - if you're not playing aggressively postflop on boards like that, it could be a leak. while flatting a small pp out of the blinds vs an ep raiser might be a small leak, closing the action in a multiway pot with a small pocket pair is fine. i agree that you should be checkraising a small amount of the time, not a great amount. it's not to ensure that you're going to get paid when you do hit a set, it's just to get a slightly better hand to fold or grab the dead money in the pot versus two overcards that have six outs twice. i think your question to checkraise the flop is based on the fact that you have more information than ranma did, in that the turn got ch/ch ed and i think its pretty spewy to regularly checkraise the cutoff in this spot as there are a lot of kx/qx in his range.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2009 22:47
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:On the pocket fives Ranma hand, is anyone else liking a lead for 7-ish on the turn? We can reasonably have checked to the PFR with a lot of decent hands on the flop, it seems exceedingly unlikely anyone has a king or even a queen and they probably can't call with worse, and we can represent a fair number of river cards if called anyway. I do like that - it's definitely better than essentially giving up when missing the set.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2009 23:58
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:On the pocket fives Ranma hand, is anyone else liking a lead for 7-ish on the turn? We can reasonably have checked to the PFR with a lot of decent hands on the flop, it seems exceedingly unlikely anyone has a king or even a queen and they probably can't call with worse, and we can represent a fair number of river cards if called anyway. It practically has to be exactly a J or T, and villain has to have exactly 66-99, and we have to assume he'll peel the turn with those.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2009 02:17
|
|
|
http://weaktight.com/1827614 Okay I'm new so bear with me. My reasonings: I was abusing position a lot, c betting a good portion of the time and not getting called. I thought he might have been trying to push back. I was only losing to any Q, KK, or AA, or flopped set. If he had a FD I wanted him to pay hard for it. Anyways blast me away I can take it, since im still learning.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2009 03:12
|
|
|
ToiletLaw posted:http://weaktight.com/1827614 At NL10, he either has a monster draw that has you more or less flipping, or has you crushed - pretty clear fold. If you really think he's on a "move" - then flatting is better than shoving. EDIT: unless you have some read on him that he is super aggressive for a NL10 player (most are not).
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2009 03:57
|
|
|
ToiletLaw posted:http://weaktight.com/1827614 Well first off he should rarely have aces or kings because he didn't 3bet you PF. When you're raised on that flop(and that's nearly a pot sized raise), you're way behind his range unless you've got a read he's totally spazzy. Shoving over pretty much never gets a call from anything you're ahead of.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2009 04:14
|
|
|
Just because you've been running the table over and then you get raised doesn't mean that they're playing back at you. Could be that they folded those times cause they had nothing and now they have something. A couple of mine: http://weaktight.com/1827699 Both villains are pretty good regulars. Not sure about the squeeze but I don't have a really squeezey image so I think it's ok. On the flop I don't mind it checking through and I also think that CO might take a stab at the pot with something weak after I check it so I opted for a check-raise. What do you think? http://weaktight.com/1827703 No real reads on this guy but I think he's 3betting light Flop I think is standard but I was pretty lost on the turn. I don't think he folds any value hands to a shove and folding sucks so the only option is a call right? Due to stack sizes I don't think I'll be getting bluffed on the river a lot since he'd be betting just over 1/3rd pot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2009 05:18
|
|
|
MC Fruit Stripe posted:It practically has to be exactly a J or T, and villain has to have exactly 66-99, and we have to assume he'll peel the turn with those. Aces and spades are decent scare cards too. We don't have to bluff the river, it's just something to consider. We actually have some showdown value if one of the villains tries to snap us off with a 4 or 2 anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2009 05:53
|
|
|
dsquash posted:http://weaktight.com/1827699 Don't really care for the squeeze that much because we're 200 deep with one of them so he's going to be able to call you pretty light. It's not terrible because we have position on him, but it's something we're going to need to take into account postflop. Flop is fine as played I think. I don't like cbetting because we have a draw with decent equity but we have no showdown equity at all so bet/calling sucks and we're playing multiway. The original raiser probably has a pretty wide range here so I think it's a good spot to do this. quote:http://weaktight.com/1827703 I think you need to flat the turn here. This isn't really a great board to barrel on with air so his range is mostly value (which beats you) and as you said he's not folding. It's a pretty lovely spot but I think shoving is the worst of the three choices.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2009 06:01
|
|
|
dsquash posted:Just because you've been running the table over and then you get raised doesn't mean that they're playing back at you. Could be that they folded those times cause they had nothing and now they have something. This is an extremely important lesson at the micros. Whenever you get in a spot like this and you start to think "maybe he's just playing back at me", think of the way the U.S. Constitution treats treason: don't convince yourself unless you've witnessed him do so at least twice. Until then, if he's repping a queen, he's got it >90% of the time and he's got position to control the size of the pot. Don't get locked into the idea that because you started with a premium hand, you still have one no matter what the board says.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2009 06:02
|
|
|
dsquash posted:A couple of mine: Squeeze is a table-read spot but it's a decent hand to do it and generally seems like you thought it through. Really like the check-shove on the flop. Well played whether you get called or not. quote:http://weaktight.com/1827703 Did you consider four-betting him pre since you thought he was 3-betting light? I hate flatting three-bets at 100 BB deep because of the spot you get into later where stacks are too small to have any fold equity ever. Weird stack sizes on the turn. If there was a little more behind I'd certainly consider a shove, but he seems pretty pot-committed with any ten or better and it's kinda gross if we get it in 28% against queens or something. So I think raising is out. We're slightly short of the immediate odds we'd need to call the turn - 2.4 to 1, and we need about 2.7-2.9 depending on how often we think he shows up with duplicate cards or a set. But I think we're getting the rest of his stack a vast majority of the time of the time if we hit, and there's a small but non-zero chance we have the best hand and the river checks through. So again, I like a just-call play.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2009 06:03
|
|
|
First hand looks good dsquash, second one without doing any math it seems to me like we're getting the right implied odds to call turn. So calling is very often +EV and shoving is +EV not too often I think, he would have to be bluffing a fair amount of the time on the turn. I would call and get it in every time we improve, fold otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2009 07:38
|
|
|
Squibz posted:At NL10, he either has a monster draw that has you more or less flipping, or has you crushed - pretty clear fold. If you really think he's on a "move" - then flatting is better than shoving. You pinned it he had a FD and open ender. I guess in retrospect there's no way to know he has it, and just let it go.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2009 12:08
|
|
|
I don't have reads so I can't say for sure, but at any rate, there's no point in being too fancy at NL10 - there's plenty of money floating around on the surface, all you need is a net, it's unnecessary to go deep sea diving.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2009 12:48
|
|
|
http://www.pokerhand.org/?5011383 Short stack is just pushing any halfway decent hand, second guy is really loose and aggressive, 50% vpip, 35% pfr. Two guys behind me are really tight. Do I just fold this and stay out of humungo variance land or should I be gambling it up here?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2009 17:32
|
|
|
Elysium posted:http://www.pokerhand.org/?5011383 Considering rake, it's probably closer to neutral EV. If you don't like variance, then fold I guess, but then again, if you don't like variance, don't play poker 
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2009 17:55
|
|
|
This is a super standard shove.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2009 21:22
|
|
|
dsquash posted:Just because you've been running the table over and then you get raised doesn't mean that they're playing back at you. Could be that they folded those times cause they had nothing and now they have something. Hand 1: Flop is shove or fold after you check, I don't mind a shove if you think the CO is going to be betting light in the cut off, but realize you are probably going to get called a little light, so I would be shoving only if I thought the co would bet plenty of air. Realize your hand looks like a draw, and you have very little fold equity versus a real hand. Hand 2: I'd probably flat turn/fold river unimproved, I don't think he'll shove river with a weaker hand if you call the turn, so you can fold without being exploited, plus you can stack him on any of your outs, and there is a slight chance he is bluffing. Flop is kinda meh standard, he can be betting plenty of hands that beat you, depends on if he bets JJ-KK on the flop, whether he 3bets AQ or AJ out of position, but if he is 3betting light he is probably cbetting this board with most of his range, so I guess you can call.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2009 22:32
|
|
|
Thanks for the comments everyone. I've updated the hands with results for those interested, not that it matters that much. jeffersonlives: I agree that 4betting is a much better defense against light 3bettors but I think JTs has too much value in seeing a flop so I choose different types of hands to bluff with. This might be a leak especially when I'm readless but now that I've seen that this guy 3bets hands like small suited connectors I think I can play JTs profitably to a 3bet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2009 12:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 19:48 |
|
|
Elysium posted:http://www.pokerhand.org/?5011383 I'd call and even if the loose guy wins it shouldn't be too hard to get some of it back since you have position on him. If one of the tight guys behind you called with aces then that's just bad luck.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2009 17:56
|
|
