|
Ryouga Inverse posted:Well, that hand is completely different from this hand in several key ways: Hero check-raised the flop, which villain called, then the turn checked through. But yeah, it's not a perfect analogue to this hand. It's just an example of where the villain could have a rivered flush and bets pot, but he doesn't have a flush, and he doesn't have air either. Mainly I was posting it as an example of what a pot bet on a scary river from a villain with very loose stats might mean. This guy could have had a lot more hands than Ah7x to have a higher flush the way he played, but based on previous history I thought he would have bet turn if he had a heart in his hand which is why I called. King Nothing fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Mar 21, 2010 |
#
?
Mar 21, 2010 19:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 19:44 |
|
|
to continue discussing that hand because it's fun, yes, you c/r the flop but then check turn and river, that never ever shows strength, so he has tons of air in his range basically you played the hand really well because you induced the river bluff by keeping air in his range instead of betting river or something that would have just made him fold. he wasn't obviously drawing to the flush like the c/c c/c bomb line, which is why it's different in tons of ways. he has tons of random junk on the river (and your read says that he has very very few actual hands) and you are repping trash yourself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2010 22:38
|
|
|
Live home game, but a fairly big one with mostly decent (but not great) players. It's essentially 200 NL. Blinds are 1/2. My stack is about 350, villain has probably 300. Villain routinely minraises in late position and fires a PSB as a c-bet almost all the time if it's heads up. I've called in blind defense a few times given the odds, but I've only put a move on him once thus far. I have a reputation as a dangerous player at this particular game, but the villain is new and probably hasn't heard much about me. My table image from the session is semi-tight aggressive. I've shown down a couple of hands no one expected me to have, but I haven't been in enough pots to really be pegged as fully loose. Villain is in the cutoff and minraises, as per standard. It folds to me and I look down at 2d2h and call. With $9 in the pot, the flop comes Ac2c7h. I check, villain bets $9, and I call. With $27 in the pot, the turn comes 7d. I check again, and the villain bets $20. I check-raise to $80, and the villain folds. This is obviously an extraction issue. My hand is nowhere near bulletproof; if he has an ace and another ace or seven hits, I go from killing him to sunk. If I check-call the turn and another club hits, it'll likely freeze my action. The guy has seemed paranoid of flushes (which probably explains why he has a fetish for betting the pot). The villain has been playing tight preflop, clearly altering his requirements by position, but his postflop play is weak. He was up to $500 at one point, mostly from a big set vs. set, but then he ended up shipping 100 BBs to a new guy at the table with TPTK. He has no real concept of pot control. The more I think about it, though, the more I think I picked the wrong spot to raise him. The seven pairing the board on the turn is scary for him if he has an ace. And while a club on the river would freeze my action, check-calling the turn and then leading a non-club river might look enough to him like I was drawing and now trying to steal that I'll get a call. (Nevermind the fact that I wouldn't be likely to actually chase a flush draw out of position for such big bets against a guy unlikely to pay off to justify my calls, but again, he's new and we've never seen each other before tonight.) There's also the chance he's drawing to the flush, and my check-raise on the turn was big enough to blast him off that draw unnecessarily, since I very much want him to catch his flush if that's what he's going after. The way he plays, though, a flush draw is highly unlikely. Anyway, what line would you take here? A check-call on the turn risks losing the hand to a bad card, but I was already risking that by checking when I couldn't be sure he would bet, and my read on the guy says his most likely hand is a middling ace here. I've seen him go too far with one pair before, and I want him to do it again. I think the check-raise was too much. If I just called and the river came an ace or a seven, I could have gotten off the hand without much damage, so it's not like I'm really risking getting stacked. If he does have the odd flush draw, I make much more when he gets there on the river and feeds my full house. Normally, I think there's a chance he calls my check-raise on the turn with a naked ace, but the 7 was a bad card to get him to call a check-raise on. I was hoping he might think it was a bluff (I have shown one bluff, maybe an hour and a half earlier) and call, or have enough to look me up. He didn't. So, what do you think? I'm not overly happy with how this hand played out. The more I thought about it afterward, the more it bothered me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 20:57
|
|
|
Ryouga Inverse posted:Well, that hand is completely different from this hand in several key ways: yah i will definitely bet more in the future. ty
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 21:10
|
|
|
AmnesiaLab: I think I would probably just check raise the flop, or decide to check call flop and turn, and then c/r all in on the river unless we don't have the nuts anymore. The problem with the check call line is in a game like this, a lot of players aren't going to Vbet thinly, which could even extend to them checking back turn or river with TPTK. I'm much more likely to take that line vs. a good player who knows how to valuebet well. In this game I like check raising the flop because we can represent the weakest hand range with a raise there, instead of on the turn. The guys you're playing with probably won't see all the reasons for your range to be weaker with a flop vs. turn c/r, but I think they definitely will be able to put you on a flush draw. A turn check raise is much stronger though because it becomes much harder for you to have air, and it's not a standard line for a draw to take. As played in your hand once you get to the turn, I don't like a check raise because like you said, the 7 is a really good card for your range so it's real easy for him to fold TP. Not sure what I would do really but I suppose either lead turn and river, or c/c turn and then c/r river.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 21:33
|
|
|
AmnesiaLab posted:With $27 in the pot, the turn comes 7d. I check again, and the villain bets $20. I check-raise to $80, and the villain folds. This is about as close as you can get to bulletproof with basically the nuts. The 4-outer isn't a worry because it happens like 9% of the time, the question is how you get the most value from his range. His range on the flop is going to be like (everything he cbets), aces, and flush draws, so your best option is going to be something like c/r flop which zerostar covers, and then just bet/bet turn and river. This way you take the intiative and can just vbet your way to riches. As played I'm sure you know that you raised way too much if you were planning to raise this turn, and it's not going to get a lot of calls. I think that size is probably the worst actually. I probably c/c turn and lead river on almost everything for like 3/4 pot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 00:01
|
|
|
Spastic Moose posted:This is about as close as you can get to bulletproof with basically the nuts. The 4-outer isn't a worry because it happens like 9% of the time, the question is how you get the most value from his range. His range on the flop is going to be like (everything he cbets), aces, and flush draws, so your best option is going to be something like c/r flop which zerostar covers, and then just bet/bet turn and river. This way you take the intiative and can just vbet your way to riches. As played I'm sure you know that you raised way too much if you were planning to raise this turn, and it's not going to get a lot of calls. I think that size is probably the worst actually. I probably c/c turn and lead river on almost everything for like 3/4 pot. I like these lines, except if the draw misses I would lead for 100-120% of the pot, especially if you have a goofy image.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 00:12
|
|
|
I agree; depending on just how goofy your image is, you could also lead 100-120% if the draw hits.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 03:08
|
|
|
Squibz posted:I agree; depending on just how goofy your image is, you could also lead 100-120% if the draw hits. Hero believes villain is scared of flush draws, so I think this is out. I do think you can fire away if river blanks off though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 08:38
|
|
|
Yeah, my big problem was not taking enough time to think it through on the flop. I was hesitant to check-raise there because I'd seen him ditch his c-bets almost all the time on the flop to a check-raise. (Again, the guy was bad.) I'd also seen him overplay top pair on multiple occasions. I got the feel that he had extremely little experience playing deep-stack poker. He seemed to know just enough about poker to lose money and be highly exploitable, and I was just getting greedy going for it all. Those occasions when he wasn't check-raised on the flop, he nearly always bet out on the turn as well (even with small-pot hands) and got way too many chips in. I figured if he had nothing, I'd earn more this way (although I think just check/calling the turn and leading a river brick hoping he put me on a busted flush would probably be better if I'm just gonna rope-a-dope him), but against any real hand, yeah, I think the check-raise on the flop and lead from there is pretty clearly the way to go. The guy was more of a bettor than a caller, but if he had top pair, I might have been able to coax a call all the way to the river. Playing for better expectation against air is pretty goddamn retarded since there's a hard cap on what you're ever gonna get, and changing my line because of the 7 on the turn completely killed it. Blah. I'm rusty as all hell in NL cash, and I'm fresh back into poker after about a year (maybe more?) off since I decided to invest most of my bankroll into a high-risk, high-reward startup that went tits up. I'm a much better tourney player than cash, honestly, although I make up for it in live cash games by being a good people-reader. My reads in online cash games have never been where I wanted them to be, but a big part of that is experience. (The other, obviously, being worse players in live games. I was a slight winner at NL100 online, and a slight loser when I briefly moved up to NL200. Sample size and all, but I found myself in too many post-flop situations where I just lost the thread of the hand, so I moved back down.) I'm gonna check out Harrington on Cash Games and maybe give online NL cash another whirl. I hear good things about it. I just don't exercise my ring game skillset nearly as much as my tourney game, and it shows.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 09:23
|
|
|
Spastic Moose posted:Hero believes villain is scared of flush draws, so I think this is out. I do think you can fire away if river blanks off though. All the more reason to overbet then IMO.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 09:28
|
|
|
Squibz posted:All the more reason to overbet then IMO. You are going to have to explain your reasoning here, because it makes no sense at all
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 13:29
|
|
|
Providing you have a goofy image, if you've determined that a villain is afraid of a given card, then over-betting when the scare card hits (especially a flush hitting on a paired board) helps to polarize your range and is going to get looked up fairly often, and don't forget he's known to pay off 100bb w/ TPTK. Since villain is afraid of the flush, we can also be confident that he's not going to push over us, or if he does we can pretty confidently fold. Once hero decides to flat flop and check/call turn, then over-betting on a club makes sense because it's a reasonable line to take with air or nuts, and on the next level, AK or perhaps AQ.. this range gets looked up by a 7, a flush, and perhaps an A, definitely AK; your bet sizing makes it less probable that you have a flush when you overbet, and he might think you're trying to bully him based on his last payoff w/ TPTK. Barring nut flush, you're never much value by betting small when he can have a 7 or TPTK type hands a lot of the time, as anything else that re-raises you beats you (and you're getting the same value from nut flush by over-betting because if he would have re-raised a small bet he would have called an overbet), so you're better off over-betting in this situation. All this said: c/r flop. Squibz fucked around with this message at 13:55 on Mar 23, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 13:51
|
|
|
25 NL Rush. http://www.pokerhand.org/?5295962 http://www.pokerhand.org/?5296031
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 15:34
|
|
|
Squibz posted:Providing you have a goofy image, if you've determined that a villain is afraid of a given card, then over-betting when the scare card hits (especially a flush hitting on a paired board) helps to polarize your range and is going to get looked up fairly often, and don't forget he's known to pay off 100bb w/ TPTK. Since villain is afraid of the flush, we can also be confident that he's not going to push over us, or if he does we can pretty confidently fold. Once hero decides to flat flop and check/call turn, then over-betting on a club makes sense because it's a reasonable line to take with air or nuts, and on the next level, AK or perhaps AQ.. this range gets looked up by a 7, a flush, and perhaps an A, definitely AK; your bet sizing makes it less probable that you have a flush when you overbet, and he might think you're trying to bully him based on his last payoff w/ TPTK. Barring nut flush, you're never much value by betting small when he can have a 7 or TPTK type hands a lot of the time, as anything else that re-raises you beats you (and you're getting the same value from nut flush by over-betting because if he would have re-raised a small bet he would have called an overbet), so you're better off over-betting in this situation. We have a boat, so we aren't going to bet/fold 150bb deep versus this guy. In order for it to be a good idea to balance our range versus this guy, we need to know that he is a pretty good player. Since he isn't, we don't need to balance our range. We should just take the maximually +EV line. Also, we have very few bluffs in our range once we check/call two streets out of position on an A72 with a flush draw - the only whiffed draw being 45 for the gutshot, if we even call out of position preflop with that, and if we are terrible and check/call two streets with a gutshot on a paired, flush draw board. So really the only hand we can be bluffing on the river is a pair we thought was good enough to check/call two streets, but won't win at showdown - if that is the case, then why are we check/calling two streets with it? We don't need to worry about being value bet thin since he is afraid of the flush that just hit, so if we check the river and he bets we can ditch our hand since he'll check back all his one pair hands, and if we were good on the turn we are good on the river. There is no reason to balance nuts/air range versus someone who is always going to fold without having a strong hand, and there is definitely no reason to expand your nut range when your bluff range is empty. The only reason to bet huge on the river when the flush hits is if he has a large range of 7's that he is going to go to showdown no matter what with, not because you need to 'balance your range' or any garbage like that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 17:22
|
|
|
Newf posted:25 NL Rush. Hand 1: 3bet larger preflop, at least 1.50. When you get c/r'd on the flop you have to make your decision, either fold or call/call. I suck at full ring and I haven't played NL25 for awhile, but I assume you have enough retard equity at these stakes to call/call and see like A3o or KK or QJ, but if you don't think that is true than just fold to the flop raise. Hand 2: I'd fold preflop because you're out of position and I doubt much light 3betting happens at NL25. Once again, if you call you are counting on retard equity to make your hand +ev. I would have bet like 16$ on the river, once you check I would check/shove, counting on retard equity to get him to call me with something worse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 17:26
|
|
|
Ranma posted:We have a boat, so we aren't going to bet/fold 150bb deep versus this guy. In order for it to be a good idea to balance our range versus this guy, we need to know that he is a pretty good player. Since he isn't, we don't need to balance our range. We should just take the maximually +EV line. Also, we have very few bluffs in our range once we check/call two streets out of position on an A72 with a flush draw - the only whiffed draw being 45 for the gutshot, if we even call out of position preflop with that, and if we are terrible and check/call two streets with a gutshot on a paired, flush draw board. So really the only hand we can be bluffing on the river is a pair we thought was good enough to check/call two streets, but won't win at showdown - if that is the case, then why are we check/calling two streets with it? We don't need to worry about being value bet thin since he is afraid of the flush that just hit, so if we check the river and he bets we can ditch our hand since he'll check back all his one pair hands, and if we were good on the turn we are good on the river. He's pretty much got to call with any 7/AK/AQ and certainly any flush, but he's going to check back a lot of them; we have to go on the assumption that he has a reasonably strong hand and go for lots of value here, since we purposefully under-represented our hand. If you're not going to go for a big river bet, you need to c/r flop instead of c/c'ing. On the turn, villain has either Ax, a 7, a flush draw, or air. I think a flush draw or a 7 make up a lot of that, and you need to get value from those hands. If he's not calling a bet w/ a 7 on a club river then he's not going to bet/raise with one either. He has to call with a flush since you can have a 7 or a weaker flush, and betting turn w/ a flushdraw, hitting your flush, and folding river would be atrocious. Your point that he's a bad player I think might even make a case for him just saying "I have nut two pair" with AK and calling, also.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 17:45
|
|
|
This is more or less what I was thinking. The past two days I took my second shot at NL25 and just got loving creamed. Really frustrating. I played around 3k hands and lost ~$150. I'm not sure whether the size of the pots is loving with my head or if I'm just hitting a lot of bad situations. Pretty sure after some review that I'm just an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 18:01
|
|
|
Squibz posted:He's pretty much got to call with any 7/AK/AQ and certainly any flush, but he's going to check back a lot of them; we have to go on the assumption that he has a reasonably strong hand and go for lots of value here, since we purposefully under-represented our hand. This doesn't make any sense. We just said villain was afraid of the flush draw, probably afraid enough to fold to a pot/>pot lead on the river. We can't just say "well here we are on the river I hope he has a strong hand I bet the pot." We have to tailor a bet size to his range so that we find the optimal amount and don't leave any money on the table. quote:
Flush draws and 7s do not make up a lot of his range. Air and aces do, and if villain is scared of flushes and he has a 7 he probably bets closer to pot. Someone who is scared of flush draws I would apply the tendency of not being aggressive with them possibly. Yes he's a bad player, but there are different kinds of bad players, and we already have the information that he is scared of flush draws. If the flush draw hits it's going to be difficult enough to get paid off without instapotting it. If I had total air and the flush hit river I would totally lead pot though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 20:15
|
|
|
what up all, I still play poker now and then. NL50 FR against two regs, SB is 18/5 for 1.8k hands and UTG limper is 30/16 over 400, this is definitely skewed cause I played headsup against him for a while. Both are 6+ tabling and I usually see them most days. http://www.pokerhand.org/?5303679 I've iso-raised UTG probably 2-3 times and he's either folded pre or on the flop so I assume he has the 'normal' limping range of small pairs and some suited stuff. SB since he is fairly tight should have higher pairs (possibly JJ as the highest and 77 as the lowest) and probably bigger suited connectors. I checked the turn for pot control basically and to make it easier to showdown my hand. Should I be betting instead? And what's my river move, just flat? He bet pretty small so it could to be to induce..
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2010 00:43
|
|
|
http://www.pokerhand.org/?5303827 I've been running into spots like this alot lately where I flop pretty strong yet vulnerable hands. I'm discovering that I still have a ton of betsizing issues. It's RUSH, so no real read on this guy, I don't have anywhere near enough hands on him yet. I'm pretty sure I need to raise, he's got so much in his range here that is a legitimate hand to pop my cbet on the flop with, but I'm not sure how much to go. 3-bet too small and I'm giving the draws good odds, 3-bet too big and I'm going to leave the stack sizes really awkward, or possibly force out those middling pairs that I want to stick around to call me down. Just randomly 3-bet shipping feels bad for a ton of reasons. I guess I could just flat and evaluate how much I can milk him for on the turn if the draws whiff, but there are just so many cards I would really prefer not to see.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2010 01:33
|
|
|
Biggy_ posted:what up all, I still play poker now and then. NL50 FR against two regs, SB is 18/5 for 1.8k hands and UTG limper is 30/16 over 400, this is definitely skewed cause I played headsup against him for a while. Both are 6+ tabling and I usually see them most days. I don't mind your line at all, but then I'm a nit. How tight is his 3-bet pre anyway? He'd have to pretty specifically have an overpair or maybe AT for you to get more money out of him by raising the river, but I don't think you are going to get more out of anything you beat very often and your check behind on the turn is absolutely going to get a ton of hands you beat to bet in to you that otherwise fold if you fire the turn or raise the river.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2010 01:42
|
|
|
2.5 3bet
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2010 02:11
|
|
|
Playing in my weekly $30 live tournament, usual group of players. 5k starting chips, we're at the last hand of the 75/150 level. I raise utg+1 with AsQc to 400, folded to the button who calls. Blinds fold. My image in this game is slightly loose but aggressive, I'll come in with hands like 78s or JTs but people generally give me respect. Villain's range is pretty wide on the button, hes a straightforward player but will play anything suited, anything connected. I started the hand with about 6300 to villains 7000. Flop comes AcKs4c. I continued with 650, villain calls fairly quickly. Turn is Jc. I check, looking to squeeze value from the river from a check behind. Villain bets out 2500. I tank for minute, he could be betting anything as weak as an ace with a low club, or something like KxTc. There is a shot he made something though, and I thought if I shoved on the turn I was getting called. My plan was to call and push any river, which I did when the 8d fell and he called after a quick tank. Was this a horrible line? I cant see myself getting called by worse if I shove on the turn, is this a call+fold on a brick river? Or fold on the turn to the overbet? Edit: Results: He had AJ mt1 fucked around with this message at 03:09 on Mar 26, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2010 02:54
|
|
|
Biggy_ posted:2.5 3bet That's generally about what I have been choosing to do, but it just feels off for some reason. If he 4-bet ships over on the flop, it's a nobrainer to get it in, but if he flats, I think it's safe to assume I'm just shipping any turn also right? Considering he's now only got about 20ish back with 60ish in the pot. That's what I meant by feeling a bit awkward stackwise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2010 06:34
|
|
|
Biggy_ posted:http://www.pokerhand.org/?5303679 I think we should bet turn, we shouldn't worry about pot controlling when we can clearly bet for value and there is a very small chance that we make a mistake on the turn, it is a pretty simple b/f against most people. If the turn made a lot of hands better than yours, or brought a significant chance that we could be forced into a mistake because our opponents will now semibluff c/r or c/jam a worse made hand, or the turn made it more difficult for us to get value we could check back. This turn card improved 77 and 54s and not much else, and it also doesn't hurt our ability to get value but actually improves it because it gives other hands gutshots now. So I would bet again on turn and also on almost all rivers. As played on the river raising is gonna be thin so I'm fine with calling unless Tx is calling a raise. It does seem like you're gonna be ahead a very large % of the time so if the guy in the middle didn't call I think raising would be OK, I would raise pretty small though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2010 00:01
|
|
|
ZeroStar posted:I think we should bet turn, we shouldn't worry about pot controlling when we can clearly bet for value and there is a very small chance that we make a mistake on the turn, it is a pretty simple b/f against most people. If the turn made a lot of hands better than yours, or brought a significant chance that we could be forced into a mistake because our opponents will now semibluff c/r or c/jam a worse made hand, or the turn made it more difficult for us to get value we could check back. This turn card improved 77 and 54s and not much else, and it also doesn't hurt our ability to get value but actually improves it because it gives other hands gutshots now. So I would bet again on turn and also on almost all rivers. Doesn't it make a difference that he had two callers isntead of one on the flop? If it's headsup going to the turn, I like a bet there better, but 3-way I thought a pot controlling line would end up being the way to go. Not too mention it gives him the chance to have many worse hands bet in to hero on the river that might otherwise fold out to a turn bet from hero.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2010 07:57
|
|
|
I don't think it matters too much in this specific spot, we will be raised more often and have to fold since it's 3 handed, but we will also be called by a worse hand more often than when HU. If we had something like JT then it would be getting thin on the turn but we have a huge hand for the action thus far. The part about having a hand bet the river that would fold turn, that is not a big consideration for me. Any hand that does it for value I imagine is calling the turn, and there isn't going to be many air hands in either players range and I expect most people to just try for showdown by checking with middle pairs, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2010 22:55
|
|
|
I recently sat down, villain seemed to be in a lot of pots but really its been like 10 hands so nothing solid. Given that he flatted OOP AK seems unlikely, and his betsizing seems weird for AQ/AJ given that my hand looks really weak but he is still betting huge, plus its hard for him to have a hand he is real happy with here. Straight and flush draws are in abundance on the turn and none hit on the river. His value range seems more boats or a weird AK. Oh, he shoved river in after like 1 second - fast but not instant I dunno, standard calldown, super spew readless? Cake Poker $200.00 No Limit Hold'em - 4 players The Official 2+2 Hand Converter Powered By DeucesCracked.com SB: $431.35 BB: $186.75 CO: $203.95 Hero (BTN): $336.80 Pre Flop: ($3.00) Hero is BTN with J  J CO raises to $7, Hero raises to $20, 2 folds, CO calls $13 Flop: ($43.00) A  6 3 (2 players)CO checks, Hero checks Turn: ($43.00) 9 (2 players)CO bets $43.00, Hero calls $43 River: ($129.00) 6 (2 players)CO bets $140.95, Hero calls $140.95
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2010 04:42
|
|
|
Teppec posted:http://www.pokerhand.org/?5303827 I'm going to try to exhaustively break this down because it's annoying the gently caress out of me. I'm assuming you're always strongly betting/shoving a turn blank and checking a turn diamond, which is I think are the only reasonable plays. You have three choices here: raise to $30+ aka shove, raise to $23-$25ish, flat. Against two non-diamond overs/air, a flat provides the bonus when the turn gives him top pair and will call your shove; but he will be able to bluff you on diamonds and you have to fold there. I think it might not be a reasonable assumption that he folds to a small reraise here, but that minimizes your return; it's going to be very hard for him to bluff a turned flush here because you look like Axdd when you check a diamond turn, so can only improve on a +30 BB return. So, roughly: shove = +30 BB flat = works out to somewhat less than +30 BB, probably at worst +25 BB (+70ish BB if he turns an overpair on a non-diamond, -30 BB if he bluffs every diamond, and at least +30 BB when the turn blanks) small raise = I would guess that he doesn't know what to do and calls some amount of the time, basically the same as flatting except it will be harder for him to bluff flushes because your small raise makes you look very comfortable with a diamond hitting, so I'd say you're at least 30BB. If he decides you look weak and he shoves, bonus. If he has Kxdd or Axdd you're 65% to win on the flop, and he's going to call your shove. Flatting means he'll play perfect on the turn and probably fold to an overbet shove. You'll do very well with a raise to 25ish if he calls because he'll often think he has 12 outs after a blank turn rather than 8; I have no idea if he'll generally call or shove this raise. Note that we can have a 6d turn, or he traps on the turn and we boat up on the river, so it's not as bad as it sounds to see a turn. shove = +30 BB (.65*200) flat = +22 BB (30*37/45-30*7+100*1/45) assuming he never traps, +30 if he traps every time small raise = if he calls flop: 60*37/45 (misses the diamond, not +65 sometimes hits a pair and rivers two pair) -50*7/45+100*1/45 ~= +42BB, up to +50BB if he traps, >+30 BB no matter our raise size if he shoves over us: +30 BB so about +35BB if he does each half the time If he has 78 not-dd, we're in the same spot, except that we're going to be forced to pay him off if a non-diamond 4 or 9 hits. So it'll work out roughly the same as a flush draw except flatting is just +25 BB or so and small raises are less likely to be called because they can't bide their time like Axdd can. We'd rather he shoved over us rather than flat our raise, though. If he has a SD and a FD, we can't really get +EV on turn, we're paying off non-diamond made straights, and he's probably shoving over any raise anyway. Anything other than flatting is good. If he has an overpair, we want the money to get in as fast as possible because we don't want HIM to be scared by a diamond, and he will probably assume that we have Axdd if we reraise. I think a small raise is superior to a shove here, because a shove looks more like TT-QQ and we want 77-TT to stay in. The underlying mathematical lesson is that, if you size your raise so that your EV against a flush draw if they call the raise is greater than or equal to your all-in EV against the flush draw, raising and c/f'ing every diamond turn dominates shoving (with the exception of naked SDs which I think are rarer here). This means giving them (45\x):1 immediate odds, where x is the number of outs (in this case 8 instead of 9, and you can add +2BB on top of that from when the 6d hits); in his hand, you make a profit as long as you raise at least (8/45)*30=5.33, which is even smaller than a min-raise here, and he calls. You profit because he'll think that he has overcard outs and who folds overs and a FD on the flop ever? He'll call or shove a raise to $23-$25 (edit: and when the raise is that big, our loss in EV against a SD compared to a shove is minimal). In addition, the small raise gets more money in while you're ahead against everything else, so it gives people a chance to make real mistakes as well as Slanksky-theorem mistakes. Flatting is worse in the above because you're out of position and your opponent plays his flush draws on the turn with respect to pot odds. The one situation that contradicts the above is if he'll never fold Axdd on a blank turn, and he'll make calls which would be mathematically wrong if you had some middling overpair. If even something like 10% of players can say 'he has at least a pair and he's scared; I don't have pot odds' and fold Axdd to a turn overbet, flatting is worse than a small reraise. If can read your opponent's soul, maybe you can do funky things after flatting if you know that your opponent he'll call huge bets on the turn AND will always give you a shot a a boat on the river if the turn is a diamond AND so many other things it's not worth thinking about. You'd be thrilled to play for stacks here on the flop, you're scared of draws, and you can put your opponent in a weird spot with hands they're going to have huge trouble folding, and in general I think their stupidity is going to err on the side of shoving. Value bet. Care. fucked around with this message at 05:15 on Mar 28, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2010 04:47
|
|
|
Ranma posted:I recently sat down, villain seemed to be in a lot of pots but really its been like 10 hands so nothing solid. I think AK can be discounted but is still possible, but I think the hands that play this way are just going to crush you. AQ/AJ are somewhat unlikely but if he is bad he can sometimes play them this way. I think his range realistically though is going to be stuff like 66, 33, 99, A9s, A6s, that feel like they need to get a lot of money in quickly with the nuts. The aces are also somewhat unlikely flats pre but if he's on the loose side I think at least A9 can flat pre and shove river without too much fear. I also think a hand like 64/56/67/68/maybe as bad as 69ss are possible depending on how loose villain is, and I think we can say that he's somewhat loose based on the history. The true connectors are the likelier hands. I think the value hands just outweigh the draws combo-wise, {33,66,99,A9s,56ss,67ss} is 15 combos. The draws are pretty unlikely to pot turn as well I think but even if they do he would have to be pot/shoving them all on a blank river to make this okay. Turn I think is a mandatory call because you look weak and random loose-ish villain X can easily have a lot of hands.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2010 08:34
|
|
|
The call down can't be that bad, your hand looks like what it is and aggro opponents can double barrel like this and get some people to fold 100% of their range. I don't like checking the flop (gives a good opponent a ton of info) since we don't know how he's going to react to it and we could easily make a bad mistake. I would just bet flop and then check back turn and river most likely and expect to get a street of value from some hands and not have him bluff into us on the river often at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2010 09:36
|
|
|
Newf posted:25 NL Rush. Dude, small hand, small pot. Big hand, big pot. Seriously. I've gotta disagree with Ranma here. I've got some experience at NL25 full ring, and you're not going to get anywhere near the retard equity you think you do. Know why? Because you're the retard at the table. No offense intended, honestly, but someone has to tell you. The way you're playing shows you just haven't adjusted to deep-stack poker. You're overplaying top pair and you're going to get loving crushed if you keep doing it. Let me guess... you make some of these moves, get some raises and a really dry board, and think, "But, I've got TPTK! (Or whatever.) He would have to have this, this, or this to have me beat here! That's bullshit!" So you call, and you take it all the way to the felt, and sure enough, he shows you that you were crushed the whole time and you don't understand how people keep doing this to you. Just because it's NL25 doesn't mean everyone are habitual bluffers. You'll spot those types if they show up pretty quickly. Don't be afraid to let them bluff you off a hand on occasion, because if you're going all the way to showdown with top pair regularly, you're losing your stack regularly. You are the exact player I look to play with. When I sit down at a table and see your play, you are my target. It is insanely easy to win money from players who can't get off top pair, and it's one of the most common notes I put on people, along with a color code. So yeah, upon review, your loss at NL25 is not a downswing. You need to develop the skillset to play deep stack poker. It's a different animal. What do you normally play? Where did you start? SnGs, lower ring games, MTTs? Just wanna know where you're coming from here. I'm not saying you CAN'T play NL25 ring. I'm just saying you have to learn first. If you wanna send me a PM, I'd be willing to talk some things over with you. AmnesiaLab fucked around with this message at 14:50 on Mar 28, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2010 14:48
|
|
|
Ranma posted:I recently sat down, villain seemed to be in a lot of pots but really its been like 10 hands so nothing solid. I agree with a c-bet on the flop here. Checking behind with jacks in this spot sets you up for confusion later in the hand. You 3-bet pre, so c-bet post. That'll give you the information you need for clearer decisions later in the hand. Holy double post, Batman!
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2010 15:08
|
|
|
Care. posted:Words Thank you a ton for this. Definitely some finer points I hadn't really thought about and I rarely break things down to this extent for the math. Lots to think about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2010 19:48
|
|
|
AmnesiaLab posted:I agree with a c-bet on the flop here. Checking behind with jacks in this spot sets you up for confusion later in the hand. You 3-bet pre, so c-bet post. That'll give you the information you need for clearer decisions later in the hand. What better hand folds / worse hand calls a continuation bet on this board? Also, there is a non zero chance that something gross like a check/minraise or check/larger raise happens here, which would be a very profitable play if I'm cbetting 100% of my range on this board. I check back TT+ and AQ occasionally on this board as a standard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2010 01:15
|
|
|
Ranma posted:What better hand folds / worse hand calls a continuation bet on this board? Also, there is a non zero chance that something gross like a check/minraise or check/larger raise happens here, which would be a very profitable play if I'm cbetting 100% of my range on this board. I check back TT+ and AQ occasionally on this board as a standard. There is also a non zero chance that he calls some random worse pp. But that's not why we cbet, we cbet because if we don't we just give our opponents infinite odds to draw to sets/higher pairs. Our hand is fairly vulnerable and we can't really take much action from him. He can bluff a lot more after you check flop than if you just cbet. So we just have to cbet, we want to avoid making mistakes on later streets, and I think in an aggressive game you have to play it this way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2010 01:29
|
|
|
Spastic Moose posted:There is also a non zero chance that he calls some random worse pp. But that's not why we cbet, we cbet because if we don't we just give our opponents infinite odds to draw to sets/higher pairs. Our hand is fairly vulnerable and we can't really take much action from him. He can bluff a lot more after you check flop than if you just cbet. So we just have to cbet, we want to avoid making mistakes on later streets, and I think in an aggressive game you have to play it this way. I definitely agree with the bluff now so he can't bluff us later plan if we are out of position, but with position we get to control the action more. Also, he has to have KQ to have 6 outs to a higher pair - otherwise he has between 2-3 outs (or 45 for the straight draw I suppose). We really don't need to protect, as he can't go for too much value if he turns a pair less than an ace, since we are checking back lots of our weak Ax hands that we were bluff 3betting with preflop. Also, if we are going to induce a high number of bluffs on this board, as long as we play better than our opponent, checking back this flop is going to be much, much more +ev than betting, since we don't give him a chance to bluff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2010 02:32
|
|
|
Ranma posted:I definitely agree with the bluff now so he can't bluff us later plan if we are out of position, but with position we get to control the action more. Also, he has to have KQ to have 6 outs to a higher pair - otherwise he has between 2-3 outs (or 45 for the straight draw I suppose). We really don't need to protect, as he can't go for too much value if he turns a pair less than an ace, since we are checking back lots of our weak Ax hands that we were bluff 3betting with preflop. How can we control the action though? Once we check behind flop it opens us up to be bluffed and valuebet when we have a lot of trouble telling the difference. He also might not think we are checking back weak Ax hands we 3b, or he might not even think we have those in our 3b range and our hand could look like exactly what it is. We do induce bluffs but we have a very tough time differentiating between bluffs and valuebets so we can't check behind flop and hope to induce a single street bluff or anything. I think you go a bit too far with your assumptions about his reads on us and we can't quite assume villain is thinking all of these things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2010 03:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 19:44 |
|
|
Ideally we want to check back the flop I think, because nothing better folds and not too many worse hands are calling. But when we don't know how to react against our opponent once we define our range very well it becomes tricky and that's why I like betting most of the time vs. a thinking player and no reads. Against weak players I generally check back a lot unless I think there's a good amount of value in the flop bet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2010 03:31
|
|