|
srsly posted:Shipped hoping he folds, but also knew I beat hands in his calling range. Move down. "So the question is do I have pot odds against the proposition that he (a) calls, and (b) with a hand that beats me. The answer was yes." this doesn't mean anything. Please stop saying meaningless strings of words and then saying "The answer is yes" afterwards. Also I'd be very impressed if you could even come up with a range of hands that he calls with that beats you that represents a meaningful proportion of his overall range, enough so that it's both better to shove the river and that there's few enough "any two cards" that he shoves that we shouldn't check/call. The answer is no.
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2011 19:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 01:44 |
|
|
Either move down or play in my card room, cause you don't know how to think about poker.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2011 00:13
|
|
|
Im trying to get the logic here... we check here if we believe he is shoving with any two, or a hand worse than ours (likely a 9) but we aren't shoving because it is killing our value, right? Sorry if this is basic, Im just trying to figure out the logic here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2011 02:38
|
|
|
Crazy685 posted:Im trying to get the logic here... we check here if we believe he is shoving with any two, or a hand worse than ours (likely a 9) but we aren't shoving because it is killing our value, right? It is a little counter intuitive because we always hear about making our hands easier to play or whatever, but basically yes. We're trusting our read to be correct (even though its a little crazy) and if our read is that he shoves any 2 and his range is worse than our hand we should always check/call. If we shove into this same range we're never getting bluffed at by his bluffs and everything worse than us is probably folding while everything better calls. Everything better is jamming as well mostly but by removing his chance to bluff we own ourselves.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2011 03:24
|
|
|
This had makes me wanna play more poker cause lmao.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2011 04:18
|
|
|
Mr.Showtime posted:This had makes me wanna play more poker cause lmao.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2011 06:23
|
|
|
MY INEVITABLE DEBT posted:It is a little counter intuitive because we always hear about making our hands easier to play or whatever, but basically yes. That seems pretty basic, actually. I understand the laughter now. Wanted to make sure I wasn't missed something bigger. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2011 19:58
|
|
|
AmnesiaLab posted:Your reasoning is all off. If he's shoving any two at that river, you should be check/calling the river, because that's got a hell of a lot more value than shoving yourself. This is correct and makes sense. I guess it is easier mentally to shove out of the gate than to just trust my read and check/call. MY INEVITABLE DEBT posted:Move down. "So the question is do I have pot odds against the proposition that he (a) calls, and (b) with a hand that beats me. The answer was yes." this doesn't mean anything. Please stop saying meaningless strings of words and then saying "The answer is yes" afterwards. I am sorry you're unable to expand the concept of pot odds to a contemplated bet rather than just a contemplated call. Prefaced by me saying I was either shipping or check/folding, there's nothing meaningless about these words. You can say it's incorrect thinking/strategy/whatever, but it's not meaningless. HKS posted:your lead on the flop looks a bit polarized between a stab on a dry flop and at most a pair of T's. You probably 3bet TT+ pre and do you really lead 5x? even if you do the villain certainly doesn't think so. (you also look bluffy because think about all the hands you'd close the action with pre, and how many of them whiffs this flop completely) This is precisely why I bet the flop. I had the best hand, and I got called by both of the other players. I got money in with an equity edge. Yeah I'm oop but I've been playing with the guy for about 4 hours and I feel confident. I'd do the same thing with a 5. I know it looks bluffy, yes. That's why I can make the play, and that's why I near doubled-up on this hand. Does he make the bad turn call if I had checked the flop? No. He thinks that I'm buying the pot the whole way through and his 9 is good. I think he raises the flop with AT or KT at least. My nightmare hand here is any combination of one each of queens, tens, and nines. srsly fucked around with this message at 01:04 on Nov 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 00:55
|
|
|
what the gently caress
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 02:04
|
|
|
srsly posted:This really has me scratching my head. You're saying that we shouldn't bet the flop when we've more than likely (or even almost certainly) got the best hand, and we will get called by worse hands? (Do we only bet knowing we will get called by worse when we're in position and on later streets or something? C'mon.) You're turning your hand face up. If you bet flop and he floats with overs, all pairs better 66+, raises a nutted range (AT+ 5x, or just JJ+ whatever) and a bluff range (I dunno pairs less than 55, undercard 3 to straights, whatever to make the numbers), you're in a lovely spot because bet/calling makes you playing oop faceup vs a nutted/polarized range that can play perfectly against you, bet/folding is super exploitable since your handrange is so face up and wasting your hand strength, whereas betting the flop then you hate any card J+ (~1/3 of the deck) and when you check turn you're playing a guessing game but if you bet he is still going to have a lot of better T's. Basically, your slight equity edge doesn't mean much when you don't get to realize it most of the time and you turn your hand face up early on in the hand. You don't seem to think ahead at all during this plan. You check/raise the turn then are confused about what to do on the river when you have a 2/3 pot size bet left, so you jam which sometimes gets a weaker hand to call but rarely will get a better hand to fold given villains propensity to call down loose, but it misses all the value from his hands which have no showdown value. His range on that river that calls your shove crushes you btw, but thats what you get for building a huge pot out of position with a lovely hand against a good player.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 02:04
|
|
|
"but i doubled up this hand. clearly it was the right decision." That sounds like it's a huge part of your argument. Just sayin'.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 02:05
|
|
|
srsly posted:This is precisely why I bet the flop. I had the best hand, and I got called by both of the other players. I got money in with an equity edge. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 02:16
|
|
|
bbc what it dew posted:what the gently caress Mr.Showtime posted:This hand makes me wanna play more poker cause lmao.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 02:58
|
|
|
Blinky2099 posted:That sounds like it's a huge part of your argument. Just sayin'. If I thought that the outcome meant it was right decision, I wouldn't have bothered posting the hand. Just sayin'. Ranma posted:words But now you're conflicting with HKS. Either I never bet a 5 here (or villain doesn't think I do) and my bet looks like either a bluff or maybe a weak stab with a 10, or my hand is face up and he can put me on a T or 5 exactly and play me like a fiddle (never mind that there is an enormous hand-strength difference between a T and a 5). Agree that my play is fairly exploitable if he knows what I'm doing, but I've only donked the flop a couple other times in the last 4 hours, and didn't show down either hand. I will also observe that (1) it's not a "slight equity edge"... it's more of a way ahead/way behind situation heads-up, although I was betting into 2 players; and (2) I was certainly planning ahead -- I knew when I made the turn raise that I was folding to a reraise, and collecting chips if he folded. In the back of my mind I know I'm very likely shipping the river if he calls. The turn raise sizing very much took into account chip counts -- I'm looking for a fold or a push from him. I think the idea that a 2/3 PSB on the river is not enough to push him off of a better 10 is incompatible with his turn call. If he's pot-committed with a 10 upon calling the turn raise, there's no reason he wouldn't just push over the top instead given the draws on the board. He's not giving a free card just so that he can induce a (hopeful) bluff on the river.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 03:07
|
|
|
They are conflicted because you are conflicted. Are we bluffing or valuebetting? We can't be doing both, he's not folding better and calling worse at the same time. You will also observe that you apparently aren't really sure what a "slight equity edge" means since most of the times we bet in a WA/WB situation our equity is most definitely slight. You really have very little clue of what WE are trying to do, much less what we want villain to think we are trying to do. "I was certainly planning ahead -- I knew when I made the turn raise that I was folding to a reraise, and collecting chips if he folded. In the back of my mind I know I'm very likely shipping the river if he calls." Okay fine but do you know why we are raise/folding turn? Is it because we are bluffing and want him to fold or because we are expecting his worse hands to call and better hands to raise? Obviously we win the pot if he folds, but do we want him to? Why are we shipping the river if he calls? Which rivers are we shipping? Why some and not others? You say you don't think the outcome means it was the right decision but you keep analyzing the hand with information you wouldn't have had during the hand like "This is precisely why I bet the flop. I had the best hand, and I got called by both of the other players. I got money in with an equity edge." Also this is ridiculous: "Yeah I'm oop but I've been playing with the guy for about 4 hours and I feel confident. I'd do the same thing with a 5." You feel confident about what? About randomly clicking buttons because you've played with him for four whole hours? What are you trying to do? You haven't settled on whether we are vbetting or bluffing, so please pick one. Also move down and stop posting words that don't make sense thanks. e: oh yes and i can't decipher what you are trying to say when you say your nightmare hands are "one each" of QQ TT and 99. there are 3 combinations of each of those hands after card removal. MY INEVITABLE DEBT fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Nov 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 04:11
|
|
|
Moose is giving you excellent advice that you should take You should also try to answer his questions because your thought process does not make sense without having those answers also, "My nightmare hand here is any combination of one each of queens, tens, and nines" why are these "nightmare hands" and why does it matter? Come up with a range of all of his possible hands, not just hands that you randomly assign "NIGHTMARE HAND" to that have no significance other than that they consist of some of the hands that beat you. I think it's stuff like that which you continue to say that really has no relevance (another example Moose already pointed out, which is you "feel good" because you've been playing against him for 4 hours, yet without having reads and being able to assign ranges that's completely useless) Blinky2099 fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Nov 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 04:28
|
|
|
Blinky2099 posted:"My nightmare hand here is any combination of one each of queens, tens, and nines" why are these "nightmare hands" and why does it matter? Come up with a range of all of his possible hands, not just hands that you randomly assign "NIGHTMARE HAND" to that have no significance other than that they consist of some of the hands that beat you. These are the only likely hands he shows down that beat me. MY INEVITABLE DEBT posted:They are conflicted because you are conflicted. HKS posted:your lead on the flop looks a bit polarized between a stab on a dry flop and at most a pair of T's Ranma posted:You're turning your hand face up. quote:Are we bluffing or valuebetting? We can't be doing both, he's not folding better and calling worse at the same time. Even without knowing what street you're asking about, I can point out that your basic premise is flatly incorrect. You're implicitly putting him on a single pair of cards, when we should always be putting our opponents on ranges of hands. Tsk. We can use the turn as an example, with grossly simplistic percentages. Let's say my expectation is that I am in a WA/WB situation. Let's say I put it 50/50 that I am way ahead or way behind. Let's also say that for 50% of the hands where I am way behind (e.g. outkicked), my opponent will likely not realize it and so he folds half the time, and calls the other half. For the other 50% of hands where I am way behind, opponent raises 80% and calls 20% (the 20% would be e.g. a boat -- he's in position and also not worrying about being drawn out on). For those hands where I am way ahead, let's say he was floating/stealing and has caught nothing 40% of the time, and will fold 100% of those hands, he flatted with an underpair 10% of the time and will continue to call with those hands, and the rest of the time, he has either picked up a draw or paired a 9 on the turn, and will call with 80% of those hands. I'm not seeing him as capable of bluffing or 3-betting the turn light/with air. Here are his reaction to my bet by situation: I am way behind: Call: 35% Fold: 25% Raise: 40% I am way ahead: Call: 50% Fold air: 40% Fold made weaker hand: 10% Is my bet a value bet? Yes. More times than not, when I get called, I am getting called by a worse hand. Is my bet a bluff? Yes. More times than not, when my opponent folds something other than complete air, he's folding something that beats me. quote:You will also observe that you apparently aren't really sure what a "slight equity edge" means since most of the times we bet in a WA/WB situation our equity is most definitely slight. You really have very little clue of what WE are trying to do, much less what we want villain to think we are trying to do. I am very well aware. Odds on the flop when I bet, against my opponents' pre-flop ranges, are that I am way ahead with my tens up. They do not have a 5, a better 10, or an unraised overpair nearly as often as anything else. This is more than a slight equity edge. The flop bet and the turn raise sizing both give him an opportunity to raise and tell me otherwise. I am not so worried about his raise in either situation being a bluff. I think he knows I am perfectly capable of betting a 5 on the flop. quote:Okay fine but do you know why we are raise/folding turn? Is it because we are bluffing and want him to fold or because we are expecting his worse hands to call and better hands to raise? Obviously we win the pot if he folds, but do we want him to? quote:Why are we shipping the river if he calls? quote:[Y]ou keep analyzing the hand with information you wouldn't have had during the hand like "This is precisely why I bet the flop. I had the best hand, and I got called by both of the other players. I got money in with an equity edge." quote:Also this is ridiculous: "Yeah I'm oop but I've been playing with the guy for about 4 hours and I feel confident. I'd do the same thing with a 5." You feel confident about what? About randomly clicking buttons because you've played with him for four whole hours? quote:Also move down and stop posting words that don't make sense thanks. quote:e: oh yes and i can't decipher what you are trying to say when you say your nightmare hands are "one each" of QQ TT and 99. there are 3 combinations of each of those hands after card removal. I said one each of queens, tens, and nines. That'd be QT, Q9, or T9.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 08:51
|
|
|
did you seriously come to the critique thread to say NOPE YOUR WRONG to everyone trying to give you advice
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 09:52
|
|
|
srsly posted:This really has me scratching my head. You're saying that we shouldn't bet the flop when we've more than likely (or even almost certainly) got the best hand, and we will get called by worse hands? (Do we only bet knowing we will get called by worse when we're in position and on later streets or something? C'mon.) you misunderstood me. I wasn't reasoning out why a flop bet is bad, I was making sure once the flop lead was made we're on the same baseline assumptions to do the turn. (and we are). I think your turn play is bad. You want a schrodinger's cat bet that's both: 1) a bluff that folds better sometimes and 2) a value bet that gets called by worse sometimes (not to mention you make additional mistakes when he 3b ships) then you go off using the craziest poker math ever to prove your point, this is coming from the worst math player on here. what actually happens when you checkraise turn: 1)a bluff that never folds better and 2) a value bet that's very unlikely to get called by worse* *think about this point, the hands you expect to bet/call hardly bets to begin with. Do you see how unlikely it was he had 9x AND bet it? like would he bet/call 22~88 here? Ace hi? what else would bet-calls thats worse? you would need to hit the parlay of a villain who not only bets the turn with those hands but also bet-calls them. Even if he does, a person who bet/calls any of those hands is NEVER EVER folding better. so the "bluff better" part of your cat dies according to your own read. It's just not the best play for this specific situation, but more importantly not the right thought process that got us to that play. HKS fucked around with this message at 10:16 on Nov 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 10:11
|
|
|
srsly posted:You're implicitly putting him on a single pair of cards, when we should always be putting our opponents on ranges of hands. Tsk. srsly posted:I am way behind: stop pulling numbers out of your rear end. define a range, use pokerstove, and do real calculations. srsly posted:It's the safest way for me to win chips at that point this hand srsly posted:Erm no. I've been sitting at the same table with him and chatting and observing his play/mannerisms for 4 whole hours. I feel confident that I can outplay him oop. No random clicking. your thought process is sooooooooo bad and so far away from even beginning to understand the advice that others are giving... you'd probably be better off completely forgetting everything you've learned about poker and starting over because your logic is seriously that bad Blinky2099 fucked around with this message at 11:07 on Nov 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 10:54
|
|
|
HKS posted:Even if he does, a person who bet/calls any of those hands is NEVER EVER folding better. so the "bluff better" part of your cat dies according to your own read. Yes, my math was crazy but I'm trying to explore this idea because it's something I have always internalized and it's being directly challenged. I think your example of schrodinger's cat is a great one, but needs to be taken a bit further: I don't know which one of these two players he is until after he acts. He could get bluffed off better, or he could call with worse. This is going to be largely dependent on what he puts me on. It's not enough to say that the opponent who calls with worse is mutually exclusive to the opponent who gets bluffed off better. That's the same as saying that a living cat is mutually exclusive to a dead cat -- both are still possible until we open the box to take a peek and force one state or the other through observation. quote:the hands you expect to bet/call hardly bets to begin with. Do you see how unlikely it was he had 9x AND bet it? like would he bet/call 22~88 here? Ace hi? what else would bet-calls thats worse? you would need to hit the parlay of a villain who not only bets the turn with those hands but also bet-calls them. I expected him to fold or shove, and as "bizarre" and "atrocious" as my play was, his was pretty confusing too. I'm sure there's some post-hoc rationalization going on here, but it looked to me like a basic float/steal, especially with the turn bet sizing. I think I raised enough to fold out overs, a semi-bluffing gutshot, or whatever other no pair he was stealing with, and the raise should fold an underpair too. Francois Kofko posted:did you seriously come to the critique thread to say NOPE YOUR WRONG to everyone trying to give you advice
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 11:20
|
|
|
Blinky2099 posted:"safe"? "win chips"? you're looking to make the most +ev decisions every single time you have one to make. it has nothing to do with "safe", or trying to collect the pot now rather than later. quotes like these are what make you look like you have no idea what you're talking about (and you don't, so it's fitting) 1) You might want to check your intentional-irony-meter re range of hands. 2) Yeah, safe. Win chips. I think 99% of the board would prefer that he fold to the turn raise, seeing as the universal sentiment was to check/fold the river. Would you prefer he call or raise in that spot? Should I be happy that he gets another card when I am out of position with top pair and a lovely kicker on a paired board? Should I fist-pump fold and applaud as he scoops the pot? You need to think before you spew this bullshit because, newsflash, whether or not my opponent folds is not my decision to make. I understand I am trying to make the most +ev decision every time, but it's not my decision; I was just expressing a preference that he fold rather than take another action. Crap like this makes you look like you have the reading comprehension skills of an 8 year old. Same as when you said I was just naming random hands that beat me. edit: vvvvvv Didn't I just warn you about this? Let me paraphrase what has happened. Me: *Talks about specific hand types for opponent a few times* You: *keys in on one of these posts* Lol this is meaningless you're just spitting out random hands that beat you. I can't read for context. Me: I'm sorry for being unclear. I thought context provided ample explanation as to what I was saying. *explains* See? Not meaningless. You: *silence* ... Me: Once I have raised the turn, I would prefer my opponent folds/I take it down right there. I prefer this to him calling or raising; safe/win chips. You: dumbass it's not about safety or winning chips it's about +ev decisions!! You have no loving clue what you're talking about!!! Me: I understand this, but whether he folds is not my decision. I understand ev, and that it is not synonymous with "safety," nor the general concept of "winning chips," but the only decision I was talking about in connection with safe/win chips was his decision. Your criticism is misplaced, unless I misunderstand you. I will give you some credit and ask sarcastically: Would you be comparatively elated in that spot if your opponent called or raised as opposed to folding? You: idgi. sarcasm??? please come up with a range. The only reason you think I'm saying things unrelated to what you're talking about is because you have no comprehension whatsoever of what I was saying in the first place, and I'm not following your insane topic detours. quote:i don't believe you when you say you understand why check/folding river is best quote:made-up statistics you pulled from your rear end srsly fucked around with this message at 14:54 on Nov 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 11:51
|
|
|
srsly posted:newsflash, whether or not my opponent folds is not my decision to make also lol at "should i fist-pump fold and applaud as he scoops the pot" what does that even mean? applaud as he scoops the pot? are you using some lovely form of sarcasm that implies check/folding is bad because "WE'RE GIVING IT TO HIM!!!"? because that's what it sounds like. "newsflash", you should be happy about folding "as he scoops the pot" if it's the correct decision to make based on his range/your hand/the odds you're getting. but considering you still haven't even come up with a range, and use random as gently caress percentages that don't actually apply to any real amount of hand combinations, you aren't really in a position to make that decision i don't believe you when you say you understand why check/folding river is best based on your horrible logic and atrocious, made-up statistics you pulled from your rear end, but if you say you understand then good job! Blinky2099 fucked around with this message at 12:48 on Nov 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 12:45
|
|
|
srsly posted:I was just expressing a preference that he fold rather than take another action. First, I want to say that even though I'm a slightly winning player over time, my thought processes are poo poo and very messy. I play intuitively a lot instead of going through a very clear step by step line of reasoning and logic, and because of that, I miss things sometimes. I am well aware that if I can ever clean up my way of thinking, I will make a lot more money, but until then, my poker logic is messy, and moose and HKS call me out on that poo poo all the time. They can both think through a lot better than I can. So, when I tell you this, you should understand that I mean it in the nicest way possible, but your poker logic is poo poo. Mine is pretty bad, but it destroys yours. You are all over the place with the things you say and the reasons you say you did things. I honestly think that you would be much much better served to just stop everything from when you posted that hand, take an hour to really think through what you did and why, trying to avoid being results oriented as much as possible while you replay the hand in your head, and type up a new post with the hand history, along with ranges of hands you assign him preflop, then narrowed on the flop, narrowed more on the turn and then final range you give him on the river, and submit it again for some feedback. Also include information on your bets, both on why the amounts you chose and the purpose of the bet (value, protection, bluff). Don't forget to talk about what his reaction to your bets does to his range. You are currently defending a position that in all honesty isn't really defensible and if you want to improve, shouldn't be defended. That being said, I quoted this line because it brought a little clarity and might be the most honest thing you've said about the hand and what you were thinking at the time, since it kind of slipped out in the middle of a rant at blinky, which personally I think is also a mistake, considering everyone who has posted in here is generally a long term winning player who can contribute to your learning if you let them. Essentially you were turning your hand in to a check/raise bluff on the turn, but you gave no thought, really, to your opponents range at that point (between pre and flop action), what the checkraise does to his range, what your hand looks like when you take this line of action on this board, and how his different actions (fold, call, raise) define his range further. You say you had no plans to respond to a call because you weren't expecting it, and that again is a very very large hole in your poker reasoning. You did not have a plan, and you always need a plan. Instead, you were adjusting his ranges on the fly, and not even very clearly, as each new action took place, without creating a whole coherent picture of the entire hand to that point. Welcome to range skating 101. Teppec fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Nov 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 15:08
|
|
|
Francois Kofko posted:did you seriously come to the critique thread to say NOPE YOUR WRONG to everyone trying to give you advice This isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's: 1. Getting better players to post. 2. Getting worse players to laugh. It's +ev and -ev For real though getting made fun of is a pretty good way to learn. The entertaining part is seeing how long he holds up before concession or cessation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 17:02
|
|
|
Using big words does not a good poker thought process make. Also would you like to play heads up? I know it's hard to admit that you are wrong but wow you really don't like it. Have you ever listened to anyone's advice in pitr? Besides after you lost 3k on a really tiny roll playing MSPLO and moved down, which really isn't listening to advice at all. e: ~Ignoring you now~ MY INEVITABLE DEBT fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Nov 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 19:12
|
|
|
We are in such a poker rut that it requires 20 posts about a stupid hand that makes no sense, by either hero or villain. If villain really has a 9 there you both must be thinking at the same (dumb) level and thus it makes what you do a great play. Congrats on your sick soul read.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 19:28
|
|
|
srsly posted:I'm sorry for being unclear. I thought context provided ample explanation as to what I was saying. *explains* See? Not meaningless. as it's been suggested a million other times, this is what you need to be doing for all streets when you're making your decision, and not just hands that beat you for this one decision. why? because you want to find out how you think he responds to your actions and how much equity you have vs his range. you want to know whether check/folding river is the right decision based on his possible holdings. you want to have a good guess at this information at every action, changing it based on the new information you have received. making up percentages with a LONG series of "let's say..." statements only hinders your ability to do this. srsly posted:Except I didn't say that. Reading comprehension, please.  see I can do it tooBashez posted:For real though getting made fun of is a pretty good way to learn. MY INEVITABLE DEBT posted:Besides after you lost 3k on a really tiny roll playing MSPLO and moved down, which really isn't listening to advice at all. 
Blinky2099 fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Nov 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 21:05
|
|
|
MY INEVITABLE DEBT posted:e: ~Ignoring you now~ Ah the good old days. I'm still just curious about singular bet intent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 23:58
|
|
|
srsly posted:Ah the good old days. Just that it's actually pretty impossible for him to call worse and fold better simultaneously? Please come up with some actual 2card hands (such as Ace and King or Ace and Ace, AK, AA you know like that) in a range of hands that might behave this way. Please. I would absolutely love to find out about this magical impossible bet and implement it into my game. e: if you are referring to the turn where he can call things with equity (draws) and fold made hands your bet might make a modicum of sense. see i can use big words too. The problem is the number of actual hands he has in his range where he is drawing vs the number of hands where he has something. He's never folding a better hand when we raise on the turn. How can he? Also for him to call any draws which are few and far between as it is, he has to have something like QJ or 78 which is too stupid to realize that calling turn is a pretty big mistake. Even if we assume he calls these hands 100% of the time a raise is suicidal. Just because it worked this time it's not some genius play because you were bluffing and happened to be called by a worse hand. I 3barrelled 55 the other day on J74K4 and got called by 33. Was I valuebetting? No, I was bluffing and he happened to show up with a worse hand that time. This is sometimes referred to as valuebluffing. It is an accident. On the river there is no range you can assign him where he is folding better hands and calling worse ones. Please give him a range for turn bet, turn bet/raise, turn bet/call, and river call. If you dont know what I mean by assigning a range, open pokerstove and start clicking hands you think he can have, then copy paste the hands. Like this: KK,AQs+,ATs,JTs,J5s,T7s,KTo,Q6o,J7o,96o,86o MY INEVITABLE DEBT fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Nov 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2011 00:09
|
|
|
srsly: In order for what you're claiming to be be possible to happen this would have to be the villain's thought process with two different hands (picked as random examples): 1) I have A9 and he bet. He's bluffing I call! 2) I have AQ and he bet. Despite now beating more than when I had A9, he's got me beat, I fold! Do you see why this doesn't make any goddamn sense? It is impossible for him to have a range where you bet simultaneously folds out better and gets called from worse unless your opponent is actively and consciously trying to lose money to you. In which case, go on clicking buttons I guess?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2011 00:22
|
|
|
MY INEVITABLE DEBT posted:Please give him a range for turn bet, turn bet/raise, turn bet/call, and river call why would you do that? let's say he's 10% to fold if we raise. and 60% to call if we shove. and 25% to breathe heavily if he has an ace. my math is fine, thank you. 
Blinky2099 fucked around with this message at 01:46 on Nov 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2011 01:43
|
|
|
Discussions like this are actually super helpful, I'm reading everyone's logic and realizing why his is wrong and the others' are right, which I wouldn't have had the opportunity to do without this!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 09:16
|
|
|
I wish he would come back and regale us with more tales from his dictionary
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 09:18
|
|
|
Check-raise the river. 50% of the time it works every time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 10:24
|
|
|
rouliroul posted:Check-raise the river. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 16:33
|
|
|
Hey guys, so I've been getting back into poker over the Christmas break and I'd like to start reviewing hands so if you guys don't mind giving a little bit of feedback on the hands I'm going to post that'd be nice: Hand 1: UTG ($1.75) MP ($5.27) CO ($2.45) Button ($7.12) SB ($5) Hero (BB) ($2.18) Preflop: Hero is BB with Q  , Q 2 folds, CO calls $0.02, 2 folds, Hero bets $0.08, CO calls $0.06 Flop: ($0.17) J  , A, 3 (2 players)Hero bets $0.12, CO calls $0.12 Turn: ($0.41) K (2 players)Hero checks, CO bets $0.24, Hero folds Total pot: $0.41 | Rake: $0.02 I think turn is a pretty standard check/fold given that everything CO could call with is ahead of us here. Hand 2: Button ($2) SB ($2.70) BB ($7.12) UTG ($5) Hero (MP) ($2) Preflop: Hero is MP with 8 , 81 fold, Hero bets $0.06, 2 folds, BB raises to $0.20, Hero calls $0.14 Flop: ($0.41) A , 7, 6 (2 players)BB checks, Hero bets $0.20, BB calls $0.20 Turn: ($0.81) 5 (2 players)BB checks, Hero bets $0.36, BB calls $0.36 River: ($1.53) 10 (2 players)BB checks, Hero checks Total pot: $1.53 | Rake: $0.07 So here I get three bet by the big blind. The flop check made me put him on something like high pocket pairs so I fired hoping he would fold. On the turn I pick up a straight draw so I fired, again hoping to fold out his pocket pairs that are higher than mine. When we're called down to the river and the board didn't improve there's no point in betting again cause I felt everything that is going to call down to this point will call the river and beat us. Hand 3: Button ($1.56) SB ($6.05) BB ($5) Hero (UTG) ($3.13) MP ($1.94) Preflop: Hero is UTG with A , 10Hero bets $0.06, 1 fold, Button calls $0.06, 2 folds Flop: ($0.15) 2 , 5, 7 (2 players)Hero bets $0.10, Button raises to $0.20, Hero calls $0.10 Turn: ($0.55) 7 (2 players)Hero checks, Button checks River: ($0.55) 10 (2 players)Hero bets $0.30, Button raises to $0.60, Hero calls $0.30 Total pot: $1.75 | Rake: $0.08 I called the min-raise on the flop because I've been c-betting a lot and that people might bluff (min?)raise me on a dry flop like this. Plus we still have decent equity against a seven. When the turn checked through and we awkwardly hit a pair on the river I fired a bet. In retrospect I probably shouldn't call the river minraise since he's pretty much repping a seven or better but I think at the time I was just putting him on a bluff minraise. Thanks in advance!
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 02:29
|
|
|
I think your analysis is spot on ! Not sure if you're supposed to call the 3bet with 88 because you are not deep enough, can someone correct me on that ? But maybe on NL2 it's fine.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 03:50
|
|
|
VoiceOfIntuition posted:So here I get three bet by the big blind. The flop check made me put him on something like high pocket pairs so I fired hoping he would fold. On the turn I pick up a straight draw so I fired, again hoping to fold out his pocket pairs that are higher than mine. When we're called down to the river and the board didn't improve there's no point in betting again cause I felt everything that is going to call down to this point will call the river and beat us. So fire again and strong. If he calls with 99-KK that's noteworthy and highly exploitable. If he check-called the whole way with Ax then that's also noteworthy and highly exploitable. Either way you wanna know whether the river bet makes a difference. Edit: and if he has better than 1-pair ofc ditto VoiceOfIntuition posted:I called the min-raise on the flop because I've been c-betting a lot and that people might bluff (min?)raise me on a dry flop like this. Plus we still have decent equity against a seven. When the turn checked through and we awkwardly hit a pair on the river I fired a bet. In retrospect I probably shouldn't call the river minraise since he's pretty much repping a seven or better but I think at the time I was just putting him on a bluff minraise. I think that your flop call is horrible because you don't even have "decent equity" against a pair and have no idea where you're at on most turns*. I think your river bet is good because that's the only way you can get value from any worse hands which will check back otherwise. Once you get raised though, YOU ARE DONE! * That's a lie because you probably do know you're way behind but hope you're being bluffed Lord of the Llamas fucked around with this message at 05:07 on Dec 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 05:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 01:44 |
|
|
First hand is fine. Second hand fold to the 3bet preflop, you are getting crushed by a 3bet range and you will probably make costly mistakes postflop. Third hand you are getting ahead of yourself by assuming people know you have been cbetting a lot and will play back at you. These people won't be paying attention to your actions that much, they are just playing their own hand the vast majority of the time. This guys line really doesn't make sense so I don't blame you for calling river, but he will still show up with a terribly played 7x a good amount of the time. My overall advice is to give people the benefit of the doubt until you have a solid reason to believe somebody is getting out of line. You don't need to try and pick off a bunch of bluffs to be a (big) winner at these stakes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2011 06:35
|
|