AK discussion hand - part 1
XaQ Morphy
a $190 stack. UTG is new to the table but you've played him before. He's
a standard straight forward TAG player. He's quiet enough that he doesn't
draw attention to himself, almost always shows down strong hands, typical
big hand big pot, let the pots that don't matter go without a fight, etc.
He has or is affiliated with cardrunners.com in some way or another based
on google searches if that matters at all. All of this information is
known from previous play and research. He has $320ish and has been at the
table for a few orbits.
UTG raises pot to $11 and it's folded to you. You have Ac Kd. What do
you do? This will be part 1. I'll reply to this message and change the
subject for parts 2- however many I get to.
---
Morphy
xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
______________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
gtech1
tournament. Based on your description of the raiser, he probably has a
good hand, not one that he'd fold to a reraise from an out of position
player, so I don't think I want to commit $30-35 here out of position,
knowing I'll have to fire again on the flop. Call and see what the flop
brings.
On Jun 20 2008 5:41 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
> Situation: 6 handed NLHE cash game, blinds $2/$3. You are on the BB with
> a $190 stack. UTG is new to the table but you've played him before. He's
> a standard straight forward TAG player. He's quiet enough that he doesn't
> draw attention to himself, almost always shows down strong hands, typical
> big hand big pot, let the pots that don't matter go without a fight, etc.
> He has or is affiliated with cardrunners.com in some way or another based
> on google searches if that matters at all. All of this information is
> known from previous play and research. He has $320ish and has been at the
> table for a few orbits.
>
> UTG raises pot to $11 and it's folded to you. You have Ac Kd. What do
> you do? This will be part 1. I'll reply to this message and change the
> subject for parts 2- however many I get to.
>
> ---
> Morphy
> xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
> http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
----
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
RussGe...@aol.com
or Mo-ron-phy about poker?
Russ Georgiev
www.russgeorgiev.com
www.pokermafia.com
www.pokerunchecked.com
www.europokerschool.com
www.worldclasscheating.com
www.stud8strategy.com
www.potlimitomahavideo.com
www.studhilovideo.com
www.cheatinginpoker.co.uk
www.studhilobook.com
www.7cardstudvideo.com
www.pokermafia.com
www.pokerunchecked.com
www.europokerschool.com
www.worldclasscheating.com
www.stud8strategy.com
www.potlimitomahavideo.com
www.studhilovideo.com
www.cheatinginpoker.co.uk
www.studhilobook.com
www.7cardstudvideo.com
www.sevencardstudtournaments.com
www.sevencardstudbook.com
www.cheatinginpoker.org
> > xaqmor...@donkeymanifesto.com
> >http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
>
> ----�
> looking for a better newsgroup-reader? -www.recgroups.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
croupe
> Situation: 6 handed NLHE cash game, blinds $2/$3. You are on the BB with
> a $190 stack. UTG is new to the table but you've played him before. He's
> a standard straight forward TAG player. He's quiet enough that he doesn't
> draw attention to himself, almost always shows down strong hands, typical
> big hand big pot, let the pots that don't matter go without a fight, etc.
> He has or is affiliated with cardrunners.com in some way or another based
> on google searches if that matters at all. All of this information is
> known from previous play and research. He has $320ish and has been at the
> table for a few orbits.
>
> UTG raises pot to $11 and it's folded to you. You have Ac Kd. What do
> you do? This will be part 1. I'll reply to this message and change the
> subject for parts 2- however many I get to.
>
> ---
> Morphy
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> : the next generation of web-newsreaders :http://www.recgroups.com
Limited ring game NL experience here - but I figure I will get things
started. AKs OOP against a TAG, I would like to keep the pot small so
I smooth call to see what the flop brings. A total miss on the flop
and I can check-fold and not worry about the $8 invested. An A or K
on the flop lets me bet out 2/3 of the pot or so and see what happens
and make my decision with the additional information. A ragged board
that gives me a flush draw allows many options. I think this is the
best play, but I'm sure we will see some cases for pre-flop raising to
define your opponent's range better etc.. that probably have a lot of
merit.
Croupe
chandler
> Situation: 6 handed NLHE cash game, blinds $2/$3. You are on the BB with
> a $190 stack. UTG is new to the table but you've played him before. He's
> a standard straight forward TAG player. He's quiet enough that he doesn't
> draw attention to himself, almost always shows down strong hands, typical
> big hand big pot, let the pots that don't matter go without a fight, etc.
> He has or is affiliated with cardrunners.com in some way or another based
> on google searches if that matters at all. All of this information is
> known from previous play and research. He has $320ish and has been at the
> table for a few orbits.
>
> UTG raises pot to $11 and it's folded to you. You have Ac Kd. What do
> you do? This will be part 1. I'll reply to this message and change the
> subject for parts 2- however many I get to.
>
> ---
> Morphy
> xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
> http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
I can't think of a clever reason to raise or fold here, which doesn't mean
there isn''t one. I call.
Chandler
________________________________________________________________________
XaQ Morphy
> Care to debate this? Oh, your an amateur, so what the "F" do you know,
> or Mo-ron-phy about poker?
Do you wish to participate in the discussion? If so, that would be great.
It's been years since I've seen a post of yours where you actively
participated in a poker discussion. If not, fuck off and go back to
spamming your useless bullshit.
_______________________________________________________________________
Ian Stuart
> On Jun 20 2008 5:41 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
>
> > Situation: 6 handed NLHE cash game, blinds $2/$3. You are on the BB with
> > a $190 stack. UTG is new to the table but you've played him before. He's
> > a standard straight forward TAG player. He's quiet enough that he doesn't
> > draw attention to himself, almost always shows down strong hands, typical
> > big hand big pot, let the pots that don't matter go without a fight, etc.
> > He has or is affiliated with cardrunners.com in some way or another based
> > on google searches if that matters at all. All of this information is
> > known from previous play and research. He has $320ish and has been at the
> > table for a few orbits.
> >
> > UTG raises pot to $11 and it's folded to you. You have Ac Kd. What do
> > you do? This will be part 1. I'll reply to this message and change the
> > subject for parts 2- however many I get to.
> >
> > ---
> > Morphy
> > xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
> > http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
>
> I can't think of a clever reason to raise or fold here, which doesn't mean
> there isn''t one. I call.
>
> Chandler
The clever, sorry nittish, reason to fold is that the villain must
presumably have a very narrow range of hands for an UTG raise (assuming
Tag more than tAG) and we are likely losing a big pot or winning a small
one based on Morphy's brief description of him. Taking stack sizes into
account, I'd rather take on an UTG raise from this guy with a hand like
medium 1 gappers or weak pairs than AK.
--------
johnny_t
> UTG raises pot to $11 and it's folded to you. You have Ac Kd. What do
> you do? This will be part 1. I'll reply to this message and change the
> subject for parts 2- however many I get to.
This is a very tough hand to play against this kind of player. It is
very unlikely you are going to get him all in, in a hand where you are
ahead.
You may have some opportunity to get him all in when you have a coin
flip on the hand, and that may be worthwhile thing to do during a
tourney, but much much less so during a cash game.
It is unlikely that you have him dominated, but you may.
There is the opportunity to outplay him, and the decision to do that
before or after the flop needs to be made now.
You have not said how often he "continues", this is an important concept
for this decision.
I am going to call with a raise post flop (80%) about 20-30% of the time.
I am going to raise about 30% of the time with the desire to take it
preflop, and will only play the hand PF with an A or K on the board 80%
of the time...
I will fold about 40% of the time. (I much prefer other types of hands
to go after this player with).
One final piece of information. The Cardrunners folk teach LAG not TAG
play, and deep stacks especially in 6 max games. (I am going with your
TAG read now).
Old Wolf
> > Situation: 6 handed NLHE cash game, blinds $2/$3. You are on the BB with
> > a $190 stack. UTG is new to the table but you've played him before. He's
> > a standard straight forward TAG player. He's quiet enough that he doesn't
> > draw attention to himself, almost always shows down strong hands, typical
> > big hand big pot, let the pots that don't matter go without a fight, etc.
> > He has or is affiliated with cardrunners.com in some way or another based
> > on google searches if that matters at all. All of this information is
> > known from previous play and research. He has $320ish and has been at the
> > table for a few orbits.
>
> there isn''t one. I call.
What are you going to do when the flop comes
Kxx, you bet and he puts in a strong raise?
Assuming he knows that you are capable of
folding TPTK.
garycarson
> On Jun 20 2008 5:11 PM, RussGe...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Care to debate this? Oh, your an amateur, so what the "F" do you know,
> > or Mo-ron-phy about poker?
>
> Do you wish to participate in the discussion? If so, that would be great.
> It's been years since I've seen a post of yours where you actively
> participated in a poker discussion. If not, fuck off and go back to
> spamming your useless bullshit.
>
> ---
You are so cool. You used more words in this post than Russ did in his,
but you manage4d to say less.
I'm impressed.
-----
Bryan Kimmes
> Care to debate this? Oh, your an amateur, so what the "F" do you know,
> or Mo-ron-phy about poker?
>
> Russ Georgiev
You would never fold AKo in this spot to the type of player Morphy
described?
Bryan
______________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
garycarson
> Situation: 6 handed NLHE cash game, blinds $2/$3. You are on the BB with
> a $190 stack. UTG is new to the table
..
He has $320ish and has been at the
> table for a few orbits.
>
I get easily confused when you go into mind numbing detail that has
contridictions.
Also, you forgot to tell us the most important factiod -- not what do you
think of him, but what does he think of you?
> UTG raises pot to $11 and it's folded to you. You have Ac Kd. What do
> you do?
Why is this even a question?
------
Will in New Haven
> Situation: 6 handed NLHE cash game, blinds $2/$3. You are on the BB with
> a $190 stack. UTG is new to the table but you've played him before. He's
> a standard straight forward TAG player. He's quiet enough that he doesn't
> draw attention to himself, almost always shows down strong hands, typical
> big hand big pot, let the pots that don't matter go without a fight, etc.
> He has or is affiliated with cardrunners.com in some way or another based
> on google searches if that matters at all. All of this information is
> known from previous play and research. He has $320ish and has been at the
> table for a few orbits.
>
> UTG raises pot to $11 and it's folded to you. You have Ac Kd. What do
> you do? This will be part 1. I'll reply to this message and change the
> subject for parts 2- however many I get to.
>
Why am I sitting with 63BB in a cash game?
If I'm emulating Miller's short-stack strategy, The pot/stack ratio is
going to be around 7.5/1 if I call, not perfect to commit if I hit top
pair, best kicker. Raising will make post-flop commital easier but it
isn't likely to win me the pot right now. If he sends it back, do I
want to play for stacks?
Calling is probably better, because I can still get a lot of chips in,
via a check-raise if I hit _and_ he bets. But do I want to commit with
TPBK against this guy? And will he pay me off, or even give me any
more chips if I do hit?
With shallow effective stacks and an opponent who will probably avoid
giving me a penny if I hit, unless he hits better, I think I let this
go.
--
Will in New Haven
Will in New Haven
wrote:
> On Jun 20 2008 6:51 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
>
>
> > > Care to debate this? Oh, your an amateur, so what the "F" do you know,
> > > or Mo-ron-phy about poker?
>
> > Do you wish to participate in the discussion? If so, that would be great.
> > It's been years since I've seen a post of yours where you actively
> > participated in a poker discussion. If not, fuck off and go back to
> > spamming your useless bullshit.
>
> > ---
>
> You are so cool. You used more words in this post than Russ did in his,
> but you manage4d to say less.
But he didn't post nearly as many URLs.
--
Will in New Haven
>
XaQ Morphy
> I get easily confused when you go into mind numbing detail that has
> contridictions.
Sorry, I worded that poorly. But, how many hands do you think I've seen a
TAG player play during 2-3 orbits of 6 handed play?
> Also, you forgot to tell us the most important factiod -- not what do you
> think of him, but what does he think of you?
Good question. He's a multi tabler on a site that has no pokertracker
HUD, so he likely has little to no read on me.
> > UTG raises pot to $11 and it's folded to you. You have Ac Kd. What do
> > you do?
>
> Why is this even a question?
Because there's a question mark after it.
----
garycarson
> On Jun 20 2008 7:16 PM, garycarson wrote:
>
> > I get easily confused when you go into mind numbing detail that has
> > contridictions.
>
> Sorry, I worded that poorly. But, how many hands do you think I've seen a
> TAG player play during 2-3 orbits of 6 handed play?
How am I supposed to know?
Am I also supposed to know what your working definition of striaght
forward, tight, aggressive, and other such terms are?
You use up a lot of words and do nothing but contriduct yourself then you
say I'm supposed to know what you mean because you used a word special
acroynym that only members of your club know what it means.
Good job.
>
> > Also, you forgot to tell us the most important factiod -- not what do you
> > think of him, but what does he think of you?
>
> Good question. He's a multi tabler on a site that has no pokertracker
> HUD, so he likely has little to no read on me.
>
> > > UTG raises pot to $11 and it's folded to you. You have Ac Kd. What do
> > > you do?
> >
> > Why is this even a question?
>
> Because there's a question mark after it.
Oh, I forgot, you're a deep thinker.
>
> ---
> Morphy
> xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
> http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
_____________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
XaQ Morphy
> Why am I sitting with 63BB in a cash game?
Because you were fortunate enough to double up already.
> If I'm emulating Miller's short-stack strategy, The pot/stack ratio is
> going to be around 7.5/1 if I call, not perfect to commit if I hit top
> pair, best kicker. Raising will make post-flop commital easier but it
> isn't likely to win me the pot right now. If he sends it back, do I
> want to play for stacks?
Good question on if we want to play for stacks here. A typical re-raise
would be $30-$35 which doesn't commit us but puts us in an awkward spot on
the flop if we are flatted.
We're also not playing Miller's anything as I don't know anyone named
Miller. Instead, we are playing Morphy's Marvelous Magical Maggot ummm,
and something else that ends with M Strategy.
> Calling is probably better, because I can still get a lot of chips in,
> via a check-raise if I hit _and_ he bets. But do I want to commit with
> TPBK against this guy? And will he pay me off, or even give me any
> more chips if I do hit?
My thoughts exactly, actually.
> With shallow effective stacks and an opponent who will probably avoid
> giving me a penny if I hit, unless he hits better, I think I let this
> go.
Wow, this I didn't expect. You would seriously fold AK to a single
pre-flop raise in a 6 handed game?
-----
Will in New Haven
If I factor the six-max into the fact that you describe the guy as a
TAG, I'm reluctant to fold. However, I don't like flatting with this
hand out of position and I don't love raising here. Raising isn't a
one-step operation.
If he re-raises, am I raise/folding, raise/calling, raise/shoving? I
don't mind raise/folding all that much.
If he flats, do I c-bet whether I hit or not?
Flatting here is setting myself up to give up on many flops, win a
small pot on some flops and lose a potentially big pot on some of
those flops.
I'm not used to six-max. When our tables get down to six it's six
survivors late at night (and usually it's four or five) and no one is
playing tight enough that I would not re-raise in this situation. The
stacks are deeper too.
--
Will in New Haven
>
> ---
> Morphy
> xaqmor...@donkeymanifesto.comhttp://www.donkeymanifesto.com
XaQ Morphy
> How am I supposed to know?
>
> Am I also supposed to know what your working definition of striaght
> forward, tight, aggressive, and other such terms are?
>
> You use up a lot of words and do nothing but contriduct yourself then you
> say I'm supposed to know what you mean because you used a word special
> acroynym that only members of your club know what it means.
>
> Good job.
Facts: I said it was a 6 handed table, I said he was on it for "a few
orbits."
Even someone with your math skills should be able to figure out about how
many hands that is.
---
XaQ Morphy
> If I factor the six-max into the fact that you describe the guy as a
> TAG, I'm reluctant to fold.
I'm giving a bit away here, but part of the reason I posted this hand and
described it the way I did is because I feel online players in general are
quick to label players as one way or another without really getting a good
feel for their play.
For example: I label someone as LAG because I see them raising 3 times an
orbit (again, 6 max) for say 30 mins. But, maybe they're just on a super
rush? Or, I label someone as TAG because the only hands they show down
are strong hands. What if they just happened to be on a table with overly
weak players? Semi-rhetorical questions here, but that's the general idea
of where I'm going with it.
> However, I don't like flatting with this
> hand out of position and I don't love raising here. Raising isn't a
> one-step operation.
>
> If he re-raises, am I raise/folding, raise/calling, raise/shoving? I
> don't mind raise/folding all that much.
>
> If he flats, do I c-bet whether I hit or not?
>
> Flatting here is setting myself up to give up on many flops, win a
> small pot on some flops and lose a potentially big pot on some of
> those flops.
All of the above were things I was considering. I really prefer
re-raising pre if I feel there's some chance my opponent will fold. For
some reason I felt he wasn't folding pre-flop here. I don't have specific
examples or evidence to show this, but that was my thought at the time.
So do I raise to $35, miss the flop and just give up? Or cbet another
what, $50 or so, then give up?
You were right in your last post that 60ish BBs is a very strange stack
size to play. Thanks for pointing that out, because it gives me something
to think about strategy wise (and yes, I'm playing with some shorter stack
strategies).
> I'm not used to six-max. When our tables get down to six it's six
> survivors late at night (and usually it's four or five) and no one is
> playing tight enough that I would not re-raise in this situation. The
> stacks are deeper too.
These tables for some reason range from loose to all out insane. It's not
uncommon to see a $2/$3 6 max table on this site with avg pots over $100.
----
XaQ Morphy
On Jun 20 2008 4:41 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
> Situation: 6 handed NLHE cash game, blinds $2/$3. You are on the BB with
> a $190 stack. UTG is new to the table but you've played him before. He's
> a standard straight forward TAG player. He's quiet enough that he doesn't
> draw attention to himself, almost always shows down strong hands, typical
> big hand big pot, let the pots that don't matter go without a fight, etc.
> He has or is affiliated with cardrunners.com in some way or another based
> on google searches if that matters at all. All of this information is
> known from previous play and research. He has $320ish and has been at the
> table for a few orbits.
>
> UTG raises pot to $11 and it's folded to you. You have Ac Kd. What do
> you do? This will be part 1. I'll reply to this message and change the
> subject for parts 2- however many I get to.
Because I was OOP vs. what I thought was a fairly straight forward player
I decided to call here. I don't think I would ever fold AK to one raise
in a 6 max game online. I didn't have a problem with calling and
check/folding. I did have a problem with re-raising and being OOP.
As far as my reads on the player... I had notes on him from last year
that said "very aggro, tricky player." However, over the past 2 weeks or
so that I've played him I noticed no overly aggressive play, and not much
in the way of trickery. Instead he seemed to be fairly tight and showed
down strong hands. So I got my first read wrong on him, and was going
with what I saw in the last few weeks, which could very well be wrong.
I called. Flop was Kh 8s 9h. I checked, he bet $17.
What's the move now? Anyone prefer leading into him instead of checking?
If so, why?
---
chandler
It's 6 handed with a $5 cost every circuit. Is it possible he only raises
UTG with a range of AK, QQ, KK, AA? If so, I fold. He's easy to dodge.
Maybe I am accustomed to playing low buy in SNGs that typically have a
good field of LAGs early and my judgement is skewed, but I put him on a
substantially wider range. And if I'm folding AK to this guy, I'm also
folding my 8 10 suited or whatever. The point about winning small or
losing big is not lost on me, but that could be the story any time I
tangle with this guy and I have to rely on my judgement on when to get
away from a hand, I guess. The alternative is to avoid playing against
him or find another table.
Chandler
-------
XaQ Morphy
> It's 6 handed with a $5 cost every circuit. Is it possible he only raises
> UTG with a range of AK, QQ, KK, AA? If so, I fold. He's easy to dodge.
I don't read too much into the fact that he's UTG here. Very few players
online pay any attention to position. Even less pay attention to position
6 handed. There's also an argument that position between UTG and the
button isn't as important 6 handed when opening since you'll end up buying
the button far more often than at a 9 or 10 handed table.
________________________________________________________________________
chandler
I have folded TPTK to rags before. I am definitely capable of it;-) Is
he capable of making that reraise with a middle pair or weaker kicker?
Are you suggesting a raise or fold preflop to avoid this? It is not
usually in my game (too nitty), but a raise preflop here might solve some
problems later by representing something bigger than AK and could buy some
information on his hand.
I'm just finding it hard to fold AK to a standard raise. Maybe due to the
state of my current opponents.
Chandler
-----
chandler
>
> > However, I don't like flatting with this
> > hand out of position and I don't love raising here. Raising isn't a
> > one-step operation.
> >
> > If he re-raises, am I raise/folding, raise/calling, raise/shoving? I
> > don't mind raise/folding all that much.
> >
> > If he flats, do I c-bet whether I hit or not?
> >
> > Flatting here is setting myself up to give up on many flops, win a
> > small pot on some flops and lose a potentially big pot on some of
> > those flops.
>
> All of the above were things I was considering. I really prefer
> re-raising pre if I feel there's some chance my opponent will fold. For
> some reason I felt he wasn't folding pre-flop here. I don't have specific
> examples or evidence to show this, but that was my thought at the time.
> So do I raise to $35, miss the flop and just give up? Or cbet another
> what, $50 or so, then give up?
>
I think if you reraise preflop and are just called you need to follow up
with a bet on the flop. IMO, it's one of the main reasons for making that
preflop raise.
Chandler
______________________________________________________________________
gtech1
post? Nobody except you is having any problem understanding the original
post. But as usual, rather than actually posting any criticism, comment,
or thought, you post 3 times nitpicking the post. LOL.
--------
gtech1
as well, and call again. Let him bet for you. I still don't want to
play a huge pot here. This is a good flop for you. With a King in your
hand and one on the board, highly unlikely that he has the other two
Kings. But I don't like a checkraise. What does it accomplish? If he
missed the flop with JJ/QQ, something like that, he's folding, whereas if
you check-call you might get him to bet one more time on the turn.
________________________________________________________________________
Nick Wool
"XaQ Morphy" <a1c...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:5pkti5x...@recgroups.com...
> Situation: 6 handed NLHE cash game, blinds $2/$3. You are on the BB with
> a $190 stack. UTG is new to the table but you've played him before. He's
> a standard straight forward TAG player. He's quiet enough that he doesn't
> draw attention to himself, almost always shows down strong hands, typical
> big hand big pot, let the pots that don't matter go without a fight, etc.
> He has or is affiliated with cardrunners.com in some way or another based
> on google searches if that matters at all. All of this information is
> known from previous play and research. He has $320ish and has been at the
> table for a few orbits.
>
> UTG raises pot to $11 and it's folded to you. You have Ac Kd. What do
> you do? This will be part 1. I'll reply to this message and change the
> subject for parts 2- however many I get to.
>
> Morphy
> xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
> http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
Either raising it to $ 33 to define his hand, folding to a reraise, or
calling is good, if UTG is really that predictable.
Nick Wool
>
> Because I was OOP vs. what I thought was a fairly straight forward player
> I decided to call here. I don't think I would ever fold AK to one raise
> in a 6 max game online. I didn't have a problem with calling and
> check/folding. I did have a problem with re-raising and being OOP.
>
> As far as my reads on the player... I had notes on him from last year
> that said "very aggro, tricky player." However, over the past 2 weeks or
> so that I've played him I noticed no overly aggressive play, and not much
> in the way of trickery. Instead he seemed to be fairly tight and showed
> down strong hands. So I got my first read wrong on him, and was going
> with what I saw in the last few weeks, which could very well be wrong.
>
> I called. Flop was Kh 8s 9h. I checked, he bet $17.
You raise, what else is there to do in this situation? That's why I hate
flat calling the raise preflop, you have no idea if he's betting with
AA/KK/88/99, the draw (flush/stright), an under-pair or AQ on air.
Nevertheless, 6 handed with a relatively shallow stack, on such a drawing
flop and being OOP, calling is probably not the right play here. Too many
danger cards, and if this guy can be tricky, you are too eaisly pushed off
the hand.
Close you eyes and go for broke, as once you've raised him, you are
committed anyway.
chandler
My first instinct is to bet out close to pot... because I hit and because
there are draws on the board. Your check raise might be better especially
if a continuation bet is predictable.
Chandler
-------
johnny_t
> I called. Flop was Kh 8s 9h. I checked, he bet $17.
>
> What's the move now? Anyone prefer leading into him instead of checking?
> If so, why?
You have absolutely no idea where you are against this opponent. This
means that if he is at all tricky you can easily get pushed off this hand.
You could be reasonably ahead, very reasonably very very behind.
There is no good play here, you could argue anything. Playing "good"
hands OOP in a tricky fashion reasonably gets you into trouble.
This whole concept of "I am not folding this OOP in a 6 card game", and
you have no idea.
But I did have a plan, I was check raising no matter what here on the
flop if I simply called. I did this based on the CardRunner model,
which is actually LAG not TAG. And pretty much the last chance to have
any chance of defining his hand, and hope, I take it down right here.
Bad luck and a K comes, and I am fucked, as I will be going all in
against 99.
Tricky play with hands like AK OOP is a classic way of losing your stack
in 6 player.
All in all it sounds like if you can't laydown AK OOP, why would anyone
think you could laydown TPTK OOP? And if you can't laydown TPTK OOP, it
is just a matter of time before you lose your stack here.
David Nicoson
> UTG raises pot to $11 and it's folded to you. You have Ac Kd. What do
> you do? This will be part 1. I'll reply to this message and change the
> subject for parts 2- however many I get to.
Imho,
raise > fold >> call
If he's waiting for a big hand to commit, put pressure on him early
and often. Big hands don't come that often. Unless I'm much better
than the villain, I don't expect to profit by playing a lot of streets
out of position with poorly defined hands.
Travel A
a second language.
But, if the game conditions are tight/aggressive, the strategy is
basically the same in this situation.
If UTG raised and it folded around to me in the BB, creating a heads-up
a situation, I'd call. UTG, by raising, has already given the
information needed. The problem with reraising is that you're out of
position and there's no additional benefit of getting information.
If I hit the flop, I'd check to the raiser, and check/raise. If UTG also
checked, I'd know (assume) that the opponent missed the flop. If UTG is
the decent tight/aggrssive player as you describe, they'd be little
chance of that player "slow playing". I.e., a decent player knows that
it really wouldn't be slow playing, but "weak playing" in this
situation. In other words, the opponent would be betting, that's the
aggressive part of being tight/aggressive". I.e., raise pre-flop, bet
out on the flop. He wouldn't be giving away a free card.
Travel A
Ian Stuart
I would doubt it. Morphy described him as tight, not granite assed. For a
6 handed game I would expect a stereotypical TAG player to raise with JJ+,
AQ+. However, it's not just his relative tightness I'm wary of here. It's
also the fact that he is apparently consistently aggressive but rarely
gets caught on the wrong side in significant pots. I'm looking forward to
what I plan to do on the flop and the fact is I don't like it. If I hit
TPTK and bet he's almost certainly going to give it up unless he has me
screwed. If I check (whether I hit the flop or not) he's going to bet and
I don't know whether he's betting on the strength of his cards or
rresponding to my show of weakness.
> If so, I fold. He's easy to dodge.
> Maybe I am accustomed to playing low buy in SNGs that typically have a
> good field of LAGs early and my judgement is skewed, but I put him on a
> substantially wider range.
Except we were told he was TAG not LAG. These labels are of course
generalisations and I but we have to go with what we're given in
discussions like this.
>And if I'm folding AK to this guy, I'm also
> folding my 8 10 suited or whatever.
As I stated earlier I much prefer a hand like 8T against a raise from this
type of player than AQ/AK. If we miss the flop it's very easy to get away
from the hand and if we hit there's a very good chance he will pay us off
as he wouldn't expect us to be in there with what he perceives to be
trash. The stacks are just deep enough to chase with this kind of
speculative holding IMHO.
>The point about winning small or
> losing big is not lost on me, but that could be the story any time I
> tangle with this guy and I have to rely on my judgement on when to get
> away from a hand, I guess. The alternative is to avoid playing against
> him or find another table.
There's never any shame in switching tables to find easier opposition.
Game selection should be a key part of our game. However, I'm not
suggesting running at this stage. There are 4 other players at the table
and, especially if they are all on the loose/passive side, we can
capitalise on having a TAG player at the table. I'm also not suggesting
surrendering every pot he chooses to contest but I would rather play hands
where I have a stronger idea for how I intend to play the flop onwards.
I'm looking to trap this guy with a flopped set, a deceptively played
premium pair or a straight he doesn't see coming.
>
> Chandler
______________________________________________________________________
A...@home.net
I would have folded preflop. You identified him as a
strong TAG player. Your short stacked. (preflop) You was
looking at a classic 48% vs 52% one way or the other.
You can find better fights then this. Why make yourself sweat?
Since you did call, Now Raise find out if he has 2 Kings
or Aces.
AJ
garycarson
> than the villain, I don't expect to profit by playing a lot of streets
> out of position with poorly defined hands.
That's a very good point.
garycarson
Yes, we are told that, but then later when disucssing position in 6 handed
games the OP described some characteristics about attention to position
that are more akin to a loose player.
A lot of what the OP says just doesn't have clear meaning. He uses all
the right buzz words so that most readers think they understand what he's
saying. I'm just not one of those readers.
My previous example was the conflict between a player having just sat down
and also having played a few orbits. Then later the OP explains that a
few means 2 or 3. To me having just sat down is not the same as 2 orbits
and neither is the same as a few orbits. When asked to expalin the OP
just gets snarky.
Another is the phrase "typical big hand big pot". I guess everybody else
knows what that means, but I don't know what it means. To me that's a
trite statement that's true by definition. But I define a big hand as one
that invovles a big pot. Probably the OP defines big hand differently --
he probably bases the definition on two cards rather than the totallity of
the situation. But he doesn't make it clear what he means by that.
Another is typical " let the pots that don't matter go without a fight"
If he comes in with a raise then the fight has started. Will he give up a
fight in progress? OP doesn't tell us. The only think I can glean from
that statement is that he'll give up his blinds easily, but I'm sure he
means more than that because his blind defense isn't strongly relevant to
the situation at hand.
His posts are full of such clarifiying statements that don't clarify
anthing.
But, I'll probably just call preflop then check/call on the flop.
I'm not going to checik/raise the flop becuase what will he call with?
I'm not going to like it if he calls. If he has a hand he'll fold to a
check raise with I won't like that either. If he has that hand I want him
to bet the turn.
If a scary straight card hits the turn I might check/fold. Otherwise I'll
probably check/call.
, let the pots that don't matter go without a fight,
>
chandler
> If UTG raised and it folded around to me in the BB, creating a heads-up
> a situation, I'd call. UTG, by raising, has already given the
> information needed. The problem with reraising is that you're out of
> position and there's no additional benefit of getting information.
>
The thing is the raise preflop UTG doesn't really tell you much about his
hand... which the OP adds later. And if you reraise preflop it does in
fact get you some information. If he doesn't come over the top of your
reraise you can probably eliminate AA/KK from his range. If he comes over
the top, I can get away from the hand. If he just calls you can put him
on another big ace or a smaller pocket pair. If he folds he probably had
KQ or worse.
Like I said, being this aggressive with AK preflop in a cash game is not
usually in my repertoire. I'm pretty much ABC, but a reraise with AK here
might have better EV than call/fold. You have position for this one
street, maybe you use it.
Chandler
garycarson
> On Jun 21 2008 1:10 AM, Travel A wrote:
>
>
> > If UTG raised and it folded around to me in the BB, creating a heads-up
> > a situation, I'd call. UTG, by raising, has already given the
> > information needed. The problem with reraising is that you're out of
> > position and there's no additional benefit of getting information.
> >
>
> The thing is the raise preflop UTG doesn't really tell you much about his
> hand... which the OP adds later. And if you reraise preflop it does in
> fact get you some information. If he doesn't come over the top of your
> reraise you can probably eliminate AA/KK from his range.
If you're suidical.
If I'm him and I have AA I'm going to call your re-raise. I'm right where
I want to be -- with the best hand with position against a player who
thinks he knows what's going on but doesn't and deep money.
The only thing Re-raising gets you is having him fold exactly those hands
you want to play against -- like AJ or KQ.
> If he comes over
> the top, I can get away from the hand.
Which is why he should just call if he has AA.
chandler
> >
> > Except we were told he was TAG not LAG. These labels are of course
> > generalisations and I but we have to go with what we're given in
> > discussions like this.
>
> Yes, we are told that, but then later when disucssing position in 6 handed
> games the OP described some characteristics about attention to position
> that are more akin to a loose player.
>
> A lot of what the OP says just doesn't have clear meaning. He uses all
> the right buzz words so that most readers think they understand what he's
> saying. I'm just not one of those readers.
>
I guess I have a problem with the description of the raiser as well.
Snarkiness aside, Morph admits to a little trouble defining him as well.
The original description had him as a scary and bullet proof TAG. To me
that TAG label sometimes means they can be predictable and easy for a
player who is paying attention to get out of their way and they typically
get out of my way when I act strong.
Later Morph further describes... He's not quite as tight as we thought
(or at least I interpreted), he's predictable, and he may have been tricky
at one time. Maybe there's a point there. Math is hard. Defining your
opponent is harder?
Chandler
_____________________________________________________________________
chandler
> I would doubt it. Morphy described him as tight, not granite assed. For a
> 6 handed game I would expect a stereotypical TAG player to raise with JJ+,
> AQ+. However, it's not just his relative tightness I'm wary of here. It's
> also the fact that he is apparently consistently aggressive but rarely
> gets caught on the wrong side in significant pots. I'm looking forward to
> what I plan to do on the flop and the fact is I don't like it. If I hit
> TPTK and bet he's almost certainly going to give it up unless he has me
> screwed. If I check (whether I hit the flop or not) he's going to bet and
> I don't know whether he's betting on the strength of his cards or
> rresponding to my show of weakness.
So don't check the flop;-) Seriously, if, as described, he's only betting
in strength and shows down only superior hands, it lends some
predictability to his game. I can get out of his way when I only have
TPTK. I'm less likely to lose the big hand you worry about. IOW we are
both likely to win/lose small pots.
> As I stated earlier I much prefer a hand like 8T against a raise from this
> type of player than AQ/AK. If we miss the flop it's very easy to get away
> from the hand and if we hit there's a very good chance he will pay us off
> as he wouldn't expect us to be in there with what he perceives to be
> trash. The stacks are just deep enough to chase with this kind of
> speculative holding IMHO.
The problem with 8 10 suited is I am heads up to a raiser who by
definition is not going to give me proper odds on a draw. And I may catch
some wierd flop that gets me top pair or something. Yuck. I'll go with
any small pair as I know whether to go on with the hand immediately when I
see the flop.
Chandler
_____________________________________________________________________
croupe
> On Jun 20, 4:41 pm, "XaQ Morphy" <a1c5...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Situation: 6 handed NLHE cash game, blinds $2/$3. You are on the BB with
> > a $190 stack. UTG is new to the table but you've played him before. He's
> > a standard straight forward TAG player. He's quiet enough that he doesn't
> > draw attention to himself, almost always shows down strong hands, typical
> > big hand big pot, let the pots that don't matter go without a fight, etc.
> > He has or is affiliated with cardrunners.com in some way or another based
> > on google searches if that matters at all. All of this information is
> > known from previous play and research. He has $320ish and has been at the
> > table for a few orbits.
>
> > UTG raises pot to $11 and it's folded to you. You have Ac Kd. What do
> > you do? This will be part 1. I'll reply to this message and change the
> > subject for parts 2- however many I get to.
>
> > ---
> > Morphy
>
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > : the next generation of web-newsreaders :http://www.recgroups.com
>
> started. AKs OOP against a TAG, I would like to keep the pot small so
> I smooth call to see what the flop brings. A total miss on the flop
> and I can check-fold and not worry about the $8 invested. An A or K
> on the flop lets me bet out 2/3 of the pot or so and see what happens
> and make my decision with the additional information. A ragged board
> that gives me a flush draw allows many options. I think this is the
> best play, but I'm sure we will see some cases for pre-flop raising to
> define your opponent's range better etc.. that probably have a lot of
> merit.
>
> Croupe- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sorry - I somehow thought it was AKs.
Croupe
FellKnight
Like Carson said, check/call. The reasons are the checkraises get most of
the hands we want to continue playing out, and doesn't get out the hands
the we want to fold to fold.
Fell
--
"One should always play fairly - when one has the winning cards."
Oscar Wilde
---
johnny_t
> I think in terms of limit games and then translate it to NL as if it was
> a second language.
Wow, I think that is a horrible proposition. The difference between the
games in respect to expressed odds vs implied odds, changes the game so
dramatically that you can do things in either game you would never do in
the other.
The point I had for "reraising" was not to put extra money in the pot or
to create value, which I would be doing in a limit game. But instead to
attempt to take the pot RIGHT then or after a bet regardless of the
flop. My hope would be to win often enough to make the play worthwhile.
If call/call or raise preflop I am probably out of the hand, in almost
any case (maybe not if I flop AAK). The point is, that *I* am going to
play the hand TAG. In this case. With the hopeful benefit of winning
through chip power.
Unlike XAQ who apparently cannot muck AK OOP in a 6 player hand, I can
and often do. (OOP is WAY more important in NL than LH).
Travel A
Group: rec.gambling.poker
Date: Sat, Jun 21, 2008, 8:03am
From: chandler <a5a...@webnntp.invalid>
Chandler
______________________________________________
RecGroups : the community
..........................................................................
I responded to the original post without reading any of the subsequent
thread. So, I didn't see the additional info given, later. But, it
doesn't matter, the answer's the same with regard to the original
question.
As for the rest of your reply, I don't agree with you. My answer is the
way I'd play it and for the reasons given.
You've heard of "Fancy Play Syndrome"? Well, you're getting into "Fancy
Responses To Poker Questions Syndrome". It's not based in reality. You
don't know what your opponent is holding and a general strategy based on
betting is the focus, not foolishly convincing yourself that your
opponent is holding specific cards.
It's all about the betting, something you know. It's not about guessing
and reacting to which specific cards you're guessing that your opponent
is holding, something you don't know.
I particularly don't agree with your statement that UTG's pre flop raise
doesn't give the needed information. It does give the needed information
and all the useful information you'll get by playing the hand correctly.
Your idea that reraising, and then, if UTG doesn't come "over the top",
means (according to you) that you can eliminate the possibility of UTG
having AA or KK, is nonsesnse.
XaQ Morphy
> Unlike XAQ who apparently cannot muck AK OOP in a 6 player hand, I can
> and often do. (OOP is WAY more important in NL than LH).
Folding AK to a single raise in a low stakes 6 max game online is just bad
poker, no matter how you look at it.
_______________________________________________________________________
garycarson
Yes. His thoughts about the evil one are confused. And he should just
say that up front. "My thoughts about the UTG raiser are confused". Then
go into some of the confustion such as seems tight but seems to ignore
position, has been tricky in the past but not recently, etc, etc.
But, he doesn't do that. He just spouts off nonsense then when questioned
about it he says if I'm a smart person I'm supposed to be able to figure
it out.
Yawn.
Because of all the uncertianty I think you should call preflop and
check/call on that flop. Don't even try to re-raise or check/raise to
"clarify" the situation. The potential for disaster in doing that is huge
with not really much upsicde potential. Just go with the flow and see how
things work themselves out.
-----
Travel A
Group: rec.gambling.poker
From: johnny_t <nobo...@home.com>
Travel A wrote:
I think in terms of limit games and then translate it to NL as if it was
a second language.
Wow, I think that is a horrible proposition. The difference between the
games in respect to expressed odds vs implied odds, changes the game so
dramatically that you can do things in either game you would never do in
the other.
..........................................................................
Jeeeezus, what an idiot.
Ummm, you obviously didn't understand my meaning in your zest to feel
superior. Do you really think that I don't know there's a difference in
limit and NL, and the nature of those differences? What do you think the
word "translate" means within the context of the statement?
garycarson
> On Jun 21 2008 11:08 AM, johnny_t wrote:
>
> > Unlike XAQ who apparently cannot muck AK OOP in a 6 player hand, I can
> > and often do. (OOP is WAY more important in NL than LH).
>
> Folding AK to a single raise in a low stakes 6 max game online is just bad
> poker, no matter how you look at it.
>
Do you want to try to explain why it's not bad poker to fold AK to a
single raise in a high stakes 6 handed game?
Also, why does a 6 max game differ from a 6-handed 10 max game?
I'm assuming that when you make dramatic conditional statements that the
conditions actually have a reason for being there. Am I wrong in that
assumption? Do you often just say things that have no purpose or meaning?
______________________________________________________________________
Travel A
of the hands we want to continue playing out, and doesn't get out the
hands the we want to fold to fold.
Fell
--
"One should always play fairly - when one has the winning cards." Oscar
Wilde
---�
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
.................................................................
Gary Carson was talking about the pre flop part of the hand.
XaQ Morphy
> Do you want to try to explain why it's not bad poker to fold AK to a
> single raise in a high stakes 6 handed game?
No, because if I happen to use the wrong word or use a word in the wrong
way you won't understand it and will spend the next 20 posts complaining
about it. Instead I'll just ignore it and hope you go away.
--------
Will in New Haven
My problem with that, aside from the way my opponent mutated as Morph
changed his story, is that we are so short-stacked that check-call,
check-call gets a _lot_ of my money into the pot. So we are assuming
we are ahead. Of course, I can just buy more chips, so the stack size
shouldn't bother me so much. I guess the call to see if he will stop
betting has value here.
The draws out there pose three problems and present one opportunity:
If we are ahead of a made hand, he probably won't stop betting with
the draws out there. That's great if we never fold when we are ahead.
But it means we are never folding if we are behind either.
If we are ahead, he may hit one of the draws. That is very minor as I
don't put him on a draw very much of the time.
If we are ahead and a draw hits, we probably lose any more possible
action. Check/call looks a lot like a draw on our part.
If we are behind and a draw hits, we can possibly win the pot.
--
Will in New Haven
Travel A
What's the move now? Anyone prefer leading into him instead of checking?
If so, why?
---
Morphy
xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
.....................................................................
Like I said in answer to part 1, if I hit the flop, I'd check to the
raiser, as you did. If UTG had checked, also, he much more than likely
missed the flop. If he bets, check/raise.
The next move after UTG bet, is to raise on the check/raise. Heads up
and flop TPTK? DUH!
Ron Sperber
This is a 6-handed game. UTG isn't ever open raising with AQ or AJ or
medium pocket pair? Folding AKs in a 6-handed game seems over nittish to me.
Ian Stuart
Whilst I sense a level of acrimony running through this thread between two
people who I both like and respect and thus don't really want to get
involved with I agree with you to a large extent Gary.
Wow what a fecked up sentence that was!
The real key here is getting a fix on our opponent that is accurate enough
to profit from. Saying he's tight-aggressive is very general and just
doesn't go far enough to help us identify the flaws in his game that we
might take advantage of.
Reading between the lines a bit more we could consider that he is
potentially quite a weak post flop player given that he rarely goes to the
river in large pots without a very strong holding. Rather that being
afraid of him post flop maybe we should consider the potential
opportunities for bluffing the shit out of him.
That said, the best Morphy or anyone else can do is give generalisations
about an opponent as very few people would be interested in analysing 100s
of HH to get a real feel for the player in question. Either we accept
generalisations on a best efforts basis or give up trying to discuss the
game altogether. I know what I prefer.
_____________________________________________________________________
garycarson
> Like Carson said, check/call. The reasons are the checkraises get most
> of the hands we want to continue playing out, and doesn't get out the
> hands the we want to fold to fold.
> Fell
> --
> "One should always play fairly - when one has the winning cards." Oscar
> Wilde
>
> ---�
> RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
> ..................................................................
>
> Gary Carson was talking about the pre flop part of the hand.
Really? Check/call? Okay.
---
garycarson
> On Jun 21 2008 12:00 PM, garycarson wrote:
>
> > Do you want to try to explain why it's not bad poker to fold AK to a
> > single raise in a high stakes 6 handed game?
>
> No, because if I happen to use the wrong word or use a word in the wrong
> way you won't understand it and will spend the next 20 posts complaining
> about it. Instead I'll just ignore it and hope you go away.
That doesn't surprise me at all.
I'm more likely to fold AKo preflop to a single raise in a low stakes game
than a high stakes game, exactly the opposite of your suggestion.
The reason is that higher stakes players tend to be much more aggressive
and much less nitty than lower stakes players. A tight lower stakes
player is often a nit, a tight higher stakes player is seldom a nit.
The question isn't whether or not folding to his raise preflop is nitty,
the question is whether or not his preflop raise is nitty.
Assess the situation and leave the ego out of it.
>
> ---
> Morphy
> xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
> http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
_______________________________________________________________________
XaQ Morphy
> That said, the best Morphy or anyone else can do is give generalisations
> about an opponent as very few people would be interested in analysing 100s
> of HH to get a real feel for the player in question. Either we accept
> generalisations on a best efforts basis or give up trying to discuss the
> game altogether. I know what I prefer.
A big reason I posted this hand was because I made a completely wrong read
of my opponent, and wanted to try and show how that plus second guessing
yourself can get you in a really sticky situation. I'll save the
discussion for the email list.
____________________________________________________________________
garycarson
> On Jun 21 2008 12:57 PM, Ian Stuart wrote:
>
> > That said, the best Morphy or anyone else can do is give generalisations
> > about an opponent as very few people would be interested in analysing 100s
> > of HH to get a real feel for the player in question. Either we accept
> > generalisations on a best efforts basis or give up trying to discuss the
> > game altogether. I know what I prefer.
>
> A big reason I posted this hand was because I made a completely wrong read
> of my opponent, and wanted to try and show how that plus second guessing
> yourself can get you in a really sticky situation. I'll save the
> discussion for the email list.
>
LOL
When I pointed out at the gitgo that your entire read on the situation,
not just your read on the evil one, was confused your response was to get
all defensive and you refused to discuss it.
Now you want to take your ball and go home.
What a loser.
johnny_t
I was not trying to feel superior at all, however your statements are
ALL ABOUT MAKING YOU feel superior.
Did you read what I wrote?
There isn't anything translatable. The formats are so different that
the fundamental starting points are different. Going around thinking of
things in LIMIT terms and then "translating" them to NL terms, is like,
well huh. Yes (limit), No (NL). That is nearly nonsensical.
Why not convert everything to game theory and start from there?
My point, if you read carefully, is that because the games have
fundamentally different structures that everything is so different, from
hand values, position, starting hands etc, that I believe it is a
"horrible proposition" to be thinking about NL from a "translated" limit
perspective.
But really, "Jeezus, what an idiot." That is a really pleasant and
useful way to start any discussion.
I'll end it this way. Just figure out how to kill file me. It will
make me and you feel better.
johnny_t
> On Jun 21 2008 11:08 AM, johnny_t wrote:
>
>> Unlike XAQ who apparently cannot muck AK OOP in a 6 player hand, I can
>> and often do. (OOP is WAY more important in NL than LH).
>
> Folding AK to a single raise in a low stakes 6 max game online is just bad
> poker, no matter how you look at it.
>
I, respectfully, disagree. Though, as you know, in poker the answer is
always "it depends." Hands like this, especially OOP, as I said, are
very very difficult to stack your opponent with (the point of NL poker),
and are just as likely if not more likely to result in YOU getting
stacked (again the point from their perspective).
Especially if it is an opponent that you do not have any real personal
history with that you can weave the right sort of story and situation
where you can do this.
So you can try to extract value now, later, or bale. Generally I bale
in this situation, followed with attempting fast aggressive play, but
occasionally I will play passively and see what happens. I want my
opponents to not know for sure whether or not I have AK here.
As Gary said this is better played in games where there is more chip
power, so that you will have respect for your chips, and they have more
respect for their own, and more hands will be played in more
straightforward fashion.
This whole fundamental principle of it is "Just bad poker no matter how
you look at it", is exactly why this hand is even worth discussing.
If you approach your hand selection not with is generic pre-flop
percentage value, but as to hands that are likely to do the right type
of damage to the opponent if front of you, then you get to easier
pre-flop decisions. It is just the BB, why are you trying to make life
difficult for you here. There are other types of hands that are much
easier to play, wait for those.
johnny_t
Of course they are... But are you stacking them off in this situation?
Probably not. This is NL not Limit. In a limit game, of course you
play against them, and you try and create value as you go.
In NL, the opposite is the problem. Can you stack them off when you
beat them? (Difficult but yes). Can they stack you off when you are
beat (much easier). Therefor they are "winning" more than you.
XaQ Morphy
> Of course they are... But are you stacking them off in this situation?
> Probably not. This is NL not Limit. In a limit game, of course you
> play against them, and you try and create value as you go.
>
> In NL, the opposite is the problem. Can you stack them off when you
> beat them? (Difficult but yes). Can they stack you off when you are
> beat (much easier). Therefor they are "winning" more than you.
What do you play from the blinds in a 6 handed NL game?
---
johnny_t
> What do you play from the blinds in a 6 handed NL game?
>
A good question, "it depends".
I think that there are very few hands that I don't play from the BB, but
that I am very wary about hands that are difficult to fold.
I try and play games that are not excessively tight, and passive if
possible preflop. The more I can limp the better, I try to win postflop
if I can.
I am much more likely to defend with "surprising hands or hands that I
know are the nuts when they hit, or very, very strong hands (not AK).
So Middle connectors, suited aces, AA-QQ, pocket pairs sometimes. This
tends to give me a wide enough range of hands, that it looks like I
usually defend, and that it is not certain what I have when I do defend.
This gives me enough opportunity to represent a variety of different
hands depending on what the flop brings. If I have a very strong image
I can do all sorts of bluffing here. If I have a dodgy image, I can
often get way overpaid on a hand that hits here.
I can be a defender or not depending on the texture of the table. So
even though there are all sorts of hands that I will defend with
depending on the position and play of my opponents. Against some
opponents, they can reasonably expect me to fold most hands in the BB.
This case, the AK to under the gun raise, I hate this so much, I often
fold, even though if the hands were face-up it would be the wrong thing
to do. It really doesn't matter, a 1 chip mistake here by folding,
doesn't warrant the bigger mistakes by playing the hand.
So I can defend with the range above, and attempt to win by getting the
best strong hand or fold easily on the flop or even craft a winning
story based on what flopped.
I am that guy who "seems to get a lot of draws, but never goes broke."
I am a giant fan of the combo-draw, odd two pair, strange straight, nut
flush, A big "Nine", 30 miles of track. I hate AK, QQ, JJ, and I am
starting to seriously hate KK, but maybe I sill just stop being unlucky
with them.
However, in limit games, My hand choices change dramatically, I start
loving AK, QQ, JJ, KK, AQ and other "good hands". I also play them much
more often in tournaments.
I will also play those hand when implied odds drop dramatically on
comparison to expressed odds. And I will shift from surprising hands to
hands with higher winning percentages.
In the underlying math, I am sure that there is a complete mathematical
sentence that describes the possible opponents, the underlying
probabilities and success percentages based on different types of flops.
So that you could know that you will succeed in money more than you
will fail in money if you do this thing. And the results are only
variance the play is simply obvious.
Or simply just cue up for the easy shots. Lose a chip here or there,
but focus on the big mistakes. The ones that are going to bring all
your opponents chips.
How did the man put it "The thing is, poker is about doing the wrong
thing at the right time".
garycarson
> On Jun 21 2008 6:14 PM, johnny_t wrote:
>
> > Of course they are... But are you stacking them off in this situation?
> > Probably not. This is NL not Limit. In a limit game, of course you
> > play against them, and you try and create value as you go.
> >
> > In NL, the opposite is the problem. Can you stack them off when you
> > beat them? (Difficult but yes). Can they stack you off when you are
> > beat (much easier). Therefor they are "winning" more than you.
>
> What do you play from the blinds in a 6 handed NL game?
>
Are you sure you wouldn't prefer discussing this in a private email group?
________________________________________________________________________
XaQ Morphy
> Are you sure you wouldn't prefer discussing this in a private email group?
Are you having a temper tantrum? Wouldn't you prefer to go whine like a
little bitch somewhere else?
______________________________________________________________________
Beldin the Sorcerer
"XaQ Morphy" <a1c...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:hdpvi5x...@recgroups.com...
> On Jun 21 2008 12:00 PM, garycarson wrote:
>
>> Do you want to try to explain why it's not bad poker to fold AK to a
>> single raise in a high stakes 6 handed game?
>
> No, because if I happen to use the wrong word or use a word in the wrong
> way you won't understand it and will spend the next 20 posts complaining
> about it. Instead I'll just ignore it and hope you go away.
Morphy, Carson can be an asshole.
However, he's generally a CORRECT asshole.
Travel A
Group: rec.gambling.poker
Date: Sat, Jun 21, 2008, 11:15am
From: garycarson <garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu>
On Jun 21 2008 12:55 PM, Travel A wrote:
Like Carson said, check/call. The reasons are the checkraises get most
of the hands we want to continue playing out, and doesn't get out the
hands the we want to fold to fold.
Fell
--
"One should always play fairly - when one has the winning cards." Oscar
Wilde
---�
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
.............................................
Gary Carson was talking about the pre flop part of the hand.
Really? Check/call? Okay.
---�
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites,
............................................................................
Yes, I did see where you said check/call on the flop, later. When I
posted my above comment I hadn't seen your post; I think it was on the
usual Usenet delay or something. Maybe I just missed it.
But, staying with that subject: I'd check/raise with TPTK, because as
someone on this thread pointed out, in six handed, especially, UTG could
be holding QQ, AQs, a number of possibilities. None of which UTG is
likely to fold on a check/raise and you hold the best hand.
Plus, I think it's a good move, in general, to go with the opportunity
to take control of the aggression if you're ahead, (it's good for table
image, too) and TPTK is ahead. What happened to "getting your money in
when you have the best of it"? You and Linda used to be the major
proponents of this strategy.
DaveMcG
> Situation: 6 handed NLHE cash game, blinds $2/$3. You are on the BB with
> a $190 stack. UTG is new to the table but you've played him before. He's
> a standard straight forward TAG player. He's quiet enough that he doesn't
> draw attention to himself, almost always shows down strong hands, typical
> big hand big pot, let the pots that don't matter go without a fight, etc.
> He has or is affiliated with cardrunners.com in some way or another based
> on google searches if that matters at all. All of this information is
> known from previous play and research. He has $320ish and has been at the
> table for a few orbits.
>
> UTG raises pot to $11 and it's folded to you. You have Ac Kd. What do
> you do? This will be part 1. I'll reply to this message and change the
> subject for parts 2- however many I get to.
>
> ---
> Morphy
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> : the next generation of web-newsreaders :http://www.recgroups.com
I cant believe that you consider this hand worth discussing - it is an
absolutely standard 3 bet pre. If called c-bet any flop about 2/3
pot. If 4 bet allin call with your short stack. utg raising range in
6 max is AJ+, KQs, 55+ and a couple of suited connectors now and then.
DaveMcG
>
> - Show quoted text -
And absolutely lol at anyone thinking you can ever fold AK on a K high
flop in 6 max with a short stack.
garycarson
> Re: AK discussion hand - part 2
> Group: rec.gambling.poker
> Date: Sat, Jun 21, 2008, 11:15am
> From: garycarson <garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu>
>
>
> On Jun 21 2008 12:55 PM, Travel A wrote:
>
> Like Carson said, check/call. The reasons are the checkraises get most
> of the hands we want to continue playing out, and doesn't get out the
> hands the we want to fold to fold.
> Fell
> --
> "One should always play fairly - when one has the winning cards." Oscar
> Wilde
> ---�
> RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
> ..............................................
>
> Gary Carson was talking about the pre flop part of the hand.
>
>
> Really? Check/call? Okay.
> ---�
> * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites,
>
.............................................................................
>
> Yes, I did see where you said check/call on the flop, later. When I
> posted my above comment I hadn't seen your post; I think it was on the
> usual Usenet delay or something. Maybe I just missed it.
>
> But, staying with that subject: I'd check/raise with TPTK, because as
> someone on this thread pointed out, in six handed, especially, UTG could
> be holding QQ, AQs, a number of possibilities. None of which UTG is
> likely to fold on a check/raise and you hold the best hand.
>
> Plus, I think it's a good move, in general, to go with the opportunity
> to take control of the aggression if you're ahead, (it's good for table
> image, too) and TPTK is ahead. What happened to "getting your money in
> when you have the best of it"? You and Linda used to be the major
> proponents of this strategy.
Getting your money in doesn't mean bet, it means bet and get called.
You think he'll call with near worthless hands, I don't.
________________________________________________________________________
garycarson
> On 20 Jun, 22:41, "XaQ Morphy" <a1c5...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> > Situation: 6 handed NLHE cash game, blinds $2/$3. You are on the BB with
> > a $190 stack. UTG is new to the table but you've played him before. He's
> > a standard straight forward TAG player. He's quiet enough that he doesn't
> > draw attention to himself, almost always shows down strong hands, typical
> > big hand big pot, let the pots that don't matter go without a fight, etc.
> > He has or is affiliated with cardrunners.com in some way or another based
> > on google searches if that matters at all. All of this information is
> > known from previous play and research. He has $320ish and has been at the
> > table for a few orbits.
> >
> > UTG raises pot to $11 and it's folded to you. You have Ac Kd. What do
> > you do? This will be part 1. I'll reply to this message and change the
> > subject for parts 2- however many I get to.
> >
> > ---
> > Morphy
> > xaqmor...@donkeymanifesto.comhttp://www.donkeymanifesto.com
> >
> I cant believe that you consider this hand worth discussing - it is an
> absolutely standard 3 bet pre. If called c-bet any flop about 2/3
> pot. If 4 bet allin call with your short stack. utg raising range in
> 6 max is AJ+, KQs, 55+ and a couple of suited connectors now and then.
When did people start using limit terminology (3 bet) in no limit
situations and pretend it actually had meaning when you did that?
In no limit being the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th bet has pretty much no information
value without knowing the size of the bets and size of the stacks.
________________________________________________________________________
chandler
> On Jun 21 2008 11:03 AM, chandler wrote:
>
> > On Jun 21 2008 1:10 AM, Travel A wrote:
> >
> >
> > > If UTG raised and it folded around to me in the BB, creating a heads-up
> > > a situation, I'd call. UTG, by raising, has already given the
> > > information needed. The problem with reraising is that you're out of
> > > position and there's no additional benefit of getting information.
> > >
> >
> > The thing is the raise preflop UTG doesn't really tell you much about his
> > hand... which the OP adds later. And if you reraise preflop it does in
> > fact get you some information. If he doesn't come over the top of your
> > reraise you can probably eliminate AA/KK from his range.
>
>
> If you're suidical.
>
> If I'm him and I have AA I'm going to call your re-raise. I'm right where
> I want to be -- with the best hand with position against a player who
> thinks he knows what's going on but doesn't and deep money.
>
> The only thing Re-raising gets you is having him fold exactly those hands
> you want to play against -- like AJ or KQ.
>
> > If he comes over
> > the top, I can get away from the hand.
>
> Which is why he should just call if he has AA.
I'm not suicidal, just not very good. There is a difference in the intent
if not the result. In my defense, most of my current opponents would be
happy to relieved to come over the top of me with AA/KK after that preflop
reraise... And they are not necessarily wrong because they get calls from
inferior hands with some frequency. Calling AA there makes sense. I have
smooth called my AA to a single raiser when playing out of the BB, but
never just called a reraise.
OK, I started out with calling the AK preflop and toyed with the idea of
the reraise, but check calling every street after you hit really has me
intrigued. If I'm thinking I can see how attractive this is. It keeps
inferior hands betting, keeps the pot smaller if you're beat and you can
shift gears to value bet later if the action dictates, but everything in
me is screaming to bet when I hit that TPTK... and I usually do. I'm
going to have to give that tactic serious consideration.
Chandler
---
chandler
> On Jun 21 2008 12:57 PM, Ian Stuart wrote:
>
> > That said, the best Morphy or anyone else can do is give generalisations
> > about an opponent as very few people would be interested in analysing 100s
> > of HH to get a real feel for the player in question. Either we accept
> > generalisations on a best efforts basis or give up trying to discuss the
> > game altogether. I know what I prefer.
>
> A big reason I posted this hand was because I made a completely wrong read
> of my opponent, and wanted to try and show how that plus second guessing
> yourself can get you in a really sticky situation. I'll save the
> discussion for the email list.
>
> ---
> Morphy
> xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
> http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
That's too bad. It was a refreshing change from the "Which Of The Future
First Ladys Has Bigger Tits" Thread or the "My Television Gas Bag is
Better Than Your Television Gas Bag" thread.
Chandler
________________________________________________________________________
johnny_t
>> I cant believe that you consider this hand worth discussing - it is an
>> absolutely standard 3 bet pre. If called c-bet any flop about 2/3
>> pot. If 4 bet allin call with your short stack. utg raising range in
>> 6 max is AJ+, KQs, 55+ and a couple of suited connectors now and then.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> And absolutely lol at anyone thinking you can ever fold AK on a K high
> flop in 6 max with a short stack.
>
The advantage of this line of play is that you have converted the hand
from post flop play to pre-flop play when you are likely a coin flip to
better in most cases. But, by doing so, you have converted this case
from an implied odds case to an expressed odds case.
Which means the hand gets treated a bit more like an expensive limit
hand rather than an NL hand which has much more to do with Implied odds,
and taking your opponents stack.
If you are getting all your money in, your going to be rebuying alot of
the time here in No-limit.
From a bankroll management standpoint, with this approach variance has
gone up tremendously with this style than when I approach a given
no-limit session. I will also state, that because I play a lower
variance style, I am not having 10x cash outs either. But I am
consistently having positive cash outs.
More importantly, while I often lust after the mountain of chips this
aggressive style can generate, I more importantly consider the players
of this fast style to be contributers to me rather than vice verse.
You will be playing much of the time for very thin odds for all of your
money.
If your opponent is folding, then the play becomes more worthwhile.
Post flop, there is logic to only playing if you hit, there is logic to
c-betting. This again comes down to your opponent.
This line of playing is why I play the hand this way about 30% of the
time preflop. But the goal is NOT to get it all in pre-flop, the goal
is to punish AJ, AQ and KQs and get small pairs to drop. And NOT to get
it all in generally. I tend to do get more respect here, than the
average player on the board though. But if I can get UTG to tighten up
their range, by punishing the loose range when I can, it makes folding
less of a mistake (even though it is only a 1 bb mistake). The metagame
consideration is important in this discussion as well.
I didn't say fold on AK on K high flop per se. I said
"All in all it sounds like if you can't laydown AK OOP, why would anyone
think you could laydown TPTK OOP? And if you can't laydown TPTK OOP, it
is just a matter of time before you lose your stack here. "
I am also a bigger proponent of playing hands post flop rather than
preflop and playing for larger implied odds, and better expressed odds,
when the money finally does get all in. I think that there is plenty of
room for small struggles along the way, but I want to be in position, or
control of the pot when doing so. And ultimately, to be very very wary
of hands that are difficult to fold. As those are precisely the kinds
of hands that your opponent wants you to have, when they want to play
for all their chips.
As the hand was played passively to that point, you have too little
information on where the opponent is, and the hand range easily contains
you being crushed for all your money.
Playing for thin odds, regardless of the NL format, will get all your
chips if you are willing to play for your whole stack very fast.
But, ultimately, why is this hand worth discussing??? Because in NL
there are many many ways to get to the end of the hand, and the end of
the session. If you play well, you will be up against most of those,
and if you play very well, you will PLAY most of those ways at some
point in the game. This is one of those points where there will be a
great discussion of style at the table. If the discussion goes well, it
will help provide clarity for your style over others, or vice verse.
I can tell you this, if you approach almost any NL question with
anything else than "It depends", Like, "It is ALWAYS this way", then you
are going to find that inflexibility will be one of your weaknesses at
the table.
I would guess that the style clash comes down to "In 6 max if you can't
get all-in with AK on a K high board, what are you doing playing? VS.
If you are going all in with AK on a K high board in NL, you are a
target for losing your stack"
garycarson
> On Jun 21 2008 11:11 AM, garycarson wrote:
>
> > On Jun 21 2008 11:03 AM, chandler wrote:
> >
> > > On Jun 21 2008 1:10 AM, Travel A wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > If UTG raised and it folded around to me in the BB, creating a heads-up
> > > > a situation, I'd call. UTG, by raising, has already given the
> > > > information needed. The problem with reraising is that you're out of
> > > > position and there's no additional benefit of getting information.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The thing is the raise preflop UTG doesn't really tell you much about his
> > > hand... which the OP adds later. And if you reraise preflop it does in
> > > fact get you some information. If he doesn't come over the top of your
> > > reraise you can probably eliminate AA/KK from his range.
> >
> >
> > If you're suidical.
> >
> > If I'm him and I have AA I'm going to call your re-raise. I'm right where
> > I want to be -- with the best hand with position against a player who
> > thinks he knows what's going on but doesn't and deep money.
> >
> > The only thing Re-raising gets you is having him fold exactly those hands
> > you want to play against -- like AJ or KQ.
> >
> > > If he comes over
> > > the top, I can get away from the hand.
> >
> > Which is why he should just call if he has AA.
>
> I'm not suicidal, just not very good.
It really kind of depends on what the OP meant by "straight-forward".
Many responders seem to think it meant predicible. But that doesn't
really make much sense as a definition since some of the most predicable
players have heavy doses of FPS.
I defined the term in both my books, basically just as a player who tended
to bet when he had a hand and checked when he didn't.
That wouild not preclude a straight-forward player from raising with AA
than just calling when re-raised, particularly when the money is deep.
I think you were just using a different operational definition of
striaght-forward than I was.
> There is a difference in the intent
> if not the result. In my defense, most of my current opponents would be
> happy to relieved to come over the top of me with AA/KK after that preflop
> reraise... And they are not necessarily wrong because they get calls from
> inferior hands with some frequency. Calling AA there makes sense. I have
> smooth called my AA to a single raiser when playing out of the BB, but
> never just called a reraise.
That's why I had orignially asked the OP what the Evil One thought of him.
He didn't answer.
Has our hero shown a willingness to re-raise then fold to a huge playback?
We don't know. If so then I'm leaving open the possibility that the Evil
One has AA or KK. If he has then there's still some chance of AA or KK
although the chances are reduced.
Generally in no-limit it's a mistake to put your opponent on a specific
hand or to eliminate a specific hand from possibility. You can do that in
limit becuase the cost of being wrong is controlled, but that's not the
case in no-limit and you need to always let your mind consider even
unlikely possibilities -- unless one of you gets real short-stacked, in
that case you can eliminate AA from possibility if he only calls the
re-raise.
>
> OK, I started out with calling the AK preflop and toyed with the idea of
> the reraise, but check calling every street after you hit really has me
> intrigued.
You might not check/call every street. If he ever makes a really big bet
you need to think about giving it up. Also if the board gets real scary
and he doesn't seem worried about it then you might think about giving it
up.
> If I'm thinking I can see how attractive this is. It keeps
> inferior hands betting, keeps the pot smaller if you're beat and you can
> shift gears to value bet later if the action dictates, but everything in
> me is screaming to bet when I hit that TPTK... and I usually do. I'm
> going to have to give that tactic serious consideration.
>
In limit blind aggression usually gets it at least close to right. Not so
in no limit. Don't let your ego get in the way, you don't need to control
the betting every hand, and you don't need to control information flow
every hand. Particularly with deep stacks.
With deep stacks you should tread carefully.
In limit you usually want to go after every sliver of value. In no limit
you need to look more at the skew of the distributions of possible
outcomes and avoid negative skews. A negative skew is one where you'll
usually win a little but sometimes you'll get dunked. A winning
distribution of outcomes in no limit is one where you'll usually have a
small loss but sometimes have a huge win (I'm talking about per hand, not
per month).
The distribution of outcomes for winning no-limit players looks very much
like the distribution of outcomes of winning limit players who play in
wild/crazy games.
This, btw, is one aread where the poker hand history analysis software
falls down -- they have too much focus on mean and variance (first and
second moments for you physics majors) and tend to ignore the third moment
(skewness).
_____________________________________________________________________
garycarson
> DaveMcG wrote:
> >> I cant believe that you consider this hand worth discussing - it is an
> >> absolutely standard 3 bet pre. If called c-bet any flop about 2/3
> >> pot. If 4 bet allin call with your short stack. utg raising range in
> >> 6 max is AJ+, KQs, 55+ and a couple of suited connectors now and then.-
Hide quoted text -
> >>
> >> - Show quoted text -
> >
> > And absolutely lol at anyone thinking you can ever fold AK on a K high
> > flop in 6 max with a short stack.
> >
>
> The advantage of this line of play is that you have converted the hand
> from post flop play to pre-flop play when you are likely a coin flip to
> better in most cases. But, by doing so, you have converted this case
> from an implied odds case to an expressed odds case.
>
> Which means the hand gets treated a bit more like an expensive limit
> hand rather than an NL hand which has much more to do with Implied odds,
> and taking your opponents stack.
Good observation.
>
> If you are getting all your money in, your going to be rebuying alot of
> the time here in No-limit.
>
> From a bankroll management standpoint, with this approach variance has
> gone up tremendously with this style than when I approach a given
> no-limit session. I will also state, that because I play a lower
> variance style, I am not having 10x cash outs either. But I am
> consistently having positive cash outs.
If everything else remains equal, decreasing variance usually means a
decrease in EV. In stat theory EV and variance are independent but in
actual emperical work there really does tend to be joint movement in EV
and variance (in poker, in biology, damn near any field that looks at
emperical distributions).
But, in poker, everything doesn't remain equal when you shift to an
implied odds situation. It reduces negative semi-variance (negative
semi-variance is just the part of the sum of squares that comes from below
mean observations, I talked abou it in my holdem book), but might not
reduce total variance. Reducing negative semi-variance while increasing
total variance goes along with an increase in positive skew.
LOL. Good characterization of the situation.
Gary Carson
http://www.mathandpoker.com
------
Will in New Haven
wrote:
Are you reading the same post I read. The OP had sixty-three Big
Blinds. The money is far from deep.
>
> I think you were just using a different operational definition of
> striaght-forward than I was.
>
> > There is a difference in the intent
> > if not the result. In my defense, most of my current opponents would be
> > happy to relieved to come over the top of me with AA/KK after that preflop
> > reraise... And they are not necessarily wrong because they get calls from
> > inferior hands with some frequency. Calling AA there makes sense. I have
> > smooth called my AA to a single raiser when playing out of the BB, but
> > never just called a reraise.
>
> That's why I had orignially asked the OP what the Evil One thought of him.
> He didn't answer.
What do you think Murphy's opponents think of him?
> Has our hero shown a willingness to re-raise then fold to a huge playback?
> We don't know. If so then I'm leaving open the possibility that the Evil
> One has AA or KK. If he has then there's still some chance of AA or KK
> although the chances are reduced.
>
> Generally in no-limit it's a mistake to put your opponent on a specific
> hand or to eliminate a specific hand from possibility. You can do that in
> limit becuase the cost of being wrong is controlled, but that's not the
> case in no-limit and you need to always let your mind consider even
> unlikely possibilities -- unless one of you gets real short-stacked, in
> that case you can eliminate AA from possibility if he only calls the
> re-raise.
He _is_ short-stacked. This isn't a tournament. Sixty-three BB is
short-stacking.
>
> > OK, I started out with calling the AK preflop and toyed with the idea of
> > the reraise, but check calling every street after you hit really has me
> > intrigued.
>
> You might not check/call every street. If he ever makes a really big bet
> you need to think about giving it up. Also if the board gets real scary
> and he doesn't seem worried about it then you might think about giving it
> up.
>
> > If I'm thinking I can see how attractive this is. It keeps
> > inferior hands betting, keeps the pot smaller if you're beat and you can
> > shift gears to value bet later if the action dictates, but everything in
> > me is screaming to bet when I hit that TPTK... and I usually do. I'm
> > going to have to give that tactic serious consideration.
>
> In limit blind aggression usually gets it at least close to right. Not so
> in no limit. Don't let your ego get in the way, you don't need to control
> the betting every hand, and you don't need to control information flow
> every hand. Particularly with deep stacks.
>
> With deep stacks you should tread carefully.
Are you hallucinating? The stacks are not deep.
--
Will in New Haven
Raider Fan
> On Jun 21 2008 2:22 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
>
> > On Jun 21 2008 12:57 PM, Ian Stuart wrote:
> >
> > > That said, the best Morphy or anyone else can do is give generalisations
> > > about an opponent as very few people would be interested in analysing
100s
> > > of HH to get a real feel for the player in question. Either we accept
> > > generalisations on a best efforts basis or give up trying to discuss the
> > > game altogether. I know what I prefer.
> >
> > A big reason I posted this hand was because I made a completely wrong read
> > of my opponent, and wanted to try and show how that plus second guessing
> > yourself can get you in a really sticky situation. I'll save the
> > discussion for the email list.
> >
>
> LOL
>
> When I pointed out at the gitgo that your entire read on the situation,
> not just your read on the evil one, was confused your response was to get
> all defensive and you refused to discuss it.
>
> Now you want to take your ball and go home.
>
> What a loser.
Morphy certainly isn't a loser, but I agree with your assessment of this
thread. Hey Morphy, this has been a serious poker discussion. What's up
with getting your panties in a bunch when you get criticism? It's not
your normal speed!
--------
XaQ Morphy
> Morphy certainly isn't a loser, but I agree with your assessment of this
> thread. Hey Morphy, this has been a serious poker discussion. What's up
> with getting your panties in a bunch when you get criticism? It's not
> your normal speed!
Don't have a problem with criticism, I do have a problem when I admitted
that I had problems reading this player and situation, and instead of
offering anything helpful, carson decided to nitpick 2 or 3 words from the
OP and wouldn't let it go, even after I tried explaining myself.
He's proven that he's not interested in discussing things other than to
show how "wrong" my OP was, regardless of what I say. So, not worth it
IMO. I'd rather make fun of Beldin.
________________________________________________________________________
Raider Fan
I'd rather make fun of Beldin.
LOL.
------
garycarson
> On Jun 22 2008 2:06 PM, Raider Fan wrote:
>
> > Morphy certainly isn't a loser, but I agree with your assessment of this
> > thread. Hey Morphy, this has been a serious poker discussion. What's up
> > with getting your panties in a bunch when you get criticism? It's not
> > your normal speed!
>
> Don't have a problem with criticism, I do have a problem when I admitted
> that I had problems reading this player and situation, and instead of
> offering anything helpful, carson decided to nitpick 2 or 3 words from the
> OP and wouldn't let it go, even after I tried explaining myself.
>
> He's proven that he's not interested in discussing things other than to
> show how "wrong" my OP was, regardless of what I say. So, not worth it
> IMO. I'd rather make fun of Beldin.
Precision in language goes hand in hand with precision in thought. Your
failure to consider that is a big part of why you had a problem with
analyzing that player. If you can't express a thought precisely then it's
likely not much of a thought.
I've addressed this subject before
http://www.mathandpoker.com/index.php/?p=185
and
http://www.mathandpoker.com/index.php/?p=214
When something seems to you like it requires hard thinking you run away
and hide.
That's why I called you a loser. Intellectually you are a loser. And
you'll keep being one at least until you grow up.
I think you might be making a mistake I saw a lot of responders in the
thread make -- you just assume that uncertainty must be eliminated in
order to determine an optimal response. I saw that kind of thinking all
over the responses when people talked about wanting to raise to "define
his hand". That's just wrong.
You don't need to define his hand. You need to define your uncertainty.
It's often more important to be precise about what you don't know than to
it is to try to cover that up by being over precise about what you do know.
johnny_t
>
> Are you hallucinating? The stacks are not deep.
>
> --
> Will in New Haven
They are not deep, but I don't think it is wrong to talk about deep
though. During to course of a session, you should be moving to a deep
stack if things are going your way. If you don't know what to do when
you get there, you are going to be finding that your risk/reward is
getting seriously out of whack as you provide greater and greater
implied odds for your opponent.
But they are not "short" either...
In most writing about short stack online poker, it is about 20 BB, and
taking advantage of the differences of how people approach preflop
between limit and no-limit. In this case, it would make sense to go all
in and collapse the game to express odds preflop by capturing too many
chips that would be out there preflop, unless you're playing a mostly
implied game. If you start attempting true short stack play at 63 BB
you will find that your risking too much for your reward.
The other key to short on-line is practical rat-holing. (Namely you hit
and run and go to another table). Without this particular feature,
hopefully you don't spend a lot of time playing "short" stack poker, as
your stack will often not be truly this short.
Between 60 an 100 or so is considered a "medium" stack, and is the
common amount in most low limit NL games. This is according to
literature is where the game starts shifting in how it behaves compared
to Limit.
And then 200 BB and greater is "deep stack" play where the game is
dramatically different than limit.
There are the questions of stylistic difference. And while Paul Wasika
talks about some styles, especially "bludgeoning" in The Power Hold-em
book, he provides very little detail about the mechanics of such a system.
garycarson
You're right.
I'm not sure why I missed that.
I guess my mind just focused on the $320 stack. If I had $190 I would
know he had me covered but wouldn't know he had $320. So I confused
myself. (I was probably also thinking it was a 1/2 blind game, I don't
think I've ever seen a 2/3 blind game).
Given he only has the $190 I'd look to double up here and I wouldn't
change what I've said other than I'd probably not think about folding the
turn and would think more about just check/raising the turn.
_______________________________________________________________________
Will in New Haven
I haven't either but I know people who have played in them.
> Given he only has the $190 I'd look to double up here and I wouldn't
> change what I've said other than I'd probably not think about folding the
> turn and would think more about just check/raising the turn.
The way he _originally_ described the opponent, I really thought
preflop was a raise or fold situation. I don't think we get another
_bet_ out of the guy he described if we call and hit the flop. Unless
he hit the flop also or he has Aces or Kings. So we can lose a little
or win a little or lose a lot, the last being the least likely. But
the small loss is the most likely.
If you re-raise and get into a raising war, you have fold equity
against a great many hands. I think, long-term, folding and re-raising
are each better than calling preflop. That Morphy and you both call
doesn't change my mind.
XaQ Morphy
> You're right.
>
> I'm not sure why I missed that.
>
> I guess my mind just focused on the $320 stack. If I had $190 I would
> know he had me covered but wouldn't know he had $320. So I confused
> myself. (I was probably also thinking it was a 1/2 blind game, I don't
> think I've ever seen a 2/3 blind game).
So you make major mistakes here in determining stack sizes and game even
though it's clearly laid out in front of you, yet for you it's ok to make
mistakes and for me it's not? Do you see why I might not be all that
interested in continuing to discuss this with you when you're like this?
________________________________________________________________________
garycarson
As I tried to point out, there are enough inconsistencies in the way he
originally desribed the situation to make it unwise to put too much stock
in how he characterizes the Evil One.
>
> If you re-raise and get into a raising war, you have fold equity
> against a great many hands. I think, long-term, folding and re-raising
> are each better than calling preflop. That Morphy and you both call
> doesn't change my mind.
I don't really want to put all my chips in preflop with this hand. And a
raise risks that. A raise puts about a third of my stack in. If a raise
puts a bigger part of my stack in than that then okay, go ahead and get it
all in.
I don't fault folding. Sometimes it's best to just give it up and come
back another time.
I rank the options preflop as call, fold, raise.
You seem to rank them raise, fold, call.
We're pretty far apart on this.
>
> --
> Will in New Haven
_______________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
garycarson
> On Jun 22 2008 3:33 PM, garycarson wrote:
>
> > You're right.
> >
> > I'm not sure why I missed that.
> >
> > I guess my mind just focused on the $320 stack. If I had $190 I would
> > know he had me covered but wouldn't know he had $320. So I confused
> > myself. (I was probably also thinking it was a 1/2 blind game, I don't
> > think I've ever seen a 2/3 blind game).
>
> So you make major mistakes here in determining stack sizes and game even
> though it's clearly laid out in front of you, yet for you it's ok to make
> mistakes and for me it's not? Do you see why I might not be all that
> interested in continuing to discuss this with you when you're like this?
>
You really should get profesional help for that chip on your shoulder.
Making a mistake is one thing.
Making a mistake while under the delusion that someone who notices the
mistake is just nit-picking is something else.
I talk about that a little here
http://playingnolimitpoker.blogspot.com/2008/06/making-mistake-in-judgement.html
Will in New Haven
True, and if a re-raise puts LESS of my stack in, I would be happier
about raising. Either way. This is an awkward stack size. I don't
remember the exact raise size but I really want to be the one with
fold equity when the last bet goes in. If the raise was to eleven and
I make it thirty-five, any third raise he makes will probably commit
him, given my stack size.
> > I don't fault folding. Sometimes it's best to just give it up and come
> back another time.
I originally said "fold." I don't like the numbers for a raise very
much. If I raise, I might fold if he four-bets.
> I rank the options preflop as call, fold, raise.
>
> You seem to rank them raise, fold, call.
>
> We're pretty far apart on this.
Yep. But I'm not unhappy with that. Flatting in this situation isn't
my cuppa. I still might fold, depending on what _I_ think of the
original raiser.
XaQ Morphy
> You really should get profesional help for that chip on your shoulder.
>
> Making a mistake is one thing.
>
> Making a mistake while under the delusion that someone who notices the
> mistake is just nit-picking is something else.
>
> I talk about that a little here
>
>
http://playingnolimitpoker.blogspot.com/2008/06/making-mistake-in-judgement.html
Thanks for helping to make my point. Have a good rest of your Sunday.
_____________________________________________________________________
Travel A
be the wrong play given the stated reasons for doing so, but it doesn't
seem to be the optimal play either.
If one of the reasons for check/calling the flop is that UTG would be
folding hands that you want him to be playing:
I don't see how UTG, who raised pre flop in a six handed game and could
very possibly be holding something like QQ, AQs, etc would be folding to
a check/raise on the flop.
If you just called the pre flop raise, you weren't showing strength. UTG
would definitely think you probably hit the K on the flop, but I really
don't see him folding to a check/raise and not seeing another card on
the turn even if he thinks KK may have put him behind.
If you reraised pre flop, and a K hit the flop, he might fold to the set
possibility, but otherwise I think a check/raise on the TPTK is
automatic, heads-up.
Check the flop for information: does UTG also check? Your Initially
checking the flop is sufficient caution. That's the time for taking a
neutral position. If he bets small, that gives you some information.
UTG may be trying to disguise his AA hand
but he may also think you're "representing" KK on the flop, who knows.
These are things you don't know. What you do know is how he reacts to a
check/raise.
Another reason given for check/calling: -UTG will only call with cards
that have you beat-, I don't believe this is a convincing point for not
check/raising TPTK, heads-up.
The third reason for just check/calling; -risking your stack under NL
games conditions-: Well, you're risking your stack by being in the game.
In what situations do you ignite the aggressive half of your
tight/aggressive strategy? Is it not in a situation where you flop TPTK
on a non-scary board against a player likely to be playing a starting
hand commensurble with a six handed game and the hand turns out be
heads-up?
The argument may be made that you're on the line of risk/reward, but I'm
not convinced that "weak" play is the answer in this situation.
Travel A
but c'mon, there are people outside of your argument with Gary Carson
who want to hear about the rest of the hand.
garycarson
Then join his email list
If you really care about the rest of the hand then you have a hole in your
game.
It doesn't really matter what happened, or what the Evil One actually
holds. It matters that you evaluate the information available to you in a
way that leads you to do the best you can given the information you have.
Knowing what the guy actually has doesn't help you evaluate your decisions.
_______________________________________________________________________
Travel A
respond, so far. There's a certain curiosity factor and just plain
continuity to what's been started. I want to know what UTG was holding.
Don't you?
Will in New Haven
I have to agree with both of you. Gary's right that knowing his actual
hand won't improve our understanding of poker but you are correct that
there is at least a small amount of curiousity building up.
Everyone who looked at this hand on Cardplayer.com re-raised preflop.
Many of them are fairly succesful internet players, used to playing
with short stacks and against short stacks.
John_Brian_K
> you do? This will be part 1. I'll reply to this message and change the
> subject for parts 2- however many I get to.
>
You have given us nothing except a paragraph dictating what you already
know you should do. Are you looking for someone to say 'go all in' so you
can mock them?
A hearty Stanley Cup Champions
BOOM byae
John
John_Brian_K
> Morphy
> xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
> http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
Let me guess then. You called flopped an A and lost to a set?
A hearty Stanley Cup Champions
BOOM byae
John
-------
John_Brian_K
> poker, no matter how you look at it.
TRANSLATION:
Morph called and ignored his read on the TAG 'always showing down winning
hands' read and hit his A and lost to the other 2 Aces in the deck. Now
he is looking to see if anyone on here is genius (or delusional) enough to
fold A-K preflop.
A hearty Stanley Cup Champions
BOOM byae
John
----
John_Brian_K
>
> What's the move now? Anyone prefer leading into him instead of checking?
> If so, why?
Well I was wrong on the flop hitting an A and you losing to a set. Now I
am guessing you called, an A hit the turn giving you 2 pair and him a set
AND THEN you lost your stack?
I would not be in this predicament in the first place because I would have
trusted my read and folded preflop.
A hearty Stanley Cup Champions
BOOM byae
John
-------