Re: NLHE hand for discussion
XaQ Morphy
> WTF is this? Morphy playing NLHE? Yes it's true folks. The appointment
appointed...yikes.
---
Morphy
xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
---
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
XaQ Morphy
variety, and has a hand for discussion. Time for the best and brightest
of RGP (or Wayne and doggy if we can find anyone else) to participate in a
semi-meaningful poker discussion.
I'm interested in advice from multiple stake levels, and I'll leave the
stakes generic. Since it's NL, BB stands for big blinds. I'll post this
in parts, and continue the thread as a reply to myself after I see some
replies.
You've been playing on the table for 10-15 mins or so, 6 handed NLHE, and
so far the table is fairly straight forward, leading towards the
aggressive side. UTG in this hand has played straight forward, raising
pre-flop and following up with continuation bets, but not a lot of hands
have been shown down so there's no real data to go on.
In this hand, we have a 90BB stack, and UTG has a 110BB stack. We were
just at the point of reloading, but didn't get there in time before the
hand started.
UTG limps, and we have Jc Jh. We hit the bet pot button and raise to
4.5BB. It folds back to UTG who calls.
Flop is 2d 7d 2s. UTG checks to us, and we bet 8BB, which is in the range
that all of our continuation bets have been, regardless of hand. UTG
check-raises to 19BB.
Question 1: what's our move, and why?
________________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
da pickle
> You've been playing on the table for 10-15 mins or so, 6 handed NLHE, and
> so far the table is fairly straight forward, leading towards the
> aggressive side. UTG in this hand has played straight forward, raising
> pre-flop and following up with continuation bets, but not a lot of hands
> have been shown down so there's no real data to go on.
Ten minutes is not much time to get much on anyone, so no real reads seems
correct.
> In this hand, we have a 90BB stack, and UTG has a 110BB stack. We were
> just at the point of reloading, but didn't get there in time before the
> hand started.
What is this royal "we?"
> UTG limps, and we have Jc Jh. We hit the bet pot button and raise to
> 4.5BB. It folds back to UTG who calls.
I don't play much on line. I thought this was NL. I don't understand raise
to 4.5BB.
1-2 blinds ... one limp ... 5 in the pot.
Bet the pot ... 5 is not 4.5 big blinds.
2-5 blinds ... one limp ... 12 in the pot.
Count the 2 as 5 ... 15 in the pot.
Bet 15 ... 15 is not 4.5 BB.
> Flop is 2d 7d 2s. UTG checks to us, and we bet 8BB, which is in the range
> that all of our continuation bets have been, regardless of hand. UTG
> check-raises to 19BB.
In the last ten minutes "all" of your continuation bets have been in the
range of 8BB? How many have there been? UTG has had how many continuation
bets in the last ten minutes? Why did UTG limp ... I thought he was raising
and making continuation bets???
I am confused.
Wayne Vinson
> WTF is this? Morphy playing NLHE? Yes it's true folks. The appointment
> village idiot of RGP has played a few hands of the 2 hole card poker
> variety, and has a hand for discussion. Time for the best and brightest
> of RGP (or Wayne and doggy if we can find anyone else) to participate in a
> semi-meaningful poker discussion.
>
> I'm interested in advice from multiple stake levels, and I'll leave the
> stakes generic. Since it's NL, BB stands for big blinds. I'll post this
> in parts, and continue the thread as a reply to myself after I see some
> replies.
>
> You've been playing on the table for 10-15 mins or so, 6 handed NLHE, and
> so far the table is fairly straight forward, leading towards the
> aggressive side. UTG in this hand has played straight forward, raising
> pre-flop and following up with continuation bets, but not a lot of hands
> have been shown down so there's no real data to go on.
>
> In this hand, we have a 90BB stack, and UTG has a 110BB stack. We were
> just at the point of reloading, but didn't get there in time before the
> hand started.
>
> UTG limps, and we have Jc Jh. We hit the bet pot button and raise to
> 4.5BB. It folds back to UTG who calls.
>
> Flop is 2d 7d 2s. UTG checks to us, and we bet 8BB, which is in the range
> that all of our continuation bets have been, regardless of hand. UTG
> check-raises to 19BB.
>
> Question 1: what's our move, and why?
Here's the more interesting question: What mistake has Morphy already
made in this hand that caused this problem in the first place?
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org
-----
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
Bryan Kimmes
On Jan 1 2008 9:54 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
> WTF is this? Morphy playing NLHE? Yes it's true folks. The appointment
> village idiot of RGP has played a few hands of the 2 hole card poker
> variety, and has a hand for discussion. Time for the best and brightest
> of RGP (or Wayne and doggy if we can find anyone else) to participate in a
> semi-meaningful poker discussion.
>
> I'm interested in advice from multiple stake levels, and I'll leave the
> stakes generic. Since it's NL, BB stands for big blinds. I'll post this
> in parts, and continue the thread as a reply to myself after I see some
> replies.
>
> You've been playing on the table for 10-15 mins or so, 6 handed NLHE, and
> so far the table is fairly straight forward, leading towards the
> aggressive side. UTG in this hand has played straight forward, raising
> pre-flop and following up with continuation bets, but not a lot of hands
> have been shown down so there's no real data to go on.
>
> In this hand, we have a 90BB stack, and UTG has a 110BB stack. We were
> just at the point of reloading, but didn't get there in time before the
> hand started.
>
> UTG limps, and we have Jc Jh. We hit the bet pot button and raise to
> 4.5BB. It folds back to UTG who calls.
>
> Flop is 2d 7d 2s. UTG checks to us, and we bet 8BB, which is in the range
> that all of our continuation bets have been, regardless of hand. UTG
> check-raises to 19BB.
>
> Question 1: what's our move, and why?
Long pause, maybe even timebank, then call. Folding is far too weak, raising for
information pot commits you anyway, so don't do it. He has to act first on the
turn.
30% - solid online player trying to represent a huge pair utg and make you fold
your AJo. Maybe even value betting his own AKo. Only way to win any more money
from this is to get him to fire another bet on the turn.
40% - he actually has the pair, is his pair bigger than jacks? Most times it
will be. I have not seen 10/10 played UTG like this very often. You are looking
for a scare card to bail you out on the turn.
10% -15% 77 or a wild man with a suited 2, again you need a scary turn card,
something to bail you out.
15% - 20% A legit flush draw, if he has 2 overs you're ahead by an eyelash, if
he has 1 over you're still not far enough ahead to raise, if he has 0 overs you
want him to catch a pair on the turn so he will definatly get it all in on the
turn.
Everything points to seeing the turncard and making him act first.
Bryan
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
redriverr
my self, he might be checking to see if I'm betting just a cBet because he
checked.
I have two options:
1. I can play somewhat tricky and float the mini-raise (if his limp early was
with [AA] or [KK]), this buys a relatively cheap card to out draw him. If I
don't improve and he leads the turn, I'll evaluate his action at that point.
i'm not sure he'll check the turn with air, but this gives me more options since
I don't have a good read on his play.
2. I can play str8 forward and raise to 44bb, where it appears I'm pot
committing to this pot. If he pushs over, I can fold with confidence and reload
& move on.
On Jan 1 2008 9:54 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
_______________________________________________________________
redriverr
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
Wayne Vinson
> A real PLO player wouldn't play NLHE.
However, that's obviously irrelevant in Morphy's case. I'm thinking of
something much more specific.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org
Beldin the Sorcerer
"da pickle" <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BO2dnd8-ao0...@giganews.com...
> "XaQ Morphy"
>
>> You've been playing on the table for 10-15 mins or so, 6 handed NLHE, and
>> so far the table is fairly straight forward, leading towards the
>> aggressive side. UTG in this hand has played straight forward, raising
>> pre-flop and following up with continuation bets, but not a lot of hands
>> have been shown down so there's no real data to go on.
>
>
> Ten minutes is not much time to get much on anyone, so no real reads seems
> correct.
>
>
>> In this hand, we have a 90BB stack, and UTG has a 110BB stack. We were
>> just at the point of reloading, but didn't get there in time before the
>> hand started.
>
>
> What is this royal "we?"
>
>
>> UTG limps, and we have Jc Jh. We hit the bet pot button and raise to
>> 4.5BB. It folds back to UTG who calls.
>
>
> I don't play much on line. I thought this was NL. I don't understand
> raise to 4.5BB.
>
> 1-2 blinds ... one limp ... 5 in the pot.
> Bet the pot ... 5 is not 4.5 big blinds.
That's because you didn't do the math right
1+2 +2 +2 (your call) =7 which is now the pot raise. Click bet pot, you make
it 9 to go
Ron Sperber
with JJ seems normal preflop. Now after the flop there are 10.5BB
(limpers 4.5, my 4.5 and the 1.5 from the blinds). I don't see why I
would check behind here and give a free card to anyone. Generally the
limper who calls the bet here either has some small pair or something
like suited connectors, weak ace or KQ/KJ/QJ. So its possible I'm way
behind here to 77 or A2 who is planning to suck me in, but I think
generally I'm ahead here. If someone has a weak ace or some other
overcards I don't want to give a free card. Betting about 2/3 of the pot
or so seems about right to me.
Pepe Papon
<wayne....@gmail.com> wrote:
>Here's the more interesting question: What mistake has Morphy already
>made in this hand that caused this problem in the first place?
I personally would have bet more on the flop. I'd bet somewhere
between 2/3 of the pot to the whole pot.
da pickle
>> 1-2 blinds ... one limp ... 5 in the pot.
>> Bet the pot ... 5 is not 4.5 big blinds.
>
> That's because you didn't do the math right
> 1+2 +2 +2 (your call) =7 which is now the pot raise. Click bet pot, you
> make it 9 to go
Thanks ... (I don't think there is a "bet pot" button on stars unless the
game is p/l. I have limited experience.)
I did not know that "bet pot" meant "raise pot" at NL and I did not know
that you did not count the small blind as a big blind wherever this is being
played.
Thanks again.
Andyfothershops
"XaQ Morphy" <a1c...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:vfer45x...@recgroups.com...
This hand is going to double you up or cost you your stack. A pair is only a
pair after all. He is check raising with something and my guess is it beats
jacks. I don't risk my whole stack on a pair. 3-1 ish may be worth a call to
see if another Jack comes. Otherwise I fold.
Wayne Vinson
> with JJ seems normal preflop.
I agree.
> Now after the flop there are 10.5BB
> (limpers 4.5, my 4.5 and the 1.5 from the blinds). I don't see why I
> would check behind here and give a free card to anyone.
There are several good reasons in this case. Start with
1) what would have to happen for you to break someone on this hand?
then follow up with
2) what do you loose if you give a free card here? Hint: it's almost
nothing.
and then for the big issue, ask yourself
3) what do I lose if I'm beat or facing a flush + overcard(s) and I bet?
> Generally the
> limper who calls the bet here either has some small pair or something
> like suited connectors, weak ace or KQ/KJ/QJ.
Now you're in fantasy land. Review that statement.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org
------
Wayne Vinson
> between 2/3 of the pot to the whole pot.
What precisely is the difference between that and betting 8BB into a
10.5BB pot? That seems to be between 2/3 and the whole pot to me.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org
GrouchySmurf1002
> There are several good reasons in this case. Start with
> 1) what would have to happen for you to break someone on this hand?
All it would take is a drooling idiot with TT/99/88 actually. Hell,
there are plenty of people playing .5/1, 1/2, and 2/4 that will go broke
with A7 here 'putting you on AK'.
Seriously, if you're going to go after Morphy post, get out of the 5/10,
10/20, whatever else you play mindset and realize that there are plenty of
morons.
> 2) what do you loose if you give a free card here? Hint: it's almost
> nothing.
Well, you lose your ability to stack an opponent with the above hands, and
let generic Ax guy get there some portion of the time, when he wouldn't
have called. This is true though, a free card is not all that harmful,
except when you realize the above.
> 3) what do I lose if I'm beat or facing a flush + overcard(s) and I bet?
In the first case, probably your stack, though you can get away from both
of these hands given the action. In the 2nd case, nothing if he
doesn't get there.
Bronzedodger
> This hand is going to double you up or cost you your stack. A pair is only a
> pair after all. He is check raising with something and my guess is it beats
> jacks. I don't risk my whole stack on a pair. 3-1 ish may be worth a call to
> see if another Jack comes. Otherwise I fold.
Do you fold QQ here? KK?
Total speculation: calling is not good. If you're behind to AA/KK/QQ/77/x2
there are only 2 cards that help you. If you get a card in 3 -> 10 range
and he bets again you still have no idea where you are - and even if he
checks, if you were behind before, you're behind again.
I think you need to re-raise on the flop as you get the info you want now,
instead of calling then maybe betting again on the turn just as lost as
you are now. But since you don't have enough info to get a read you need
to decide what you're going to do if he pushes - dump it and reload, or
close your eyes and call.
________________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
GrouchySmurf1002
> Total speculation: calling is not good.
I completely disagree, here's why:
> If you're behind to AA/KK/QQ/77/x2 there are only 2 cards that help you
Then it doesn't matter when you put the money in, and in fact calling is
preferred because you're not investing any more money, yet. Plus you
actually get to see the next card, which could in fact be one of the two
that help you. His range is obviously wider and definitely contains
hands you're ahead of, which is why calling is ok, despite not getting
odds on your two outer.
One last note, you actually might create your own bluffing opportunity if
he was trapping with KK/QQ, where you might get him to fold if an A (or a
K in the case of the QQ) hits. You'd have to have a sick read to pull
this off, but it's an option you have that you don't have by re-raising
the flop.
> If you get a card in 3 -> 10 range and he bets again you still have no idea
where you are
Again, not really relevant, and a raise isn't going to tell you much more
than you already know, and it probably pot commits you except against the
nittyest of nits.
> And even if he checks, if you were behind before, you're behind again.
And if he checks the turn, you check right back and get a free shot at
your two outer on the river. This is actually a really nice spot if you
are in fact behind.
However, it's rare the opponent will try to check-raise you twice in this
spot, so you should probably bet if he checks and then fold to his (should
be rare) check-raise. You don't want to give the diamond draw a free
shot, and that would be his most likely hand if he does in fact check.
> I think you need to re-raise on the flop as you get the info you want now
The only thing is...if you raise to say 50BB or so, then you have to be
damn sure he's not going nuts with something like 88-TT, T9h, etc...
before you fold to his 4-bet, otherwise you're making a big mistake.
> instead of calling then maybe betting again on the turn just as lost as
> you are now.
If you're willing to re-raise and commit, again, say 50BB which would
possibly commit you, then there's no harm in calling and waiting to put
that money in on the turn. In fact, it's probably the preferred route
because:
a) if the flush comes in on the turn, you're ahead of much less of his
range and can then save that extra 42BB.
b) if he IS on a bluff, you let him continue bluffing, whereas re-raising
will blast him off the bluff.
Bronzedodger
I can see the argument for 'a' - people at this level do go crazy with
just the flush draw.
But for 'b' - what benefit is this? If he bets again you can't call - if
you think he's bluffing now with maybe Adxd then giving him the free card
to get his flush is terrible. If he's not bluffing, what can we beat? I
just don't see calling again (short of hitting the miracle 2-outer).
I f*ckin hates JJ...
RonDworkin
> instead of calling then maybe betting again on the turn just as lost as
> you are now. But since you don't have enough info to get a read you need
> to decide what you're going to do if he pushes - dump it and reload, or
> close your eyes and call.
Raising for info does not apply here. If Xaq raises he won't be folding
to a push - over half his stack is in there at that point, and folding
this hand getting those odds would be a pretty bad play. If you choose to
raise in this spot it would need to be for value or protection or some
other reason. And, as you note, the hands you are behind have you burried
at this point - given that, do you still think calling is a bad option?
_____________________________________________________________________
RonDworkin
> just the flush draw.
>
> But for 'b' - what benefit is this? If he bets again you can't call - if
> you think he's bluffing now with maybe Adxd then giving him the free card
> to get his flush is terrible. If he's not bluffing, what can we beat? I
> just don't see calling again (short of hitting the miracle 2-outer).
>
> I f*ckin hates JJ...
The point of Grouchy's bang on post (as I see it) is that by calling in
that spot you are widening his range. As you said yourself you are miles
behind when you are behind, so why do your best to narrow his range of
hands that will continue to the ones that have you crushed? And you ask
"what can we beat if he is not bluffing." The answer to that is that it
doesn't matter - if you were going to get committed against a 2x hand or a
slowplayed AA, does it matter if you do it now or then? What you want to
do in calling is attempt to skew the range he puts more money in with -
bluffs, semi-bluffs, smaller pairs, 7x, etc, as well as getting cheap info
(rather than the pretty much useless info you get by raising the flop) by
seeing the turn and his action. If the flush comes in and he makes a big
bet, for example, we get info we can actually use.
Grouchy thinks gud.
______________________________________________________________________
GrouchySmurf1002
> > b) if he IS on a bluff, you let him continue bluffing, whereas re-raising
> > will blast him off the bluff.
>
> I can see the argument for 'a' - people at this level do go crazy with
> just the flush draw.
>
> But for 'b' - what benefit is this? If he bets again you can't call - if
> you think he's bluffing now with maybe Adxd then giving him the free card
> to get his flush is terrible. If he's not bluffing, what can we beat? I
> just don't see calling again (short of hitting the miracle 2-outer).
IF you plan on re-raising the flop, then you're assuming you're ahead of
his range, and you must think that he won't fold anything. Otherwise
you're re-raising and limiting his range of hands to those that are in
fact way ahead (or flipping in the case of Axd), which is sort of silly.
So if you assume he won't fold, then what difference does it make to wait
for a safe turn card?
If the flush comes in, you save money against that part of his range,
which is far from terrible.
The whole key is though that IF you think the re-raise is the correct
play, then you've mentally committed to putting in whatever amount, say
50bb. When that money goes in doesn't matter, so yes, you have to call
the turn if he's bluffing.
Summarized: Yes, sometimes you'll be behind, but you'll be behind more
often when you get action on a re-raise than you will be when you call and
call the turn. And you get more money from the bluffs by calling.
--------
Wayne Vinson
> of these hands given the action. In the 2nd case, nothing if he
> doesn't get there.
However, a flush + 1 overcard gets there about 1/2 the time, and again we
lose our stack or most of it if that happens. We are NOT making money
betting into such a hand. In fact we're losing money thanks to reverse
implied odds. That's the key point. We only make money if we're betting
into a flush + no overcards hand, or we can break even against flush + one
overcard if we push. Not terribly attractive.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org
________________________________________________________________________
GrouchySmurf1002
> > In the first case, probably your stack, though you can get away from both
> > of these hands given the action. In the 2nd case, nothing if he
> > doesn't get there.
>
> However, a flush + 1 overcard gets there about 1/2 the time, and again we
> lose our stack or most of it if that happens. We are NOT making money
> betting into such a hand. In fact we're losing money thanks to reverse
> implied odds. That's the key point. We only make money if we're betting
> into a flush + no overcards hand, or we can break even against flush + one
> overcard if we push. Not terribly attractive.
Very true.
However when you do check behind, you're still in the dark on the turn
with regards to his hand range. Say the flush comes in and he bets, now
what? Fold? Ah9d or whatever crap he might have limp called with is
probably in his range, so folding is too weak. So at that point you're
probably committed to calling him down.
Yes, you lose less money when way behind here by checking the flop, but I
think the bet is worth trying to take the pot immediately, and getting a
better idea of where you stand after that. The only reason I would see
checking is if you think that complete air is in his range if he bets the
turn, because that's the only part of his range that you make more money
against by checking behind.
-------
RonDworkin
> > In the first case, probably your stack, though you can get away from both
> > of these hands given the action. In the 2nd case, nothing if he
> > doesn't get there.
>
> However, a flush + 1 overcard gets there about 1/2 the time, and again we
> lose our stack or most of it if that happens. We are NOT making money
> betting into such a hand. In fact we're losing money thanks to reverse
> implied odds. That's the key point. We only make money if we're betting
> into a flush + no overcards hand, or we can break even against flush + one
> overcard if we push. Not terribly attractive.
We are a solid favorite in the hand if our opponent has one over + the
flush draw, and there is some dead money in there. Seems reasonably
attractive.
>
> Wayne Vinson
> http://cardsharp.org
_______________________________________________________________________
Wayne Vinson
> 10/20, whatever else you play mindset and realize that there are plenty of
> morons.
I'm trying to lead people to generically correct play, which is all that's
possible in a situation like this. If in fact villain is a particularly
agressive moron, then that should have been part of the problem statement,
and I'd probably advocate betting the flop and then re-raising to commit
yourself when he raised.
However, nothing in the problem statement indicated villain is a moron
like you seem to think or particularly agressive for that matter, so I'm
leading people to advice that works well against opponents who take the
game seriously.
The key point is that a bet on the flop is a very thin bet - it's not a
bluff, you shouldn't be able to value bet hardly any made hand, and you're
unable to value bet the most likely draw since it's an equity tie with you
and hence you gain no value. Moral of the story is that that bet served
very little if any purpose, and as such was probably a mistake. It's more
correct in tiny games because it's more likely to work as a value bet, but
it's still damn thin.
The good news is that the situation will be far better on the turn if you
get a good card since you'll be a prohibitive favorite against the draws
and have more information. Hence why I would try to make my money there.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org
-------
GrouchySmurf1002
> On Jan 2 2008 11:25 AM, Wayne Vinson wrote:
>
> > > In the first case, probably your stack, though you can get away from both
> > > of these hands given the action. In the 2nd case, nothing if he
> > > doesn't get there.
> >
> > However, a flush + 1 overcard gets there about 1/2 the time, and again we
> > lose our stack or most of it if that happens. We are NOT making money
> > betting into such a hand. In fact we're losing money thanks to reverse
> > implied odds. That's the key point. We only make money if we're betting
> > into a flush + no overcards hand, or we can break even against flush + one
> > overcard if we push. Not terribly attractive.
>
> We are a solid favorite in the hand if our opponent has one over + the
> flush draw, and there is some dead money in there. Seems reasonably
> attractive.
Heh...we're 60/40 against A9d. Who knew? I don't think I realized how
big an effect having the board already paired had (we're only 53% on a
2d7d4s board against the same hand)
Weird. Nice catch.
-------
Bronzedodger
(FWIW: I'm not really on either side of this yet - still trying to work it
out myself).
My concern would be the hands we do beat, that will still bet (the A7
suggested elsewhere is a good example). If the OP puts us on two big
cards, if another non-diamond in the 3->10 range hits, he'll probably bet
again in order to push us while he thinks he's ahead.
Is the plan to fold if he bets the turn, but check-behind if he checks to
see the river? Then what happens if A/K/Q/7/diamond hits the river? Or
worse, none of those, but he bets?
Ugly.
------
Bryan Kimmes
60/40.....You can get better than that making football bets with doggystyle.
After a blank turncard you'll be closer to 80 than 60, perfect spot to get that
BIG bet in against the flushdraw.
Bryan
A Man Beaten by Jacks
wrote:
>I think you need to re-raise on the flop as you get the info you want now,
>instead of calling then maybe betting again on the turn just as lost as
>you are now. But since you don't have enough info to get a read you need
>to decide what you're going to do if he pushes - dump it and reload, or
>close your eyes and call.
What info are you really getting though, other than whoops, I'm really
beaten, but now I'm pot committed too?
doggystyle
get it all in and catch the jack of diamonds!!
back under the bridge!!
On Jan 1 2008 9:54 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
> http://www.donkeymanifesto.com/
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
Wayne Vinson
> just the flush draw.
People at all levels go crazy with just the flush draw - because it's
correct to do so. Especially with an A high combo draw.
> But for 'b' - what benefit is this? If he bets again you can't call - if
> you think he's bluffing now with maybe Adxd then giving him the free card
> to get his flush is terrible. If he's not bluffing, what can we beat? I
> just don't see calling again (short of hitting the miracle 2-outer).
Agreed, we can't call another bet without hitting a J and another bet is
likely forthcoming, so obviously calling is wrong.
Likewise as other have pointed out you can't raise for imformation without
commiting yourself, so raising is wrong. Folding is better but you're
folding a likely winner. That's not horrid but you can't make a habit of
it. Hence never getting here at all is best.
That's why people need to be looking at the previous play rather than just
answering this question.
> I f*ckin hates JJ...
Played correctly it's just fine. Mistakenly played as a big pair, it's a
loser. Ditto QQ. Funny thing is, Supersystem explains explicitly that QQ
and JJ are not big pairs, and yet 30 years later people are still
mistaking them fo such. It's an amusing case of willful ignorance when
you think about it...
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org
_______________________________________________________________________
RonDworkin
> correct to do so. Especially with an A high combo draw.
>
> > But for 'b' - what benefit is this? If he bets again you can't call - if
> > you think he's bluffing now with maybe Adxd then giving him the free card
> > to get his flush is terrible. If he's not bluffing, what can we beat? I
> > just don't see calling again (short of hitting the miracle 2-outer).
>
> Agreed, we can't call another bet without hitting a J and another bet is
> likely forthcoming, so obviously calling is wrong.
>
Ok, I just want to make sure I understand this. People go crazy with
flush draws, and especially with A high flush draws, and as such this is a
likely holding for the opponent here. On the turn, assuming a blank
comes, we are a huge favorite over this holding, yet we can't call a turn
bet without hitting another J. Hmmmmm.
_______________________________________________________________________
GrouchySmurf1002
> 60/40.....You can get better than that making football bets with doggystyle.
>
> After a blank turncard you'll be closer to 80 than 60, perfect spot to get
that
> BIG bet in against the flushdraw.
Just further arguing for flat-calling the check raise and making sure the
flush comes in of course.
______________________________________________________________________
Wayne Vinson
> with regards to his hand range.
While true, this misses the point. We had two problems on the flop:
1) not being a favorite against the likely draw
and
2) there being nothing on the board we could value bet despite probably
having the best hand.
Taking off a good card solves both problems. We're now a prohibitive
favorite against the draw and can thus value bet against it, and we can
value bet 7's, small pairs etc. by virtue of the fact that we're no longer
representing an overpair since we checked the flop. So while we don't
know where we stand yet, now we're happy to find out whereas on the flop
almost nothing good could happen.
> Say the flush comes in and he bets, now
> what? Fold? Ah9d or whatever crap he might have limp called with is
> probably in his range, so folding is too weak.
Folding if a) the flush or A comes and b) he bets is in fact fine. It
costs less than 2BB of expectation.
> Yes, you lose less money when way behind here by checking the flop, but I
> think the bet is worth trying to take the pot immediately, and getting a
> better idea of where you stand after that.
You don't get a better idea really though - just look at how it actually
played out. Villain raised and we still have no clue what he's on. Could
be anything from air to a boat. Betting for "information" when the bet is
not justified as a value bet or bluff is almost always a mistake and
rarely actually gives you any inforrmation.
> The only reason I would see
> checking is if you think that complete air is in his range if he bets the
> turn, because that's the only part of his range that you make more money
> against by checking behind.
Not true at all. While you make more money against air (which is the vast
majrity of his range on that board), you also make more money (or lose
less, which is the same thing) against the flush draw and the 2x, and make
more against the 7x. The only hand you make LESS against is a poorly
played 7x to TT that decided it was the nuts.
So if you're playing people who will decide 88 is the nuts, then betting
has merit (see previous comment about playing morons). Otherwise it's a
near sure loser.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org
-----
Wayne Vinson
> flush draw,
Uh, nope. 12 outs twice is nearly even money IF we were all in. We're
actually in slightly better shape because there are 4 FH outs for a
re-draw. But we're not all in, and we're on the wrong side of the implied
odds, which is a much larger issue and makes it a big loser to continue.
> and there is some dead money in there.
Not much - only a 10th of what we're risking.
> Seems reasonably
> attractive.
not so much - remember those reverse implied odds.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org
---
John_Brian_K
> I'm interested in advice from multiple stake levels, and I'll leave the
> stakes generic. Since it's NL, BB stands for big blinds. I'll post this
> in parts, and continue the thread as a reply to myself after I see some
> replies.
Leaving the stakes generic will get you about 500 different ways to play this
hand.
> You've been playing on the table for 10-15 mins or so, 6 handed NLHE, and
> so far the table is fairly straight forward, leading towards the
> aggressive side. UTG in this hand has played straight forward, raising
> pre-flop and following up with continuation bets, but not a lot of hands
> have been shown down so there's no real data to go on.
No data is right. Were on a fucking island here!
> UTG limps, and we have Jc Jh. We hit the bet pot button and raise to
> 4.5BB. It folds back to UTG who calls.
A limp call could be any fucking hand! Especially if the table has been playing
aggressive.
> Flop is 2d 7d 2s. UTG checks to us, and we bet 8BB, which is in the range
> that all of our continuation bets have been, regardless of hand. UTG
> check-raises to 19BB.
So this 'straight forward player' check raises you. What is YOUR image. What
are YOU portraying to the table?
MY table image is all over the place. For the most part I play TAG like a rock,
but mix it up depending on the table conditions. For ME at a table like this I
re raise to about half my stack to pot commit me and shit myself when he pushes
and I HAVE to call because doing anything less would make me check my GF purse
for my balls. I have been playing penny poker lately though which is REALLY
fucking my game up because I find it hard to focus when the money means nothing.
> Question 1: what's our move, and why?
Wayne Vinson
> big an effect having the board already paired had (we're only 53% on a
> 2d7d4s board against the same hand)
>
> Weird. Nice catch.
It's true, but 60/40 isn't enough when you take RIO into account. They at
least double villian's expectation in the hand because we're going to be
inconveniently on the edge of being commited if he hits. This is the
worst possible stack depth & pot size to let someone draw across 2 streets.
Wayne Vinson
> flush draws, and especially with A high flush draws, and as such this is a
> likely holding for the opponent here. On the turn, assuming a blank
> comes, we are a huge favorite over this holding, yet we can't call a turn
> bet without hitting another J. Hmmmmm.
All those are correct statements, although I would call it proper betting,
not "going crazy".
If you believe they are mutually exclusive, you need to state clearly why
so your logic can be corrected rather than just humming to yourself.
The key is that opponent has two major likely holdings that would justify
a raise.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org
------
GrouchySmurf1002
> Likewise as other have pointed out you can't raise for imformation without
> commiting yourself, so raising is wrong.
Raising is wrong because it likely limits his range of hands to those that
have you slaughtered, save for Axd. It doesn't have much to do with the
ability to get information.
If he'll check-raise with: {AA-77,22, Axd, KQd-K8d-QdJd, JdTd} - we're
50% against this range.
But when we re-raise, he'll [likely] only fold TT-88. (assuming that
someone goes nuts with a flush draw isn't folding to a re-raise).
This now puts us at 34% against this range. That's a huge difference.
Of course, now that I'm running the numbers, the situation doesn't really
improve enough on the turn to justify the call the flop and then keep
going on the blank turn (we only improve by 5% if, say, the 5s hits the
turn. That's not a huge improvement) The more flush draws they have,
the better off we are (as good as 55% flop, 60% on the turn as I can
tell), but it's still not a great improvement to take the call-call line.
Hmmm...
> Folding is better but you're folding a likely winner.
This seems contradictory to your other statements. Unless you think the
diamonds are heavily weighted in his range and those are the 'winners'
you're referring to. Otherwise you should want to bet into all those
hands you can beat.
---
GrouchySmurf1002
> > However when you do check behind, you're still in the dark on the turn
> > with regards to his hand range.
>
> While true, this misses the point. We had two problems on the flop:
> 1) not being a favorite against the likely draw
Against this range {AKd, AQd, AJd, ATd, KQd, KJd, QJd, QTd, JTd}, we're
still a 56% favorite. Yes, we are a favorite, stop saying we're not
against the draw. As was pointed out, the paired board helps a lot
(we're 52% against that range if you change the 2s to the 4s)
You should be happy to commit your stack in on the flop if these were the
only hands in his range.
The problem here arises when you add a slowplayed AA-KK-QQ to his range,
which knocks us all the way down to 21%
> 2) there being nothing on the board we could value bet despite probably
> having the best hand.
Again, against serious opponents, this might be true. You can value bet
7x and TT-88 all day though against the range of poker players you might
encounter.
> So if you're playing people who will decide 88 is the nuts, then betting
> has merit (see previous comment about playing morons). Otherwise it's a
> near sure loser.
I'm starting to think we agree on the correct plays versus different
opponents, we just keep arguing because you like to advise against good
players, I like to advise on how to play against morons. Well that and
you seem to think Axd keeps gaining steam with every post.
But since there are way more morons than serious players, I'm gonna keep
arguing. So there.
------
David Nicoson
> Question 1: what's our move, and why?
Call and play the turn. Small raises can be annoying because they're
hard to interpret. We don't have to try. We can just wait to see
what he does on the turn.
Wayne Vinson
> against the draw.
We're only a favorite (and a small one) if you ignore reverse implied
odds. In reality we will lose money playing against the combo draws.
> > 2) there being nothing on the board we could value bet despite probably
> > having the best hand.
>
> Again, against serious opponents, this might be true.
Which is what my advice is geared at. If villain is a complete moron,
it's not apparent from the problem description.
> I'm starting to think we agree on the correct plays versus different
> opponents, we just keep arguing because you like to advise against good
> players, I like to advise on how to play against morons.
The issue is that all advice is not created equal. If you give the morons
credit for better play than they actually produce, you still make good
money but not quite as good as you might. If you treat serious players
like they were morons, you stack off. As such, it's imperative that you
err on the side of treating unknown players as if they're at least
reasonably good. The risk and reward are decidedly different for the two
assumptions.
> Well that and
> you seem to think Axd keeps gaining steam with every post.
AXd is in fact very strong. Never underestimate the effects of RIO in NLH
when there's lots of money behind.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org
------
GrouchySmurf1002
> > Heh...we're 60/40 against A9d. Who knew? I don't think I realized how
> > big an effect having the board already paired had (we're only 53% on a
> > 2d7d4s board against the same hand)
> >
> > Weird. Nice catch.
>
> It's true, but 60/40 isn't enough when you take RIO into account.
>T hey at least double villian's expectation in the hand because we're going
to be
> inconveniently on the edge of being commited if he hits.
The opponent has no RIO here. You don't have to commit any further if
the flush hits the turn, you can't really beat much when it does (again,
save for TT-88, A7, etc..)
And if it misses the turn, you can deny him the proper odds to see the
river, and if he calls (incorrectly), you just fold if the flush hits the
river.
You don't have RIO against the flush draw. You have RIO against TT-88
and 7x. I suppose this is what you mean, but I'm clarifying.
> This is the worst possible stack depth & pot size to let someone draw across
2 streets.
So you take the path that is most likely to allow him to draw across both
streets?
The only way to keep him from seeing the river is to jam the turn and hope
he folds. The best way to get to that point is to bet the flop. (well,
the most logical, it doesn't matter what you do before that, it's NLHE so
you can jam the turn whenever the hell you please really)
Wayne Vinson
> the flush hits the turn, you can't really beat much when it does (again,
> save for TT-88, A7, etc..)
>
> And if it misses the turn, you can deny him the proper odds to see the
> river, and if he calls (incorrectly), you just fold if the flush hits the
> river.
Horrilble advice - now you're planning to fold on over 30% of subsequent
boards AFTER putting big money in. That's unimaginably bad advice. The
fact is that if 2 more bets go into this pot, you are commited. That
means villain does in fact have RIO.
> > This is the worst possible stack depth & pot size to let someone draw
across
> 2 streets.
>
> So you take the path that is most likely to allow him to draw across both
> streets?
No, I eliminate one street of betting by checking and surrendering a very
small pot if I don't like the turn card. Which in effect leaves him with
a 1 street draw. This is vastly different from your suggestin of making a
BIG pot and then surrendering it if you don't like the turn or river.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org
David Nicoson
> 2) what do you loose if you give a free card here? Hint: it's almost
> nothing.
I don't really agree with that. There are lots of hands that will
fold to any bet on the flop that still have significant equity in the
pot & e.g. AdQs, KcQc. That vast majority of the time our single
villain doesn't have a flush draw, so I don't think we totally ignore
his equity in the 9bb pot with other holdings.
GrouchySmurf1002
> Horrilble advice - now you're planning to fold on over 30% of subsequent
> boards AFTER putting big money in. That's unimaginably bad advice. The
> fact is that if 2 more bets go into this pot, you are commited. That
> means villain does in fact have RIO.
Alright, then if "you are committed" to calling the river, jam the turn.
Ron Dworkin
> > We are a solid favorite in the hand if our opponent has one over + the
> > flush draw,
>
> Uh, nope. 12 outs twice is nearly even money IF we were all in. We're
> actually in slightly better shape because there are 4 FH outs for a
> re-draw. But we're not all in, and we're on the wrong side of the implied
> odds, which is a much larger issue and makes it a big loser to continue.
>
> > and there is some dead money in there.
>
> Not much - only a 10th of what we're risking.
Its not even close to even money. We are 1.5:1 fav against him if
that is his holding.
>
> > Seems reasonably
> > attractive.
>
> not so much - remember those reverse implied odds.
>
> Wayne Vinsonhttp://cardsharp.org
Wayne Vinson
> On Jan 2 2008 1:20 PM, Wayne Vinson wrote:
>
>
> > Horrilble advice - now you're planning to fold on over 30% of subsequent
> > boards AFTER putting big money in. That's unimaginably bad advice. The
> > fact is that if 2 more bets go into this pot, you are commited. That
> > means villain does in fact have RIO.
>
> Alright, then if "you are committed" to calling the river, jam the turn.
As others have pointed out, this doesn't work - you only get called by
hands that beat you, and only fold out hands you beat. A classic "dark
tunnel" bet.
All good solutions to this problem start with checking the flop or require
a physical read on your opponent. It's interesting that people are so
adverse to checking here. Aparently the idea that you don't have to c-bet
has become revolutionary. TV culture at work I guess.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org
----
Ron Dworkin
> > Ok, I just want to make sure I understand this. People go crazy with
> > flush draws, and especially with A high flush draws, and as such this is a
> > likely holding for the opponent here. On the turn, assuming a blank
> > comes, we are a huge favorite over this holding, yet we can't call a turn
> > bet without hitting another J. Hmmmmm.
>
> All those are correct statements, although I would call it proper betting,
> not "going crazy".
>
> If you believe they are mutually exclusive, you need to state clearly why
> so your logic can be corrected rather than just humming to yourself.
>
> The key is that opponent has two major likely holdings that would justify
> a raise.
>
Well, I am lost. Why, as a reasonable favorite with our current
holding, can we not call a turn bet without improving?
Wayne Vinson
> fold to any bet on the flop that still have significant equity in the
> pot & e.g. AdQs, KcQc. That vast majority of the time our single
> villain doesn't have a flush draw, so I don't think we totally ignore
> his equity in the 9bb pot with other holdings.
A 6-out draw gets him even less equity than a 9-outer. Well less than
2BB. We should be willing to give that up if need be.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org
________________________________________________________________________
GrouchySmurf1002
> As others have pointed out, this doesn't work - you only get called by
> hands that beat you, and only fold out hands you beat.
Again, if we bet the flop (correctly), then we're assuming he has hands
like TT-88 in his range. These hands aren't folding the turn when they
check-raise and lead the turn. It's not happening unless a scary card
hits.
> All good solutions to this problem start with checking the flop or require
> a physical read on your opponent.
> It's interesting that people are so adverse to checking here. Aparently
the idea that you don't have to c-bet has become revolutionary. TV culture at
work I guess.
I'm not averse to checking. I think I've conceded numerous times that
checking is correct against your type of opponents. And if I didn't make
it clear, then I will now.
What I'm not getting you to see and why I continue to argue is that
against the OTHER type of opponent, betting the flop for value exists (as
you've also already conceded).
This presents a separate line which we're attempting to optimize when our
moron now check-raises. If you don't know how to treat a moron's play
and hand-range, then let it be and let someone else try to digest and
counter point it.
--------
Ron Dworkin
> On Jan 2 2008 12:27 PM, GrouchySmurf1002 wrote:
>
> > On Jan 2 2008 1:20 PM, Wayne Vinson wrote:
>
> > > Horrilble advice - now you're planning to fold on over 30% of subsequent
> > > boards AFTER putting big money in. That's unimaginably bad advice. The
> > > fact is that if 2 more bets go into this pot, you are commited. That
> > > means villain does in fact have RIO.
>
> > Alright, then if "you are committed" to calling the river, jam the turn.
>
> As others have pointed out, this doesn't work - you only get called by
> hands that beat you, and only fold out hands you beat. A classic "dark
> tunnel" bet.
The "dark tunnel" problem is a much bigger issue with jamming the flop
rather than on the turn. If he leads the turn he may be committed to
calling the rest with a flush draw, or if he folds the pot is now
substantial, so we can push on his turn bet if we want. Or if he
checks and we do bet the turn most of the money will alreay be in the
pot anyway by the river, so the RI odds are not that big a deal. Or
we can just check the turn - all of these lines are reasonable options
after betting the flop and smooth calling the raise.
> All good solutions to this problem start with checking the flop or require
> a physical read on your opponent. It's interesting that people are so
> adverse to checking here. Aparently the idea that you don't have to c-bet
> has become revolutionary. TV culture at work I guess.
FWIW, I also like the line of checking the flop and would use it
myself sometimes. However, that doens't mean the betting the flop is
bad, because its not - we are still getting money in with positive
equity.
> Wayne Vinsonhttp://cardsharp.org
David Nicoson
> A 6-out draw gets him even less equity than a 9-outer. Well less than
> 2BB. We should be willing to give that up if need be.
We don't have any evidence to suggest that we need to.
Suppose he just has random cards:
(11 choose 2) / (47 choose 2) = 0.05
He prefers his suited hands, so just as a rough guess he has a flush
draw 10% of the time. When he does we're coin flipping if all the
money goes in on the flop. That's no big deal.
90% of the time he has something else. I wouldn't say he never has KK
or AA, but check/call out of position isn't a standard line so I think
I would say it's unlikely that he has those hands. I'm not just going
to hand him 2BB all those other times. Plus the turn doesn't really
play itself here if we check.
Your whole line revolves around avoiding going broke to trips or
better with our one pair. That's a principle I generally support.
But aren't we getting the cart before the horse here? The villain
called and checked.
Ian Stuart
for him can be hard enough, doing so with near zero hard information is
close to impossible. That said, there can be little shame in getting it
woefully wrong so I'll take a stab.
There are two thngs to consider here. The first, and most obvious one, is
how best to play this specific pot. The second, less obvious but more
important to my mind, is how the way we respond on the flop affects us for
the rest of the session.
The first thing that has to be said about this flop is that it clearly
does not suit a preflop raiser, ie us. We know it and he knows it. Are we
prepared to let some dufus check-raise bluff us off every flop when we
were the preflop aggressor and it's clear the board did not help us? If
the stacks were deeper I might let him away with it but given that we're
sitting with just short of a single buy-in (if I read it correctly) I say
the hell we do. Giving up here is just asking to be bullied around for the
reat of the night.
So, back to the hand. what do I put him on? well, althought nothing is
impossible I really don't credit him with either pocket sevens (nut boat)
or 2x (trips+). Most players would feed you a little more rope to let you
hang yourself with in that situation. He could be semi-bluffing the flush
draw or more likely sitting with an over pair. I'm going to go with the
over pair I think. Eights to tens don't worry me and are very possible
under the circumstances but I'd obviously be more than happy with one of
those. The hands that worry me are QQ, KK and AA (ignore JJ as it's
unlikely given that we hold two already and even if he has them we split,
so I care not).
QQ, KK or AA? Hmmmm. I'm going towards AA here. Several reasons. The first
is that players rarely limp with QQ/KK in early position as they loath
giving Ax hands a cheap ticket. AA on the other hand, especially
short-handed, is a very common limper and for understandable reasons.
The second reason I'm going towards AA is that people rarely post "what
would you do here?" scenarios unless they lose a big pot in circumstances
where they wonder if they should have seen it coming. I'm guessing the
hand went to show-down and for a big pot otherwise you wouldn't have
posted about it. I'm also guessing you lost. Had you lost to a flush draw
or an over-pair that boated up I think you would have taken it on the chin
and moved on. Had he had sevens full or trip 2s I also think you would
just have accepted that he pulled a good double-bluff on the flop and
caught you out.
So in summary, I reckon he had aces. But I still believe that playing back
at him would be the right tactic. Losing a buy-in with JJ against AA
short-handed is perfectly acceptable. Letting people push you around in a
game where aggression is king is not.
ChrisBrown
> Question 1: what's our move, and why?
call. raise/shove his bet on turn.
you should probably give some info on your own image when asking advice on
this hand.
-------
Wayne Vinson
> myself sometimes. However, that doens't mean the betting the flop is
> bad, because its not - we are still getting money in with positive
> equity.
That's not enouh however - reverse implied odds mean that you can often
get money in with positive equity, and simultaneously have you expectation
get worse - they are not the same thing by any means. This would be one
of those cases.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org
-----
Wayne Vinson
> that is his holding.
Again ignoring implied odds despite the substantial money behind. Do you
guys seriously have this poor a grasp of the game?
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org
-----
GrouchySmurf1002
> The second reason I'm going towards AA is that people rarely post "what
> would you do here?" scenarios unless they lose a big pot in circumstances
> where they wonder if they should have seen it coming. I'm guessing the
> hand went to show-down and for a big pot otherwise you wouldn't have
> posted about it. I'm also guessing you lost.
These are true of 99% of the posters. XaQ is in the other 1%
I suspect he ran into any of the following:
22
Q4d
KJo
73
AA
power outage, but only after raising to 35bb and getting jammed, and then
reviewing the hand history and finding out the opponent showed 86o.
_______________________________________________________________________
Ron Dworkin
> > Its not even close to even money. We are 1.5:1 fav against him if
> > that is his holding.
>
> Again ignoring implied odds despite the substantial money behind. Do you
> guys seriously have this poor a grasp of the game?
We don't even have a full buy-in, let alone "substantial" money. You
do say some odd things.
>
> Wayne Vinsonhttp://cardsharp.org
Ron Dworkin
> > FWIW, I also like the line of checking the flop and would use it
> > myself sometimes. However, that doens't mean the betting the flop is
> > bad, because its not - we are still getting money in with positive
> > equity.
>
> That's not enouh however - reverse implied odds mean that you can often
> get money in with positive equity, and simultaneously have you expectation
> get worse - they are not the same thing by any means. This would be one
> of those cases.
Tell us the truth, are you trolling?
>
> Wayne Vinsonhttp://cardsharp.org
Wayne Vinson
>
> Suppose he just has random cards:
> (11 choose 2) / (47 choose 2) = 0.05
A mistaken assumption, obviously.
> He prefers his suited hands, so just as a rough guess he has a flush
> draw 10% of the time. When he does we're coin flipping if all the
> money goes in on the flop. That's no big deal.
Yes it is a big deal, because the money ISN"T GOING ALL IN ON THE FLOP.
There will be substantial money behind which is why the question as Morphy
posed it has no good answer. Hence the issue of implied odds. I'm
frankly astounded that we have an entire newsgroup here that doesn't
understand NLH is about implied odds moreso than pot odds when there is
money behind.
> 90% of the time he has something else. I wouldn't say he never has KK
> or AA, but check/call out of position isn't a standard line so I think
> I would say it's unlikely that he has those hands. I'm not just going
> to hand him 2BB all those other times. Plus the turn doesn't really
> play itself here if we check.
The hand plays great if you check. You're in much better shape against
the draws, and you can now value bet (or call bets for value) against the
made hands. If we get raised, we know it's not a semi-bluff and can put
villain on a small range and proceed very accurately. Pretty simple
really.
> Your whole line revolves around avoiding going broke to trips or
> better with our one pair. That's a principle I generally support.
> But aren't we getting the cart before the horse here? The villain
> called and checked.
Thinking ahead isn't "getting the cart before the horse" - it's just plain
good poker.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org
______________________________________________________________________
GrouchySmurf1002
> > Its not even close to even money. We are 1.5:1 fav against him if
> > that is his holding.
>
> Again ignoring implied odds despite the substantial money behind. Do you
> guys seriously have this poor a grasp of the game?
Because the implied/RIO are only applicable if you call the check-raise on
the flop and are checked to a non-diamond turn, or take some other line
that requires turn and river play. The fact that we are a 60/40 against
a flush is a relevant concept when considering your flop action after
being check-raised.
Further, if you commit the rest when are bet into on the turn blank
(assuming a call on the flop by us) his implieds are further shot.
If the opponent would only check-raise with a draw, then the play would be
to jam the flop every time and take your lumps when he stacks off as a
dog. There are no implied odds in this situation. Once more though,
the problem is that the check-raise is not always a draw. Sometimes it
beats us, sometimes it doesn't.
It's a concept that seems to be lost on you because you already think the
best play is to check the flop, so you're mind-locked into only seeing the
lines and hand ranges that make checking correct.
Stop it, and you'll understand why we keep ignoring your "well, he's got
implied odds" argument. We can easily stop the implied odds by
re-raising the flop, but we have to decide though if that is the optimal
line to take after facing a check-raise.
I believe it's not optimal, I think you have to call and fade a diamond
turn before commiting the rest, but there's still no implied odds for the
flush draw in this case. He can't win any more money from us than he
already would, unless he commits as a big dog on the turn (when a blank
hits), because we're not putting another cent in if a diamond hits the
turn.
-------
GrouchySmurf1002
> Yes it is a big deal, because the money ISN"T GOING ALL IN ON THE FLOP.
If we take the line of check, bet, check-raise, us ??? as the question is
presented, than the money CAN EASILY GO IN ON THE FLOP. Again, you've
already established you check the flop, great. That's not the answer to
the question.
> I'm frankly astounded that we have an entire newsgroup here that doesn't
> understand NLH is about implied odds moreso than pot odds when there is
> money behind.
I'm astounded that one poster has at this point completely ignored the
actual question and continues to harp on checking behind on the flop.
It's not what happened, and however non-optimal you think that play was,
you're no longer contributing to answering how to treat the check-raise.
You're just saying "well, I'd have checked" over and over.
> > 90% of the time he has something else. I wouldn't say he never has KK
> > or AA, but check/call out of position isn't a standard line so I think
> > I would say it's unlikely that he has those hands. I'm not just going
> > to hand him 2BB all those other times. Plus the turn doesn't really
> > play itself here if we check.
>
> The hand plays great if you check. You're in much better shape against
> the draws, and you can now value bet (or call bets for value) against the
> made hands. If we get raised, we know it's not a semi-bluff and can put
> villain on a small range and proceed very accurately. Pretty simple
> really.
Yes, if that's what happened. It didn't. Deal with the situation at
hand again. Help us not compound this huge mistake we apparently make
by betting. HOW DO YOU PROCEED AFTER BEING CHECK-RAISED?
-------
Wayne Vinson
> against the OTHER type of opponent, betting the flop for value exists (as
> you've also already conceded).
Consider though that assuming others are a specific type of idiot in the
absence of evidence is counterproductive. For all you know this guy hit
the bad beat jackpot with pocket duces, and has never played without a
lucky "duey" since. You could be dead to 2 cards if he's THAT moron.
Trying to predict the oddities of bad players is largely a losing
proposition because they're, well, odd. I would suggest it's much more
sound to simply play against them as if they were decent. It doesn't
always give you optimal explotive results, but it usually gives you very
positive results, and I'm fine with that.
> This presents a separate line which we're attempting to optimize when our
> moron now check-raises. If you don't know how to treat a moron's play
> and hand-range, then let it be and let someone else try to digest and
> counter point it.
If you're convinced he's got no sense of the value of his hand, and you're
ahead of his range, then just move in. There's no more optimizing to be
done. Just take your chances and hope he has the bottom of the range. On
average you'll be right and make money. Unless of course you believe you
have a special moron that check-raises without apropriate values, but
suddenly gets downright rational when someone 3-bets it. In that case you
should introduce him to the guy who only playes duces, and move yourself
to a better game.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org
----
Wayne Vinson
> holding, can we not call a turn bet without improving?
Two reasons:
1) implied odds are still against you
2) the other hands he wants to get the stacks in with (which is what a
turn and river bet will do) beat you.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org
_______________________________________________________________________
Ron Dworkin
> > Well, I am lost. Why, as a reasonable favorite with our current
> > holding, can we not call a turn bet without improving?
>
> Two reasons:
> 1) implied odds are still against you
> 2) the other hands he wants to get the stacks in with (which is what a
> turn and river bet will do) beat you.
Yup, you are trolling.
>
> Wayne Vinsonhttp://cardsharp.org
GrouchySmurf1002
> For all you know this guy hit the bad beat jackpot with pocket duces, and
has never played without a lucky "duey" since. You could be dead to 2 cards
if he's THAT moron.
Yes, 2x is certainly in the hand range of a moron, this is correct.
> If you're convinced he's got no sense of the value of his hand,
I didn't say that. I just called him a moron. I moron might know
exactly how much his 97 is valued. It's 'two pair.' He might not care
what we have.
> Unless of course you believe you have a special moron that check-raises
without apropriate
> values, but suddenly gets downright rational when someone 3-bets it.
These aren't the morons. These are the guys in between the moron and
they player you've created in your head. They're one's making the same
mistake we [possibly] made on the flop, making a bet/raise without
checking the consequences.
There are plenty of people who will check-raise with, say, 55 here and
give up when you push. They are the in-between opponent, and must be
accounted for also. Against them, you shouldn't push. You should call
and let him keep hanging himself.
_______________________________________________________________________
Wayne Vinson
> actual question and continues to harp on checking behind on the flop.
> It's not what happened, and however non-optimal you think that play was,
> you're no longer contributing to answering how to treat the check-raise.
> You're just saying "well, I'd have checked" over and over.
The point is that, especially in NL holdem, once you misplay one street a
hand often can't be rescued no matter what you do. You've conceded the
advantage to you opponent and all you can do is wait and see how badly
they hurt you and pray for a miracle card. The solution in such
situations isn't to pick between a number of unatractive options, but
rather to avoid making the initial mistake, find yourself in the
advantageous position, and extract money from your opponent.
> Yes, if that's what happened. It didn't. Deal with the situation at
> hand again. Help us not compound this huge mistake we apparently make
> by betting. HOW DO YOU PROCEED AFTER BEING CHECK-RAISED?
See above - such mistakes often can't be undone. I'm sure it's
frustrating to all those who want to dig themselves a hole and then try
valiantly to jump out, but the only correct answer is not to dig in the
first place. If I got teleported into the chair mid-hand, I would fold
unless my opponent appeared at first glance to be a recent TV transplant,
in which case I would push.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org
Ron Dworkin
GrouchySmurf1002
> > I'm astounded that one poster has at this point completely ignored the
> > actual question and continues to harp on checking behind on the flop.
> > It's not what happened, and however non-optimal you think that play was,
> > you're no longer contributing to answering how to treat the check-raise.
> > You're just saying "well, I'd have checked" over and over.
>
> The point is that, especially in NL holdem, once you misplay one street a
> hand often can't be rescued no matter what you do. You've conceded the
> advantage to you opponent and all you can do is wait and see how badly
> they hurt you and pray for a miracle card. The solution in such
> situations isn't to pick between a number of unatractive options, but
> rather to avoid making the initial mistake, find yourself in the
> advantageous position, and extract money from your opponent.
A hand can certainly be rescued.
Maybe not to the point of creating +EV out of the situation, but you can
definitely reduce the amount you're destined to lose, taking the lesser of
two -EV lines.
And of course, you already conceded that a bet might be thin value, which
is +EV and could be compounded to make more +EV decisions, even if
checking is higher +EV.
> If I got teleported into the chair mid-hand, I would fold unless my opponent
appeared at first glance to be a recent TV transplant, in which case I would
push.
See, was that so difficult?
Of course, I think calling > pushing > folding, but at least we got an
answer out of you 78235 posts later. Thank the lord.
David Nicoson
> A mistaken assumption, obviously.
Which is why I'm not assuming that.
> Yes it is a big deal, because the money ISN"T GOING ALL IN ON THE FLOP.
As the question was originally posed, he certainly could reraise all-
in on the flop.
> There will be substantial money behind which is why the question as Morphy
> posed it has no good answer. Hence the issue of implied odds. I'm
> frankly astounded that we have an entire newsgroup here that doesn't
> understand NLH is about implied odds moreso than pot odds when there is
> money behind.
No, we get that. It's just not the only consideration here as we're
not really playing deep.
> The hand plays great if you check. You're in much better shape against
> the draws, and you can now value bet (or call bets for value) against the
> made hands. If we get raised, we know it's not a semi-bluff and can put
> villain on a small range and proceed very accurately. Pretty simple
> really.
It's against the rules to semi-bluff the turn? I guess I didn't get
the memo. Suppose it goes check/check on the flop. Now play the turn
against both a bet and a check/raise for 2/3 pot on these cards.
Flop = 2d 7d 2s
Turn:
Ad
Kd
Qd
Td
9d
8d
6d
As
Ks
Qs
Ts
9s
8s
7s
6s
Ah
Kh
Qh
Th
9h
8h
7h
Ac
Kc
Qc
Tc
7c
My point is that there are lots of cards on the turn that might either
beat us or give our opponent a big enough draw that he's now willing
to semibluff. His range is *wider* than if we had bet the flop. If
you bet, you know he has a hand with which he's willing to call the
flop bet AND bet the turn.
It's not that I don't believe in reverse implied odds; it's that the
situation is worse because we checked.
Wayne Vinson
> they player you've created in your head. They're one's making the same
> mistake we [possibly] made on the flop, making a bet/raise without
> checking the consequences.
Check-raising in his position, whether on the bluff or not, is quite
likely good poker. I wouldn't call his play on the flop bad regardless of
what he held. That board just begs for a check-raise against anyone who
c-bets frequently. The only hands I would want to see a cheap showdown
with if I were him are 7x and 88-QQ or so.
> There are plenty of people who will check-raise with, say, 55 here and
> give up when you push. They are the in-between opponent, and must be
> accounted for also. Against them, you shouldn't push. You should call
> and let him keep hanging himself.
I don't see any reason he's obligated to fire a 2nd barrel if he is in
fact bluffing or betting very thin (in this case incorrectly) for value.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org
Wayne Vinson
>
> Maybe not to the point of creating +EV out of the situation, but you can
> definitely reduce the amount you're destined to lose, taking the lesser of
> two -EV lines.
I suppose it's a matter of terminoloy. Once you take a hand where you has
a good situation, and misplay it and transfer the advantage to your
opponent(s), it's very unlikely that you'll get it back. In this
particular case a J would have to fall.
I do agree that you can minimize your losses after a mistake, but that's
not the same as playing good poker.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org
_______________________________________________________________________
GrouchySmurf1002
> I don't see any reason he's obligated to fire a 2nd barrel if he is in
> fact bluffing or betting very thin (in this case incorrectly) for value.
All the more reason to call the bet on the flop. Then if he fires again,
you should feel pretty good about being behind and can fold. If he
doesn't, you can be fairly sure you're ahead and play accordingly.
It's still rare the player that will check-raise twice, and even rarer the
player who will do it both times as a bluff.
Wayne Vinson
> you should feel pretty good about being behind and can fold. If he
> doesn't, you can be fairly sure you're ahead and play accordingly.
Uh, no, if he keeps firing his range is probably 2x 77 + draw with
overcards. You are not good against that range but you're far from sure
you're behind. I agree you should fold if he fires again, but a lot of
those folds will be fundamental theorem mistakes. That's anything but a
good spot.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org
________________________________________________________________________
DELETETHIS
XaQ Morphy wrote:
> WTF is this? Morphy playing NLHE? Yes it's true folks. The appointment
> village idiot of RGP has played a few hands of the 2 hole card poker
> variety, and has a hand for discussion. Time for the best and brightest
> of RGP (or Wayne and doggy if we can find anyone else) to participate in a
> semi-meaningful poker discussion.
>
> I'm interested in advice from multiple stake levels, and I'll leave the
> stakes generic. Since it's NL, BB stands for big blinds. I'll post this
> in parts, and continue the thread as a reply to myself after I see some
> replies.
>
> You've been playing on the table for 10-15 mins or so, 6 handed NLHE, and
> so far the table is fairly straight forward, leading towards the
> aggressive side. UTG in this hand has played straight forward, raising
> pre-flop and following up with continuation bets, but not a lot of hands
> have been shown down so there's no real data to go on.
>
> In this hand, we have a 90BB stack, and UTG has a 110BB stack. We were
> just at the point of reloading, but didn't get there in time before the
> hand started.
>
> UTG limps, and we have Jc Jh. We hit the bet pot button and raise to
> 4.5BB. It folds back to UTG who calls.
>
> Flop is 2d 7d 2s. UTG checks to us, and we bet 8BB, which is in the range
> that all of our continuation bets have been, regardless of hand. UTG
> check-raises to 19BB.
>
> Question 1: what's our move, and why?
>
> ---
> Morphy
> xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
> http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
GrouchySmurf1002
> I do agree that you can minimize your losses after a mistake, but that's
> not the same as playing good poker.
Minimizing losses is just as important to good poker as maximizing wins.
Wayne Vinson
No, but it's all but impossible to have the kind of good draw you can have
on the flop. Short of something like an open ended straight flush draw
(which would be a rather unlikely development) villain's draw is going to
be no more than about 11 outs once - not nearly as scarry as 11 outs
twice. In addition, with only one remaining street of betting the implied
odds are much smaller if he hits.
> I guess I didn't get
> the memo.
I guess you never read ciaffone very carefully then.
> His range is *wider* than if we had bet the flop.
While this is true, it a good thing, not a bad thing. We want to value
bet te turn and have him call or possibly even raise with a wide range.
> It's not that I don't believe in reverse implied odds; it's that the
> situation is worse because we checked.
An incorrect statement of course.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org
_____________________________________________________________________
Wayne Vinson
Minimizing losses that should never have happened is not the same as
minimizing losses in general. The former is of academic interest only,
while the later is of general concern. For example, I will go my entire
life without finding myself in the situation described here, never care
one way or the other which of the bad options RGP eventually settles on,
and I'll be richer for it.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org
______________________________________________________________________
akqjt98
On Jan 1 2008 10:57 PM, Wayne Vinson wrote:
> On Jan 1 2008 10:33 PM, redriverr wrote:
>
> > A real PLO player wouldn't play NLHE.
>
> However, that's obviously irrelevant in Morphy's case. I'm thinking of
> something much more specific.
>
> Wayne Vinson
> http://cardsharp.org
_______________________________________________________________________
David Nicoson
> > It's against the rules to semi-bluff the turn?
>
> No, but it's all but impossible to have the kind of good draw you can have
> on the flop. Short of something like an open ended straight flush draw
> (which would be a rather unlikely development) villain's draw is going to
> be no more than about 11 outs once - not nearly as scarry as 11 outs
> twice. In addition, with only one remaining street of betting the implied
> odds are much smaller if he hits.
Granted the "semi-" part of a semi-bluff is less valuable but the
"bluff" part is much better. It looks like you hate your hand. If
the 9s rolls off on the turn, what hands shouldn't he bet against a
villain who'll fold an overpair?
XaQ Morphy
> So if you're playing people who will decide 88 is the nuts, then betting
> has merit (see previous comment about playing morons). Otherwise it's a
> near sure loser.
Yikes. I open up RGP and see 53 unread posts. I don't know where to
reply, so I'll reply to this.
Let's assume you're playing on a site that is well-known for having the
worst players online (insert joke about why I play there, etc.). What I
mean is that they would limp/call a raise with K7 because it was suited,
and then play their stacks on the 7 high flop because they assume you have
2 big cards. This is routine.
Now, that said, it seems after reading your comments that you're basing
the flop decision of not to bet on the fact that in the hand I was
check-raised. This isn't really valid because of course I don't know at
the time I bet the flop that I was going to be check-raised.
What about the times that we take the pot down uncontested, and chip up a
bit? This is a fine hand to take down on the flop, chip up a bit, and
continue on. We aren't betting for information as you stated as much as
we're betting for value and will be happy to take the pot down right now.
My opinion is that if we don't plan on betting a flop like this that we
should have limped along pre-flop and played for set value.
One other small request...if you want to have a serious poker discussion
here, I'll ask nicely that you refrain from the insulting comments, and
your favorite pet name for me. If you start in with them I'll assume you
are just interested in the attacks and trolling. Thanks,
________________________________________________________________________
John_Brian_K
> One other small request...if you want to have a serious poker discussion
> here, I'll ask nicely that you refrain from the insulting comments, and
> your favorite pet name for me. If you start in with them I'll assume you
> are just interested in the attacks and trolling. Thanks,
Careful Morph your starting to sound like me.
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
David Nicoson
> That's not enouh however - reverse implied odds mean that you can often
> get money in with positive equity, and simultaneously have you expectation
> get worse - they are not the same thing by any means. This would be one
> of those cases.
In all this discussion of RIO, you seem to be ignoring that we can
fold after we're beat instead of before. If you're just concerned
about a better made hand, I can't see any reason for raising preflop.
XaQ Morphy
questions that came up.
For starters, "we" of course is the lovely family that is RGP. Or
something. We're playing on a site that is known for horrible players and
horrible play. While you can't just pigeon hole all players on a site to
a certain style, I think everyone who has played on multiple sites has
seen overall trends and can get some general info based on these trends.
How helpful that info is varies from hand to hand and player to player,
and I'm not sure how to measure it in real life terms.
Taking that into consideration, as ridiculous as it may seem, generally
the stronger the hand, the less money players are willing to put into
pots. If they flop quads they'll check it away every street possible, but
if they have AK on a KQJ9 board they'll stick every last cent they have
into the pot. Now, onto the hand.
On Jan 1 2008 9:54 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
> WTF is this? Morphy playing NLHE? Yes it's true folks. The appointment
> village idiot of RGP has played a few hands of the 2 hole card poker
> variety, and has a hand for discussion. Time for the best and brightest
> of RGP (or Wayne and doggy if we can find anyone else) to participate in a
> semi-meaningful poker discussion.
>
> I'm interested in advice from multiple stake levels, and I'll leave the
> stakes generic. Since it's NL, BB stands for big blinds. I'll post this
> in parts, and continue the thread as a reply to myself after I see some
> replies.
>
> You've been playing on the table for 10-15 mins or so, 6 handed NLHE, and
> so far the table is fairly straight forward, leading towards the
> aggressive side. UTG in this hand has played straight forward, raising
> pre-flop and following up with continuation bets, but not a lot of hands
> have been shown down so there's no real data to go on.
>
> In this hand, we have a 90BB stack, and UTG has a 110BB stack. We were
> just at the point of reloading, but didn't get there in time before the
> hand started.
>
> UTG limps, and we have Jc Jh. We hit the bet pot button and raise to
> 4.5BB. It folds back to UTG who calls.
>
> Flop is 2d 7d 2s. UTG checks to us, and we bet 8BB, which is in the range
> that all of our continuation bets have been, regardless of hand. UTG
> check-raises to 19BB.
>
> Question 1: what's our move, and why?
We're going to argue that we haven't made any mistakes up to this point in
the hand. For reasons already covered by 50 some posts, cbetting here is
a straight forward and routine play. We're happy to take the pot down as
it is now, and we're expecting that to happen quite frequently. Our range
is pretty wide, despite the check raise. Typically UTG limps who call
raises pre-flop are small pairs, weak A's, and suited cards. I would
expect 77-QQ to open raise, and AA/KK to limp/re-raise, but not limp/call
a raise. So what does the check-raise mean? Could be A7 playing top
pair. Could be 55 thinking we're on AK but not wanting to risk a lot in
case we play back at him. Could be a flush draw, but generally speaking
it's rare to see a flush draw check raise here. 2x or 77? I could see 2x
check-raising here, but the amount is what got me. It's not a min raise.
It's not like the player just hit the raise button. He typed/moved the
slider to the precise amount, a few BB over a min raise. I would expect a
strong hand to either min raise, or raise much more.
I'm certainly not folding, so it's a matter of call or raise. The problem
with a raise is that it pot commits us, so we might as well just push.
However that will shut out a lot of hands that we want in, bluffs, A7,
smaller pairs who feel they have to keep betting, etc. Seems like this is
a spot where a raise gets the worse hands to fold and the better hands to
call, which isn't what we're looking for. So we elect to call.
Turn is the 8d. UTG bets right around 30BB. For those keeping track we
have roughly 66BB left.
Question 2: what's our move, and why?
-------
Wayne Vinson
> Deciding to play JJ in the first place?
Nope - JJ is extremely playable with a limper in front.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org
Wayne Vinson
> fold after we're beat instead of before.
That is an option, but if so you will have to include the fact that you
will frequently lose a big pot despite having the best hand in your
calculations, which can be just as bad as getting value bet. Either way,
one of these two negative factors has to appear in your reasoning. You
can't wish them both away by simply claiming you'll make the opposite
choice. Either you're bluff-vulnerable or a victim of RIO. There is no
pleasant alternative.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org
--------
Wayne Vinson
> the flop decision of not to bet on the fact that in the hand I was
> check-raised.
Nope, I listed my reasons and that was not one of them. Try re-reading
for comprehension.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org
____________________________________________________________________
Wayne Vinson
> the hand.
As with any argument steming from a mistaken assumption, everything else
you have to say is irrelivant.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org
-----
Bronzedodger
All the flush draws + 88 are now ahead - fold with all due haste.
--------
Chandler
> WTF is this? Morphy playing NLHE? Yes it's true folks. The appointment
> village idiot of RGP has played a few hands of the 2 hole card poker
> variety, and has a hand for discussion. Time for the best and brightest
> of RGP (or Wayne and doggy if we can find anyone else) to participate in a
> semi-meaningful poker discussion.
>
> I'm interested in advice from multiple stake levels, and I'll leave the
> stakes generic. Since it's NL, BB stands for big blinds. I'll post this
> in parts, and continue the thread as a reply to myself after I see some
> replies.
>
> You've been playing on the table for 10-15 mins or so, 6 handed NLHE, and
> so far the table is fairly straight forward, leading towards the
> aggressive side. UTG in this hand has played straight forward, raising
> pre-flop and following up with continuation bets, but not a lot of hands
> have been shown down so there's no real data to go on.
>
> In this hand, we have a 90BB stack, and UTG has a 110BB stack. We were
> just at the point of reloading, but didn't get there in time before the
> hand started.
>
> UTG limps, and we have Jc Jh. We hit the bet pot button and raise to
> 4.5BB. It folds back to UTG who calls.
>
> Flop is 2d 7d 2s. UTG checks to us, and we bet 8BB, which is in the range
> that all of our continuation bets have been, regardless of hand. UTG
> check-raises to 19BB.
>
> Question 1: what's our move, and why?
>
> Morphy
> xaqmor...@donkeymanifesto.comhttp://www.donkeymanifesto.com
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more..www.recgroups.com
Ummm... OK, I don't think there's much chance he's check raising with
a deuce, 2 deuces or a boat. Most of my opponents with these stacks
will usually play slow here with those hands. Nothing like a check
raise to get you off a hand if you've got nada and they are hoping I
stick around. There is some chance he limp called UTG with AA or KK.
I just don't see it much with QQ. So he is semibluffing a diamond
draw, overs... more probably has made a pair of 7s or has the same pp
or worse as you do and wants to take it down now because he thinks
there's no way the flop hit you. I've seen the latter fairly often.
If I raise, I probably have to jam as I'm likely pot commited with any
other meaningful raise. If I jam He folds any lesser hands and calls
only hands that beat me. No way am I folding here. If I'm being
rational I commit myself to the hand. I call and hope he fires more
bullets at the turn... especially if a non threatening card falls.
If he checks the turn, I value bet 1/2 to 3/4 pot.
'Course I'm a donkey who plays mostly SNGs with many of my opponents
only slightly more donkeyish than I.
Chandler
XaQ Morphy
> As with any argument steming from a mistaken assumption, everything else
> you have to say is irrelivant.
I've concluded based on your replies that you're either a very good troll,
or a very stupid person. Either way, I no longer wish to read your
drivel. Enjoy calling me the RGP village idiot and spending entire days
trolling RGP, but know that this is the last post of your that I
voluntarily read. Goodbye.
<plonk>
-----
Wayne Vinson
sand when your poor poker skills were exposed. Dance on, village idiot.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org
akqjt98
On Jan 2 2008 4:42 PM, Wayne Vinson wrote:
> On Jan 2 2008 3:43 PM, akqjt98 wrote:
>
> > Deciding to play JJ in the first place?
>
>
> Nope - JJ is extremely playable with a limper in front.
>
> Wayne Vinson
> http://cardsharp.org
____________________________________________________________________
Wayne Vinson
> It was a joke...
OK. Just as a heads up you're going to have to say some incredibly dumb
shit to seperate a joke from the "advice" others are already posting.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org
_____________________________________________________________________
ebow
<a1c...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>what's our move,
Run away
> and why?
Pocket deuces
David Nicoson
> Played correctly it's just fine. Mistakenly played as abig pair, it's a
> loser. Ditto QQ. Funny thing is, Supersystem explains explicitly that QQ
> and JJ are not big pairs, and yet 30 years later people are still
> mistaking them fo such. It's an amusing case of willful ignorance when
> you think about it...
Regardless of that fact, I don't think you're going to find support
from Brunson for checking this flop.
Super System, page 481:
"As you know, if I raise a pot before the Turn . . I'm going to bet on
the Flop (*whatever it is*) about 90% of the time. So, if I raised
the pot with two Nines . . I'd bet on the flop nine times out of ten."
Super System, page 484:
"If you raised with them [a small pair], you should generally bet on
the Flop trying to win a small pot, but, if you get called . . you
don't want to bet again (on Fourth and Fifth) and you try to play
showdown from that point on -- unless you think your opponent is on a
draw, in which case you continue betting"
Wayne Vinson
>
> "As you know, if I raise a pot before the Turn . . I'm going to bet on
> the Flop (*whatever it is*) about 90% of the time. So, if I raised
> the pot with two Nines . . I'd bet on the flop nine times out of ten."
Here's a clue: the one time you don't bet it is when there's nothing to be
gained by doing so, like here. The point is that JJ is not a big pair.
Your opponent cannot really think they're good and be wrong here.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org
____________________________________________________________________
Bronzedodger
> I guess I'm not surprised that you would choose to hide your head in the
> sand when your poor poker skills were exposed. Dance on, village idiot.
>
> Wayne Vinson
> http://cardsharp.org
It's not just that you don't stick to poker (i.e. insults like the above).
It's not just that you have a runaway ego (i.e. there is only ONE answer
to a poker question)
It's the never-ending condescension where your
non-accomplishments/so-called knowledge about poker are either blindly
accepted or you resort to insults.
If you could get over yourself I think you have some good insights, but
once you let your posts devolve to this level who can take your seriously?
Get some anger counseling FFS.