Home / Community / Forum / Poker Education / Poker Education & Beginners Questions / Old Hand Analysis Section /

really?

 
Old
Default
really? - Tue Aug 23, 2011, 09:59 PM
(#1)
Widzywidzy^^'s Avatar
Since: Jul 2011
Posts: 151


I know the limps at this stage are comical but IP the limp was correct imo to setmine, table seemed super active and super fishy, obv cant raise and never folding.

BB flop bet screamed a 6 and it was obvious to everyone at the table im sure, I think he didn't mind that since there were so many players in the hand. I thought I could get his full stack in now unless the really slim chance that he is a braindead guy with OESD or A5, maybe overpair but very unlikely. The 6 was 99% likely imo and I figured he would continue his aggression OTT regardless so I might aswell let him put it in since im IP.

The turn bet seemed like he either pinged the J for a J6 boat and was doing some wierd donk minbet to try and keep me in (clueless players do this cause their wierd) but he was such a fish that I 100% knew he couldn't put me on a flopped boat and was just trying to keep me in the hand as I had, in his eyes, a hand that wasn't completely guaranteed to continue OTT.

From my pov he had 4 outs to improve and the chances that he hit one of the hidden 3 were very unlikely, and having invested this much in the hand already, there was a 0% chance I could fold based on how many times my hand will show up good vs a random fish with obvious flopped trips.

I think my raise OTT was good to induce a shove from trips and I think the sizing of my bet is irrelevant here provided it is over 5k because the money is going in here no matter what. Looking back at his 3bet I can honestly say it did look fishy but a player of his calibur is playing Q6 and J6 EXACTLY THE SAME in this spot. My 4bet shove was the only remaining play left at this point.

IMO no escaping it but obv someone will come on this thread claiming that it was an easy fold etc and I will have to laugh at them, lol.

Thought id add that the reason I didn't just call his turn 3bet and hope he tries to check-shove river for a showdown with no river action to preserve stack, or calling turn to hope that he does that wierd minbet again, is that I think that if he did take that wierd minbet or river check line, then I would have to put him more often than not on scared trips and shove anyway for value against what is usually a worse hand, and generally im facing a river shove anyway.

Last edited by Widzywidzy^^; Tue Aug 23, 2011 at 10:13 PM..
 
Old
Default
Tue Aug 23, 2011, 10:33 PM
(#2)
TrustySam's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,291
BronzeStar
I think we have similar styles ... like, in my world the cups are half full, so yeah it's possible somebody could have J6 or JJ ... but I tend not to think so!

Maybe the blinds spots of those who are optimists are different from those who are more skeptical, eh? Like the approach to looking for ways to improve one's style isn't to try and be something one's not ... it's more about trying to be the best one can be?

I wind up with the same kind of beats - like, I have volumes worth of second-best hands. Sometimes I started off with the best hand, then things changed. Sometimes I was behind the whole time, even though I had a strong holding. But in retrospect, I guess there were little signs, eh?

Like yeah, the pot-sized bet oop on the flop, then the min-raise post-flop. Were they trying to represent the 5? As if somebody with a 5 would still bet on the turn after being called? So that was a bit of a red-flag, like you said.

At this point, I'd still be squeeing like giddy schoolgirl that I've got a boat, but I'm thinking maybe what I should really be doing is tempering my excitement with a healthy dose or skepticism if something looks weird? I like your value bet - I might have even made mine bigger But then that min-raise check-raise combo, probably that should have raised an even bigger red flag, eh?

Maybe the thing to do (after the first alarm bells went out) might have been to put out a tester bet, and if the villain calls it and checks on the river, then it'd be more safe to do another value bet on the river. But if they do what they did here, and check-raise, we should seriously be considering the very real possibility that we're behind?

The largest tests of my resolve are folding monster hands, when there's evidence I might be behind. There always seem to be rational reasons for why a call might make good sense, but check-raises ... unfortunately people only seem to do those against me with better hands ...

I don't know ... still trying to figure stuff out

PS I posted a thread a while back about how I had a similar issue of having a strong hand and then getting 3bet ... I'll have to go look for it so you can see the straight I had ... it was pretty LOL

Last edited by TrustySam; Tue Aug 23, 2011 at 10:37 PM..
 
Old
Default
Tue Aug 23, 2011, 10:44 PM
(#3)
Widzywidzy^^'s Avatar
Since: Jul 2011
Posts: 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrustySam View Post
I think we have similar styles ... like, in my world the cups are half full, so yeah it's possible somebody could have J6 or JJ ... but I tend not to think so!

Maybe the blinds spots of those who are optimists are different from those who are more skeptical, eh? Like the approach to looking for ways to improve one's style isn't to try and be something one's not ... it's more about trying to be the best one can be?

I wind up with the same kind of beats - like, I have volumes worth of second-best hands. Sometimes I started off with the best hand, then things changed. Sometimes I was behind the whole time, even though I had a strong holding. But in retrospect, I guess there were little signs, eh?

Like yeah, the pot-sized bet oop on the flop, then the min-raise post-flop. Were they trying to represent the 5? As if somebody with a 5 would still bet on the turn after being called? So that was a bit of a red-flag, like you said.

At this point, I'd still be squeeing like giddy schoolgirl that I've got a boat, but I'm thinking maybe what I should really be doing is tempering my excitement with a healthy dose or skepticism if something looks weird? I like your value bet - I might have even made mine bigger But then that min-raise check-raise combo, probably that should have raised an even bigger red flag, eh?

Maybe the thing to do (after the first alarm bells went out) might have been to put out a tester bet, and if the villain calls it and checks on the river, then it'd be more safe to do another value bet on the river. But if they do what they did here, and check-raise, we should seriously be considering the very real possibility that we're behind?

The largest tests of my resolve are folding monster hands, when there's evidence I might be behind. There always seem to be rational reasons for why a call might make good sense, but check-raises ... unfortunately people only seem to do those against me with better hands ...

I don't know ... still trying to figure stuff out

PS I posted a thread a while back about how I had a similar issue of having a strong hand and then getting 3bet ... I'll have to go look for it so you can see the straight I had ... it was pretty LOL
Against a player with any clue at all I would be 50/50 after the turn 3bet whether to continue, well maybe 60/40 in favour of continuing. Only because this player was so bad that I was 100% forced to continue. :\ kinda sucks that way!
 
Old
Default
Tue Aug 23, 2011, 10:49 PM
(#4)
Widzywidzy^^'s Avatar
Since: Jul 2011
Posts: 151
Also, some wiz once said that folding a full house on a one paired board against a fish is a huge long term mistake, can't agree more. In all honesty I think my hand shows up good over 80% of the time.
 
Old
Default
Tue Aug 23, 2011, 11:04 PM
(#5)
JWK24's Avatar
Since: Jun 2010
Posts: 24,814
(Super-Moderator)
BronzeStar
I normally like limping with a small pkt pair in position.... but in this case, I'd actually make a normal raise.. if nothing else, than to lower the number of opps.

If someone comes over the top of you, you have plenty of chips to then fold preflop and with the ones that fold to it, creates alot more dead money in the pot.

With that many in the pot, somebody should have a 6 and you never know if they'll have hit a higher full house. If you raise preflop, then the trash hands should drop.

Yes, you can lose an extra 1600 chips in it if you don't hit... but by shortening the field, it'll make your hand look stronger and play better.
 
Old
Default
Tue Aug 23, 2011, 11:05 PM
(#6)
TrustySam's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,291
BronzeStar
I didn't say to fold though

Another alternative could have been to pot-control ... like it'd be one thing if you had the nuts and you were against a same size stack or larger. And it's another if you had this hand with red flags, and you were against a smaller stack. But this stack was the same size, and they might be sucky but they must also be lucky if their stack was that large, eh?

Just saying that there were alternatives. I mean like that makes sense that the villain didn't likely have JJ. And their betting didn't look like 56 even (or 66). So really the only hand you needed to worry about was J6. And they're kind of donk. But the betting ... even donks don't min-raise-4bet without the nuts against a reraiser, and do it small - if they were trying to get you to fold with a trip, they would have shoved, right?

It's kind of different when it's your own hand, but from the outside in, it looks like he's trying to get the chips in the middle with J6 without scaring you off (even though statistically speaking J6 making the boat on the turn was such a long-shot.

I guess the trick is being able to see things so clearly when it's our own chips that are at stake, and we've been sitting there for hours on end getting dealt crap and missing flop after flop, etc

EDIT: Then again, if you just called the 4bet, then I guess with the pot being so large, when the villain shoved on the river you did have to decide on whether or not you wanted to put it all on the line or fold and rebuild. Geez .... tough that the pot got jacked up so fast with all the limpers :/ Honestly, I'd probably wind up calling this hand too ... but I'm working on developing the ability to fold when there are those signs ... it's really hard tho!

Last edited by TrustySam; Tue Aug 23, 2011 at 11:25 PM..
 
Old
Default
Tue Aug 23, 2011, 11:06 PM
(#7)
TrustySam's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,291
BronzeStar
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWK24 View Post
I normally like limping with a small pkt pair in position.... but in this case, I'd actually make a normal raise.. if nothing else, than to lower the number of opps.

If someone comes over the top of you, you have plenty of chips to then fold preflop and with the ones that fold to it, creates alot more dead money in the pot.

With that many in the pot, somebody should have a 6 and you never know if they'll have hit a higher full house. If you raise preflop, then the trash hands should drop.

Yes, you can lose an extra 1600 chips in it if you don't hit... but by shortening the field, it'll make your hand look stronger and play better.
Yeah, that's a nice alternative there JWK ... I didn't think of that
 
Old
Default
Tue Aug 23, 2011, 11:30 PM
(#8)
Widzywidzy^^'s Avatar
Since: Jul 2011
Posts: 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWK24 View Post
I normally like limping with a small pkt pair in position.... but in this case, I'd actually make a normal raise.. if nothing else, than to lower the number of opps.

If someone comes over the top of you, you have plenty of chips to then fold preflop and with the ones that fold to it, creates alot more dead money in the pot.

With that many in the pot, somebody should have a 6 and you never know if they'll have hit a higher full house. If you raise preflop, then the trash hands should drop.

Yes, you can lose an extra 1600 chips in it if you don't hit... but by shortening the field, it'll make your hand look stronger and play better.
I agree a raise would not have been bad but I didn't see the real point of investing 300% or more of what I intended to invest with a 12% hand. A raise 4x or smaller would not have shortened the field much thinking about it as the full table was loose and the odds would have looked like a goldmine to any of the late positions. The only hand I would have lost would be the one that busted me and probly the SB (unsure what he was completing with as he had sick odds, probly ATC) I guess, although the only real reason for a raise would be to lose these players, because there is no need to bloat the pot pf with a setmining hand as with stacks as they are and money in middle at current stage I could get it in OTR regardless, and the chances of the SB / BB having a hand that would beat me IF I flopped a set (odds of flopping a set + odds of them having a better hand at showdown after being able to continue 8 handed otf on all streets is incredibly small) seemed tiny to the point that it should not be considered in reasoning for calling or raising pf.

Thanks for your take on things JWK
 
Old
Default
Tue Aug 23, 2011, 11:34 PM
(#9)
TrustySam's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,291
BronzeStar
Oh, widzy, I found my old thread, but it kind of took a gnarly turn at the end, so I thought I'd just post the hand I was talking about so you could point and laugh The reason I wanted feedback was because I had been scrolling through my hand histories and every single time some passive person reraises me on the river, I was behind - like, not once had I ever won. In theory I could have been ahead, but in practice, that has never seemed to be the case. Anyway here's the hand ... another 55


Last edited by TrustySam; Tue Aug 23, 2011 at 11:37 PM..
 
Old
Default
Fri Aug 26, 2011, 03:36 PM
(#10)
JDean's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,145
BronzeStar
I REALLY want to slag the OP here for poor play, but I cannot.
All of his actions are "reasonable", even if they are not max EV.

I REALLY want to avoid putting out my 2c about this hand because I simply do not like the attitude of the OP, but I cannot.

This hand presents a REALLY GOOD discussion point for the differences between 2 +EV decisions, and the potential negative effects of failing to leverage the "side effects" of giving up some +EV in big stack situations.

So I am biting my tongue, and putting my thoughts out here...

1) Limping 55 pre-flop is preferable to a raise.

While based on RESULTS we can see that the BB probably does not call if the OP raises, we would NOT know that at the time of the decision.

With this many limpers ahead, you are un-likely to thin the field enough to make 55 into anything except a "no set/no bet" hand on the flop, so why set mine for a LARGER price than you have to?

With 48BB to start, plus this many limpers with decently large stacks, FOLDING 55 with only 2 blind hands who might raise you off your set mine is way too nitty. Take the great speculative spot, and go with it.

The OP made exactly the "right" decision here in my opinion.


2) You didn't think through your Flop bet/no bet decision very well.

When you say this: BB flop bet screamed a 6 and it was obvious to everyone at the table im sure

I wouldn't disagree. Usually micro players are not aware enough to seize the bluff chance a paired board brings when you get a free flop in the BB.

When you say this: I thought I could get his full stack in now unless the really slim chance that he is a braindead guy with OESD or A5, maybe overpair but very unlikely.

Combined with...

When you say this: The 6 was 99% likely

You start to foul up in your bet/no bet decison. (Note: listen closely, I'm NOT SLAGGING YOU, just to slag you! Read on...)

Poker is a game of DECISIONS.

You should try to configure your decisions for what will bring you MAXIMUM +EV.
In this spot, you are faced with 2 +EV decisions, flatting his bet with your boat, or raising into his "99%" 6 with your boat.

Since you say he will stack off with a 6, and is 99% likely (in your opinion) to hold a 6, you are trading the chance to get him in NOW, when only a 65 or 66 is ahead of you, for LESS EV by checking.

Were you to apply a HIGHER CHANCE to your assessment of the Villain's likelihood of NOT having a 6, then your check in the face of hands like oesd's, A5's and over pairs, all of which you think he might FOLD in the face of a committing bet, would likely be the prefered choice.

But when you say this: I figured he would continue his aggression OTT regardless so I might aswell let him put it in since im IP.

You are wrong.

The "Sklansky Rules" for slow playing any hand that might be drawn out on AT ALL is that the larger the pot is, the less likely you want to slow play.

The Villain's 87% pot bet on this flop "bloated" the size of the pot to the point where taking it down RIGHT NOW (if he were to hold a fold hand) would represent a 35% chip up for your start stack. Anything over about 15% to 20% on a 48BB start stack must be considered a pretty "big pot".

99% of the time you can raise now, and he will almost certainly jam into you with less than your 5's full. If he does, and you call, you are WAY AHEAD.

1% of the time he will fold, and you will pick up a 35% chip up; not bad really.

But...

By flatting, if he does have a 6 you are giving him "free" a 6.3% chance to suck out.

If he DOES hit, and you then raise into him, the villain will not be making a "mistake" by putting your entire stack in when he holds 6's full.

Any time your actions (in a heads up situation) leads your opponent to act in the same manner he would if all the cards were known, you LOSE VALUE.

Obviously the "end results" for you in this 1 trial would be the SAME, but poker is a "long term game", and if you act this way time after time, you WILL lose value.

BUT...

Do not mis-understand me; I fully recognize that this situation is rare, and if you play 15 million hands of poker in your life I would doubt you'd even approach 10,000 of these situations. That means you will not necessarily reach a singificant sample size to have your EV difference between the decisions become readily appearent.

But there is still no reason for you to NOT exhibit an "awareness" of the effects a flat here MIGHT have for your stack size.

That brings me to my next point...

3) You failed to take notice of "dis-connects" in betting patterns by the villain, as well as the inconsistencies in your own thought line.

The "effect" of your decision to flat the 87% pot bet by the Villain on this flop keeps the pot "smaller" in terms of the percent of YOUR CHIPS that are in the pot. (~7200 of your ~35k start start total, or 20% roughly). Had you RAISED his flop bet, you would have pushed yourself past an easy committment point, so that no matter what the villain does on the turn you can go with your hand easily.

But when you do NOT raise him on the flop, you are not making it an easy committment decision for you...

A major tru-ism of MTT poker is: "You cannot go OUT if you are not all-in"

...by keeping yourself farther away from a committment decision, you REALLY are leaving "room" to possibly lose LESS, or even FOLD, in this hand. If your intent is to NOT FOLD, no matter what, then if he will stack off 99% of the time with a lesser hand on the flop, why NOT raise?

See the inconsistency? This is a very subtle form of "fancy play syndrome".

When you combine this inconsistency within your own thoughts with the "danger sign" the villain throws off by min betting after making a strong flop bet, can you start to see how your thinking may have "blinded" you to a CHANCE to lose less than your whole stack here?

Besides the min bet, there were these danger signs as well:

- You held a potential UNDER BOAT.

With 5's full of 6's, with 66 on the flop, you are much more prone to being drawn out on than had you held 6's full of 5's on a 556 flop.

Zeebo's theorem will tell you that holding an under-boat can be a VERY EXPENSIVE hand indeed.

- You faced a BB who got to see the flop for free.

Since he did not voluntarily enter this pot, if the villain does hold a 6, that 6 is NOT restricted to a tight range of kickers; ANY CARD might have hit him to make 6's full. This also greatly increases your risk with a potential under-boat.

So by "waiting" for the turn to put a larger, more committing, portion of your chips into the pot, you really had an good increase in risk as well.

This villain then signalled your greater risk with a "wierd" bet size decision.

You COULD have taken that sign, and flatted AGAIN.

If he failed to lead the river, then sure, you are going to value bet.

If he does lead the river, you could then decide whether your hand was strong enough to take a risk in calling, or even raising off the rest of your stack.

AGAIN THOUGH...

I am not slagging you by saying the above.
I can understand your turn play completely.
Rather than flatting the wierd bet, you elected to raise, making it 6400 to go.

Again though, that amount is committing, since it pushed you to a 24BB "investment" into the pot, and put you roughly 50% committed.

What I would say to that is "why not just put them all in"?

-Villain is calling you with a 6 (per your read. if this is not true, please correct me. I am under the impression you think this is a "bad" player, who will stack off a 6).

- Villain is CERTAINLY calling you if he holds 6's full or better.

- You are so deep you could no longer fold at all.

So to sum up:

- If you feel your hand is best, and that there is a large chance a 2nd best hand held by the villain will be enough for him to stack himself off, you are NOT best served by waiting to slow play if there is any chance you will be drawn out on.

- If the above is true, and the pot represents better than about 15% increase to your stack, especially in deeper stack situations you are not best served by wating to get the villain to put his chips in. Winng just the current pot is worth too much to you to "want" to risk the suck out.

- If you do elect betting lines which keeps your investment in a pot below a committiment threshold, then you should be highly aware of the danger signs which may be present. If you do not heed these signs, and elect to follow a SMALL chip investment with a LARGE ONE, you really should hold an extremely large hand.

3rd or 4th nuts may not qualify, because you may see your large bet only being called by better, and folding out worse...
 
Old
Default
Fri Aug 26, 2011, 07:53 PM
(#11)
RockerguyAA's Avatar
Since: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,089
BronzeStar
Wow JDean how are you not filthy rich off of poker yet?

So refreshing reading through your post after having my head out of the game for a few months. +1 to your post, definitely agree with everything. The Sklansky slowplaying rule really seems to be at the heart of the decision making for this hand.
 
Old
Default
Fri Aug 26, 2011, 08:03 PM
(#12)
roomik17's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,556
BronzeStar
Quote:
Originally Posted by RockerguyAA View Post
Wow JDean how are you not filthy rich off of poker yet?

So refreshing reading through your post after having my head out of the game for a few months. +1 to your post, definitely agree with everything. The Sklansky slowplaying rule really seems to be at the heart of the decision making for this hand.
He always has sausage cooking and has to shove any 2 before it burns
 
Old
Default
Fri Aug 26, 2011, 08:38 PM
(#13)
TrustySam's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,291
BronzeStar
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDean View Post
I REALLY want to slag the OP here for poor play, but I cannot.
All of his actions are "reasonable", even if they are not max EV.

[I]I REALLY want to avoid putting out my 2c about this hand because I simply do not like the attitude of the OP, but I cannot.

This hand presents a REALLY GOOD discussion point for the differences between 2 +EV decisions, and the potential negative effects of failing to leverage the "side effects" of giving up some +EV in big stack situations.

2) You didn't think

3) You failed
Was this your way of trying to say that in responding you felt you were going to be able to put aside personal feelings and be objective, in the name of poker analysis?

Because I know how it feels to feel regretful for having become embroiled in an argument that turned personal, and to want to make some sort of restitution. That was the intent behind me posting in widzy's other post the other day - in making a post that made everybody 'right', I hoped to restore a feeling of dignity to everybody, including you, as like an 'I'm sorry if I made you feel like some of yours was taken away because of me.' As like an olive branch.

I'm just not sure you're there yet when it comes to widzy, or whether it's intellectually where you want to be but the vengeance started to rear it's head by #2 and 3. And that question then becomes relevant to me because now I have to wonder, how open are you to substantive debate, or are you going to turn vengeful on me if I start talking poker?

Like how open are you to hearing about your idea from a different perspective? Because that's what got our argument going in the first place. I guess I'll have to post what I've noticed and see how it goes - I think I know the answer though, and I was thinking of taking a break from poker for the last week of August anyways, so if you respond the way I think you will, then I guess it'll be what it'll be ...

Anyways, here goes - I think neither widzy nor I brought up the reraise on the flop because the big stack doesn't seem like they'd ever fold a fold a trip with a decent kicker. I thought they had the same-sized stack, but it's over twice the size of widzys, eh. And like I said to widzy above - personally, I feel like that's the perfect time to make a call with a solid hand that could be behind ... when by going all in and losing you'd still be bigger than everybody else at the table (except for widzy).

I don't think any of us are expected to know how our alternative ideas turn out when we present them - just look at my idea of pot controlling, that I had to admit wouldn't have made a difference before widzy could even get a word in edgewise to tell me the same LOL LOL.

Anyways, this is jmo, maybe when others are big-stack, they like to give up big piles of chips uncontested against reraises from somebody in position who's not a nit. And I'll bet widzy's got some moves, which makes getting reads on him a little more confusing. Also, the villain's a 'sucky lucky', so irrespective of how any of us would have acted in his position, not sure they would have been one to fold.

I hope my points didn't enrage anybody or may you feel disrespected because you are sure you're right, or feel like you need to be right. That really wasn't my intent
 
Old
Default
Fri Aug 26, 2011, 11:17 PM
(#14)
!!!111Dan's Avatar
Since: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by roomik17 View Post
He always has sausage cooking and has to shove any 2 before it burns
Can I just say once more before I say goodnight Irene..........

...drumroll.................................snap!! !

Good night and be safe!


 
Old
Default
Fri Aug 26, 2011, 11:17 PM
(#15)
JDean's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,145
BronzeStar
I'm not going to deny I have "issues" with the OP.

But I would like to clarify some things IN HIS FAVOR...

1) his pre flop decision was spot on.

2) NO "mistake" in this hand was a TERRIBLE one, nor an OBVIOUS one.

It is easy to "miss" all the considerations for a slow play.
The fact he flops a boat IS usually enough to slow play.
I do NOT "blame" him overly much for his decision to try slow palying the flop.

It is very easy after the act to point out the "mistakes" I did, but in the heat of the moment it is a helluva lot HARDER to avoid those mistakes. I thought I was making that side of my view of this hand clearer, but pre-facing my remarks as I did. Obvious, based on Trusty Sam's response, I wasn't clear enough...

The truth is though, they ARE mistakes...

If you pass up a greater EV spot, and allow yourself to run into a suck out, that is a "mistake".

I do not think one can call Widzy Widzy's response to the min bet on the turn a "mistake" at all, EXCEPT for the fact the 6400 commits him almost as much as jamming all in, but does not leverage the full fold equity he MIGHT (but almsot certainly does not) have in this spot.

By this I mean there is a MINISCULE chance that with a shove he may represent JJ, and get a 65 hand to fold...6400 does not do that at all. That is hugely far fetched though...and almost beggars me saying it to be honest...

The fact he does raise the 800...that is not really bad. He may get the INFO he needs to find out with the "dis-connect" min bet means. when the villain re-raises though, the fact widzywidzy did not jam over the 800, means he should probably FLAT. At that point there is tons of stuff that says he may be beaten.

Because there is a lot of stuff pointing to the fact his 4th nut hand is no good, why rush chips into the pot NOW? Why not flat the 12k bet, and pray the villain does not bet you all in on the river?

so dont get me wrong at all...

Is a fold possible? BARELY...BARELY...BARELY.

Is a flop jam going to end in the same result? YES...
But then that is results oriented thinking to use that as justification for playing it as played.

Is ANY ACTION by Widzy Widzy EXCEPT flat calling the min bet likely to result in him losing most, if not all his stack, and will that loss amount be totally and 100% at the discretion of the Villain here...YES.

so I'll be 100% honest: I am not certain I would play this ANY DIFFERENTLY than widzy widzy (except for betitng the flop) in the heat of battle.

...but that does not stop me from WISHING I had the skill to play it differently.

But that is only said in hind sight.

This was why I tried to express that I did NOT think WidzyWidzy can be faulted for BAD PLAY in the hand.

MAYBE Daniel Negreanu (or a tighter player like Phil Laak) could have found a fold here...I know I couldn't.

MAYBE Phil Hellmuth could dodge this bullet and not go broke completely. Me, I'd give myself MAYBE a 10% chance, if that, not to go bust here.

but because there IS somewhere in here the chance of not going bust, I thought it was worthwhile to approach this hand as I did...

If my post came off as TOO CRITICAL of WidzyWidzy's paly, I am sorry for that. That was not my intent.
 
Old
Default
Fri Aug 26, 2011, 11:38 PM
(#16)
TrustySam's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,291
BronzeStar
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDean View Post
I'm not going to deny I have "issues" with the OP.

If my post came off as TOO CRITICAL of WidzyWidzy's paly, I am sorry for that. That was not my intent.
I think it's playing with fire to start up something with somebody you feel you have 'issues' with.

If you were going to get involved in this thread because of the poker, why didn't you just ask him first why he didn't reraise before you rushed to judge? If you had then you would have seen why it most likely wouldn't have made any difference. End of discussion.

It kind of looks like you saw red and thought you saw an opportunity to 'best' him and 'win', and in so doing you went rushing in with "you didn't think" and "you failed" ... which is totally within your right. It's just a bit of a drag when poker discussions get bogged down by all this emotional sh!t because you have to wade through all of it to try and pick out the smallest bits of anything.

You know how I know the 3bet would have doomed him, is because that's what I always do, and big-stack-'sucky lucky' tends to call 100% of the time, even when I've been playing tight, because they're not really thinking about what other people have. And when you play against sombody like that, you need to have the best hand by the river, not just the flop. There's that school of thought too, that when you play against somebody like that (monster versus monster, big stack opponent), that the best course of action is to try and get to the river as cheaply as possible unless you believe you're ahead. Which I guess would have made the best option for damage control the fold after getting 4bet on the turn. Which is INCREDIBLY difficult. I'm not even sure folding would be considered the 'best' move ... maybe the call is, I don't know. In which case, this hand was doomed.

But it is nice that somebody brought up the 3bet on the flop possibility. Because I wasn't going to bother, and it was an option that wasn't being discussed ...

Last edited by TrustySam; Fri Aug 26, 2011 at 11:48 PM..
 
Old
Default
Fri Aug 26, 2011, 11:42 PM
(#17)
JDean's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,145
BronzeStar
to Trusty Sam:


Perhaps my post came off overly critical because I was pointing up the inconsistencies in the thought processes WidzyWidzy described himeself as having. Our decision processes, and the clarity and consistency of those, are the ONLY things we have upon which to base our decisions. One of the main reasons I found this hand interesting to respond to is THAT POINT...about consistency of thought...

I found it interesting that WidzyWidzy seemed to indicate he had every intent to stack off because his hand was good enough to do so...

He also stated he felt the villain's hand was good enough that he could have gotten HIM to stack off earlier...

He then states he saw no difference between stacking off as he did, and stacking off earlier in the hand, except for a tiny 1% chance raising early might get his opponent to fold.

I tried to address where I thought this reaosning fell apart in face of things which MIGHT have been seen. I also tried to mention that while they are easy to see after the fact, they are harder to see in the moment.

...but harder to see, does not mean we SHOULDN'T TRY to see them in the moment to become better players...

I doubt I'd have done much better in the hand myself, but that fact does not make pointing out inconsistencies or "mistakes" that can be seen in review any less valid.
 
Old
Default
Fri Aug 26, 2011, 11:49 PM
(#18)
TrustySam's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,291
BronzeStar
double post
 
Old
Default
Fri Aug 26, 2011, 11:53 PM
(#19)
TrustySam's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,291
BronzeStar
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDean View Post
to Trusty Sam:


Perhaps my post came off overly critical because I was pointing up the inconsistencies in the thought processes WidzyWidzy described himeself as having. Our decision processes, and the clarity and consistency of those, are the ONLY things we have upon which to base our decisions. One of the main reasons I found this hand interesting to respond to is THAT POINT...about consistency of thought...

I found it interesting that WidzyWidzy seemed to indicate he had every intent to stack off because his hand was good enough to do so...

He also stated he felt the villain's hand was good enough that he could have gotten HIM to stack off earlier...

He then states he saw no difference between stacking off as he did, and stacking off earlier in the hand, except for a tiny 1% chance raising early might get his opponent to fold.

I tried to address where I thought this reaosning fell apart in face of things which MIGHT have been seen. I also tried to mention that while they are easy to see after the fact, they are harder to see in the moment.

...but harder to see, does not mean we SHOULDN'T TRY to see them in the moment to become better players...

I doubt I'd have done much better in the hand myself, but that fact does not make pointing out inconsistencies or "mistakes" that can be seen in review any less valid.
There's just too much self-reflection in these kinds of posts ... I really just come here to try and improve my poker game. Obviously, you're free to post what you want - I just don't think for all your self-analysis you're actually being honest with yourself about your motives. jmo though
 
Old
Default
Fri Aug 26, 2011, 11:54 PM
(#20)
JDean's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,145
BronzeStar
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrustySam View Post
I think it's playing with fire to start up something with somebody you feel you have 'issues' with.
Agree...that's why I prefaced my statements saying I do not think he made any "obvious mistakes". I was trying to prevent an instant assumption I was only putting out what I did to continue a flame war...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrustySam View Post
If you were going to get involved in this thread because of the poker, why didn't you just ask him first why he didn't reraise before you rushed to judge? If you had then you would have seen why it most likely wouldn't have made any difference. End of discussion.
You miss the fact that HE SAID WHY he chose to do as he did and not raise.

I merely took his words, and pointed up WHY he was wrong to assume it did not matter.

Giving up a 99% chance to get 'em in good versus someone who will stack off, and thus laying a 6.3% to get sucked out on, and not having any real CLUE what card might come to put you at risk, is NOT a good trade off. If there were a 20% or 25% chance of the Villain folding...ok, THEN you may be giving up too much value by betting, since he will fold TOO OFTEN.

Widzy stated his reaosning clearly, and did not see that it held water. If he had a different reaosning process than that stated by him, then my response would have probably been different.

End of Discussion NOW as to that point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrustySam View Post
It kind of looks like you saw red and thought you saw an opportunity to 'best' him and 'win', and in so doing you went rushing in with "you didn't think" and "you failed" ... which is totally within your right. It's just a bit of a drag when poker discussions get bogged down by all this emotional sh!t because you have to wade through all of it to try and pick out the smallest bits of anything.

jmo
Let me ask you honestly: did you follow the entirety of what I wrote?

Did you notice that I based my reply to this hand 100% on what Widzy said about his own reasoning, and what he COULD have noticed in the hand?

Or did you merely read the stuff in bold type, and NOT see why I put that stuff in bold?

I tried 100% to stick to what Widzy himself claims to have been thinking. From that, I presented the inconsistency in his thinking (which is that on the 1 hand he seems willing to stack off, but not willing to do that early, and has no valid reaosn why stacking off early is "bad"...1% chance ain't good enough...)

If Widzy wants to refute my interpretation of what he wrote, I really do welcome that.

Something as MINOR as him saying

"ok, I over stated the 99% he has a 6 claim. It was probably somewhat less, and I felt that the raise would not get him to stack off if he did hold less"

Would change my ENTIRE Stated opinion of his paly of the hand. If that is the case, then this is pretty much a simple coller suck out.
 

Getting PokerStars is easy: download and install the PokerStars game software, create your free player account, and validate your email address. Clicking on the download poker button will lead to the installation of compatible poker software on your PC of 51.7 MB, which will enable you to register and play poker on the PokerStars platform. To uninstall PokerStars use the Windows uninstaller: click Start > Control Panel and then select Add or Remove programs > Select PokerStars and click Uninstall or Remove.

Copyright (c) PokerSchoolOnline.com. All rights reserved, Rational Group, Douglas Bay Complex, King Edward Road, Onchan, Isle of Man, IM3 1DZ. You can email us on support@pokerschoolonline.com