102 replies to this topic

[SCS]

Full Tilt Poker $0.25/$0.50 No Limit Hold'em - 6 playersThe Official DeucesCracked.com Hand History ConverterHero (CO): $61.15BTN: $123.80SB: $71.05BB: $55.65UTG: $8.25MP: $53.50Pre Flop: ($0.75) Hero is CO with Q J :diamond:UTG calls $0.50, 1 fold, Hero raises to $2.25, BTN calls $2.25, 3 foldsFlop: ($5.75) 9 2 T (2 players)Hero bets $3.75, BTN raises to $7.50, Hero raises to $20, BTN calls $12.50Turn: ($45.75) A (2 players)Hero bets $38.90 all inVillain is extremely loose fish. 87/9/2 over 100 hands. Villain's fold to cb was only 38%, so he's peeling flop with pretty much anything. Villain also didn't fold a lot of turn bets, though I didn't double barrel him often. Wasn't sure how much fold equity I had against villain on the turn shove.

[ABigMotivation]

I might just call his flop raise thinking i would be able to check raise the turn if i hit but i guess the 3-bet is ok. As played i shove the turn.

[pokerinc]

villian's calling a bunh then raises...I think I let myself get a cheap draw w/ good odds against a villian who an't fold when i hit.

[psujohn]

As played the turn is certainly a shove and you really don't need any FE - though of course you'd be happy if he folded. I give you somewhere around 40% equity and you're getting better than 2:1 on a shove.Against this villain I think c/c the flop is probably better since I don't see him getting away from his hand if the flush or especially the str8 comes in. I also suspect that a Q or J are outs for you at least part of the time. An agg factor of 2 for a guy who plays 87% of pots is actually pretty high and I think he'd do this a lot with a T and maybe worse.

[BaseJester]

I propose that Simo do a lot of calculations and then we say, "**** math, shove."

[BaseJester]

SCS, on Saturday, September 6th, 2008, 11:30 PM, said:

Flop: ($5.75) 9 2 T (2 players)Hero bets $3.75, BTN raises to $7.50, Hero raises to $20, BTN calls $12.50

If you're going to raise the flop, raise you like you ****ing mean it. What do you want to happen here? I'm pretty sure it's not get to the turn with the stack size you did.

[Snamuh]

Hand looks good to me. I might raise to 22 on the flop but I don't hate the sizing here either because it sets up a good turn shove amount. Nice hand.

[NoBBiR]

BaseJester, on Sunday, September 7th, 2008, 9:59 AM, said:

If you're going to raise the flop, raise you like you ****ing mean it. What do you want to happen here? I'm pretty sure it's not get to the turn with the stack size you did.

What's wrong with his stack size in relation to the pot on the turn? He had less than a pot bet left.

[Snamuh]

BaseJester, on Sunday, September 7th, 2008, 1:59 PM, said:

If you're going to raise the flop, raise you like you ****ing mean it. What do you want to happen here? I'm pretty sure it's not get to the turn with the stack size you did.

I think the turn stack size is great in relation to the pot. And this turn card is probably not going to be great for villain, so it's a great shove card to maximize fold equity (though I'd probably shove just about any turn).

[BaseJester]

Snamuh, on Sunday, September 7th, 2008, 5:20 PM, said:

I think the turn stack size is great in relation to the pot. And this turn card is probably not going to be great for villain, so it's a great shove card to maximize fold equity (though I'd probably shove just about any turn).

On what street do you think the hero made money?It's the same damn hand as the other thread, and it's pretty meaningless to deem a play a correct with no notion of how often he folds. It would stand to reason from the description that it's very seldom, in which case the hero loses money on the turn action. Against a player who can fold, it would be a good line.

[Snamuh]

BaseJester, on Sunday, September 7th, 2008, 7:11 PM, said:

On what street do you think the hero made money?It's the same damn hand as the other thread, and it's pretty meaningless to deem a play a correct with no notion of how often he folds. It would stand to reason from the description that it's very seldom, in which case the hero loses money on the turn action. Against a player who can fold, it would be a good line.

Because a huge donk is going to have a one pair here a LOT, and a ton of them are going to fold the turn (or we're going to be getting it in with around 40% equity).It's a pretty simple concept. We currently have Q hi. We would prefer to win by making them fold. We're obviously not folding if we check and he shoves. Aggression is good. Passive is meh (usually you prefer being aggressive to being passive).I don't know how you don't understand this. You made a lot of retarded posts in the other threads, and you continue to fill this thread with your stupidity. Your bolded part makes me say "wat." In poker, we take perceived ranges and make educated guesses about the best line to take. In this case, I think 3betting flop and shoving turn is CLEARLY the correct play. Donks like this love to minraise flops with a ton of garbage, ESPECIALLY weak top pair hands. We have ridiculous equity vs his range on the flop, and still have a ton of equity vs his range on the turn. And to answer your first question, hero makes money on every street vs this kind of donk.

[IQCrash]

Snamuh, on Sunday, September 7th, 2008, 4:41 PM, said:

Because a huge donk is going to have a one pair here a LOT, and a ton of them are going to fold the turn (or we're going to be getting it in with around 40% equity).It's a pretty simple concept. We currently have Q hi. We would prefer to win by making them fold. We're obviously not folding if we check and he shoves. Aggression is good. Passive is meh (usually you prefer being aggressive to being passive).I don't know how you don't understand this. You made a lot of retarded posts in the other threads, and you continue to fill this thread with your stupidity. Your bolded part makes me say "wat." In poker, we take perceived ranges and make educated guesses about the best line to take. In this case, I think 3betting flop and shoving turn is CLEARLY the correct play. Donks like this love to minraise flops with a ton of garbage, ESPECIALLY weak top pair hands. We have ridiculous equity vs his range on the flop, and still have a ton of equity vs his range on the turn. And to answer your first question, hero makes money on every street vs this kind of donk.

I just want to say this is beautiful, and well put.

[BaseJester]

Snamuh, on Sunday, September 7th, 2008, 7:41 PM, said:

Because a huge donk is going to have a one pair here a LOT, and a ton of them are going to fold the turn (or we're going to be getting it in with around 40% equity).It's a pretty simple concept. We currently have Q hi. We would prefer to win by making them fold. We're obviously not folding if we check and he shoves. Aggression is good. Passive is meh (usually you prefer being aggressive to being passive).I don't know how you don't understand this. You made a lot of retarded posts in the other threads, and you continue to fill this thread with your stupidity. Your bolded part makes me say "wat." In poker, we take perceived ranges and make educated guesses about the best line to take. In this case, I think 3betting flop and shoving turn is CLEARLY the correct play. Donks like this love to minraise flops with a ton of garbage, ESPECIALLY weak top pair hands. We have ridiculous equity vs his range on the flop, and still have a ton of equity vs his range on the turn. And to answer your first question, hero makes money on every street vs this kind of donk.

What do you have against numbers? Did one kick your dog or something? How often do you think he folds the turn? It doesn't have to be a ton to break even, but can I put you down on record as saying more than 25%?There's no real value betting going on preflop. An unpaired hand isn't enough of a favorite to pay the rake.It's unlikely (but possible) that we're a significant favorite on the flop. *We're very likely a dog on the turn, so we're only making money on the folds. The whole key to understanding the profit in the hand is how often he folds the turn. Love the condescension. Keep it up.* I was thinking of two overs and a flush draw without the straight draw when I wrote this. We can certainly bet for value on the flop. I stand corrected.

[BaseJester]

psujohn, on Sunday, September 7th, 2008, 11:15 AM, said:

As played the turn is certainly a shove and you really don't need any FE -

Yes, yes you do. If he NEVER folds and once in a billion years he checks behind, then we should check the turn.Does everybody want to just ignore that for some reason?I don't want to get to the turn this way because I think he'll call the turn a lot. ("Oh crap, I'm pot committed. I guess I'll call. Whatever. Calling is fun.") I want to wager MORE on the flop so that I don't put money in as a dog on the turn or LESS on the flop so that my bet on the turn will be more likely to cause a fold.

[IQCrash]

BaseJester, on Sunday, September 7th, 2008, 5:09 PM, said:

What do you have against numbers? Did one kick your dog or something? How often do you think he folds the turn? It doesn't have to be a ton to break even, but can I put you down on record as saying more than 25%?There's no real value betting going on preflop. An unpaired hand isn't enough of a favorite to pay the rake.It's unlikely (but possible) that we're a significant favorite on the flop.We're very likely a dog on the turn, so we're only making money on the folds. The whole key to understanding the profit in the hand is how often he folds the turn. Love the condescension. Keep it up.

equity 	win 	tie 		  pots won 	pots tied	Hand 0: 	51.939%	  51.76% 	00.18% 			  7686 		   27.00   { QdJd }Hand 1: 	48.061%	  47.88% 	00.18% 			  7110 		   27.00   { QQ+ }	equity 	win 	tie 		  pots won 	pots tied	Hand 0: 	53.333%	  53.33% 	00.00% 			  3168 			0.00   { QdJd }Hand 1: 	46.667%	  46.67% 	00.00% 			  2772 			0.00   { T9o }	equity 	win 	tie 		  pots won 	pots tied	Hand 0: 	67.508%	  67.51% 	00.00% 			  6015 			0.00   { QdJd }Hand 1: 	32.492%	  32.49% 	00.00% 			  2895 			0.00   { ATo }	equity 	win 	tie 		  pots won 	pots tied	Hand 0: 	64.033%	  63.82% 	00.21% 			 24642 		   81.00   { QdJd }Hand 1: 	35.967%	  35.76% 	00.21% 			 13806 		   81.00   { ATo+ }	equity 	win 	tie 		  pots won 	pots tied	Hand 0: 	42.121%	  42.12% 	00.00% 			  1251 			0.00   { QdJd }Hand 1: 	57.879%	  57.88% 	00.00% 			  1719 			0.00   { 99 }

[IQCrash]

BaseJester, on Sunday, September 7th, 2008, 5:39 PM, said:

Yes, yes you do. If he NEVER folds and once in a billion years he checks behind, then we should check the turn.Does everybody want to just ignore that for some reason?I don't want to get to the turn this way because I think he'll call the turn a lot. ("Oh crap, I'm pot committed. I guess I'll call. Whatever. Calling is fun.") I want to wager MORE on the flop so that I don't put money in as a dog on the turn or LESS on the flop so that my bet on the turn be more likely to cause a fold.

And you seem to be ignoring the fact that villain is running 87/9/2. He can literally show up with just K high here half the time, let alone the number of times he shows up with just one pair. This turn shove is so ridiculously standard I don't even know why we're discussing it.

[BaseJester]

IQCrash, on Sunday, September 7th, 2008, 8:45 PM, said:

equity	 win	 tie		   pots won	 pots tied		 equity	 win	 tie		   pots won	 pots tied	 Hand 0:	 64.033%	  63.82%	 00.21%			  24642			81.00   { QdJd } Hand 1:	 35.967%	  35.76%	 00.21%			  13806			81.00   { ATo+ }

That's better than I thought. 3:2 against the whole range, let's say. Do you have any objection to a bigger bet on the flop?

[BaseJester]

IQCrash, on Sunday, September 7th, 2008, 8:48 PM, said:

This turn shove is so ridiculously standard I don't even know why we're discussing it.

We weren't until the Panda gave a reason that I believe is demonstrably false. I questioned why we set up the turn play in the first place, but that's not really the same thing.

[NoBBiR]

BaseJester, on Sunday, September 7th, 2008, 4:39 PM, said:

Yes, yes you do. If he NEVER folds and once in a billion years he checks behind, then we should check the turn.Does everybody want to just ignore that for some reason?

People don't "NEVER fold." The whole point of being aggressive here and shoving the turn is because when we have a big hand like a set, we're never checking the turn. If we don't balance our range, any player with half a brain will know exactly where we are when we bet and when we check. Even when we're playing a moron like this who is playing nearly 90 percent of his hands, other people are at the table, and a few are watching you intently.That ace is a TERRIBLE card for the villain in this hand unless he holds a few exact hands (AT, A9, Set, NFD). It only adds to our fold equity, especially against an idiot who plays like this because their thought process for calling the flop with JT or KT is "Heh, he probably is trying to barrel me off top pair with AK, I'M NOT FOLDING THE TOPPEST PAIR IDIOT!" Then the turn comes and they puke in their mouths when we shove.

BaseJester, on Sunday, September 7th, 2008, 5:03 PM, said:

That's better than I thought. 3:2 against the whole range, let's say. Do you have any objection to a bigger bet on the flop?

Again, unless you're interested in trying to make it look like you're just trying to buy the pot, no, a bigger bet on the flop doesn't change anything. We put in half our money before the turn came, so unless we're shoving the flop, raising anything more than a few more dollars doesn't matter.

[BaseJester]

NoBBiR, on Sunday, September 7th, 2008, 9:28 PM, said:

People don't "NEVER fold." The whole point of being aggressive here and shoving the turn is because when we have a big hand like a set, we're never checking the turn. If we don't balance our range, any player with half a brain will know exactly where we are when we bet and when we check. Even when we're playing a moron like this who is playing nearly 90 percent of his hands, other people are at the table, and a few are watching you intently.

I think you're making sense here. It's just different than what I'm responding to. If you think the villain never folds, you shouldn't bet here. We would, in that case, have no "fold equity" and a shove would be a mistake. It's pure logic.The whole notion of balancing a range assumes that the villain is capable of folding.

Quote

That ace is a TERRIBLE card for the villain in this hand unless he holds a few exact hands (AT, A9, Set, NFD). It only adds to our fold equity, especially against an idiot who plays like this because their thought process for calling the flop with JT or KT is "Heh, he probably is trying to barrel me off top pair with AK, I'M NOT FOLDING THE TOPPEST PAIR IDIOT!" Then the turn comes and they puke in their mouths when we shove.

I like what you're saying here. We were, however, fortunate to receive an ace on the turn. If the turn bricks something else, he still loves his top pair against our phantom AK.

Quote

Again, unless you're interested in trying to make it look like you're just trying to buy the pot, no, a bigger bet on the flop doesn't change anything. We put in half our money before the turn came, so unless we're shoving the flop, raising anything more than a few more dollars doesn't matter.

Shoving the flop is exactly what I'm talking about. Bet the pot and raise twice the pot when he minraises.