33 replies to this topic

[tskillz187]

Acid_Knight, on Thursday, October 4th, 2007, 1:58 PM, said:

I fancy myself a decent player (insert laugher from forum regulars) and I'd probably call you fairly quickly with a hand like JJ or AK and I might even call with AQ (probably not) depending on how I felt at the table. Your raise is large and it discourages action. This isn't a tournament situation where it benefits you to take down the blinds to increase your stack. I feel that if you really had a hand like AA/KK you'd raise half of your stack and shove any flop. I'd weight your range much more heavily towards hands like 88-QQ and AK and therefore I think I'd be in good shape calling with high middle pairs like JJ and TT and stuff.The fact is that this is a terrible play for the reasons that Naismith stated.

You suck at $1.25 SNGs.And at your blog challenge.

[dapokerbum]

aasurfer, on Thursday, October 4th, 2007, 1:41 PM, said:

i was looking for anybody out there with a similar scenario... opponents behaving in a way they hadn't for over an hour without explanation. despite the math not being there and the assumption that even the simplest of minds should be putting me on a monster based on my image and previous action. the other 2 decent players at the table were as shocked as i was at the action that developed and they couldn't offer an explanation. i only know the comments when the cards were revealed from the rest of the table were "i thought you had aces" and "i can't believe they called you with those hands". even though the play failed to win the pot immediately, i was still going to win the pot against those holdings my fair share of the time, 25%. i understand why some may disagree with my play, its a personal preference... but based on the situation i think it was well thought out and i don't think anybody can deny that its a +EV play. i just wish i had read the forum guidelines (it's been a while since i've posted) beforehand and didn't list my hand or theirs... i think the responses would have been much different if i had written i held AA

Well yes of course it would have been because you would have had AA and it would have been +EV for that even though it would have ultimately lost. blah blah blah what everyone else has said so far...NOT an +EV play

[Zach6668]

lol of course it would be different with AA. We want callers.bahahah this thread is a trainwreck.

[Acid_Knight]

tskillz187, on Thursday, October 4th, 2007, 2:10 PM, said:

You suck at $1.25 SNGs.And at your blog challenge.

The blog challenge died like 3 days after I started it. I can play super low limits online, but nothing lower than 2/5 in person.As for sucking at $1.25 SNGs, thanks for being results oriented. I'm fine at getting my money in as a 2-1, 3-1, 4-1 favorite, I just suck at making the odds hold up.

[Naismith]

aasurfer, on Thursday, October 4th, 2007, 1:41 PM, said:

i think the responses would have been much different if i had written i held AA

I think the responses would've been more along the lines of, "Why push? Do you know that they're calling stations? If not, make it 100 for value and push any flop."Unless you would've responded that you knew they'd call with AQ, A5 and T9, in which case we'd agree that overbet-pushing was a fantastic play for AA, but we wouldn't recommend doing it if you held, say, suited connectors.

[tskillz187]

Acid_Knight, on Thursday, October 4th, 2007, 2:14 PM, said:

The blog challenge died like 3 days after I started it. I can play super low limits online, but nothing lower than 2/5 in person.As for sucking at $1.25 SNGs, thanks for being results oriented. I'm fine at getting my money in as a 2-1, 3-1, 4-1 favorite, I just suck at making the odds hold up.

I don't even think you tried to refute either point.

[Acid_Knight]

tskillz187, on Thursday, October 4th, 2007, 2:16 PM, said:

I don't even think you tried to refute either point.

Hey, when you're right you're right. I just needed to clarify a few things.

[Acid_Knight]

Naismith, on Thursday, October 4th, 2007, 2:15 PM, said:

we wouldn't recommend doing it if you held, say, suited connectors.

[David_Nicoson]

Nice value bet?

equity 	win 	tie 		  pots won 	pots tied	Hand 0: 29.073%	  28.99% 	00.08% 			314872 		  859.25   { 7h6h }Hand 1: 14.875%	  13.70% 	01.18% 			148773 		12774.75   { As5s }Hand 2: 28.943%	  27.77% 	01.18% 			301552 		12774.75   { AdQs }Hand 3: 27.109%	  27.03% 	00.08% 			293543 		  859.25   { Ts9d }

The limp UTG with a suited connector playing short is a mistake. You didn't know this situation was going to develop. A good opportunity to squeeze did in fact materialize, but unfortunately they weren't afraid. This could be because of their perception of you, but I suspect it's just the size of your stack.

[NoBBiR]

aasurfer, on Thursday, October 4th, 2007, 11:49 AM, said:

that makes $99 in the pot as the action comes back to me... i move all in for $200 2nd calls5th callsbutton foldsbb callsWHAT?!?! that was unexpected to say the least. My evaluation of their hands was spot on... i just don't understand why they behaved as they did. 2nd: As5s5th: AdQsbb: 9d10sthe board comes down Ah9h9s 2s 10d and the BB wins with a full house.Again, i really thought what i was doing had an extremely good chance of increasing my stack by 50% with next to no risk but the entire table seemed to go crazy! Caro's "loose wiring" theory states that players don't know what they will do with their hands the majority of the time because there are not that many hands that are truly strong or truly weak. He says they act on a whim when the action comes to them. Any comments would be appreciated... was my thought process off in some way? or did i just run into a table gone crazy and some really bad luck?thanks,phil

In games less than 2/5, blowing up and super bluffing preflop is almost never +ev. People are just too stupid to play correctly, especially in Casinos. I understand why you did it, but you really have to have a strong read. I really hope you rebought and then used that insane image you just picked up to your advantage.

aasurfer, on Thursday, October 4th, 2007, 12:24 PM, said:

sorry but i disagree with you guys big time. my cards aren't the point and i said that to begin with. are you trying to tell me that on a table like that i should expect to be called for $170 limp reraise all in by A5s, AQo, and 910o? i knew what i was up against and made a play i'm surprised didn't work. consider the situation not the outcome... hopefully somebody out there can play beyond their cards and can give me a better opinion here. i'd like to know if anybody has had a similar situation in which players go haywire for no apparent reason. to me calling with anything less than KK is absurd.

Wrong. Calling you with anything less than AQ or about 66 is absurd, but it's going to happen - especially against stations in casinos. In order to pull off these plays you either have to have a super strong read, or be up against non stations. People don't care what you've shown down, they care about their own hands. You should be extremely happy with the hands that they called you with and that you weren't drawing dead before the river. It could, and should have ended up much worse. Hell, you even had the favorite going into the flop - you should have been ecstatic.

Acid_Knight, on Thursday, October 4th, 2007, 12:58 PM, said:

I fancy myself a decent player (insert laugher from forum regulars) and I'd probably call you fairly quickly with a hand like JJ or AK and I might even call with AQ (probably not) depending on how I felt at the table. Your raise is large and it discourages action. This isn't a tournament situation where it benefits you to take down the blinds to increase your stack. I feel that if you really had a hand like AA/KK you'd raise half of your stack and shove any flop. I'd weight your range much more heavily towards hands like 88-QQ and AK and therefore I think I'd be in good shape calling with high middle pairs like JJ and TT and stuff.The fact is that this is a terrible play for the reasons that Naismith stated.

*Snicker*

[aasurfer]

NoBBiR, on Thursday, October 4th, 2007, 7:52 PM, said:

In games less than 2/5, blowing up and super bluffing preflop is almost never +ev. People are just too stupid to play correctly, especially in Casinos. I understand why you did it, but you really have to have a strong read. I really hope you rebought and then used that insane image you just picked up to your advantage.Wrong. Calling you with anything less than AQ or about 66 is absurd, but it's going to happen - especially against stations in casinos. In order to pull off these plays you either have to have a super strong read, or be up against non stations. People don't care what you've shown down, they care about their own hands. You should be extremely happy with the hands that they called you with and that you weren't drawing dead before the river. It could, and should have ended up much worse. Hell, you even had the favorite going into the flop - you should have been ecstatic.*Snicker*

Thanks David & NobbirI guess most people think i'm an idiot and can't play after this post... but thank you guys for bringing up points to support my case. I remembered that the original raiser had AA twice during my time at the table, the first time he made it $25 and lost to J7o, the second time he made it $65 and proudly took down the blinds. based on that i knew he didn't have a big pair, the competent player calling from the button knew it was going to be a multiway pot for $30 pf so his flat call also indicated he didn't have a big pair or even a hand as good as AQ. The BB was loose and could have held anything, but he also was not so stupid as to go into a multiway pot without reraising pf. against that range my 67H fared quite well, and as the hand turned out i was getting the right price for the gamble. When i said doing what i did i believed was +EV it was because of my read on the table. i believed i was going to take it down without a fight at least 75% of the time, and if called it was by a lone decent ace and due to the dead money i would be getting a good price for the race. another factor i failed to include initially were stack sizes. at a capped 2/5 game i'm not advocating sitting with $200, but the stacks who called me were $600, $400, and $750 respectively. my stack represented between 1/4 in the worst case to 1/2 in the best. if they were all sitting on 2G i could understand throwing away a couple hundred on A5 and 910o from crappy players... but not a third of their stacks. i appreciate the input from everyone even those who think i'm a donkey! hopefully i'll have another hand for your amusement sometime soon. phil

[KramitDaToad]

When it came back to you there were 4 players, by your descriptions 2 weak, 1 loose and 1 solid. Your push acheived exactly what it should have - it got the solid players to fold.You got called by a weak calling station with a suited Ace (standard), another weaky with AQ (standard) and a gambler getting > 3-1 with a drawing hand (standard).Nobody played out of character there. Don't expect bad players to make good folds. You read the players and didn't adjust your game.

[Naismith]

aasurfer, on Sunday, October 7th, 2007, 12:19 PM, said:

I guess most people think i'm an idiot and can't play after this post... but thank you guys for bringing up points to support my case. When i said doing what i did i believed was +EV it was because of my read on the table.

This attitude isn't going to work here, really. We're not all judgmental pricks that are going to judge you based on one hand. However, one of the things that people really take exception to is the disguised brag post. By that, I mean, you didn't really come here looking for advice on your hand. You came here looking for us to say, "Wow, great read! I can't believe they called with such crappy hands!" That isn't going to work in terms of learning how to improve or making this forum a valuable educational tool for NL players. Unless you go to the Bored at Work thread, where you can do whatever you want. :)As to your point about your read, you need to understand that there are different types of reads. Your read that they held mediocre holdings was accurate and having that ability is an important part of poker and one you should be glad you've developed. Just as important is accurately reading the players playing those hands. Your read in that regard was horribly off. It's pointless to go, "Oh, that guy obviously has a weak ace" if you don't know how he'll respond to the move you make. Knowing he has a weak ace is great, pushing when he'll call with it is not great.Enjoy your stay here, bro. It's a good environment.

[aasurfer]

Naismith, on Monday, October 8th, 2007, 11:33 AM, said:

This attitude isn't going to work here, really. We're not all judgmental pricks that are going to judge you based on one hand. However, one of the things that people really take exception to is the disguised brag post. By that, I mean, you didn't really come here looking for advice on your hand. You came here looking for us to say, "Wow, great read! I can't believe they called with such crappy hands!" That isn't going to work in terms of learning how to improve or making this forum a valuable educational tool for NL players. Unless you go to the Bored at Work thread, where you can do whatever you want. :)As to your point about your read, you need to understand that there are different types of reads. Your read that they held mediocre holdings was accurate and having that ability is an important part of poker and one you should be glad you've developed. Just as important is accurately reading the players playing those hands. Your read in that regard was horribly off. It's pointless to go, "Oh, that guy obviously has a weak ace" if you don't know how he'll respond to the move you make. Knowing he has a weak ace is great, pushing when he'll call with it is not great.Enjoy your stay here, bro. It's a good environment.

i wasn't trying to brag Jay. I've learned a lot from a few of the responses. the concept of not throwing "pearls before swine" in a 2/5 game made a lot of sense... really no point to try to fool those people who will pay you everytime anyway. I routinely make the mistake of labeling a player as bad, and then expecting them to understand what i'm representing. based on the responses i've gotten, it seems to be a major leak in my game and i'm going to work to correct it, especially playing such low stakes. You bring up a very good point that knowing what my opponents have is not enough if i can't beat those cards. I can't continue to throw chips around because i would fold if faced with a similar bet and expect it to work against opponents who only know their two cards. Again if any of my posts seemed arrogant or out of line i appologize, i'm looking forward to discussing many more hands in the future here.thanks,phil