Jump to content


Can I Fold Kk Here?


  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

#21 jmbreslin

jmbreslin

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 4,788 posts
  • Favorite Poker Game:8-Game

Posted 21 May 2008 - 12:57 PM

Very interesting, it's not often Cop is in the minority on a hand like this. It makes me wonder when checking for pot control is appropriate, generally speaking.
“Integrity is doing the right thing, even if nobody is watching." - Anonymous

#22 copernicus

copernicus

    Poker Forum God

  • Members
  • 10,676 posts
  • Interests:Hockey; poker...duh

Posted 21 May 2008 - 01:00 PM

View Postjmbreslin, on Wednesday, May 21st, 2008, 1:57 PM, said:

Very interesting, it's not often Cop is in the minority on a hand like this. It makes me wonder when checking for pot control is appropriate, generally speaking.
I dont know that Im in the minority here. Note that I said bet less on both streets, or given the size of the flop bet check behind here. I much prefer betting on both streets, but not when it builds the pot to the size where you're forced to consider calling when its fairly obvious youre behind.
___________


Wave upon wave of Demented Avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.



#23 Sheiky

Sheiky

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 4,734 posts
  • Location:Liverpool, England
  • Interests:Poker, sports, music
  • Favorite Poker Game:None, everyone hates poker

Posted 21 May 2008 - 01:09 PM

Yeh i see know reason to check here'pot control' is just another one of these mythical terms people talk about that are so vague and often misaplied.

#24 copernicus

copernicus

    Poker Forum God

  • Members
  • 10,676 posts
  • Interests:Hockey; poker...duh

Posted 21 May 2008 - 01:35 PM

View PostSheiky, on Wednesday, May 21st, 2008, 2:09 PM, said:

Yeh i see know reason to check here'pot control' is just another one of these mythical terms people talk about that are so vague and often misaplied.
rofl
___________


Wave upon wave of Demented Avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.



#25 simo_8ball

simo_8ball

    Multipass

  • Members
  • 9,277 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Favorite Poker Game:PLO/NLHE

Posted 21 May 2008 - 02:19 PM

View PostSheiky, on Wednesday, May 21st, 2008, 10:09 PM, said:

'pot control' is just another one of these mythical terms people talk about that are so vague and often misaplied.
I agree that it is vague and often misapplied, but it is a very important and underrated concept.Pot control is not just about keeping pots smaller, it is about keeping the pot at the size you want it, looking at the potential pot on future streets and the stack sizes.

#26 Swiftfish

Swiftfish

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 13 posts
  • Favorite Poker Game:Pot Limit Omaha

Posted 21 May 2008 - 02:52 PM

I said earlier it looks like you're beat, either with a set of 3s or the goofy straight. I think one of the reasons for this would be that top pair in this situation would lead out on either the turn or the flop. There's no way on a board like that you'd risk someone checking behind you and hitting their draw.

#27 Sheiky

Sheiky

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 4,734 posts
  • Location:Liverpool, England
  • Interests:Poker, sports, music
  • Favorite Poker Game:None, everyone hates poker

Posted 21 May 2008 - 03:11 PM

View Postsimo_8ball, on Wednesday, May 21st, 2008, 11:19 PM, said:

I agree that it is vague and often misapplied, but it is a very important and underrated concept.Pot control is not just about keeping pots smaller, it is about keeping the pot at the size you want it, looking at the potential pot on future streets and the stack sizes.
Yes, where most people apply it it's almost exactly THIS situation and the phrase 'Oh ya check the turn...pot control...ya know?' The phrase 'I'm gonna play pot control' annoys me.

#28 TravisG

TravisG

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,376 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:germany

Posted 21 May 2008 - 04:35 PM

i still think this is a very bad spot for pot control. this is not one of these spots where you gain a very small +EV edge by betting... it's not a longshot. the EV advantage is huge, and hero has villains range CRUSHED. giving villain a free shot at at least a few outs is just horrible here, since we probably pay off any river other than a river that pairs the board (except of a 3).when villain just calls that flop (he's a passive player), he will pay our bets off with holdings as bad as A3 for bottom pair (read the notes that hero has given us!).

#29 copernicus

copernicus

    Poker Forum God

  • Members
  • 10,676 posts
  • Interests:Hockey; poker...duh

Posted 21 May 2008 - 06:36 PM

View PostTravisG, on Wednesday, May 21st, 2008, 5:35 PM, said:

i still think this is a very bad spot for pot control. this is not one of these spots where you gain a very small +EV edge by betting... it's not a longshot. the EV advantage is huge, and hero has villains range CRUSHED. giving villain a free shot at at least a few outs is just horrible here, since we probably pay off any river other than a river that pairs the board (except of a 3).when villain just calls that flop (he's a passive player), he will pay our bets off with holdings as bad as A3 for bottom pair (read the notes that hero has given us!).
No, hero doesnt have villains range crushed with these stacks and the betting line he took. At best he's got 24 AT, JJ,QQ vs 18 AA or sets, and AT OOP is questionable unless hero has been stealing frequently.Re pot control, outside of shortstack play, its only the most important aspect of tournament poker.
___________


Wave upon wave of Demented Avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.



#30 TravisG

TravisG

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,376 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:germany

Posted 22 May 2008 - 01:56 AM

View Postcopernicus, on Thursday, May 22nd, 2008, 4:36 AM, said:

No, hero doesnt have villains range crushed with these stacks and the betting line he took. At best he's got 24 AT, JJ,QQ vs 18 AA or sets, and AT OOP is questionable unless hero has been stealing frequently.Re pot control, outside of shortstack play, its only the most important aspect of tournament poker.
i think you're still missing the fact that this is a DONKEY. saying AT is questionable OOP is just wrong. i think hands like K8s are questionable but still likely. JT QT KT 9T are definately in his range. he never has AA KK QQ or JJ here i think. and i think you're talking a little bit results orientated, since he raises the turn after hero bets. of course as the betting came down it looks like hero is beaten for sure but hero doesn't know that until he actually bets the turn. against a passive player like this you gain huge value by valuebetting your hand.

#31 simo_8ball

simo_8ball

    Multipass

  • Members
  • 9,277 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Favorite Poker Game:PLO/NLHE

Posted 22 May 2008 - 02:15 AM

View Postcopernicus, on Thursday, May 22nd, 2008, 3:36 AM, said:

No, hero doesnt have villains range crushed with these stacks and the betting line he took. At best he's got 24 AT, JJ,QQ vs 18 AA or sets, and AT OOP is questionable unless hero has been stealing frequently.Re pot control, outside of shortstack play, its only the most important aspect of tournament poker.
With AA and TT reraising preflop you can discount those heavily. With sets being more likely to raise the flop than a naked ten you can discount those further.His most likely hands are ATs, KTs, QTs, JTs, T9s, 98s, 87s. Add some offsuit tens too.Think about it like this:If we bet the turn and we are betting against his entire range. He is never folding a ten.We check the turn and call the river and we are getting that same money in against a far stronger subset of his hands.What am I missing?

#32 fornicator1

fornicator1

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:KENYA
  • Favorite Poker Game:Hold Em, NL or Fixed

Posted 22 May 2008 - 03:05 AM

View Postcopernicus, on Wednesday, May 21st, 2008, 2:11 PM, said:

guess not!Seriously, I think if 4.40 players want to be able to move up successfully then developing skills like pot control and rational hand reading are essential. Yes, you may give up some EV folding hands like this at the 4.40 level, but it'll save your a$$ at $30+ buyins. If youre content at the 4.40 level and crushing them by adapting to the bad play, have fun.
A little off topic but this post got me thinking. I pretty much play only 440's and micro mtt's and I have been rather successful as of late. I definitely want to move up to higer buyins when my ability/bankroll allows for it. What this post makes me worry is, am I developing bad habits that allow me to win at the micro stakes but will cost me when I move up. Is that something that everyone deals with when moving up, getting rid of the bad habits that were profitable at the lower levels but -ev at the higher levels. Am I just rambling or does anyone understand what I'm saying lol.
POKERSTARS: fornicator1(Platte City)
FULL TILT: fornicator1
ABSOLUTE: kegdrainer
AIM:fornicator11

ISACF

what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent post were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone who read this is now dumber for having done so. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

#33 mk

mk

    nord-américain racaille

  • Members
  • 9,873 posts

Posted 22 May 2008 - 05:25 AM

cop, i'm sorry but all your posts in this thread are hilariously terribad results-oriented nonsense. your line of pot control would maybe MAYBE be ok in like a live $1k+ nitfest against a player who is 50 years old+ or something, but this is a gd online $4 tourney where people stack off with queen-high, gutshots, etc, and i'm not exaggerating at all.

#34 copernicus

copernicus

    Poker Forum God

  • Members
  • 10,676 posts
  • Interests:Hockey; poker...duh

Posted 22 May 2008 - 07:32 AM

tough to have been results oriented when Ive consistently said the same thing since before results were posted. If youve read my posts for the last 2 months pot control has become the primary focus of my play, it is so crticial. I dont care if its a 4.40 or a $1500, as Edog says, overplaying big pockets is the most common mistake amateurs make. Even Gus Hansen discusses it several times in Every Hand Revealed. I admit I cant "mentally step down to 4.40" level, and if I had to in order think through a thread, I wouldnt. If the play is as bad as you say they are unbeatable anyway. You can beat one or two donkeys but you cant beat 150 of them.(Oh, and be very careful stereotyping play by age, lol.)
___________


Wave upon wave of Demented Avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.



#35 copernicus

copernicus

    Poker Forum God

  • Members
  • 10,676 posts
  • Interests:Hockey; poker...duh

Posted 22 May 2008 - 07:46 AM

View Postfornicator1, on Thursday, May 22nd, 2008, 4:05 AM, said:

A little off topic but this post got me thinking. I pretty much play only 440's and micro mtt's and I have been rather successful as of late. I definitely want to move up to higer buyins when my ability/bankroll allows for it. What this post makes me worry is, am I developing bad habits that allow me to win at the micro stakes but will cost me when I move up. Is that something that everyone deals with when moving up, getting rid of the bad habits that were profitable at the lower levels but -ev at the higher levels. Am I just rambling or does anyone understand what I'm saying lol.
If you think about what you are doing and how your play might differ at higher stakes then the adjustment shouldnt be too horrible. If you robotically make reads that are natural for the stakes level then yes, you are developing bad habits. This thread is a good example. Villain has been stereotyped as a "4.40 donkey" (even the OP describes a play before this hand critically, when, at least on the details presented it may not have been that bad). That stereotyping is causing what to me was a fairly obvious read to be ignored, and it only takes one mistake like this a tournament to be crippled.
___________


Wave upon wave of Demented Avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.



#36 simo_8ball

simo_8ball

    Multipass

  • Members
  • 9,277 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Favorite Poker Game:PLO/NLHE

Posted 22 May 2008 - 07:53 AM

View Postcopernicus, on Thursday, May 22nd, 2008, 4:32 PM, said:

tough to have been results oriented when Ive consistently said the same thing since before results were posted.
You're missing the point. We know that he is checkraising the turn. That's the 'result' mk is talking about. If we knew he was going to checkraise we would obviously check behind, and I too think you are being biased by this.If you think Edog or Gus Hansen would check behind here you are sorely mistaken. Give me 10 mins and I'll post this in HSMTT. I don't think there will be a single person advocating either pot control or betting small here.

View Postcopernicus, on Thursday, May 22nd, 2008, 4:32 PM, said:

If the play is as bad as you say they are unbeatable anyway. You can beat one or two donkeys but you cant beat 150 of them.
I despise this train of thought, even if it is a joke.

#37 simo_8ball

simo_8ball

    Multipass

  • Members
  • 9,277 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Favorite Poker Game:PLO/NLHE

Posted 22 May 2008 - 08:02 AM

View Postcopernicus, on Thursday, May 22nd, 2008, 4:46 PM, said:

it only takes one mistake like this a tournament to be crippled.
There we have the number one phrase in the weak tight playbook. Sorry, but it's true. It seems like your mindset and advice is always about avoiding going broke instead of maximising value. Here we can win his whole stack if we bet correctly. Instead you're looking to win a small pot, and I really have no idea why.If you change it so there was a flush draw on the flop and it completed on the turn then yeah, fine, check back. When the flop is that dry and his range is generally polarised to sets or a pair of tens, checking makes no sense.

#38 copernicus

copernicus

    Poker Forum God

  • Members
  • 10,676 posts
  • Interests:Hockey; poker...duh

Posted 22 May 2008 - 08:13 AM

View Postsimo_8ball, on Thursday, May 22nd, 2008, 9:02 AM, said:

There we have the number one phrase in the weak tight playbook. Sorry, but it's true. It seems like your mindset and advice is always about avoiding going broke instead of maximising value. Here we can win his whole stack if we bet correctly. Instead you're looking to win a small pot, and I really have no idea why.If you change it so there was a flush draw on the flop and it completed on the turn then yeah, fine, check back. When the flop is that dry and his range is generally polarised to sets or a pair of tens, checking makes no sense.
Read some cash books and watch some cardrunners videos, Bond18 talks about pot control quite a bit if I remember correctly. I totally disagree that maximizing thin value is profitable in tournaments when doing so can cripple you. Yes, you can win his whole stack, you can also lose nearly your whole stack, and the read is not that obscure. Small pots for small hands, and by the turn a single big pair is a small hand.
___________


Wave upon wave of Demented Avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.



#39 copernicus

copernicus

    Poker Forum God

  • Members
  • 10,676 posts
  • Interests:Hockey; poker...duh

Posted 22 May 2008 - 08:18 AM

View Postsimo_8ball, on Thursday, May 22nd, 2008, 8:53 AM, said:

I despise this train of thought, even if it is a joke.
Why would you hate this train of thought? You of all people should understand the math...if the competition is undreadable and youre guessing whenever you play for stacks, you cant beat the rake consistently.
___________


Wave upon wave of Demented Avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.



#40 TravisG

TravisG

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,376 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:germany

Posted 22 May 2008 - 08:43 AM

yeah maximizing thin value in a tournament is sometimes wrong, because maximizing thin chip-EV value is sometimes -EV, thats because an event in a tournament is not totally indepented from previous events, like in cash games, for example.but this is not thin value. i can't emphasize that enough. that is a typical passive 4.40 donkey. you would laugh if you could see with which kind of hands they pay your bets off.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users