129 replies to this topic

[gilbertology]

If we fold, we don't get to see his cards. Don't you wanna know?

[shpaget]

gilbertology, on Wednesday, October 18th, 2006, 1:21 PM, said:

If we fold, we don't get to see his cards. Don't you wanna know?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, and I'll believe it until the day I croak - I don't need to see his cards to sleep at night.If I fold I've convinced myself I'm beat...I don't need the visual confirmation.

[simo_8ball]

Acid_Knight, on Wednesday, October 18th, 2006, 10:18 PM, said:

Just becuase your play was designed to induce a bluff, doesn't mean that he IS bluffing and that doesn't mean that we have to call off our whole stack.The whole idea behind this post is that whatever hand he has, whether we're beating it or not, has been played extremely strangely, as has our own hand. I just think that based on the information, that we're too unsure of his holding to make this profitable given our current pot odds.When I feel like I am unsure of his hand to this extent, I'm going to fold in a tournament situation with my life on the line. If the same thing happened in a cash game, I'd scratch my head and say, "ok, I'll pay it off" or something like that because I can afford to pay for information and I can afford to be wrong. Here you cannot. There are no more cards to come. You're either winning or you're not and if you're wrong and make the call, it is a MUCH BIGGER mistake than being wrong and folding, IMO. I can be wrong, make a bad fold and still be in fine shape in the tourney. The same cannot be said about making the wrong call.

If we aren't going to call when he bluffs, why are we betting an amount designed to induce a bluff? Once we bet small on the turn and don't get raised, it is likely we are ahead. The river changes nothing.Why the hell would he shove a straight/set/two pair against a guy who appears quite weak? Whatever he's trying to sell, I'm not buying it.This can EASILY be a bluff. This can easily be a missed straight/flush draw

[Acid_Knight]

simo_8ball, on Wednesday, October 18th, 2006, 3:11 PM, said:

Why the hell would he shove a straight/set/two pair against a guy who appears quite weak? Whatever he's trying to sell, I'm not buying it.This can EASILY be a bluff. This can easily be a missed straight/flush draw

If you're sure he's bluffing, you call. That's the whole idea of the post. It's tough to know where he's at, the way the hand played out.If I had a hand that I could play like the nuts, then this is an awesome river bet. With our raise on the button and funky play in the hand, we are likely to have a huge hand or nothing at all. (This is a weird case where we have a strong hand that is easily beaten.)If he realizes that we are either super strong or super weak, then his push is brilliant. Let's say he has JT and has the nuts. Well, the way that we've played the hand, we likely flopped a set or we dont' have much of anything. If he's figured that out, then he knows that we're likely to fold our crappy hand to any bet, be it big or little. In the case that we have a monster, we're obviosuly going to call and lose all of our chips to him.People do it all of the time. They overbet with the nuts because it looks like a bluff becuase they know you're thinking "who'd bet that big if they had a real hand?" It's a good play if they get called. If they fold, you lost a lot of value though.

simo_8ball, on Wednesday, October 18th, 2006, 3:11 PM, said:

If we aren't going to call when he bluffs, why are we betting an amount designed to induce a bluff? Once we bet small on the turn and don't get raised, it is likely we are ahead. The river changes nothing.

Just because we bet an amount designed to induce a bluff, it doesn't mean that he's bluffing when he bets. That's a pretty simple concept.Of course the river changed nothing. That doesn't mean that he wasn't trapping on the turn. You've never played a hand where a guy check calls when the flop comes with 2 spades, check calls again on the turn when a 3rd spade falls and then leads out when the river comes and it was a blank? The river doesn't make a difference, he had the nuts on the turn. People play like this all of the time.

[iggymcfly]

I refuse to answer this question, because we played it so badly up to this point. I'd never ever check the flop in that spot. All we're doing is refusing to put money in the pot in a spot where we're ahead, but still vulnerable. It's a terrible case of FPS. Also, since villian expects us to bet with anything there, we're basically telling him that we have nothing or a monster making it even harder to get paid off if we show strength later on. I guess as played, I'd have to call the river since the only hand that's beating us is A3s, and it really does look like we have KK here. I could easily see villian missing some sort of draw and then thinking he can get us off the hand at the end because we don't have an ace. I don't think he can possibly put us on AK the way we played it, he'll either think we have almost nothing or a monster, and neither one of those is something he'd want to overbet all-in with even if he did have A3.OK, I changed my mind about the question as I was typing out this post. It's a good question and it's a call. The point is that villian can't put us on a medium strength hand, he's either going to read us as weak or for a monster. As such, he's not going to overbet a real hand into us. If he's got the straight, he'll C/R the river or bet it small looking to reraise, and if he's got two pair, he'll either c/c or make a smallish value bet. Since he won't expect us to pay off an overbet without a huge hand, the only logical conclusion is that he's trying to bluff us off the pot.

[Acid_Knight]

iggymcfly, on Wednesday, October 18th, 2006, 4:11 PM, said:

I refuse to answer this question, because we played it so badly up to this point. I'd never ever check the flop in that spot. All we're doing is refusing to put money in the pot in a spot where we're ahead, but still vulnerable. It's a terrible case of FPS. Also, since villian expects us to bet with anything there, we're basically telling him that we have nothing or a monster making it even harder to get paid off if we show strength later on. I guess as played, I'd have to call the river since the only hand that's beating us is A3s, and it really does look like we have KK here. I could easily see villian missing some sort of draw and then thinking he can get us off the hand at the end because we don't have an ace. I don't think he can possibly put us on AK the way we played it, he'll either think we have almost nothing or a monster, and neither one of those is something he'd want to overbet all-in with even if he did have A3.OK, I changed my mind about the question as I was typing out this post. It's a good question and it's a call. The point is that villian can't put us on a medium strength hand, he's either going to read us as weak or for a monster. As such, he's not going to overbet a real hand into us. If he's got the straight, he'll C/R the river or bet it small looking to reraise, and if he's got two pair, he'll either c/c or make a smallish value bet. Since he won't expect us to pay off an overbet without a huge hand, the only logical conclusion is that he's trying to bluff us off the pot.

A9, A8, A7, A3, JT, 56, T6, 33, 77, 88, 99, 78, 79, 89Yup. Only A3 beats us.Check-raising the river seems retarded since the way the hand has played out, it's a realistic possibility that we have nothing and won't bet anyway.

[yergan]

shpaget, on Wednesday, October 18th, 2006, 11:08 PM, said:

you played tricky to entice him to bet...he bet...call.

Agreed.

[Head_Trauma]

DanielNegreanu, on Tuesday, October 17th, 2006, 10:56 PM, said:

without knowing ANYTHING about the player

This is impossible. Even if it is the first hand dealt, you know something about the player by looking at him. This info would help make the decision a lot easier. Young, cocky looking internet player? Insta-call this donk-bet.

[simo_8ball]

Head_Trauma, on Thursday, October 19th, 2006, 7:20 AM, said:

This is impossible. Even if it is the first hand dealt, you know something about the player by looking at him. This info would help make the decision a lot easier. Young, cocky looking internet player? Insta-call this donk-bet.

You call if this is Dan Harrington. You call if this is Dewey Tomko.

[shpaget]

For those who fold...what is your line in the sand? Assuming everything else is the same, what is the weakest hand you call with? Here are the hands, in order, that beat AK - and realistically, 4 of them are definitely not in either player's holdings.738387939798A3A7A8A933778899AA56T6JTSame with those who call...what's the weakest hand you call with?Personally, I hope I can go with my read that he doesn't have an ace, and therefore call with any ace, along with any pocket pair down to Ten. I honestly think Q9 is good here, but probably couldn't pull the trigger on that. Realistically, AJ is likely my comfort point because people play Aces in goofy ways, especially AT-AQ.

[Acid_Knight]

Head_Trauma, on Wednesday, October 18th, 2006, 11:20 PM, said:

This is impossible. Even if it is the first hand dealt, you know something about the player by looking at him. This info would help make the decision a lot easier. Young, cocky looking internet player? Insta-call this donk-bet.

You're guessing about his holding and that's the point. The young cocky internet looking player can be the biggest rock in the game. If you're wrong, you're out of the tournament.

[Shizzmoney]

Quote

I would fold thinking he hit a set. If he didn't and I have the best hand, I would hope he makes the same move later when I have the nuts.

I concur. J10 is also a possibility because players love to see flops with that hand, and is a popular blind defending hand. We just gave him a free card and the turn is the 7s. He check-calls your bet of 1K on the turn.....very sketchy.....if he had a hand like 98, A9, A7, or any of the other Aces, you'd think he would want to bet/check-raise here on the turn.The turn is where hands like two pair are won and lost because of the fact you can easily be counterfeited by the river, or bluffed out if a scare card comes, so you really want to be raising right now to define your hand. You'd also want to do this with a set, although some just like to slowplay trips no matter what the board, especially since you can fill up on the river.The fact the flush draw doesn't scare him leads me to believe that he may even have Js10s, giving him a redraw. Although, I would say that the A98 board is not one I would slowplay, even heads up. There is a decent draw out there for potential hands people love to see (J10,56) and I would definitely come out betting. I want to find out if the villian had flopped a set of 9's or 8's, has two pairs with 98, or if he has a weaker Ace we can value bet him on. So if you check on the flop in an attempt to trap with this hand, you sometimes have to fold when the scare card get there and your villian wakes up with the betting. The point of being a strong post flop player is knowing when you're giving up equity that you will sometimes just have to give up your good but not great hand and wait for a better spot. The only hand you can beat for a called raise is either a bluff or AQ/AJ/A10.If he called to bluff on 4th street to stick it all-in on the river for his tournament life on a board that scary (wouldn't he have to figure if he was going to stick it in with nothing or with something as weak as AJ or A10, that he would be afraid the raiser might have the same hand he trying to represent?), then you just have to tip your cap to him and hope he does it again when you have a stronger hand.

[simo_8ball]

shpaget, on Thursday, October 19th, 2006, 2:47 PM, said:

Same with those who call...what's the weakest hand you call with?Personally, I hope I can go with my read that he doesn't have an ace, and therefore call with any ace, along with any pocket pair down to Ten. I honestly think Q9 is good here, but probably couldn't pull the trigger on that. Realistically, AJ is likely my comfort point because people play Aces in goofy ways, especially AT-AQ.

Pretty much the same for me. I would call with any ace fairly easily, and TT+ after some serious consideration. I agree that K9/Q9 would probably be good, and I might call with it, but it would be tough.

[burgerman]

I would fold putting the opponent on a set or two pair. I can't beat much with the aces and if he's bluffing so be it.Best --Burgerman

[shpaget]

Shizzmoney, on Thursday, October 19th, 2006, 6:18 AM, said:

The only hand you can beat for a called raise is either a bluff or AQ/AJ/A10.If he called to bluff on 4th street to stick it all-in on the river for his tournament life on a board that scary (wouldn't he have to figure if he was going to stick it in with nothing or with something as weak as AJ or A10, that he would be afraid the raiser might have the same hand he trying to represent?), then you just have to tip your cap to him and hope he does it again when you have a stronger hand.

He may have called the turn to bluff the river...or he may have called the turn on a draw, and decided to bluff the river when he missed...eg. 66, TT, T9, two spades, etc, because A: he knows it didn't help you either and B. he has zero reason to think you have an ace, let alone AK.There are a ton of plausible hands he has here that give him tremendous fold equity with a push here - especially if he thinks you're weak...and he has every reason to think you're weak....there are very few hands that give him value with a push here.Unless he's playing this hand as tricky as you are (and, really, for this guy to have a hand that beats you it means both people suffered from FPS here) the only hand I'm worried about is JsTs....one hand. I strongly believe he either leads the turn or check raises the turn with any other straight, set and two pairs, because he has to protect them.In fact, I'd say it's a little dumb not to raise with JsTs...with JsTs you think he would c/r an amount that forces you to call to give him a little more value....even there, if you had JsTs, would you really check the turn hoping you get bet...or wouldn't you be looking to ensure you get some kind of value?Not knowing anything about him, you have to assume he's a typical player.And, IMHO, a typical player leads or c/r's the turn with all hands that beat you at that point....and also folds 93,83,73 and 33.At that point, you're only worried about A3, which can c/c the turn...but I have a hard time seeing A3 push the river.

burgerman, on Thursday, October 19th, 2006, 7:02 AM, said:

I would fold putting the opponent on a set or two pair. I can't beat much with the aces and if he's bluffing so be it.Best --Burgerman

Let's assume he doesn't have AA, as he would reraise pf.Let's assume he doesn't have 33, as he would fold the turn.Now, let's assume you have 77, 88, or 99...77 you check the flop 'cause you missed - 88 or 99 you check the flop because you want the pf raiser to bet into your set.Fine - now the turn - If you have 77, 88, or 99 do you typically check your set again, or lead? And if, for whatever reason, you do check, do you then call his bet, with 789 and two spades on board, or do you raise?Don't you think all this rules out a set?And can't you make similar arguments for all the possible two-pair hands at the turn?

[Acid_Knight]

simo_8ball, on Thursday, October 19th, 2006, 7:18 AM, said:

Pretty much the same for me. I would call with any ace fairly easily, and TT+ after some serious consideration. I agree that K9/Q9 would probably be good, and I might call with it, but it would be tough.

Basically, you're saying that he has no hand whatsoever?

[Gunnarr]

The way this hand was played screams he has the nuts to me. You checking the flop would tell me you could be very strong(which means DO NOT BLUFF). He check called the turn thinking it was possible you had a set when no full house or flush was possible on river he put you all in hoping you were on a set or put him on a bluff.Of course I would never know as I fold that most times. The above is how I can reason with myself into thinking I made a good fold and not go on tilt LOL.Gunn

[Acid_Knight]

Gunnarr, on Thursday, October 19th, 2006, 8:56 AM, said:

The way this hand was played screams he has the nuts to me. You checking the flop would tell me you could be very strong(which means DO NOT BLUFF).

I don't know if it screams that he has the nuts. You make the right point though, that the way the hand has played out, you could have a monster hand and he's still pushing. I'd be worried with 2 pair. Even more worried with TPTK.Will someone please discuss why they think we have to call simply because we made bets to "induce a bluff?" I don't understand this line of reasoning. Just because we are appearing to be weak and he's betting, that doesn't have to mean that he IS weak. I don't like this logic at all.Also, what do we really give up by folding here? If you're going to guess about his holding, I'd rather make the guess that leaves me with the larger margin of error, ie folding. We can assign only one hand that we beat. That hand is a missed draw. The odds that he would push a missed draw on the river when we might have a monster are fairly slim. Since we know nothing about him and we're assuming he's fairly normal, most normal people won't bluff all in with nothing on the river.

[simo_8ball]

Acid_Knight, on Thursday, October 19th, 2006, 4:36 PM, said:

Basically, you're saying that he has no hand whatsoever?

No, but his bet on the river is either the nuts, or it's nothing. I don't buy that it's the nuts. His nothing could be something like 67. It could be J8.If he DOES have a strong hand, why would he push into a player who has what appears to be a weak hand?

Acid_Knight, on Thursday, October 19th, 2006, 5:29 PM, said:

Will someone please discuss why they think we have to call simply because we made bets to "induce a bluff?" I don't understand this line of reasoning. Just because we are appearing to be weak and he's betting, that doesn't have to mean that he IS weak. I don't like this logic at all.

It's standard logic. Why would you try to get him to bluff you if you're going to fold when he bets?You don't have to call but if we are folding here, we should not have checked the flop and bet small on the turn.

[shpaget]

Acid_Knight, on Thursday, October 19th, 2006, 8:29 AM, said:

I don't know if it screams that he has the nuts. You make the right point though, that the way the hand has played out, you could have a monster hand and he's still pushing. I'd be worried with 2 pair. Even more worried with TPTK.Will someone please discuss why they think we have to call simply because we made bets to "induce a bluff?" I don't understand this line of reasoning. Just because we are appearing to be weak and he's betting, that doesn't have to mean that he IS weak. I don't like this logic at all.Also, what do we really give up by folding here? If you're going to guess about his holding, I'd rather make the guess that leaves me with the larger margin of error, ie folding. We can assign only one hand that we beat. That hand is a missed draw. The odds that he would push a missed draw on the river when we might have a monster are fairly slim. Since we know nothing about him and we're assuming he's fairly normal, most normal people won't bluff all in with nothing on the river.

He has absolutely zero reason to think you have a monster.He has absolutely zero reason to think you have AK.He has every reason to think you have a marginal hand much worse than AK, and that you are very uncomfortable with the ace on the board, let alone the 789.People with the nuts (or 2nd, 3rd, 4th nuts) don't typically grossly overbet a pot all-in against a person they think has a weak hand.Because of this, in his mind, he has an incredible level of fold equity with nothing hands. I don't, for example, necessarily think he does this with A4, as its too marginal in that it could actually be winning, but, at the same time I'm obviously not worried about it.The reason you "trap" is because you think you're ahead...and until you are given reason to change your belief you are ahead you need to follow through when someone falls into the trap...and, IMO, a large bet, on its own, completely out of context of the other streets, does not indicate strength.Yes...we could walk away after dumping 25% of our stack (which is our sacrifice)...and I am generally a proponent that a bad fold is better than a bad call...I simply don't believe this is a bad call.He's either stronger than hell, or has air...and I see no reason to believe he's stronger than hell.Now, I'll go back to my assumption that he is a typical player.I also conclude that a typical player can pull off this type of bluff, for his tournament life.Is that an unreasonable assertion?