What do you think about how hero played this hand? Villian isn't known much, but seems to be loose/aggressive and a losing player in the small sample size of hands we've seen him.
NEW HAND
sb: posts the small blind $2.00
bb: posts the big blind $3.00
--- DEALING POCKETS
Hero is dealt [Js,Td]
UTG: calls $3.00
Hijack: folds
Hero: raises $12.00 to $15.00
Villian: calls $15.00
sb: folds
bb: calls $12.00
UTG: folds
--- DEALING FLOP [Ah,5s,Th]
bb: checks
Hero: checks
Villian: checks
--- DEALING TURN [9c]
bb: checks
Hero: checks
Villian: bets $45.00
bb: folds
Hero: calls $45.00
--- DEALING RIVER [6d]
Hero: checks
Villian: bets $100.00
Hero: calls $100.00
1
Middle Pair On A High Board
Started by NoSup4U, Dec 27 2006 10:24 PM
16 replies to this topic
#1
NoSup4U
-
- Members
- 10,674 posts
Making Poppinfresh look like a nit
- Gender:Male
- Location:Phoenix, AZ
- Favorite Poker Game:Shorthanded NLHE
Posted 27 December 2006 - 10:24 PM
#2
nutzbuster
-
- Members
- 11,343 posts
Point taken....
- Gender:Male
- Location:Phoenix / Motor City
Posted 27 December 2006 - 11:09 PM
WOW. TOugh spot. I am amazed you went all the way with him. (But then again, I'm playing like Nitty McNitterson lately so Im likely to fold that river bet lol!)
How did this one end up?
How did this one end up?
F Cancer
#3
disctiger85
-
- Members
- 86 posts
Poker Forum Newbie
- Location:Auburn, AL
Posted 27 December 2006 - 11:52 PM
OOP, I'm kind of a fan of c/c a losing player assuming he has a tendency to bluff. Even losing players are betting an A on this flop with position IMO so checking seems safe, in that we'll find out if he has an A. I might just go ahead and bet the turn, unless I think he's too agg and might raise with air, forcing us to a tough situation. The turn and river bets seem WAY too big. I mean honestly, who bets the pot on the river with TP?? I know I don't, but maybe I'm not thinking on enough levels here. Either way, I like giving people a chance to bluff, so that I can call knowing there's a good chance they are bluffing. River bet just screams steal. I make these calls more than I should, but love when I'm right. I'd like to believe he puts us on a T or JJ-KK and thinks we'll fold the river.
Oh, and if we're wrong, I like letting people know not to try and bluff me. We get info on villain and mix our image up a bit, unless we're already viewed as loose/passive haha
Oh, and if we're wrong, I like letting people know not to try and bluff me. We get info on villain and mix our image up a bit, unless we're already viewed as loose/passive haha
"Hmm, no, I don't have a gambling problem, I'm winning, and winning is not a problem. That's like saying Michael Jordan has a basketball problem, or Def Leppard has an awesomeness problem."
#4
ianb459
-
- Members
- 86 posts
Poker Forum Newbie
- Location:Mount Pleasant, Michigan
Posted 28 December 2006 - 12:07 AM
very interesting...why no continuation bet, then calling a big bet on turn? and river bet too? what kind of hands can our hero really beat, even if villian is LAG
"You know what cheers me up when I'm felling shitty? Rolled up aces over kings. Check Raising stupid tourists, and taking huge pots off 'em"
Fulltilt: DaBigTime
PokerRoom/FCP: Johnny Mac28
Fulltilt: DaBigTime
PokerRoom/FCP: Johnny Mac28
#5
Spence
-
- Members
- 399 posts
Poker Forum Nut
Posted 28 December 2006 - 12:57 AM
Pure bluff.
Semi-bluff with flush draw or QJ (more likely IMHO). I like how it was played.
Bet on turn doesn't mean anything. It's a pretty standard bet disregarding what cards you are holding in Villians spot.
20% chance he has heart flush draw. 25% chance he has QJo or QJhh. 40% he has an ace or T (with higher kicker)/JJ/QQ/KK. 5% he has 87. 10% he has air.
Just how I view it
Semi-bluff with flush draw or QJ (more likely IMHO). I like how it was played.
Bet on turn doesn't mean anything. It's a pretty standard bet disregarding what cards you are holding in Villians spot.
20% chance he has heart flush draw. 25% chance he has QJo or QJhh. 40% he has an ace or T (with higher kicker)/JJ/QQ/KK. 5% he has 87. 10% he has air.
Just how I view it
QUOTE(Ron_Mexico)
Anyway, she did mention that he had a huge penis and it didn't fit into her the first time. I was jealous. I was sure it woulda fit into me.
#6
cheetaking
-
- Members
- 141 posts
Poker Forum Regular
- Gender:Male
- Location:Cambridge, OH
- Interests:Poker, Roller Coasters, Writing
Posted 28 December 2006 - 01:46 AM
This one is completely read-dependent, because the way he played it either means a bluff or a monster. Let's try to at least put him on a range of hands first, then look at the rest step-by-step.
PRE-FLOP:
Even getting a basic range on this guy is going to be tough, becuase there are a lot of hands all the way from low pairs to suited connectors that he could be calling with aside from just the premium ones. It also tends to eliminate the very upper tier, because he probably would have re-raised with them. So just for a basic idea, I'll put his range anywhere from pocket fours to jacks, and from about 6/7 suited to A/Q or A/K. Not too many hands gone, but at least it's a start.
FLOP:
I'm personally betting the flop rather than checking, just so you know, but since you checked I'll just focus on the analysis of the Villain.
Checking from last position is a weird play. Coming from a Loose/Aggressive player, this virtually eliminates top pair, and further eliminates Kings, Queens, and Jacks as a possiblilty. If he had something like that, he would probably come out firing. This check means one of two possible things: 1. He almost completely missed the flop. 2. He has a really good hand, and is playing tricky. The second option is not as uncommon as you might think. Very often, Loose/Aggressive players will bet hard on everything except monsters, which they slow-play trying to outsmart everyone.
A critical question here is "Just how loose/aggressive is this guy?" Is he the kind who tries to bluff every time that the table shows weakness, or does he only represent the flop after making a pre-flop raise? This is very important info in this case, because if he tends to take lots of stabs after checks, especially with "scare cards" out there, his check should be sending red flags up in your head. But if he prefers to only bluff with the lead in the betting, there's a better chance that he's got squat.
It doesn narrow his hand range down, knocking out A/K, A/Q, A/J, Q/Q, J/J, and any other naked ace with a weak kicker. He also probably doesn't have a pair of tens like you, because mid-pair is a hand that LAG players love to bet hard with. So now we have him down to either 2-pair or better, or absolutely nothing.
TURN:
Unless he has pocket nines, that card was a complete blank as far as you're concerned. All that it did was open up a couple of straight draws. Again, I would bet here. After BB checking twice, and Villain checking in position, I'm thinking that my tens are good and making a value bet every time. But once again I'll just stick to your decision.
$45? What an over-bet! Considering that Villain is Loose/Aggressive and you and the BB have now both checked to him twice, this bet SCREAMS bluff. I honestly think that this eliminates a set of fives, tens, or even nines as a possibility. With such a huge bet from a notoriously aggressive player, there is no way that you can put him on anything good. If he can make such a large bet with a monster, more power to him. But since he's loose/aggressive and a losing player who probably doesn't know about false tells, I'm calling or re-raising this bet almost every time.
I personally reccomend the re-raise, because if you just call you are setting yourself up to get bullied out of the pot if a scare card comes on the river. And there are a LOT of scare cards out there... any heart makes him a potential semi-bluffed flush hit, any card lower than a nine means that he might have hit a set with a low pair turned monster, and a king is probably the worst of all, filling both the potential straight and king-high stone bluff. I raise here, and make it nice and large, to get him to fold his draw cards and win the already nice-sized pot. Then, if he re-raises you again, you can confidently fold. Or if he calls, you can also be pretty sure that you're beat and check/fold the river. This is a one-time bet. Show him aggression back, and then you'll know exactly where you stand in the hand. The only potential mis-read would be if he makes a donk call with a sucker straight draw.
Since you're calling here, the real question for me is whether he is making a stone bluff or a semi-bluff. Given that the 9 opens up 3 possible open-ended straight draws, this seems like a likely semi-bluffing opportunity. Maniacs like draws, and I honestly think he'll make the semi-bluff more often that a random stone bluff. I'm putting him on 8/7 suited or Q/J. J/8 seems unlikely, since it would be a really horrible call pre-flop, but we can't completely rule it out. Then there are still odds of a stone bluff, and I'll leave it at about 15% that he actually has awkwardly played a legitimate hand.
RIVER:
Wow, you've played this hand passively. Check, Check/Call, Check. I still vote for a leading bet on the flop, a leading bet on the turn, or a re-raise over the top of Villain's bet on the turn, but that's just my opinion. Constantly calling is generally a bad idea, because itlimits your ability to get a solid read on your opponent. By check/calling and then checking again on the river, you have set yourself up for one hell of a tough decision. Villain's going to bluff at this river every single time, and you still have no more information on the strength of his hand.
The bet itself is kind of big, which would naturally seem to once again lead me to believe that he might be bluffing. The six was far from an ideal card, though, because it just filled up the 8/7 straight draw, and now pocket sixes which bluffed on the turn have you beat as well. And now that you have shown interest in the pot by calling, you can no longer assume that the bet, however big, is a bluff. He can now make that pot-sized bet with a monster as well, unlike on the turn. There is still the small 15% chance that he did have a hand on the turn and bet it very strangely as well. The river bet is much fishier than the pot-sized bet on the turn, however. This bet was only about 67% of the pot, as compared to the 90% on the turn. It's still big, but also seems to kind of want callers. That has to be taken into consideration as well.
You're getting 2.5:1 pot odds, so if you're going to fold you have to be about 70% certain that he has a hand that beats yours. Given his loose/aggressive reputation, the fact that he would probably make this bet just as readily with a busted draw as a made draw, and the other information from his check on the flop, I don't think a fold can be justified. Even if you're going to get beat twice as often as you catch him on a bluff, the call is still profitable in the long run.
END RESULT:
I shake my head and call. Even if he caught something stupid on the river, or is really just a rounder who is trying to act like a maniac, and then sandbagged a monster to make it look like a bluff so that he can fool you and take all of your chips, there's not enough information to justify a fold. Call. If you're beat, you're beat. The way you played the hand so passively, you've gotta be willing to take a risk against aggressive players.
Hope this analysis has helped!
PRE-FLOP:
Even getting a basic range on this guy is going to be tough, becuase there are a lot of hands all the way from low pairs to suited connectors that he could be calling with aside from just the premium ones. It also tends to eliminate the very upper tier, because he probably would have re-raised with them. So just for a basic idea, I'll put his range anywhere from pocket fours to jacks, and from about 6/7 suited to A/Q or A/K. Not too many hands gone, but at least it's a start.
FLOP:
I'm personally betting the flop rather than checking, just so you know, but since you checked I'll just focus on the analysis of the Villain.
Checking from last position is a weird play. Coming from a Loose/Aggressive player, this virtually eliminates top pair, and further eliminates Kings, Queens, and Jacks as a possiblilty. If he had something like that, he would probably come out firing. This check means one of two possible things: 1. He almost completely missed the flop. 2. He has a really good hand, and is playing tricky. The second option is not as uncommon as you might think. Very often, Loose/Aggressive players will bet hard on everything except monsters, which they slow-play trying to outsmart everyone.
A critical question here is "Just how loose/aggressive is this guy?" Is he the kind who tries to bluff every time that the table shows weakness, or does he only represent the flop after making a pre-flop raise? This is very important info in this case, because if he tends to take lots of stabs after checks, especially with "scare cards" out there, his check should be sending red flags up in your head. But if he prefers to only bluff with the lead in the betting, there's a better chance that he's got squat.
It doesn narrow his hand range down, knocking out A/K, A/Q, A/J, Q/Q, J/J, and any other naked ace with a weak kicker. He also probably doesn't have a pair of tens like you, because mid-pair is a hand that LAG players love to bet hard with. So now we have him down to either 2-pair or better, or absolutely nothing.
TURN:
Unless he has pocket nines, that card was a complete blank as far as you're concerned. All that it did was open up a couple of straight draws. Again, I would bet here. After BB checking twice, and Villain checking in position, I'm thinking that my tens are good and making a value bet every time. But once again I'll just stick to your decision.
$45? What an over-bet! Considering that Villain is Loose/Aggressive and you and the BB have now both checked to him twice, this bet SCREAMS bluff. I honestly think that this eliminates a set of fives, tens, or even nines as a possibility. With such a huge bet from a notoriously aggressive player, there is no way that you can put him on anything good. If he can make such a large bet with a monster, more power to him. But since he's loose/aggressive and a losing player who probably doesn't know about false tells, I'm calling or re-raising this bet almost every time.
I personally reccomend the re-raise, because if you just call you are setting yourself up to get bullied out of the pot if a scare card comes on the river. And there are a LOT of scare cards out there... any heart makes him a potential semi-bluffed flush hit, any card lower than a nine means that he might have hit a set with a low pair turned monster, and a king is probably the worst of all, filling both the potential straight and king-high stone bluff. I raise here, and make it nice and large, to get him to fold his draw cards and win the already nice-sized pot. Then, if he re-raises you again, you can confidently fold. Or if he calls, you can also be pretty sure that you're beat and check/fold the river. This is a one-time bet. Show him aggression back, and then you'll know exactly where you stand in the hand. The only potential mis-read would be if he makes a donk call with a sucker straight draw.
Since you're calling here, the real question for me is whether he is making a stone bluff or a semi-bluff. Given that the 9 opens up 3 possible open-ended straight draws, this seems like a likely semi-bluffing opportunity. Maniacs like draws, and I honestly think he'll make the semi-bluff more often that a random stone bluff. I'm putting him on 8/7 suited or Q/J. J/8 seems unlikely, since it would be a really horrible call pre-flop, but we can't completely rule it out. Then there are still odds of a stone bluff, and I'll leave it at about 15% that he actually has awkwardly played a legitimate hand.
RIVER:
Wow, you've played this hand passively. Check, Check/Call, Check. I still vote for a leading bet on the flop, a leading bet on the turn, or a re-raise over the top of Villain's bet on the turn, but that's just my opinion. Constantly calling is generally a bad idea, because itlimits your ability to get a solid read on your opponent. By check/calling and then checking again on the river, you have set yourself up for one hell of a tough decision. Villain's going to bluff at this river every single time, and you still have no more information on the strength of his hand.
The bet itself is kind of big, which would naturally seem to once again lead me to believe that he might be bluffing. The six was far from an ideal card, though, because it just filled up the 8/7 straight draw, and now pocket sixes which bluffed on the turn have you beat as well. And now that you have shown interest in the pot by calling, you can no longer assume that the bet, however big, is a bluff. He can now make that pot-sized bet with a monster as well, unlike on the turn. There is still the small 15% chance that he did have a hand on the turn and bet it very strangely as well. The river bet is much fishier than the pot-sized bet on the turn, however. This bet was only about 67% of the pot, as compared to the 90% on the turn. It's still big, but also seems to kind of want callers. That has to be taken into consideration as well.
You're getting 2.5:1 pot odds, so if you're going to fold you have to be about 70% certain that he has a hand that beats yours. Given his loose/aggressive reputation, the fact that he would probably make this bet just as readily with a busted draw as a made draw, and the other information from his check on the flop, I don't think a fold can be justified. Even if you're going to get beat twice as often as you catch him on a bluff, the call is still profitable in the long run.
END RESULT:
I shake my head and call. Even if he caught something stupid on the river, or is really just a rounder who is trying to act like a maniac, and then sandbagged a monster to make it look like a bluff so that he can fool you and take all of your chips, there's not enough information to justify a fold. Call. If you're beat, you're beat. The way you played the hand so passively, you've gotta be willing to take a risk against aggressive players.
Hope this analysis has helped!
Why call when you can raise?
-Charlie "The Cheetah" Dreblow
-Charlie "The Cheetah" Dreblow
#7
krup24
-
- Members
- 5,561 posts
Poker Forum Veteran
- Gender:Male
- Location:Pittsburgh, PA
Posted 28 December 2006 - 07:43 AM
I can't see any logical reason for a flop check and then entering call down mode. 99 was just really really happy you checked the flop. The hand plays entirely differently with a flop bet. As played I think I honestly fold the turn.
Give me a paper and pen so I can write about my life of sin. A couple bottles of gin in case I don't get in.
-2Pac
-2Pac
#8
NoSup4U
-
- Members
- 10,674 posts
Making Poppinfresh look like a nit
- Gender:Male
- Location:Phoenix, AZ
- Favorite Poker Game:Shorthanded NLHE
Posted 28 December 2006 - 08:33 AM
QUOTE (krup24 @ Thursday, December 28th, 2006, 8:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I can't see any logical reason for a flop check and then entering call down mode. 99 was just really really happy you checked the flop. The hand plays entirely differently with a flop bet. As played I think I honestly fold the turn.
So I think Hero's logic here was this: He pretty much always continuation bets, and was mostly worried about bb having the A and c/r'ing. Normally I agree its a standard continuation bet on the flop. But Hero just decided to play it a little differently.
When button checked behind, Hero was sure button didn't have an A.
Harmless card on turn, and bb checks again. Now Hero is pretty sure he has the best hand here. So he's trying to think how to get some value out of it. Its possible that button calls with any pair not believing Hero to have much, but Hero just decided I think that if he checked again button would bet with anything for sure. So he check/calls the obv suspicious pot bet by button.
Another complete blank on river. Again, a bet here by Hero is foolish, as he is only being called by a hand that has him beat. So he checks, button fires another huge bet, Hero instacalls, feeling that JT is the same as AK here. Button either has a complete monster, or nothing. And Hero didn't think a monster would bet so much on the turn, when obviously nobody was interested in the pot. He would have tried to suck someone in with a smaller bet.
Button had KJ for no pair.
Also, someone mentioned how loose/aggressive opponents will often bet hard their missed hands and draws, and will slowplay their big hands trying to be tricky. I agree that is the case very often especially at a lower limit like this one. But that is absolutely the wrong way to play if you are loose/aggro. You spend so much effort (and money) building up your loose/aggro appearance, that when you have a big hand, you need to bet it just as hard as you do all the other hands you are in. People will never give you enough credit, and that is where the loose/aggro players make their money, from their monsters getting paid off.
gl,
Mark
#9
mtdesmoines
-
- Members
- 9,939 posts
Poker Forum Veteran
Posted 28 December 2006 - 08:59 AM
OK, I see something here.
This thread just plugged a leak I've developed in my game over the last two months.
This thread just plugged a leak I've developed in my game over the last two months.
Somewhere Jimmy Carter is smiling because he knows that he is no longer the worst President of the modern era
#10
cheetaking
-
- Members
- 141 posts
Poker Forum Regular
- Gender:Male
- Location:Cambridge, OH
- Interests:Poker, Roller Coasters, Writing
Posted 28 December 2006 - 10:30 AM
Woohoo! Looks like I was right on with putting him on some sort of draw. And I was also right about the king being a huge scare card...
BTW, I was just suggesting a bet on the flop and turn. The way you played it, a bet on the river is just going to be looked at as a desperation attempt and get you re-raised.
Anyway, congrats on making the right play. Nice call.
BTW, I was just suggesting a bet on the flop and turn. The way you played it, a bet on the river is just going to be looked at as a desperation attempt and get you re-raised.
Anyway, congrats on making the right play. Nice call.
Why call when you can raise?
-Charlie "The Cheetah" Dreblow
-Charlie "The Cheetah" Dreblow
#11
NoSup4U
-
- Members
- 10,674 posts
Making Poppinfresh look like a nit
- Gender:Male
- Location:Phoenix, AZ
- Favorite Poker Game:Shorthanded NLHE
Posted 28 December 2006 - 11:24 AM
QUOTE (cheetaking @ Thursday, December 28th, 2006, 11:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Woohoo! Looks like I was right on with putting him on some sort of draw. And I was also right about the king being a huge scare card...
BTW, I was just suggesting a bet on the flop and turn. The way you played it, a bet on the river is just going to be looked at as a desperation attempt and get you re-raised.
Anyway, congrats on making the right play. Nice call.
BTW, I was just suggesting a bet on the flop and turn. The way you played it, a bet on the river is just going to be looked at as a desperation attempt and get you re-raised.
Anyway, congrats on making the right play. Nice call.
This wasn't my hand, but I'll pass the thanks along
Mark
#12
Spence
-
- Members
- 399 posts
Poker Forum Nut
Posted 28 December 2006 - 10:24 PM
By the way, I don't think passivity is that bad in NL. Aggresiveness is over-rated imho in NL. (cash games)
Limit is a whole different subject of course.
I might start a subect on this, but i'll search forums first to see if there have been any in-depth discussions about it before.
I am talking SH for the most part.
Limit is a whole different subject of course.
I might start a subect on this, but i'll search forums first to see if there have been any in-depth discussions about it before.
I am talking SH for the most part.
QUOTE(Ron_Mexico)
Anyway, she did mention that he had a huge penis and it didn't fit into her the first time. I was jealous. I was sure it woulda fit into me.
#13
disctiger85
-
- Members
- 86 posts
Poker Forum Newbie
- Location:Auburn, AL
Posted 29 December 2006 - 12:48 AM
QUOTE (Spence @ Thursday, December 28th, 2006, 10:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
By the way, I don't think passivity is that bad in NL. Aggresiveness is over-rated imho in NL. (cash games)
Limit is a whole different subject of course.
I might start a subect on this, but i'll search forums first to see if there have been any in-depth discussions about it before.
I am talking SH for the most part.
Limit is a whole different subject of course.
I might start a subect on this, but i'll search forums first to see if there have been any in-depth discussions about it before.
I am talking SH for the most part.
I agree...sometimes I find myself in a spot where, I could bet and get called/raised by an aggressive player and have no idea where I am OR I could play it passively, and get him to bluff off chips on the turn and river. Usually, if he bets the turn, and I know he likes to bluff, then I like to just call with my mind made up that I'm calling the river no matter what(maybe try to get some info from the size of his river bet). This way, when my hand is mediocre I end up getting his chips without having to really think about it, whereas if I bet it OOP then I might have to face a tricky raise and get pushed off. Obviously you want to mix up when you call down and when you bet/raise but I do think that being passive against someone you know to be a losing/bluffing player is a good idea every now and then. Value checking(not sure what to call it, but it sounds fun) the river to induce a bluff is fun
Oh, oh, and is the way this pot was played an example of pot control? Seems like by check/calling you are in control of how big the pot gets, but then again you don't know how much villain is going to bet so.....
Anybody else think that an even bet on the river looks more like a bluff? I'm always curious about betting amounts and what they might represent. $100 exactly seems like you are saying "look, I'm betting a Benjamin and there's no way you can call unless you have something GOOD." Now $105, or $95 I don't know about. Could betting large thought out amounts be part of a betting pattern so when you see them bet like $28 or $112 it means something else? Just curious....and trying to figure out if I'm giving anything away with my bet amounts.
"Hmm, no, I don't have a gambling problem, I'm winning, and winning is not a problem. That's like saying Michael Jordan has a basketball problem, or Def Leppard has an awesomeness problem."
#14
spikymarv99
-
- Members
- 603 posts
Poker Forum Groupie
Posted 29 December 2006 - 01:39 AM
QUOTE (NoSup4U @ Wednesday, December 27th, 2006, 10:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
What do you think about how hero played this hand? Villian isn't known much, but seems to be loose/aggressive and a losing player in the small sample size of hands we've seen him.
NEW HAND
sb: posts the small blind $2.00
bb: posts the big blind $3.00
--- DEALING POCKETS
Hero is dealt [Js,Td]
UTG: calls $3.00
Hijack: folds
Hero: raises $12.00 to $15.00
Villian: calls $15.00
sb: folds
bb: calls $12.00
UTG: folds
--- DEALING FLOP [Ah,5s,Th]
bb: checks
Hero: checks
Villian: checks
--- DEALING TURN [9c]
bb: checks
Hero: checks
Villian: bets $45.00
bb: folds
Hero: calls $45.00
--- DEALING RIVER [6d]
Hero: checks
Villian: bets $100.00
Hero: calls $100.00
NEW HAND
sb: posts the small blind $2.00
bb: posts the big blind $3.00
--- DEALING POCKETS
Hero is dealt [Js,Td]
UTG: calls $3.00
Hijack: folds
Hero: raises $12.00 to $15.00
Villian: calls $15.00
sb: folds
bb: calls $12.00
UTG: folds
--- DEALING FLOP [Ah,5s,Th]
bb: checks
Hero: checks
Villian: checks
--- DEALING TURN [9c]
bb: checks
Hero: checks
Villian: bets $45.00
bb: folds
Hero: calls $45.00
--- DEALING RIVER [6d]
Hero: checks
Villian: bets $100.00
Hero: calls $100.00
Vs unknown villan:
Preflop - standard
Flop - bet 3/4 pot. Checking behind is not bad, but it makes it hard for you to rep a legit hand
Turn - your hand is pretty face up at this point. You don't have an Ace, but you have something with your flat call. Calling is not bad, but folding isn't either.
River - fold vs unknown. If your making this call for the big picture, then I don't mind. If you doing this for current EV, it's a bad call. You let villan know that you have a J, Q-Q, or K-K and he is still firing. Some crazy players I know, like c/r allin here which I think is better than calling. The only reason I can come up with for calling is metagame. Your not good enough times for this call to be profitable vs an unknown.
Edit: just read your friends analysis. Nothing personal, but his thought process will lead to bustoville. I would play an Ace the exact same way villan played the hand and HERO would have paid me off. Your friends analysis is seriously flawed and highly expolitable. I'm not attacking him, but this is the line I take against weak players hoping they are using your friend's thought process. The flop check is standard for pot control since it's WA/WB. When HERO checks the turn, it's time to valuebet like it's going out of style. I'll usually overbet the river huge when my opponent makes their hand so transparent. The fish always look me up. I have read some of your (NoSoup4U) analysis on hands in the forums and it's pretty solid. Please talk some sense into your buddy. This line of thought could be a huge leak in his game.
#15
cheetaking
-
- Members
- 141 posts
Poker Forum Regular
- Gender:Male
- Location:Cambridge, OH
- Interests:Poker, Roller Coasters, Writing
Posted 29 December 2006 - 06:13 AM
I agree that there's no way I would call this bet against most players. I'm only suggesting this call against a notorious maniac. I think I mentioned about 4 timesin my analysis that I was only suggesting call because the guy was a LOSING loose/aggressive player, which means that he's probably not smart enough to make false tells or be sure to tell convincing 'bluff stories'. But yeah, against a really good player there's no way that I'm calling that river bet because they ARE smart enough to check top pair from time to time and then overbet the turn after a complete blank to fool people into thinking that they're bluffing.
I think Mike Caro said it the best... "If you have a general tell on someone, there is no reason for you to break the steriotype until he proves you otherwise." Villain hasn't dis-proven the maniac image, so we have to call him down in this situation until he does.
I think Mike Caro said it the best... "If you have a general tell on someone, there is no reason for you to break the steriotype until he proves you otherwise." Villain hasn't dis-proven the maniac image, so we have to call him down in this situation until he does.
Why call when you can raise?
-Charlie "The Cheetah" Dreblow
-Charlie "The Cheetah" Dreblow
#16
Shimmering Wang
-
- Members
- 6,361 posts
Daddy Wears the Daddy-Pants
- Gender:Male
- Location:Kalamazonk
- Interests:I am very into ducks.
Posted 29 December 2006 - 08:47 AM
QUOTE (Spence @ Friday, December 29th, 2006, 1:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
By the way, I don't think passivity is that bad in NL. Aggresiveness is over-rated imho in NL. (cash games)
Limit is a whole different subject of course.
I might start a subect on this, but i'll search forums first to see if there have been any in-depth discussions about it before.
I am talking SH for the most part.
Limit is a whole different subject of course.
I might start a subect on this, but i'll search forums first to see if there have been any in-depth discussions about it before.
I am talking SH for the most part.
Being really aggressive is hard. You force yourself into some really tough decisions. But if you're good enough to make them correctly, being aggressive is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being passive. And it's one of those "not even close" type scenarios. Certain hands for certain players will get paid off when played passively, but that's a myopic mindset.
#17
Jordan
-
- Members
- 9,010 posts
Poker Forum Veteran
- Gender:Male
- Location:Denver
Posted 30 December 2006 - 03:47 AM
in my experience, passive players need cards, and need bad players, in games in order to be long term winners.
short term, anything can happen. if you play passive poker consistently, eventually you'll get eaten.
there are good times to slow down, or w/e..but I think generally speaking, passive poker is not a wise choice.
- Jordan
short term, anything can happen. if you play passive poker consistently, eventually you'll get eaten.
there are good times to slow down, or w/e..but I think generally speaking, passive poker is not a wise choice.
- Jordan
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
