r e s p e c t

[Tommy Angelo]

$20-40 game at the Mirage. I openraised from the cutoff. The Babe made it three bets right behind me. Everyone folded pretty much simultaneously including me with pocket fours.

[Michael Davis]

4-bet and don't slow down. She respects you too.

-Michael

[Evan]

You folded getting 6.5-1 when she'll probably auto-bet any flop? What am I missing?

[Steve Giufre]

[ QUOTE ]
You folded getting 6.5-1 when she'll probably auto-bet any flop? What am I missing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing.

[Evan]

Anyone else ever wonder if once in a while Tommy does something just so he can write about it?

[Chris Daddy Cool]

this is the 22 fold all over again...

although i guess tommy figures the babe isn't going to pay off like a slot machine if he hits his set, but getting 6-1, she doesn't really have to to make calling the 3-bet correct...

[Steve Giufre]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone else ever wonder if once in a while Tommy does something just so he can write about it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[Lawrence Ng]

+1 for me too.

Btw Tommy, I also folded pocket aces before the flop about 2 months back. You are my hero...

[AceHigh]

You should call and try to flop a set.

If you had a hand like Axo then folding is OK.

[PokerBabe(aka)]

A cute sideline to this play was Gabe's remark "what just happened"? when he realized no flop occurred and the next hand was being dealt. Neither Tommy nor I said a word, as everything was perfectly normal /images/graemlins/smile.gif

/images/graemlins/heart.gif.

/images/graemlins/heart.gif

[Tommy Angelo]

"You folded getting 6.5-1 when she'll probably auto-bet any flop? What am I missing?"

Let's just say, right or wrong, that The Babe would bet the flop when checked to 100% of the time, and that I would check-fold on the flop if I did not flop a set, and that when I did flop a set, The Babe would lose 3BB postflop if she had a big pair, and 1BB postflop if she had unpaired high cards.

How's the math work out?

Tommy

[andyfox]

Why would he have to do it? He could just write about it whether it happened or not. I do it all the time. Well, sometimes anyway.

For the record, though, Tommy does fold for a 3-bet when he has raised from late position with what turns out to be, when a Babe-like player is the reraiser, peepee-caca. There are two very fine players here in So. Calif. that also make this play.

[andyfox]

Gabe frequently says that. Or he's thinking it.

[Saborion]

[ QUOTE ]
"You folded getting 6.5-1 when she'll probably auto-bet any flop? What am I missing?"

Let's just say, right or wrong, that The Babe would bet the flop when checked to 100% of the time, and that I would check-fold on the flop if I did not flop a set, and that when I did flop a set, The Babe would lose 3BB postflop if she had a big pair, and 1BB postflop if she had unpaired high cards.

[/ QUOTE ]
6.5 + 2 = 8.5
Unless I'm mistaken, you're 8.3:1 to flop a set or better with a PP? If so, then you're making money with your preflop call even when she has unpaired high cards. The few times she'll hit three cards to a bigger boat or a straight might make it a break even call, but that's the worst case scenario. Since she'll have a higher pair every now and then, the call is +EV.

Or?

[andyfox]

Hey Tommy,

What about metagame considerations? Do you think it's good, bad or indifferent to have them see you fold here? And by them I mean those that have noticed, not the Gabes of the world who have to ask "What just happened?" /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[felson]

EDIT 2: I made a mistake! I'll put a corrected post below. But I'll leave the erroneous original here.

===========

"How's the math work out?"

Let's say Babe 3-bets 99-AA and loses 3 BB with them. (She probably wouldn't lose 3 BB with 99, but she might lose more with AA, so okay.) She also 3-bets AK,AQ,AJ,KQ, and KJ. Sound reasonable? Let's say Tommy c/calls flop and c/raises turn. Then Babe has a 1/3 chance of pairing by the turn. If she doesn't pair, she loses 1 BB on average (I assume she bets turn sometimes). If she does pair, she will lose 3BB again. (Sometimes KJ doesn't make top pair. But sometimes it makes two pair so Tommy gets extra action.)

54 ways to have a big pair.
80 ways to have big cards.

If the set always wins, expected postflop profit is
[54 * 3 + 80 * (2/3 * 1 + 1/3 * 3)] / 134 = 2.2 BB.

On the other hand, if Babe has a big pair, she will have a set by the river 1/6 of the time and Tommy will lose a big pot. And Babe can make a str8 with the unpaired cards. So we'll adjust the profit downward by, oh, 15%. So expected postflop profit is 1.9 BB.

The pot offers just under 6.5-1 because the rake, let's say 6.3-1. So in total Tommy is offered 8.2-1. He is 7.5-1 to flop a set. This is a call.

It is close though. The better the Babe plays, the more likely she is to escape cheaply with hands like 99/KJ and the more likely she is to punish Tommy when Tommy is behind. And maybe the 15% adjustment factor should be 20%. If Babe will reraise with QJ, then I think this makes it worse for Tommy since he is less likely to get paid off. On the other hand, I probably should have included 88 and maybe 77 for the Babe anyway.

Anyway, if my assumptions are right, then folding costs $1.65 in EV. But I forgot that Tommy will toke a buck if he wins. So folding costs $0.65. Not quite enough for a fruit plate.

All in all, I like the fold. Unless beating the Babe puts her on tilt, which I don't think it does.

EDIT 1: The fold is terrible if there is some chance that Tommy can win unimproved and can get to a showdown when that happens. But it doesn't look like he wants to play it that way. Also, I didn't take into account the possibility of flopping an open-ender, etc. So I think the 15% number is good after all.

[Turning Stone Pro]

An old woman.

Terrible fold, certainly not unexpected in light of your recent posts.

TSP

[Steve Giufre]

It sure looks like a call, if the Babe will bet the flop when checked to Tommy just about has his 8-1 right there plus implied odds. He is also going to play the hand well postflop, and probably wont overpay her when she a higher pair or connects with a big ace. Even so its still close to the point where folding cant cost Tommy all that much.

I'm curious if you feel like making this fold helps or hurts your own image at the table, and whether or not that factored into your decision to let it go.

[samdash]

If she would really 3 bet all of these big card hands you mention the fold is much worse than you are making it out to be.

[andyfox]

FWIW, I've seen both Rambo and Speedracer make this play.

[felson]

Are you sure they had small pairs in the hole?

[felson]

"How's the math work out?"

Let's say Babe 3-bets 99-AA and loses 3 BB with them. (She probably wouldn't lose 3 BB with 99, but she might lose more with AA, so okay.) She also 3-bets AK,AQ,AJ,KQ, and KJ. Sound reasonable? Let's say Tommy c/calls flop and c/raises turn. Then Babe has a 1/3 chance of pairing by the turn. If she doesn't pair, she loses 1 BB on average (I assume she bets turn sometimes). If she does pair, she will lose 3BB again. (Sometimes KJ doesn't make top pair. But sometimes it makes two pair so Tommy gets extra action.)

36 ways to have a big pair. (In the original post I said "54" because I am stupid.)
80 ways to have big cards.

If the set always wins, expected postflop profit is
[36 * 3 + 80 * (2/3 * 1 + 1/3 * 3)] / 116 = 2.1 BB.

On the other hand, if Babe has a big pair, she will have a set by the river 1/6 of the time and Tommy will lose a big pot. And Babe can make a str8 with the unpaired cards. So we'll adjust the profit downward by, oh, 15%. So expected postflop profit is 1.8 BB.

The pot offers just under 6.5-1 because the rake, let's say 6.3-1 (if a $4 rake). So in total Tommy is offered 8.1-1. He is 7.5-1 to flop a set. This is a call.

It is close though. The better the Babe plays, the more likely she is to escape cheaply with hands like 99/KJ and the more likely she is to punish Tommy when Tommy is behind. And maybe the 15% adjustment factor should be 20%. If Babe will reraise with QJ, then I think this makes it worse for Tommy since he is less likely to get paid off. On the other hand, I probably should have included 88 and maybe 77 for the Babe anyway.

Anyway, if my assumptions are right, then folding costs $1.41 in EV. But I forgot that Tommy will toke a buck if he wins. So folding costs $1.29 in EV (this was another mistake in the original, I forgot that Tommy usually doesn't have to toke).

So I'm not thrilled about the fold, but it's not terrible if Tommy will only play on with a set. The fold is terrible if there is some chance that Tommy can win unimproved and can get to a showdown when that happens. But it doesn't look like he wants to play it that way. Also, I didn't take into account the possibility of flopping an open-ender, etc. So I think the 15% number is good after all.

Also, someone pointed out that Babe is unlikely to three-bet with hands like KJ. That is probably true. In that case I think Tommy should be more inclined to play since Babe is more likely to pay off with big pairs.

[Don Olney]

I have seen Babe play and have talked to her about her game at times ---- 4-4 for me --- babe gomes back ---99% of the time I am tossing ------ A case can be made for calling -- of even comming back over for the flop---but I like the toss here

[SaintAces]

4-bet is right

[lil feller]

[ QUOTE ]
The few times she'll hit three cards to a bigger boat or a straight might make it a break even call, but that's the worst case scenario. Since she'll have a higher pair every now and then, the call is +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the worst case scenario is when she does have a bigger pair, and they both flop a set. You're 8.3:1 is leaving out the times when they both have a pair, and both flop a set. If Tommy gets stuck set over set here, he's loosing a ton of big bets, which easily pushes this to an easy fold. Against a weaker opponenent who might let their positional advantage go to waste, a call would be in order, but against a strong player the best thing you can do is muck and move on.

[TwoNiner]

Set over set? Ken Warren is that you?

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]
The Babe would lose 3BB postflop if she had a big pair, and 1BB postflop if she had unpaired high cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are also the times when the flop comes AQ4 and she loses more than 1 BB, right? And let's even say that never happens (obviously wrong, but clearly you were trying to favor my point with your assumptions, so if we let them cancel I'd call it fair). So even in the worst case scenario, when she has high cards, you c/r the flop and you've already got a pot big enough to justify calling the preflop 3 bet.

If I'm still missing something here than can someone please explain it to me like I'm a 4 year old? Far be it from me to criticize your play Tommy, but this one has really got me baffled.

[Tyler Durden]

This was a poor fold.

[samdash]

You aren't missing anything. Let the perverts have their fun if they want.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, I've seen both Rambo and Speedracer make this play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen a number of players make this play. It's just that they usually have something like ATo rather than a small pair.

[astroglide]

i honestly don't think he does things to talk about them, but it is apparent he either gets a kick out of riling up the forums, is trying to learn or see a different (more standard?) perspective, or both.

[MMMMMM]

Clearly you learned nothing from the thread in which you folded 22 to Ray Zee in the same spot;-)

[Evan]

yea, I suppose. It's just really confusing to me for a couple reasons.

First, if I read this play in the SS forum I'd laugh and tell the person exapctly why it was retarded.

Second, I know that Tommy is a great player and this looks like a clearly awful play. Is it the kind of thing that's just so brilliant that it goes right over my head?

[MMMMMM]

Not a meaningful consideration because set over set, especially heads-up, is such a rarity.

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]
If Tommy gets stuck set over set here, he's loosing a ton of big bets, which easily pushes this to an easy fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious? Let's say that Babe has an overpair 100% of the time--which is clearly ridiculous--she'll flop a bigger set slightly more than 1% of the time. This does not make it a clear fold or even a close fold, it makes it a call.

[bicyclekick]

n o t a g o o d p l a y.

The odds alone make it so you should call.

Why raise if you're going to make a mistake every time you're 3 bet? Maybe you do, but I don't steal the blinds from the CO or button very successfully very often live...but if this is your standard line, opening from the CO with a small pocket pair is something you probably shouln'dt be doing.

I can't believe i'm giving YOU advice, of all people, but you're line here just doesn't make any sense. Nor the J4s hand. Either way you're trying to make a point on both of them and I don't get it.

[Clarkmeister]

"Let's say Babe 3-bets 99-AA and loses 3 BB with them. (She probably wouldn't lose 3 BB with 99, but she might lose more with AA, so okay.) She also 3-bets AK,AQ,AJ,KQ, and KJ. Sound reasonable?"

No. Even in this steal situation, I think you are looking at a range of AA-TT, AK, AQs.

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
"You folded getting 6.5-1 when she'll probably auto-bet any flop? What am I missing?"

Let's just say, right or wrong, that The Babe would bet the flop when checked to 100% of the time, and that I would check-fold on the flop if I did not flop a set, and that when I did flop a set, The Babe would lose 3BB postflop if she had a big pair, and 1BB postflop if she had unpaired high cards.

How's the math work out?

Tommy

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you see the contradiction here?

Here's what I get, Tommy.

12% of the time you flop a set.

10% of the times that you flop a set, Babe winds up with the best hand. That costs you a small bet preflop and 4 BB postflop.

40% of the times that you flop a set, she's got a big pair. You make 3 BB from her, plus the 3.5 BB already in the pot.

50% of the times that you flop a set, she's got overcards. You make 1 BB from her, plus the 3.5 BB already in the pot.

So far we have:

12% x 10% x -4.5 BB (flop a set, lose)
12% x 40% x +6.5 BB (flop a set, Babe has a big pair)
12% x 50% x +4.5 BB (flop a set, Babe has overs)
88% x 100% x -0.5 BB (don't flop a set, you check-fold).

That works out to 0.088 BB. Three dollars and fifty two cents. And we haven't talked about the rake and the toke yet.

But you can do better, Tommy. You can do better against a player who will *only* lose this *little* when you flop a set. You can check-raise when the flop comes rags and show a profit from it, because you can fold to her 3-bet.

Let's look at that 88% again - the silent majority of times that you don't flop a set - and see what we can do with it.

Let's say half the time the flop contains an A, a K, or something like QJx or QTx or is monotone, none of your tone, or something like that. You check and fold.

The other half of the time, you check-raise.

When you check-raise, 3/7 of the time, Babe 3-bets. Those are the times she has a big pair. You fold.

When you check-raise, 4/7 of the time, Babe calls. She has overcards. 13% of those times that she calls, one of her ovrecards comes on the turn. You toss her an extra bet just for kicks then fold when she raises.

So we have:

12% x 10% x -4.5 BB (flop a set, lose)
12% x 40% x +6.5 BB (flop a set, Babe has a big pair)
12% x 50% x +4.5 BB (flop a set, Babe has overs)

These are all the same as before.

88% x 50% x -0.5 BB (don't flop a set, flop is scary, you check-fold)
88% x 50% x 43% x -1.5 BB (don't flop a set, flop is not scary, you check-raise, Babe 3-bets, you fold)
88% x 50% x 57% x 87% x +4.5 BB (don't flop a set, flop is not scary, you check-raise, Babe calls, she doesn't improve on the turn and folds)
88% x 50% x 57% x 13% x -2.5 BB (don't flop a set, flop is not scary, you-check raise, Babe calls, she improves on the turn and you donate a bet)

It seems more complicated than it is. Anyway, you make 0.92 BB with this plan. About 37 bucks. Good plan.

But you say that she's going to 3-bet the flop with just overs? Well then, Tommy, that improves your implied odds when you flop a set.

You say that she's going to raise the turn when she just has overcards but then improves? Well then, Tommy, that improves your implied odds when you flop a set.

You have to call here, Tommy, because every player will either put up too much of a fight or too little.

[Tommy Angelo]

"clearly you were trying to favor my point with your assumptions"

Actually I was hoping for someone to use the assumptions as stated, without any further assumptions about the assumptions or anything else, and crank out a number. I can't do that stuff but I very much appreciate those who do.

[Tommy Angelo]

"That works out to 0.088 BB. Three dollars and fifty two cents. And we haven't talked about the rake and the toke yet."

Thanks Nate.

[Gabe]

The way it adds up is: you didn't invite her to breakfast with us and you sucked out on here big time the day before.

[Tommy Angelo]

"I can't believe i'm giving YOU advice, of all people, but you're line here just doesn't make any sense. Nor the J4s hand. Either way you're trying to make a point on both of them and I don't get it."

I think the thing you might not be getting is that I'm fine with pointlessness. And being told how bad I play.

I thought the flop decision on the J-4 hand was an interesting choice to make and so was the river on that had. And only because I had talked it over with a few 2+2ers did I post it. Same with the pocket pair against a solid reraiser from behind. I don't mean to be rude by posting only about very rare and unusual situations. It just works out that the rare and unusual sitations are the only ones that survive in my memory until I reach my computer.

What I'm learning from all this is confirmation on what I knew already, which is, if a bunch of smart folks see total opposites on a betting decision, then it probably doesn't matter at the time which thing I do, based on the obvious parameters, which means the correct decision must be determined by the next layer of parameters, whatever they happen to be. Upon further review of these recently posted nearly-even-money decisions, the preflop choice with the pocket fours, and the flop choice with the J4, I believe that my meta-game considerations were well served by the fold with 44, and the call with J4.


Tommy

[Ezcheeze]

Tommy, I know you read the whole post so you saw that if you play optimally the true EV is much higher than that. Are you hoping that everyone who reads Nates' post just stops halfway through? What do you think about the latter part of his argument?

-Ezcheeze

[joker122]

[ QUOTE ]
Upon further review of these recently posted nearly-even-money decisions, the preflop choice with the pocket fours, and the flop choice with the J4, I believe that my meta-game considerations were well served by the fold with 44, and the call with J4.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I understand this. The 44 fold elicits a very tight image, and the J4 call elicits a very loose image. How is the contention that both hands were good for meta game considerations not self-contradictory?

[Clarkmeister]

"I'm not sure I understand this. The 44 fold elicits a very tight image, and the J4 call elicits a very loose image."

I think the same confusion you feel is what Tommy's opponents feel, and why he has been able to make a living at poker for nearly two decades.

[PokerBabe(aka)]

lol. Yes, Gabe, Tommy did suckout on the Babe and I am not too happy about that breakfast gig. /images/graemlins/mad.gif However, that is independent of the fact that he makes this play at other times, vs. other opponents. Like andyfox says, he's not the only "good" player that does so. For the record, I do this as well in RARE cases.

So, like I said in my original response, it's "perfectly normal" for Tommy to fold for one more bet vs. me in this situation.

/images/graemlins/heart.gif

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
"I'm not sure I understand this. The 44 fold elicits a very tight image, and the J4 call elicits a very loose image."

I think the same confusion you feel is what Tommy's opponents feel, and why he has been able to make a living at poker for nearly two decades.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe his image is that you can push TA around when you have position on him, but not when he has position on you. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[Clarkmeister]

"Maybe his image is that you can push TA around when you have position on him, but not when he has position on you"

I think that's not far from what he wants people to think.

[andyfox]

I don't know what they had, but I'd be surprised if they were small pairs. What I meant to say is that I've seen them fold for one more bet pre-flop after raising.

[andyfox]

I imagine too that they had hands they felt were dominated rather than small pairs.

I remember those two noted players down here folding for one more bet after raising pre-flop. There may have been others, but if there were, the incidences were few and far between.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
For the record, though, Tommy does fold for a 3-bet when he has raised from late position with what turns out to be, when a Babe-like player is the reraiser, peepee-caca. There are two very fine players here in So. Calif. that also make this play.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are hands to open raise with in the cutoff and then to fold after being reraised by a Babe-like player. But a small pair isn't one of them and it isn't close.

IMO, the weakish dominated hands are, perhaps K-T, A-9, and maybe the curve ball open raises with 75 suited and so on.

In any event with Tommy making this type of play he should be three bet a bitmore often by Babe and others.

Since the Red Sox are starting I'll let others elaborate.

Still, it sounds like a +EV time to be there with all those guys (and Pokerbabe) /images/graemlins/grin.gif

~ Rick

PS I think it is sick they are starting this World Series game so late at night so late in October (but it did give me time to scan this thread). Do you think the Fox football schedule has anything to do with it /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[andyfox]

Nice avatar.

But if you can't beat a team when they make four errors and you score nine runs . . .

[Tommy Angelo]

"Tommy, I know you read the whole post so you saw that if you play optimally the true EV is much higher than that. Are you hoping that everyone who reads Nates' post just stops halfway through? What do you think about the latter part of his argument?"

I must admit I got as far as the answer to my question and stopped reading when I saw that the rest of the post was full of numbers. I'll go look again.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, I've seen both Rambo and Speedracer make this play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Speedracer open raises with KJ offsuit UTG in a full game. God knows what he open raises with in the cutoff.

~ Rick

[Clarkmeister]

The problem is that we made 3 or 4 errors (I don't care about the 1 they listed, there were some terrible mistakes made), and Walked/HBP 11 of their guys. We'll be fine, even if we lose tonight.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
"Let's say Babe 3-bets 99-AA and loses 3 BB with them. (She probably wouldn't lose 3 BB with 99, but she might lose more with AA, so okay.) She also 3-bets AK,AQ,AJ,KQ, and KJ. Sound reasonable?"

No. Even in this steal situation, I think you are looking at a range of AA-TT, AK, AQs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow! I want the Babe on my left or two to my left (if I have to have her in my game) /images/graemlins/grin.gif

~ Rick

[andyfox]

I'm predicting that the Sox will win the first three, then lose the next four, despite being up by a run in the 9th inning of game 4, by two in the 8th inning of game 5, and bringing the winning run up to the plate in the 9th inning of game 6.

Oh wait, that never happens.

[joker122]

Ahh...well said.

[PokerBabe(aka)]

She also 3-bets AK,AQ,AJ,KQ, and KJ.

felson,
This list is too long. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

/images/graemlins/heart.gif

[Tommy Angelo]

"But you can do better, Tommy.

Let's say half the time the flop contains an A, a K, or something like QJx or QTx or is monotone, none of your tone, or something like that. You check and fold.

The other half of the time, you check-raise."

I remember now. This is where I stopped the first time.

There was zero chance that I was going to checkraise the flop.

I agree with you that had I been willing to checkraise after the flop, and if I was sure to do so optimally, that it would have been a mistake for me to fold for one bet before the flop.

On the other hand, what this tells me is that my unwillingness to checkraise the flop does in fact make the preflop fold less bad.

As to why I won't checkraise in that spot, it's like this. There's easier, simpler, ways, that I like better, when it comes to investing, than to be looking into a preflop reraiser, with two big bet streets to go, having no clue what they have except that its big and good, while I'm holding a small pocket pair. So I just fold before the flop, to allow for my preplanned bad playing. Maybe its true that my bad plan on the flop (to never checkraise) makes the preflop bad play right. After rake and tip of course.

Tommy

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
and the flop choice with the J4

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, I don't think many thought the flop choice w/ J4 was all that noteworthy. It was the pre-flop choice that looked ugly.

[felson]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know what they had, but I'd be surprised if they were small pairs. What I meant to say is that I've seen them fold for one more bet pre-flop after raising.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, okay. Thanks for the clarification; it makes sense.

[felson]

[ QUOTE ]
She also 3-bets AK,AQ,AJ,KQ, and KJ.

felson,
This list is too long. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

/images/graemlins/heart.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Okay. Maybe I'll revisit the numbers later, although it seems like everyone likes Nate's post (which I haven't read yet), so it probably doesn't matter.

I actually gave you loose big-card three-betting standards because that's the only way that you can justify Tommy folding preflop. The surer he is that you have a big pair, the stronger the case for seeing a flop.

In my post, I said it was a close decision, but now it sounds like it's not close.

[Nate tha' Great]

The fold could be correct (or reasonably close to correct) if you're unwilling to do anything but check-fold a flop where you don't make trips *and* the other player is both skilled and somewhat conservative postflop. Both of these characteristics apply to PokerBabe. If it were Gabe or Clarkmeister instead, you'd be making too big a mistake to fold, since they're very good players also, but would tend to lose more chips postflop those times that you hit your set.

I guess what I'm saying, though, is that even though PokerBabe is a friend and all, you want to play in such a way that takes advantage of her /images/graemlins/wink.gif. It's possible that PokreBabe is a good enough, conservative enough player that you *can't* make up enough bets from her postflop to justify the call from a purely implied odds perspective. However, the same tendencies that lead her to tend to minimize her loss those times that you do flop a set, also leave her relatively less well-equipped to handle those times when you *don't* flop a set, but determine to continue on with your hand.

I'll stop there; it seems that you respect my argument well enough.

[ QUOTE ]

As to why I won't checkraise in that spot, it's like this. There's easier, simpler, ways, that I like better, when it comes to investing, than to be looking into a preflop reraiser, with two big bet streets to go, having no clue what they have except that its big and good, while I'm holding a small pocket pair. So I just fold before the flop, to allow for my preplanned bad playing. Maybe its true that my bad plan on the flop (to never checkraise) makes the preflop bad play right. After rake and tip of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

It might be amusing to you that playing a small pocket pair heads-up out of position is a situation that I have a peculiar, masochistic enjoyment for. That's how us math guys get off, I think.

[PokerBabe(aka)]

It might be amusing to you that playing a small pocket pair heads-up out of position is a situation that I have a peculiar, masochistic enjoyment for. That's how us math guys get off, I think.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/laugh.gif Nate, that is funny as hell. LGPG,
/images/graemlins/heart.gif

[Michael Davis]

I think if you came in with a curveball raise with any garbage suited hand, you have to call here and take your medicine.

-Michael

[skp]

Your numbers seem off, Tommy. Given how little you have got her losing when you flop a set (and she has just overcards), you have got her winning too much when you both miss the flop. In other words, you have got her neatly folding on the turn when you flop a set while also having her boldly bet you out of the pot when you don't flop a set.

I mean, if your assumptions are right, a good strategy for you is to checkraise any Jack high or less flop. Another strategy might be to checkcall the flop so long as it is less than Jack high. If the turn is another low one, it will go check check. Then, you can value bet or checkfold the river again depending on whether a big card comes off.

Anyway you look at it, it would seem to me that calling preflop is the clear choice.

[Gabe]

Spot on.

[MaxPower]

I remember you made the same fold against Ray Zee. The Babe reads these forums and probably remembers that as well.

Everyone except Tommy has to call here /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Tommy:

If you weren't against the PokerBabe I would say your play is beyond bad. But I think that even against her, there is no way I would ever lay this down. Your implied odds clearly make this profitable to call and try to catch a set on the flop.

By the way, I remember someone once talking about a hand where he raised with a pair of deuces, and then folded to Ray Zee's reraise. I think that guy was told the same thing.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

I haven't read most of these posts, so I'll just make a general comment. Calling, doesn't do much for your image one way or the other. Betting and raising, and playing very few hands will impact how others think about you.

This is based on my experience.

Best wishes,
Mason

[joker122]

[ QUOTE ]
Calling, doesn't do much for your image one way or the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. For the J4s call to benefit meta game considerations he would have to show it down. He will be showing this hand down very rarely, however.

The 44 fold obviously does alot for his image though.

[Duke]

I don't like it. I do like how you played every hand we played today, though. You're uncheckraisable.

~D

[Ezcheeze]

I jumped the gun on you Tommy. Sorry about that. Now that you see there's a possible meaningful profit that comes from playing back postflop are you going to try to phase it into your play? In order for not implementing this strategy to be right there has to be some +EV gained on other hands as a direct result of folding preflop. I can't think of any benefits that would be big enough to disuade me from using this strategy. It's certainly very possible they exist and I just don't see/understand them. I'd like to hear some though so hopefully others can help me out.

-Ezcheeze

[Tommy Angelo]

"Now that you see there's a possible meaningful profit that comes from playing back postflop are you going to try to phase it into your play?"

No. It took all this time to phase it out.

"In order for not implementing this strategy to be right there has to be some +EV gained on other hands as a direct result of folding preflop."

Correct.

"I can't think of any benefits that would be big enough to disuade me from using this strategy."

I can.

"It's certainly very possible they exist and I just don't see/understand them."

True.

"I'd like to hear some ..."

Maintaining indefinitely predictable tiltlessness.

Tommy

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Maintaining indefinitely predictable tiltlessness.

[/ QUOTE ]

No need for this to be correlated at all as to whether or not you play back postflop. May I suggest that you being too rigid with yourself.

Heck Tommy, why don't you try a mind-game on yourself and arbitrarily postulate that the reverse, that playing back postflop sometimes, is what will keep you "maintaining indefinitely predictable tiltlessness". Because that's more or less what you are doing now, only in mirror-image. If you must resort to tricking yourself to stay tilt-free, why not look for a deeper solution?

Meta-game considerations are one thing. Being tiltless however need not be dependent on any style. Is the Zen master tiltless only when engaged in zazen, or also when in the busy street and bazaar?

[Tommy Angelo]

"I do like how you played every hand we played today, though. You're uncheckraisable."

I don't know about all that. It was a rather small sample size after all. I recall two hands where I could have been bitten by you but escaped. Do you mind if I (or you) post about it in midlimit?

It was nice meeting you and slithering away from you, you treacherous yew you.

Tommy

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say that Babe has an overpair 100% of the time--which is clearly ridiculous--she'll flop a bigger set slightly more than 1% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Huh? If we flop a set, she has four cards with which to hit a bigger set. If you think that given four cards, a pocket pair will only make a set 1% of the time, then you have some serious misconceptions about poker.

[Duke]

Which suckout? The QQ vs KK or the 24 vs whatever you had?

Yeah feel free to post whatever. I'm not too secretive.

~D