JJ 20-40

[mike l.]

at the risk of boring people with another uninteresting hand ill post this one. i think there were some interesting decisions made, but who knows maybe im wrong.

20-40 great live game 4-7 players seeing each flop for one or two bets each. i have JJ in the sb and 2 players limp. i do something i almost never do and flat call. bb checks. 4 of us.

the flop is 763 rainbow. i check, bb checks, utg bets. utg sees about 65% of all flops. he plays loose and pretty darn aggressive postflop. he is not very good, but he is pretty fearless. anyway he bets, folded to me and i checkraise, bb folds, utg 3 bets, i 4 bet, he 5 bets, i 6 bet, he 7 bets, i 8 bet, he calls.

at this point i decide that i will bet out no matter what comes and fold if raised (provided i dont improve myself when raised.

what do you think?

[Joe Tall]

I hate the preflop limp but I've done it, once, once. I didn't like it that time either.

Man, he has 76, mike, I only go 6 bets.

[Cornell Fiji]

This is certaintly not a 'boring' or 'commonplace' hand that a poster complained about you posting previously (to refute him I would love for you to continue to post all hands that you find interesting - i have learned a lot from your posts and if no new hands are posted then I often wind up just browsing OOT.. anyway...)

I hate your line here. I find it stupid to put out an EIGHTH raise on the flop with just JJ, (acutally I have a problem with the SIXTH raise that you threw out and would question the FOURTH bet without the description of your opponent.)

My problem is that if you were willing to go past 4 bets why not just check call all the way down? You will be risking the same amount but actually be giving yourself a chance tro WIN THE POT. Your actions just seem silly to me (and yes I do think that you are way behind here)

Keep on posting!

-Steve

[Kaz The Original]

After bet five or six you are definitely getting into "lazer thin value bet" area. The turn decision is interesting. I assume you think turn raise means set and I like it more than the 8 bet. I'd probably call down from the fifth bet... but I don't know the player.

[Turning Stone Pro]

"at this point i decide that i will bet out no matter what comes and fold if raised (provided i dont improve myself when raised".

You make it 8 bets on the flop (for some reason), he calls, and this is your strategy on the turn???

I can't wait to hear all your retarded 5-10 players who can't beat anyone voice their support for your fine play.

Boy, you suck at this game. Almost as bad as Angelo.

TSP

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
i 4 bet, he 5 bets, i 6 bet, he 7 bets, i 8 bet, he calls.

at this point i decide that i will bet out no matter what comes and fold if raised (provided i dont improve myself when raised.

what do you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

Mike,

I'm out of my element here, but this one piques my interest enough to ask a question. Can you, or someone else, explain the thought process here? I just can't figure out why you go to war on the flop there, but then decide that you'd fold for one more bet on the turn.

I guess to make myself more clear, what information do you gather through a potential turn raise, that you're not already getting on the flop? To put it another way, if he had 9-bet instead of calling, would you have 10-bet and folded to an 11-bet?

Another question, if you're planning on folding to a raise, why bet in the first place? He's certainly not going to fold, but at the same time it doesn't mean that your hand is good if he just flat calls, either.

I understand your line of thinking on most of the other hands you post, but this one is over my head. Please elaborate.

[ScottyP431]

Im gonna have to agree here... i mean jesus, 8 bet and fold to a turn raise... that is insanity.

Altough i have to imagine you won this hand as i dont think someone would post something like this if it was an embarassing loss

[Kaz The Original]

"utg sees about 65% of all flops. he plays loose and pretty darn aggressive postflop" this is the clue in the puzzle as to the 8 bet.

I guess Mike figures that if utg raises his turn bet villian must have a set or the straight. Note, folding because your opponent can have two pair is incorrect because you have the outs to improve.

I suppose this guys 9 bet is like a rocks raise, or a players 4 bet...

(I'm not support his action because this sort of insanity is player independent, but trying to explain what I believe is his thought process)

[elindauer]

lol. hey tsp. I like your call-it-like-you-see-it style, which so often is exactly what I'm thinking. On this one though, I think you're too harsh. Some thoughts:


first of all, I try to adjust my thinking a bit on mike's posts since he plays in a different game than I do. I've logged about 40 hours in the 40/80 at the Commerce, which was enough to convince me that some of the craziness I saw posted here does make a little sense. The games in California, at least some of them, really are insane. I had never seen a true maniac before my California trip, where I saw about a dozen.

So, having said that, let's look at the flop. Mike's opponent is fearless. He does not respect the check-raise one bit. He "knows" that mike does not have an overpair, since mike limped preflop. So after we go bet (hello) raise (hi) 3-bet (I might have something) 4-bet (I know you know I don't have to have much to check-raise and could be restealing) 5-bet (I thought you might think that, but I really do have a pair) we finally get to a point where Mike starts communicating to his opponent that he really can beat top pair. 6-bets - I have top pair or better. 7-bets I have top-pair-top-kicker, eight-eight, or better. 8-bets - I can beat that. call.

Now, the opponents call here means one of two things. a) you've scared me, I have a good hand, but ok, maybe you really do have me beaten. b) screw this small bet stuff, let's get to the expensive streets and continue the conversation.

So mike bets, intending to fold if raised.


Crazy? Yes. You'd get killed playing this way in most games. But mike doesn't play in most games, so it may just be reasonable against this guy.


my 2 cents.
Eric

[Turning Stone Pro]

You can't support this play! And I KNOW your not one of the 5-10 fellows I referred to in my original response.

Very troubling.

TSP

p.s. Happy New Year.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]


Boy, you suck at this game. Almost as bad as Angelo.

TSP

[/ QUOTE ]


There are a number of people on this site that regularly give bad advice. So as not to exclude myself, I will absolutely admit that I don't think all of my advice is always top-notch. However, of the list of people that I know regularly give bad advice, nowhere are Tommy or Mike's names to be found.

(Granted, in this hand I would've stopped reraising earlier than he did -- but I wasn't there.)

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[Boopotts]

You miss the point.

There comes a time for many good poker players when they realize that all the time and passion they've pored into the game has been, if not wasted, then not accordingly rewarded. They work on perfecting the art of the semi-bluff check-raise, the isolation three-bet, etc. etc., and one day it hits them that poker, at it's essence, is simply about getting dead money in the pot. To this end, the kinds of lifeless strategies employed by unimaginative types like Jim Brier actually end up getting about 95% of the money that mike l's stragegies will accrue--even though there's something aesthetically revolting about playing 'Jim Brier' style poker.

It's only natural to want to reject this. You get intelligent and probably creative people like mike l and Tommy Angelo involved in hold 'em, and they just don't want to accept the possibility that all their exotic plays account for maybe 3% of their actual profit. After all, it's these plays that make poker 'fun'. Since there's nothing sexy about value betting pocket aces on the river on a KJ963 board, nothing scintillating about betting out and then checking and calling with a flush draw, then they figure there's probably a better way to play the hand. It's an issue whereby the player confuses optimal play with advanced play-- and unfortunately these two concepts are not interchangable.

One thing I've found interesting is how inexcusably boring the imaginations have been of most of the decent limit players I've ever met. They fold, fold, fold, then they get a good hand and value bet, value bet, value bet. There isn't much more to it, which means you don't need to be a Picasso at the felt in order to make your earn. I've wrestled with this fact for years, and I still lose sight of it. When Mike Caro talks about fancy play syndrome he has me marked to a tee-- I'll check raise, or flat call and three bet, FAR more often than I probably should, or I'll make a big laydown on the river, just because I get a high when these plays work, or when they turn out to be right. It isn't that they're necessarily optimal, only that they give me a chance to flex the muscles I've worked so hard to develop.

I wasn't at Mike's table, so I really don't know anything about this guy he was up against. So maybe eight betting and folding to a raise was right, and maybe it was wrong. Who cares? What's important to realize is that if it is wrong it probably wasn't wrong by much, and perhaps more importantly if it was right it wasn't right by much.

In the final analysis this hand isn't nearly as important to a player's earn as finding a way to get a guy to call a bet on the turn with five outs in a heads-up pot. But I can excuse mike if he doesn't want to preoccupy himself with these issues, because nobody worth their salt gets into poker with the goal of simply learning the basic plays. Most of us first dealt ourselves in because we aspired to play well-- it's just too bad that the far more important concern is to make sure we seat ourselves with players who play bad.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
So, having said that, let's look at the flop. Mike's opponent is fearless. He does not respect the check-raise one bit. He "knows" that mike does not have an overpair, since mike limped preflop. So after we go bet (hello) raise (hi) 3-bet (I might have something) 4-bet (I know you know I don't have to have much to check-raise and could be restealing) 5-bet (I thought you might think that, but I really do have a pair) we finally get to a point where Mike starts communicating to his opponent that he really can beat top pair. 6-bets - I have top pair or better. 7-bets I have top-pair-top-kicker, eight-eight, or better. 8-bets - I can beat that. call.


[/ QUOTE ]


This is a great analysis of what playing in California means.... I always have to gear down big time whenever I have come back from a trip to California back here to CT as you'd NEVER do what Mike did at Foxwoods with this holding -- but in California ... it's about two more bets than I'd go, but for a local guy like him that knows the texture of the game and the players that well, it's a very revolutionary play.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[Turning Stone Pro]

You are exactly the 5-10 idiot I am referring to, with this longwinded crock of s**t.

TSP

[BarronVangorToth]

Few people have mastered the art of criticizing Person 1 (TsP) by insulting Person 2 (JB) -- kudos on that, as it has made me laugh.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[Boopotts]

Thanks for the kind words.

Just wondering how that 600 BB losing streak ended up for you.

[elindauer]

You're right. I don't support it. I would never play a hand like this, certainly not in the games I play, and almost as certainly not if I was playing in California. I'm merely saying that in the strange logic of California poker, against a player who's game you know well, when you are known to put in lots of bets with weak hands and your opponent knows this and is fearless, it does make a certain amount of sense.

You have to take this hand in the context of mike's other plays, like moving all-in for 20 bets preflop with ATs and such. You have to assume that the other players have noticed this kind of stuff and are willing to give him plenty of action, and these are players for whom "plenty of action" is an amount of action you can't believe until you see it. At least I couldn't.


my 2 cents.
Eric

[mike l.]

well the way i see it is after we go all those bets on the turn and then he backs down there's nothing he can have i cant beat. see he would just keep raising if he had the straight, i mean why stop and wait for the turn after 8 bets? he might have some hands i cant beat in fact like 33 and 76, maybe even a bigger set although he would surely raise 77 preflop knowing him. but he wont raise those on the turn after i put all those bets in and represent the straight. he will just call.

if he has something like A7 then he will raise maybe if he improves, and if he does im drawing to two outs and must fold.

so what was your question again?

[mike l.]

"To put it another way, if he had 9-bet instead of calling, would you have 10-bet and folded to an 11-bet?"

if we got up into 9-10 bets i would have had to slow down and call down.

as for the turn raise being a fold card, there's nothing he can have that he can raise the turn with after i show all that strength on the flop that i can have the odds to try and catch. plus when i win the reraise war on the flop it means my hand is likely good on that street or else he wouldve kept raising. although as i said before he may have stopped at 8 bets with two pair or a set.

[mike l.]

"So after we go bet (hello) raise (hi) 3-bet (I might have something) 4-bet (I know you know I don't have to have much to check-raise and could be restealing) 5-bet (I thought you might think that, but I really do have a pair) we finally get to a point where Mike starts communicating to his opponent that he really can beat top pair. 6-bets - I have top pair or better. 7-bets I have top-pair-top-kicker, eight-eight, or better. 8-bets - I can beat that. call."

PERFECT! that's so fuucking exactly correct. exactly. excellent.

ive seen the flop/conversation analogy before but it bears repeating here and you did a great job on this one. thanks.

[Gravy (Gravy Smoothie)]

[ QUOTE ]
You are exactly the 5-10 idiot I am referring to, with this longwinded crock of s**t.

[/ QUOTE ]

When was the last time you posted anything of value, instead of just being a <font color="black"> dick</font>? How would you play this hand?

[schroedy]

[ QUOTE ]
In the final analysis this hand isn't nearly as important to a player's earn as finding a way to get a guy to call a bet on the turn with five outs in a heads-up pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am comfortable enough with my earn, but I regularly call with second or third pair and an overcard kicker which I read as basically 5 outs (plus a bluff/semibluff catcher). Do I have a major leak here?

[skp]

You make poker way more complicated than it is by making these plays. I would never ever go 8 bets on the flop (or any street) with any hand but the nuts. Having somehow done that, I am not going to fold on the turn if raised. Obviously, the guy you are playing is also a little wacky given that he went 7 bets with whatever it is that he is holding. If he is wacky, he may well stop raising the flop at 8 bets and then raise on the turn with something 76 i.e a flopped two pair - a ahand against which you have 8 outs.

Anyway, all that is minor in the grand scheme of things. I just think that you would be much better off if you eschewed goofy tactics like going 8 bets on any street.

[Nightwish]

[ QUOTE ]
You make poker way more complicated than it is by making these plays. I would never ever go 8 bets on the flop (or any street) with any hand but the nuts. Having somehow done that, I am not going to fold on the turn if raised. Obviously, the guy you are playing is also a little wacky given that he went 7 bets with whatever it is that he is holding. If he is wacky, he may well stop raising the flop at 8 bets and then raise on the turn with something 76 i.e a flopped two pair - a ahand against which you have 8 outs.

Anyway, all that is minor in the grand scheme of things. I just think that you would be much better off if you eschewed goofy tactics like going 8 bets on any street.

[/ QUOTE ]
These are my thoughts precisely! When I play poker, I try to (a) make +EV plays (duh) and (b) present my opponents with difficult decisions. In this particular hand, it seems that Mike mostly ends up presenting himself with difficult decisions. And I really don't see a compelling reason for that.

[mike l.]

interesting. i didnt see anything difficult about having some guy give me 4 big bets on the flop when i have him badly beat. nor would i have found there anything difficult if it had turned out he had me beat. it just seemed like the right amount of bets to put in against that player on that street, it felt +EV to me given my experience and understanding of the game and this player. and in this case i was right and my hand held up. he had A7 and he called me down when i bet the turn T and river K.

as for the idea that maybe he would stop raising the flop w/ 76 and then raise the turn with that hand, while nothing is impossible that seemed highly unlikely to me. he decided on the flop after i put all those bets in that i likely had the straight. if he had wanted to put more action in with 76 he wouldve stopped sooner on the flop in order to raise the turn or he wouldve put more bets in on the flop.

you make the game more difficult for yourself when you show no balls by being unwilling to invest a lot of bets with a non-nut hand against a player who it is +EV to do so against. people who say "i never put X amount of bets without the nuts" are pussy and playing -EV in that spot although not as much if youre not in southern california, where this sort of crazy action on all one street thing happens to me about once every two sessions or so.

[stinkypete]

i want to play in california.

[Kaz The Original]

I want to play with mike /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
i want to play in california.

[/ QUOTE ]


It's wild, for certain -- can't wait to be back out there during WrestleMania week.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[Turning Stone Pro]

"you make the game more difficult for yourself when you show no balls by being unwilling to invest a lot of bets with a non-nut hand against a player who it is +EV to do so against. people who say "i never put X amount of bets without the nuts" are pussy and playing -EV in that spot although not as much if youre not in southern california, where this sort of crazy action on all one street thing happens to me about once every two sessions or so."

Mike, I agree that hat there are players out there were going this many bets on the flop with the non-nuts is the right move. Granted, there are not a lot of players like this, but they are there.

My real problem with your play (and I do have my own unique way of pointing these things out), is that I just couldn't fold the turn if he raised it. If he is this much of a maniac, idiot, retard, nut, goof, etc., I just cant muck in this spot when he pops you on the turn, with this many SBs in the pot. You have to be right almost every time to make this muck proper.

While I was playing all nite last nite and am not thinking real clearly, I think that your 'reputation' in these games might be better if you showed that you would bet it hard with the non-nuts and force someone to show you a winner at the end, as opposed to going for a ton of SBs and, when the "cheese gets binding", you muck it on the turn.

TSP

[mike l.]

"If he is this much of a maniac, idiot, retard, nut, goof, etc.,"

yeah but see it's more complex than that. it isnt just that he's a goof and unpredictable and crazy. he is to some extent but he's not completely random. part of it is what i know he thinks of me and my play.

for instance, there was a hand earlier in the session where i made two pair on the turn and checkraised him and a calling station, trapping both of them. they both mucked on the river. the river completed a running flush. he expressed to me that he had been certain when i raised the turn that i had a one card straight draw w/ a flush draw on the turn and that i was semibluff checkraising. in fact, i rarely if ever make that play anymore, but i used to all the time years ago (before i ever met the guy). but because i use position and get caught bluffing sometimes he figures me to be the type of person who is trying to win every pot (and he himself is like this to some extent).

so on the flop on this hand i was getting that vibe from him that says "hey i think youre messing with me and i think my A7 is good here and im going to put in extra bets". well we whipped it out and measured it baby and i won. by a mile.

this time.

[Turning Stone Pro]

I'm not surprised your hand was good, not surprised at all. If you could really muck the turn if he had raised you, then I guess I have to say 'you da man'. I just couldn't do it - your hand is too strong, and, as one poster mentioned, can improve on the river if two pair gets counterfeited.

I hope to make it out to the Commerce this year to check it all out for myself.

TSP

[skp]

[ QUOTE ]
You make the game more difficult for yourself when you show no balls by being unwilling to invest a lot of bets with a non-nut hand against a player who it is +EV to do so against. people who say "i never put X amount of bets without the nuts" are pussy and playing -EV in that spot although not as much if youre not in southern california, where this sort of crazy action on all one street thing happens to me about once every two sessions or so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even assuming that you are right that poker is all anatomical (viz: having balls and not being a pussy and other sundry he-man type comments), I am not sure how taking the pussy approach makes the game more difficult.

Sure, if it is positive Ev to go 8 bets with JJ on a 763 flop, you should do it. But that requires finding someone who will go seven bets with a hand worse than JJ. Apparently, you found such a man...or a broad with plumbing...whatever. Most of us don't encounter these creatures.

I stand by my comment generally that going multiple bets in heads-up situations definitely does make the game more difficult to play which in turn leads to more errors - usually on other hands as opposed to the hand in question - and which in turn leads to minus Ev play overall.

Raising, checkraising and reraising are crucial aspects of poker in pots involving 2 or more opponents. They are way less crucial tools in heads-up spots (Of course, this comment does not apply to a heads-up game).

[mike l.]

"I stand by my comment generally that going multiple bets in heads-up situations definitely does make the game more difficult to play which in turn leads to more errors - usually on other hands as opposed to the hand in question - and which in turn leads to minus Ev play overall."

youre coming just short of saying "putting in too many bets with what favors to be the worst hand is -EV". you see that dont you? what youre saying is not worth saying. it's obvious.

this was a special case. that's what made it interesting and postable. what do you think i just go as many bets as any player wants to heads up on the flop whenever i have an okay hand?

as for all the pussy and dick talk it's about poker ego and confidence. it's a man's game, it requires eagerness to take someone's money, to f*ck someone over with lies, it's a head game. that's what makes it fun, it's deceptive macho character. im sure youre all just sipping high tea and pondering out upon the rainy cityscape there at holiday inn vancouver waiting for QQ or better, but down here we're rolling around in the heat and smog and trying to kill each other thank you very much.

[TStoneMBD]

i only read a few posts here, but TSP has this all right. you played this like f**king c**k.

[andyfox]

"im sure youre all just sipping high tea and pondering out upon the rainy cityscape there at holiday inn vancouver waiting for QQ or better"

You've evidently not played with skp before. Nor looked out your window today. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

"it's about poker ego and confidence. it's a man's game, it requires eagerness to take someone's money, to f*ck someone over with lies, it's a head game. that's what makes it fun, it's deceptive macho character."

What you describe is a boy's game. skp plays a man's game.

[skp]

I said:

"I stand by my comment generally that going multiple bets in heads-up situations definitely does make the game more difficult to play which in turn leads to more errors - usually on other hands as opposed to the hand in question - and which in turn leads to minus Ev play overall."

You then said:

[ QUOTE ]
youre coming just short of saying "putting in too many bets with what favors to be the worst hand is -EV". you see that dont you? what youre saying is not worth saying. it's obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

I fail to see the connection and have no idea what you are now talking about.

[ QUOTE ]
this was a special case. that's what made it interesting and postable. what do you think i just go as many bets as any player wants to heads up on the flop whenever i have an okay hand?


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if it was that special a case, it's not something that you implied in your intial post. Of course, that didn't make me conclude that you spew chips on a routine basis but in a later post, you went on to say something to the effect that down there in la la land, these types of confrontations occur quite frequently. That is what led me to make the comment that you unnecessarily make the game more complex than it is.

[ QUOTE ]
im sure youre all just sipping high tea and pondering out upon the rainy cityscape there at holiday inn vancouver waiting for QQ or better, but down here we're rolling around in the heat and smog and trying to kill each other thank you very much.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm an onliner now but your post does make me yearn for that cup of tea at HI Van again...incidentally, the HI games were generally even looser than the Commerce games albeit I have only logged about 80 hours at the Commerce on couple of trips so I can't possibly comment with any degree of certainty.

As for confidence, I have plenty in my comfort zone i.e. up to 30/60. I do puss out when it comes to bigger games like the 80 game however as Clark would attest to but that's another matter altogether. But the point is that one does not have to flex one's muscles to show confidence. Put another way, never going 8 bets without the nuts is not a sign of meek, cowardly, and insipid play as your post seems to imply. To the contrary, doing so is indicative of brash, egotistical play although it may not necessarily be that.

[andyfox]

"if I were to try to politely say something, an argument would likely ensue, and I'd get...emotional (in what should be an emotionless game)." [emphasis added]

A snippet from a post by Josh W. The least pussified person I know.

[mike l.]

"What you describe is a boy's game. skp plays a man's game."

yes. and playing at commerce (and down here when the game is GOOD) is like playing with children. they act like children and they play with the intellect of a child. and like children they are easy to read. so you go 8 bets with them sometimes and are usually right when you do. or when i do at least.

and it amazes me how in a roomful of children you somehow seem to manage to always sit in the most adult 40-80 in the room. bad. get on the table change andy!

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
it's about poker ego and confidence. it's a man's game, it requires eagerness to take someone's money, to f*ck someone over with lies, it's a head game. that's what makes it fun, it's deceptive macho character. im sure youre all just sipping high tea and pondering out upon the rainy cityscape there at holiday inn vancouver waiting for QQ or better, but down here we're rolling around in the heat and smog and trying to kill each other thank you very much.

[/ QUOTE ]


These are some of the coolest 82 words ever strung together regarding poker. Post of the day -- hell, of the week -- in my mind.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[mike l.]

"To the contrary, doing so is indicative of brash, egotistical play although it may not necessarily be that."

put "too often" or "without good reason" in between "so" and "it" and youve got a deal.

but that's just short of saying "playing like a maniac (very aggressive without great reason) is -EV". and we all already know that.

so it's on you, if you want, to show me how my going 8 bets here was not justified. at no time did i feel i was getting in over my head or making things more complicated then they had to be. i was just using a read and putting more bets in to try to maximize EV. i went into great detail in other posts throughout the thread to explain my thinking. could you please comment directly (not generally) on the things ive said, or will we just decide that these are issues of style that need not be reconciled or discussed further?

either way is fine with me. but there is a very short list of posters i can stand to read a sentence that starts "in general" from and you just miss the cut.

[mike l.]

wait a second didnt he just yell at some old lady because she told some guy he was mucking the winner? i wouldve never done that.

i wouldve waited until she got out to the parking lot.... and then i wouldve followed her home.... and then...

[mike l.]

"Post of the day"

nah im just trying to rewrite shut up and deal one paragraph at a time piece by piece. on the wrong forum no less.

[andyfox]

When I think I'm playing with children, I play like an adult. When I think I'm playing with adults, I play like an adult. Going 8 bets with the 11th nut hand, and then deciding I'm going to fold if my opponent raises the turn, is not part of the plan.

Thanks for the game selection advice.

[mike l.]

"Going 8 bets with the 11th nut hand, and then deciding I'm going to fold if my opponent raises the turn, is not part of the plan."

okay now we're getting somewhere. let's get specific if you have a second.

ok now if he has 76 (or 63 or 73) for two pair i can draw out and should get to the river (and it will be showdown because if i get that far im seeing it for my own eyes) so folding would be awful. so the question is can he have that? and the answer is no because he would keep raising on the flop rather than wait and see the turn. and that's true of a set and probably a straight too. he would just keep playing on on the flop. at some point he would stop with a set. at some point he would stop with two pair. and at some point he would stop with one pair or a draw. and i had some sort of a sensor that i felt was on and i was atune to where he was as each bet went in. it was like a dialogue or meter reading or something. it's 5 years+ of non stop hold em CLICKING into place. CLICK 5 bets CLICK 7 bets CLICK. in tempo like tommy said. and just then he stops, he gives, he's headed for the showdown and if a 7 pops up on the turn and i bet just as planned no hesitation just about 1.6 seconds before the turn card is visible POP CLICK DARK BET BAM 7 "i layze!" in tempo proooooooobabababably about 2 seconds of huffing disappointment (because let's face it im very human) and then MUCK the kid's either full or trips and i cant draw and wont draw and it actually gives me a lift to try and just let it go and get on with it. and best of all he flashes his hand to me smiling now because he's proud, proud he sucked out like the sucker he is, but whatever good for him i suck out too all the time so he flashes me his A7 and i wink and it's all good just a kid's game anyway just passing away the afternoon trying to make a buck whadya say there andy foxxxxxxx?

[ScottyP431]

This is getting a tad absurd. You have basically rigged the game in terms of discussing your play. You have made the claim "Its ok, because i knew exactly what he had after 7 or some nonsense number of bets". If it was the case that you knew exactly what he had, a lone 7, then yes, your play was incredible.

I think people are objecting to your ability to put such a magical read on a player after such an insane amount of action. you admit he would stop at some point with a set or 2 pair, how on earth did you know that 8 bets was the cutoff for top pair, 10 bets was the cutoff for 2 pair and 23 bets was the cutoff for top set?


And if your read is so incredible, why waste the bet leading the turn when the 7 hits? why not just fold your hand face up and not give him the satisfaction of betting?

[BarronVangorToth]

A sick read on the player is HUGE....

I'm by no means calling myself a great reader of players, but I was recently in a pot with a guy who I guess is my friend, in that we are very friendly with each other whenever we are at Foxwoods yet I'd never dream of hanging out with him other than at the woods....

I know how he plays -- and on a 9-10-J-blank-blank board I went back and forth with him 9 times before he stopped raising me on the river, when I had pocket 9's, as I know how he plays and when he had raised preflop, I know he NEVER raises 10's, J's, or KQ pre-flop so I have the de facto nuts against him as I know how he plays and what he'll raise with. I knew he had Aces or Kings and he got married to his hand and wouldn't stop raising it since he just couldn't see straight for whatever reason.

Sometimes ... the read is EVERYTHING. Mike looks like he had the dead-bang read in this situation. Far be it that I think he's saying everyone should make it 8-bets against any player regardless of the field, but, in this situation, with the read he had, with the texture of the game, with his knowledge of the player ... he did what he thought was right and he happened to be right.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[andyfox]

"at this point i decide that i will bet out no matter what comes and fold if raised (provided i dont improve myself when raised."

Well which was it? Did you know exactly what he had on the flop ("CLICK") because of what he did or didn't you? You say you were attuned to where he was as each bet went in. Did you change your perception of what he might have as each bet went in? If you did, your tuning was wrong on each prior discarded assessment.

I'm saying there's nothing wrong with putting a guy on a hand, but at least consider other possible hands he might have. Putting in 8 bets on the flop with one pair and then deciding you'll fold no matter what comes on the turn if he raises (and you don't improve) because you're playing a man's game and because click-click-click I have him, oh but wait a minute, now he's raising, I don't have him, I fold, is childish.

Cool post, though. Very Tom Wolfeish.

[ScottyP431]

How you could read my post and decide "this guy is saying reads are completely worthless" is beyond me. andy summed up exactly what i was saying in his latest post

[andyfox]

I find my ability to definitively say that so-and-so never does such-and-such and that, therefore, my non-nuts hand is effectively the nuts, goes by the wayside after my oponent has raised me three times in a round.

[mike l.]

"This is getting a tad absurd."

ya think?

all of my posts are just about half serious. ill read the rest of your post in a second just wanted to let you in on that.

[mike l.]

"Well which was it? Did you know exactly what he had on the flop ("CLICK") because of what he did or didn't you?"

no i figured he had a pair of 7s when i won the raising war on the flop. (admittedly there was a small voice in the back of my head, the skp or jim brier in me if you will, saying "hey wait he might have two pair or a set and just have slowed down because you are a lunatic" but the part of me that was high from having fun putting all those raises in on the flop muffled him with a throw pillow and kept dark betting.

anyway im having too much fun typing here. bottom line: i wanted to convey in my original post that i was interested in folding if a bad card came on the turn or river (namely a 7 or an A or a 6 as well, maybe a T or a 5) and the guy raised me. to me that would mean i was toast. i didnt want to be too specific though because i didnt want to completely give away the results. when the flop betting stopped i was about 85-90% sure i had the winner and he was drawing thin. there was still some fear in me but i was feeling cocky. so i guess what im saying is "no matter what comes is not quite right" is a 2 or Q had come i might have to then decide that he has a straight and fold. i dont think there'd be anything wrong with that, nor that how many bets i went on the flop would make that wrong. in fact, it was all those bets on the flop when i felt like i had a nut hand that make the laydown so right. even chronic bluffers dont bluff players that seem destined to call them down. being a chronic bluffer i know this.

a friend put it to me this way "oh see you were both just in a battle to slow each other down and it perpetuated from that" and i said "no i wanted to put more bets in and as we got to 10-12 bets i wouldve then decided to call down." that just seemed about the right amount given that moment with that player with that hand.

"Putting in 8 bets on the flop with one pair and then deciding you'll fold no matter what comes on the turn if he raises (and you don't improve) because you're playing a man's game and because click-click-click I have him, oh but wait a minute, now he's raising, I don't have him, I fold, is childish."

right but what you say would rely on my clicking being way off frequently (and it's not), and my opponent's being capable of trapping me and tricking me sometimes and theyre just not. it's cause im playing with kids.

"I'm saying there's nothing wrong with putting a guy on a hand, but at least consider other possible hands he might have."

i think it was elindauer who made the post about the flop dialogue. go reread that and youll see how it works. is this andy im responding too? cmon man whatre you doing, you know how this game works...

[mike l.]

"my opponent"

just any opponent eh? you dont change that to 4 raises or 2 raises or 1 raise or 6 raises depending on who it is and what's been going down eh?

bad

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
How you could read my post and decide "this guy is saying reads are completely worthless" is beyond me. andy summed up exactly what i was saying in his latest post

[/ QUOTE ]


I was agreeing with you, actually -- I get zero points today for clarity. Sorry about that.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
I find my ability to definitively say that so-and-so never does such-and-such and that, therefore, my non-nuts hand is effectively the nuts, goes by the wayside after my oponent has raised me three times in a round.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed with unknown opponents. I'd NEVER make it that many bets with Random Guy if I don't have the nuts. HOWEVER, some people that I know, really ARE that transparent. Invariably you have people you have played with for years that you could say likewise about. You're right, though, Andy ... in most situations.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[ScottyP431]

[ QUOTE ]
"This is getting a tad absurd."

ya think?

all of my posts are just about half serious. ill read the rest of your post in a second just wanted to let you in on that.

[/ QUOTE ]

"ill be in the minority and say your post was pretty boring and a waste of time to read"

There is nothing worse than people who
A, when thinking people dont get their lame jokes cause they respond in a serious fashion fall back on "no dude, your not smart enough to get it" by making stupid ass remarks like "ya think"
B, Think they are witty/clever, when in fact, they are not

You sir are both

And you're a dick, you berate people when they do something you think is stupid, and when people disagree with your play in a respectful manner you respond like an ass, and the fact that you avoid tough arguments by saying "i was only half serious" is weak, and lame, and childish

In closing, the jerk store called, and they said..

[mike l.]

"And you're a dick, you berate people when they do something you think is stupid"

i didnt berate anyone that i recall. and i certainly dont get into boring name calling (dick, jerk store, witty/clever not, etc) so have a nice day.

[mike l.]

"you admit he would stop at some point with a set or 2 pair, how on earth did you know that 8 bets was the cutoff for top pair, 10 bets was the cutoff for 2 pair and 23 bets was the cutoff for top set?"

just a feel for this sort of thing from experience. being wrong enough and then right enough and then wrong enough again and getting it right more than wrong enough, ill be even better at it 5 years from now. in this case i was right. i post some posts where i was wrong and try to figure out where i went wrong.

let's put it this way: when playing that you sense stuff and one of the things you sense is "hey that seems like the sort of guy who will go off for lots of bets on the flop or turn or preflop or whatever for lots of bets with a non-nut hand.." and maybe it doesnt really gel into that sort of formed thought until all of the sudden youre in that moment and you realise hey this guy was thinking the same thing i was. and the next thing you know youre posting about it or telling a friend, "hey check it out i had JJ the other day and me and this guy went 8 bets on the flop and then..."

[ScottyP431]

I guess i should clarify: i am not saying that the kind of read you are describing is impossible, just that the chances of making one and it being right often enough for that kind of play to be +EV seems remote. It seems like reading hands is more of an art, and you apply it as if it was an exact science.

My other post was way harsh tai, my b

[Ulysses]

I think you'd make more money at hold'em if you incorporated a little more skp into your play.

[andyfox]

Andy's rule of six or seven.

[mike l.]

"I think you'd make more money at hold'em if you incorporated a little more skp into your play."

not sure why im posting this in public but i guess im lazy.

anyway i make more at poker when im more like my natural aggressive non-cautious poker self. and i make more at poker when my away from table choices (i.e.: what table/limit to play at) are more like skp's cautious smart self.

see what im saying?

[JimmyV]

Just want to say I think this is a fantastic play. People aren't thinking enough about the fact that a turn raise truly means something in a pot like this one. And as usual those who are criticizing the fold are unable to put opponent on a hand that would stop-n-go like this given the temperament described.

There should be a mandatory comment-on-the-texture-of-the-board quiz people have to pass before calling other posters names.

Also, Mike L. is coming into his own as a poster, which is great cause he's a heck of a player too.

JimmyV

[skp]

[ QUOTE ]
put "too often" or "without good reason" in between "so" and "it" and youve got a deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Deal.

[ QUOTE ]
...[an explanation] either way is fine with me. but there is a very short list of posters i can stand to read a sentence that starts "in general" from and you just miss the cut.

[/ QUOTE ]

No deal. What can I say, Mike...if after all these years of reading and dissecting each other's posts, I don't make the cut, then I see no point in trying to get on your short list at this point.

But hey...I may make it there by the end of the year...call it my new year's goal.

[mike l.]

"But hey...I may make it there by the end of the year...call it my new year's goal."

i will avoid you at the tables but look forward to meeting you away from them!

btw the short list is something like tommy, maybe snakehead, and maybe sklansky. no one else. everyone else has to be specific.

but im grateful for the dialogue. i do see what youre saying. this whole thread was a devil's advocate thing. i was looking for people who would say things that would get me to think/write/think/write/think/write/think. you cant imagine how irritated i was when like the first 4 posts were "wow mike that was great, youre really great".

edit: oh i thought when you said "make it there" you meant make it down to LA! well let this serve as a formal invite from the so cal posters to you! come and let me buy you pinks! or if you like wonderful vegetarian thalis from sweet houses we have a few GREAT ones down here.

[skp]

[ QUOTE ]
btw the short list is something like tommy, maybe snakehead, and maybe sklansky. no one else. everyone else has to be specific.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can certainly buy that. I would be pissed if I didn't make your top 25 or something. Although I didn't make Sklansky's top 50 2+2'ers that he posted on RGP. What's worse is that he made the post about 4 years ago when there were like 55 posters on 2+2...heh...my good buddy Feeney had to remind OZ that perhaps he could find room for me on his elite list.


[ QUOTE ]
edit: oh i thought when you said "make it there" you meant make it down to LA! well let this serve as a formal invite from the so cal posters to you! come and let me buy you pinks! or if you like wonderful vegetarian thalis from sweet houses we have a few GREAT ones down here.

[/ QUOTE ]

After a month long trip to India, I have had my fill of Thalis good as they are...make that a 10 Oz. cut with a spud and all trimmings and you have got a deal.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
tommy, maybe snakehead, and maybe sklansky.

[/ QUOTE ]


When Tommy is listed as a definite, I'm sure David loves being listed as a maybe. (No offense, Tommy -- hopefully you know what I mean.)

As to the OTHER poster above who referenced how Mike L's posts are getting better and better -- absolutely agreed. His (along with Tommy's ... and David's) are easily amongst my favorites these days.

In general.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[SA125]

"And you're a dick, you berate people when they do something you think is stupid, and when people disagree with your play in a respectful manner you respond like an ass"

Words that you later admitted were too strong. We all make mistakes. In mike's case, my plus and minus take on his posts is this.

On the minus side - mike posts some hands that, as Paluka correctly pointed out, if they were posted by someone else would be ridiculed. mike then defends his play by saying either his opponents sucked or he had some instinctive read that he knew (and was about 90% right) was on the money. Problem is, as Paluka said, most of us don't play against total nit wits. Bad, yeah. Secret race of retrads, no. So the play is definitely questionable.

On the plus side - mike posts hands from the highest limits of anyone in Mid stakes. His play in those high limit hands reveal an understanding of the concepts and implementing of strategies that are extremely impressive. In short, the man looks like he can play. Very, very strong and very, very well.

FWIW - On the subject of intuition, reads, and mike folding to a turn raise. Look at this. It was NL, but it makes the point. Watching the $2mil tourney on TV tonight and Chip Reese has KK and is up against Hellmuth with AA on a flop of Jxx. Reese knew he was beat, wanted to and was ready to fold, but called. He lost and knew he was beat. Great players have that sense where, even though the board says otherwise, they know when they're beat.

[Stork]

[ QUOTE ]
btw the short list is something like tommy, maybe snakehead, and maybe sklansky. no one else. everyone else has to be specific.

[/ QUOTE ]

No Clark, Dynasty, or El Diablo? For what it's worth, my list includes those 3, yourself, and any 2+2 authors.

It's not that these are the only posters I respect, but that these posters always (usually) have something insightful to say or show through a hand example.

[CanKid]

[ QUOTE ]
So after we go bet (hello) raise (hi) 3-bet (I might have something) 4-bet (I know you know I don't have to have much to check-raise and could be restealing) 5-bet (I thought you might think that, but I really do have a pair) we finally get to a point where Mike starts communicating to his opponent that he really can beat top pair. 6-bets - I have top pair or better. 7-bets I have top-pair-top-kicker, eight-eight, or better. 8-bets - I can beat that. call.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[CanKid]

How many bets before you stop?

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
as for all the pussy and dick talk it's about poker ego and confidence. it's a man's game, it requires eagerness to take someone's money, to f*ck someone over with lies, it's a head game. that's what makes it fun, it's deceptive macho character. im sure youre all just sipping high tea and pondering out upon the rainy cityscape there at holiday inn vancouver waiting for QQ or better, but down here we're rolling around in the heat and smog and trying to kill each other thank you very much.

[/ QUOTE ]

what is "high tea" and why would you want to merely sip it?

~ rick

[andyfox]

"I didn't make Sklansky's top 50 2+2'ers"

Don't I remember seeing you listed among 2+2ers Sklanksy felt could write a great poker book? If he did say it, he was right. If he didn't say it, he should have.

[tolbiny]

"when the flop betting stopped i was about 85-90% sure i had the winner and he was drawing thin."

Sounds good- but with the description of your opponanat aren't there several cards that could come on the turn that you could c/r him with if you are this sure you are ahead?

[skp]

oh yeah that's right... he mumbled something like that once...you just put Sklansky in my good books again...heh

[mike l.]

"make that a 10 Oz. cut with a spud and all trimmings and you have got a deal."

of course! whatever you like would be well worth the privilege of dining together and talking.

plus we'll try and get a home game together. just wait until you see this gabe guy play 2-7 td and padoogi! now there's something to talk about!

[mike l.]

"No Clark"

i was just thinking oops i forgot him and then i thought nah he can go fu*ck himself.

[mike l.]

"High Tea is often a misnomer. Most people refer to afternoon tea as high tea because they think it sounds regal and lofty, when in all actuality, high tea, or "meat tea" is dinner. High tea, in Britain, at any rate, tends to be on the heavier side. American hotels and tea rooms, on the other hand, continue to misunderstand and offer tidbits of fancy pastries and cakes on delicate china when they offer a "high tea.""

there's more (like what is low tea) here:

http://whatscookingamerica.net/History/HighTeaHistory.htm

cheers, mike

[mike l.]

"How many bets before you stop?"

good question. it's either 9 or 11 and then i just call. he almost had me saying uncle. then the question becomes whether to call down or not. maybe skp's right things can get complicated. if i hadnt of been so darn sure i was good there though i wouldve never went to 8 bets so maybe ive overplayed the information gaining aspect of the flop frenzy.

oh there's one more important thing we never touched on and that's the fact that if he had a great made hand like a straight or a set he would be much more likely to slowplay it a bit until the turn, especially once he saw i liked my hand. after 8 bets though the idea of him now suddenly waiting for the turn to extract even more from me is a bit far fetched.

however the poster above who says why didnt i try for a checkraise on the turn has a point. but there are two reasons i didnt:

one is the momentum i built up on the flop just screams dark bet time. the guy's a nice favorite to have A7 leaving a full 5 cards i dont want to see peel. plus the dark bet is a nice cocky style touch and having other players fear me is profitable and fun.

second reason not to checkraise the turn. even this guy may back off and be suspicious and a little flumoxed at himself for going off so badly on the turn and he will check behind something like A7 there.

[tolbiny]

"one is the momentum i built up on the flop just screams dark bet time. the guy's a nice favorite to have A7 leaving a full 5 cards i dont want to see peel."

Are you saying that if an A or a 7 falls you might find youself just checkcalling the turn if you don't already have chips ready to pounce? Because you betting aint gonna stop that card from being an A or a 7.

"even this guy may back off and be suspicious and a little flumoxed at himself for going off so badly on the turn and he will check behind something like A7 there."

This was mostly my question- i don't play with lags, in fact here in the midwest we have the anti-lag syndrome. Last night Victor and i were playing in a game with three guys who were lags less than 10 months ago- but after sitting in loose passive games time, after time, after time, they too have been forced into this mold. In fact the three most aggressive guys in the room were in order.
1. Victor
2. Tolbiny
3. The guy on the waiting list who was reading WLLH in the back of the room.

"plus the dark bet is a nice cocky style touch and having other players fear me is profitable and fun."

Dude i think checkraising after 8 betting the flop is way cockier, and much more fun.
Is it more profitable?

[mike l.]

"Dude i think checkraising after 8 betting the flop is way cockier, and much more fun. Is it more profitable?"

i dont think so. i think he wouldve checked the turn if i checked. i think i freaked him by not stopping on the flop and i think he thought i had a straight or a set.

"you betting aint gonna stop that card from being an A or a 7."

true. i guess i wouldve just had to deal with that card if it came. if he thought i had a straight or set he wouldnt raise anyway with two pair. he'd bet if i checked though if he had two pair.

i think ive exhausted everything there is to say on this one. i guess what's happened several times is ive gotten in these flop pissing matches and always felt mighty dumb when i ignored my strong read i had the nuts and slowed down first. there was an ATs hand i had at commerce earlier this year where i stopped at like ten bets and it turned out i had the guy drawing to 5 outs and another i never posted where i went like 20 bets on the flop with some guy with A5 on an A52 board or something and he had AK and i felt dumb then too. in both cases i knew i was ahead but some pussy part of me made me stop too soon. oh wait there was one more playing 200-400 where went like 6 or 7 bets and the board was A64 and i had AK and he had AQ and i stopped first. omg i just want to scream thinking about it.

oh well maybe ill do it right tomorrow. commerce here i come.

[Lawrence Ng]

[ QUOTE ]
what do you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

I just have one question for you Mike and this is test to see how well you back your words and ultimately your balls?

By the 8th raise, if you are 70% sure you have your opponent beat and he says, "you wanna go all-in?", what do you do?

Lawrence

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
Reese knew he was beat

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to hijack this for a second, when I first saw that and saw he (a) knew and (b) was going to fold, I knew there is definitely a Superstar class of player out there as there is no way on earth I wouldn't have gotten in all of my money with Kings and that board and done so with far less trepidation than he did. Astounding play.

Digression ended.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[andyfox]

"i ignored my strong read i had the nuts and slowed down first. there was an ATs hand i had at commerce earlier this year where i stopped at like ten bets and it turned out i had the guy drawing to 5 outs and another i never posted where i went like 20 bets on the flop with some guy with A5 on an A52 board or something and he had AK and i felt dumb then too. in both cases i knew i was ahead but some pussy part of me made me stop too soon. oh wait there was one more playing 200-400 where went like 6 or 7 bets and the board was A64 and i had AK and he had AQ and i stopped first. omg i just want to scream thinking about it."

You're entitled to your feelings, but it seems silly to feel dumb stopping at 20 bets with A-5 on an A-5-2 board. You still only have 71 percent of your hand.

Don't you feel your skills would be well suited for no-limit or pot-limit poker?

[mike l.]

"Don't you feel your skills would be well suited for no-limit or pot-limit poker?"

maybe. but there's a lot more to those games then just putting a lot of money in all at once. i have played some no limit $500 max buy in down here and enjoyed it a lot, and i did feel like i had an understanding of the game that most of my opponents did not, but that came from good general hold em understanding of things like implied odds not some natural talent or something.

[mike l.]

"By the 8th raise, if you are 70% sure you have your opponent beat and he says, "you wanna go all-in?", what do you do?"

if im 70% sure i would hopefully go all in. it's just $1000 big deal ive lost $3000+ on one hand more than a few times. but if im 70% sure it would also mean im 30% unsure. i guess the question is too hypothetical because i believe this opponent would never say that without the nuts so as soon as he did i would stop being 70% sure and start being something like 95%+ sure im beat. indicating a fold.

see i know this about the kid: he has a very short bankroll, it's usually all on the table or almost all there. so he plays and gets his kicks and sometimes wins but sometimes goes broke and comes back and does it again a few days later. i dont know where he gets the money but ive seen him in action. he doesnt just sit there and get stuck $3000. he is certainly a long term losing player but he's streaky guy who believes in going on rushes and playing a lot of hands. that's my profile and im sticking to it. he likes to play a lot of hands and risk a lot of chips but he doesnt go to the felt all in one hand without the nuts, even against me.

[Sqred]

Almost perfect Mike. I like it up to the seventh bet. I would have check called from there. Is this style good for an average 20/40? I know it is essential for 150/300 and up. Are you sure your opponent isn't really good?