Too weak tight? Flop bottom set

[Post-Oak]

Live game, 9 players. Table is surprisingly tight so far.

I'm in BB with 2s 2c.

6 players see the flop (no raise)

Flop is 8 - 5 - 2 rainbow

SB bets $60. I call. One fold and then solid player in mid position makes it $170 (raise $110).

Folded back around to me. I fold.

[tbach24]

Raise the initial bet. Solid player could have an overpair. You gotta raise the intial bet.

[raptor517]

you absolutely CANT call the first bet and fold to a raise. you have to raise that bet.

[John Gaspar]

I vote for too tight.

Would he make this same play with 99-JJ? I would imagine so.

It looks like he was the 2nd limper pre-flop. Would he limp with AA-KK if the game was as tight as you say trying to win a big pot, disguise his hand or re-raise a late position raiser?

I would call his raise and lead out the turn with a blocking bet. If he is on a higher set, he'll play back at you. If not he'll throw his hand away or flat call. Lather, rinse repeat.

[eoinak]

As allready said he can easy make this move with an overpair. Reraise to find out where you are, or else call and bet the next street

[b0000000000m]

Can you please provide your rationale for raising the initial bet? Is it that raising now provides your opponents with much less information about your hand than raising later? (Are you worried that a raise attempt later will be folded to?)

My question aside--I don't see how you can lay this down at this point.

[raptor517]

well, doyle brunson once said to not get broke in an unraised pot. on a flop like this, that could happen. however, having said that, i would have to get broke on this hand. i think the likelihood of a hand such as 1010 raising in that spot is too great to get rid of a set of 2s. and as lorinda says on the 1 table tourney forum, when in doubt, river quads.

[tbach24]

You raise for value.

[Post-Oak]

Thanks for the replies so far.

Here's some additional info which may(?) make my fold seem like a better decision.

I had just over $1K. Villain had about $1.1-1.2K.

He was 2 seats to the right of the CO (I think).

I think he would have raised with AA, KK, QQ or JJ most all of the time, since he was not in EP and there was already a limper in front of him. So far I had seen him as a solid, ABC type player. Also, is his relatively small raise a little suspicious?

Basically, I was out of position and maybe drawing to only 1 out. Do I really have to mix it up in this "marginal" situation? Or maybe you think it is ridiculous that I am labeling this a marginal situation. I just felt it wasn't a good spot to play for my stack.

My bankroll is big enough for the game, so that is not an issue.

My friend (a very good NL player) thought the lay down was the right move.

[Triumph36]

This exact situation is outlined in PL/NL by CIaffone and Reuben. A virtually drawless flop, you're probably seen as a tight player, it's an unraised pot, and a bet and a call to a middle position player. I can't see a tight player raising with nines or tens here.

[b0000000000m]

I understand this would be a value raise. My question is: Can you please provide an analysis (or just some reasons) that shows that raising for value now (rather than on the turn) is the optimal play?

[tbach24]

Sorry, it's because people will overplay their overpairs. I think raising here would also provide a bit of deception because who would try to blow their hand on such a drawless board?

[Popinjay]

I like it.

[b0000000000m]

a) If the flop was K 7 2 (meaning folks are less likely to have overpairs), would you then change your play--or would you just substitute "overplay overpairs" with "overplay top pair"?

b) So you're saying that they will overplay their overpairs in a particular way that will lead you to make more money if you raise the flop rather than the turn. I guess it isn't so obvious to me that this is true, and this is the part I'm trying to understand. Help. Sorry if I'm being thickheaded.

[tbach24]

[ QUOTE ]
a) If the flop was K 7 2 (meaning folks are less likely to have overpairs), would you then change your play--or would you just substitute "overplay overpairs" with "overplay top pair"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup.

[ QUOTE ]

b) So you're saying that they will overplay their overpairs in a particular way that will lead you to make more money if you raise the flop rather than the turn. I guess it isn't so obvious to me that this is true, and this is the part I'm trying to understand. Help. Sorry if I'm being thickheaded.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think trying to get as much money in on the flop is essential. The turn is where I might slow-down to feign a bit of weakness. Then I play the river harder.

[Triumph36]

This is a solid player, and two players have already said their hand is good. This is very unlikely to be 99 or TT, and if it is, a re-raise drives the overpair out of the hand, whereas you will be losing that money to 55 and 88, who will probably both flat call a raise, leaving you guessing.

I think a player is behind here a lot more often than he is ahead. I'm not saying I would fold; I would probably re-raise. But again, a good player flat calls with 88. This is a win a small pot lose a big pot kind of situation.

[$DEADSEXE$]

Whats more likly mathematically...

He flopped a set of 8's while you also flopped a set of 2's.

Or you flopped a set of 2's and he has 99,1010, or something like 5/8...7/8...6/7 etc

If you go broke its bad luck...but you can't fold this hand that easily. No flush draw on board either...
so your looking at top pair,two pair, openeded st draw or by some shitty stroke of luck set over set. The first three are more likly than the last one.

[radioheadfan]

This is unreal. You can't fold a set here on the flop for $110. No way. Villian could easily have 67 or 34 for an OESD, or simply something like A8s, or 99 or TT trying to take it down right there. You gotta call his bet and see what he does on the turn. If he makes a huge bet on the turn, then you can considering a making a big laydown. If you call, and he checks behind on the turn, you have the best hand provided he doesn't hit his set or OESD on the river.

BTW, you have to raise the SBs bet on the flop. If villian came over the top of your raise, then you could make a big laydown if you dont think he would do this without a set.

Smooth calling the blind's $60 and then folding to a single $110 flop raise from a late position player on a board with two possible OESDs is completely disgusting.

Call this bet everytime. Or don't play 22 if you're gonna be this much of a pansy everytime someone shows any strength fearing set over set. Come on.

[LuvDemNutz]

[ QUOTE ]
This is unreal. You can't fold a set here on the flop for $110. No way. Villian could easily have 67 or 34 for an OESD, or simply something like A8s, or 99 or TT trying to take it down right there. You gotta call his bet and see what he does on the turn. If he makes a huge bet on the turn, then you can considering a making a big laydown. If you call, and he checks behind on the turn, you have the best hand provided he doesn't hit his set or OESD on the river.

BTW, you have to raise the SBs bet on the flop. If villian came over the top of your raise, then you could make a big laydown if you dont think he would do this without a set.

Smooth calling the blind's $60 and then folding to a single $110 flop raise from a late position player on a board with two possible OESDs is completely disgusting.

Call this bet everytime. Or don't play 22 if you're gonna be this much of a pansy everytime someone shows any strength fearing set over set. Come on.

[/ QUOTE ]

What he said.

[Triumph36]

Why does A8 raise here? 99 or TT? Two players have shown strength! I agree that folding here might be weak, but you gain no information by raising. He either folds a hand you have drawing to two outs, or flat calls with a hand that has you drawing to one out. A tight player doesn't play 34 or 67 from MP and certainly does not raise with it here.

Therefore, you can flat call and lead out at a turn, but the same things hold true on the turn. He folds a hand that you beat and raises with hands you can't.

Maybe Villain is making a play since the table is tight. Hero should not get all of his chips into this pot at any point or he will be losing them.

[VanVeen]

IF the game is aggressive preflop and your opponent is unlikely to have limped hands like 67, 34, or 99/TT from his position, or IF your opponent wouldn't raise the flop after a bet and a call with 99/TT/A8s? (his raise also allows him to extract some information on the cheapest street left to play) to end the hand without seeing and dealing with a scary turn card or with 34/67 as a semi-bluff to blow the blinds off their (very likely) weak hands/draws, this is a fine laydown. But if all of this is true and you know this specific opponent would only make this play with a set, why post?

Personally, I would at least call the flop and lead the turn, planning to fold if raised.

[technologic]

raise the deuces preflop if you are going to play like this.

[John Gaspar]

You were there and we weren't so you have a better "feel" for the player in question, but I still have trouble saying it is a marginal situation.

His relatively small raise seems to me that he is fishing for information rather than making a cute play.

What do you think he puts you on? If he is an ABC player, would he raise a drawless board with a bettor and caller on the flop. If he has middle or top set, isn't he much better off raising the turn for a much larger amount, assuming the SB leads out or you bet from the BB.

I may not want to play for my stack either, but I'm willing to call the small raise and lead out $300 or so on the turn to make sure that I'm beat.

[Post-Oak]

[ QUOTE ]
This exact situation is outlined in PL/NL by CIaffone and Reuben. A virtually drawless flop, you're probably seen as a tight player, it's an unraised pot, and a bet and a call to a middle position player. I can't see a tight player raising with nines or tens here.

[/ QUOTE ]

When Triumph said "exact", he meant exact.

This is taken from Pot Limit & No Limit Poker by Stewart Reuben and Bob Ciaffone. It is question number 5 of Ciaffone's Big Bet Hold 'Em Quiz (Chapter 17).

His rating of answers:
Fold (10 pts) Call (3 pts) Raise (0 pts)

If you reraise here, you basically announce that you have at least two pair. You've just given him your stack if he has a set. The pot is going to get big enough where you can't get away from the hand (obviously he is smooth calling your reraise). You have defined your hand and he has position. There is really no reason to play for your stack here.

Ciaffone says "With a pair of nines or tens, if he did not raise preflop, he likely would have made a larger raise in this spot than $110 more with a $240 pot, as he'd want to shut you out."

He judged that villain likely would have raised any other over pair (JJ-AA) preflop. He is going with his read and laying this down. In the actual hand the villain supposedly had top set.

The point is that you have to be able to make laydowns in no limit. People have been talking about going with reads and making marginal calls, but that doesn't mean you can't go with a read and make a "big" laydown.

[Chaostracize]

This sounds an AWFUL lot like a hand Ciaffone wrote about in his no limit/pot limit book.


An awful lot.

[soah]

Thanks for repeating that for us.

[mythrilfox]

Uh, why are you posting this? You do realize that Ciaffone's laydown was based on a very long history with Villain and sickeningly accurate analyzation of Villain's play, right? Because on most games today played at that limit this is not an automatic laydown, and is anything but.

[FoxwoodsFiend]

As a relatively tight player, I'd say it is far from improbable that on an 8 high flop with a bet and a just call from the blinds that I would put in a slight raise to gauge where I'm at. This could easily be a feeler bet by a guy who assumes he can take down the pot with a raise and folding a set here is just atrocious. Tight players do not only raise with sets, and thinking that they do is an absurdly negative E.V. attitude.

[Post-Oak]

[ QUOTE ]

Uh, why are you posting this? You do realize that Ciaffone's laydown was based on a very long history with Villain and sickeningly accurate analyzation of Villain's play, right?

[/ QUOTE ]


No. Totally wrong. Reread the book. The hand was part of a quiz. It was not a story he told to show he had a read on a specific player he had a history with. Amazing you could miss this point when the hand is part of a QUIZ! There is no mention of him having a long history with the villain. The description of the villain is: "Gary, a sound player in middle position who had been the second player to enter the pot". Nothing more. It is a quiz. How could you be so confused here?

[ QUOTE ]

Because on most games today played at that limit this is not an automatic laydown, and is anything but.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is true, which is why I said the villain was a solid, ABC player and that the table was tight. You don't have to give away your stack here. You really don't.

I agree with your "not an automatic laydown", and I don't think everything written by Ciaffone is gospel. The point is more that a laydown is a very viable option. Many posters want to take the "I lose my stack here every time" attitude, and that is terrible. If you continue with this hand, a good player knows what kind of hand he needs to beat and the pot is big enough where he can get your whole stack. You are proceeding in a "marginal situation".

[Post-Oak]

[ QUOTE ]
As a relatively tight player, I'd say it is far from improbable that on an 8 high flop with a bet and a just call from the blinds that I would put in a slight raise to gauge where I'm at. This could easily be a feeler bet by a guy who assumes he can take down the pot with a raise and folding a set here is just atrocious. Tight players do not only raise with sets, and thinking that they do is an absurdly negative E.V. attitude.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you lose your stack here to a higher set every time, right? Remember, we are talking about a specific hand, so comments like "tight players do not only raise with sets, and thinking that they do is an absurdly negative E.V. attitude" are borderline useless.

Some posters have said that they would have to lose their stack here everytime, and that is fine because they are describing their plan for this hand. What is your plan?

[KaneKungFu123]

I frequently bluff in this exact situation.

I would make that exact play with 77.

[curtains]

I dont know if this has been mentioned yet, as Im only reading the original post, but this hand is direct out of one of Ciaffones book's. Of course there was more relevant information that lead him to fold.

[Post-Oak]

[ QUOTE ]
I frequently bluff in this exact situation.

I would make that exact play with 77.

[/ QUOTE ]

But are you a winning player?

[curtains]

This is stupid. It depends so much on whom the opponents are. Against a lot of players you'd have to be completely nuts to fold the set of 2's here.

[Post-Oak]

[ QUOTE ]

Of course there was more relevant information that lead him to fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not true. If it is true, it should be no problem for you to provide the relevant info verbatim.

[Post-Oak]

[ QUOTE ]

This is stupid. It depends so much on whom the opponents are. Against a lot of players you'd have to be completely nuts to fold the set of 2's here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your memory of the quiz questions is faulty. You must have failed to understand Ciaffone's underlying points.

Here is the ONLY description of the player provided in the quiz question:
"Gary, a sound player in middle position who had been the second person to enter the pot"

Nothing more. Reread the book and concentrate on the underlying concepts.

[bugstud]

the words sound player in his context meant you were always beat here. Online, or even in person now, I can't imagine too many players described as sound that most people here are folding to.

[OrangeCat]

[ QUOTE ]
I frequently bluff in this exact situation.
I would make that exact play with 77.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, it's a good spot for a bluff. It's worked for me many times in this situation. Still, unless I'm pretty sure that is what the solid MP player is up to, I'm folding the set of 2's for the reasons Triumph stated.

[KaneKungFu123]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I frequently bluff in this exact situation.

I would make that exact play with 77.

[/ QUOTE ]

But are you a winning player?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[SpeakEasy]

"BOO!" said the monster under your bed.

Some additional questions for you to ponder whether this is too weak-tight:

Why would you play 22 pre-flop if you would fold when you hit a set with this board?

Why are you calling this flop bet? You realize you're going to have to put more money in the pot at some point, right? Would a flat call by the raiser, followed by a lead bet from SB on the turn, scare you as much?

If SB had not bet, what would you have done?

Based on this fold, what board wouldn't scare you that includes a 2? A-Q-2? J-T-2? 9-4-2?

[Popinjay]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would you play 22 pre-flop if you would fold when you hit a set with this board?

[/ QUOTE ]

In poker there are so many different situations based on cards and the people playing. In the majority of situations when you hit a set with 22 you will be making good money, that is why you play it. Attempting to use general broad rules like the not playing 22 because you fold if you hit a set is how people get in trouble in poker.

[SpeakEasy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why would you play 22 pre-flop if you would fold when you hit a set with this board?

[/ QUOTE ]

In poker there are so many different situations based on cards and the people playing. In the majority of situations when you hit a set with 22 you will be making good money, that is why you play it. Attempting to use general broad rules like the not playing 22 because you fold if you hit a set is how people get in trouble in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree completely. I am not advocating a broad, general rule for not playing 22 -- unless you play it like this! Thus, the fairly rhetorical question.

My point to the question is that if you won't forge ahead with a raise or re-raise with a set of 222 on this board, you will always be playing 22 incorrectly, and should therefore save your pre-flop bets with 22.

In other words, get you money in there with this set on this board! I disagree with the laydown, and even more with the flop call.

[Chaostracize]

...an awful lot.

[FoxwoodsFiend]

[ QUOTE ]
So you lose your stack here to a higher set every time, right?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. I am willing to lose my stack on set versus set because the vast majority of times you get your stack in on this type of board you're winning. But there are ways to get the proper information to make sure folding is correct. Reraise him to get him to muck 99 or 10 10, and if he pushes then you can consider folding. Or if you don't like that, call then lead the turn. There are many lines where you can pick up information instead of folding a set because somebody raises you 100 bucks.
[ QUOTE ]
Remember, we are talking about a specific hand, so comments like "tight players do not only raise with sets, and thinking that they do is an absurdly negative E.V. attitude" are borderline useless.

[/ QUOTE ]
What the hell? Tight players not only raising with sets isn't borderline useless just because it's a general rule and this is a specific hand-every hand you should think about what is probable instead of worrying about the fact that in this particular instance you might be wrong.

[FoxwoodsFiend]

[ QUOTE ]
It depends so much on whom the opponents are.

[/ QUOTE ]
A for effort on using whom, F for knowing when to do so. http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20021113.html

[Triumph36]

"on" is a preposition. Whom is used for genitive, dative, and accusative, I believe.

As for this hand, if you get all your money in, and he calls, you will be losing. Calling and leading the turn sounds like a better line than just folding, but if the player is very ABC, he will not be raising here. And for the claims not to play 22, very often on high card boards, you will be winning a pot bet from a TPGK that doesn't realize he is behind until the turn. If it's six to the flop, there must be a QJ or QT or K9 in there. Such a hand will call a bet when bet into, or will bet if checked to, if they hit the top pair. This is where 22 will make money in an unraised pot when it hits a set.

[Post-Oak]

[/ QUOTE ]
No. I am willing to lose my stack on set versus set because the vast majority of times you get your stack in on this type of board you're winning.


[/ QUOTE ]

Please talk about the specific hand. I realize that a set is a relatively good hand.

[ QUOTE ]

But there are ways to get the proper information to make sure folding is correct. Reraise him to get him to muck 99 or 10 10, and if he pushes then you can consider folding. Or if you don't like that, call then lead the turn. There are many lines where you can pick up information instead of folding a set because somebody raises you 100 bucks.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to need to see a specific line. It is $110 to you and there is already $350 in the pot. Tell me how it is possible to raise here and get away from losing your stack to a higher set. Seriously, I need specific numbers from you. Anything else is useless. So far you have contributed next to nothing to this thread.

[ QUOTE ]

What the hell? Tight players not only raising with sets isn't borderline useless just because it's a general rule and this is a specific hand-every hand you should think about what is probable instead of worrying about the fact that in this particular instance you might be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, in every hand you need to be thinking about the specific situation. Thinking "I have a set!!!!!" does not qualify.

[Post-Oak]

[ QUOTE ]

I agree completely. I am not advocating a broad, general rule for not playing 22 -- unless you play it like this! Thus, the fairly rhetorical question.

My point to the question is that if you won't forge ahead with a raise or re-raise with a set of 222 on this board, you will always be playing 22 incorrectly, and should therefore save your pre-flop bets with 22.


[/ QUOTE ]

What if the villain raised preflop and the same board came down? Would it surprise you greatly that most competent players would put him on a different range of hands and have a completely different plan of action?

[ QUOTE ]

In other words, get you money in there with this set on this board! I disagree with the laydown, and even more with the flop call.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to learn to think beyond "I have a set" and adjust to differing situations. Your hand is important. The board is important. The range of hands you could be facing is important. Position is important. The opponent is important. Pot size and stack size are important. You have to consider everything.

[blueballer23]

So since "on" is a preposition, is the usage of "whom" correct here?

[VanVeen]

"Please talk about the specific hand. I realize that a set is a relatively good hand."

What an incisive reply! Oh, wait, no.. Implicit in FoxwoodFiend's comment is the assumption that many players who could reasonably be described as "sound" are willing to get their stacks in on this flop with a hand worse than 222, and such an assumption is apposite to the hand under discussion (ya know, since it's a hypothetical hand against a generic villain). While I take issue with his premise (most reasonable players aren't going broke here with the worse hands in their likely range, not even at 50nl), your rejoinder is nonsensical and needlessly dismissive.

"Yes, in every hand you need to be thinking about the specific situation"

What the hell are you talking about? Here, I will make it easy: if your opponent will raise with hands that aren't sets, and he will do this with some frequency, then folding the flop when it's $110 to you with $350 in the pot isn't the best play. Foxwood is basically taking issue with Ciaffone's definition of "sound", as are many of the other dissenters in this thread. In most games being played today there are very few opponents you should be folding this flop to, period. You should proceed charily, but you shouldn't abandon the hand when facing such a modest amount of aggression from a 'solid' player.

Basically, you're all arguing over the putative hand range of a hypothetical opponent given a general description of his play. Since everyone's model of a 'sound opponent' differs slightly, the responses, not unexpectedly, aren't the same! Good times.

[tbach24]

Button could very well be raising a draw sensing weakness from your flat-call and knowing that the original bettor will fold. There are a lot of connecting cards on the turn. You really have to raise the bet on the flop.

I don't see why 99 and TT are unlikely.

[legend42]

[ QUOTE ]
So since "on" is a preposition, is the usage of "whom" correct here?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[Post-Oak]

[ QUOTE ]

What an incisive reply! Oh, wait, no.. Implicit in FoxwoodFiend's comment is the assumption that many players who could reasonably be described as "sound" are willing to get their stacks in on this flop with a hand worse than 222, and such an assumption is apposite to the hand under discussion (ya know, since it's a hypothetical hand against a generic villain).


[/ QUOTE ]

There are many more factors to consider than the fact that some opponents would play for their whole stack here without a set. Ignoring all factors but one results in a useless generalization. Once again, a generalization which does not take into account the specifics of the hand (description of table, description of villain, villain's opinion of hero's style of play, stack sizes, preflop action, action on the flop) is useless because it does not take into account all relevant factors. It's as if I asked "Should horse thieves be hanged?" and he answered "There are situations where it is right to punish criminals."

[ QUOTE ]

While I take issue with his premise (most reasonable players aren't going broke here with the worse hands in their likely range, not even at 50nl), your rejoinder is nonsensical and needlessly dismissive.


[/ QUOTE ]

We are in agreement that his premise is faulty. My "rejoinder" was not nonsensical (see above). It's clear that you fancy yourself an intellectual. You will need to significantly improve your reading comprehension if you ever hope to live up to your pretensions.

[ QUOTE ]

What the hell are you talking about?


[/ QUOTE ]

I was talking about his comment that "every hand you should think about what is probable". Don't you realize that "what is probable" changes given differing circumstances? Do I really have to run down a list of relevant factors for you once again?

[ QUOTE ]

Here, I will make it easy: if your opponent will raise with hands that aren't sets, and he will do this with some frequency, then folding the flop when it's $110 to you with $350 in the pot isn't the best play.


[/ QUOTE ]

If your opponent will raise here with A high, then folding the flop is not the best play either. You see, this is why we are speaking about a specific opponent in a specific circumstance.

At least you seem to understand the concept that if the villain were to raise with an over pair here only infrequently, then folding would still be the best option.

[ QUOTE ]

Foxwood is basically taking issue with Ciaffone's definition of "sound", as are many of the other dissenters in this thread.


[/ QUOTE ]

I called the player "solid". I later added this description:
"I think he would have raised with AA, KK, QQ or JJ most all of the time, since he was not in EP and there was already a limper in front of him. So far I had seen him as a solid, ABC type player"

It is not my fault (nor Ciaffone's) if some people don't understand what a "sound" or "solid" player is. You act as if the term "solid player" could have any number of meanings. That is simply not the case. If you don't know what it means, that is your problem.

[ QUOTE ]

In most games being played today there are very few opponents you should be folding this flop to, period. You should proceed charily, but you shouldn't abandon the hand when facing such a modest amount of aggression from a 'solid' player.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, worthless... Tell me HOW you would proceed. Saying you should proceed is meaningless. The poster suggested raising, but also claimed he would be able to do this without playing for his stack. Explain to me how this is possible. I need a specific line (complete with actual numbers and a plan of action). I am not saying folding is the only viable option. But don't hem and haw and try to have it both ways. If you are willing to go broke here, just come out and say it. And why do you describe the villain as showing "modest" aggression? He just raised a bettor and a cold caller. What more does he need to do? Punch you in the face?

[ QUOTE ]

Basically, you're all arguing over the putative hand range of a hypothetical opponent given a general description of his play.


[/ QUOTE ]

What did you think this forum was for?

[SpeakEasy]

Wow. Post-Oak, if you want advice, stop blasting the responders. Take a deep breath and relax.

You asked, too weak tight? Yes, it was too weak tight. Raise on the flop, don't call. Bet the pot. If you're scared to play this hand if raised, then fold, but don't call.

[KaneKungFu123]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow. Post-Oak, if you want advice, stop blasting the responders. Take a deep breath and relax.

You asked, too weak tight? Yes, it was too weak tight. Raise on the flop, don't call. Bet the pot. If you're scared to play this hand if raised, then fold, but don't call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Post-Oak is real [censored], isnt he?

why is so much time being devoted to such a simple situation?

[VanVeen]

"You will need to significantly improve your reading comprehension if you ever hope to live up to your pretensions."

Haha. You think so? Okay!

"If your opponent will raise here with A high, then folding the flop is not the best play either"

Either? Ace high isn't a set.

"It is not my fault (nor Ciaffone's) if some people don't understand what a "sound" or "solid" player is. You act as if the term "solid player" could have any number of meanings."

Your mental model of a "solid" or "sound" player differs from mine. The hand range I assign to your opponent given that description and the other information you've provided about the hand isn't the same as the hand range you assign to him, nor do we expect your opponent to do similar things on later streets with his various hands. So, when FoxwoodFiend says 'tight players don't only raise sets', implying that they're quite likely to raise hands like 99/TT/A8/67, etc. if they're holding them, and you reply that such a generalization is 'useless' in the context of this specific hand, can you understand why I would intercede on his behalf? The answer is yes, yes you can, because one's general model of a "solid" or "sound" opponent is a variable used to determine the villain's probable hand range, something a player needs before proceeding (of course!).

Let me remind you of the foregoing dialogue between you and Foxwood.

Foxwood: I am willing to lose my stack on set versus set because the vast majority of times you get your stack in on this type of board you're winning.

You: Please talk about the specific hand. I realize that a set is a relatively good hand.


Foxwood is basically saying that a set is a good hand relative to (got that?) his opponent's probable hand range, and if the money goes in he expects to win the majority of the time, indicating that he thinks "solid" opponents go broke a lot with 99/TT, etc. I disagree with this. You were just being a captious prick.

Foxwood: Tight players not only raising with sets isn't borderline useless just because it's a general rule and this is a specific hand-every hand you should think about what is probable instead of worrying about the fact that in this particular instance you might be wrong.

You: Yes, in every hand you need to be thinking about the specific situation. Thinking "I have a set!!!!!" does not qualify.

Your reply is simply nonsensical. You can see why, of course, because you are GOOD AT READING and THINKING IMPARTIALLY and JUDGING IDEAS instead of DISMISSING OTHERS because THEY DISAGREE WITH YOU.

And dude, I know what the forum is for. Most hands are cut and dry. They are discussed to help players learn the concepts needed to analyse hands on their own. You have successfully shown with your hand that you can be in a very marginal situation with a flopped set, one that requires thought and accurate opponent modelling to play profitably. Bad players with no read should prob just ditch the hand on the flop. Playing "weak-tight" isn't always a crime. In your haste to make this clear to us all you successfully managed to piss me off your NEEDLESS and UNPROVOKED derision of those who volunteered their opinion. You do it a lot. It's annoying.

[barongreenback]

[ QUOTE ]


Why would you play 22 pre-flop if you would fold when you hit a set with this board?

[/ QUOTE ]
In the BB in an unraised pot, maybe?

[Post-Oak]

[ QUOTE ]


Post-Oak is real [censored], isnt he?

why is so much time being devoted to such a simple situation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there any way to turn off the automatic censoring when reading posts?

[Post-Oak]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow. Post-Oak, if you want advice, stop blasting the responders. Take a deep breath and relax.


[/ QUOTE ]

I did not "blast" most all responders. The first posters I took issue with were a couple of guys who claimed that I left out relevant information from the hand description in the book. This was simpy not true. I invited each of those posters to post any such relevant info that I happend to omit.

My rude behavior towards Foxwood was caused by my frustration with his refusal to answer any specific questions.

For example, he says:
"But there are ways to get the proper information to make sure folding is correct. Reraise him to get him to muck 99 or 10 10, and if he pushes then you can consider folding.... There are many lines where you can pick up information instead of folding a set because somebody raises you 100 bucks."

Why respond to the thread with a claim that you can raise here, without getting committed to the hand, and then refuse to offer an example of how this can be done?

I didn't attack guys like tbach who simply said they are willing to play for their stack here and want to get the money all-in. I understand his logic, even if I disagree.

All I want is an example of how you can reraise the flop raiser and still get away from the hand.

For example:
I would reraise half the pot. So with the pot at $350, I would call the $110 and add $230 on top. If he calls I am basically done with the hand. Although the pot is $920 and I only have ~$600 left, I am done with the hand, even if he only bets $100 on the turn.

Now that line is pretty horrible, but at least it is an actual plan. Or maybe he could have said, "on second thought I like the idea of calling and leading the turn with a blocking bet." Simply claiming you would magically reraise and still be able to sniff out a set without losing your stack is nonsense.

And the only other poster I "blasted" happened to attack me first.

[Post-Oak]

[ QUOTE ]

Your mental model of a "solid" or "sound" player differs from mine. The hand range I assign to your opponent given that description and the other information you've provided about the hand isn't the same as the hand range you assign to him, nor do we expect your opponent to do similar things on later streets with his various hands. So, when FoxwoodFiend says 'tight players don't only raise sets', implying that they're quite likely to raise hands like 99/TT/A8/67, etc. if they're holding them, and you reply that such a generalization is 'useless' in the context of this specific hand, can you understand why I would intercede on his behalf? The answer is yes, yes you can, because one's general model of a "solid" or "sound" opponent is a variable used to determine the villain's probable hand range, something a player needs before proceeding (of course!).


[/ QUOTE ]

You are missing a key ingredient. There were posters who said that they would be willing to play for their stack here because the hand range I am assigning the villain is way too small. I did not claim that these posters were spouting nonsense. The reason Foxwood's replies were worthless is because he wanted it both ways. He was claiming:
1. villain can have all kinds of hands here
2. he would reraise the flop raise
3. he was not willing to play for his stack

I have tried to explain that the third claim is not logically consistent with the first 2 when you take the stack/pot size into account for this specific hand. Do you see now where I am coming from? I just want him to explain how he can reraise the flop raise and then not play for his stack against a guy who is loose enough to have all of the listed hands here.

[ QUOTE ]

Let me remind you of the foregoing dialogue between you and Foxwood.

Foxwood: I am willing to lose my stack on set versus set because the vast majority of times you get your stack in on this type of board you're winning.

You: Please talk about the specific hand. I realize that a set is a relatively good hand.


Foxwood is basically saying that a set is a good hand relative to (got that?) his opponent's probable hand range, and if the money goes in he expects to win the majority of the time, indicating that he thinks "solid" opponents go broke a lot with 99/TT, etc. I disagree with this. You were just being a captious prick.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I tried to clarify if Foxwood was saying
a. he was willing to go broke here (this specific hand) with 22
b. in general he is willing to go broke with bottom set on this board

He clarified that (a) was not correct. So you are mistaken as to what he was trying to say. He specifically said that he would reraise, but that he would be able to do it in such a way that he would know if he was beat, and so would not be playing for his stack if called.

[ QUOTE ]

Foxwood: Tight players not only raising with sets isn't borderline useless just because it's a general rule and this is a specific hand-every hand you should think about what is probable instead of worrying about the fact that in this particular instance you might be wrong.

You: Yes, in every hand you need to be thinking about the specific situation. Thinking "I have a set!!!!!" does not qualify.

Your reply is simply nonsensical. You can see why, of course, because you are GOOD AT READING and THINKING IMPARTIALLY and JUDGING IDEAS instead of DISMISSING OTHERS because THEY DISAGREE WITH YOU.


[/ QUOTE ]

The reply is not nonsensical. The reply is a sarcastic way to grab his comment that "every hand you should think about what is probable" and turn it against him. I am pointing out that you have to be considering what is probable in this specific instance, and not generally speaking. Saying something along the lines of bottom set is usually the best hand on this board does not meet the requirement of considering all factors involved. There are more factors than your two cards and what the board is (preflop action, flop action, etc.)

[ QUOTE ]

In your haste to make this clear to us all you successfully managed to piss me off your NEEDLESS and UNPROVOKED derision of those who volunteered their opinion. You do it a lot. It's annoying.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO, I very rarely deride another poster unless I am attacked first. I don't think I do that a lot. I was just trying to get Foxwood to post a specific line of action. The way I went about it was probably too abrasive, and then things escalated from there. It's not like I just blasted anyone who disagreed with me. Or at least I don't think so.

[nokona13]

Apparently learning a few big words and some fancy sentence structure doesn't teach you not to be an immature prick... People are discussing your hand. If you want a rhetorical jousting match where you can pick at each word in every post, why do it on a poker forum? You say, "I was attacked." If there was anything that could at all be perceived as an attack, it was annoyance at your petulant and defensive tone in trying to prove your line correct when the title of your very own post says "too weak tight?" If you don't really have any question and are just looking to pick a fight over your view of the hand, then don't bother posting it.

I don't post over here often, but I've seen you be this immature and annoying one too many times.

[Post-Oak]

[ QUOTE ]
Apparently learning a few big words and some fancy sentence structure doesn't teach you not to be an immature prick...


[/ QUOTE ]

Can this be perceived as an attack, or am I just paranoid?

[ QUOTE ]

You say, "I was attacked." If there was anything that could at all be perceived as an attack, it was annoyance at your petulant and defensive tone


[/ QUOTE ]

<<<<Uh, why are you posting this? You do realize that Ciaffone's laydown was based on a very long history with Villain and sickeningly accurate analyzation of Villain's play, right?>>>> (this is 100% untrue)

<<<<this hand is direct out of one of Ciaffones book's. Of course there was more relevant information that lead him to fold.>>>> (this is 100% untrue)

<<<<This is stupid. It depends so much on whom the opponents are. Against a lot of players you'd have to be completely nuts to fold the set of 2's here.>>>> (same guy who was 100% mistaken about me leaving out relevant info)

<<<<Call this bet everytime. Or don't play 22 if you're gonna be this much of a pansy everytime someone shows any strength fearing set over set.>>>>

I didn't really have any problems with that last one though, since it was part of a post in which a clear and logically consistent viewpoint was given. But I am not the only one on this forum who has a "petulant" nature.

And then of course there is you and Van Veen.


[ QUOTE ]

If you don't really have any question and are just looking to pick a fight over your view of the hand, then don't bother posting it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry if you didn't see any worth in this post, or in the resulting analysis from people on both sides of the issue. I did not fight with anyone merely because they disagreed.

[ QUOTE ]

I don't post over here often


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure you contribute a lot to the forum nonetheless. Thank you.

OK, I am done with this thread.

[evanski]

You are a touchy, hypocritical piece of dog poo. That is all.

-Evan