AQo limp Party 100

[Jason Strasser]

I have a 2.5k stack. Blinds are 25/50. Im dealt AQo in UTG+1 and limp. There are quite a few deep stacks. Two others limp behind, sb completes.

Flop Qs7s5c. Checked to me, I bet 200. Folds to the SB who calls. I dont have the As.

Turn 6d. He checks to me, I bet 400, he calls.

River 2s. He checks. Your move? His timing was very even with all his checks. Ive been very quiet at the table. He has me covered and I forgot how he built his stack so no real read.

-Jason

[betgo]

I check behind on the river.

I raise preflop.

[Jason Strasser]

Im really not interested in preflop.

If you check behind please tell me what hand you have the villain on. Your response is not helpful.

-Jason

[scott8]

Doesn't look like a good spot for a value bet.

[A_PLUS]

He played it like a flush draw or a weak Queen, there are more flush combos out there, so I think the check behind is best.

[11t]

I would say value bet 1/2 the pot, if you have been quiet and not hyper-aggressive he has no reason to believe you will bet behind him with the str8 and flush draw on the board so I doubt he would check a rivered hand looking to c/r you.

Of course checking behind isn't a bad move versus a tricky player (which this is readless) and if he does c/r you I'd let the hand go pretty quick.

Thats just my line though.

[Jason Strasser]

Why?

Dont most opponents who river a flush lead out here? Is there any value to value betting small (200-300) to get a call from a worse Q and fold to a raise?

-Jason

[HonchoOverload]

[ QUOTE ]
Im really not interested in preflop.

If you check behind please tell me what hand you have the villain on. Your response is not helpful.

-Jason

[/ QUOTE ]

what difference does it make what the villain has? the point is you check behind because almost every hand he calls/raises with probably has you beat whereas he folds anything you already have beat. A bet on the river has almono value after the flush card hits.

[Sluss]

I would check behind. I think the nut flush is very possible here. Especially if he thinks you'll bet on the river. I love doing this to aggressive players who min bet alot and then bet big on the river.

He also could have missed a straight on the river or even have a weaker Queen. I just don't think you want to get Check-raised off of the best hand. Take your chips and move on.

[Jason Strasser]

You are telling me that if you had KQ here, which is very reasonable, and I bet small and you are getting 4 or 5 to one you fold here?

-Jason

[gh9801]

It looks a lot more like a weak queen - QJ or KQ type hand instead of a flush draw. Would he really call the turn with just a flush draw (400 into a 650 pot)? And if he had top pair and a flush draw I think we would have heard from him on the flop or turn. That being said, I check behind the river, only because I don't want to see a weird river c/r for all my chips.

[lawrence]

I would check behind. Is he going to check call hands that you beat, like KQ? I doubt it. I think that for the number of times you will get a small value bet called there will be more than you get CR'ed by a better hand, so I check behind.

[Jason Strasser]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that for the number of times you will get a small value bet called there will be more than you get CR'ed by a better hand, so I check behind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is being CR'ed by a better hand bad? If I got CR here then I'll fold. Its not a concern of mine if he has a better hand and CRs, besides the obvious fact that I lose 200-300 chips maybe.

-Jason

[HonchoOverload]

[ QUOTE ]
I would check behind. Is he going to check call hands that you beat, like KQ? I doubt it. I think that for the number of times you will get a small value bet called there will be more than you get CR'ed by a better hand, so I check behind.

[/ QUOTE ]

there it is right there

[Jason Strasser]

I'm not necessarily saying that checking behind isnt the best play. However...

[ QUOTE ]
what difference does it make what the villain has?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just awful thinking.

[HonchoOverload]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not necessarily saying that checking behind isnt the best play. However...

[ QUOTE ]
what difference does it make what the villain has?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just awful thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

You asked I have the villain on, and I'm saying in terms of EV it makes no [censored] difference in this particular case.

Say he check raises you, you fold, he flashes KQ, and says "yeah, I thought so" in the text box. How do you feel then?

[11t]

Didn't he say he hadn't been very aggressive? If he value bets small on the river and is check raised he can fold.

If villain was planning on check raising on a full out bluff don't you think he would have done it before the river? I really really doubt he would check raise there with nothing after calling off 650 of his stack.

I dunno, if he was planning on c/ring on a complete bluff I'd fold and give him a round of applause for having balls way way bigger than mine.

[lawrence]

Uh, because you lose those 200-300 chips more than you get +200-200?

I see your point though, if you're planning on folding getting CR'ed isn't that all bad, since you're folding.

Don't you think any hand that you beat plays this differently? The hands you beat are A) one pair hands vulnerable to draws and B) busted draws which are not going to call the river. Is he check calling a one pair hand on a draw heavy limped board? That's what you're value betting against, since type B isn't calling anything. I just have trouble seeing him calling the river much here, unless he thinks you've been semibluffing, but that is pretty thin.

[Shammu]

It's a check for sure, no reason to bet with the flush card made on the river, there are two scenarios here, either he was not on a draw but hoping to make two pais with his small queen and did not or he made the flush, in both ways he checked to trap you, if you bet and assuming he is a good player, he would raise you no matter what representing the flush, if he raises you, I don't see how you can call here, just do it safe, check, see what he has (Which is great since you don't have any reads on him) and hopefully win the put.

[schwza]

jason,

my default here would be to check behind. i thought you had an interesting point about making small bet and folding to a raise though. i'd be very surprised to see a hand like 78 wake up with a c/r to try to move you off of your hand or for KQ to raise for value.

now, if we assume he always calls and c/r's only with the better hand, you still have to be ahead 50% to make the bet profitable. my inclination is to say that you're not. i think you're going to get c/r'ed by 2 pair/set/flush and have to fold more often than you'll get called by a worse hand. hard to know though.

one minor problem i have with bet-folding is that it hurts your image, and might make your steal/continuation bets marginally tougher. whereas showing that you bet the flop and turn with TPTK would not.

btw, i'd bet more like 450-500 instead of 400 into 650 on the turn.

and you might not be interested in the pre-flop, but i am. does your limp have something to do with the deep stacks? is this an example of mixing up your play or is this standard for you? i'd raise here just b/c i raise a lot, so i figure i should raise my strong hands for coverage.

[Sluss]

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't he say he hadn't been very aggressive?

[/ QUOTE ]

He has been aggressive on this hand. It is clear Jason has something here. I would think KQ, QJ (and be wrong). So if I had the odds to check/call down with my flush draw and hit it on the river I would check again expecting an auto bet. Then I'm check raising.

I think the times here you see 89 and some sort of a flush are about equal with the times you see JJ QJ Q10 etc.

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
B) busted draws which are not going to call the river

[/ QUOTE ]

the only draws that did not really get there are 64 and 68. villain may pay off a small bet with his 6's.

[lawrence]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
B) busted draws which are not going to call the river

[/ QUOTE ]

the only draws that did not really get there are 64 and 68. villain may pay off a small bet with his 6's.

[/ QUOTE ]

I kind of threw those in in my list of hands you beat, but I don't think they give much value here.

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
B) busted draws which are not going to call the river

[/ QUOTE ]

the only draws that did not really get there are 64 and 68. villain may pay off a small bet with his 6's.

[/ QUOTE ]

I kind of threw those in in my list of hands you beat, but I don't think they give much value here.

[/ QUOTE ]

but you didn't say whether they were in A (one pair hands) or B (busted draws). my point was that there are no truly busted draws.

[A_PLUS]

1.) anyone who thinks that KQ, QJ wont pay off 300TCs here is nuts.

2.) Ignoring the chance that he checks a made flush is nuts. If he bets the river, he KNOWS it screams flush. A lot of players are so happy it got there, they get greedy and check waiting for the big check raise.

So, we have 45 likely combos for a weaker Q. (AQ, KQ, QJ, QT).

Flush draw has somewhere around 30-35 combos when you dump 92s, etc.

After you discount the flush combos for the fact that they are more likely bet on the river, I think you are looking at a weaker Queen, or even middle PP.

The only disasterous result is if he will C/R with KQ, and that play is disasterous. So, I think it is pretty EV neutral, but I dont really have a problem with a value bet here. I still think I check behind, b/c given a EV neutral situation, I am taking the safer route.

[tipperdog]

I reluctantly check. A weaker Q is certainly possible, but I think a good queen (KQ, QJ) either leads at the flop or raises your bet most of the time. Also, because the SB is 1/2-way into a multi-way pot preflop, he's likely to complete with a wide range of suited hands that normally won't see the light of day (J8s, KXs, etc.).

So, his range of suited hands is unusually large AND he's played this hand exactly like a flush draw.

I check and am very grateful if my hand holds up.

[Sluss]

[ QUOTE ]
Ignoring the chance that he checks a made flush is nuts. If he bets the river, he KNOWS it screams flush. A lot of players are so happy it got there, they get greedy and check waiting for the big check raise.


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying I'm a greedy player? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think that for the number of times you will get a small value bet called there will be more than you get CR'ed by a better hand, so I check behind.

[/ QUOTE ]


Why is being CR'ed by a better hand bad? If I got CR here then I'll fold. Its not a concern of mine if he has a better hand and CRs, besides the obvious fact that I lose 200-300 chips maybe.

-Jason

[/ QUOTE ]


What about a min CR? You bet t400 I don't think you could fold for another ~t400....I just don't see the point of opening up the betting to him again. If you somehow have a read on this guy that about 70-80% of the time he would play like this with a weak Q and most of the time will semi-bluff raise a nut flush draw, then maybe a value bet is in order....barring that, this seems like a simple "too much risk for little reward" type move here.

[A_PLUS]

You are fat kid and cake greedy

[John W]

I would have to value bet. There is a good case he has a weak Queen. The quick check usually means I have top pair and am willing to call you down. Value Bet.

[Jason Strasser]

Schwza,

Thanks for a good post.

My initial reaction is that I would be extremely surprised to see a two pair CR me. I would even be more surprised to see one pair or a bluff CR me. You just dont run into that so much. I reall think you'd need a flush to CR me.

[ QUOTE ]
one minor problem i have with bet-folding is that it hurts your image, and might make your steal/continuation bets marginally tougher. whereas showing that you bet the flop and turn with TPTK would not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. Meta game is important, although I think there are things a lot worse than this for your image.

The limp in this hand is pretty standard for me. I mean, people generally dump Ax that are worse to a raise, and will limp behind worse hands, which include many hands I completely dominate. Stacks are deep. In a cash game I might fold AQo in early, but most likely limp along for the same reasons. I mean, I really dont see the point raising it and building a big pot I cant control very well from my position.

-Jason

[Jason Strasser]

I am insta automatically folding to a min check raise and its not close. So again, im not really worried about the CR because Im not gonna loose sleep that I folded a winner.

[adios]

For me this is a fairly complicated matter in NL hold'em. As a hypothetical scenario, say when your oppenent check raises he'll always check raises all in and when he does he's sometimes bluffing but not often enough for you to profitably call. Now the question becomes how profitable is a value bet to me given the fact that sometimes this value bet will actually cost me the pot? In other words how many times will he pay off vs. how much money I lose to a CR bluff that I can't profitably call? Understand what I'm getting at?

I'm thinking this through off the top of my head so bare with me please. Say you bet T$500 into a T$1500 pot and your opponent sets you all in for the remainder of your chips say T$2000 and he's got you beat slightly more frequently than 2/3 of the time. You can't call because the pot is laying you only 2-1. However, if you check behind you lose a value bet when he doesn't bluff, say 40% of the time when he doesn't fold.

So for times he doesn't fold, he's calling or check raising all in. When he check raises all in he's got you beat 45% of time he doesn’t fold and 15% of the time he’s bluffing when he doesn’t fold. You can't call an all in bet here because the pot isn't laying you enough. Therefore you’ve cost yourself T$2000 when you bet 60% of the time he doesn’t fold and for the 40% when he doesn’t fold and calls you win T$500. Therefore by betting you’ve cost yourself money against this hypothetical opponent.


Depends on the opponent and how well he's read your hand to start out with IMO.

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
1.) anyone who thinks that KQ, QJ wont pay off 300TCs here is nuts.

2.) Ignoring the chance that he checks a made flush is nuts. If he bets the river, he KNOWS it screams flush. A lot of players are so happy it got there, they get greedy and check waiting for the big check raise.

So, we have 45 likely combos for a weaker Q. (AQ, KQ, QJ, QT).

Flush draw has somewhere around 30-35 combos when you dump 92s, etc.

After you discount the flush combos for the fact that they are more likely bet on the river, I think you are looking at a weaker Queen, or even middle PP.

The only disasterous result is if he will C/R with KQ, and that play is disasterous. So, I think it is pretty EV neutral, but I dont really have a problem with a value bet here. I still think I check behind, b/c given a EV neutral situation, I am taking the safer route.

[/ QUOTE ]

somebody else already sort of said this, but the problem with the hand-count method is that a flush draw is significantly more likely to play the flop and turn as villain did than Qx is. the river is more likely checked by Qx though, so maybe it balances out.

[locutus2002]

I think it takes real guts to value bet this here, but I think its the right play. T300.

Villain gets 5.8:1 to call with weaker Q. Villain also gets kudoos for checking the flush on the river (9/10 players check behind, great read!).

I think it has positive intangibles for hero to NOT show cards (particularly openers), and will encourage other players to check the nuts into hero if they are paying attention.

[Jason Strasser]

Good points.

The key here is that I'm really sure, I would say something like 98%+ sure, that in the hand I posted I am not going to get CR by a worse hand. It just doesnt happen. Often the type of opponent who would do this I would've probably been aware of at this point. If I thought there was any chance of this happening in this spot, then there is no way in hell I'm betting.

-Jason

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
I am insta automatically folding to a min check raise and its not close. So again, im not really worried about the CR because Im not gonna loose sleep that I folded a winner.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then checking behind is the better move. I wouldnt be able to justify being thrown off a winning hand because I went out for 300 more chips or whatever...your river "value bet" ,those 300 chips, relative to the pot and my stack are what I would not lose any sleep over...and you certainly are not going to lose any tourney over those chips either.

[Jason Strasser]

Man. The only time I'd ever expect to see an opponent min check raise is a total donkey that doesnt understand hand values and thinks his hand like KQ is best. This just doesnt happen very often. Im almost asking you all to ignore the idea that I could be CR with a worse hand because it is so incredibly rare here.

-Jason

[fnord_too]

Check it out.

Edit - oh, you want reasoning, too.

I think there is a fair chance I am beaten and I don't think the times I get called by a worse hand make up for the times I get blown off my hand when behind. Also, since I have no idea how this other big stack got his chips, there is additional value in seeing the way he played his hand, whatever it is.

[billyjex]

I just read the whole thread and understand reasons for both actions.

However, I check behind here because I need a better read on villian for me to make a thin value bet here. There are many players that will check a made flush here. They know a bet out screams flush and can only get more out of you if they get you to bet. Also, your image to him could be extremely aggressive and he figures you will bet again with whatever you hold.

But he's probably not really that smart. He can easily have KQ/QJ here and is willing to pay off your small bet. I guess I'd also be scared that when you bet so small into a large pot that he will take it as weakness and try to push you off (by going all in) a good but not great hand like top pair.

Then again, a small bet that you make may look like a made flush to him...

Bleh. I check behind sans a better read.

[MLG]

You should value bet, I don't value bet enough in these spots. I'd bet another 400 I think.

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
Man. The only time I'd ever expect to see an opponent min check raise is a total donkey that doesnt understand hand values and thinks his hand like KQ is best. This just doesnt happen very often. Im almost asking you all to ignore the idea that I could be CR with a worse hand because it is so incredibly rare here.

-Jason

[/ QUOTE ]

OK fine...besides thinking about whether you are ahead here more than half the time or not, Id think about my stack size if i lose- w and w/o value- bets relative to table and the field.

A value bet on the river is a good chunk of you remaining stack.

[Jason Strasser]

I think if I bet 200-400 I'd still have a workable stack with the blinds 25-50 if I lost. All hope wouldnt be lost. But what you bring up is definitely worth considering.

-Jason

[HonchoOverload]

[ QUOTE ]
I think if I bet 200-400 I'd still have a workable stack with the blinds 25-50 if I lost. All hope wouldnt be lost. But what you bring up is definitely worth considering.

-Jason

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you ask others' opinions if you are so dead set on value betting the river? Most people here are saying check it through.

[HonchoOverload]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Man. The only time I'd ever expect to see an opponent min check raise is a total donkey that doesnt understand hand values and thinks his hand like KQ is best. This just doesnt happen very often. Im almost asking you all to ignore the idea that I could be CR with a worse hand because it is so incredibly rare here.

-Jason

[/ QUOTE ]

OK fine...besides thinking about whether you are ahead here more than half the time or not, Id think about my stack size if i lose- w and w/o value- bets relative to table and the field.

A value bet on the river is a good chunk of you remaining stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about a guy who knows if he check-raises you on the river you'll probably lay down a marginal hand? How about a guy who likes to check-raise when a scare card hits? These aren't donk moves, these are good poker plays against the right player.

[Ulysses]

I bet 400 and fold to a checkraise.

[HonchoOverload]

[ QUOTE ]
I bet 400 and fold to a checkraise.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly the reason a lot of people with any hand WILL checkraise the river.

[Shammu]

I just don't get it!!!!! for all of you that suggest a value bet here but then a fold to a check-raise, what are you thinking? he is either going to fold or check-raise you so why betting? at least if you don't bet you don't risk folding the best hand to a bluff!!!!! At least you get to see what kind of hands is this jerk is playing....

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I bet 400 and fold to a checkraise.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly the reason a lot of people with any hand WILL checkraise the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

In general, people give other people way too much credit when it comes to their ability to do things like bluff checkraise rivers like this.

[MLG]

No, I value bet there precisely because very very few online opponents will C-raise the river. Bad players don't c-raise bluff the river because they dont think of it, and good players don't c-raise the river because most online players wouldn not fold AQ to the c-raise.

[HonchoOverload]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I bet 400 and fold to a checkraise.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly the reason a lot of people with any hand WILL checkraise the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

In general, people give other people way too much credit when it comes to their ability to do things like bluff checkraise rivers like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's certainly a move in my arsenal. That's all I'll say.

[MLG]

you bet so that the party donkey will pay you off with a worse Q or middle pair.

[Shammu]

You are assuming that he is a donkey when the initial poster said he did not have a read on him, do you usually consider any unknown plyer a donkey? please tell me so I change my user name and play against you....

[Jason Strasser]

That's wonderful. Keep in mind it may also be in the arsenal of the person holding AQ to call if they think you are bluffing given your table image, timing, etc.

-Jason

[HonchoOverload]

[ QUOTE ]
That's wonderful. Keep in mind it may also be in the arsenal of the person holding AQ to call if they think you are bluffing given your table image, timing, etc.

-Jason

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently it's not in your arsenal if you have no reads on the player, from what you've said in the thread.

Again, if you're so dead-set that value-betting here is the right play, why even ask.

[MLG]

on party, i think there is a higher chance that he is a mediocre to bad player who will pay off, then a good player who will c-raise (either on a bluff or with nothing).

Oh, and my sn is anakinso on all sites, feel free to play me any time.

[HonchoOverload]

lol.

[MLG]

the idea that there are lots of bad poker players online is that musing to you?

[adios]

I realize that you were nearly 100% certain a CR would not be by a worse hand. Just trying to put some parameters on the problem. Even a rare CR bluff implies that a value bet should be called a certain number of times for every CR bluff made. I too believe that for most playerss a CR bluff raise for all the chips on the river is semi-rare.

[HonchoOverload]

no, the single-mindedness and bravado in this thread are what I find amusing.

[MLG]

oh brother. fine if you are so convinced that you will get c-raised here more than you will get called, put together a range of hands that the SB will play this way.

[HonchoOverload]

[ QUOTE ]
oh brother. fine if you are so convinced that you will get c-raised here more than you will get called, put together a range of hands that the SB will play this way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you will get check-raised or the villain will fold a MUCH greater amount of the time than you will get called. If the villain folds, a bet gains you absolutely nothing too. Even if Villain WAS a donk and played medium pair all the way down for his five outter and missed, and intends on check-folding, how does a bet here make any sense?

[MLG]

you can't just say if....you need to assign percentages. the times he folds mean nothing one way or the other, what makes the play good or bad are the times you lose vs. the times you win the extra 400. You don't get to just decide that villain will check fold his middle pair. Sometimes he will, sometimes he won't. Even if he only calls with a worse Q or middle pair 1/10 times I still think its a profitable play, because while sometimes you will get cred I can't imagine it will be more than 1/10 times.

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
I think if I bet 200-400 I'd still have a workable stack with the blinds 25-50 if I lost. All hope wouldnt be lost. But what you bring up is definitely worth considering.

-Jason

[/ QUOTE ]

It would bring you below t1500 I believe...yes still workable but not too intimidating. The equity you maintain for future hands/bets are worth more then than now. (chips lost worth more than those gained).

although i agreed to ignore the CR, dont you think its possible that your bets reak of a high pair and an astute player could make a CR AI reresenting the flush? Might've been his plan since the flop.

and you sure dont have the flush in his mind bc even though you bet the flop and it could be a semibluff, you wouldve checked behind on the turn.

Just throwing that out there, lets not assume all opponents play ABC poker.

But why even go this far, lets look at the 3 possibilities:

1. if you check behind and win the hand, you're in decent shape.

2. if you value bet and get called you are not THAT better off than #1

3. if you value bet and get CR'd and fold, I am asserting that the difference between how much WORSE you are off than BETTER are off when you VB and win is greater when you have to fold.

Gain little, lose more....simple.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
do you usually consider any unknown plyer a donkey?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[LearnedfromTV]

Not sure if anyone has said this already (if so i missed it). I think it's extremely close between checking and betting, because it feels about even money that he has a KQ/QJ hand that can call vs a flush or the pretty unlikely two pair (given the passive way he played it). My argument for checking is that given Hero's lack of a read, it might be a nice time to start building a file. I want to know what he has, especially if he check-called middle pair or 99 or 88 hoping to improve when he didn't have odds to do so and would fold to the river bet. Villain obviously played passively, I'd like to know what kind of hand he'll play passively in this situation.

[BPA234]

IMO, easy check. I believe he will have a straight that he called your odds busting flop bet with, called your turn to look like he was going for the flush and is now afraid of the spade. Possibly, he has the flush ( calling the odds busting turn bet). I bet it was the straight.

[CardSharpCook]

FWIW, I'm betting this one every time. My worry is that he has some hand like Q5 (good for 2pair) which he has been afraid to bet because of all the possible monsters on the board. However, I think that QT/QJ is just too likely. Also, from what strassa said about timing "he checked just as smoothly on the river as on every other street" leads me to believe that he intends to call down with his 1 pair. Bet it.

CSC

[MLG]

the world must be ending, we are in exact agreement /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

[CardSharpCook]

[ QUOTE ]
the world must be ending, we are in exact agreement /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

[/ QUOTE ]

It won't happen again. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Jason Strasser]

Results are kinda lame here because it appears the villain is a huge rock or is just scared or whatever. I bet 375, he insta called with 555. I bet none of you guessed set, huh!

I think I still bet small, but obviously not if I knew he was a nit/rock who wouldnt put in some sort of raise on the flop or turn here.

[bugstud]

[ QUOTE ]
Results are kinda lame here because it appears the villain is a huge rock or is just scared or whatever. I bet 375, he insta called with 555. I bet none of you guessed set, huh!

I think I still bet small, but obviously not if I knew he was a nit/rock who wouldnt put in some sort of raise on the flop or turn here.

[/ QUOTE ]

impressive