Daily Hand Post: "Amazingly Standard" AQ? [Archive]

jason_t

06-25-2005, 12:02 AM

Two hands today since I missed a bunch while in Vegas.

Read on villain: 46.9/.42/1.00 after 940 hands with a preflop cold call % of 28.26%.

Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (10 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: I am MP1 with A/images/graemlins/club.gif, Q/images/graemlins/diamond.gif.
1 fold, UTG+1 calls, 1 fold, I raise, 1 fold, MP3 calls, 3 folds, BB calls, UTG+1 calls.

Flop: (8.50 SB) 5/images/graemlins/club.gif, T/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 3/images/graemlins/diamond.gif (4 players)
BB checks, UTG+1 checks, I bet, MP3 calls, BB folds, UTG+1 folds.

Turn: (5.25 BB) 7/images/graemlins/heart.gif (2 players)
I bet, MP3 calls.

River: (7.25 BB) J/images/graemlins/club.gif (2 players)
I check, MP3 bets, I call.

Final Pot: 9.25 BB

beset7

06-25-2005, 12:21 AM

It's hard to comment on this hand without any player reads but if villain is aggressive then I play it the same way.

shant

06-25-2005, 12:26 AM

As I said to Jason over IM:

"seems pretty standard. both bets are standard for me and on the river he can have missed diamonds or some wierd backdoor draw that he now thinks he can get you to fold on the river with, so i call."

aK13

06-25-2005, 12:33 AM

46 VPIP with 1 aggro usually means he's pretty aggressive -- I like to call the river here too (The flop and turn bets are standard -- for me, anyway)

SmileyEH

06-25-2005, 12:38 AM

zzzzzzz, nice hand.

-SmileyEH

Jake (The Snake)

06-25-2005, 12:40 AM

This is how I play these kind of hands so I hope it's the right line.

It makes sense since on the flop and turn you are trying to win the pot and may also have the best hand. Betting the river doesn't seem right as he won't call with worse hands and won't fold better hands.

I guess the only thing to think about is calling the river bet or not, but I'd tend to think you're good here often enough. Folding for one bet on the river against a guy who has shown no strength and could easily be bluffing can not be a big mistake if it is at all.

jason_t

06-25-2005, 12:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
zzzzzzz, nice hand.

-SmileyEH

[/ QUOTE ]

I was really hoping for an elaboration of thoughts beyond this, perhaps including an attempt to analyze how often we're good here.

KDawgCometh

06-25-2005, 12:59 AM

boringly standard. I wouldn't be able to come up with an exact figure as to how many times that we are good here, but for this opponent and this board, I think we are good here enough to call this

HolyBejeesus

06-25-2005, 01:07 AM

This type of opponent is somewhat aggressive and is precisely the type that I would think would bet a missed draw. That said, I don't think this hand is "boringly standard." I only call the bet because the pot is so large.

Nick C

06-25-2005, 01:24 AM

I'm responding blind.

I think the diamond flush draw and wheel draw possibilities probably make it worth a call at the end (though even if I knew Villain had been chasing a flush, I'd be worried about that jack on the river). An aggression factor of 1 isn't really that passive for someone as loose as Villain, and he's probably had some success with river bluffs in the past.

When I call with ace-high on the river, I usually don't win. But I win often enough that I wonder sometimes if I should make such calls more frequently.

Nick C

06-25-2005, 01:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
As I said to Jason over IM:

"seems pretty standard. both bets are standard for me and on the river he can have missed diamonds or some wierd backdoor draw that he now thinks he can get you to fold on the river with, so i call."

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm fine with the call.

I do think it's unfortunate that the jack hits some backdoor draws, though (89, J9, J8).

Shillx

06-25-2005, 01:38 AM

When I call with ace-high on the river, I usually don't win.

Haha yeah I hope not. But we should win one time in five or so. Certainly enough to make it +EV as long as the villian is capable of bluffing. It is hard to analyze the exact EV of a call or fold since we don't know how often the villian will bluff. You pretty much have to use your best judgement when calling on the end and not let the outcome (if you lose) alter your decision making in the future. Just because you get shown something this time doesn't mean that it was a bad call.

Brad

Klepton

06-25-2005, 01:45 AM

here's the convo i had with Jason online:

sickmanning: perfect
sickmanning: i do this about 55 times a day
sickmanning: results?
Jasonish712: irrelevant, right?
sickmanning: pretty much
sickmanning: get used to doing it a lot
Jasonish712: (MHIG, but it felt so dirty)
sickmanning: are you kidding
Jasonish712: no
sickmanning: if you don't know that liune, we might have problems
Jasonish712: okay, talk to me
sickmanning: that hand was amazingly standard
Jasonish712: oh my
Jasonish712: then i'm posting it
sickmanning: you're seriously sayign you don't do that?
Jasonish712: :-(
sickmanning: like thatw as the first time?
Jasonish712: like a virgin touched for the very first time
sickmanning: wow
Jasonish712: i guess i just don't get it :-(
sickmanning: omg
sickmanning: we need t talk thenm

Klepton

06-25-2005, 01:51 AM

ok here are my thoughts on the hand, and keep in mind this is pretty much exactly how i think when playing 30-60 on party.

i raise MP1 with AQ, guy coldcalls. i now put him on any 2 cards.

flop is t35, i bet, guy calls. i put him on any 2 cards
turn is a 7. i bet, guy calls. now i put him on 2 cards higher than a 7, or a pair
river is a j, i check to induce a bet and will call instantly. he bets, i call.

sometimes he'll have a pair, most times he won't. i profit

istewart

06-25-2005, 02:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
here's the convo i had with Jason online:

sickmanning: perfect
sickmanning: i do this about 55 times a day
sickmanning: results?
Jasonish712: irrelevant, right?
sickmanning: pretty much
sickmanning: get used to doing it a lot
Jasonish712: (MHIG, but it felt so dirty)
sickmanning: are you kidding
Jasonish712: no
sickmanning: if you don't know that liune, we might have problems
Jasonish712: okay, talk to me
sickmanning: that hand was amazingly standard
Jasonish712: oh my
Jasonish712: then i'm posting it
sickmanning: you're seriously sayign you don't do that?
Jasonish712: :-(
sickmanning: like thatw as the first time?
Jasonish712: like a virgin touched for the very first time
sickmanning: wow
Jasonish712: i guess i just don't get it :-(
sickmanning: omg
sickmanning: we need t talk thenm

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely pwned. Now all we need to do is teach him to like the Beatles...

ihardlyknowher

06-25-2005, 02:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
boringly standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't someone post something about hands like these? (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2605430&page=&view=&s b=5&o=)

Nick C

06-25-2005, 02:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
boringly standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't someone post something about hands like these? (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2605430&page=&view=&s b=5&o=)

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I don't know. I think it's okay to let people know (or remind them) that it's okay to call with ace-high sometimes.

I should probably do it more often than I do.

And as an experienced cold-caller/floater, this Villain quite likely fires with some frequency on the river as a bluff, perhaps with some success.

jgorham

06-25-2005, 02:57 AM

The flop bet might not be standard. By that I mean I will sometimes check here, depending mostly on the WSD and aggression factor of the player behind me. If the flop were less dry, I probably wouldn't bet into 3 opponents.

The rest of the hand is pretty standard for me though, for the same reasons that have already been posted.

PokerBob

06-25-2005, 03:03 AM

I like it.

PokerSparky

06-25-2005, 03:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]

sometimes he'll have a pair, most times he won't. i profit

[/ QUOTE ]

You really think he has no pair here over 50% of the time? I think a call is +EV, but I don't think he doesn't have a pair "most" of the time.

NDHand

06-25-2005, 03:57 AM

Good hand... good reminder of what to do with that holding

thirddan

06-25-2005, 04:10 AM

you don't need to be right 50% of the time...only about 1 time in 8...

istewart

06-25-2005, 04:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
you don't need to be right 50% of the time...only about 1 time in 8...

[/ QUOTE ]

He knows, but the original quote said "most times he won't have a pair," i.e. Hero wins this pot >50% of the time.

Victor

06-25-2005, 05:12 AM

have u ever seen him bluff the riv?

jason_t

06-25-2005, 07:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
boringly standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't someone post something about hands like these? (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2605430&page=&view=&s b=5&o=)

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't have posted it if I thought it was standard. You might think it's standard, but can you explain why? Probably not.

gaming_mouse

06-25-2005, 12:00 PM

I think an important question to ask is: Is the flush draw necessary to make the river call correct? If you think it's not necessary, would your answer change if your opponent was a TAG?

SmileyEH

06-25-2005, 12:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
zzzzzzz, nice hand.

-SmileyEH

[/ QUOTE ]

I was really hoping for an elaboration of thoughts beyond this, perhaps including an attempt to analyze how often we're good here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Often enough I would think. Something like 1 in 6 seems reasonable.

-SmileyEH

CallMeIshmael

06-25-2005, 12:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I was really hoping for an elaboration of thoughts beyond this, perhaps including an attempt to analyze how often we're good here.

[/ QUOTE ]

With a very very good read (> 1k hands WATCHED, not just played with), this is exceedingly difficult.

With the information we have, this is essentially impossible.

To come up with any analysis we have to make estimates about:

- His CCing range
- What he calls the flop with
- What he calls the turn turn
- What he bets the river with when checked to

When you are making so many estimates based on so little information, the analysis wont have much meaning.

But.. that doesnt mean that we dont think it is highly likely that his analysis will show that calling the river is +EV. Because it will.

(I think the fact that my first idea was to mention quantum mechanics in this reply means that I've been spending WAY too much time in S/M/P).

SmileyEH

06-25-2005, 12:44 PM

Haha, I've totally used wave forms collapsing as an analogy for my phsyics friends when describing hand ranges.

-SmileyEH

CallMeIshmael

06-25-2005, 12:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Haha, I've totally used wave forms collapsing as an analogy for my phsyics friends when describing hand ranges.

-SmileyEH

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you should so get into posting here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=scimathphil). It will easily be the best forum on here if it takes off.

(Also seems to be very UMass heavy)

gaming_mouse

06-25-2005, 12:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]

To come up with any analysis we have to make estimates about:

- His CCing range
- What he calls the flop with
- What he calls the turn turn
- What he bets the river with when checked to

When you are making so many estimates based on so little information, the analysis wont have much meaning

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are overstating the difficulty. Based on his CC percentage, we can make some reasonable guesses about his range of CC hands. In this case, all the standard good hands plus pretty much any two (or alot of) suited cards seems about right.

Given this, we could count the number of made hands versus draws that he could have. I don't want to do the numbers, but if we can agree that he might have played pretty much any two diamonds this way, it's not hard to see that the river call is correct. Of course, we'd like to know that he would bet a busted draw here, but the majority of players will, so it's a reasonable assumption.

gm

KDawgCometh

06-25-2005, 12:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
boringly standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't someone post something about hands like these? (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2605430&page=&view=&s b=5&o=)

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't have posted it if I thought it was standard. You might think it's standard, but can you explain why? Probably not.

[/ QUOTE ]

aight, I'll go into more detail since I was the one who wrote boringly standard. Let's start for one, you were pretty sure this was standard, we know that just by the title of the thread alone, plus you had no problem letting klepton post the AIM convo that you had over it. Okay rant on that aside, here's why I think its standard:

Our opponenent plays a lot of hands, and is aggressive post flop for someone who plays almost half of their hands. THis is a perfect spot for someone like him to make a bluff at the river with a drawing hand that missed. I think with his ag factor that you would've been raised by him at some point in the hand if he had caught a pair, so either he rivered you, or he's bluffing trying to get you to fold your AQ UI. I'm not really raggin on you for posting a standard hand, its just that sometimes we need to know that what we did is a good standard play that makes sense on every street. you played it fine Jason

CallMeIshmael

06-25-2005, 01:30 PM

I agree with most of this.

But, I feel the most difficult thing to determine is his calling vs raising hands on the flop and turn.

For players, for example, play flush draws more aggresively than pairs here. For many, its the opposite.

ihardlyknowher

06-25-2005, 03:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You might think it's standard, but can you explain why? Probably not.

[/ QUOTE ]

PF Raise - no brainer.

On the flop you have two overcards in a decent size pot and were the pre-flop aggressor. You are definitely not folding, so it is best to bet to maximize your chances of winning. You want to try and knock out hands like Q5, Q3, KJ, KQ, QJ, someone holding a single /images/graemlins/diamond.gif (in case you catch the Ace/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, and maybe anybody holding a 2 or a 4 (although an argument could be may that you don't mind them calling b/c if they do pick up a gutshot on the turn, they probably won't have odds to chase).

On the turn, you are HU on a fairly textured board against an somewhat agressive opponent who has done nothing but call thus far. No reason to think your hand is not best, bet to protect it.

On the river, no draws got there except for the unlikely 98, so (as everyone else has pointed out) you check to him to induce a bluff.
If the board had been less textured, and my opponent was capable of folding a pair here, I would fire a 3rd barrel on the river.

jason_t

06-25-2005, 06:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]

aight, I'll go into more detail since I was the one who wrote boringly standard. Let's start for one, you were pretty sure this was standard, we know that just by the title of the thread alone, plus you had no problem letting klepton post the AIM convo that you had over it. Okay rant on that aside, here's why I think its standard:

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a '?' mark in the subject and you don't know my feelings on whether or not I was okay with the AIM conversation being posted.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not really raggin on you for posting a standard hand, its just that sometimes we need to know that what we did is a good standard play that makes sense on every street.

[/ QUOTE ]

I posted it because I want to understand better why the action is correct.

KDawgCometh

06-25-2005, 07:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]

There is a '?' mark in the subject and you don't know my feelings on whether or not I was okay with the AIM conversation being posted.

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry, it was an assumption, and I didn't mean anything by it. I'm really not trying to be a dick, I think its just coming off that way.

Luv2DriveTT

06-25-2005, 09:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Absolutely pwned. Now all we need to do is teach him to like the Beatles...

[/ QUOTE ]

Can it be taught? Whats wrong with Jason...

PS: Just folded 77 to a raise when I was next to act, MP2 - no limpers. Flop comes 77. This thread s bad luck for me, but I like the river with an A and a good kicker anyway.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

DBowling

06-25-2005, 11:02 PM

this is standard for me also

jason_t

06-26-2005, 12:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
this is standard for me also

[/ QUOTE ]

But can you say why?

LuckyDevil

06-26-2005, 01:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this is standard for me also

[/ QUOTE ]

But can you say why?

[/ QUOTE ]

"why"

jason_t

06-26-2005, 01:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this is standard for me also

[/ QUOTE ]

But can you say why?

[/ QUOTE ]

"why"

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Not funny.
2. Not original.
3. Not correct as I didn't say "But can you say 'why'?"

SmileyEH

06-26-2005, 01:33 AM

Jason, I don't really understand this at all. The hand is standard because your opponent is bad, will call previous streets with worse hands and by the time will get to the river the pot is big enough for you to snap off a bluff. Hands like this happen all the time - it sucks that you didn't think this was standard, but now it's in your repetoire. There simply isn't much "why" in a hand like this because not much is going on.

-SmileyEH

DBowling

06-26-2005, 01:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this is standard for me also

[/ QUOTE ]

But can you say why?

[/ QUOTE ]

are you only unsure about river?

villians stats give him a range wide enough that he could be calling with a lot of hands you're ahead of.

also, he is aggressive enough that that there is a chance he will bluff this river when checked to. his aggressiveness also makes me think he might have raised on previous streets with a made hand.

the jack isnt the best card to come off, but its better than a diamond or king.

LuckyDevil

06-26-2005, 01:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this is standard for me also

[/ QUOTE ]

But can you say why?

[/ QUOTE ]

"why"

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Not funny.
2. Not original.
3. Not correct as I didn't say "But can you say 'why'?"

[/ QUOTE ]

About as funny as the ever so used and abused "can you see why" quote. While we are attacking each others posts though, i find it ironic that the man who thought it was nessesary to start a "State of the forum" (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2605430&page=1&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1) post is also the one asking the question of how to play AQ out of position. I see both a pot and a kettle, hmmm. Have a nice day.

richie

06-26-2005, 02:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
While we are attacking each others posts though, i find it ironic that man who thought it was nessesary to start a "State of the forum" (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2605430&page=1&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1) is also the one asking the question of how to play AQ out of position. I see both a pot and a kettle, hmmm. Have a nice day.

[/ QUOTE ]

My thoughts exactly. I rarely post here, as I am not in the "SS clique". But I lurk here often enough, and enjoy many of the posts. Not really trying to berate you Jason, but this hand is amazingly standard, especially coming from a person that has 4400+ posts in 7 months here (read: high signal/noise ratio??) Isn't this the type of post that you have been trying to prevent newbies from posting?

In any event, I hope you learn that the forum is for everybody to enjoy and use as they see fit, and not every hand is "standard" for all posters. There will always be "worthless" posts (such as this hand posting) and there will be the occasional "added to my favorite threads" posts. You have to take the good with the bad.

Once again, I'm not trying to be a d**k, but newbies have the same right to post here as you do. Having 4400+ posts does not make you an expert poker player, as evidenced by this thread. Everyone has something to learn, and actually this hand was a good post; I think the "newbies" will learn alot from this post, as I hope you have. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

RatFink

06-26-2005, 02:17 AM

As a newbie, thanks for posting this. It helped me.

ihardlyknowher

06-26-2005, 02:22 AM

The beautiful irony is that for a "boringly standard" post, this thread has gotten quite a lot of attention. May it R.I.P.

rmarotti

06-26-2005, 04:30 AM

Please never post here again. Richie: same goes for you.

Thanks.

Silky Johnston

06-26-2005, 05:08 AM

I hate you. I hate you. I hate you. I don't even know you, but I hate you. I hate your guts. I hope all the bad things in life happen to you and only to you.

jjacky

06-26-2005, 05:46 AM

ok, everybody writes this is standard. i will try to argue against it.

flop: the flop is low, but: its suited and you are up against 3 opponents. the likelihood that someone has a flush draw is roughly 50% and about the same for someone having a pair. even if the flop missed everybody you will get at least one caller anyway pretty often. and a player as passive (pre flop) as villain might have AK or a pocket pair, which he wont fold probably.

turn: after calling the flop, villain probably has a diamond draw, a pair, AK or or a pocket pair. he wont fold any of these hands.

river: after calling cold preflop and calling flop and turn, he is very likely to have something. if he has 2 broadway cards he has you beat (unless he has exactly KQ). if he has a connector he has you beat as well. if he has a pocket pair he has you beat. the only possibility that he has a weaker hand is KQ or Ax of diamonds with an x that doesn't match the board. sounds like a fold, doesn't it?

discuss.

jjacky

06-26-2005, 05:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this is standard for me also

[/ QUOTE ]

But can you say why?

[/ QUOTE ]

"why"

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Not funny.
2. Not original.
3. Not correct as I didn't say "But can you say 'why'?"

[/ QUOTE ]

About as funny as the ever so used and abused "can you see why" quote. While we are attacking each others posts though, i find it ironic that the man who thought it was nessesary to start a "State of the forum" (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2605430&page=1&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1) post is also the one asking the question of how to play AQ out of position. I see both a pot and a kettle, hmmm. Have a nice day.

[/ QUOTE ]

if you think this is so easy that you don't even have to think about it, why do you bother reading it? you should better go to the table and make 200+ $ / hour.

jason_t

06-26-2005, 07:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
ok, everybody writes this is standard. i will try to argue against it.

flop: the flop is low, but: its suited and you are up against 3 opponents. the likelihood that someone has a flush draw is roughly 50% and about the same for someone having a pair. even if the flop missed everybody you will get at least one caller anyway pretty often. and a player as passive (pre flop) as villain might have AK or a pocket pair, which he wont fold probably.

turn: after calling the flop, villain probably has a diamond draw, a pair, AK or or a pocket pair. he wont fold any of these hands.

river: after calling cold preflop and calling flop and turn, he is very likely to have something. if he has 2 broadway cards he has you beat (unless he has exactly KQ). if he has a connector he has you beat as well. if he has a pocket pair he has you beat. the only possibility that he has a weaker hand is KQ or Ax of diamonds with an x that doesn't match the board. sounds like a fold, doesn't it?

discuss.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. I think this hand is a lot closer and a lot less standard than people are making it appear. It may be standard for people to play the hand the way I played it; that doesn't it means it's correct nor not complex. As Mason alluded to in one of his essays, a lot of players are capable of making the correct decisions in Hold'em, but not realizing why they are correct and not realizing the subtelty involved in their decisions.

jason_t

06-26-2005, 07:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But can you say why?

[/ QUOTE ]

"why"

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Not funny.
2. Not original.
3. Not correct as I didn't say "But can you say 'why'?"

[/ QUOTE ]

About as funny as the ever so used and abused "can you see why" quote. While we are attacking each others posts though, i find it ironic that the man who thought it was nessesary to start a "State of the forum" (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2605430&page=1&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1) post is also the one asking the question of how to play AQ out of position. I see both a pot and a kettle, hmmm. Have a nice day.

[/ QUOTE ]

Asking someone to explain their statement is completely different than saying something mysterious and asking the other person if they got it.

As for the hand, I honestly believe the river is closer than people are making it appear. See my previous comments.

jjacky

06-26-2005, 09:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ok, everybody writes this is standard. i will try to argue against it.

flop: the flop is low, but: its suited and you are up against 3 opponents. the likelihood that someone has a flush draw is roughly 50% and about the same for someone having a pair. even if the flop missed everybody you will get at least one caller anyway pretty often. and a player as passive (pre flop) as villain might have AK or a pocket pair, which he wont fold probably.

turn: after calling the flop, villain probably has a diamond draw, a pair, AK or or a pocket pair. he wont fold any of these hands.

river: after calling cold preflop and calling flop and turn, he is very likely to have something. if he has 2 broadway cards he has you beat (unless he has exactly KQ). if he has a connector he has you beat as well. if he has a pocket pair he has you beat. the only possibility that he has a weaker hand is KQ or Ax of diamonds with an x that doesn't match the board. sounds like a fold, doesn't it?

discuss.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. I think this hand is a lot closer and a lot less standard than people are making it appear. It may be standard for people to play the hand the way I played it; that doesn't it means it's correct nor not complex. As Mason alluded to in one of his essays, a lot of players are capable of making the correct decisions in Hold'em, but not realizing why they are correct and not realizing the subtelty involved in their decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

i go one step further: As john feeney alluded to in one of his essays, a lot of players are capable of making the wrong decisions in Hold'em, but not realizing why they are wrong and not realizing the subtelty involved in their decisions.
i don't want to state that you played the hand wrong (i think you did, but i am not sure). i just want to say that i am sure there are many standard plays that are incorrect.

jjacky

06-26-2005, 09:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But can you say why?

[/ QUOTE ]

"why"

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Not funny.
2. Not original.
3. Not correct as I didn't say "But can you say 'why'?"

[/ QUOTE ]

About as funny as the ever so used and abused "can you see why" quote. While we are attacking each others posts though, i find it ironic that the man who thought it was nessesary to start a "State of the forum" (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2605430&page=1&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1) post is also the one asking the question of how to play AQ out of position. I see both a pot and a kettle, hmmm. Have a nice day.

[/ QUOTE ]

Asking someone to explain their statement is completely different than saying something mysterious and asking the other person if they got it.

As for the hand, I honestly believe the river is closer than people are making it appear. See my previous comments.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, and it is very important to ask people "why?" if they don't explain it themselves. the discussion is completely worthless if nobody bothers to give reasons for his opinions.

LinusKS

06-26-2005, 01:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
ok, everybody writes this is standard. i will try to argue against it.

flop: the flop is low, but: its suited and you are up against 3 opponents. the likelihood that someone has a flush draw is roughly 50% and about the same for someone having a pair. even if the flop missed everybody you will get at least one caller anyway pretty often. and a player as passive (pre flop) as villain might have AK or a pocket pair, which he wont fold probably.

turn: after calling the flop, villain probably has a diamond draw, a pair, AK or or a pocket pair. he wont fold any of these hands.

river: after calling cold preflop and calling flop and turn, he is very likely to have something. if he has 2 broadway cards he has you beat (unless he has exactly KQ). if he has a connector he has you beat as well. if he has a pocket pair he has you beat. the only possibility that he has a weaker hand is KQ or Ax of diamonds with an x that doesn't match the board. sounds like a fold, doesn't it?

discuss.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good analysis.

I was prepared to give the zzzzz'ers the benefit of the doubt, because I don't have much experience with 2/4, but it seems like you have to have very little respect for the Villain here to make this +EV.

I'm not sure this should be standard, unless you're convinced your opponents are brain-dead.

ihardlyknowher

06-26-2005, 02:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
the likelihood that someone has a flush draw is roughly 50%

[/ QUOTE ]

This cannot be right.

Probability of a random hand being suited is 23.53%.

Even if we assume suited hands are twice as likely to be played as a non-suited hand, the probability of a "playable" hand being suited is 36.36%.

Thus, the probability that a "playable" hand is not suited is 1-0.3636 = 63.64%.

Thus, the probability that all 3 opponents do not have suited hands is (0.6364)^4 = 16.40%.

Thus, the probability that at least one opponent has a suited hand is 1-0.164 = 83.6%.

And the probability that the suit of the suited hand is /images/graemlins/diamond.gifs is 0.836*0.25 = 20.9%.

Note that this ignores the fact that you may be up against 2 or more suited hands, but that is very unlikely and compensated for by the fact that I used 0.25 as the discount factor in the last equation. Since we know there are 2 /images/graemlins/diamond.gifs on the board, it should be less.

SmileyEH

06-26-2005, 02:25 PM

The postflop action skews the probability - simplistic analysis like this is impossible.

-SmileyEH

ihardlyknowher

06-26-2005, 02:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The postflop action skews the probability - simplistic analysis like this is impossible.

-SmileyEH

[/ QUOTE ]

His statement was a basis for making a decision as to how to play on the flop.

You think the fact that he bet the flop and got only one caller significantly increases the chances he his up against a flush draw here? I am pretty sure if you construct a reasonable range of hands for villain here it will be a flush draw <50% of the time.

In any event, I do think it will be enough times to justify the check/call on the river.

SmileyEH

06-26-2005, 02:38 PM

Agreed - I don't know where the >50% chance comes from. In any event you need to bet the turn because if you check it will usually get bet by a pair anyway, so you might as well protect your hand. I still don't see why this hand has generated so much discussion - I probably play a hand almost exactly the same 10 times a day.

-SmileyEH

CallMeIshmael

06-26-2005, 02:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I hate you. I hate you. I hate you. I don't even know you, but I hate you. I hate your guts. I hope all the bad things in life happen to you and only to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does the avatar/name mean? Who is silky?

jjacky

06-26-2005, 03:10 PM

50% might have been a little too rough. but in my experience, about 2 of the 3 opponents will have suited hands in such situations. since there are some diamonds out and maybe both have suited cards of the same suit, the chance is maybe in the range of 35 - 40%, but not as low as 20%.
my numbers can't be counted to be accurate (and that was not my intention). it was just to show my tendencies and get a discussion going.

jjacky

06-26-2005, 03:15 PM

if you play very similar hands this way 10 times a day, isn't that more a reason to discuss it than not?

i played many hands this way too. but i think the decissions are at least close. they might be wrong.

playing overcards is very common. nevertheless it is very tricky, especially OOP. the more discussions we have about such important topics the better. and i think that is why jason brought it up in this thread.

SmileyEH

06-26-2005, 03:17 PM

By the same token we should have a myriad of threads on the merits of raising or calling with AK in early position. I respect jason enough that he's not going to post boring hands (in his eyes) - Im just surprised he doesn't think this is a straightforward hand.

-SmileyEH

ihardlyknowher

06-26-2005, 04:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
the chance is maybe in the range of 35 - 40%

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no mathematical basis to believe this. I am quite certain it is much closer to 20%.

oreogod

06-26-2005, 05:02 PM

Well there is definitly a good chance u just induced a bluff. I think u HAVE to call it. Tighter player, I fold. More passive, I fold. He's a little passive but not overly so.

I call and hope his any 2 did not improve. Same thing happened to me today (probably should have bet the turn, but this man is not folding and he loves to CR. He will CR with something as little as a pair of 3s.). Villian is more loose and a little more aggressive than yours.

Absolute Poker 5/10 Hold'em (8 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is MP1 with K/images/graemlins/spade.gif, A/images/graemlins/spade.gif.
2 folds, Hero raises, 4 folds, BB calls.

Flop: (4.40 SB) J/images/graemlins/heart.gif, T/images/graemlins/club.gif, 3/images/graemlins/spade.gif (2 players)
BB bets, Hero raises, BB calls.

Turn: (4.20 BB) J/images/graemlins/spade.gif (2 players)
BB checks, Hero checks.

River: (4.20 BB) 7/images/graemlins/heart.gif (2 players)
BB bets, Hero calls.

Final Pot: 6.20 BB

Results in white below: 
BB has 9h Ac (one pair, jacks).
Hero has Ks As (one pair, jacks).
Outcome: Hero wins 6.20 BB.

jjacky

06-26-2005, 05:53 PM

we must live on different planets. i consider playing overcards OOP as one of the trickiest and most difficult situations that can possibily occur in limit poker. if situations like that are not difficult i can't imagine any tough decission in limit poker.

marching_on_together

06-26-2005, 06:56 PM

well put

jjacky

06-26-2005, 07:05 PM

nice hand.

SmileyEH

06-26-2005, 07:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
we must live on different planets. i consider playing overcards OOP as one of the trickiest and most difficult situations that can possibily occur in limit poker. if situations like that are not difficult i can't imagine any tough decission in limit poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

At 2/4 where opponents are passive and make poor decisions this isn't that tough a spot. Try playing 15/30 where you are going to be donkbetted, and CR semi-bluffed about 5 times more often. I struggled a lot because of the extra and well placed aggression.

-SmileyEH

jjacky

06-26-2005, 07:07 PM

it depends on how much credit we give the opposition to play suited hands.

jason_t

06-26-2005, 07:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I respect jason enough that he's not going to post boring hands (in his eyes) - Im just surprised he doesn't think this is a straightforward hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with this. I think this hand is a lot closer and a lot less standard than people are making it appear. It may be standard for people to play the hand the way I played it; that doesn't it means it's correct nor not complex. As Mason alluded to in one of his essays, a lot of players are capable of making the correct decisions in Hold'em, but not realizing why they are correct and not realizing the subtelty involved in their decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

jason_t

06-26-2005, 07:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hate you. I hate you. I hate you. I don't even know you, but I hate you. I hate your guts. I hope all the bad things in life happen to you and only to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does the avatar/name mean? Who is silky?

[/ QUOTE ]

Chappelle.

mosch

06-27-2005, 12:36 AM

I'm also of the "this is standard" camp. It's a straight-up value move.

The opponent has shown no aggression at any point, so I'd guess he has something between a draw and a crappy pair. Most passive opponents who have a little showdown value at will just check behind and see if they won. A bet is more likely to mean a fairly strong hand or utter crap than it is to mean something mediocre.

As such, I check-call and see where the pot goes.

shant

06-27-2005, 02:15 AM

BigEndian

06-28-2005, 08:56 AM

I think it would be interesting to see advocates of calling on the end with ace-high under certain circumstances post their numbers with ace high where they called on the end compared to the pot-odds (if such a thing is possible in PT). I agree there are places to do so, the above which is reasonable.

But I see people calling way too much on the river with ace high as a general rule. Players with stats that purportedly make them good, solid players and very likely 2+2 readers. But that the action clearly makes it either extremely likely they are beat or if they are not beat it way less than what the pot odds are offering.

Be careful with this.

- Jim

tpir90036

06-28-2005, 12:25 PM

When I first moved up I was slightly uncomfortable with these river calls... but you have to make them against the right opponents when you are out of position.

I also disagree with the idea that this hand is "standard" for SS. It's Theory of Poker standard for sure, i.e. your opponent will bet more hands then he will call a bet with and will bet hands you beat. But I don't think it's ho-hum.

Against the right type of player, you should he checking lots of hands here that you plan to call with, not just the marginal ones like A-high. That goes against the attempt to value bet everything and anything on all streets.... but sometimes the only value left to squeeze is from checking.

Hope it worked out,
tpir