QQ crosspost, I like you guys more

[Bodhi]

Party Poker 2/4 (10 handed) converter

UTG+2 and the Button are both very donkish, but the BB is a rock.

Preflop: Hero is SB with Q/images/graemlins/club.gif,Q/images/graemlins/diamond.gif.
2 folds, UTG+2 calls, 4 folds, Button calls, Hero raises, BB 3-bets, UTG+2 calls, Button calls, Hero caps, BB calls, UTG+2 calls, Button calls.

Flop:(16sb) K/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 5/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 2/images/graemlins/club.gif (4 players)
Hero bets, BB calls, UTG+2 calls, Button calls.

Turn:(10BB) 2/images/graemlins/diamond.gif (4 players)
Hero bets, BB calls, UTG+2 calls, Button raises, Hero 3-bets, BB folds, UTG+2 calls, Button calls(All-In).

River:(20bb) 4/images/graemlins/spade.gif (3 players, 1 all-in)
Hero bets, UTG+2 raises, Hero calls.

[shadow29]

wtf?

Fold to the button turn raise. You're beat.

[Bodhi]

Are you kidding? He's all-in.

[SmileyPSU]

I would lead out on the flop like you did, but when raised on the turn it's time to let this go. There is no way you are not behind a K or trip 2's here.

[Bodhi]

Pay attention dude. The button is all-in and could be raising with a lot of different hands.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you kidding? He's all-in.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's not all-in until you put him all-in. Besides, he's not the only one you should be concerned with...

I don't know what you're doing calling that river raise, either.

[Bodhi]

What, am I going to fold for one bet in a 20+ bet pot?

[shadow29]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you kidding? He's all-in.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's not all-in until you put him all-in. Besides, he's not the only one you should be concerned with...

I don't know what you're doing calling that river raise, either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Word. 3-betting the turn here sucks so hard. Like really hard.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
What, am I going to fold for one bet in a 20+ bet pot?

[/ QUOTE ]

You put two bets into the pot on the river. We're not talking about the same thing here.

If you think villain is capable of bluff-raising the river, you should check-call to induce a bluff. Bet-calling here is pretty ugly.

[Bodhi]

You guys are giving terrible advice. Fwiw, I was ahead of everyone on the turn. You both get the skirt award.

[AmarilloJim1]

First off, I know a lot of people here are more experienced than me, so take this with a grain of salt.

3-Bet turn...this is not an sng or a mtt..don't think it matters if you put him all in.

Also, UTG+2 cold calls two bets on the turn after your 3-bet, then you bet into him on the river...I don't get it.

If you checked on the river and he bet, you would have saved 1 bb...he wouldn't fold to your river bet because the pot is big.

FWIW

[shadow29]

[ QUOTE ]
You guys are giving terrible advice. Fwiw, I was ahead of everyone on the turn. You both get the skirt award.

[/ QUOTE ]

You get the results oriented award.

[Bodhi]

In white:

<font color="white">
Button has TT
UTG+2 has Ah3h </font>

[Bodhi]

You are weak-tight.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
You guys are giving terrible advice. Fwiw, I was ahead of everyone on the turn. You both get the skirt award.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not worth very much given the information you've provided.

[shadow29]

[ QUOTE ]
You are weak-tight.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's probably the first time I've been called weak/tight.

I'm not just concerned with the button on the turn. I think that you might have totally neglected UTG+2. He's not calling with nothing. I'm not sure that I can put Button and UTG+2 on hand ranges that I beat right now (and not your results, because although those might be included in the range, I wouldn't give them much weight). Button waking up after the turn pairs and there's an overcard and UTG+2 and BB show no sign of going anywhere lead me to think that your winning chances are not good.

And your river play is attrocious.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
You are weak-tight.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here comes the pissing contest. You get the wind-assist award.

The problem here is that you're not providing any rationale or justification as to why you think your hand is best. Calling villains "donkish" does not mean the same as "prone to bluffing".

[Bodhi]

Ok, then check out the results and tell me if their play counts as "donkish."

[shadow29]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, then check out the results and tell me if their play counts as "donkish."

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

You told us nothing about these guys except "donkish" and then told us to check the results and then tell you what we think of the hand. You win. TimM ain't a clown either (other thread).

[SCfuji]

dont like the turn 3 bet
dont mind leaing the river but i HATE calling the river raise, pots protected.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, then check out the results and tell me if their play counts as "donkish."

[/ QUOTE ]

You already won that award. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=2854424&amp;page=0&amp;view=c ollapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=14&amp;vc=1)

[Aaron W.]

What range of hands do you put villains on after the turn raise?

[Bodhi]

You got bluffed out of a 20 bet pot. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Bodhi]

Any king, a lower pocket pair, a raggedy two pair, or even a 5 with A kicker. I see players put in their last few bets with all sorts of crazy hands every day.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
Any king, a lower pocket pair, a raggedy two pair, or even a 5 with A kicker. I see players put in their last few bets with all sorts of crazy hands every day.

[/ QUOTE ]

And for how many of those is a turn 3-bet a smart thing to do?

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
You got bluffed out of a 20 bet pot. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

It wouldn't have been 20 BB if you didn't 3-bet the turn. I also don't think you can come up with a realistic list of hands based on the action where you beat two players simultaneously beat 2 players more than 5% of the time.

[Bodhi]

Someone mentioned in small stakes that we might have got the BB to fold a K. I looked through the session's hand history and found this in the next hand's dialoge:

***** Hand History for Game 2352768762 *****
$2/$4 Texas Hold'em - Tuesday, July 12, 17:37:06 EDT 2005
Table Challenge you All (Real Money)
Seat 4 is the button
Total number of players : 9
Seat 3: Farahnamy ( $0 )
Seat 5: hypn0t1c ( $37 )
Seat 2: GJV653 ( $130.50 )
Seat 10: pengaanda ( $93 )
Seat 4: megalopsuche ( $99.50 )
Seat 7: kpride83 ( $35.50 )
Seat 1: vol1976 ( $95 )
Seat 8: whit555 ( $130.25 )
Seat 9: DanD2c ( $118.50 )
hypn0t1c posts small blind [$1].
kpride83 posts big blind [$2].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to megalopsuche [ 9s Tc ]
Farahnamy has left the table.
hypn0t1c: i've paired my king with AK and lost all XXXXing 3 of them

---------------------

I suppose he must be a 2+2er

[Bodhi]

If he has a K then 3 betting is bad.
If he has a lower pp then it's good.
If he has a raggedy two pair, then I may have a number of hidden outs, and I should try to knock out the BB or UTG+2.
If he has a 5 w A kicker, then 3 betting is good.

So for 3 out of 4 I think 3 betting is good. It also appears that it got the BB to fold AK.

[crovax4444]

wow, a post in SS and Micro, a pissing contest and you still are so thick headed that you refuse to listen to the advice...you sure are making a lot of friends here...Oh yea, and posting people's in game names...I believe that's a no no

I'll accept the turn reasoning (it seems to me that people care less about their stacks when they're almost gone), but the river was horrible

[DeathDonkey]

You can argue all you want based on the results, you played this hand like crap.

-DeathDonkey

[Bodhi]

Welcome to the forums. I'm sorry you've had to suffer such bad advice in this thread. 2+2 has a lot of people who like to echo each other, but who are simply folding too much in large pots, so be careful.

[shadow29]

Don't be ridiculous. How many more threads and how many more posters will it take to convince you finally that you played this hand poorly?

And please, AK isn't normally laying down here, so yet again you're being results oriented.

(My last post in this thread; time to pwn 3/6 SH- where I definetly am not weak/tight).

[Bodhi]

So far I also check this hand with 2 poker buddies. One didn't like the hand and the other said he would play it the same way. I'll email it to another person I respect and see what he says.

and Btw, your taking the results-orientation way too far, as what's really of concern here is that you all put the button on a full house or some monster like that.

[Bodhi]

Yet another constructive reply that gives advice on how the hand should be played. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[shadow29]

[ QUOTE ]

and Btw, your taking the results-orientation way too far, as what's really of concern here is that you all put the button on a full house or some monster like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright I lied. One last post. I don't put anyone on a full house. But to ignore the possibility of one person having a K or one person have a 2 is insane (especially given pf, flop, and turn action read together).

[bottomset]

ok you are the pro cushing the 2/4 game, that has everything figured out .. good for you

your blatant disregard of the advice from some damn good players is pretty [censored] funny

hooray for you

seriously I'm never reading or responding to another one of your posts again

[Wetdog]

Dude, if you have any recollection of me at all you know that compared to you I suck. Given that the guy was all in, maybe donking off his last bet, UTG+2 was definitely alive. 3betting the turn with an overcard to your pair was ballsy sure enough, but smart? I don't think so. I'd call down from the turn raise. Maybe I'm weak-tight, but I'm doing fine at .50/1.

You didn't see the wheel at the river? I didn't either. That means either I'm at your level or you had a brainfart. My money's on the latter.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
If he has a K then 3 betting is bad.
If he has a lower pp then it's good.
If he has a raggedy two pair, then I may have a number of hidden outs, and I should try to knock out the BB or UTG+2.
If he has a 5 w A kicker, then 3 betting is good.

So for 3 out of 4 I think 3 betting is good. It also appears that it got the BB to fold AK.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know that's not 3 out of 4, right?

King hands - KQ, KJ, KT, K9, K8, K7, K6, K4, K3 = 9*12 = 108 hands
Lower PP - TT, 99, 88, 77, 66, 44, 33 = 7*6 = 42 hands
Raggedy two pair - K5 = 9 hands (and you don't have that many shared and hidden outs. You're trailing and you need help more than you need to knock out the other players)
A5 - 12 hands

So you're losing in 108+9 = 117 hands and you're winning in 42+12 = 54 hands. Not even close to 3 out of 4. It's more like 1 out of 3.

Plus you left out the couple set/quad hands which are just as reasonable as lower PP, and the full house hand K2.

So now you're down to 33% of the time you're ahead of the raising villain. Do you care to figure out the liklihood of being ahead of rock and the other villain?

[Bodhi]

Is it reasonable to count every possible Kx combination here?

[adsman]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it reasonable to count every possible Kx combination here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Earlier in the thread you said any King, plus that players put last bets in with all sorts of ridiculous hands, now you're saying this. What's up, Bodhi? Your reasoning and posting in this thread makes the matador look like a reasonable dude.

[Bodhi]

Ahhh, that's "ridiculous hands" that I beat. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

In all seriousness, K9 or K8 is a lot more likely than K6 or K3.

[silkyslim]

I agree with you Bodhi, here is a hand that I got a lot of guff for but took down a huge pot with my pair of jacks. Haters.......

link (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=smallholdem&amp;Number=2829065 &amp;Forum=,,,,&amp;Words=&amp;Searchpage=2&amp;Limit=25&amp;Main=2829 065&amp;Search=true&amp;where=bodysub&amp;Name=27439&amp;daterange =1&amp;newerval=1&amp;newertype=w&amp;olderval=&amp;oldertype=&amp;bod yprev=#Post2829065)

[SCfuji]

do you expect us to agree with everything you say? what do you want from us if we cant state our own opinions

[davelin]

I'm guessing you don't like the ML crowd much now...

[bozlax]

[ QUOTE ]
Dealt to megalopsuche [ 9s Tc ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting...I was pretty sure I recognized your name (hard to forget), so I checked my notes and PT. We had 100-some hands together a couple of weeks back, and after about 60 I entered the following:

"Overplays with any piece of the board, especially from the blinds. Prone to killing himself on pocket pairs."

FWIW

Edit: Oh, and looking at your stats, you're nice and TA preflop, but go a little maniac postflop (granted, small sample size).

[Bodhi]

Well, I was pretty shocked by the replies. I thought I might see someone say "call down from the turn," or some [censored] like that. But fold? That's ridiculous.

Sure, I still like you all, but I'm going to take the advice with a big chunk of salt, especially when someone thinks I should listen based on their repuation alone.

[Bodhi]

You can say whatever you like scfuji. If you want to add something constructive then I appreciate it. If you want to add no-content, negative remarks then I might react negatively...

[Bodhi]

I think you got me there. My postflop AF is 3.45, which is certainly too high.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I was pretty shocked by the replies. I thought I might see someone say "call down from the turn," or some [censored] like that. But fold? That's ridiculous.

Sure, I still like you all, but I'm going to take the advice with a big chunk of salt, especially when someone thinks I should listen based on their repuation alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I recall, nothing here has been about reputation. Everything has been about the fact that you haven't given any good justification as to why your play is better than folding besides the results-oriented "I won, didn't I?". Couple this to the statement you gave about being able to push out a better king (another results-oriented play, since AK rarely folds in that spot), and you'll see that you've got very little ground to stand on.

Your "3 out of 4" enumeration fell flat on its face since it's really 1 out of 3 (even if you pull out a few of those weaker king hands, you're looking at something around 2 out of 5). And that's only one player. Put the other player on a range of hands, and you're holding the best hand probably somewhere near 1 out of 8 or 9. Throw in the rock, whose range of hands is extremely limited (and not knowing his ability to fold AK), and you've got the best hand 1 out of 20 or worse.

[bozlax]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you got me there. My postflop AF is 3.45, which is certainly too high.

[/ QUOTE ]

At least you're consistent. I've got you about 3.1 over 125 hands.

[bottomset]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you Bodhi, here is a hand that I got a lot of guff for but took down a huge pot with my pair of jacks. Haters.......

link (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=smallholdem&amp;Number=2829065 &amp;Forum=,,,,&amp;Words=&amp;Searchpage=2&amp;Limit=25&amp;Main=2829 065&amp;Search=true&amp;where=bodysub&amp;Name=27439&amp;daterange =1&amp;newerval=1&amp;newertype=w&amp;olderval=&amp;oldertype=&amp;bod yprev=#Post2829065)

[/ QUOTE ]

you played every street of that hand incorrectly, its a miracle that you won, but it happens like 1% of the time

[Bodhi]

[ QUOTE ]
your blatant disregard of the advice from some damn good players is pretty [censored] funny

[/ QUOTE ]

How is that for the holy-cow of reputation? Sorry if I argue a lot, but a lot of the players here do expect hyperbolic deference just because they are who they are.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as I recall, nothing here has been about reputation. Everything has been about the fact that you haven't given any good justification as to why your play is better than folding besides the results-oriented "I won, didn't I?". Couple this to the statement you gave about being able to push out a better king (another results-oriented play, since AK rarely folds in that spot), and you'll see that you've got very little ground to stand on.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, I didn't know at the time that the BB had AK.

Seconly, why are results such taboo? Suppose I made 50 of these posts, and in half of them you all advised me to fold a hand that was best. I would have reason to be concerned, no? Now, obviously, that hasn't happened (yet), but this is certainly not the first.

Thirdly, the interpretations of my opponents holdings have been fantastic. At SS they were saying, "looks like the button has trips and UTG+2 has a boat." Sometimes these people need results to sober them up.

[ QUOTE ]
Your "3 out of 4" enumeration fell flat on its face since it's really 1 out of 3 (even if you pull out a few of those weaker king hands, you're looking at something around 2 out of 5). And that's only one player. Put the other player on a range of hands, and you're holding the best hand probably somewhere near 1 out of 8 or 9. Throw in the rock, whose range of hands is extremely limited (and not knowing his ability to fold AK), and you've got the best hand 1 out of 20 or worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't convinced by your linear evaluation of the probability of the button's hand. I never assign equal probability to all of the possibilities, but assign some more and others less. You do the same for god's sake.

Anyway, I understand that play ought to be evaluated regardless of the results. In the vast majority of cirumstances on this board I adhere to that rule (except for my fish that bluff post).

I've never butted heads with anyone here before like this, though I think we can remain civil in the future. If some skilled players in the non-virtual world had also said I was going off the deep-end, then you wouldn't have seen such a spirited defense.

regards

[Bodhi]

Ok, I do agree with the others that raising UTG w JTo is kind of crazy, but we'll put that in brackets for now. Btw, I've never played 5/10 at party, do the players always cold-call this much?

If you put the CO on overs, then your flop is provoking for sure. I suppose you expected him to raise?

Turn bluff when the A falls, I think the pot is too big for this kind of play.

River, I would just call his raise.

Anyway, I'm glad you won it, but I think there's some real difference between our two hands because you spiked your pair on the river, whereas I had a big PP right from the start.

[bozlax]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I was pretty shocked by the replies. I thought I might see someone say "call down from the turn," or some [censored] like that. But fold? That's ridiculous.

Sure, I still like you all, but I'm going to take the advice with a big chunk of salt, especially when someone thinks I should listen based on their repuation alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, fine. You didn't overplay your pocket pair, get lucky by having an even worse player than yourself fold the best hand, and win a hand you should've lost. Your mastery of this game is complete, Obi-wan, please remember us fondly when you're sitting at the WSOP final table next year.

I just looked back at the op, and based on that and your comments about your postflop AF, I can only assume that you know you played this badly and you posted it as a, "Lookit what I done," post, which is tired.

[Bodhi]

Come on bozlax, if you think I won the hand then you really didn't read carefully enough. I also never said I played the hand perfectly, just that I'm skeptical it's as bad as some 2+2 people say it is, and that they give the villains wayyyy too much credit in this big pot.

[bottomset]

[ QUOTE ]
How is that for the holy-cow of reputation? Sorry if I argue a lot, but a lot of the players here do expect hyperbolic deference just because they are who they are

[/ QUOTE ]

you can question them, thats fine, but you don't need to be an [censored] doing it, it was the way you responded to their posts that was disgusting, show some respect, and at least phrase things in a constructive way

not a hey I'm right, cuz a miracle happened with the results and I'm gonna rub it in


[ QUOTE ]
Seconly, why are results such taboo? Suppose I made 50 of these posts, and in half of them you all advised me to fold a hand that was best. I would have reason to be concerned, no? Now, obviously, that hasn't happened (yet), but this is certainly not the first.

Thirdly, the interpretations of my opponents holdings have been fantastic. At SS they were saying, "looks like the button has trips and UTG+2 has a boat." Sometimes these people need results to sober them up.



[/ QUOTE ]

cuz thats what they have more often, than you winning the hand

[Bodhi]

I've run into this issue a number of times, whether the villain has a monster or is just desperate. I'm usually on the latter side with 2+2ers on the former. Maybe I've been lucky with table selection? I see people bluff-raising with K-high and other antics every day, and so in my experience people raising with the last of their chips don't usually have a monster.

Are we on speaking terms again bottomset? /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, I still like you all, but I'm going to take the advice with a big chunk of salt, especially when someone thinks I should listen based on their repuation alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're being results-oriented if you won't take the advice of well-respected posters on this forum at face value anymore after the results and advice you received from this hand.

[droolie]

[ QUOTE ]
What, am I going to fold for one bet in a 20+ bet pot?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[Bodhi]

[ QUOTE ]
You're being results-oriented if you won't take the advice of well-respected posters on this forum at face value anymore after the results and advice you received from this hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't the first time you all have MUBS. If drawing the inference that the "UTG+2 has a boat" is nonsense then fine, I'm results-oriented. Or, perhaps it's the other way around. Perhaps it's everyone else that's being results oriented because of the times in the past that they saw a similar situation and the villain turns over a boat.

The only reason I accpet or reject the advice of anyone is if its cogent, not because of their reputation (2+2 is also not the only place where I receive advice; sometimes I look for help from players I know are good but who rarely post post here). I've made thousands of dollars at micros and ss over 50k+ hands and I'm not about to sacrifice my intelligence to the ad hominem fallacy.

This is one of my big beefs about internet boards: Hero worship by the masses of a few who get it right only most of the time.

[Shillx]

This hand would make a lot of sense if the BB wasn't a rock. The button is short on chips and might just be raising to get all-in so it is tough to give him credit for the hand that he is representing. So if you didn't know anything about the BB it would be okay to 3-bet the turn since you want to play HU against the button who might just have air. The problem is that you aren't going to have the rock beat when he calls on both 3rd and 4th on this board. He isn't going to call on 4th street with JJ or something. He either has AA or AK and that is pretty much it IMHO. It seems odd that he would fold to the turn 3-bet since you would expect him to fold QQ/JJ straight away. What hand could he possibly play in this manner? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Edit - Okay read some of the thread. Trying to get someone to fold Kx on this board is a fine concept to apply since they could very well fear being outkicked after you 3-bet the turn. Since this guy is a rock though, the only Kx hand that he could have in this spot is AK. 3-betting to try and get him to throw AK away isn't what this game is about IMHO. If you felt like there was a real chance that you had the best hand, I like the play. If this all came about to "try and fold his AK or AA" then I think you should re-evaluate a few things.

[Bodhi]

[ QUOTE ]
The button is short on chips and might just be raising to get all-in so it is tough to give him credit for the hand that he is representing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh my god, you're the first person who's agreed with me on that. I thought I was going insane. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that you aren't going to have the rock beat when he calls on both 3rd and 4th on this board.

[/ QUOTE ]

The majority of the time that is true. I appreciate your comments about the turn raise.

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're being results-oriented if you won't take the advice of well-respected posters on this forum at face value anymore after the results and advice you received from this hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't the first time you all have MUBS. If drawing the inference that the "UTG+2 has a boat" is nonsense then fine, I'm results-oriented. Or, perhaps it's the other way around. Perhaps it's everyone else that's being results oriented because of the times in the past that they saw a similar situation and the villain turns over a boat.

The only reason I accpet or reject the advice of anyone is if its cogent, not because of their reputation (2+2 is also not the only place where I receive advice; sometimes I look for help from players I know are good but who rarely post post here). I've made thousands of dollars at micros and ss over 50k+ hands and I'm not about to sacrifice my intelligence to the ad hominem fallacy.

This is one of my big beefs about internet boards: Hero worship by the masses of a few who get it right only most of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the manner you've handled this is more about the point than the actual hand itself. It seems you're not open to the discussion about the way you've played the hand.

[istewart]

Hopefully this hand is a joke.

[Bodhi]

Not exactly. I'm open to people who say I should just call down from the turn after the button's raise because I'm probably beat. I'm open to people who say I should check-call the turn because I want to show-down cheaply. Whether to bet the river really depends on my previous play. If I 3 bet the turn then I damn well bet the river. If I called down on the turn, then check-calling the river is good too.

I'm not open to anyone who says to fold. Nope. A snowballs' chance in hell. I've learned a lot about poker in a short time, and I know I'm still an amateur. That's ok. However, if there's one thing I've learned about this game, it's not to fold a turn like that one.

[SCfuji]

[ QUOTE ]
If I 3 bet the turn then I damn well bet the river. If I called down on the turn, then check-calling the river is good too.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think you should be open to other options as different cards turn up. i used to be a full throttle player such as yourself and i feel ive improved as a player thanks to my retarded stats posts and coaching.

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
Not exactly. I'm open to people who say I should just call down from the turn after the button's raise because I'm probably beat. I'm open to people who say I should check-call the turn because I want to show-down cheaply. Whether to bet the river really depends on my previous play. If I 3 bet the turn then I damn well bet the river. If I called down on the turn, then check-calling the river is good too.

I'm not open to anyone who says to fold. Nope. A snowballs' chance in hell. I've learned a lot about poker in a short time, and I know I'm still an amateur. That's ok. However, if there's one thing I've learned about this game, it's not to fold a turn like that one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, whatever, I'm just throwing my 2 cents in from someone who wasn't in the original discussion. I still think saying that you're going to take advice on this board with a huge grain of salt after this hand is somewhat silly. The quality of advice didn't change overnight.

[bozlax]

[ QUOTE ]
you played every street of that hand incorrectly, its a miracle that you won, but it happens like 1% of the time

[/ QUOTE ]

No miracle. I'm guessing that Silky had lost 2 or 3 of these already, and that CO had noticed...looks like UTG+2 noticed, too, but got afraid of CO actually having a hand.

[Bodhi]

Ok, well thank you for the discussion. It's ok with me that we disagree and things will move on.

[Bodhi]

I can see your reasons for slowing down, thanx for the input.

[TomBrooks]

You can fold the river after UTG raises unless he is a bluffer/maniac. River Check/call looks better, esp. since Button went all in on the Turn.

[aces_dad]

Hard to understand why BB didn't raise the flop with his TPTK ... I also prefer to know villian's VPIP/AF or reads to understand why he's 'donkish'. I'm less scared about the all-in player than BB (until he folded) and UTG+2.

Since you've already got one all-in I would check/call the river.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
your blatant disregard of the advice from some damn good players is pretty [censored] funny

[/ QUOTE ]

How is that for the holy-cow of reputation? Sorry if I argue a lot, but a lot of the players here do expect hyperbolic deference just because they are who they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not recall reading that (this thread has gotten quite long now). I agree with the sentiment that you're not listening to the advice being given, and you're not even justifying you own advice. It seems that you don't know how to weigh one play against another in any rational way. You keep pointing to the result and saying "therefore I was right".

Poker is an extremely situational game. It's hard to get consistent repeated samples. That's why bad players can do very well at times. They get the happy end of the variance stick and declare that they play well. See below for more on this...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As far as I recall, nothing here has been about reputation. Everything has been about the fact that you haven't given any good justification as to why your play is better than folding besides the results-oriented "I won, didn't I?". Couple this to the statement you gave about being able to push out a better king (another results-oriented play, since AK rarely folds in that spot), and you'll see that you've got very little ground to stand on.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, I didn't know at the time that the BB had AK.

[/ QUOTE ]

What did you think a rock would 3-bet with? This is where the careful analysis that you should have done comes into play.

[ QUOTE ]
Seconly, why are results such taboo? Suppose I made 50 of these posts, and in half of them you all advised me to fold a hand that was best. I would have reason to be concerned, no? Now, obviously, that hasn't happened (yet), but this is certainly not the first.

[/ QUOTE ]

Results themselves are not taboo. Results oriented thinking is taboo. The reason is that good plays are determined to be good based on the information you would have had at the time of the decision. You can't point to a result and use that as part of the justification that it's a good play, because you don't have the result to inform your decision during the game.

[ QUOTE ]
Thirdly, the interpretations of my opponents holdings have been fantastic. At SS they were saying, "looks like the button has trips and UTG+2 has a boat." Sometimes these people need results to sober them up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're referring to the SS commentaries. Again, I haven't read everything in this thread, so I'm not going to say that it hasn't come up here. The SS commentaries can be substantially worse than the micro commentaries. People who play $3-6 live think that $3-6 online is the same, so they bring the same game strategy and same level of thinking into SS. However, I understand that $3-6 online tends to match closer to $10-20 or even $20-40 in terms of the skill level. So you have people whose thinking is at the micro level posting at small stakes. Putting players on those specific hands is pretty bad without having a better read on the players.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your "3 out of 4" enumeration fell flat on its face since it's really 1 out of 3 (even if you pull out a few of those weaker king hands, you're looking at something around 2 out of 5). And that's only one player. Put the other player on a range of hands, and you're holding the best hand probably somewhere near 1 out of 8 or 9. Throw in the rock, whose range of hands is extremely limited (and not knowing his ability to fold AK), and you've got the best hand 1 out of 20 or worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't convinced by your linear evaluation of the probability of the button's hand. I never assign equal probability to all of the possibilities, but assign some more and others less. You do the same for god's sake.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's an illusion of probability. While it's true that you expect to see K8 more often than K3 is because more players play K8 than play K3. However, that is an average over a wide range of players. Here, you're not looking at a wide range of players, but a range of hands for a specific player. If a player is going to play any king, then every king combination is equally likely. You need to keep the proper sample space in mind.

Assigning different probabilities to different cards is wrong unless you have specific information to make it otherwise. That it seems like you will see K9 or K8 more often than K3 because you include KT and K7 in the back of your mind when you say "K9 or K8". Here is an example of a proper use of scaling: I think rock will definitely 3-bet JJ in the big blind, but I'm not sure he'll 3-bet TT. I give JJ a full count (6 hands) and TT something like a half count (3 hands). Since your read said "any king", then "any king" is what I included in the count.

If you want to do subtle scalings like that, you *MUST* do the same to all hands, including the pocket pairs. The net effect is very minor, and you would have essentially the same result with the scaling. Try it.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, I understand that play ought to be evaluated regardless of the results. In the vast majority of cirumstances on this board I adhere to that rule (except for my fish that bluff post).

I've never butted heads with anyone here before like this, though I think we can remain civil in the future. If some skilled players in the non-virtual world had also said I was going off the deep-end, then you wouldn't have seen such a spirited defense.

regards

[/ QUOTE ]

Butting heads happens. It happens when there is something very fundamental at the core of the argument. That is what's going on here. You're using a very different way of measuring things which is fundamentally different from everyone else. Your standards are very loose, and mathematically weak. Your non-virtual world friends may have a similar loose standard.

Read this post (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=561328&amp;page=&amp;view=&amp;sb =5&amp;o=&amp;vc=1) and the followups posted by "The Dude" (especially where he quotes Mason Malmouth's Poker Essays). It has become apparent in the course of this discussion that you don't have a firm foundation of the poker fundamentals. Not in terms of making preflop/postflop plays, but the raw elements of poker which make up poker strategy.

[Bodhi]

That's an interesting post you linked. I'll definitely read the thread.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not open to anyone who says to fold. Nope. A snowballs' chance in hell. I've learned a lot about poker in a short time, and I know I'm still an amateur. That's ok. However, if there's one thing I've learned about this game, it's not to fold a turn like that one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cutting straight to the heart of the matter: *EVERY* play (bet or raise/check or call/fold) deserves consideration at *EVERY* step along the way. *EVERY* play can be rationally measured against the others and a better play will often prevail. What you have failed to do, and continue to fail to do, is to provide rationalizations for your play. You have provided no justification that folding is worse than calling or raising *EXECPT* that you won the hand.

Very early in the posting, you say "fwiw, I was ahead on the turn". From that point onward, you point to the results as the reason your play is better. This is backwards thinking. It has been from the start, and it will continue to be.

Reread all your posts. You provide very little strategic content. As a result, to anyone who comes to this thread with an open mind you will be seen as ignorant. I think you should take a step back and look at everything that has been said again.

[Bodhi]

Button is 55%, 0pfr, 1.14 Tot Af.
UTG+2 is 48%, 12%pfr, .95 af.

These stats are not over a lot of hands, so I said "Donkish" because what I really know is that they're both terrible. PT are worthless anyway, right? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Bodhi]

[ QUOTE ]
*EXECPT* that you won the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm, I didn't win the hand.

I said I was ahead on the turn because I was shocked that I was told to fold to someone's all-in raise. Only one person has agreed with me on that point so far, so I don't expect to win you over.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
*EXECPT* that you won the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm, I didn't win the hand. Why doesn't anyone get that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, mispoke: "were winning" the hand

[Bodhi]

edited: [ QUOTE ]
I said I was ahead on the turn because I was shocked that I was told to fold to someone's all-in raise. Only one person has agreed with me on that point so far, so I don't expect to win you over.


[/ QUOTE ]

[GrunchCan]

[ QUOTE ]
hyperbolic deference

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to start using this line.

[SippinSoma]

Ask around for Schoonmaker's 2p2 magazine articles on denial. Print them out. Pin them to your wall. Read them every hour.

[FlyWf]

But your defense of your actions included the truly absurd assertion that you might have "hidden outs" against a raggedy two pair. Either you can't read the board or don't know what the phrase "hidden outs" means. On a K522 board QQ has 2 outs against every hand it is behind. You have zero hidden outs, unless you think a queen qualifies as hidden. For future information hidden outs are generally in play when you are outkicked or reverse dominated. When you are simply beaten hidden outs aren't a real issue.

[Paxosmotic]

[ QUOTE ]
Ask around for Schoonmaker's 2p2 magazine articles on denial. Print them out. Pin them to your wall. Read them every hour.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd like to get in on this, any idea what month and year the issue(s) was/were?

[Bodhi]

Yeah, that wasn't correct! /images/graemlins/blush.gif