What do you guys think?

[ilya]

Sorry, converter not working for me right now.

***** Hand History for Game 2355340517 *****
NL Texas Hold'em $20 Buy-in + $2 Entry Fee Trny:13888929 Level:2 Blinds(15/30) - Wednesday, July 13, 00:58:31 EDT 2005
Table Table 14891 (Real Money)
Seat 8 is the button
Total number of players : 8
Seat 1: josamart ( $745 )
Seat 8: StneColdCall ( $1850 )
Seat 6: dfunk ( $1450 )
Seat 3: apimp2u ( $905 )
Seat 7: chilly ( $755 )
Seat 2: dedmoney_1 ( $1055 )
Seat 4: loocinda ( $320 )
Seat 5: protonsaga ( $920 )
Trny:13888929 Level:2
Blinds(15/30)
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to StneColdCall [ 6s 7s ]
apimp2u folds.
loocinda folds.
protonsaga calls [30].
dfunk calls [30].
chilly folds.
StneColdCall calls [30].
josamart folds.
dedmoney_1 checks.
** Dealing Flop ** [ Ac, Qc, Ah ]
dedmoney_1 checks.
protonsaga checks.
dfunk checks.
StneColdCall checks.
** Dealing Turn ** [ Jh ]
dedmoney_1 checks.
protonsaga checks.
dfunk checks.
StneColdCall checks.
** Dealing River ** [ 8s ]
dedmoney_1 bets [30].
protonsaga calls [30].
dfunk folds.
StneColdCall raises [150].

[bluefeet]

meh...dunno if i have the nads to get this cute L2, but i suspect it would get the job done. smells like a slow ace to me - i'd be folding...nh.

[Jman28]

I fold preflop, but I like the bluff... that is, if they are reasonable players.

[curtains]

I would fold....too scared they will call with queen.

[bigt439]

With one player in the pot it is not a good play. With a min better and a caller I think it is an atrocious play. I see this situation over and over again and people call with any piece of the board because they don't want to be bluffed on this suspicious board. At the 20's I wouldn't be surprised if they both call you. What do you put them on? This looks like one of those plays where you think, oh this would be cool to bluff (I do it too for sure), but you have to think about what they have. Sorry, but I really don't like it.

[Nottom]

The caller actually make it a much better play.

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]
I fold preflop, but I like the bluff... that is, if they are reasonable players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can I take this back? Is that allowed? I don't like the play anymore.

Someone almost definitely has a face card, and might call with it.

Now I'm not sure again.

It's late. Just push or something.

[bigt439]

[ QUOTE ]
The caller actually make it a much better play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really disagree, but I'll hear you out. Why do you think that?

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The caller actually make it a much better play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really disagree, but I'll hear you out. Why do you think that?

[/ QUOTE ]

The caller most likely has a weak hand. He has checked the hand down and has chosen not to raise. It's not likely that he has a hand strong enough to go for an overcall, since he didn't bet earlier.
Since he just called, he must have *something.* Being willing to raise the first guy wouldn't necessarily mean much, since it'd be clear to him that I could be putting him on a bluff. But since I'm raising into someone who's *definitely* not bluffing, my bet seems more credible.

[The Yugoslavian]

Too many other players were involved with this pot on a scary board. Someone probably will just call you down with a Q or J anyway. Lots of fish get scared on boards like this but once they get all the way to the river, they call anyway if they've hit any part of their hand. If the board was like AA842 this play is better.

Yugoslav

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
Too many other players were involved with this pot on a scary board. Someone probably will just call you down with a Q or J anyway. Lots of fish get scared on boards like this but once they get all the way to the river, they call anyway if they've hit any part of their hand. If the board was like AA842 this play is better.

Yugoslav

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I agree. With a board like AA8 4 2 it's less credible that I would have checked a pair of 2s on the flop and turn. Both because the overs are less threatening and because I can be outdrawn much more easily. Also because there is more potential for folding out a better hand.
In the actual situation, I think I have a very clean representation of the 8s full. I limp on the button, check scary-yet-ok-if-I'm-still-ahead flop, check same kind of turn, hit and raise river.

[bigt439]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The caller actually make it a much better play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really disagree, but I'll hear you out. Why do you think that?

[/ QUOTE ]

The caller most likely has a weak hand. He has checked the hand down and has chosen not to raise. It's not likely that he has a hand strong enough to go for an overcall, since he didn't bet earlier.
Since he just called, he must have *something.* Being willing to raise the first guy wouldn't necessarily mean much, since it'd be clear to him that I could be putting him on a bluff. But since I'm raising into someone who's *definitely* not bluffing, my bet seems more credible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. I was pretty certain this would be the logic that would come back at me and it really is fairly sound. I just think that the quality of the players, and the size of this pot (people seem to be more wreckless in small pots) negates the odd time you get a thinking player who even understands what you just said. In my opinion, this very rarely adds credibility, because people just don't understand this game, certainly not on that level, and it gives one more donk a chance to call with his garbage pair.

[The Yugoslavian]

Dude..who the hell is putting you on a hand here?!

Maslow's heirarchy.....read it, learn it.

Your opponents generally will call not based on what they think you have but based on what they have.

Yugoslav

[bigt439]

A very clean representation of 8's full? I didn't even know that's what you were trying to represent. If this was an actual hand and not a bluff I would think it would be a terribly played A or Q way more than the longshot 8's full. That's really what you were trying to represent?

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The caller actually make it a much better play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really disagree, but I'll hear you out. Why do you think that?

[/ QUOTE ]

The caller most likely has a weak hand. He has checked the hand down and has chosen not to raise. It's not likely that he has a hand strong enough to go for an overcall, since he didn't bet earlier.
Since he just called, he must have *something.* Being willing to raise the first guy wouldn't necessarily mean much, since it'd be clear to him that I could be putting him on a bluff. But since I'm raising into someone who's *definitely* not bluffing, my bet seems more credible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. I was pretty certain this would be the logic that would come back at me and it really is fairly sound. I just think that the quality of the players, and the size of this pot (people seem to be more wreckless in small pots) negates the odd time you get a thinking player who even understands what you just said. In my opinion, this very rarely adds credibility, because people just don't understand this game, certainly not on that level, and it gives one more donk a chance to call with his garbage pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the other thing is that I think the caller often bets the flop with a Queen, and very often bets the turn with one. Also I think the bettor sometimes bets the flop with a Queen, often bets turn with one, and sometimes bets turn with a Jack.

[freemoney]

play has much much much more value because of a caller, your line is way too confusing though you arent representing a hand really and the river isnt a card that makes a possible hand for you that you raise here, its a little too cute.

[bigt439]

[ QUOTE ]
Dude..who the hell is putting you on a hand here?!

Maslow's heirarchy.....read it, learn it.

Your opponents generally will call not based on what they think you have but based on what they have.

Yugoslav

[/ QUOTE ]

That's pretty much what I was saying. No way they're sitting there thinking, [censored] this guy just hit 8's full. They're thinking, my third pair sure is purty. Call.

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
play has much much much more value because of a caller, your line is way too confusing though you arent representing a hand really and the river isnt a card that makes a possible hand for you that you raise here, its a little too cute.

[/ QUOTE ]

well i was representing 8s full. you don't see it?

[Matt R.]

I'd prefer a turn bet. It would look a lot more like you have an ace and just slowplayed the flop. I think raising the river will work sometimes, but you'll get called a lot too by people thinking "he'd have bet at some point before this if he really had something".

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
A very clean representation of 8's full? I didn't even know that's what you were trying to represent. If this was an actual hand and not a bluff I would think it would be a terribly played A or Q way more than the longshot 8's full. That's really what you were trying to represent?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. Why, would you have played a pair of 8s in the whole differently at some earlier point in the hand?
Also, what hand besides 8s full or better could I have to be betting like this (i.e. call, check, check, raise)?

[durron597]

If I have 88 I bet the turn.

[Matt R.]

I think people generally won't put you on a made 2-outer on the river. Even though it's always possible that you hit it given the action, it's still a 2 outer. I think they'd be much more suspicious that you over-slowplayed (is that a word?) an ace if they happen to believe your river raise.

[bigt439]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A very clean representation of 8's full? I didn't even know that's what you were trying to represent. If this was an actual hand and not a bluff I would think it would be a terribly played A or Q way more than the longshot 8's full. That's really what you were trying to represent?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. Why, would you have played a pair of 8s in the whole differently at some earlier point in the hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

To me it really seems like you are missing some fundamental poker understanding. While this is probably how you would play 8's full it is also how lots of people would play a thousand other hands, including bluffs. This isn't even the point though. Your opponents won't see this, and even if they did they would call with so many hands because they're bad and you could be bluffing.

[SammyKid11]

Well, I'm brand new...but I can't say I understand any of this. Why would you risk any money at all with this hand at these blind levels and then risk even more with a stone cold bluff on the end? I mean, I get pushing the table around with a big stack -- I guess this isn't when I'd choose to do it.

Anyway, heard alot about these forums from friends...thought I'd get involved. They told me to respond to posts before seeing what others had to say, so that's what I'm doing. Hope what I'm saying isn't ridiculous. Oh well -- I'm here to learn. So hello all.

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A very clean representation of 8's full? I didn't even know that's what you were trying to represent. If this was an actual hand and not a bluff I would think it would be a terribly played A or Q way more than the longshot 8's full. That's really what you were trying to represent?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. Why, would you have played a pair of 8s in the whole differently at some earlier point in the hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

To me it really seems like you are missing some fundamental poker understanding. While this is probably how you would play 8's full it is also how lots of people would play a thousand other hands, including bluffs. This isn't even the point though. Your opponents won't see this, and even if they did they would call with so many hands because they're bad and you could be bluffing.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be contradicting yourself a bit. On the one hand, you seem to be saying that fancy plays don't work against opponents who only consider their own cards. On the other hand, you're saying these same fancy plays won't work because your opponents, while disliking their own cards, will call because they think your hand is even weaker.
So, are they gonna call because they think "I have two pair!" or are they gonna call because they think "I think he's bluffing, so I'll call him even though my two pair isn't worth much on this board"?

[Matt R.]

I actually do think it will work a lot of the time. It just might be a little riskier than I like, and I think it will work more often on the turn (and you can risk fewer chips).

[freemoney]

well yeah but then you can always "represent" a set on the river that gets there

[bigt439]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A very clean representation of 8's full? I didn't even know that's what you were trying to represent. If this was an actual hand and not a bluff I would think it would be a terribly played A or Q way more than the longshot 8's full. That's really what you were trying to represent?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. Why, would you have played a pair of 8s in the whole differently at some earlier point in the hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

To me it really seems like you are missing some fundamental poker understanding. While this is probably how you would play 8's full it is also how lots of people would play a thousand other hands, including bluffs. This isn't even the point though. Your opponents won't see this, and even if they did they would call with so many hands because they're bad and you could be bluffing.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be contradicting yourself a bit. On the one hand, you seem to be saying that fancy plays don't work against opponents who only consider their own cards. On the other hand, you're saying these same fancy plays won't work because your opponents, while disliking their own cards, will call because they think your hand is even weaker.
So, are they gonna call because they think "I have two pair!" or are they gonna call because they think "I think he's bluffing, so I'll call him even though my two pair isn't worth much on this board"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is contradictory, the two can compliment each other. They will call because they overvalue their hand and the possibility that you may be bluffing. They will say I have two pair and I like it, and besides this guy's probably bluffing.

[freemoney]

your not the only person who ever bluffed, i mean this play is marginal EV either way so its kinda irrelevant in the grand scheme but i think there are better spots to bluff.

[lastchance]

Villains like calling. Therefore, they will call.

[YourFoxyGrandma]

I'm pretty sure you get called alot here. You also have a big stack and the pot is really small. Why bother?