Preflop bluff turns into money by the river [Archive]

ZootMurph

11-16-2005, 03:06 PM

MP2 is a LAG preflop(47%/31%), but very rarely shows down hands, either folding after the turn with nothing or jamming the pot. Button is a classic calling station. NEVER raises, just calls. He only bets with a big hand when checked to, otherwise you can be sure he will call with something and fold with nothing. My image has to be weak tight at this point, as I've been getting absolutely nothing for the last hour, and I've tried to play a couple of weak hands in position and had to fold most of the time postflop. The last hand I showed down was AA vs K9s that rivered the flush and didn't even bet the river OOP.

Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (9 handed) FTR converter on zerodivide.cx (http://www.zerodivide.cx/converter)

Preflop: ZootMurph is MP3 with 7/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 6/images/graemlins/heart.gif.
3 folds, MP2 raises, ZootMurph 3-bets, 1 fold, Button calls, 2 folds, MP2 calls.

Preflop, I'm basically trying to get heads up against the LAG, and hoping he doesn't hit his hand so I can push him off. Unfortunately, button comes along for the ride. 

Flop: (10.50 SB) 5/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, K/images/graemlins/spade.gif, T/images/graemlins/spade.gif (3 players)
MP2 checks, ZootMurph bets, Button calls, MP2 folds.

Obviously, I don't like this flop but I decide to follow my initial plan and see what happens. So I bet and, as expected, LAG folds. Unfortunately, Button has something and calls. I tell myself I'm done with the hand. 

Turn: (6.25 BB) 4/images/graemlins/club.gif (2 players)
ZootMurph bets, Button calls.

OK, I now have a OESD. If I don't bet, Button will. And I will call. So, I decide betting is better than check/calling. 

River: (8.25 BB) 8/images/graemlins/spade.gif (2 players)
ZootMurph bets, Button calls.

What a beautiful runner runner straight. Lucky me. I bet, mainly because I'm not 100% sure of the bet from Button to check raise, with the flush draw coming through on the river.

Final Pot: 10.25 BB

Any thoughts on this play?

Entity

11-16-2005, 03:08 PM

With your description of Button, preflop is pretty horrible here.

Rob

BWebb

11-16-2005, 03:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
With your description of Button, preflop is pretty horrible here.

Rob

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Additionally, you have to have very tight blinds for this play to be worth attempting. Wait for better situations, don't get bored.

gopnik

11-16-2005, 03:22 PM

since you have pretty much no folding equity against the button I prefer to check the turn and hope he checks it behind.

You need to bet for value against these people otherwise it's spewing.

ZootMurph

11-16-2005, 03:23 PM

My bad for not giving a full description. I only gave what I thought was necessary. His stats are 11%-0%. I don't see him as a rock, since he folds a lot. But when he has a hand he is going to the river and not raising so you can never tell exactly what he has, only that he has something. I haven't seen him play draws either, so I knew the flush was not reasonable for him.

I didn't have anything on SB since this was his 2nd hand at the table. BB is a multitabling TAG.

In any case, most of the loose coldcalls at the table were from people already out of the hand. So I really wasn't concerned about any calls from anyone that didn't have a real good hand. With 4 people left to play behind me, I felt there was very little chance there would be further action.

Now, if you were to say the FLOP action was bad, I would tend to agree.

ZootMurph

11-16-2005, 03:28 PM

As for the spewing/getting bored posts... am I the only one who varies their play? I don't play ABC poker all the time, otherwise it is too easy to play against me.

I make plays like this ocassionally when I have a read on someone that I can use against them. Plays outside the generic plays.

Again, I'm just curious... is there anyone out there besides me who isn't an automaton?

Walker

11-16-2005, 03:33 PM

I don't think middle suited connectors are the type of hand you want to isolate a LAG with. You need hands with high card strength and showdown value (UI).

Entity

11-16-2005, 03:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
As for the spewing/getting bored posts... am I the only one who varies their play? I don't play ABC poker all the time, otherwise it is too easy to play against me.

I make plays like this ocassionally when I have a read on someone that I can use against them. Plays outside the generic plays.

Again, I'm just curious... is there anyone out there besides me who isn't an automaton?

[/ QUOTE ]

What the hell did you want from posting this hand? It wasn't advice because you've ignored it.

You're going to have a holy parlay necessary when you 3-bet a hand like 7-high preflop:

1) Button and Blinds cannot pick up a hand.
2) Maniac must not have a good hand.
3) Maniac must not hit a hand on the flop or have any reasonable spectre of a draw to continue with postflop.

If you had posted a blind in the CO, I think the choice would be a bit closer and I wouldn't hate the 3-bet there, as it's an interesting situation. But here, you have nothing invested and consequently have to turn 7-high into a +EV hand when 3-betting against an aggressive player.

If Button was an 11% VPIP'er (note that in your original damned post) then that changes things but not enough to make this play decent; at that point, it's only marginally retarded.

Pick a better damned spot and stop being condescending to those who tried to provide advice, especially those who are willing to try new things and play differently than standard ABC poker, who still manage to hate your play on every street besides the river.

Rob

olavfo

11-16-2005, 03:37 PM

I don't get your preflop action at all.

OK, so MP2 can be pushed off hands when he doesn't connect with the flop, but you have a calling station behind you, and your hand is 7 high. Do you think you can bluff them both postflop?

If you did it because you were bored, OK, but this is not a +EV strategy.

flopmonster

11-16-2005, 03:47 PM

Kailia Marie

11-16-2005, 03:52 PM

Hi ZootMurph,

3-betting loose-aggros with 7 high is not the right way to go. You will have plenty of chances to 3-bet him, why choose now? The main key to playing versus LAGs is, contrary to popular rhetoric, is not outLAGging them. You need high card and pair power in case you ever need to show your hand down, which you will have to quite often. That means pocket pairs, Ace high, and sometimes king high are the way to go.

Also your turn action is inconsistent with your thought process.

[ QUOTE ]
OK, I now have a OESD. If I don't bet, Button will. And I will call. So, I decide betting is better than check/calling.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you knew by button's calling the flop, he had a hand that he was not going to let go of on the turn, and you were fairly sure he was going to bet the turn anyways, you should be check/calling this turn since you have zero fold equity and you run the risk of having to pay two bets on the turn rather than one if he raises you (which has to be a possibility esp. considering you said he was going to almost always bet this turn.)

The river, of course, is fine. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

In another post in this thread you asked if you were the only one that didn't play ABC all the time. ABC poker, as boring as it may be, is what wins 95% of the time. The 5% creativity should not be designated for your preflop play which should have been part of the ABC 95% of the time which was to fold.

/images/graemlins/heart.gif
Kailia

ErrantNight

11-16-2005, 03:55 PM

look, i like to vary my play as much as the next. but you're not pulling a "variance" play, you're trying to isolate with a hand that has zero showdown value against an opponent that likes to play aggressively. nice job.

ZootMurph

11-16-2005, 04:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think middle suited connectors are the type of hand you want to isolate a LAG with. You need hands with high card strength and showdown value (UI).

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, that, in general, you don't want to do this. However, there are times when situations like this are favorable and this is one of those situations. Slightly -EV immediately, definitely +EV long term just from the play variance and action you'll get later from people seeing this play.

charlie_t_jr

11-16-2005, 04:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I make plays like this ocassionally when I have a read on someone that I can use against them. Plays outside the generic plays.

Again, I'm just curious... is there anyone out there besides me who isn't an automaton?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you've got the right idea, just in the wrong spot(MP3). As Entity points out, you need a lot to go right pre-flop.

Are you absolutely sure this wasn't out of boredom. I mean it's all right if it was...very ballsy and fun! Just don't do it very much.

ErrantNight

11-16-2005, 04:08 PM

you're doing some ridiculously selective thinking.

open raising from early position into a crowd of loosies with 76s is a -ev, solid variance play every once a blue moon. you'll likely end up with a big pot, you have a solid drawing hand, and no one will be able to put you on it.

this is stupid isolation with a hand that has to improve to the best hand and is unlikely to do so headsup against an opponent that may charge you a LOT if you flop a reasonable draw.

and it's very, very wrong.

ErrantNight

11-16-2005, 04:09 PM

if you make this play and the river is a 2 of hearts and you bet and villain calls with Q9o and takes it down with queen high do you make this post?

ZootMurph

11-16-2005, 04:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As for the spewing/getting bored posts... am I the only one who varies their play? I don't play ABC poker all the time, otherwise it is too easy to play against me.

I make plays like this ocassionally when I have a read on someone that I can use against them. Plays outside the generic plays.

Again, I'm just curious... is there anyone out there besides me who isn't an automaton?

[/ QUOTE ]

What the hell did you want from posting this hand? It wasn't advice because you've ignored it.

You're going to have a holy parlay necessary when you 3-bet a hand like 7-high preflop:

1) Button and Blinds cannot pick up a hand.
2) Maniac must not have a good hand.
3) Maniac must not hit a hand on the flop or have any reasonable spectre of a draw to continue with postflop.

If you had posted a blind in the CO, I think the choice would be a bit closer and I wouldn't hate the 3-bet there, as it's an interesting situation. But here, you have nothing invested and consequently have to turn 7-high into a +EV hand when 3-betting against an aggressive player.

If Button was an 11% VPIP'er (note that in your original damned post) then that changes things but not enough to make this play decent; at that point, it's only marginally retarded.

Pick a better damned spot and stop being condescending to those who tried to provide advice, especially those who are willing to try new things and play differently than standard ABC poker, who still manage to hate your play on every street besides the river.

Rob

[/ QUOTE ]

Getting pissed off isn't the answer dude. How easily do you go on tilt at the poker table, LOL? What I wanted from this were two things. First, to see if anyone else sees the value in this type of play, and second, how my play was ON AND AFTER THE FLOP, which no one seemed to comment about. The fact is that I made the preflop play which no one likes. I see that it isn't a standard play, and that is clear to anyone that has played for more than a month. Comment on the rest of the hand using the information I have given.

I disagree with the holy parlay theory, otherwise I wouldn't have made the play. Simply, you are going to get very few calls in that situation behind you. Considering the nature of both the button and BB, I felt confident in making the play. I agree with both 1 and 3. I think that 2 should be adjusted by saying a VERY good hand. KQ is a good hand, but if an Ace flops he's folding to my bet on the flop. So really, by making this play, I only need him not to hit his hand. Since this happens more often than not, this makes the play good. As we saw in the hand, he folded to my flop bet. If button didn't have a hand, it would have worked exactly as I'd planned. I just had some bad luck that button picked up a big hand. In any case, I estimate that the preflop play will work over 67% of the time in the situation presented, making the preflop play fine. If you consider the top 10% of hands to be hands that can call the 3 bet here, I'm a 3:1 favorite here that no one will pick up a callable hand. I'm good with that whole situation.

Lots of damns in there... I hope you walked away after this post and took some deep breaths. You really tilt, man. REALLY tilt. Wow! Anyway, I did say that I forgot to put all the information in the post, and I apologized for that... relax. Jesus /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Finally, I think that spot was good, and unless you can give me more than your first post, which was what, two sentences? about why this wasn't a good spot, I would do it again 1 time in 20 in the same situation. And nowhere in any of my posts was I condescending. The fact that you are currently on tilt probably has a lot to do with your interpretation of the situation. If, however, after you've calmed down, you still feel like I was condescending to you, then you have my deepest apologies, as I never intended that.

ErrantNight

11-16-2005, 04:22 PM

you're an insufferable ass! congratulations!

ZootMurph

11-16-2005, 04:23 PM

ErrantNight

11-16-2005, 04:25 PM

(a) Rob is a better poker player than you. You may not believe/know/think this, but its mere possibility means you should listen to what he has to say

(b) you're completely incapable of receiving criticism. and you're unwilling to accept that you could have done something wrong. is there anything interesting about you playing poorly for two streets, making a desperation bluff on the turn, and sucking out on the river? nope.

(c) you're being deliberately antagonizing, which is unhelpful

(d) between your attitude and your play you think you're much better than you are... which consequentially means you'll have some growing pains to go through. hopefully in that same time you mature a little bit

peace!

shant

11-16-2005, 04:28 PM

I hope people who make these ridiculous, variance plays preflop and suck out on the river go broke or a piano falls on them.

radek2166

11-16-2005, 04:31 PM

Entity and I used to chat alot. I dont think he is prone to tilting. I think you have asked for advice got it and you still try to tell us how good you played.

This hand was played poorly. Just in the fact that u said that the button is ur classic calling station. Hes coming along for the ride. U got lucky and are trying to justify it.

So if you dont hit the runner runner. What do you have? A classic case of spewage.

Must of the posters around here dont play ABC poker. They have learned deception. I seriously doubt many 3-bet a lag with a CLASSIC CALLING STATION behind them with middle suited connectors.

Like Entity said the play sucked!!! that is the bottom line.

Entity

11-16-2005, 04:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As for the spewing/getting bored posts... am I the only one who varies their play? I don't play ABC poker all the time, otherwise it is too easy to play against me.

I make plays like this ocassionally when I have a read on someone that I can use against them. Plays outside the generic plays.

Again, I'm just curious... is there anyone out there besides me who isn't an automaton?

[/ QUOTE ]

What the hell did you want from posting this hand? It wasn't advice because you've ignored it.

You're going to have a holy parlay necessary when you 3-bet a hand like 7-high preflop:

1) Button and Blinds cannot pick up a hand.
2) Maniac must not have a good hand.
3) Maniac must not hit a hand on the flop or have any reasonable spectre of a draw to continue with postflop.

If you had posted a blind in the CO, I think the choice would be a bit closer and I wouldn't hate the 3-bet there, as it's an interesting situation. But here, you have nothing invested and consequently have to turn 7-high into a +EV hand when 3-betting against an aggressive player.

If Button was an 11% VPIP'er (note that in your original damned post) then that changes things but not enough to make this play decent; at that point, it's only marginally retarded.

Pick a better damned spot and stop being condescending to those who tried to provide advice, especially those who are willing to try new things and play differently than standard ABC poker, who still manage to hate your play on every street besides the river.

Rob

[/ QUOTE ]

Getting pissed off isn't the answer dude. How easily do you go on tilt at the poker table, LOL? What I wanted from this were two things. First, to see if anyone else sees the value in this type of play, and second, how my play was ON AND AFTER THE FLOP, which no one seemed to comment about. The fact is that I made the preflop play which no one likes. I see that it isn't a standard play, and that is clear to anyone that has played for more than a month. Comment on the rest of the hand using the information I have given.

I disagree with the holy parlay theory, otherwise I wouldn't have made the play. Simply, you are going to get very few calls in that situation behind you. Considering the nature of both the button and BB, I felt confident in making the play. I agree with both 1 and 3. I think that 2 should be adjusted by saying a VERY good hand. KQ is a good hand, but if an Ace flops he's folding to my bet on the flop. So really, by making this play, I only need him not to hit his hand. Since this happens more often than not, this makes the play good. As we saw in the hand, he folded to my flop bet. If button didn't have a hand, it would have worked exactly as I'd planned. I just had some bad luck that button picked up a big hand. In any case, I estimate that the preflop play will work over 67% of the time in the situation presented, making the preflop play fine. If you consider the top 10% of hands to be hands that can call the 3 bet here, I'm a 3:1 favorite here that no one will pick up a callable hand. I'm good with that whole situation.

Lots of damns in there... I hope you walked away after this post and took some deep breaths. You really tilt, man. REALLY tilt. Wow! Anyway, I did say that I forgot to put all the information in the post, and I apologized for that... relax. Jesus /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Finally, I think that spot was good, and unless you can give me more than your first post, which was what, two sentences? about why this wasn't a good spot, I would do it again 1 time in 20 in the same situation. And nowhere in any of my posts was I condescending. The fact that you are currently on tilt probably has a lot to do with your interpretation of the situation. If, however, after you've calmed down, you still feel like I was condescending to you, then you have my deepest apologies, as I never intended that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I swear a lot, but tilt very little. You should see me in person; I've been known to make sailors blush.

I just found your post to be an incredibly poorly played hand that you were justifying by "mixing it up" and asking, condescendingly, if anyone here did anything other than play ABC poker. It didn't seem to have much of a purpose.

ZootMurph

11-16-2005, 04:45 PM

Kailia Marie... I chose this time because I thought the situation was ripe. Again, he could be playing a LOT of possible hands here. My whole idea was that you miss the flop 2 out of 3 times, and knowing he will fold any flop he misses, I will win a nice pot 2 out of 3 times. So, I'm going into the hand as a 2:1 favorite against him. I raise instead of calling to push everyone else out.

As to the turn... my thought process was to push people out up to the turn. I was going to be done with the hand, so when I had something, even if I have a 1% chance of him folding, it is better than check/calling. I agree the FE here is probably 0%, but I have also know he isn't raising me, so the result is the same here.

Finally, I disagree with you about varying preflop play. I think that is a very common error. If I do nothing but 3 bet with AA, KK, QQ, and AK, then I won't get a whole lot of action postflop. Your preflop play sets up your postflop action, and therefore is just as important, in my opinion, as the rest of the hand. Therefore, varying it is also just as important.

crunchy1

11-16-2005, 04:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, I disagree with you about varying preflop play. I think that is a very common error. If I do nothing but 3 bet with AA, KK, QQ, and AK, then I won't get a whole lot of action postflop. Your preflop play sets up your postflop action, and therefore is just as important, in my opinion, as the rest of the hand. Therefore, varying it is also just as important.

[/ QUOTE ]
This couldn't be less true at the Party 2/4.

UVaHoo

11-16-2005, 04:59 PM

Seems like you're missing the point. No one here is only suggesting a preflop 3-bet with AA-QQ or AK. I'm sure against a maniac, most people here would be fine with AA-77 or so, AK-A8, KQ-KT, and any other hand with decent showdown value. They're suggesting the play with 76s is wrong because you're in a heads-up or 3-way pot with a hand that has absolutely no showdown value, and could easily lose even if you pair something.

Also, am I the only one who has trouble believing that the maniac plays 47% of his hands preflop and then always folds to one bet if he misses something on the flop? Not doubting your read, but I haven't seen too many maniacs like this.

I would save the raising 67s preflop for either the very occasional play utg at a very loose, passive table, or on the button after umpteen limpers.

silkyslim

11-16-2005, 05:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think middle suited connectors are the type of hand you want to isolate a LAG with. You need hands with high card strength and showdown value (UI).

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, that, in general, you don't want to do this. However, there are times when situations like this are favorable and this is one of those situations. Slightly -EV immediately, definitely +EV long term just from the play variance and action you'll get later from people seeing this play.

[/ QUOTE ]
maybe at a higher limit where people are paying attention. I dont see how this could be +EV in the long run. Again, you are isolating with a speculative hand which is not what you want to do. You have a LAG who will probably see a showdown with many many hands. You have a calling station who you cant push off a hand. Maybe, maybe you can do this with weak tighties who are paying attention but not here.

11-16-2005, 05:06 PM

You sucked out runner runner. This is worse than the two outers river suck outs that are often lamented in the micro-limit posts. Playing a hand like this has two possible values, winning or advertising "looseness" to get you action in hte future. With the rapidity that players change tables this type of play has limited value. Also you may get caught between a raising war. What value does your hand have then - you have to fold it and nobody knows what you held. This is an EV negative play and any advertising value does not make it positive. You should be embarassed about it and you even played the flop incorrectly.
Entity can defend himself, but he was absolutely right that you are not here to learn but brag about a suck out. How does that make you any better than a LAG?

Catt

11-16-2005, 05:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
My whole idea was that you miss the flop 2 out of 3 times, and knowing he will fold any flop he misses, I will win a nice pot 2 out of 3 times. So, I'm going into the hand as a 2:1 favorite against him.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is so awesome.

thejameser

11-16-2005, 05:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Any thoughts on this play?

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem jaded by the results. You also seem to be completely convinced this is such a wonderful play that you will not listen to some good posters' opinions. Varying play is important, but how you vary it is equally important. You must pick your spots; here, you picked a bad one, got lucky and are justifying it by the results.

punkass

11-16-2005, 05:21 PM

"Varying play" is now the excuse for "bad play". Bad players use it more often than good players. The thing is, varying play only helps when the other people at your table notice what you are doing, which is almost not the case is an online 2/4 table.

Congrats on your win. You asked for critique, you got it.

ZootMurph

11-16-2005, 05:22 PM

I haven't read all the responses here. However, it seems that some people are taking what I'm saying personally.

So, first, I want to apologize to anyone who's feelings I hurt or who thinks I am in any way being less than cordial.

Secondly, I want to thank everyone that replied. I, as well as I'm sure everyone in this forum, can appreciate (with numbers to back it up), the value of all in these forums. When I started reading and posting here, I was a losing player. I thought if I had a K, it was a great hand and I should play it, whatever the kicker. LOL... the good old days! But, I'm a winning player now and it is thanks in LARGE part to reading, posting, and advice in these forums. So, I REALLY REALLY do appreciate any and all input. The fact that I disagree ocassionally doesn't mean it isn't appreciated.

Next, I'm going to try to fully explain my opinion on everything that anyone may question or dislike here. If you disagree with me, that is what these forums are all about. I'll happily discuss the hand and my theories.

Finally, The one thing I hate on these forums that I see ocassionally is that people post in a thread "Bad call on the river". That's it. No explanation as to why they think that, etc. That is a waste of everyone's time, in my opinion. Discussing a hand or a decision means saying why you think what you do. Just saying bad call on the river doesn't say why you think it is a bad call, so there can be no discussion on the issue. So, again, I really do appreciate all posts where someone takes the time to back their opinion with some reasoning so it can be discussed.

So, here we go. As I explained in an earlier post, what I'm looking for in posting this thread is thoughts on my play. All of it, not just preflop. I appreciate any and all who took the time to give me advice and explain their reasoning on any part of the hand.

Because of the LAGgishness of the preflop raiser, and the tightness of the known players behind me (Button and BB specifically), I felt this was a good opportunity to isolate a LAG who shows weakness postflop. Since a non paired starting hand will whiff 2 out of 3 times, I felt like I would be a 2:1 favorite postflop. In addition, because of the relatively small chance that one of the 4 players still behind me (I was MP3 here), would have a hand that could call the 3 bet, I felt the isolation play had about a 90% chance of success. Let it be noted that, after some number crunching, I was way off on the 90% that I estimated. As long as I was at least a 2:1 favorite to get all 4 players behind me to fold, I would still make this play. Finally, I thought my table image at this point would help my play. So, I had a little bit of a hand, and a great situation. I 3 bet preflop thinking I have a good chance of folding those behind me and isolating MP2, with a good chance of winning the hand on the flop. I felt at the time, and still feel, that this is a +EV play for this situation.

On the flop, with 10 bets in the pot, I am checked to. I feel I have some small amount of folding equity... very little thanks to the King and 2 spades on the flop. But, I follow through with the plan. As expected, MP2 folds. Unfortunately, Button has a hand. Oh well, I lost 2 BB on this hand.

Turn gives me new life. As discussed, I bet. Kailla says I should check/call here with no real folding equity. I think either play gives the same result, the only difference is the 1% chance that I MAY have folding equity here.

River is the easiest part of this hand. Board isn't paired, and I haven't seen Button chase flush draws. Finally, he may be afraid of a flush draw, so will not bet behind me. Since, I can't put him on the flush, I bet. Even if he had the flush, I don't think he'll raise and I still would have to call a bet if I checked. Betting, IMO, is the best play here and it isn't even close.

As to the results. There are two different results that I think should be part of this discussion. The hand results and the loose calls and extra action I got after this hand at this table. I think the extra action I got shows that people pay attention, and that it means something not only to vary play, wherever in the hand you think you should do it, but also to show down a bluff or two early at a table. In any case, the seats behind me were tight before this hand, but they did a bit more coldcalling and playing against me after this hand. So, getting to show down the 76s that I three bet with was the best advertising I could have had. It would have been worth it if I'd completely whiffed the whole hand and showed it down.

As for the hand results, for those who care (I usually don't when I'm reading other's threads), I will post Button's hand in white on the next line.
 Button had KK for a set of Kings. I agree that I was very, very lucky.

ZootMurph

11-16-2005, 05:29 PM

Reading back I see a lot of replies that don't take into consideration anything I've posted with regard to why I believe the preflop raise was +EV.

So, instead of replying individually to any before my last response, I will instead reply to any after that response that have some 'discussable' information in them.

If I seem condescending in what I have to say next, you are right, I am being condescending:

A post like that which I quote below is, again, a waste of everyone's time, including the person typing it. Why bother? If you have no useful information on the hand itself, or on the reasoning, or on the numbers, then why bother? To show how 'superior' you are because you know something no one else does? This is the kind of thing that really ruins forums like this, in my opinion. If you have no criticism that can be discussed, don't bother!

[ QUOTE ]
"Varying play" is now the excuse for "bad play". Bad players use it more often than good players. The thing is, varying play only helps when the other people at your table notice what you are doing, which is almost not the case is an online 2/4 table.

Congrats on your win. You asked for critique, you got it.

[/ QUOTE ]

ErrantNight

11-16-2005, 05:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, The one thing I hate on these forums that I see ocassionally is that people post in a thread "Bad call on the river". That's it. No explanation as to why they think that, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to be nitpicky.... but this is a common complaint voiced frequently.... but usually in threads that deserve them. You've gotten nothing but well-reasoned responses here.

As for your hand analysis...

I will continue to maintain that initiative or no initiative your 3-bet was bad. You're ignoring the sometimes villain has a made hand. Or chooses this opportunity to bluff. Or the times that, shockingly, one of your opponents behind you has a hand!

And then, you follow it up with a terrible bet. The guy behind you just called 3 cold. What is he calling 3 cold with that he's folding here? Shockingly, he just calls.

Then, on the turn, you bet again. You think c/call and bet are the same... except for the fact that your opponents often, even EVERY time, have another option available to them: raise. And you can't fold, but you certainly don't have equity to put in two bets on the turn headsup when you're behind.

That your opponent played this like an even bigger donk is the subtler form of revisionist thinking you're undergoing here. He should have raised you on every street.

At least you got the river right.

Catt

11-16-2005, 05:37 PM

OK, I'll throw in a minumum of reasoning to my previous post.

Your statement: "My whole idea was that you miss the flop 2 out of 3 times, and knowing he will fold any flop he misses, I will win a nice pot 2 out of 3 times. So, I'm going into the hand as a 2:1 favorite against him" is pretty ridiculous. First, you're only taking into account unpaired hands hitting a pair on the flop; second, you're not accounting for flopping a draw; third, you can't be certain he folds on the flop in a big pot for one bet - your read just isn't that strong; fourth, this hypothetical action actually contradicts your given read "MP2 is a LAG preflop(47%/31%), but very rarely shows down hands, either folding after the turn with nothing or jamming the pot" -- but he'll now fold for one bet on the flop?; fifth, there are four people to act behind you, including one "classic calling station;" sixth, despite flopping NOTHING you are betting into the calling station and the LAG who likes to see the river; seventh, if you think you have adequate responses to all these points, then please explain to me why 7/images/graemlins/heart.gif 6/images/graemlins/heart.gif is a better hand to this with than 72o -- the bulk of your +EV argument is essentially stealing a pot by investing at minimum 2BBs.

Lastly, nice apology; however, in the future when someone criticizes a play, responding with, in effect, "am I the only good player here who varies his play or is everyone else a robotic ABCer?" is not the best way to win friends and influence people. Good luck.

ZootMurph

11-16-2005, 06:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Finally, The one thing I hate on these forums that I see ocassionally is that people post in a thread "Bad call on the river". That's it. No explanation as to why they think that, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to be nitpicky.... but this is a common complaint voiced frequently.... but usually in threads that deserve them. You've gotten nothing but well-reasoned responses here.

As for your hand analysis...

I will continue to maintain that initiative or no initiative your 3-bet was bad. You're ignoring the sometimes villain has a made hand. Or chooses this opportunity to bluff. Or the times that, shockingly, one of your opponents behind you has a hand!

And then, you follow it up with a terrible bet. The guy behind you just called 3 cold. What is he calling 3 cold with that he's folding here? Shockingly, he just calls.

Then, on the turn, you bet again. You think c/call and bet are the same... except for the fact that your opponents often, even EVERY time, have another option available to them: raise. And you can't fold, but you certainly don't have equity to put in two bets on the turn headsup when you're behind.

That your opponent played this like an even bigger donk is the subtler form of revisionist thinking you're undergoing here. He should have raised you on every street.

At least you got the river right.

[/ QUOTE ]

ErrantNight. I understand that's a common complaint. However, you are wrong in saying that all the responses here are well-reasoned. Look at the very first response. [ QUOTE ]
With your description of Button, preflop is pretty horrible here.

[/ QUOTE ] I see neither reasoning nor anything that is remotely discussable here. Also, what about the flop, turn, river? Anything? Just because someone thinks I shouldn't have played preflop doesn't mean you should discount the rest. It happened, tell me if you think it was good or bad, and why. That's all I, or all those other that have complained, are asking.

And, I'm not ignoring that sometimes he has a hand. I'm saying that even with a hand he will get a flop he doesn't like, and may fold. Let's just say he raised with JJ. Well, when the King flops, will he call down when I three bet him preflop? Probably not. But maybe. Anyway, I have position and will get away relatively cheap if he continues past the flop. Finally, he didn't cap preflop, so most made hands are probably out at this point. He could have a King, and I'd find out on my flop bet if he does. In any case, the times he has a hand are cancelled out by the times I have a big flop. If the flop is 663 or 345, he will call down with AA, or better still, start a raising war with me. So, again, the extreme cases (him having a made hand and me hitting a huge flop) basically cancel each other out. For the record, if it got headsup and he capped preflop, it would be easy to get out for the 2BB I was expecting to gamble with unless I hit a huge flop. If he doesn't cap, I'm certain he doesn't have a pair or a small pair which can fold without hitting the flop. Again, leaving me a 2:1 favorite in the hand and still only costing me 2BB.

The flop bet I agree was bad. Really, that was the crux of this hand for me. A really tight player calls a three bet preflop, and I bet into him on a board with two broadway cards with 7 high. Ugly. Before I go on... I agree it was bad. There was a nice pot and the only chance I had to take it down was to bet. 1 bet to win 10.5. My folding equity probably wasn't that good, but I made a mistake and didn't think about it at the time.

On the turn... raise wasn't an option here. Period. I never saw this player raise. Ever. Over 500 hands. With that information, I feel that check/call and bet are the same. If you look at his holding, you will see my read was spot on with regard to his ability to raise (he may even be a bad attempt at a 'bot, the way he played).

Finally, I agree that he should have capped the flop and raised every street. I would have been forced to check fold the flop if he'd done that.

ErrantNight

11-16-2005, 06:12 PM

you've got some serious learning to do.

and you're so hyper-focused on one or two comments that should be so obvious they don't NEED further discussion that, by your own admission, you DIDN'T EVEN READ THE WHOLE THREAD before making up your mind about the type of responses you were getting!

[ QUOTE ]
Let's just say he raised with JJ. Well, when the King flops, will he call down when I three bet him preflop? Probably not. But maybe.

[/ QUOTE ]

ridiculous. why must you have a K? why will he fold against a single, non-A overcard?

[ QUOTE ]
On the turn... raise wasn't an option here. Period. I never saw this player raise. Ever. Over 500 hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is complete and utter b.s. Whether it's true or not. Either you have this information, or you don't. Not providing it until you've decided you can't be right unless incredibly specific, incredibly obviously important information, which has previously been known ONLY TO YOU has been the source of some of the worst threads on this board. Like historically terrible posts where people make bad plays, justify them ex post facto, and provide reads and information sporadically as people detail why their play was bad, ultimately "proving" how correct they really were, every step of the way. If only the rest of us would open our minds.

If you're educating us, make it clear in your o.p.

If you're making a string of opponent specific moves that really won't ever be applicable ever, outside of this hand, consider not posting. But if you feel the need to post, explain in your o.p. why you went that route.

W. Deranged

11-16-2005, 06:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Finally, I disagree with you about varying preflop play. I think that is a very common error. If I do nothing but 3 bet with AA, KK, QQ, and AK, then I won't get a whole lot of action postflop. Your preflop play sets up your postflop action, and therefore is just as important, in my opinion, as the rest of the hand. Therefore, varying it is also just as important.

[/ QUOTE ]
This couldn't be less true at the Party 2/4.

[/ QUOTE ]

Word.

ellipse_87

11-16-2005, 06:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
this is one of those situations. Slightly -EV immediately, definitely +EV long term

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I just had some bad luck that button picked up a big hand. I estimate that the preflop play will work over 67% of the time in the situation presented, making the preflop play fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're arguing in circles and wasting everyone's time.

This hand is not worth 40+ posts. You've admitted (before contradicting yourself) that the play was -EV short term. There's only a disagreement about whether there's any advertising value at Party 2/4--that's really kind of a binary operation and not amenable to subtle analysis. If you've been getting good results, fine, go nuts.

The animosity was ignited by you implicitly calling one of the best posters in this forum an automaton. Take a day off, come back and play nice, everything will be fine.

ZootMurph

11-16-2005, 06:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
OK, I'll throw in a minumum of reasoning to my previous post.

Your statement: "My whole idea was that you miss the flop 2 out of 3 times, and knowing he will fold any flop he misses, I will win a nice pot 2 out of 3 times. So, I'm going into the hand as a 2:1 favorite against him" is pretty ridiculous. First, you're only taking into account unpaired hands hitting a pair on the flop; second, you're not accounting for flopping a draw; third, you can't be certain he folds on the flop in a big pot for one bet - your read just isn't that strong; fourth, this hypothetical action actually contradicts your given read "MP2 is a LAG preflop(47%/31%), but very rarely shows down hands, either folding after the turn with nothing or jamming the pot" -- but he'll now fold for one bet on the flop?; fifth, there are four people to act behind you, including one "classic calling station;" sixth, despite flopping NOTHING you are betting into the calling station and the LAG who likes to see the river; seventh, if you think you have adequate responses to all these points, then please explain to me why 7/images/graemlins/heart.gif 6/images/graemlins/heart.gif is a better hand to this with than 72o -- the bulk of your +EV argument is essentially stealing a pot by investing at minimum 2BBs.

Lastly, nice apology; however, in the future when someone criticizes a play, responding with, in effect, "am I the only good player here who varies his play or is everyone else a robotic ABCer?" is not the best way to win friends and influence people. Good luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

Catt... I agree with you that I didn't take into account his hitting a draw. I did account for big pairs, and I did believe my read was that strong. Unfortunately, I can't give you any basis for my read, as we all get reads on players based on what we see. The only way I can verify my read is the flop action, where I bet and he folds. Also, as I said to ErrantNight... there are going to be times when I hit a big flop too. These cancel out the times he has a big hand. Further, since I don't know what he was holding, I think I have just as good a chance as he did to flop a big draw as well, so I would have to guess that the times he flops a draw and I flop a draw cancel each other too. My hand in this case is simply a draw oriented hand, which probably gives me a better chance at flopping a draw than MP2's holding. But, I'm fine with calling it even for the sake of this discussion.

As for the way MP2 was playing. I looked at his stats, and he shows down a lot, 53% of the time. It was just a read I had from watching him at this table. Maybe he was having a bad day and getting into the frame of mind where every hand is a loser... I don't know. I just know that, at this table, on this day, he seemed to be folding a LOT on the flop after raising preflop. Again, as for reads... all I can say is we all have reads on players... if we don't trust our reads, then we can't maximize situations that occur on the table as we are playing.

Unfortunately, there isn't much to be able to discuss or argue with when talking about reads. Most of your arguments are on my reads. I have to trust my reads, whatever the numbers may be saying. I can't tell you that you are wrong, just like you telling me my read was wrong cannot be realistic, since you were not there. Basically, the first thing you have to do when going through someone else's hand is look at their reads and base your responses to them. Questioning them doesn't change the way the hand played out, because the player posting the hand played the hand based on their read. So you, too, should be basing your criticism of the hand on the read given. Finally, I think the result (the LAG in MP2 folded the flop with two Broadway cards showing), verifies my read more than anything else could.

I really can't answer anything about your fifth point. I don't really understand it. My definition of a calling station and yours may be different. To me a calling station is someone that, ONCE IN A HAND, will not let go of the hand IF THEY HAVE ANYTHING AT ALL. So, a calling station can fold A2 preflop, but can't fold A2 postflop if the flop contains a 2, or 34, 35, or 45. My definition of someone being a calling station doesn't influence preflop decisions, in general.

As I said to ErrantNight, I agree with your sixth point. It was dumb betting into the tight calling station postflop.

As for your seventh point. 76s is not better than 72o for the situation, except that it is intrinsically a better hand. So, this play would be even better with AA... but then it wouldn't be considered to be making a play, just standard stuff. The truth of the matter is that I wouldn't make that play with 72o. I feel that part of the value of the play is the hand itself. VERY VERY little. But the hand offsets possibilities which affect the numbers. If I did this with 72o, then my chances of flopping something worth fighting with would be miniscule, and therefore would not offset some of the possibilities of MP2s hand, like flopping a draw or having a big pair. Whereas 76s has many possibilities itself that will offset the extremes for MP2. I don't know exactly what you were looking for with your seventh point, but I hope I answered it. If not, I look forward to further discussion about it.

Finally, I didn't say "GOOD" player... I said [ QUOTE ]
... is there anyone out there besides me who isn't an automaton?

[/ QUOTE ] To me, this doesn't infer superiority. I think all posters here are better than average players. The majority are better than me, without question. However, part of any player's game, in my estimation, is varying your game. All those who think no one pays attention really have a long way to go in getting better, simply because they have to overcome preconceived notions that EVERYONE is a fish because they play online, play at Party Poker, play 2/4, etc. And, at the time I posted this, I was wondering if anyone besides me actually varied their game. I know we've all read HEPFAP, and it is clearly talked about in that book, as well as several others. But we don't see many non standard plays here to help us understand when we find a situation to make one of these plays. Further, any time there is a nonstandard play posted, everyone posts the standard response (don't 3 bet the preflop with 76s). Unfortunately, in this specific instance, I really didn't put enough information in my initial post, and that threw some things off. Follow that up with Entity getting pissed over my responses just threw this whole thread out of line. Some of the fault is, without question, mine. That's why I apologized.

ZootMurph

11-16-2005, 06:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
you've got some serious learning to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

A little childish, wouldn't you say? And yes, I'm responding to a condescending post with one of my own.

[ QUOTE ]

and you're so hyper-focused on one or two comments that should be so obvious they don't NEED further discussion that, by your own admission, you DIDN'T EVEN READ THE WHOLE THREAD before making up your mind about the type of responses you were getting!

[ QUOTE ]
Let's just say he raised with JJ. Well, when the King flops, will he call down when I three bet him preflop? Probably not. But maybe.

[/ QUOTE ]

ridiculous. why must you have a K? why will he fold against a single, non-A overcard?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Because that is my read on him. If you post a hand and say a player is tight aggressive, do I need to ask you why? I saw him lay down a lot after the flop, what more do you want me to tell you? Just because you don't like the read, doesn't mean it is wrong. Again, in this particular case, he folded just as I expected him to do 2 times out of 3. I don't how to argue my side of this discussion... a read is a read. There is no way to validate it except by results. My results here validated my read. I don't understand why this bothers you so much.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
On the turn... raise wasn't an option here. Period. I never saw this player raise. Ever. Over 500 hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is complete and utter b.s. Whether it's true or not. Either you have this information, or you don't. Not providing it until you've decided you can't be right unless incredibly specific, incredibly obviously important information, which has previously been known ONLY TO YOU has been the source of some of the worst threads on this board.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another angry listener. Please read my initial post. The second sentence in the initial paragraph states: Button is a classic calling station. NEVER raises, just calls. He only bets with a big hand when checked to, otherwise you can be sure he will call with something and fold with nothing.

My read on him was CLEARLY posted. Why you are getting all huffy about this, again, I don't know. How did I manage to piss you off here?

[ QUOTE ]
Like historically terrible posts where people make bad plays, justify them ex post facto, and provide reads and information sporadically as people detail why their play was bad, ultimately "proving" how correct they really were, every step of the way. If only the rest of us would open our minds.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't give all information in my initial post. Some things I didn't think were important. Am I the first to do this? No, I'm not. In any case, I'm really sorry you have nothing to contribute to this thread, except to blast me because you disagree with me. This is really becoming a sorry excuse for a post. If you'd like, I'll start posting all my hands where AA gets busted and ask if I played it badly. Nice and standard, just the way you like it.

[ QUOTE ]
If you're educating us, make it clear in your o.p.

If you're making a string of opponent specific moves that really won't ever be applicable ever, outside of this hand, consider not posting. But if you feel the need to post, explain in your o.p. why you went that route.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the last time... the point of this post was twofold. First, to find out how others vary there play and see if they agreed with mine. Second, to find out if my play was OK postflop. I have been shown that I was wrong in betting into the calling station postflop. It was not a great decision. Would I do it next time? No, it was definitely -EV. So, if nothing else, I did learn something from the post, as I'd hoped to. Isn't that what this forum is all about?

ZootMurph

11-16-2005, 07:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Finally, I disagree with you about varying preflop play. I think that is a very common error. If I do nothing but 3 bet with AA, KK, QQ, and AK, then I won't get a whole lot of action postflop. Your preflop play sets up your postflop action, and therefore is just as important, in my opinion, as the rest of the hand. Therefore, varying it is also just as important.

[/ QUOTE ]
This couldn't be less true at the Party 2/4.

[/ QUOTE ]

Word.

[/ QUOTE ]

We'll all just have to disagree then. If every player playing 2/4 at Party is the same, is a fish, and is not paying attention, then that would explain why I can't make 10BB an hour... because I believe every player is different and has a varying degree of not only knowledge and ability, but also paying attention to what is going on at the table.

When you play 6 tables 8 hours a day (which I don't do, BTW.. I couldn't play that many tables if I wanted to.), other players see you regularly. Not all players are regulars. Not all players are on every day. Not all players are good, knowledgeable, etc. But the ones that AREN'T giving up money by making mistakes ARE the ones that are getting reads on you. If you aren't giving off some change of pace plays, you are losing EV against these players. And, who do you think you will play against most often over the course of a year? It's these players that you will see most often. Generic fish that don't know what's happening at the table will come and go... but you will see the good players most often, because they are playing most often. Even at 2/4 on Party. If there weren't good players playing Party 2/4, there would be no Party 2/4 posts on 2+2.

Catt

11-16-2005, 07:17 PM

If you're going to post a hand in which the wisdom or donky-ness of your play depends on incredibly specific reads that will generate incredibly specific post-flop responses, then you need to include those reads in the original post (or consider not posting it, as it contains little to educate and little to comment upon). And for the love of God, do not include in the original post a read that contradicts the "pull a read out later to justify my play" expansion on the original read. Your OP described MP2 as LAGgy pre-flop and either jamming or folding after the turn post-flop. That read does not even resemble "he will fold for one bet in a big pot if the flop misses him." I am not arguing with the nature of your read - I am pointing out that your expanded read contradcits the original read you provided to your readers.

My fifth point was simply that you have four players, including two blinds, to act behind you. even if "calling station" doesn't carry over to pre-flop play, you've got four hands behind you, any one of which could be a solid hand. This fact impacts the wisdom of three-betting 76s.

On the 76s versus 72o distinction. I don't get your argument at all. The play has +EV IYO because of the specific reads, not the intrinsic value of the hand. Even if you now want to include intrinsic hand value, the argument that 'I have better chances to flop something worth fighting over' is pretty much totally negated when it's apparent that you'll fight even when you flop nothing.

Also, it's a poor habit to adopt results-oriented justifications for plays. You "accounted" for big pairs because he didn't cap pre-flop? How did you account for that at the time it was raised to you and you're contemplating fold-call-raise? And did this accounting also account for hands like TT - 77 that he might not cap? You don't retroactively say "this was +EV because he didn't cap me." Similarly, "I think the fact that MP2 folded the flop verifies my read more than anything else." Ugh.

On a final point - I don't think anyone could read your "Am I the only one varying my play" post without coming away feeling condescended to; it is frankly dripping with defensiveness and condescension. You may very well not have intended it so, but perhaps in the future think carefully about the words you write and the sentiments they will likely express to your readers.

My opinion on the hand is that it is rank spewing on a dimension not often seen. If you think it is an example of adjusting one's play to specific table reads worthy of comment, then you need to do a much better job of (1) providing detailed reads on your opponents (including the guys behind you who folded pre-flop), and (2) backing up the play of the hand, mathematically, to account for those times when your reads are not perfect (i.e., "I think this is very -EV normally, moderately -EV in some cases, and neutral to +EV in this specific case, because even if my reads are off and I don't get the pre-flop action I desired or the flop I was looking for, here is the expectation with this hand . . ."). But to repeat a point from before - if the worthiness of hand depends almost entirely on very intricate, specific reads, it's probably not a hand worthy of a post.

ZootMurph

11-16-2005, 07:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this is one of those situations. Slightly -EV immediately, definitely +EV long term

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I just had some bad luck that button picked up a big hand. I estimate that the preflop play will work over 67% of the time in the situation presented, making the preflop play fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're arguing in circles and wasting everyone's time.

[/ QUOTE ]

So this play isn't +EV long term? I don't understand your point. 76s against most hands is -EV. But the situation makes it long term +EV. I really don't see how these two statements are going in circles. BTW, you took stuff from two different posts where I was answering two different questions, and tried to invalidate this entire thread. Are you a politician by any chance?

[ QUOTE ]
This hand is not worth 40+ posts. You've admitted (before contradicting yourself) that the play was -EV short term. There's only a disagreement about whether there's any advertising value at Party 2/4--that's really kind of a binary operation and not amenable to subtle analysis. If you've been getting good results, fine, go nuts.

The animosity was ignited by you implicitly calling one of the best posters in this forum an automaton. Take a day off, come back and play nice, everything will be fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

The play, without the specific reads and situation, is definitely -EV. I don't think there is a single person in here that disagrees with this. However, given the specific situation, this is definitely +EV, as I have shown in my posts. I don't see how any of this information is contradictory. As for Entity... all I can say is I apologized to anyone who construed my comments to be directed at them. Continuing this issue further can only reaggravate it, which you seemingly are looking to do.

All in all, another of the 40+ posts in here which really say nothing about the hand itself... which is the whole point of a hand posting. If everyone would stay on the discussion about the hands, and not try to continue to create a negative forum atmosphere (which I admittedly started and apologized for), this would be a much nice place to hang out /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Yako

11-16-2005, 07:27 PM

But that's the thing Zoot, there is no hand to discuss... Everytime someone says something, you answer with what basically amounts to 'My read told me to do it'. Since none of us are you, and therefore don't have your reads, there is no hand to discuss.

Catt

11-16-2005, 07:29 PM

Wow. I'll make one final comment and then be done with the thread.

[ QUOTE ]
So this play isn't +EV long term? I don't understand your point. 76s against most hands is -EV. But the situation makes it long term +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The play, without the specific reads and situation, is definitely -EV. I don't think there is a single person in here that disagrees with this. However, given the specific situation, this is definitely +EV, as I have shown in my posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have not in any way, shape, or form shown that this hand is longterm +EV. You haven't even argued it - you've just asserted it. Could you direct me to the post or posts where you've shown that this is longterm +EV?

ellipse_87

11-16-2005, 07:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Could you direct me to the post or posts where you've shown that this is longterm +EV?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I think I speak for the entire forum when I say, please, for the love of God, don't do this.

I promise to answer all your future posts nicely if you just let this one die. Please.

ZootMurph

11-16-2005, 07:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If you're going to post a hand in which the wisdom or donky-ness of your play depends on incredibly specific reads that will generate incredibly specific post-flop responses, then you need to include those reads in the original post (or consider not posting it, as it contains little to educate and little to comment upon). And for the love of God, do not include in the original post a read that contradicts the "pull a read out later to justify my play" expansion on the original read. Your OP described MP2 as LAGgy pre-flop and either jamming or folding after the turn post-flop. That read does not even resemble "he will fold for one bet in a big pot if the flop misses him." I am not arguing with the nature of your read - I am pointing out that your expanded read contradcits the original read you provided to your readers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you, Catt. I'm sorry I wasn't specific enough in my initial post. I did say this again when I specified the information later. I didn't even read where I said after the turn. It was supposed to be after the flop, and I just typed the wrong thing. Back in the old days, the flop was actually called the turn, and I still refer to it as such on ocassion when I'm not thinking. Not proofreading my post was my fault.

[ QUOTE ]
My fifth point was simply that you have four players, including two blinds, to act behind you. even if "calling station" doesn't carry over to pre-flop play, you've got four hands behind you, any one of which could be a solid hand. This fact impacts the wisdom of three-betting 76s.

[/ QUOTE ]

A solid hand doesn't necessitate a hand that can call a 3 bet. KQ is a solid hand. Many (not all) players, myself included, would not call a 3 bet with it. At the time, I judged my chances and made my play. Admittedly (and I have said this in previous posts), my evaluation of the odds was quite a bit off.

[ QUOTE ]
On the 76s versus 72o distinction. I don't get your argument at all. The play has +EV IYO because of the specific reads, not the intrinsic value of the hand. Even if you now want to include intrinsic hand value, the argument that 'I have better chances to flop something worth fighting over' is pretty much totally negated when it's apparent that you'll fight even when you flop nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

All I'm saying is 76s makes the play more valuable than 72o, because 76s is a better hand. As I said before, AA would make this play more valuable, because it is a better hand. The play has value with 72o. Has MORE value with 76s, and has even more with AA. Simply stated, the better the hand the better the value on any play. However, in this specific situation, 72o is basically the same as 76s, if you are just playing the situation. If you are just playing the cards, no way can 76s be playable in any way. Combine the cards and the situation, and 76s is more valuable a play than 72o.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, it's a poor habit to adopt results-oriented justifications for plays. You "accounted" for big pairs because he didn't cap pre-flop? How did you account for that at the time it was raised to you and you're contemplating fold-call-raise?

[/ QUOTE ]

I accounted for big pairs by saying that the few times he has a big pair will be offset by the few times I flop a big hand. I said that the fact he didn't cap preflop verified that he did not have a big pair. Accounting for something in your calculations and having it verified by actions later are two different things. If I didn't explain this correctly, my apologies.

[ QUOTE ]
And did this accounting also account for hands like TT - 77 that he might not cap? You don't retroactively say "this was +EV because he didn't cap me."

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I accounted for big pairs as above. As for hands like TT-77 or worse, I felt he was folding enough that he would have no trouble folding hands like this if an overcard came.

[ QUOTE ]
Similarly, "I think the fact that MP2 folded the flop verifies my read more than anything else." Ugh.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you verify a read, just out of curiosity. I watched this player fold the flop a LOT during the time at the table before this hand. I said that. He folded again. All this is verification of a read, isn't it?

[ QUOTE ]
On a final point - I don't think anyone could read your "Am I the only one varying my play" post without coming away feeling condescended to; it is frankly dripping with defensiveness and condescension. You may very well not have intended it so, but perhaps in the future think carefully about the words you write and the sentiments they will likely express to your readers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you.

[ QUOTE ]
My opinion on the hand is that it is rank spewing on a dimension not often seen. If you think it is an example of adjusting one's play to specific table reads worthy of comment, then you need to do a much better job of (1) providing detailed reads on your opponents (including the guys behind you who folded pre-flop), and (2) backing up the play of the hand, mathematically, to account for those times when your reads are not perfect (i.e., "I think this is very -EV normally, moderately -EV in some cases, and neutral to +EV in this specific case, because even if my reads are off and I don't get the pre-flop action I desired or the flop I was looking for, here is the expectation with this hand . . ."). But to repeat a point from before - if the worthiness of hand depends almost entirely on very intricate, specific reads, it's probably not a hand worthy of a post.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. This has been said several times now. I didn't give all information necessary initially, and as I've said several times now, I'm sorry. Don't know what else you are trying to accomplish here but to get me to say I'm sorry again... So, Catt... I'm sorry I didn't get all the relevant information in the initial post.

shant

11-16-2005, 07:39 PM

Are you or are you not BarronVangorToth's second account?

ZootMurph

11-16-2005, 07:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But that's the thing Zoot, there is no hand to discuss... Everytime someone says something, you answer with what basically amounts to 'My read told me to do it'. Since none of us are you, and therefore don't have your reads, there is no hand to discuss.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yako... how often do you respond to a hand posting and completely discount the reads? Because someone has a read on a player in a hand, do you not bother to post because it has a read? I don't understand what your point is here.

I made a play based on reads and, admittedly faulty, calculations. Based on those reads, and the calculations I've given, do you agree and disagree with my preflop play? Please specify why you agree or disagree. Now we come to the flop... again, do you agree or disagree with what I did and why? Same with the turn and river. I don't see how this is hard to do.

If you look at many of the posts, like ErrantNights for example. He doesn't say much about the hand, just that I can't have the read I have. So, of course I respond about the read and not the hand. If people concentrate on the hand, we can discuss the hand. If you concentrate on everything else, well... the hand and decisions in that hand are lost.

This post and my reply are just more posts that have nothing to do with the hand postings.

11-16-2005, 07:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Next, I'm going to try to fully explain my opinion on everything that anyone may question or dislike here. If you disagree with me, that is what these forums are all about. I'll happily discuss the hand and my theories.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think repeateing everything again is going to get people to change their minds

[ QUOTE ]
Because of the LAGgishness of the preflop raiser, and the tightness of the known players behind me (Button and BB specifically), I felt this was a good opportunity to isolate a LAG who shows weakness postflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're out of position to a known calling station that if calling three bets is way ahead of you preflop. 67s is a decent drawing hand, not a go to town heads up hand. There are still enough people behind me that if I were to try and isoalte with this hand, but still got called, I would be worried, especially with the giant whiff on the flop.

[ QUOTE ]
Since a non paired starting hand will whiff 2 out of 3 times, I felt like I would be a 2:1 favorite postflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

You were planning on spending 8 dollars to win 15 dollars (your three small bets preflop plus one on the flop). This right here shows that even if your 2:1 calculation is correct this is a negative ev play. This is also taking into account that all four people behind you fold to your three bet, which will not happen enough at this low of a limit.

[ QUOTE ]
In addition, because of the relatively small chance that one of the 4 players still behind me (I was MP3 here), would have a hand that could call the 3 bet, I felt the isolation play had about a 90% chance of success. Let it be noted that, after some number crunching, I was way off on the 90% that I estimated. As long as I was at least a 2:1 favorite to get all 4 players behind me to fold, I would still make this play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of this didn't make sense to me and I would like to see what numbers you used to come up with these odds.

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, I thought my table image at this point would help my play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sadly, as much as even I would like to think table image is a factor at the 2/4 online, it is not. There is nothing wrong with sticking to ABC poker online as you will make quite a bit of money in the long run. Most people playing several tables, reading, surfing the web, looking at porn while they play online. They're not concerned a whole lot about how other play and are only looking at their cards.

[ QUOTE ]
On the flop, with 10 bets in the pot, I am checked to. I feel I have some small amount of folding equity... very little thanks to the King and 2 spades on the flop. But, I follow through with the plan. As expected, MP2 folds. Unfortunately, Button has a hand. Oh well, I lost 2 BB on this hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Massive whiff with a calling station who just called three cold behind you. You are now three handed holding 7 high with nothing but runner runner draws which with the calling staion behind you is the only way you are going to win this pot. This is a clear check and fold.

[ QUOTE ]
Turn gives me new life. As discussed, I bet. Kailla says I should check/call here with no real folding equity. I think either play gives the same result, the only difference is the 1% chance that I MAY have folding equity here.

[/ QUOTE ]

This card is actually bad for you because now you're putting more money into a pot that you don't have the propper odds to be doing so and are now throwing more money away.

[ QUOTE ]
River is the easiest part of this hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

River is fine.

[ QUOTE ]
As to the results. There are two different results that I think should be part of this discussion. The hand results and the loose calls and extra action I got after this hand at this table. I think the extra action I got shows that people pay attention, and that it means something not only to vary play, wherever in the hand you think you should do it, but also to show down a bluff or two early at a table. In any case, the seats behind me were tight before this hand, but they did a bit more coldcalling and playing against me after this hand. So, getting to show down the 76s that I three bet with was the best advertising I could have had. It would have been worth it if I'd completely whiffed the whole hand and showed it down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I don't want people who act behind me loosening up. I absolutely HATE being out of position. Life is good when you have the button and in the long run more money is going to be made that way. This to me is actually a bad thing, but it may only be a personal preference.

As for the hand results, for those who care (I usually don't when I'm reading other's threads), I will post Button's hand in white on the next line.
 Button had KK for a set of Kings. I agree that I was very, very lucky. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to go back to my original statement about the check and fold on the flop. You are very very lucky that he did not punish you for being in this hand. The Ks played this had about as bad as they come for a pair of Ks. I'm going to agree with an earlier poster that if you hadn't won this hand this post would have never happened.

As a side note. I'm am also a winning player that had started at the bottom playing .25/.50 limit with a 100 dollar bankroll working my way up to the 10/20 limit games. I am not claiming to be a great poker player, but I like to think I know what I'm talking about some times.

I hope this helps.

GP