|
|
#1
03-06-2005, 08:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
I don\'t see many hands like this posted.
No notes on this player and they haven't stood out yet. So average 3/6 for all intents.
Party Poker 3/6 Hold'em (10 handed) converter Preflop: BigEndian is MP1 with A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]. UTG calls, <font color="#666666">2 folds</font>, <font color="#CC3333">BigEndian raises</font>, <font color="#666666">6 folds</font>, UTG calls. Flop: (5.33 SB) 9[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 8[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 8[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font> UTG checks, <font color="#CC3333">BigEndian bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">UTG raises</font>, BigEndian calls. Turn: (4.66 BB) 9[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font> <font color="#CC3333">UTG bets</font>, BigEndian... What would you do here? And why? - Jim 
|
|
#2
03-06-2005, 08:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I don\'t see many hands like this posted.
[ QUOTE ]
What would you do here? [/ QUOTE ] See a showdown. [ QUOTE ] And why? [/ QUOTE ] There are plenty of draws that will bluff this board. You might have counterfeited a PP<8
|
|
#3
03-06-2005, 08:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I don\'t see many hands like this posted.
it depends on what range of hands you put him on when he limps UTG.
he could have been trying to move you off your overs with a low pp, or semibluffing with JT or something of the like. it's tough to see him limping with a hand that had has a 9 in it, and an 8 would probably slowplay in that spot. also the board double pairing means its more likely that he doesnt have a 9. call down?
|
|
#4
03-06-2005, 08:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I don\'t see many hands like this posted.
Here's my dilemna with this hand (and I have very little doubt I played it poorly):
1) The pot is small - especially relative to the effective odds. 2) I have no other draws other than my over cards and these have to be discounted heavily - if you want to count them at all. 3) Without a read on the player, I agree it's possible I was CRed with a PP < 8 or a draw. But what % chance do you give it vs the 9, the 8 or TT, not just taking into account card counts. So basically, to me, the hand came down to a question of whether he had it or didn't and I didn't want to pay 2BB to find out. - Jim
|
|
#6
03-06-2005, 09:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I don\'t see many hands like this posted.
[ QUOTE ]
1) The pot is small - especially relative to the effective odds. [/ QUOTE ] It's not especially small for a heads up pot. I don't see how effective odds come into play here. I'm not raising on the end regardless of the card that comes off. [ QUOTE ] 2) I have no other draws other than my over cards and these have to be discounted heavily - if you want to count them at all. [/ QUOTE ] Again, I'm calling down b/c I think I have the best hand, not because of any draws. I suppose occasionally he'll have something like TT and you'll river a pair on the river, but his most likely holdings are a boat, a draw, or three-pair. [ QUOTE ] 3) Without a read on the player, I agree it's possible I was CRed with a PP < 8 or a draw. But what % chance do you give it vs the 9, the 8 or TT, not just taking into account card counts. [/ QUOTE ] Something like 35% of the time, just completely off-hand. This is definitely the sort of board where I'm thinking about calling down with ace-high right from the get-go. The turn card looks bad for you since it means you're drawing dead to a 9, but it's probably a good card for you since it counterfeits lower PP and makes it less likely that he holds a 9.
|
|
#7
03-06-2005, 09:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I don\'t see many hands like this posted.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how effective odds come into play here. [/ QUOTE ] Since I disagree with Nate, I can only assume that I am somehow wrong. But... I thought in this situation, you would use effective odds on a call down. Assuming villian bets again on the river 100% of the time (cleary not the case), our odds on a call down are: (4.66 + 2) : 1 = 3.3:1. What aren't I seeing? Note: This still brings us to the same conclusion as Nate (who estimated we're good 35% of the time), just that it used effective odds to justify it.
|
|
#8
03-06-2005, 09:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I don\'t see many hands like this posted.
It's 6:2 to go the distance (effective odds). This means, for the call down to be correct, the combination of the times he is conterfeited/on-a-draw and his cards not coming on the river have to be equal to that. 35% you say, seems close enough to make the call down...but it was a tough call for me.
- Jim
|
|
#10
03-06-2005, 09:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I don\'t see many hands like this posted.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I don't see how effective odds come into play here. [/ QUOTE ] Since I disagree with Nate, I can only assume that I am somehow wrong. But... I thought in this situation, you would use effective odds on a call down. Assuming villian bets again on the river 100% of the time (cleary not the case), our odds on a call down are: (4.66 + 2) : 1 = 3.3:1. What aren't I seeing? Note: This still brings us to the same conclusion as Nate (who estimated we're good 35% of the time), just that it used effective odds to justify it. [/ QUOTE ] If you think you're good 35% of the time here, then calling down is clearly correct given 3.3:1 odds (though slightly smaller after the rake steals some more). Other things to consider here. You're drawing dead vs. an 8 OR a 9. If villian also has an A you're choping unless you hit something. All of your outs are good against any villian hand not containing an 8 or 9 (except AA or KK). Your hand is already good against any hand not mentioned above (except TT, JJ, or QQ). This would be a much easier decision if you had some sort of read (obviously). Assuming he is an unsophisticated player, his checkraise either indicates that he has a fairly big hand or a hand like AJ. I doubt he'd checkraise semi-bluff with a hand like JT here. Calling down is probably correct.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
