Re: Hand played by a NL \"forum expert\" that made no sense to me
 

sb obviously likes his hand given the fact he leads out strongly into the field in an unraised pot.

unless i have a particular read and history there is no way i am giving him credit for flopping the joint.

i concur with bruiser and i am most definitely getting a raise in at some point in this hand. i know i have him crushed, he has a mitt, and i am looking to stack him.

whether or not i decide to go ahead and build a pot on the flop, or wait and hope he does it himself on the turn, is dependant upon my current image, and the image i want to establish at the particular table.

hit it a lick.

Re: Hand played by a NL \"forum expert\" that made no sense to me
 

Hi El D,

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't really played the Party games since they started, so perhaps they play more differently than I realize. However, in similar sized games on UB, I will often get paid off by top and bottom, and in juiced up games I will get paid off by a slow-played overpair. Of course, you also face all sorts of all-in bluff moves on scary boards at UB.

[/ QUOTE ]

They seem to play very differently. I just started playing the UB games, and in my still-very-limited experience, they are way more aggressive than the Party games. I haven't quite wrapped my mind around why this is yet. My 2 hypotheses are that the "bet pot" button contributes to it, and that the good players at UB tend to be a little more experienced (perhaps they are older as a group), and play a little less "solid" than the winners in the Party $2K game. Those could both be wrong, though.

I would've raised this flop, turn, or river, too, but on each street, the raise becomes progressively more debatable, because virtually everyone good in these games folds too much, rather than calls or raises. Except at primetime, it's fairly tough to get loose action at these tables.

I say that I would've raised because I work extremely hard to get a maniac's image. A raise from me is bound to get paid off by 2 pair here. But, if you're one of several big winners in this game who post here, your image is quite different, and you will be able to bluff 2 pair out, but not get much action from a weaker hand than bottom set. I know how that sounds, but it seems true. Most of the good players at the 10/20 just refuse to give action, which is one of a few reasons why I still prefer the 5/10 (presence of 6-max tables is the other big one, but there are a few more).

By no means am I saying these games are not good; clearly, a game that plays like this is exploitable. But, it does make for some odd-feeling adjustments, and dealing with the river bet in this hand is a good example, I think.

Re: Hand played by a NL \"forum expert\" that made no sense to me
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
because any raise causes top and bottom pair to fold (unless the player is pretty loose).

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't really played the Party games since they started, so perhaps they play more differently than I realize. However, in similar sized games on UB, I will often get paid off by top and bottom, and in juiced up games I will get paid off by a slow-played overpair. Of course, you also face all sorts of all-in bluff moves on scary boards at UB.

[/ QUOTE ]

this [censored] goes on full handed? post some hands.

Re: Hand played by a NL \"forum expert\" that made no sense to me
 

Good post.

Re: Hand played by a NL \"forum expert\" that made no sense to me
 

i guess MP1 doesn't have any testicles. Unless villian is super tight MP1 is playing like a giant pussy.

Re: Hand played by a NL \"forum expert\" that made no sense to me
 

this is 10 handed. i think you people are putting way too much emphasis on image in the analysis of this hand.

five people saw the flop. SB bets out strongly. is UB really that wild that this is a common bluffing situation for MP1?

i was the second limper in mp1. do you think im going to limp TT-AA here, and then play it super agressively on a baby rainbow connected flop against the SB betting out strongly into 5 other players? how often does he have less then 2 pair, maybe 5% of the time? if i raise him with tt-aa what hands are going to call me? And what is the likelyhood that i was the second limper in MP with a loose image with TT-AA.

getting your money all-in from the blinds full handed in an unraised multiway pot, with a junk two pair, is for suckers.

your analysis depends on SB to be a bad player. if i dont have knowledge of him being a bad player, then it is best to assume he isnt.

raising the flop is lame, id never raise here. if i was going to raise in this hand it'd be on the river everytime because that is when i am mostly likely to get called by 2 pair.

Re: Hand played by a NL \"forum expert\" that made no sense to me
 

After reading the entire thread I fail to see anything wrong with KKF's analysis. I have read all the posts saying "I'd raise the flop" yet I don't recall anyone making a case for this action. As an avid student I'm surprised at all the disagreement. The line looks solid.

Other than disagreement, who's got a case to make?

Re: Hand played by a NL \"forum expert\" that made no sense to me
 

[ QUOTE ]
this is 10 handed. i think you people are putting way too much emphasis on image in the analysis of this hand.

five people saw the flop. SB bets out strongly. is UB really that wild that this is a common bluffing situation for MP1?

i was the second limper in mp1. do you think im going to limp TT-AA here, and then play it super agressively on a baby rainbow connected flop against the SB betting out strongly into 5 other players? how often does he have less then 2 pair, maybe 5% of the time? if i raise him with tt-aa what hands are going to call me? And what is the likelyhood that i was the second limper in MP with a loose image with TT-AA.

getting your money all-in from the blinds full handed in an unraised multiway pot, with a junk two pair, is for suckers.

your analysis depends on SB to be a bad player. if i dont have knowledge of him being a bad player, then it is best to assume he isnt.

raising the flop is lame, id never raise here. if i was going to raise in this hand it'd be on the river everytime because that is when i am mostly likely to get called by 2 pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Kane - thanks for your analysis. That's all I was asking for, as I figured that there was more to this than just you pussying out. I guess you didn't have a read on the opponent at the time, and I had him read as an aggro opponent who also slowplays his best hands. I guess I just assumed that since you play so much you'd have this read as well. I think I still get the rest in at some point(since there are only 50 more BBs to be accounted for) but I definitely understand your analysis.
-James

Re: Hand played by a NL \"forum expert\" that made no sense to me
 

Is this guy so solid that he is only betting out on the flop with 2 pair? I cant believe that to be true, I mean he must bet out on the flop with a pair and a gutshot sometimes, like 98, 78 ect. What does KKF do if a 8 or a 6 come, or the 7,9,5 pairs. I think he has to riase the flop to get more money in for a safe turn and to protect against an undefined hand. It worked out this time, but I think you lose the pot by giving him a cheaper look at each street often enough for not raising flop or turn to be a mistake.

BTW, what would you have done if the river was a 7 and he bets pot?

Re: Hand played by a NL \"forum expert\" that made no sense to me
 

Don't see the problem. Five callers you don't want a big pot and won't get action from two pair hands unless bettor is way too loose, in which case you can argue for isolation, getting all in, etc. Otherwise why would you want to commit yourself or kill your action there in an unraised five-hander? On the turn you would certainly raise against a wild caller, but problem is two pair should fold most of the time. On the river same should be true. No problem with calling down there. If he checks the river you bet. If he check-raises you fold, having freerolled on his check. If SB is too loose and Kane knew it he donked the hand, unless SB is hyperaggressive in which case why not induce the bluff/semibluff.