JJ 20-40
 

at the risk of boring people with another uninteresting hand ill post this one. i think there were some interesting decisions made, but who knows maybe im wrong.

20-40 great live game 4-7 players seeing each flop for one or two bets each. i have JJ in the sb and 2 players limp. i do something i almost never do and flat call. bb checks. 4 of us.

the flop is 763 rainbow. i check, bb checks, utg bets. utg sees about 65% of all flops. he plays loose and pretty darn aggressive postflop. he is not very good, but he is pretty fearless. anyway he bets, folded to me and i checkraise, bb folds, utg 3 bets, i 4 bet, he 5 bets, i 6 bet, he 7 bets, i 8 bet, he calls.

at this point i decide that i will bet out no matter what comes and fold if raised (provided i dont improve myself when raised.

what do you think?

Re: JJ 20-40
 

I hate the preflop limp but I've done it, once, once. I didn't like it that time either.

Man, he has 76, mike, I only go 6 bets.

Re: JJ 20-40
 

This is certaintly not a 'boring' or 'commonplace' hand that a poster complained about you posting previously (to refute him I would love for you to continue to post all hands that you find interesting - i have learned a lot from your posts and if no new hands are posted then I often wind up just browsing OOT.. anyway...)

I hate your line here. I find it stupid to put out an EIGHTH raise on the flop with just JJ, (acutally I have a problem with the SIXTH raise that you threw out and would question the FOURTH bet without the description of your opponent.)

My problem is that if you were willing to go past 4 bets why not just check call all the way down? You will be risking the same amount but actually be giving yourself a chance tro WIN THE POT. Your actions just seem silly to me (and yes I do think that you are way behind here)

Keep on posting!

-Steve

Re: JJ 20-40
 

After bet five or six you are definitely getting into "lazer thin value bet" area. The turn decision is interesting. I assume you think turn raise means set and I like it more than the 8 bet. I'd probably call down from the fifth bet... but I don't know the player.

stop jerking people around.
 

"at this point i decide that i will bet out no matter what comes and fold if raised (provided i dont improve myself when raised".

You make it 8 bets on the flop (for some reason), he calls, and this is your strategy on the turn???

I can't wait to hear all your retarded 5-10 players who can't beat anyone voice their support for your fine play.

Boy, you suck at this game. Almost as bad as Angelo.

TSP

Re: JJ 20-40
 

[ QUOTE ]
i 4 bet, he 5 bets, i 6 bet, he 7 bets, i 8 bet, he calls.

at this point i decide that i will bet out no matter what comes and fold if raised (provided i dont improve myself when raised.

what do you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

Mike,

I'm out of my element here, but this one piques my interest enough to ask a question. Can you, or someone else, explain the thought process here? I just can't figure out why you go to war on the flop there, but then decide that you'd fold for one more bet on the turn.

I guess to make myself more clear, what information do you gather through a potential turn raise, that you're not already getting on the flop? To put it another way, if he had 9-bet instead of calling, would you have 10-bet and folded to an 11-bet?

Another question, if you're planning on folding to a raise, why bet in the first place? He's certainly not going to fold, but at the same time it doesn't mean that your hand is good if he just flat calls, either.

I understand your line of thinking on most of the other hands you post, but this one is over my head. Please elaborate.

Re: stop jerking people around.
 

Im gonna have to agree here... i mean jesus, 8 bet and fold to a turn raise... that is insanity.

Altough i have to imagine you won this hand as i dont think someone would post something like this if it was an embarassing loss

Re: JJ 20-40
 

"utg sees about 65% of all flops. he plays loose and pretty darn aggressive postflop" this is the clue in the puzzle as to the 8 bet.

I guess Mike figures that if utg raises his turn bet villian must have a set or the straight. Note, folding because your opponent can have two pair is incorrect because you have the outs to improve.

I suppose this guys 9 bet is like a rocks raise, or a players 4 bet...

(I'm not support his action because this sort of insanity is player independent, but trying to explain what I believe is his thought process)

Re: stop jerking people around.
 

lol. hey tsp. I like your call-it-like-you-see-it style, which so often is exactly what I'm thinking. On this one though, I think you're too harsh. Some thoughts:


first of all, I try to adjust my thinking a bit on mike's posts since he plays in a different game than I do. I've logged about 40 hours in the 40/80 at the Commerce, which was enough to convince me that some of the craziness I saw posted here does make a little sense. The games in California, at least some of them, really are insane. I had never seen a true maniac before my California trip, where I saw about a dozen.

So, having said that, let's look at the flop. Mike's opponent is fearless. He does not respect the check-raise one bit. He "knows" that mike does not have an overpair, since mike limped preflop. So after we go bet (hello) raise (hi) 3-bet (I might have something) 4-bet (I know you know I don't have to have much to check-raise and could be restealing) 5-bet (I thought you might think that, but I really do have a pair) we finally get to a point where Mike starts communicating to his opponent that he really can beat top pair. 6-bets - I have top pair or better. 7-bets I have top-pair-top-kicker, eight-eight, or better. 8-bets - I can beat that. call.

Now, the opponents call here means one of two things. a) you've scared me, I have a good hand, but ok, maybe you really do have me beaten. b) screw this small bet stuff, let's get to the expensive streets and continue the conversation.

So mike bets, intending to fold if raised.


Crazy? Yes. You'd get killed playing this way in most games. But mike doesn't play in most games, so it may just be reasonable against this guy.


my 2 cents.
Eric

C\'mom, Eric . . .
 

You can't support this play! And I KNOW your not one of the 5-10 fellows I referred to in my original response.

Very troubling.

TSP

p.s. Happy New Year.

Re: stop jerking people around.
 

[ QUOTE ]


Boy, you suck at this game. Almost as bad as Angelo.

TSP

[/ QUOTE ]


There are a number of people on this site that regularly give bad advice. So as not to exclude myself, I will absolutely admit that I don't think all of my advice is always top-notch. However, of the list of people that I know regularly give bad advice, nowhere are Tommy or Mike's names to be found.

(Granted, in this hand I would've stopped reraising earlier than he did -- but I wasn't there.)

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com

Re: stop jerking people around.
 

You miss the point.

There comes a time for many good poker players when they realize that all the time and passion they've pored into the game has been, if not wasted, then not accordingly rewarded. They work on perfecting the art of the semi-bluff check-raise, the isolation three-bet, etc. etc., and one day it hits them that poker, at it's essence, is simply about getting dead money in the pot. To this end, the kinds of lifeless strategies employed by unimaginative types like Jim Brier actually end up getting about 95% of the money that mike l's stragegies will accrue--even though there's something aesthetically revolting about playing 'Jim Brier' style poker.

It's only natural to want to reject this. You get intelligent and probably creative people like mike l and Tommy Angelo involved in hold 'em, and they just don't want to accept the possibility that all their exotic plays account for maybe 3% of their actual profit. After all, it's these plays that make poker 'fun'. Since there's nothing sexy about value betting pocket aces on the river on a KJ963 board, nothing scintillating about betting out and then checking and calling with a flush draw, then they figure there's probably a better way to play the hand. It's an issue whereby the player confuses optimal play with advanced play-- and unfortunately these two concepts are not interchangable.

One thing I've found interesting is how inexcusably boring the imaginations have been of most of the decent limit players I've ever met. They fold, fold, fold, then they get a good hand and value bet, value bet, value bet. There isn't much more to it, which means you don't need to be a Picasso at the felt in order to make your earn. I've wrestled with this fact for years, and I still lose sight of it. When Mike Caro talks about fancy play syndrome he has me marked to a tee-- I'll check raise, or flat call and three bet, FAR more often than I probably should, or I'll make a big laydown on the river, just because I get a high when these plays work, or when they turn out to be right. It isn't that they're necessarily optimal, only that they give me a chance to flex the muscles I've worked so hard to develop.

I wasn't at Mike's table, so I really don't know anything about this guy he was up against. So maybe eight betting and folding to a raise was right, and maybe it was wrong. Who cares? What's important to realize is that if it is wrong it probably wasn't wrong by much, and perhaps more importantly if it was right it wasn't right by much.

In the final analysis this hand isn't nearly as important to a player's earn as finding a way to get a guy to call a bet on the turn with five outs in a heads-up pot. But I can excuse mike if he doesn't want to preoccupy himself with these issues, because nobody worth their salt gets into poker with the goal of simply learning the basic plays. Most of us first dealt ourselves in because we aspired to play well-- it's just too bad that the far more important concern is to make sure we seat ourselves with players who play bad.

Re: stop jerking people around.
 

[ QUOTE ]
So, having said that, let's look at the flop. Mike's opponent is fearless. He does not respect the check-raise one bit. He "knows" that mike does not have an overpair, since mike limped preflop. So after we go bet (hello) raise (hi) 3-bet (I might have something) 4-bet (I know you know I don't have to have much to check-raise and could be restealing) 5-bet (I thought you might think that, but I really do have a pair) we finally get to a point where Mike starts communicating to his opponent that he really can beat top pair. 6-bets - I have top pair or better. 7-bets I have top-pair-top-kicker, eight-eight, or better. 8-bets - I can beat that. call.


[/ QUOTE ]


This is a great analysis of what playing in California means.... I always have to gear down big time whenever I have come back from a trip to California back here to CT as you'd NEVER do what Mike did at Foxwoods with this holding -- but in California ... it's about two more bets than I'd go, but for a local guy like him that knows the texture of the game and the players that well, it's a very revolutionary play.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com

Re: stop jerking people around.
 

You are exactly the 5-10 idiot I am referring to, with this longwinded crock of s**t.

TSP

Re: stop jerking people around.
 

Few people have mastered the art of criticizing Person 1 (TsP) by insulting Person 2 (JB) -- kudos on that, as it has made me laugh.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com

Re: stop jerking people around.
 

Thanks for the kind words.

Just wondering how that 600 BB losing streak ended up for you.

Re: C\'mom, Eric . . .
 

You're right. I don't support it. I would never play a hand like this, certainly not in the games I play, and almost as certainly not if I was playing in California. I'm merely saying that in the strange logic of California poker, against a player who's game you know well, when you are known to put in lots of bets with weak hands and your opponent knows this and is fearless, it does make a certain amount of sense.

You have to take this hand in the context of mike's other plays, like moving all-in for 20 bets preflop with ATs and such. You have to assume that the other players have noticed this kind of stuff and are willing to give him plenty of action, and these are players for whom "plenty of action" is an amount of action you can't believe until you see it. At least I couldn't.


my 2 cents.
Eric

Re: stop jerking people around.
 

well the way i see it is after we go all those bets on the turn and then he backs down there's nothing he can have i cant beat. see he would just keep raising if he had the straight, i mean why stop and wait for the turn after 8 bets? he might have some hands i cant beat in fact like 33 and 76, maybe even a bigger set although he would surely raise 77 preflop knowing him. but he wont raise those on the turn after i put all those bets in and represent the straight. he will just call.

if he has something like A7 then he will raise maybe if he improves, and if he does im drawing to two outs and must fold.

so what was your question again?

Re: JJ 20-40
 

"To put it another way, if he had 9-bet instead of calling, would you have 10-bet and folded to an 11-bet?"

if we got up into 9-10 bets i would have had to slow down and call down.

as for the turn raise being a fold card, there's nothing he can have that he can raise the turn with after i show all that strength on the flop that i can have the odds to try and catch. plus when i win the reraise war on the flop it means my hand is likely good on that street or else he wouldve kept raising. although as i said before he may have stopped at 8 bets with two pair or a set.

this post above pretty much sums it up.
 

"So after we go bet (hello) raise (hi) 3-bet (I might have something) 4-bet (I know you know I don't have to have much to check-raise and could be restealing) 5-bet (I thought you might think that, but I really do have a pair) we finally get to a point where Mike starts communicating to his opponent that he really can beat top pair. 6-bets - I have top pair or better. 7-bets I have top-pair-top-kicker, eight-eight, or better. 8-bets - I can beat that. call."

PERFECT! that's so fuucking exactly correct. exactly. excellent.

ive seen the flop/conversation analogy before but it bears repeating here and you did a great job on this one. thanks.

Re: stop jerking people around.
 

[ QUOTE ]
You are exactly the 5-10 idiot I am referring to, with this longwinded crock of s**t.

[/ QUOTE ]

When was the last time you posted anything of value, instead of just being a <font color="black"> dick</font>? How would you play this hand?

Re: Showing my naivete, but comfortable enough in my earn anyway
 

[ QUOTE ]
In the final analysis this hand isn't nearly as important to a player's earn as finding a way to get a guy to call a bet on the turn with five outs in a heads-up pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am comfortable enough with my earn, but I regularly call with second or third pair and an overcard kicker which I read as basically 5 outs (plus a bluff/semibluff catcher). Do I have a major leak here?

Re: JJ 20-40
 

You make poker way more complicated than it is by making these plays. I would never ever go 8 bets on the flop (or any street) with any hand but the nuts. Having somehow done that, I am not going to fold on the turn if raised. Obviously, the guy you are playing is also a little wacky given that he went 7 bets with whatever it is that he is holding. If he is wacky, he may well stop raising the flop at 8 bets and then raise on the turn with something 76 i.e a flopped two pair - a ahand against which you have 8 outs.

Anyway, all that is minor in the grand scheme of things. I just think that you would be much better off if you eschewed goofy tactics like going 8 bets on any street.

Re: JJ 20-40
 

[ QUOTE ]
You make poker way more complicated than it is by making these plays. I would never ever go 8 bets on the flop (or any street) with any hand but the nuts. Having somehow done that, I am not going to fold on the turn if raised. Obviously, the guy you are playing is also a little wacky given that he went 7 bets with whatever it is that he is holding. If he is wacky, he may well stop raising the flop at 8 bets and then raise on the turn with something 76 i.e a flopped two pair - a ahand against which you have 8 outs.

Anyway, all that is minor in the grand scheme of things. I just think that you would be much better off if you eschewed goofy tactics like going 8 bets on any street.

[/ QUOTE ]
These are my thoughts precisely! When I play poker, I try to (a) make +EV plays (duh) and (b) present my opponents with difficult decisions. In this particular hand, it seems that Mike mostly ends up presenting himself with difficult decisions. And I really don't see a compelling reason for that.

results and a comment
 

interesting. i didnt see anything difficult about having some guy give me 4 big bets on the flop when i have him badly beat. nor would i have found there anything difficult if it had turned out he had me beat. it just seemed like the right amount of bets to put in against that player on that street, it felt +EV to me given my experience and understanding of the game and this player. and in this case i was right and my hand held up. he had A7 and he called me down when i bet the turn T and river K.

as for the idea that maybe he would stop raising the flop w/ 76 and then raise the turn with that hand, while nothing is impossible that seemed highly unlikely to me. he decided on the flop after i put all those bets in that i likely had the straight. if he had wanted to put more action in with 76 he wouldve stopped sooner on the flop in order to raise the turn or he wouldve put more bets in on the flop.

you make the game more difficult for yourself when you show no balls by being unwilling to invest a lot of bets with a non-nut hand against a player who it is +EV to do so against. people who say "i never put X amount of bets without the nuts" are pussy and playing -EV in that spot although not as much if youre not in southern california, where this sort of crazy action on all one street thing happens to me about once every two sessions or so.

Re: JJ 20-40
 

i want to play in california.

Re: JJ 20-40
 

I want to play with mike [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: JJ 20-40
 

[ QUOTE ]
i want to play in california.

[/ QUOTE ]


It's wild, for certain -- can't wait to be back out there during WrestleMania week.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com

Re: results and a comment
 

"you make the game more difficult for yourself when you show no balls by being unwilling to invest a lot of bets with a non-nut hand against a player who it is +EV to do so against. people who say "i never put X amount of bets without the nuts" are pussy and playing -EV in that spot although not as much if youre not in southern california, where this sort of crazy action on all one street thing happens to me about once every two sessions or so."

Mike, I agree that hat there are players out there were going this many bets on the flop with the non-nuts is the right move. Granted, there are not a lot of players like this, but they are there.

My real problem with your play (and I do have my own unique way of pointing these things out), is that I just couldn't fold the turn if he raised it. If he is this much of a maniac, idiot, retard, nut, goof, etc., I just cant muck in this spot when he pops you on the turn, with this many SBs in the pot. You have to be right almost every time to make this muck proper.

While I was playing all nite last nite and am not thinking real clearly, I think that your 'reputation' in these games might be better if you showed that you would bet it hard with the non-nuts and force someone to show you a winner at the end, as opposed to going for a ton of SBs and, when the "cheese gets binding", you muck it on the turn.

TSP

knowing your opponent
 

"If he is this much of a maniac, idiot, retard, nut, goof, etc.,"

yeah but see it's more complex than that. it isnt just that he's a goof and unpredictable and crazy. he is to some extent but he's not completely random. part of it is what i know he thinks of me and my play.

for instance, there was a hand earlier in the session where i made two pair on the turn and checkraised him and a calling station, trapping both of them. they both mucked on the river. the river completed a running flush. he expressed to me that he had been certain when i raised the turn that i had a one card straight draw w/ a flush draw on the turn and that i was semibluff checkraising. in fact, i rarely if ever make that play anymore, but i used to all the time years ago (before i ever met the guy). but because i use position and get caught bluffing sometimes he figures me to be the type of person who is trying to win every pot (and he himself is like this to some extent).

so on the flop on this hand i was getting that vibe from him that says "hey i think youre messing with me and i think my A7 is good here and im going to put in extra bets". well we whipped it out and measured it baby and i won. by a mile.

this time.

Re: knowing your opponent
 

I'm not surprised your hand was good, not surprised at all. If you could really muck the turn if he had raised you, then I guess I have to say 'you da man'. I just couldn't do it - your hand is too strong, and, as one poster mentioned, can improve on the river if two pair gets counterfeited.

I hope to make it out to the Commerce this year to check it all out for myself.

TSP

Re: results and a comment
 

[ QUOTE ]
You make the game more difficult for yourself when you show no balls by being unwilling to invest a lot of bets with a non-nut hand against a player who it is +EV to do so against. people who say "i never put X amount of bets without the nuts" are pussy and playing -EV in that spot although not as much if youre not in southern california, where this sort of crazy action on all one street thing happens to me about once every two sessions or so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even assuming that you are right that poker is all anatomical (viz: having balls and not being a pussy and other sundry he-man type comments), I am not sure how taking the pussy approach makes the game more difficult.

Sure, if it is positive Ev to go 8 bets with JJ on a 763 flop, you should do it. But that requires finding someone who will go seven bets with a hand worse than JJ. Apparently, you found such a man...or a broad with plumbing...whatever. Most of us don't encounter these creatures.

I stand by my comment generally that going multiple bets in heads-up situations definitely does make the game more difficult to play which in turn leads to more errors - usually on other hands as opposed to the hand in question - and which in turn leads to minus Ev play overall.

Raising, checkraising and reraising are crucial aspects of poker in pots involving 2 or more opponents. They are way less crucial tools in heads-up spots (Of course, this comment does not apply to a heads-up game).

Re: results and a comment
 

"I stand by my comment generally that going multiple bets in heads-up situations definitely does make the game more difficult to play which in turn leads to more errors - usually on other hands as opposed to the hand in question - and which in turn leads to minus Ev play overall."

youre coming just short of saying "putting in too many bets with what favors to be the worst hand is -EV". you see that dont you? what youre saying is not worth saying. it's obvious.

this was a special case. that's what made it interesting and postable. what do you think i just go as many bets as any player wants to heads up on the flop whenever i have an okay hand?

as for all the pussy and dick talk it's about poker ego and confidence. it's a man's game, it requires eagerness to take someone's money, to f*ck someone over with lies, it's a head game. that's what makes it fun, it's deceptive macho character. im sure youre all just sipping high tea and pondering out upon the rainy cityscape there at holiday inn vancouver waiting for QQ or better, but down here we're rolling around in the heat and smog and trying to kill each other thank you very much.

Re: results and a comment
 

i only read a few posts here, but TSP has this all right. you played this like f**king c**k.

Re: results and a comment
 

"im sure youre all just sipping high tea and pondering out upon the rainy cityscape there at holiday inn vancouver waiting for QQ or better"

You've evidently not played with skp before. Nor looked out your window today. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

"it's about poker ego and confidence. it's a man's game, it requires eagerness to take someone's money, to f*ck someone over with lies, it's a head game. that's what makes it fun, it's deceptive macho character."

What you describe is a boy's game. skp plays a man's game.

Re: results and a comment
 

I said:

"I stand by my comment generally that going multiple bets in heads-up situations definitely does make the game more difficult to play which in turn leads to more errors - usually on other hands as opposed to the hand in question - and which in turn leads to minus Ev play overall."

You then said:

[ QUOTE ]
youre coming just short of saying "putting in too many bets with what favors to be the worst hand is -EV". you see that dont you? what youre saying is not worth saying. it's obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

I fail to see the connection and have no idea what you are now talking about.

[ QUOTE ]
this was a special case. that's what made it interesting and postable. what do you think i just go as many bets as any player wants to heads up on the flop whenever i have an okay hand?


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if it was that special a case, it's not something that you implied in your intial post. Of course, that didn't make me conclude that you spew chips on a routine basis but in a later post, you went on to say something to the effect that down there in la la land, these types of confrontations occur quite frequently. That is what led me to make the comment that you unnecessarily make the game more complex than it is.

[ QUOTE ]
im sure youre all just sipping high tea and pondering out upon the rainy cityscape there at holiday inn vancouver waiting for QQ or better, but down here we're rolling around in the heat and smog and trying to kill each other thank you very much.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm an onliner now but your post does make me yearn for that cup of tea at HI Van again...incidentally, the HI games were generally even looser than the Commerce games albeit I have only logged about 80 hours at the Commerce on couple of trips so I can't possibly comment with any degree of certainty.

As for confidence, I have plenty in my comfort zone i.e. up to 30/60. I do puss out when it comes to bigger games like the 80 game however as Clark would attest to but that's another matter altogether. But the point is that one does not have to flex one's muscles to show confidence. Put another way, never going 8 bets without the nuts is not a sign of meek, cowardly, and insipid play as your post seems to imply. To the contrary, doing so is indicative of brash, egotistical play although it may not necessarily be that.

Re: results and a comment
 

"if I were to try to politely say something, an argument would likely ensue, and I'd get...emotional (in what should be an emotionless game)." [emphasis added]

A snippet from a post by Josh W. The least pussified person I know.

Re: results and a comment
 

"What you describe is a boy's game. skp plays a man's game."

yes. and playing at commerce (and down here when the game is GOOD) is like playing with children. they act like children and they play with the intellect of a child. and like children they are easy to read. so you go 8 bets with them sometimes and are usually right when you do. or when i do at least.

and it amazes me how in a roomful of children you somehow seem to manage to always sit in the most adult 40-80 in the room. bad. get on the table change andy!

Re: results and a comment
 

[ QUOTE ]
it's about poker ego and confidence. it's a man's game, it requires eagerness to take someone's money, to f*ck someone over with lies, it's a head game. that's what makes it fun, it's deceptive macho character. im sure youre all just sipping high tea and pondering out upon the rainy cityscape there at holiday inn vancouver waiting for QQ or better, but down here we're rolling around in the heat and smog and trying to kill each other thank you very much.

[/ QUOTE ]


These are some of the coolest 82 words ever strung together regarding poker. Post of the day -- hell, of the week -- in my mind.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com

Re: results and a comment
 

"To the contrary, doing so is indicative of brash, egotistical play although it may not necessarily be that."

put "too often" or "without good reason" in between "so" and "it" and youve got a deal.

but that's just short of saying "playing like a maniac (very aggressive without great reason) is -EV". and we all already know that.

so it's on you, if you want, to show me how my going 8 bets here was not justified. at no time did i feel i was getting in over my head or making things more complicated then they had to be. i was just using a read and putting more bets in to try to maximize EV. i went into great detail in other posts throughout the thread to explain my thinking. could you please comment directly (not generally) on the things ive said, or will we just decide that these are issues of style that need not be reconciled or discussed further?

either way is fine with me. but there is a very short list of posters i can stand to read a sentence that starts "in general" from and you just miss the cut.