Re: 1/2 PokerStars
 

I think folding here was a mistake. There's nothing indicating that he's got AK. There's a large enough range of hands that you beat that justifies a call in this pot.

Re: 1/2 PokerStars
 

How many callers would you need PF before you say this call is ok? I'm not saying this is a good coldcall against this particualr villian given his tendencies with limping pairs, but it's not AJo.

Re: 1/2 PokerStars
 

I would have to call this river, your getting 15-1.

edit: I fold preflop

Re: 1/2 PokerStars
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would have to call this river, your getting 15-1.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: 1/2 PokerStars
 

A fish's point of view...

I say call PF because you are in LP and the guy usually limps with a pair and if he doesn't have a pair, then you are not that much of an underdog since he is likely to play A/Kx even unsuited.


Where is my logic wrong?

Re: 1/2 PokerStars
 

[ QUOTE ]
MP1 is typical 1/2 fish. I observed some hands he played and had made the following notes before this hand occurred:

Moron who only limps preflop, doesn't even reraise with KK, then raises on the turn AJ6A and is lucky that the preflop 3-bettor had QQ
Bets into a preflop raiser from out of position with just ace high, continued the bluff through the river and was called down.
raised preflop, probably with just high cards
limped in with 99 and made no bets on A25 flop,

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be making a common mistake. You take the following facts:

*Your opponent is arguably bad, although I'm not sure how solid your read is (how many observed hands is "some"? you have concluded he's a "moron" based on, it looks to me like, 3 hands...I would actually say he's a noob, but has some sense of hand value, which makes him unpredictable, which is worse than "good" for Hero).

*You have a strong hand.

*He's the only one in when the action comes to you preflop.

And you reach this conclusion: I'm going to win the pot. QED. This led you to COLD-CALL WHEN YOU WERE ONLY THE SECOND PLAYER IN THE POT. This is almost never correct. If your hand isn't strong enough to 3-bet to isolate MP1, then you need to get out of the pot. Simple as that. (Incidentally, and this is going to be the only comment that I'm going to make on this hand, if you had 3-bet preflop you likely would have taken the pot down on the flop or turn, given your read, either by betting when checked to or raising when bet into.)

This thinking process grows out of an even more common problem around these forums: all opponents are donks, morons, morans, or fish. This isn't true. I don't know where you are in your progress in learning the game, but these "fish" certainly kicked my ass around the felt for a couple of months before I started trying to learn to play the game. And, just because an opponent doesn't play their two cards the way you, I, or most of the players in this forum would, doesn't mean that you're going to win.

This post boils down to a bad-beat, from your perspective, whether MP1 had the best hand or not (and, by the way, he had you beat), because you're focused on what a horrible player he is. From my perspective, thought, you played worse in this hand than he did.

Re: 1/2 PokerStars
 

[ QUOTE ]

This post boils down to a bad-beat, from your perspective, whether MP1 had the best hand or not (and, by the way, he had you beat), because you're focused on what a horrible player he is. From my perspective, thought, you played worse in this hand than he did.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hear, hear!

Re: 1/2 PokerStars
 

[ QUOTE ]
if you had 3-bet preflop you likely would have taken the pot down on the flop or turn, given your read, either by betting when checked to or raising when bet into.)

This thinking process grows out of an even more common problem around these forums: all opponents are donks, morons, morans, or fish. This isn't true. I don't know where you are in your progress in learning the game, but these "fish" certainly kicked my ass around the felt for a couple of months before I started trying to learn to play the game. And, just because an opponent doesn't play their two cards the way you, I, or most of the players in this forum would, doesn't mean that you're going to win.

This post boils down to a bad-beat, from your perspective, whether MP1 had the best hand or not (and, by the way, he had you beat), because you're focused on what a horrible player he is. From my perspective, thought, you played worse in this hand than he did.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for this post.

Re: 1/2 PokerStars
 

I agree that sometimes a player gets labeled because he does not play by the book (or books) and this labeling is very relative. This is weird to me because it seems like the best way to win is to make unexpected plays. Which leads me to my previous question. A lot of people say fold this AJs PF, which may make the OP a fish in their opinion. My judgement says play this hand and even if its not "correct", then at least you are playing in an unexpected way. That is my current fish reasoning for calling PF and I am still curious to hear the reasoning for folding PF.

Re: 1/2 PokerStars
 

I'd call the river.