Big pot with 88
 

Button is LP. MP is super LP.

Party Poker 10/20 Hold'em (6 max, 6 handed) FTR converter on zerodivide.cx

Preflop: Hero is BB with 8[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 8[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img].
<font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, <font color="#CC3333">MP raises</font>, CO calls, Button calls, SB calls, Hero calls.

Flop: (10 SB) J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 6[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(5 players)</font>
SB checks, Hero checks, MP checks, CO checks, <font color="#CC3333">Button bets</font>, SB folds, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, MP calls, CO folds, Button calls.

Turn: (8 BB) J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, MP calls, Button folds.

River: (10 BB) 3[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, MP calls.

Final Pot: 12 BB

Re: Big pot with 88
 

sppppppewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

Re: Big pot with 88
 

[ QUOTE ]
sppppppewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you elaborate a bit?

Re: Big pot with 88
 

Sorry, volcano'd. It's just a matter of numbers... 4 opponents, JQx 2-tone board. If you are not beat, one person has many outs against you. You said they are also loose. The cold call should also worry you. If I don't fold the flop, I c/f the turn.

Re: Big pot with 88
 

I don't like your river bet. A worse hand isnt calling and a better hand isn't folding. He called 2 cold on the flop and just called the turn, I check and let him bluff his missed draw.

Re: Big pot with 88
 

I don't like the riverbet.
I'd check/fold unless you have some kind of read that this LP will bluff his missed draw sometimes.

Re: Big pot with 88
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, volcano'd. It's just a matter of numbers... 4 opponents, JQx 2-tone board. If you are not beat, one person has many outs against you. You said they are also loose. The cold call should also worry you. If I don't fold the flop, I c/f the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Button could be stabbing here. I am ahead of him a bunch. The cold call doesn't mean all that much to scare me either. He raised preflop, but didn't bet the flop? Then calls 2? I put him on AK, AT, or some flush draw. I guess I am beat here a bunch, but the pot is pretty big.

If you don't like this play... how big does the pot have to be before you do like it?

Re: Big pot with 88
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't like your river bet. A worse hand isnt calling and a better hand isn't folding. He called 2 cold on the flop and just called the turn, I check and let him bluff his missed draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that the river bet is a bit iffy. I was thinking he may make a crying call with AK or AT though. He had excellent calling skills. Inducing might be an idea, but he is so passive that I don't even think he knows what the word bluff means. If this guy was any more agro, I definetly woulda check/called the river.

Re: Big pot with 88
 

fold flop, check river

Re: Big pot with 88
 

I didn't think you posted reads. If he is super passive the only hand he's raising preflop that you beat is AK, would he raise AT if he is super passive, most wont.

I think he prolly has either AK or TT. Would he call 2 cold on the flop with just 2 overcards? I think TT is more likely in this case so I still just check the river.

Re: Big pot with 88
 

[ QUOTE ]

Button could be stabbing here. I am ahead of him a bunch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe but LPs rarely take stabs at many pots 5-handed. Especially when somebody raised preflop.

Re: Big pot with 88
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't like your river bet. A worse hand isnt calling and a better hand isn't folding. He called 2 cold on the flop and just called the turn, I check and let him bluff his missed draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

river bet is good. of course AK is calling

Re: Big pot with 88
 

oops didn't see MP was PFR. River bet is good because aces pay off and he's very likely to have AK/AT

Re: Big pot with 88
 

I agree with kurosh you are spewing. I dont liek the flop c/r with both the Q and the J. Make it only one of those its fine but not here.

After he calls your c/r and trun lead dont bet the river unless you have some kind of read that he likes to fold on the river.

Re: Big pot with 88
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with kurosh you are spewing. I dont liek the flop c/r with both the Q and the J. Make it only one of those its fine but not here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was planning on check/folding the flop, but when I saw button bet, I figured I could easily be ahead, and decided to try to win this big pot. With MP raising preflop, checking, and then cold calling, I figure there was no way he had a Q. After he only calls me on the turn when the jack pairs, I figure there is no way he has that either.

[ QUOTE ]
After he calls your c/r and trun lead dont bet the river unless you have some kind of read that he likes to fold on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

He could still be drawing, but too passive to fold his A. Having the read that he likes to fold on the river does not help me here. I need him to be calling as much as possible on the river. No way I am getting a better hand to fold. This is hopefully for value.

Re: Big pot with 88
 

Sorry ignore my advice I kind mis-read the hand and had you with only one villain who initally bet and kept calling you.

Re: Big pot with 88
 

Ewwwwwww. What, you putting the MP on AK, AT, or worse pairs?

Given the way he played post flop, I'm guess you lost to 99 or TT.

Re: Big pot with 88
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ewwwwwww. What, you putting the MP on AK, AT?

[/ QUOTE ]

Either that or as you say, 99 or TT. I think AK is most likely out of all.

[ QUOTE ]
Given the way he played post flop, I'm guess you lost to 99 or TT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, AK.

Re: Big pot with 88
 

For those of you who don't like my play, would anything change if I had 99 or TT?

For those of you that do like my play, would anything change if I had 22-77? What would you change if anything?

Re: Big pot with 88
 

[ QUOTE ]
For those of you who don't like my play, would anything change if I had 99 or TT?

For those of you that do like my play, would anything change if I had 22-77? What would you change if anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like TT much better. You beat more pairs (99/88 for example). It helps rule out AT as a holding since you hold two T's already, so you can make AK more likely.

In a nutshell, with TT you beat a significantly larger range of hands he could hold.

Re: Big pot with 88
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For those of you who don't like my play, would anything change if I had 99 or TT?

For those of you that do like my play, would anything change if I had 22-77? What would you change if anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like TT much better. You beat more pairs (99/88 for example). It helps rule out AT as a holding since you hold two T's already, so you can make AK more likely.

In a nutshell, with TT you beat a significantly larger range of hands he could hold.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, although the PPs are possible, I don't think they are that likely at all. Is this passive guy really raising preflop with 88,99? Is he then proceeding to check the flop, and then call two with two overcards? I guess we do beat a few more hands that are occasionally there, but if we have TT, it is far less likely he has AT, which is one of the hands we could of potentially extracted value from with our other PPs.

Hand ranges
 

That beat you:
99/TT = 12
AQ = 12
KQ = 12
36 hands

I don't see him holding anything with a J or he'd have raised on the turn. With passive players, I easily see them passively calling down top pair. AA/KK are out since he didn't raise the flop or turn.

Hands you beat:
AK = 16
AT = 16
77 = 12
40 hands you beat.

I don't see him calling 2 bets on the flop with 55 and lower given all 3 flop cards would be over his pair.

So, there's more hands you beat than beat you, but how many of those hands is going to call a river bet with? Frankly, I'm astounded he called with ace high. This is where a WTSD% is useful as a read. For those that only go to showdown 30%, I'm crediting them for a hand. For those at 50%, I feel better putting in a value bet at the end.

Re: Hand ranges
 

[ QUOTE ]
That beat you:
99/TT = 12
AQ = 12
KQ = 12
36 hands

Hands you beat:
AK = 16
AT = 16
77 = 12
40 hands you beat.


[/ QUOTE ]
Please do some reasonable weighting with these hands.

[ QUOTE ]
Frankly, I'm astounded he called with ace high.

[/ QUOTE ]

You shouldn't be. As I said, he was extremely passive.

Re: Hand ranges
 

[ QUOTE ]
Please do some reasonable weighting with these hands.


[/ QUOTE ]
They're already waited by the number of possibilities.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Frankly, I'm astounded he called with ace high.

[/ QUOTE ]

You shouldn't be. As I said, he was extremely passive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Passive != loose caller. My desire to bet the river depends on if he's weak-tight or weak-loose about seeing showdown.

Re: Hand ranges
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please do some reasonable weighting with these hands.


[/ QUOTE ]
They're already waited by the number of possibilities.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not good enough. You need to further weigh by the chance that he would play the given hand this way.

Re: Hand ranges
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please do some reasonable weighting with these hands.


[/ QUOTE ]
They're already waited by the number of possibilities.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not good enough. You need to further weigh by the chance that he would play the given hand this way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Give me a break, now you're just throwing roadblocks up to validate your play. Tweaking 99/TT to 8 hands vs 12 isn't a major adjustment.

That said, I wouldn't have had the balls, so nice hand.

Re: Hand ranges
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please do some reasonable weighting with these hands.


[/ QUOTE ]
They're already waited by the number of possibilities.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not good enough. You need to further weigh by the chance that he would play the given hand this way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Give me a break, now you're just throwing roadblocks up to validate your play. Tweaking 99/TT to 8 hands vs 12 isn't a major adjustment.

That said, I wouldn't have had the balls, so nice hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry for sounding harsh. I wasn't talking about the 99/TT tweak. My main problem I have with your listings of hands that beat me, and hands I beat is that they are not equally likely.

- AQ, although there are 12 combos, must be SIGNIFICANTLY decreased for not betting the flop, nor showing any agression. I would weigh this down to maybe 2 combos.

- AK, this needs to be weighted a bit since not everyone, even if passive, will cold call two on the flop, then call all the way down. Enough of the time they do, so I will give this a maybe 60% weight, so instead of 16 combos, around 10.

- Underpairs to the J. These need to be weighted a bunch too. Is he really checking the flop, and then calling two? Then calling down the rest? Yeah, it could happen, but I would drop this down to around 20% or so, so instead of 12 combos of 99/TT, only around 2 or 3.

You may disagree with my weights, which is fine. But you must remember when counting combos, that you have to see how likely it is that they play a hand in that particular fashion.

Re: Big pot with 88
 

In a pot this big with this many players I think you're looking at a textbook situation of reverse implied odds. You're hoping he has AT or AK and can't put you to the test with either of them (you'll be wrong if you're guessing that at 10/20+), which each have not only 10 outs twice against you, but considerable folding equity should they choose to exploit it. Add that to the fact that a LP bet a QJ6 flop after coldcalling preflop and you're drawing to 2 outs far more than you're ahead, and you're praying to god the entire field doesn't catch up more often than you'd like.

Once you get to the river it's a solid bet, but I'm really sold on a flop checkfold here. It's multiway, you're not best often, and when you are you won't be by the river very often at all.

Rob

Re: Hand ranges
 

[ QUOTE ]
You may disagree with my weights, which is fine. But you must remember when counting combos, that you have to see how likely it is that they play a hand in that particular fashion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but combos don't just vanish. If the hero had a range of X hands preflop, you can narrow down holds, but you can't remove really remove combos.

He had 16 ways to hold AK preflop. If you only weight that at 10 post flop, what happened to the other 6 combos? That "weight" has to be given to some other hand he could have held.

I don't really recall seen any examples in books in hands are weighted in the fashion you're saying. The examples just start with a range of X hands, then start removing hands and weight based on the combos of the hands that are left.

It's somewhat inherently weighted. You give 100% to AK, and 0% to 55. 55 isn't 0%, but AK isn't 100% either. As long as both hands are in the same category (e.g. you win), shuffling a few % here and there between them isn't statistically useful.

Re: Hand ranges
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You may disagree with my weights, which is fine. But you must remember when counting combos, that you have to see how likely it is that they play a hand in that particular fashion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but combos don't just vanish. If the hero had a range of X hands preflop, you can narrow down holds, but you can't remove really remove combos.

He had 16 ways to hold AK preflop. If you only weight that at 10 post flop, what happened to the other 6 combos? That "weight" has to be given to some other hand he could have held.

I don't really recall seen any examples in books in hands are weighted in the fashion you're saying. The examples just start with a range of X hands, then start removing hands and weight based on the combos of the hands that are left.

It's somewhat inherently weighted. You give 100% to AK, and 0% to 55. 55 isn't 0%, but AK isn't 100% either. As long as both hands are in the same category (e.g. you win), shuffling a few % here and there between them isn't statistically useful.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the inherant weighting of possible combos is not enough. Most of the time we do give 0% or 100% to our combos, but that is incomplete. When you are able to, you really should do further weighting. The combos "vanish", because we are assuming that since he only plays this way say a certain percentage of the time, he folds these hands, and therefore they don't exist as combos.

Sorry if I can't really explain this well. StellarWind made a good post about how to do this.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showth...page=0&amp;vc=1

Re: Hand ranges
 

[ QUOTE ]
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showth...page=0&amp;vc=1

[/ QUOTE ]

As a detailed post analysis, I certainly agree.

In the 15 seconds I have to do hand analysis during a play, I simply make lumps of hands. Most are usually divisible by four, so I simplify the lumps further. AK = 4, TT = 3.

If those are the only 2 hands, it's roughly 60% likely I'm ahead...

Re: Hand ranges
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showth...page=0&amp;vc=1

[/ QUOTE ]

As a detailed post analysis, I certainly agree.

In the 15 seconds I have to do hand analysis during a play, I simply make lumps of hands. Most are usually divisible by four, so I simplify the lumps further. AK = 4, TT = 3.

If those are the only 2 hands, it's roughly 60% likely I'm ahead...

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess we disagree on the playing habits of our opponents then. Lets just assume for the sake of simplicity that there are 12 combos of AK, and 12 combos of PP. I cannot, and will not say that these two holdings are equally plausable. In this hand, I think he would play AK at least twice as often as the PP here.

Although using 100% is fine, if you are able to drop the possibility of something, it really can be helpful for getting a more correct analysis. Using 25%, 50%, 75%, 100% is perfectly fine, and way more accurate then saying "He could have 22, so 6 combos, he couldn't have 33, so 0 combos", when in reality, he only has 22 50% of the time, and has 33 10% of the time.

Re: Big pot with 88
 

It looks like [censored] on the surface but it's not too bad. I don't know if I have the balls to fire the turn bet. Good river bet. If you don't take into account postflop play when you weight combos of hands you should.

Krishan

Re: Big pot with 88
 

What are your weightings for their likely hands? If you figure you are ahead of MP who has AK/AT, on the turn he has a minimum of 13 outs to beat you, and possibly more if he has flush cards. He could already be ahead of you with 99/TT. You could even throw in a bit of a possibility of JJ/QQ trying to slowplay or AJ who is scared of the Q.

There is also button who may have a weak Q, or 99/TT, or just made his trips - none of those are going anywhere in most cases. He could also have a flush draw or straight draw which has a ton of outs against you. Unless he bet the flop with complete air (which is unlikely for an LP), or a 6, I highly doubt he will fold the turn in most cases.

I don't mind the river bet, but the turn bet is really spewing IMO. I'm not a huge fan of the flop C/R either.

Re: Big pot with 88
 

[ QUOTE ]
What are your weightings for their likely hands? If you figure you are ahead of MP who has AK/AT, on the turn he has a minimum of 13 outs to beat you, and possibly more if he has flush cards.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't mind that he has a ton of outs, the pot is huge, and unless he tells me otherwise, I am staying in.


[ QUOTE ]
He could already be ahead of you with 99/TT.

[/ QUOTE ]
I already have discussed these, and I don't think they are very likely given the flop action. Maybe he plays these hands like this 20% of the time?

[ QUOTE ]
You could even throw in a bit of a possibility of JJ/QQ trying to slowplay

[/ QUOTE ]
I doubt he is slowplaying past the turn, but I guess it is possible. There are 4 combos total, and I weigh him playing like this less than 25%, so call it 1 combo.

[ QUOTE ]
or AJ who is scared of the Q.

[/ QUOTE ]
On the flop, this is likely, once we reach the turn, and he doesn't raise, far, far less likely.

[ QUOTE ]
There is also button who may have a weak Q, or 99/TT, or just made his trips - none of those are going anywhere in most cases. He could also have a flush draw or straight draw which has a ton of outs against you. Unless he bet the flop with complete air (which is unlikely for an LP), or a 6, I highly doubt he will fold the turn in most cases.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are right, the button is my main cause for concern. I am hoping he bet with air or a flush draw, which he may do a reasonable amount of the time. He may be passive, but the pot is big, and noone has shown interest on the flop.

Re: Big pot with 88
 

I agree with most of what you said. Given the turn action, I think the river bet is not bad at all.

Sure the turn bet will work out sometimes, as it did in this case, but I really think it has to be significantly -EV. I think that Button alone is ahead of you close to 50% of the time if not more, and add that to MP's piles of outs, you are in trouble.

Re: Big pot with 88
 

[ QUOTE ]

Sure the turn bet will work out sometimes, as it did in this case, but I really think it has to be significantly -EV. I think that Button alone is ahead of you close to 50% of the time if not more, and add that to MP's piles of outs, you are in trouble.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am picking at things you may not have intended here, but if the button is ahead of me 50% of the time, he takes roughly 4 BB out of the 8 BB pot. Throw in MPs 10 outs, and he takes 20% of the times I was actually ahead, so I still have about 3 whole BB of equity. I am paying 1 BB on the turn, and often when I am behind, I will hear about it. The times they don't let me know, I may pay another BB on the river, but by that point my equity has shot up.

You can tweak the numbers, but this pot is pretty big, and investing 1 BB in a 8 BB pot may not so be bad.

Re: Big pot with 88
 

[ QUOTE ]
sppppppewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

[/ QUOTE ]

check folding the flop would be best. It is a large multiway pot with a q and j on the board. If any of these loose passives have a piece they are not folding. If they have a straight draw with 2 overs your equity isn't taht high either.