97s.
 

Usually give up by turn, but not on this flop. No read on opponent.. only current read on hand.

-----
PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $2 BB (9 handed)

Hero ($201.75)
SB ($258.10)
BB ($175.85)
UTG ($247.40)
UTG+1 ($232.60)
MP1 ($298.15)
MP2 ($107.15)
MP3 ($97.45)
CO ($174)

Preflop: Hero is Button with 9[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 7[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img].
<font color="#666666">4 folds</font>, MP3 calls $2, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises to $10</font>, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, BB calls $8, MP3 calls $8.

Flop: ($31) T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 5[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
BB checks, MP3 checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets $16</font>, BB folds, MP3 calls $16.

Turn: ($63) Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
MP3 checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets $72</font>
-----

Vhat do we think?

Re: 97s.
 

chip donation

Re: 97s.
 

Donate some logic please.

Re: 97s.
 

Plan for him calling the turn and checking the river (assume he still checks if a heart or diamond falls)?

Also I've never totally understood overbets, is this a good place to overbet and why?

Re: 97s.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Plan for him calling the turn and checking the river (assume he still checks if a heart or diamond falls)?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am putting him all in. Please read stack sizes.


[ QUOTE ]
Also I've never totally understood overbets, is this a good place to overbet and why?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what we're trying to figure out.

Re: 97s.
 

I'm not a fan of naked bluffs when you have "no read on opponent."

Re: 97s.
 

Uhh, he folds a flush draw...

Your turn bet makes zero sense at all to me. Usually when someone does this to me I'm just like WTF and say whatever and fold. I guess that's what you were hoping for but I'm not most people.

Re: 97s.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your turn bet makes zero sense at all to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think my opponent might fold a draw or a better hand than I. What if I really had Aces here?

Re: 97s.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your turn bet makes zero sense at all to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think my opponent might fold a draw or a better hand than I. What if I really had Aces here?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you play aces that way.

Re: 97s.
 

These games are so easy to beat without this kind of thing that its uncalled for IMO. They will often put all their money in here with A 10 or something similar, so just wait for the goods and save yourself the trouble.

Re: 97s.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you play aces that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do. And sets.

Re: 97s.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your turn bet makes zero sense at all to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think my opponent might fold a draw or a better hand than I. What if I really had Aces here?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you play aces that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

And even if you did, bluffing shorties willing to gamble sucks.

Re: 97s.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you play aces that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do. And sets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough.
Shorties often play top pair this way:
Call. Call. Call.

Re: 97s.
 

[ QUOTE ]
And even if you did, bluffing shorties willing to gamble sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would that suck?


[ QUOTE ]
Fair enough.
Shorties often play top pair this way:
Call. Call. Call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, and they often fold them once TP becomes not TP on a Queen turn. So far we have:

-chip donation (the logic is excellent)
-we need a plan for his river move (he'd be all in if he called)
-he folds a flush draw (that's what we want, please fold)
-i probably dont play aces this way (oh, but i do!)
-bluffing short stacks, who are willing to gamble, when you have aces really sucks (this whole winning money thing sucks)

Nobody has a problem with my pansy ass flop bet?

I guess this hand just sucks. I'm tired. He hemmed and hawed, then made some weird type of crying call with 63d. He wins.

Re: 97s.
 

Preflop raise is fine but I dont like the flop bet into 2 opponents, IF you want to bet, bet at least 3/4 pot. Your 1/2 pot bet that get called doesnt say anything. Can be a draw, set, 2 overs, air. Anything.

As played I check behind on the turn without a read. There are a lot of scare cards that can come on the river. If one of them comes and he checks again I might fire a barrel.

Re: 97s.
 

[ QUOTE ]
As played I check behind on the turn without a read. There are a lot of scare cards that can come on the river. If one of them comes and he checks again I might fire a barrel.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I would've potted the flop, yeah, most likely check behind. But for some reason I bet super weak and I think this convinced me he was weak as well.

About the scare cards.. well, one just came on the turn, shouldn't that be my chance to push out the draws and maybe a T by representing a Queen or my overpair.

There are 9 hearts, which is what I'm sure I had him on, and I don't want to give a free card to anything. I also think that's a great way to get snapped off on the river by something stubborn. I can't tell you how many notes I've made that say, "Can trap him for big bet later by slowplaying previous streets."

Re: 97s.
 

How often are you betting this flop?

-SmileyEH

Re: 97s.
 

Frequently. Lots of hands that limp-call are missing here.

Re: 97s.
 

Why bet so little on the flop? Not a good spot for a weak flop bet whatsoever. I think I just bet more on the flop and give up if he calls. If he calls a bigger bet on the flop, he isn't going away with whatever he has often enough to warrant firing the second barrel, especially given his stack size. Your play looks like a set, but I'm not sure you are going to convince him often enough. Then again, I wouldn't make the weak bet with a set here either.

Re: 97s.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Frequently. Lots of hands that limp-call are missing here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I like the flop bet. But I make it 2/3 the pot. It should get them to fold and it's cheaper than firing the second barrel into the shortstack with no reads.

Re: 97s.
 

I like 20 on the flop for 2 reasons. It might make him fold a little bit more. If you decide to push the turn it is closer to a pot size bet and doesn't look as weird.

On the turn I can't really say, but I have found against lots of short stacks they are more willing to call off a pot-sized all in on just a flush draw. 50bb isn't super duper short so this may not be the case for this guy, but I definetly see fishier stuff when they are calling off their case chips with a short stack.

Re: 97s.
 

he has to fold 68% of the time for this to break even

given that you cant even beat 90% of flush draws w/9-high, i dont see how this is profitable at all

there are now 2 flush draws possible, hes short stacked, and he has to fold 68% of the time or more

Re: 97s.
 

[ QUOTE ]
he has to fold 68% of the time for this to break even

given that you cant even beat 90% of flush draws w/9-high, i dont see how this is profitable at all

there are now 2 flush draws possible, hes short stacked, and he has to fold 68% of the time or more

[/ QUOTE ]

furthermore I think a short-stack opponent is calling w/ any pair here.

Re: 97s.
 

The results completely validate my previous post. This is not complicated- there is no benefit to this play in this game including meta, they pay off anyway so there is no point

Re: 97s.
 

also, at this level, saying you would play Aces or sets like this really means nothing. you dont have Aces, you dont have a set, you have 9-high. i dont know about you, but i dont like depending on my opponents to fold for me to make money, i like depending on my opponents to call.

especially short stacks. i mean, i think this would be great if you had aces/set (though bet more on the flop of course). but you dont! pick better people to bluff against, bigger stacks, where you might have more fold equity, and on a different board.

Re: 97s.
 

skeme, i play the stars 200 with you and these players aren't usually thinking about how you usually play sets and AA, espically the ones that don't have the sense to rebuy to a ful l stack, so that arguement goes out the window. Arguing that this is how you play your AA and sets is worthless when the opponent isn't paying attention to that. Most opponents AND DEFINATELY SHORT STACKS, are just looking at their hand, the board, and how much you've bet. There is no real meta game at 200nl.

Regards,
Crosse

Re: 97s.
 

sry, cant win every pot

Re: 97s.
 

I don't see what's wrong with this play. This guy hasn't done anything to assume that he has anything but a flush draw. Even if you lose this hand, it's not a huge pot and your advertising value is high. And I think your fold equity is high enough here that you win the pot often. Maybe I'd pot this turn instead of putting him all in, because people seem to like calling all ins because people feel like their masculinity is challenged if they are put all in.

Re: 97s.
 

if called, it is 110bb pot. Thats of decent size. And as previously stated, there's not much advertising value here.

also, most hate to put their whole stack in the middle, not eager to b/c their being challenged.

Re: 97s.
 

[ QUOTE ]
given that you cant even beat 90% of flush draws w/9-high, i dont see how this is profitable at all

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why it is a bluff. I can't beat anything that calls.


[ QUOTE ]
The results completely validate my previous post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah they didn't. Way to be results oriented, though. If I post a hand where I get Kings to fold on a flop, do you take back what you said and admit to being wrong? Of course not.


[ QUOTE ]
also, at this level, saying you would play Aces or sets like this really means nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Arguing that this is how you play your AA and sets is worthless when the opponent isn't paying attention to that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't arguing about how I play sets and AA like this or trying to justify anything.. someone said they don't think I play my Aces this way and I said I do. I didn't bring it up previously or touch it again afgter.


[ QUOTE ]
There is no real meta game at 200nl.

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree. I've had several players label me a maniac in the chat box because I raise their button all the time. I've also appeared to be tilting and gotten a decent big stack to push over 200BBs into me with KJo after I limp-reraised to $50 from UTG. But yeah, it's not huge.. I wasn't TRYING to get called and win it back later with my horrible image.


[ QUOTE ]
And as previously stated, there's not much advertising value here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that I even want this, I want a fold immediately, but how is there not advertising value? You don't think they'll see me bluff and think I suck? If anything, a good player wouldn't fall for this, but bad ones will. Bad players think calling 3xBB preflop with 22 is a fishy play.

Re: 97s.
 

i'm saying that there's not enough advertising value here to make it a key factor or even a benefit one should consider when playing the hand.

"Bad players think calling 3xBB a fishy play"
hopefully this isn't a dig at me....

Re: 97s.
 

[ QUOTE ]


That's why it is a bluff. I can't beat anything that calls.



[/ QUOTE ]

yea, which is even more important because its a stone cold pure bluff that needs the opponent to fold 68% of the time to break even. break. even.

Re: 97s.
 

You just invested $88 with zero pot equity. Plays like these are collosal leaks, even though we all make them from time to time.

Re: 97s.
 

[ QUOTE ]
No read on opponent

[/ QUOTE ]

if you have no read there is very little value in bluffing (even on a board where he "may" have missed).

i would continue frequently raising these types of hands from the button, but, as drawing hands looking to build a pot with position. stab for $24 on the flop if you want, then give up. although the action you will get when you do hit the flop will make up for all the times you just check behind on flop (so i don't mind just checking behind on the flop and giving up).

did any of this make sense?

Re: 97s.
 

w/o reads that MP3 is loose passive pf and then weak on flop I just call here pf.

If ur going to bluff this flop u gotta pot it.
I recommend you just check/fold here though.

Given ur flop play I have no idea what u are trying to represent on the turn. If I bluff here I would do a post oak bluff if checked to on river. But this whole hand looks like one big dark tunnel bluff to me.

Re: 97s.
 

[ QUOTE ]
hopefully this isn't a dig at me....

[/ QUOTE ]

How in God's name is this a shot at you? lol.


[ QUOTE ]
Plays like these are collosal leaks, even though we all make them from time to time.


[/ QUOTE ]

I never do these. I would say 99% of the time here I have the nuts or very close to it. Figured opponent was weak, went with my read, and bet. I don't frequently jam all in blindly like this. :-/

Re: 97s.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


That's why it is a bluff. I can't beat anything that calls.



[/ QUOTE ]

yea, which is even more important because its a stone cold pure bluff that needs the opponent to fold 68% of the time to break even. break. even.

[/ QUOTE ]

risking $72 to win a $63 pot... my gorilla math puts this at 53% to break even.

Will he fold that often? If not, i think it's close, and you definately make up the difference in metagame. Saying noone pays attention is wrong... even at 25NL tables people notice when you bluff all in with 9 high.

Re: 97s.
 

Looks ok, but I'd bet a little more on flop. 2/3 I think is a slightly better amount. Turn looks good.

Re: 97s.
 

[ QUOTE ]



risking $72 to win a $63 pot... my gorilla math puts this at 53% to break even.


[/ QUOTE ]

63x - 135(1-x) = 0

63x - 135 + 135x = 0

198x = 135

x = .68

am i doing this right?

edit: wait i see my mistake, man im dumb. not losing 135, losing 72 ....gorilla math wins

Re: 97s.
 

[ QUOTE ]

How in God's name is this a shot at you? lol.


[/ QUOTE ]

not a clue. i was just confused.