Question in Ciaffone\'s PL and NL book
 

I'm not positive if this has been posted here before, but I'm guessing it has; I want to come back to it briefly.

All important characters have "about a grand". You have 2 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 2 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] in the BB. It's a full table, and it's a 6-way unraised pot.

Flop comes 8 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 5 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 2 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. Pot = 60.

SB leads for 60, you coldcall, 2 folds to "sound player" who limped in MP after one limper who raises to 170. Everyone, including SB fold to you.

Ciaffone strongly recommends a fold here. The argument he makes is that JJ-AA is raising preflop. 99-TT is raising more on the flop to shut out draws. And two pair is "remote".

No one here would fold here right? I almost can't even imagine folding this on the flop to a super nit. Is there anyone you can think of who'd you honestly fold this to one raise?

Edited to add: If this were a super nit, what is your plan for the hand?

Second edit to add: If the reasoning to raise so much with 99-TT is to knock out draws, wouldn't a set be more likely to do that since it will be more top heavy if a straight hits?

This question reeks of "look at what a good fold I made" instead of a constructive breakdown of a hand.

Re: Question in Ciaffone\'s PL and NL book
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not positive if this has been posted here before, but I'm guessing it has; I want to come back to it briefly.

All important characters have "about a grand". You have 2 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 2 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] in the BB. It's a full table, and it's a 6-way unraised pot.

Flop comes 8 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 5 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 2 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. Pot = 60.

SB leads for 60, you coldcall, 2 folds to "sound player" who limped in MP after one limper who raises to 170. Everyone, including SB fold to you.

Ciaffone strongly recommends a fold here. The argument he makes is that JJ-AA is raising preflop. 99-TT is raising more on the flop to shut out draws. And two pair is "remote".

No one here would fold here right? I almost can't even imagine folding this on the flop to a super nit. Is there anyone you can think of who'd you honestly fold this to one raise?

Edite to add: If this were a super nit, what is your plan for the hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know the date of the publication, but my guess is that these days people tend to bluff oesd more often now than they did when this book came out.

Re: Question in Ciaffone\'s PL and NL book
 

97.

Re: Question in Ciaffone\'s PL and NL book
 

[ QUOTE ]
97.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then yeah, definitely more semi-bluffing these days. I know because when I was 13, me and my friends never really got that aggressive with draws.

Re: Question in Ciaffone\'s PL and NL book
 

If we take "sound" to mean "nit" can we assume that they won't be raising a draw here?

Re: Question in Ciaffone\'s PL and NL book
 

[ QUOTE ]
If we take "sound" to mean "nit" can we assume that they won't be raising a draw here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. But we can also assume that it's possible they don't like raising with TT or JJ because "overcards always come." If they're really a nit, you can put some more $$$ in there and then comfortably fold to an all-in

Re: Question in Ciaffone\'s PL and NL book
 

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I'm glad we had this talk.

Re: Question in Ciaffone\'s PL and NL book
 

[ QUOTE ]
"97"

Then yeah, definitely more semi-bluffing these days. I know because when I was 13, me and my friends never really got that aggressive with draws.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could see folding bottom set here back in 1997, but only because I would have been too stoned back then to realize I flopped a set anyways.

Re: Question in Ciaffone\'s PL and NL book
 

[ QUOTE ]
I could see folding bottom set here back in 1997, but only because I would have been too stoned back then to realize I flopped a set anyways.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the sets they have today are WAY stronger than they were back in '97, so it all makes sense.

Re: Question in Ciaffone\'s PL and NL book
 

6 max, I just find it hard to fold. Myabe it's cause we're more aggressive now days. But I think you see 99-TT oesd and enough to call and ck raise all in on turn, or lead turn. Now if the stacks were bigger, then I would play it differently. But for 100 bb's I find this hard to fold in 6 max.

Re: Question in Ciaffone\'s PL and NL book
 

Not 6 max. Just 6 to the flop. Full ring.

Re: Question in Ciaffone\'s PL and NL book
 

[ QUOTE ]
Not 6 max. Just 6 to the flop. Full ring.

[/ QUOTE ]
ahhh, I'm an idiot, (been drinking) hmmmm, then I find a fold more often, but still, I get in with this more than fold.

Re: Question in Ciaffone\'s PL and NL book
 

against thinking opponents all you can beat is a bluff

also, the important concept herein is that if you call your entire stack is at risk, with that raise your opponent is making you decide if your hand is worth your stack, while if hes bluffing not another cent enters the pot

just a piece of advice, next time you REALLY want to learn something about this great book, dont respond so forcefully when someone reinforces your preconcieved notions, let the discussion grow naturally, this thread closely resembles a dialogue of theoretical masturbation

Re: Question in Ciaffone\'s PL and NL book
 

[ QUOTE ]
just a piece of advice, next time you REALLY want to learn something about this great book, dont respond so forcefully when someone reinforces your preconcieved notions, let the discussion grow naturally, this thread closely resembles a dialogue of theoretical masturbation

[/ QUOTE ]

Little hostile. It is a great book, note I put one question up for discussion not the grounding of the entire book.

I don't believe I responded that forcefully. I was surprised someone would advocate so strongly a fold with such a strong hand to just one raise. I don't understand why you have to commit your entire stack if you call. Why can't you re-evaluate on the turn. Does the villain bet the turn here 100% of the time as you make it sound? I don't believe so. That is just the point I'm trying to make. A thinking opponent can make this raise with a wide range depending on hero's previous actions. I've done it with nothing to make it look like I have a set (case and point, it was against Fslexcduck when she had a set [oops!] and she strongly believed she was going to stack me).

Anyway, I'm not sure what 'preconceived notion' Ciaffone reinforced. How do I let the discussion grow IF I DON'T POST.

Your response is inane.

I like theory. And I like masturbation. Why not put the two together?

Re: Question in Ciaffone\'s PL and NL book
 

hmm how can i be clear, memorable, and yet also less inane...how about this

it would be a vast overstatement to say you understand the basic concepts in the text

a random case hand with duck doesnt address the issues or provide any sort of compeling argument

btwthefuckcanyoureevaluateontheturninthatbigofapot withaset!!?!?

Re: Question in Ciaffone\'s PL and NL book
 

Pot is 350. It's 110 to call. You'll have 830 behind after you call. Are you serious? If you're so sure you're beat why not call then lead any turn for 1/2-3/4 pot, then if he pushes you can fold. You really think this is that cut and dry huh? I'm not saying it's an easy spot to stack yourself. I'm just saying it's not an *easy* fold.

Oh, also, there's a piece of sand in your vagina. I'd advise to remove it immediately before it becomes infected.

Re: Question in Ciaffone\'s PL and NL book
 

[ QUOTE ]
Pot is 350. It's 110 to call. You'll have 830 behind after you call. Are you serious? If you're so sure you're beat why not call then lead any turn for 1/2-3/4 pot, then if he pushes you can fold. You really think this is that cut and dry huh? I'm not saying it's an easy spot to stack yourself. I'm just saying it's not an *easy* fold.

Oh, also, there's a piece of sand in your vagina. I'd advise to remove it immediately before it becomes infected.

[/ QUOTE ]

you have a tilt problem, perhaps if you requested coaching services from Bob he could help you deal with this issue

happy holidays to you sir

Re: Question in Ciaffone\'s PL and NL book
 

I have 50 more posts than you.

Re: Question in Ciaffone\'s PL and NL book
 

actually tommy would probably be more helpful

glad i caught that oversight!

oh btw, im also almost postive tommy also can help you with your insecurity issue! its a twofer!

best wishes

Re: Question in Ciaffone\'s PL and NL book
 

thats tommy angelo of tommyangelo.com

just in case, ya know, you thought i meant some other tommy

so to wrap up, glad i could help, dont even mention it, im sure youll hit me back sometime

holiday season and all

Re: Question in Ciaffone\'s PL and NL book
 

You were supposed to leave after the first last post. Coming back for a second swipe just makes you look petty.

Re: Question in Ciaffone\'s PL and NL book
 

[ QUOTE ]

I like theory. And I like masturbation. Why not put the two together?

[/ QUOTE ]

QOTD

Re: Question in Ciaffone\'s PL and NL book
 

[ QUOTE ]

just a piece of advice, next time you REALLY want to learn something about this great book, dont respond so forcefully when someone reinforces your preconcieved notions, let the discussion grow naturally, this thread closely resembles a dialogue of theoretical masturbation

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

it would be a vast overstatement to say you understand the basic concepts in the text

[/ QUOTE ]

And from my flush thread:
[ QUOTE ]
as much as i dislike your treatment of people who pointed out that AA is in fact a set in this hand, and other assorted issues i have with your posting

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only are you a jackass, but apparently you're a hypocritical jackass. Attacking chaostracize for no apparent reason with very personal comments about his intelligence when he hasn't been out of line is lame as hell. Maybe you're not a hypocrite though, and I should have interpreted your "issues" you had with my posts as being that I wasn't as hostile as you would prefer.