$200 SNG - I got reamed for this river bet - was it that bad?

[pooh74]

Nice post limpin...

I think Terp, if there is something to said concisely about your play on the river it is this....Most of the time (perhaps not this time) you will have nothing to gain and a lot to lose by that sort of play...iow, if youre beat youll lose (in addition to the pot already at play) your raise and maybe a reraise...if youre ahead, villain will fold to your raise. Thats why, if it at all, its a questionable play...the fact the HE questioned it is the funny part.

[Big Limpin']

[ QUOTE ]
I think I'd have lost him with a turn bet. Agree?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have trouble grasping his thoughts on calling your river bet. What does he beat? You raised p/f. At 25-50. He cant put you on lower pair (pocket <88 or 2nd/3rd button on board). But, he seemed to put a reasonable value on his hand. So, i doubt we can say with any certainty what he would do if you bet turn.

A turn bet, the board would only have ONE king, so a pair seems more likely, you know? Yeah, i think you could have got him to drop on the turn.

He called 250 raise on river. I think the turn bet would have to be that size or bigger to make him drop it. IMO.

But heres a question: You bet half-pot (or so) on turn, which he calls. River is the same 2nd king. Whether he checks or bets his little 50 bet, are you pulling the river raise again here? Or just shut it down?

[UMTerp]

[ QUOTE ]
But heres a question: You bet half-pot (or so) on turn, which he calls. River is the same 2nd king. Whether he checks or bets his little 50 bet, are you pulling the river raise again here? Or just shut it down?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's almost no chance it'd have come to that if I bet half the pot on the turn. He'd have either check-raised me all-in or (more likely) folded. He's not dumb enough too call off what would presumably be his whole stack with 99 in that spot. I'd have laid down to a turn check-raise all-in, which was why I didn't bet that street. And I'd have definitely checked behind on the river on the off-chance it played out like that. The river king was actually one of the better cards (psychologically) in the deck for me.

[alexbrew]

While everyone agrees this isn't a "standard" play, and shouldn't be done regularly, there's two more reasons I think it's ok on occasion.

1) It keeps another player from controlling you at the table. If you're going to call when they want a call, and check when they want a check, you're going to fight an uphill battle to get their chips.

2) It's a good long term "this guy's a loose fish at the table," if people take notes on this one play and ignore the 98% of the time you call down the iffy play and raise the monsters. PS $225 is a small enough pool to believe this might have value.

[SpeakEasy]

First, I wouldn't play "turbo". What, normal single-table SNG too slow? In my opinion, the "turbo" game injects too much luck, significantly reduces strategy, and is a transparent way to churn the rake for SNGs. But that's just me, and irrelevant to the hand.

I would have raised on the flop to define the hand. This probably would have shut things down there -- likely he would either re-raise or fold.

As played, in the river I just call, not raise. Generally, I think this raise is a bad move. I would completely ignore his rant. He's trying to condition you for future play. Just turn the chat off.

[UMTerp]

[ QUOTE ]
First, I wouldn't play "turbo". What, normal single-table SNG too slow? In my opinion, the "turbo" game injects too much luck, significantly reduces strategy, and is a transparent way to churn the rake for SNGs. But that's just me, and irrelevant to the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to have to disagree about the Turbos, particularly at the lower levels. You may have a point once you get to $100 and above buy-ins, since the vast majority of the players at those levels are very competent, and it often does turn into a crapshoot. At the $50/$55 and below level, I without a doubt prefer the Turbos though, for a number of reasons (this could probably be it's own thread too):

First of all, the rake is lower, though I understand the point you were trying to make. It's 50% lower for the "10's" ($15's), 25% lower for the $20's, and 10% lower for the $50's.

I think my ROI could be slight ly higher if I played the "regular" SNGs instead of the Turbos, but as far as hourly rate, I don't think it's even close. A Turbo generally takes about 60%-70% as long as a normal one, so unless you think you could increase your ROI by 50%+ playing the regular ones, Turbo has the edge there.

And now the two main reasons:

1. I genereally 8-table the Turbo SNGs, which causes me to play a little more mechanical than optimally. Again, my ROI could be higher if I played less tables, but I'm more concerned about hourly. I can pound out 8 Turbos in about 45 minutes from start of the first one to end of the 8th one. Longer levels would force me to "play poker" a little more at the early levels, which although I'm fully capable of, it's not the highest EV for me. I'd rather just survive the first few levels of these, playing premium hands only, and letting 2 or 3 people knock themselves out in the first 15 minutes, which happens almost every tournament. Which brings me to my second (and more important IMO) consideration for playing the Turbos:

2. I believe I'm a little more mathematically-inclined than the majority of the players playing these, even at the higher levels, and once the blinds get high enough, it really is a math game. Push or fold. Players at the lower levels tend to fold way too often, and it's also not uncommon to have several players at the table limp in and fold to a raise even when the blinds are at 150-300 or 200-400. This is TERRIBLE play, and play that can easily be exploited for profit without much thinking on my part. To take a term from a thread Sklansky started a few weeks ago, I "shoot my free throws" better than the vast majority of the players in these things. And in the Turbos, I reach the point where I can use this skill to my advantage more quickly than in the regular SNGs.

I could see where a player with different strengths might prefer the longer SNGs with more play at lower blinds, but that's not for me, at least not while I'm running 8 games.

[PE101]

You're much more patient than I am:
[ QUOTE ]
He called, tabled 99, and told me for about 5 minutes how dumb the river bet was.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would have diabled his chat long before that.

Nice play.

[B00T]

Nice post on your reasoning of Turbos. I always preferred them as well but couldnt really think or explain why. That summed it up well for me and gives me some reinforcement. Thanks for that post.

[The once and future king]

Hassan just has a massively inflated opinion of his own abilty and likes to play table captain and give lectures, especaily after he loses a hand.

[Graham]

Pretty clear Hassan has a medium pair here. He shoulda followed up on the turn for a few hundred imo. Risking chips but you've not shown heat on teh flop.

I'da just called his river bet.

Hassan likes to think you don't play well unless you play/think like him. He does a lot of hand chatting at teh tables.