Stuff I do that I don't like

[KingOtter]

[ QUOTE ]
The turn bet is fine. It would be very marginal if you had xx, but since you actually have something you'd be happy to show down, I don't know why you see this as a leak.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was the coordinated board, honestly. If it were 47Q rainbow, and I had the 7 and it checked through the first round I could see betting, because it has a better chance of taking the pot right there.

But on the turn I'm not folding anyone drawing. And unless the people in the pot are aggressive an 8 or 9 probably isn't betting. So I can't take the flop check-through as 'nobody hit'. It means 'nobody aggressive hit'.

The turn is 1BB to win 1.5BB, so I have to be good 33% of the time. Because the board is higher than middle range (789), the chances of someone having one of those cards is higher than if it had been something like 456. And the chances that it made 4 to a straight for a normal limping hand (like AT, KT) increases, too.

Maybe that's where my thinking diverges from everyone else in the thread. My idea of the bet wasn't 'hey, I think my hand is best' it was made with the intent of taking the pot right there. And the chances of that are slim, due to the nature of the board. So it was ill-advised for that reason.

The flop check-through wasn't enough to convince me that I had the best hand, either. A passive 8 or 9, or a slow-playing top pair (I'm pretty tired of KK being limped, me spiking a Q on the flop and losing 2-3BB). This may sound like MUBS, but lately the monsters have been very prevalent, and slowplaying top-pairs and monster flops is the new black.

KO

[jrz1972]

[ QUOTE ]
But on the turn I'm not folding anyone drawing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe. But so what? You're ahead of any draw, which makes your bet a good value bet against those hands.

Edit: Also, an opponent on a draw is only getting 2.5:1 on a call. Depending on exactly how many outs he has, he may very well be making a mistake to call. You're definitely making a mistake if you let him draw for free.

[KingOtter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But on the turn I'm not folding anyone drawing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe. But so what? You're ahead of any draw, which makes your bet a good value bet against those hands.

Edit: Also, an opponent on a draw is only getting 2.5:1 on a call. Depending on exactly how many outs he has, he may very well be making a mistake to call. You're definitely making a mistake if you let him draw for free.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the check-through wasn't enough to tell me I'm ahead. I can see a passive 8 or 9 checking through.

It seems at 1/2, and even much more so lately, when I make a stab at things like this I get creamed by a big pair, or the flopped straight that didn't bet.

So I'm not putting as much stock in checked-through flops as I used to...

KO

[jrz1972]

There's something in psychology called the "availability heuristic." What it means is that people tend to over-estimate the occurance of memorable events while downplaying the occurance of routine, non-memorable events.

I think you may be running into this in these situations. When you bet the turn and lose to KK or a flopped straight, you think "wtf?!" and remember that event. On the other hand, when you pick up the pot you never give this hand a second thought and you've completely forgotten about an orbit later.

I think you pick this up uncontested far, far more often than you run into a trickily played overpair, a slowplayed straight, or a misplayed top pair. It's just that you remember the later cases and forget about the former.

Seriously, you can make a good case for betting this turn with literally any two cards. I've seen that advice show up in multiple books (I'm thinking Yao and Freeny, but there may have been others as well. Harmon's chapter in SS2 is another possibility, but I would need to review that one). If it would be reasonable to bet this turn WITH NOTHING AT ALL, then it has to be right to bet the turn with a legitimate hand that figures to be good at the moment.

[KingOtter]

[ QUOTE ]
There's something in psychology called the "availability heuristic." What it means is that people tend to over-estimate the occurance of memorable events while downplaying the occurance of routine, non-memorable events.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I'm familiar with that affect. It's the main cause of comments like 'Party is rigged', etc. I know that the brain likes to play tricks on you, and I do take steps to try to counteract them before I rush to generalizations. I'm a pretty critical-thinking kind of guy.

I haven't gone back to prove myself with numbers, but I know that it doesn't happen just once or twice a night (and not always to me, I see others trapped by it, too). I always comment those players, but it always seems to be someone new doing it, although I have caught one guy with a previous note. It happened to me on two separate tables at the exact same time last night. Yeah, I know, that argues for your phenomena, since that makes it all the more memorable.

The style of play seems to be that they don't like to open-raise it, or 3-bet hands like AA, KK, AK, sometimes QQ.
They will raise it out of the blinds if they have enough limpers, or out of late position.

I've seen it frequent enough that I think there is a book or web-site somewhere advising it... or maybe they just watch TV poker too much.

[ QUOTE ]
I think you pick this up uncontested far, far more often than you run into a trickily played overpair, a slowplayed straight, or a misplayed top pair. It's just that you remember the later cases and forget about the former.

Seriously, you can make a good case for betting this turn with literally any two cards. I've seen that advice show up in multiple books (I'm thinking Yao and Freeny, but there may have been others as well. Harmon's chapter in SS2 is another possibility, but I would need to review that one). If it would be reasonable to bet this turn WITH NOTHING AT ALL, then it has to be right to bet the turn with a legitimate hand that figures to be good at the moment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, at least I wasn't completely out in left field, except pre-flop, perhaps... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

KO

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]

Oh, I'm familiar with that affect. It's the main cause of comments like 'Party is rigged', etc. I know that the brain likes to play tricks on you, and I do take steps to try to soak it in alcohol before I rush to generalizations.

[/ QUOTE ]

fyp

[deception5]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems at 1/2, and even much more so lately, when I make a stab at things like this I get creamed by a big pair, or the flopped straight that didn't bet.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is the problem, not the way you played this hand.

[KingOtter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems at 1/2, and even much more so lately, when I make a stab at things like this I get creamed by a big pair, or the flopped straight that didn't bet.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is the problem, not the way you played this hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is me being a scared little girl?

I can buy into that.

KO

[deception5]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is me being a scared little girl?

I can buy into that.


[/ QUOTE ]

lol, not exactly - just that you are letting past beats affect current hands.

[deception5]

[ QUOTE ]
It was the coordinated board, honestly. If it were 47Q rainbow, and I had the 7 and it checked through the first round I could see betting, because it has a better chance of taking the pot right there.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it were 47Q rainbow I would bet the flop.