30-60 hand - mike l thinks I blew one street

[cpk]

How could this guy seriously consider bluffing here?

I frequently ask myself this question, check anyway, call, and then see him throw his hand away. It's a fallacy to think that bad players think the way we do. This is also why Clark's line on the flop is sound.

[I do have to say I cringe at the whole hand, but I admit that Clark's play has merit. After all, he beats a level I never play at.]

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The more I read this thread the more I wonder if maybe old clark was steaming a bit during this hand. He obiously wasn't thinking too clearly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would guess that Clark plays better steaming than most people here play level-headed. Btw, I really don't think he was steaming when he played this hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh. Ask anyone who's ever played with me. I'm the one of least tilt-able players you'll ever meet not named Tommy. It's one of the strengths of my game.

[andyfox]

I've wended my way through this entire thread. My thoughts:

1) Pre-flop: I'm with SKP here. Clark can say all he wants about ending up head-up on the river with 52% pot equity but the fact of the matter he finished second. That happens pretty often out of position with pocket sixes in a pot that's 4-bet pre-flop.

2) The flop: I can't understand those who disagree with the check-raise. The small card flop meant that the most likely bettor is the button. The early raisers didn't cap, so they're unlikely to have big pairs. The button usually slow plays his big hands pre-flop, so he's unlikely to have a big pair or two big unpaired cards. To me, the check-raise is a no-brainer. Especially in Vegas where they love to fold their big cards and bemoan their bad luck. The play loses value in L.A. where they're cold-calling the raise (if they haven't bet and raised already).

Turn: I'd have to bet too, to give him a chance to fold.

River: Here I'm not sure I like the bet. To me, it seems obvious he doesn't have an 8, and very unlikely he has a T. He doesn't have a big pair or big overcards, so a draw seems the most likely possibility. But it's a minor issue as far as I'm concerned. I'm certainly calling one bet with a million chips in the pot, and/so I'm not terribly concerned about calling one more.

[Slik Rik]

<font color="red"> It's because fit or fold just doesn't work once the pot gets large. </font>

I agree you just can't assume you are beat when an over card hits on the flop but with that much action if i made the "call" PF I would really probably be shooting for the flop to hit me in some pretty decent way otherwise I know three loose and/or aggressive people in the pot with me would make it hard to play the hand HU.

<font color="red">Here's one for you -

Crazy raising guy raises UTG and you've seen him do this with JTo. You 3-bet with AdQh. LAG 4-bets on the button. Unknown kid who you've only seen play 3 hands in 2 hours coldcalls 3 (!) in the BB. Lag calls.

Flop is 3h4h8d, checked to button who bets, kid comes to life and checkraises, UTG folds. What do you do? </font>

Well if I was the loose guy UG and I had JTo again I would probably be hoping for a 9 on the turn and if I was the LAG who had a tendency to slow play big hands PF anyway, and I had 75 of hearts I would probably be pretty excited about that flop. Me on the other hand would probably think you didn't have AA or KK since you didn't cap it PF witch would mean mid to low pair or flush draw. so if I had two big cards with maybe a backdoor flush draw I would might be thinking three bets myself. Maybe I can get HU with position and a chance a free card maybe on the turn if I want.


What would be interesting to hear is how you would have proceeded had there been additional action on the flop or turn.

[Slik Rik]

<font color="red"> To me, the check-raise is a no-brainer. Especially in Vegas where they love to fold their big cards and bemoan their bad luck. The play loses value in L.A. where they're cold-calling the raise (if they haven't bet and raised already). </font>

Well this whole Vegas folding thing is not familiar to me since I've never been there. But you for sure don't see the "Vegas" fold on Party Poker. Not much at the 15/30 level anyway. At 15/30 on PP if they are as loose as you make them out. You might as well run the cards off cold.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
How could this guy seriously consider bluffing here?
-------------------------------------------------------------
I frequently ask myself this question, check anyway, call, and then see him throw his hand away. It's a fallacy to think that bad players think the way we do. This is also why Clark's line on the flop is sound.

(I do have to say I cringe at the whole hand, but I admit that Clark's play has merit. After all, he beats a level I never play at.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I often ask that question, too, cpk, as I call them down. But this is not a case of Clark reluctantly calling, it is a case of whether Clark can really induce a bluff vs. does the guy have anything to call Clark with--and a few more subtle considerations.

That bad players think differently does not in itself validate Clark's preflop call.

That someone beats a level higher than you do, does not mean their analysis is automatically better than yours (unless that person is Ray Zee). It is very beneficial to try to think things out yourself as much as possible. If you "cringe" at something, maybe you are right in some way to do so.

Sometime, just as a test, I would like to see Clarkmeister or El Diablo post a fictitious hand that is just abysmally played on all streets, and supported with the most half-baked yet plausible-sounding reasons for each decision, just to see how many posters supported the decisions. I'm not saying that Clark was very wrong in this hand (as I said, for him vs them it might be fine preflop even though I don't like it). I'll just bet, though, that if he or El Diablo ever posted a completely BS hand they would draw more understanding or support than criticism.

[astroglide]

wow the bait is really getting taken on this one

[Clarkmeister]

I'd compare the response to my hands to the response to your hands MMMMMM, but I don't know that I've ever seen you actually post a hand. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Kidding aside, you are right, and part of the reason I haven't posted many hands lately is that so many of my "interesting" hands are read dependant and, hence, not particularly useful for discussion.

[MMMMMM]

Yes Clark, I am more of a pundit than a hand-poster;-)

Maybe someday I'll post a hand or two, though; glad you brought it up. I guess there are two--no make that five--reasons why I don't:

1) I don't like to share all my deepest thoughts about hands with just everyone. Call me a prude, OK.

2) If I am puzzled about a hand I played, it is usually resolved within a day or two.

3) I don't play live now, so it is usually more cut-and-dried. And yes I make horrid mistakes and would be embarrassed to post those hands.

4) I don't want 2+2ers knowing my handles on online sites. Call me paranoid, OK. I have however been considering changing some unimportant hand details prior to posting them, for this very reason.

5) I get deeply embarrassed when I make a conceptual error, and turn beet red at the computer. The ignominy of having made a number of conceptual errors over the years here still torments me. I would usually rather silently err, then silently repent, then silently understand. After I throw something across the room, that is, when I realize how much that error cost me.

Well...read-dependent hands can be particularly interesting, but sometimes harder to talk about and harder to support, especially in a dry forum.

If more read-dependent hands were to be posted, the forum would become more interesting. And more critical. And more confused. Not a bad thing overall, it would seem;-) Kudos to Tommy, I guess;-)

Thanks for posting an interesting hand, Clark. And thanks mike l. for making it more interesting.

[amulet]

i know, i was responding to the other post. i call, i don't raise because i am probably behind my a lot, with few outs. but it worked for you,