Ranting about reads.

[kenewbie]

Uh no, the part you quoted is the part where I state the exact opposite. It is ofcourse a profitable bet at a million to one odds. But that does not happen in a real game.

k

[kenewbie]

You're right about the imaginary hand. It was just something i scribbled down without really giving it any thought. The point is the decicion you are facing on the river, where you try to extract the biggest amount of money possible based on how the other players are likely to react.

The fact that you save one bet when behind is not that important, it is that you win the equal amounts of chips there if you raise and if you just call, however if you raise you put more of your own money in.

So the opening of that hand was ill concived, I should have just skipped it alltogether, it is not important. What is important is to think about the river decicion, not just automaticly raise.

k

[prayformojo]

Ah, I misread the original sentence. I thought you meant that barring some other special circumstances, you should not call for the 2M pot.

Nonetheless, even at 25:1, I question the absolute value of the read. The decisions of most unthinking players, which passive players tend overwhelmingly to be, are guided at times by vague ideas, emotion, and whim. A passive player, who you are sure would never bet without a monster hand, will on occasion throw out a bet for no reason other than that he felt like it. I haven't met a passive player for whom such an occasion comes less often than one in 25 hands.

[kenewbie]

[ QUOTE ]
even at 25:1, I question the absolute value of the read. The decisions of most unthinking players, which passive players tend overwhelmingly to be, are guided at times by vague ideas, emotion, and whim.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is also an argument for folding. Passive players (consistantly passive ones) are timid, they are guided by their fear of loosing. It is against their character to risk too much. They prefer to keep the swings low.

Im sure some of them do an extra raise every now and then, but if it happens every 200 hands you are not getting odds in any realistic pot to call based on that.

I realize everyone likes the whole "dont fold in big pots" concept, Im just saying that not taking the opponent into account is just as bad as neglecting to look at the pot before your decicion.

k

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You flop a set and when the turn comes (showing a possible flush and a possible straight) he bets into you and 3-bets your raise. The river does not pair the board. You do not call his river bet.

How big is the pot?


[/ QUOTE ]

That is exactly the point, barring any special circumstances where you can win a $2M pot by calling that $2 bet, the size of the pot does not matter. If you call this at 25-1 you are loosing money.

k

[/ QUOTE ]

Your post is well-intentioned, but the size of the pot always matters. It greatly determines your play in hands like this.

Also, it's losing, not "loosing." Just a pet peeve, but I see it enough here that I think it's worth pointing out.

[kenewbie]

[ QUOTE ]
Your post is well-intentioned, but the size of the pot always matters. It greatly determines your play in hands like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct, I should rephrase. There are times when reads allow you to make profitable moves that goes against what is the correct action by default.

Against this imaginary player I am hard pressed to envision a pot where it is correct to call though. I can make them up ofcourse but they dont exist in "real" limit poker.

While I agree on never neglecting the size of the pot, I dont like how these boards sometimes tend to ignore the opponent either. Your opponent is just as important.

[ QUOTE ]

Also, it's losing, not "loosing." Just a pet peeve, but I see it enough here that I think it's worth pointing out.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, I didnt know that. English is not my native language so any pointers on grammar are appreciated. Its easier to argue when you are coherrant [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

(I skip the apostrophes out of pure lazyness though)

k

[prayformojo]

Sweet heaven, the floodgates are open on spelling correction now. It's coherent, not coherrant.

Oh, and since I'm seeing perennial internet favourite "definate" in the forums, please note: it's not spelled "definate". It is definitely spelled definite.

[bisonbison]

favourite

Go back to Canada, you U-favoring fop.

[AsusFull]

oh definately [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] j/k

[kenewbie]

[ QUOTE ]
Sweet heaven, the floodgates are open on spelling correction now. It's coherent, not coherrant.

Oh, and since I'm seeing perennial internet favourite "definate" in the forums, please note: it's not spelled "definate". It is definitely spelled definite.

[/ QUOTE ]

Roger. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

k