On the Edge - IX - Page 2

WhiteWolf · #1 11-01-2005, 05:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
i'm not sure i understood the logic that caused him to think he had no part of the board.

there were rags and high cards out there. if he was read for a total bluff pre-flop, then there was too many ways the board could still have hit him. this includes Q-high, better kicker. i don't like the move on the river and think it will be long term EV-, even against a complete maniac.

i'm trying not to think this is another results oriented article, but that's how i see it.

jmho

[/ QUOTE ]

(Edit: It's been pointed out that I missed the fact that Baron's opponent checked his post pre-flop, which total invalidates my analysis below. Please ignore this post)

I have to say I was troubled by his thought process as well.

First he says that, preflop, he was sure his opponent had a terrible hand, because he raised his post 100% of the time. Myself, that tells me his opponent has any two cards, meaning a few (not many, but some) of his possible hands are actually good.

Then he lists out what his oppenent has shown down:
[ QUOTE ]
He'd shown down hands ranging from one-gappers (six-four offsuit), to suited cards (nine-deuce suited), to Broadway-rag (jack-trey offsuit), to pocket pairs (aces).

[/ QUOTE ]
...the last of which is a pretty good hand.

Next, the flop comes down monotone + straightish. Baron lists out hands his opponent doesn't have:

[ QUOTE ]

1. Any pocket pair;
2. A jack, queen, king, or ace;
3. Any connector or one-gapped connector;
4. And, most importantly, he didn't have two suited cards.

He didn't have a flush, but he could have a straight (not via an eight-six, but possibly by a six-trey).

[/ QUOTE ]

Taking these one by one:
1. Pocket pair - but his opponent played AA before in the same situation
2. A jack, queen, king, or ace - his opponent played J3o and AA here before
3. Any connector or one-gapped connector - his opponent played 64o before.
4. The flush - his opponent had shown down 93s before.

I can't see any information presented up to this point in the hand description that would justify making the above assumptions about his opponent's possible non-holdings.

Now perhaps Baron made these deductions after he had more information when the opponent checked the flop (although his narrative doesn't indicate this). But it does sound to me like a case of putting his opponent on the precise holdings that would justify playing back with air.

My 2 cents,

The Wolf

#2 11-01-2005, 06:08 PM

I think you missed the major difference, that being that the villian just checked after posting and having it checked around to him. This indicated he had a worse hand than any of the above mentioned. The only question becomes if the read was correct, was this played properly.

WhiteWolf · #3 11-01-2005, 06:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think you missed the major difference, that being that the villian just checked after posting and having it checked around to him. This indicated he had a worse hand than any of the above mentioned. The only question becomes if the read was correct, was this played properly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh. I missed the check pre-flop [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]. I take back everything I said.

The Wolf

BarronVangorToth · #4 11-01-2005, 06:13 PM

Sorry for my correction, seems someone did it for me.

Hopefully it's a little clearer...

And no reason to apologize. While I know some people may have gotten the impression that I'm very argumentative (and perhaps I am, to a degree) with my defense of OTE 8, I much rather debate the merits (or lack thereof) than to hear ... nothing.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

BarronVangorToth · #5 11-01-2005, 06:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Now perhaps Baron made these deductions after he had more information when the opponent checked the flop (although his narrative doesn't indicate this).

[/ QUOTE ]

But you have to remember is that he CHECKED ... and that the hands I listed are what he had RAISED with.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

WhiteWolf · #6 11-01-2005, 06:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]

But you have to remember is that he CHECKED ... and that the hands I listed are what he had RAISED with.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, I missed that [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]. Back to lurking for me.

The Wolf

ChicagoTroy · #7 11-01-2005, 05:06 PM

It looked to me like every street was misplayed.

I think these articles are written to get attention.

BarronVangorToth · #8 11-01-2005, 05:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Barron, what did you think of Villain's image of you (not that you were tight, per se, but of your play and willingness to be tricky?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Amusingly enough, as I think I wrote to Diablo recently in a PM regarding our OTE 8 discussion, I am NOT a very tricky player in any way. If anything, I am TOO straightforward a vast majority of the time (playing at the limits that I do, it works).

This year, barring the time when I was unable to travel due to my gall bladder shenanigans, I averaged 30 hours per week of live play. Let's just call this 1,000 hands a week in a B&M.

So this year I've seen, taking into account my time recovering at home, 30,000+ hands.

Of those, I've only found 20 or so worth writing about for various articles. Not even 1/10th of 1%. So while those that know me from my writing might have one image of me (good, bad, indifferent, whatever) that doesn't translate to live games, barring those people that are here on 2+2 that I've run into.

This all goes by way of explaining that these types of things are ONLY possible because they are particular spots I pick for particular reasons and, more often than not, because the other 99.9%+ of the time I'm running ABC, it works fine.

For example, I subtitled this article The Mason Move, because after I read his article, I thought this was a genius play on his part. Would he have done what I did? I don't know. I'm guessing if there was a better way to run it he would've.

But it's just an example of a cool thing that I read from him that I've now had the chance to do three times this year (this time that I wrote about, another time when the guy folded on the flop, and a third when another folded on the turn). This is the farthest I've had to push it, and it's never been picked off.

VERY small sample size, but in 30,000 or whatever hands, I've only had the chance to do it 3 times.

But tricky...? I'm FAR from tricky, as I think of tricky as someone who doesn't run textbook poker (invariably, by the book SSH) 99.9%+ of the time.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

jedi · #9 11-01-2005, 06:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Barron, what did you think of Villain's image of you (not that you were tight, per se, but of your play and willingness to be tricky?)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm FAR from tricky, as I think of tricky as someone who doesn't run textbook poker (invariably, by the book SSH) 99.9%+ of the time.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay. I can accept that villain doesn't think you're tricky. Can you attempt to answer 2 questions for me? (from an earlier post)

2) Villain's range of hands. I can accept that villian will raise from this spot with any pocket pair, or any Ace (or even any King), but is it too much to think that villain will just check his option with 45o or J2s?

3) "His raise was as all his other check-raises on the flop: indicating a draw." Obviously Barron was at the table and can speak to this better, but why can't it be top pair or 2 pair? 2 pair would surely check-raise, and 1 pair could be check raising hoping to blow you off a missed AK, or trying to find out where he's at vs. a possible overpair.

You reads once again seem pretty rock solid. Why can't the check-raise be a made hand other than a flush, and why does villain HAVE to raise hands from the post like 45o or J2s just because he did it before? I don't think you can narrow down villain's range of hands (other than not pocket pair or Ax) just because he checked his option.

Of course you were there and I wasn't so maybe you do have a reason.

BarronVangorToth · #10 11-02-2005, 09:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]

2) Villain's range of hands. I can accept that villian will raise from this spot with any pocket pair, or any Ace (or even any King), but is it too much to think that villain will just check his option with 45o or J2s?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
He'd shown down hands ranging from one-gappers (six-four offsuit), to suited cards (nine-deuce suited), to Broadway-rag (jack-trey offsuit), to pocket pairs (aces).

[/ QUOTE ]

He obviously COULD have any of the two hands you mentioned, but seeing as how he'd already raised 64o, I assumed that 54o would likewise be raised; likewise, 92s in regards to J2s.

[ QUOTE ]

3) "His raise was as all his other check-raises on the flop: indicating a draw." Obviously Barron was at the table and can speak to this better, but why can't it be top pair or 2 pair? 2 pair would surely check-raise, and 1 pair could be check raising hoping to blow you off a missed AK, or trying to find out where he's at vs. a possible overpair.

[/ QUOTE ]

His check-raise COULD have been that, I guess, but from what I saw up to that point (and saw after the hand in question, and have seen since, as a matter of fact), in these spots, he check-raises draws and bets out on bluffs and "made" hands.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com