Two successful semibluffs

[mtdoak]

In hand #1. This is purely player based. Does he call down with AK/AQ unimproved often? Also, you need to consider that ATo is a classic trap hand, esp. being OOP at a full table against someone with decent stats.

In Hand #2, this is fine if your heads up. However, 3 way or more this is a flat call as you don't want to drive out the 3rd guy and it would suck hard to get 3 bet.

[weevil]

Hand 1, I'm facing what I think to be a fairly loose and erratic PF raiser, and an unknown, probably too loose button call with ATo. Let's look at what I think my equity is:


equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 26.5650 % 25.47% 01.10% { 77+, A9s+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs, ATo+, KJo+, QJo }
Hand 2: 39.4269 % 36.36% 03.07% { 77+, A7s+, K9s+, QTs+, JTs, ATo+, KJo+, QJo }
Hand 3: 34.0081 % 31.23% 02.78% { ATo }

Ok, clearly I'm not making a bad call if my read is anywhere close, coupled with the further read that this player is easy to bully.


Second hand, it's raised to me, with a CO poster who will usually call, a very very loose button who will usually call, and loose blinds who also will usually call. On average I'd say I was looking at a five way PF pot with 910s against fairly loose passive players, and a fairly tight UTG raiser. How do I fair?


equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 26.7202 % 26.02% 00.70% { 88+, AJs+, KQs, AKo }
Hand 2: 19.3300 % 18.75% 00.58% { T9s }
Hand 3: 16.5850 % 16.45% 00.13% { 22+, A2s+, K2s+, Q2s+, J2s+, T2s+, 92s+, 82s+, 73s+, 63s+, 52s+, 43s, A2o+, K2o+, Q2o+, J4o+, T5o+, 95o+, 85o+, 75o+, 65o }
Hand 4: 15.5598 % 15.15% 00.41% { 44+, A2s+, K2s+, Q2s+, J5s+, T6s+, 96s+, 86s+, 76s, A2o+, K5o+, Q7o+, J8o+, T8o+, 98o }
Hand 5: 21.8050 % 20.25% 01.55% { 55+, A2s+, K3s+, Q5s+, J7s+, T7s+, 97s+, 87s, A4o+, K7o+, Q9o+, J9o+, T9o }

Again, clearly not a bad call. Ok bye.

[deetle]

I think calling a utg raise with 9/10 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] from MP1 is a leak not being overly tight

[Catt]

I fold both pre-flop.

[ QUOTE ]
Hand 1, I'm facing what I think to be a fairly loose and erratic PF raiser, and an unknown, probably too loose button call with ATo. Let's look at what I think my equity is:


equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 26.5650 % 25.47% 01.10% { 77+, A9s+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs, ATo+, KJo+, QJo }
Hand 2: 39.4269 % 36.36% 03.07% { 77+, A7s+, K9s+, QTs+, JTs, ATo+, KJo+, QJo }
Hand 3: 34.0081 % 31.23% 02.78% { ATo }

Ok, clearly I'm not making a bad call if my read is anywhere close, coupled with the further read that this player is easy to bully.


Second hand, it's raised to me, with a CO poster who will usually call, a very very loose button who will usually call, and loose blinds who also will usually call. On average I'd say I was looking at a five way PF pot with 910s against fairly loose passive players, and a fairly tight UTG raiser. How do I fair?


equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 26.7202 % 26.02% 00.70% { 88+, AJs+, KQs, AKo }
Hand 2: 19.3300 % 18.75% 00.58% { T9s }
Hand 3: 16.5850 % 16.45% 00.13% { 22+, A2s+, K2s+, Q2s+, J2s+, T2s+, 92s+, 82s+, 73s+, 63s+, 52s+, 43s, A2o+, K2o+, Q2o+, J4o+, T5o+, 95o+, 85o+, 75o+, 65o }
Hand 4: 15.5598 % 15.15% 00.41% { 44+, A2s+, K2s+, Q2s+, J5s+, T6s+, 96s+, 86s+, 76s, A2o+, K5o+, Q7o+, J8o+, T8o+, 98o }
Hand 5: 21.8050 % 20.25% 01.55% { 55+, A2s+, K3s+, Q5s+, J7s+, T7s+, 97s+, 87s, A4o+, K7o+, Q9o+, J9o+, T9o }

Again, clearly not a bad call. Ok bye.

[/ QUOTE ]

The tirfecta of really bad, defensive, forum cop-out excuses: (1) miracle reads that were undisclosed in the initial post but are employed to justify one's play when criticized; (2) hot-cold sims based upon ranges conjured from miracle reads; and (3) bald assertions punctuated by "clearly" to emphasize one's lack of actual argument.

Bravo!

[weevil]

[ QUOTE ]
I fold both pre-flop.

[ QUOTE ]
Hand 1, I'm facing what I think to be a fairly loose and erratic PF raiser, and an unknown, probably too loose button call with ATo. Let's look at what I think my equity is:


equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 26.5650 % 25.47% 01.10% { 77+, A9s+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs, ATo+, KJo+, QJo }
Hand 2: 39.4269 % 36.36% 03.07% { 77+, A7s+, K9s+, QTs+, JTs, ATo+, KJo+, QJo }
Hand 3: 34.0081 % 31.23% 02.78% { ATo }

Ok, clearly I'm not making a bad call if my read is anywhere close, coupled with the further read that this player is easy to bully.


Second hand, it's raised to me, with a CO poster who will usually call, a very very loose button who will usually call, and loose blinds who also will usually call. On average I'd say I was looking at a five way PF pot with 910s against fairly loose passive players, and a fairly tight UTG raiser. How do I fair?


equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 26.7202 % 26.02% 00.70% { 88+, AJs+, KQs, AKo }
Hand 2: 19.3300 % 18.75% 00.58% { T9s }
Hand 3: 16.5850 % 16.45% 00.13% { 22+, A2s+, K2s+, Q2s+, J2s+, T2s+, 92s+, 82s+, 73s+, 63s+, 52s+, 43s, A2o+, K2o+, Q2o+, J4o+, T5o+, 95o+, 85o+, 75o+, 65o }
Hand 4: 15.5598 % 15.15% 00.41% { 44+, A2s+, K2s+, Q2s+, J5s+, T6s+, 96s+, 86s+, 76s, A2o+, K5o+, Q7o+, J8o+, T8o+, 98o }
Hand 5: 21.8050 % 20.25% 01.55% { 55+, A2s+, K3s+, Q5s+, J7s+, T7s+, 97s+, 87s, A4o+, K7o+, Q9o+, J9o+, T9o }

Again, clearly not a bad call. Ok bye.

[/ QUOTE ]

The tirfecta of really bad, defensive, forum cop-out excuses: (1) miracle reads that were undisclosed in the initial post but are employed to justify one's play when criticized; (2) hot-cold sims based upon ranges conjured from miracle reads; and (3) bald assertions punctuated by "clearly" to emphasize one's lack of actual argument.

Bravo!

[/ QUOTE ]

1) I wouldn't have posted the stats I did unless I thought them to be indicative. I probably should have been more explicit, but I thought that would be part of the fun in talking about the hand.
2) How are these miracle reads? I'm being fairly conservative in the hand ranges I'm giving.
3) Baldly asserting I'm making bald assertions is lame

Bravo? Hope you had fun posting that though. I bet you had that trifect of bad forum cop out line waiting in the wings for quite some time. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[CallMeIshmael]

Catt, I respect your play and posts, but I have to disagree.

Please see my counter argument here

[istewart]

[ QUOTE ]
Catt, I respect your play and posts, but I have to disagree.

Please see my counter argument here

[/ QUOTE ]

10/10.

[Catt]

It strikes me that you prefer arguing for arguing's sake, but I'll reply once since I may have been too curt the first time around.

[ QUOTE ]
1) I wouldn't have posted the stats I did unless I thought them to be indicative. I probably should have been more explicit, but I thought that would be part of the fun in talking about the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hand 1: You have 20 hands on the raiser. He has played three of them, and all three for raises. And now your "justification" read is "fairly loose and erratice pre-flop raiser." And he also becomes "fairly easy to bully." After three observed hands. You have no read listed for Button, but his "justification" read becomes "probably too loose" button.

Hand 2: You have a stat read on the UTG raiser, again after a whopping 20 hands. You have no read on the poster (implies he just sat down), but your "justification" read is "usually call." No read on button, but "justification" read is "very very loose." No read on blinds but they become "loose blinds who will usually call."

[ QUOTE ]
2) How are these miracle reads?

[/ QUOTE ]

See above.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm being fairly conservative in the hand ranges I'm giving.

[/ QUOTE ]

How in the world can you assign hand ranges to players who have not even had a chance to act yet? How are you coming up with these ranges? And, even if you had an answer for those questions, I would really dispute that your calling range for an unknown poster is nearly as wide as you think it is. But that's kinda beside the point since you can't give a hand range to someone based on the fact that he was dealt two cards. Furthermore, my point was really on the hot-cold sim aspect of your "analysis." Hot-cold sims are really awesome when you have virutally no information upon which to base a hand range.

[ QUOTE ]
3) Baldly asserting I'm making bald assertions is lame

[/ QUOTE ]

Almost as lame as pulling crap out of your ass in an attempt to point out how others are "clearly" wrong and don't have the depth of insight and understanding to their games that you have developed in your yours. Again, Bravo!

Edit: Meh. CMI might get a 9/10 but 10/10 is too generous.

[Justin A]

A few thoughts about this thread:

-Hand 1 is a clear fold preflop.

-Hand 2 is close preflop, close enough to not matter much either way.

-Who is arguing that 99 is an easy 3bet of a tight UTG raiser? Tight raisers don't just raise UTG on a whim. Unless you're saying the guy is incredibly weak-tight postflop, 99 is not an auto-3bet.

-Weevil, what's the point of posting if you're not going to listen to anyone's advice? You're certainly not good enough to be coming on here and teaching everyone.

[shant]

I believe the hand weevil is referring to was an MP1 open-raise by a TAG and you're the CO or Button with 99. He changed it to UTG for some reason. It still doesn't make it cute or interesting to call an EP raise from the SB with ATo.