Is this cold call acceptable, marginal, or terrible

[adamstewart]

[ QUOTE ]
In this case I am not continuing on ANY flop that doesnt yield a set based on my read of UTG.

[/ QUOTE ]

So on one hand you're saying that you may even be a slight favourite if UTG has 66. Then you're saying that you'd fold if you don't flop a set..... ARE YOU STARTING TO SEE SOME OF THE FLAWS WITH YOUR REASONING?

[ QUOTE ]

Given that 10-1 number, if I can expect to see a 20+BB pot every hand, is putting in 1BB preflop so bad? If so please explain why.

[/ QUOTE ]


[b]Because you can't expect to win a 20 BB pot every time!!! (or even 10 BB for that matter). All you have is a read that SB is a maniac. There's no telling what he'll do. He may fold behind you! He may fold the flop! Both players may fold at any point..... This is gonna be a 2-3 handed pot... rarely do such pots get up over 10 BB's.

[blackize]

[ QUOTE ]


Because you can't expect to win a 20 BB pot every time!!! (or even 10 BB for that matter). All you have is a read that SB is a maniac.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you misunderstanding what I am saying? The average pot size at this table was 10BB's. From watching the table play almost all of the pots could have been substantially larger if people were willing to get into a raising war with the maniac.

[ QUOTE ]
There's no telling what he'll do. He may fold behind you! He may fold the flop! Both players may fold at any point.....

[/ QUOTE ]

At this point I have probably 30 hands on the maniac. He has never folded. UTG I have about 30 hands on as well, he has 10% VPIP but of the hands I had seen him play he took them too far when he was obviously beat, it is unlikely that he will fold after raising UTG.

[ QUOTE ]
So on one hand you're saying that you may even be a slight favourite if UTG has 66. Then you're saying that you'd fold if you don't flop a set..... ARE YOU STARTING TO SEE SOME OF THE FLAWS WITH YOUR REASONING?

[/ QUOTE ]

Get your facts straight. I might even be a slight favorite over AK, the lowest of his possible holdings.

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
So on one hand you're saying that you may even be a slight favourite if UTG has 66. Then you're saying that you'd fold if you don't flop a set..... ARE YOU STARTING TO SEE SOME OF THE FLAWS WITH YOUR REASONING?

[/ QUOTE ]

Get your facts straight. I might even be a slight favorite over AK, the lowest of his possible holdings.

[/ QUOTE ]

he said 66, but he pretty clearly means AK.

the point is, you are not even close to being a favorite over AK. If you were both all-in, sure, but you are playing fit or fold on the flop and he is not.

[Hamlet]

I ran my TTH sim with 66 vs AA vs any2, assuming a 6 is on the flop. Even with a 6 on the flop, you will lose this pot 25% of the time. The AA will win 18.6% and the random hand will win 6.4% of the time.

So if you assume that the pots you lose are going to be the same size as the pots you win, you can pretty much cut your expected pot size in half and call that your net win when you flop a set.

If you really could be sure that your average pot was going to net the winner 20BB, it would be ok to call. I think that is very optimistic though. Even a maniac can fold. Sometimes the flop will be bad for the tight player and he will fold (whiffed with AK, JJ on a board of AK6, etc). I think that the absolute most you can average is going to be something like capped flop, 2 bets on the turn, 2 bets on the river. That gives you a net of (2.5+4+4+4) 14.5 Big Bets. Cut that in half for when you lose with a set, and you have about 7 to 1.

Even with this best case it's a loser. A few other possible problems. The maniac could 3-bet preflop-- You said he wasn't doing that, but I'm betting that if he looks down at AA-TT, AK, he'll 3-bet. Also, the BB could wake up with a hand and 3-bet. Either way, you're now trapped for 2 more small bets (asuming UTG caps).

[wyoak]

why did you post this hand if you're just going to be dismissive of the criticism? It appears you're already convinced in your mind that you're right.
anyway, given your reads, missing raises on the flop and the turn is absolutely atrocious. You say that the maniac never folds, and yet you only call the flop and the turn? Frankly you got lucky the fourth flush card came up so you could make up some of what you missed early in the hand. Without that fourth heart I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have hit your 'guaranteed' 20BB.

[ QUOTE ]
UTG I have about 30 hands on as well, he has 10% VPIP but of the hands I had seen him play he took them too far when he was obviously beat, it is unlikely that he will fold after raising UTG.

[/ QUOTE ]
this is bad and I don't think I need to explain why....

[SeaEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
The SB is a complete maniac and caps or bets every street post flop.

[/ QUOTE ]
On one hand you say this. On the other hand, the maniac doesn't raise 2 of the 3 postflop streets on the hand you show us. Which should we believe? As I see it, if a [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] doesn't river, your flopped FH will rake in a killer 10BB pot, 3.5 that you put in yourself.

Now if, in fact, this hand is not representative of maniac's play and he was raising every street postflop, not just when he made a flush, and every contested pot was 20BB+, then you should be limping with pretty much any two cards and calling a raise with many coordinated cards.

Incidentally, I don't like your turn call. Anybody that's going to pay chips on the river will pay chips on the turn. And there are 10 scare cards in the deck that will prevent you from getting your chips in on the river.

As long as we're being results oriented, based on the hand played, you left at least 2BB on the table by not raising the turn.

[blackize]

Hamlet thank you for your well thought out analysis. That is all I wanted. Perhaps I was being a bit optimistic in how big I could get the pot.

I could be mistaken here but it seems that the below doesn't work out mathematically.


[ QUOTE ]
So if you assume that the pots you lose are going to be the same size as the pots you win, you can pretty much cut your expected pot size in half and call that your net win when you flop a set.

[/ QUOTE ]

The pots I win are the same size as the pots I lose and the only pots we are concerned about here are the ones where I flop a set. Then I assume I win 25% of the time when I flop a set. Why then are we cutting the pot in half for the net win when I flop a set? Wouldnt it make more sense to cut the pot by 25%?

Just for kicks lets try to figure out what the end pot needs to be for the call to work out. -6.5BB for all the times I miss. .75x= 7.5 = 10BBs for the call to be breakeven.

[adamstewart]

[ QUOTE ]
At this point I have probably 30 hands on the maniac

[/ QUOTE ]

Well then! Why didn't you say so earlier.... 30 hands!

Forget everything I said. You are most certainly correct on this matter.


Adam

[adamstewart]

[ QUOTE ]
On one hand you say this. On the other hand, the maniac doesn't raise 2 of the 3 postflop streets on the hand you show us. Which should we believe?

[/ QUOTE ]


LMAO.. nice one!


I'm sure this was just a rarity. After all, OP has 30 hands of reads that say otherwise!!


Adam

[SeaEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
Just for kicks lets try to figure out what the end pot needs to be for the call to work out. -6.5BB for all the times I miss. .75x= 7.5 = 10BBs for the call to be breakeven.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you're just playing for the set, then you'll need a little bit more than 10BBs, since you'll lose bigger pots, on average, than you win.

On the other hand, there are spots where you can continue without flopping a set and this helps compensate somewhat, so clearing 10BBs is a decent rule of thumb.

Do you really think that you will get, on average, 5BBs from each of your opponents? I wasn't at the table, so I don't know. But I don't think I've ever sat at a table where the average 3-way pot was 15BB.