Errrrrrr.. Who calls this?

[theredpill5]

Good fold on the river. His 99 or 88 / full house was good. I typically see people minimum raise preflop with 88 and 99 and that is what I believe he had . Of course, the all too common check when he completes the full house. This played out so freaking typical . Good fold.

[FreakDaddy]

[ QUOTE ]
I remember watching this hand oddly enough. I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure this was you. You had just entered the table and the guy who went all in on the river had been playing incredibly loose and bluffing up a storm before you got there. I was going to say something to you but of course I didn't know what you had at the time. When you said something like "AK is no good" afterwards I was shaking my head. I am certain your hand was better. He didn't even have a K.

edit: I am certain he didn't have 88, 99, str8 or any of the other possibilities discussed in this thread. I had been watching him for an hour prior to this and he was as maniacal as they come.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any truth in this Skeme? The only reason I advocate a call as a possibility here is because the play doesn't make sense and your logic doesn't make sense. I'm tryuing to point that out, but it's becoming glaringly obvious that you post and then are sure you already have the correct answer. Am I wrong, or is there any truth to this? Look here... on one hand you think villian is a bad player and will mini-raise with 88 or 99, but at the same time you give him credit for putting you on a K (which is some what obvious), calling and pushing on the river, which is a fairly decent play. The push is debatable of course. I think half the pot is a better play here, but regardless. The hand doesn't completely add up. If I had to put money on this hand though I'd say you folded the best hand. It was a tough hand without a solid read though, no question about it.

[FreakDaddy]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
No, I asked if you'd call 1/2 a pot sized bet with the hand you had. Is there a size that you would call? Why would I ask if you'd call with 99? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Negative. You asked if I'd call a 1/2 pot sized bet, to which I replied, "I don't know." Then after that question, you asked, "How would you have played the river if you held pocket 99's?." To which I replied, "If I had the boat I obviously call." The boat being 9s full of Kings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, let me be more clear then. How would you have played the hand if you were villian and had 99? My question appears irrelevent at this point because you don't seem to understand why I'm asking it.

I'm 98% sure that most TAG's would lay this hand down. And I'm 98% sure that they'd be wrong. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[FreakDaddy]

[ QUOTE ]
first of all you desperately need to raise preflop. You don't want to play a 5-handed (or whatever) pot with AK.

After that your flop bet is fine but your turn bet sucks. Just check behind with the intention of calling a reasonable river bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Skeme believes that because they're suited it's better to get multi-way. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I agree with your statement about a raise as well. People put too much emphasis on suited cards at this level and they screw themselves.

[FreakDaddy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

After that your flop bet is fine but your turn bet sucks. Just check behind with the intention of calling a reasonable river bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol!?!?? You know that he improves to three of a kind on the Turn?

How tight are you people!? Lets check the river: Villian is putting our hero all-in. $74 more to call. Into an $133 pot.
That means even if villian have a boat half of the time you earn money!! Win $133 when you have the best hand and lose $74 when you have a worse hand.

And I promise you he will have a lot of hands that you beat a big % off the time. The only time I would fold this if I know my opponent and that he was very very very tight. Never against an unknown.

EDIT:
[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] AND I MEAN NEVER EVER!! [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
(If I had more money I might even raise it.. But it depends..)

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone on this board who makes sense. Amazing.

[theredpill5]

[ QUOTE ]
I think half the pot is a better play here, but regardless. The hand doesn't completely add up. If I had to put money on this hand though I'd say you folded the best hand. It was a tough hand without a solid read though, no question about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it does add up. Villain put Hero on a king and was hoping he wouldn't be able to fold.

And previous poster. $74 to call $133 or whatever. Problem is that I think about 75 % of the time an all-in on the river is going to mean a full house. I had a bad player put me all-in out of the blue on the river just like this and he showed me the full house. It played out almost exactly like this, actually.

[FreakDaddy]

[ QUOTE ]
i'd raise more pf and i'd be wishing for everyone to call (i'd take AKs to battle against 5 opponents).

Check the turn or bet more on the turn. Personally, I'd bet ~28 on the turn. If he calls/reraises then I know I am in trouble.

Anyone who wakes up on the river has you beat unless u think they are able to call bluff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, I think I'm going to play poker coach here for a minute. I think that a LOT of players on this board fall into the trap of applying their level of poker knowledge to their opponents. It's easy to do, but it's wrong. To crush your opponents who HAVE to be able to assign a value in terms of how they play. I typically assign values from 1-5 in terms of skill and then I let poker tracker assign the general auto rate player types (ie, LAG, TAG, LAP). This is extremely helpful in putting players on a range of hands based on how they bet the hand. I've posted more specific examples of how and when to raise against certain levels of players and I'll re-post it if people are interested, but as most of you know it's crucial to get into the heads of your opponents. To the degree that you can develop this skill is to the degree you will crush the game your in.

While this may be obvious to some of the players here, I don't see it applied enough in these forums. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I hear it over and over where players are saying, if such and such happens then A + B = C. That is rarely the case in poker. Not to say that because you've seen it occur a few times, or because it's not how you'd play a hand that it's not true, but you can't consistantly think like this and be a big winner. You're going to be losing big pots in these situations if you don't think you're opponent is going to bluff you on the river. Which leads me to my next point.

To the degree that your hand reading skills develop is to the degree that you can make successful bluffs on the river. I'll bet a nickle that most people here don't bluff enough on the river. You guys are losing big pots. Again, I may be wrong, but if you work on your hand reading skills you can make some well times bluffs against tight players on the river.

Ok, I'm done. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I hope this was helpful to someone.

[-Skeme-]

[ QUOTE ]
Any truth in this Skeme?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's true that he was apparently at the table and that I had said AK no good before I folded. I had no idea Villain was crazy maniac.


[ QUOTE ]
The only reason I advocate a call as a possibility here is because the play doesn't make sense and your logic doesn't make sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

My logic makes perfect sense. Barring Villain being a maniac, how many hands does he minraise preflop with and go into this betting pattern? Minraise, check-call big bet, check-call decent bet, all in.


[ QUOTE ]
I'm tryuing to point that out, but it's becoming glaringly obvious that you post and then are sure you already have the correct answer. Am I wrong, or is there any truth to this?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, there is 0 truth to this. You've already stated this and I've already responded. It's getting annoying now. I posted this to see who calls the hand. I've received my results. That does not mean I don't challenge the responses and try and have a thorough debate. There is no correct answer.


[ QUOTE ]
Look here... on one hand you think villian is a bad player and will mini-raise with 88 or 99, but at the same time you give him credit for putting you on a K (which is some what obvious), calling and pushing on the river, which is a fairly decent play.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't. I gave him credit for a full house and that's it. You're trying to say I'm pretending he's had some elaborate thinking process with his full house. Which isn't the case at all. If he put me on a a good King, he'd be betting into me and building a pot. Not making it somewhat apparent that he has a monster himself. I think he's not a good player who ran into a huge hand. Check-call, check-call, all in screams monster to me.


[ QUOTE ]
Ok, let me be more clear then. How would you have played the hand if you were villian and had 99? My question appears irrelevent at this point because you don't seem to understand why I'm asking it

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't be in that situation to begin with. I'd lead or raise somewhere before then and build a pot so AK has a reason to call my all in on the river.


[ QUOTE ]
I think Skeme believes that because they're suited it's better to get multi-way.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I don't. I already covered this. There was no reasoning to limp, I just did. 99% of the time I raise here and this is the 1% where I didn't.


[ QUOTE ]
People put too much emphasis on suited cards at this level and they screw themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I'm not one of them.

[FreakDaddy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think half the pot is a better play here, but regardless. The hand doesn't completely add up. If I had to put money on this hand though I'd say you folded the best hand. It was a tough hand without a solid read though, no question about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it does add up. Villain put Hero on a king and was hoping he wouldn't be able to fold.

And previous poster. $74 to call $133 or whatever. Problem is that I think about 75 % of the time an all-in on the river is going to mean a full house. I had a bad player put me all-in out of the blue on the river just like this and he showed me the full house. It played out almost exactly like this, actually.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good, it's helpful to me when players apply a specific past experience to all their future situations at the table.

I'm not saying that a full house isn't out of the range of possibilities here. Of course it is. Have I seen players play a similar sequence before? Yes of course. My point is that it's a semi-sophisticated move for a player who will mini-raise in MP with 88 or 99. That's all. That combined with the obnoxious river bet pushes me towards a call. Will I be wrong sometimes, yes. In the long run will I... I don't think so.

[theredpill5]

don't bluff small stakes. Just don't.