|
|
#31
11-02-2005, 10:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: On the Edge - IX
[ QUOTE ]
just curious...how long did the hand take to play out? what i mean is in situations like this how long does each deicision take to make? [/ QUOTE ] I wrote this article something like four or so months ago, so you'll pardon me if these are definite estimates as it wasn't last night, but everything was mere seconds: I knew going into my hand pre-flop that I was raising, the flop went down fast, as did the turn and river. I'm far from Chris Ferguson (in many ways) but especially with the count-to-10-before-making-any-decision gimmick. Barron Vangor Toth BarronVangorToth.com 
|
|
#32
11-02-2005, 10:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: On the Edge - IX
Some of the timing here doesn't add up. From the article:
[ QUOTE ] I was just into my third hour... [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] ...Tony, who came in two hours after I did... [/ QUOTE ] So you and Tony have only been at the table together for about an hour. Then we have: [ QUOTE ] Tony took a cigarette break on his big blind a few hours later, as he had done every second orbit to my aggrevation; [/ QUOTE ] and [ 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 ] So in the hour you've played together, you've played at least 9 orbits (we have evidence of at least 4 times he has been in this situation, these could be the 1st, 3rd, 5th, and 7th orbits since arriving making the hand the article is based on at least the 9th orbit)? Something's not right here.
|
|
#33
11-02-2005, 11:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: On the Edge - IX
Please reread the article.
Where I talk about it being the third hour, I am talking about taking the blinds and how I do this due to my image. Then, a few hours after being able to do this, the hand of this article comes up. We had been sitting together perhaps for almost four hours by that point. Barron Vangor Toth BarronVangorToth.com
|
|
#34
11-02-2005, 11:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: On the Edge - IX
[ QUOTE ]
Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm with SW on this one. Given your read, it makes much more sense to wait and pop the turn then 3-bet the flop. Your equity isn't that great. Waiting for the turn allows you to: 1. Evaluate the turn card. a likely kills your hand, and non-paint non-straight completing cards should give you a little concern. 2. Represent greater strength. The flop call turn raise sets off alarms in just about everyone's head. Now he may have a harder time showing down a hand like 43o. Your flop 3-bet could very well just be overs with a -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a very good point and I definitely don't think it would've been bad to do just that. And perhaps it would've been the better play. The reason I didn't go this way is that I couldn't have the river option that I did. [/ QUOTE ] I'm sorry, but this logic is a little fuzzy. How did you KNOW that you could raise the river when the flop action came out, especially after you 3-bet it and bet the turn? Could you honestly expect him to bet the river so you could "have the river option that [you] did? [ QUOTE ] So on the flop, I bet, he CRs, I call, on the turn he bets, I raise, and now he... (1) folds. Perfect. And this might've happened. [/ QUOTE ] You said that he checkraises draws and bets out his bluffs and made hands. If he has a draw, there is no way he is folding. At all. [ QUOTE ] (2) calls. Now there is trouble. I've been thinking about how people sometimes feel "invested" in a pot, and it has psychological ramifications, but it's something like this: some people when they get raised on the turn almost take it as an affront and will call, and then check-call the river (especially in the fear in my article that somewhere along the line he picked up bottom / near bottom pair). If only to get satisfaction to see what I'm raising with. By doing it on the flop, while I'm sacrificing .5 BB (1 SB on the flop vs. 1 BB with the raise on the turn), I don't think you get people as invested as it's much more common. [/ QUOTE ] Why does this matter? He has a draw. And FWIW, there are many opponents (especially if you have a tight ABC image, which you said you had) that will fold to turn raises. In future articles which seem to be totally based on reads, I suggest that you make a complete outline of his reads, so this won't be confused later when discussing your article. [ QUOTE ] By the way, Despot had a good post above as to another reason to go with my line: Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Have to disagree here Stellar. If Barron's read is that Tony is c/ring a draw, then three-betting the flop is much better. By 3-betting the flop, you can bet any non-heart turn and river, and raise any scare card donk. If you try "calling down" with queen-high, all you're going to do is pay off Tony's better hands as he proceeds to jam any pair to the river. The only way you make money is when Tony jams a busted flush to the river and you call with a better nothing hand. This happens pretty rarely, since Tony may well check-fold the river UI. [/ QUOTE ] Sorry but StellarWind is correct and Despot is wrong. If you 3-bet the flop, exactly how do you plan on raising a scare card turn lead from the villian when almost all players will check the turn to you? The second line about calling down with Q-high will only pay off Tony's better hands (i.e. a pair) doesn't make any sense at all. I thought that the fact that he must only have a draw on the flop was the key part to your article. Then how is he suddenly having a better hand then you?
|
|
#35
11-02-2005, 11:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: On the Edge - IX
[ QUOTE ]
How did you KNOW that you could raise the river when the flop action came out, especially after you 3-bet it and bet the turn? Could you honestly expect him to bet the river so you could "have the river option that [you] did? [/ QUOTE ] I didn't. Nor did I say that I did. I said "option": if I raise the turn, he invariably goes into check-call or -fold mode on the river. While maybe not likely, his bet out on the river is far more possible with this line than the other. So it's an "option," not a "likelihood." [ QUOTE ] If he has a draw, there is no way he is folding. At all. [/ QUOTE ] Agreed. He probably doesn't. But it's not a 100% call. (Close, perhaps, but fold is an option that he might take IF he just decides to give up.) [ QUOTE ] I suggest that you make a complete outline of his reads, so this won't be confused later when discussing your article. [/ QUOTE ] This is a good idea. I notice in the article guidelines they've upped it to 1-2,000 words so, if/when I decide on a new article series for 2006, and if 2+2 likes it enough to publish it, and if it is as read-based, I will be more thorough in this regard (same with the additions I would make to OTE 8-type article with the hindsight of the discussion last month). [ QUOTE ] If you 3-bet the flop, exactly how do you plan on raising a scare card turn lead from the villian when almost all players will check the turn to you? [/ QUOTE ] You obviously can't raise if he doesn't bet out, but he doesn't always just check, he may bet out (again, it's an option, not a likelihood). [ QUOTE ] The second line about calling down with Q-high will only pay off Tony's better hands (i.e. a pair) doesn't make any sense at all. I thought that the fact that he must only have a draw on the flop was the key part to your article. Then how is he suddenly having a better hand then you? [/ QUOTE ] Stepping back from the article. You hold: 6 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 7 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] The board is A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] K [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] Q [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 6 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] Your hand is basically a drawing hand even if you do have a pair of 6's. The river is a J [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] And now you are facing a bet. Or you bet out on the scare card and you're raised. See? Barron Vangor Toth BarronVangorToth.com
|
|
#36
11-02-2005, 11:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: On the Edge - IX
[ 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. 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 [/ QUOTE ] Fine enough. I just think you were too quick to dismiss those types of hands and automatically assume you were ahead. If he's as tricky as you say he is, then he's likely to change up his game occasionally as well.
|
|
#37
11-02-2005, 11:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: On the Edge - IX
My agreement with BVT on his postflop play had to do with a generic sense that this opponent's play is characteristic monkey play. Based on this quote:
"He'd check-raise on the flop with draws and bet out with decent hands; if he simply called the flop, it was to check-raise the turn. Whenever he check-raised the flop he would lead out on the turn. If any scare card came on the river, he'd either bet out or raise in order to pick up the pot." So this guy is going to be doing lots of semibluff checkraising on draws, bottom pair, donking scare cards, turn checkraising paired boards, stop-and-gos, etc. Whereas real hands get jammed in a straightforward manner. This is the type of player who will fold on the river if he's sure he's beat, but he likes to try to use c/ring OOP or semibluff raising when in position, on the turn, to take control of a hand and fold out a "tight" player with a better hand. So when the hand plays out, the "tricky" play on the two-tone flop says IM ON A HEART DRAW OR I HAVE BOTTOM PAIR, and the non-heart river donk at the end says MY FLUSH MISSED BUT IM GOING TO REPRESENT A SCARE CARD. Against this sort of player, if you choose to gamble, a lot of your equity in the hand comes from planning to re-steal on either 4th street or the river. Granted, a plan to re-steal before seeing the flop and while holding crap, is dangerously close to spewing, but the concept of re-steal against a monkey isn't totally off. Admittedly, you need to be pretty sure of your read, but if BVT had this guy pegged as a habitual bullshitter, I think his play is fine. The raise on the flop disguises his hand and represent an ace, overcard, or overpair on later streets. One final note: Given the read of this guy as a monkey, the biggest reason I fold this preflop is because monkeys dont like raising with AA, AK or KK and just winning the blinds. So I found the limp incredibly uncharacteristic for a "tricky" player--and basically saying "I have a big hand". So I would have folded this preflop (also b/c my hand had no real equity edge).
|
|
#38
11-02-2005, 11:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: On the Edge - IX
[ QUOTE ]
Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How did you KNOW that you could raise the river when the flop action came out, especially after you 3-bet it and bet the turn? Could you honestly expect him to bet the river so you could "have the river option that [you] did? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I didn't. Nor did I say that I did. I said "option": if I raise the turn, he invariably goes into check-call or -fold mode on the river. While maybe not likely, his bet out on the river is far more possible with this line than the other. So it's an "option," not a "likelihood." [/ QUOTE ] I think the merits of being able to force a draw to face two cold on the turn outweigh any folding equity you may have on the river IF he suddenly out of nowhere decided to bet it. and why is it so inconcievable that you have no FE with a turn raise/river bet line? [ QUOTE ] Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If he has a draw, there is no way he is folding. At all. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Agreed. He probably doesn't. But it's not a 100% call. (Close, perhaps, but fold is an option that he might take IF he just decides to give up.) [/ QUOTE ] no. he really won't. [ QUOTE ] Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you 3-bet the flop, exactly how do you plan on raising a scare card turn lead from the villian when almost all players will check the turn to you? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You obviously can't raise if he doesn't bet out, but he doesn't always just check, he may bet out (again, it's an option, not a likelihood). [/ QUOTE ] i don't mean to beat on a dead horse here, but the best way to raise the turn is to not 3-bet the flop and let him continue to lead with his draw as most players would. [ QUOTE ] Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The second line about calling down with Q-high will only pay off Tony's better hands (i.e. a pair) doesn't make any sense at all. I thought that the fact that he must only have a draw on the flop was the key part to your article. Then how is he suddenly having a better hand then you? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stepping back from the article. You hold: 6 7 The board is A K Q 6 Your hand is basically a drawing hand even if you do have a pair of 6's. The river is a J And now you are facing a bet. Or you bet out on the scare card and you're raised. See? [/ QUOTE ] I'm not exactly sure how your example relates to my quote. Could you explain it to me like I was a 5 year old? (I'm being serious, I just want it to be clarified.) The turn card was a King. You already said in your article that 1) he cannot have a king because he would have raised preflop. You also already said that 2) his flop checkraise indicates a draw, not a made hand. With 1 + 2, how exactly does he suddenly have a better hand then you?
|
|
#39
11-02-2005, 02:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: On the Edge - IX
[ QUOTE ]
The turn card was a King. You already said in your article that 1) he cannot have a king because he would have raised preflop. You also already said that 2) his flop checkraise indicates a draw, not a made hand. With 1 + 2, how exactly does he suddenly have a better hand then you? [/ QUOTE ] My example shows this precisely. He could have what is effectively a drawing hand (like 48o - a gutshot) that is STILL "better" than my hand. There are other hands he could be drawing with as well that still would have a random 4,5,7 in them. See? Barron Vangor Toth BarronVangorToth.com
|
|
#40
11-02-2005, 03:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: On the Edge - IX
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I don't like the pre-flop play. Even if this guy is going to raise any two cards as a late-position post opener, Q6 off is still too weak to gamble with. [/ QUOTE ] Again: this isn't about Q6, but rather the opportunity. The cards almost always matter. Almost always. Barron Vangor Toth BarronVangorToth.com [/ QUOTE ] Barron I think the preflop play is perfect. However, if you have a chance to edit these type of things, the preflop action was rather unclear. When I first read it I also thought that you had 3bet his raise with Q6 rather than just raised after he checked.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
