1010 in a tough river spot

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you're wrong and I have explained why, but you won't give up, so I will.


[/ QUOTE ]

you are indeed a gentleman gary.

the problem is, Dom already detailed that pure gentlemen get no pussy, and in this case, lose EV.

you're logic in the above sentance is indicative of a few possibilities.

1) the posters who are arguing with you are incorrect and simply wont grasp or understand your explanations no matter how hard you try so you give up.

2) bernie not giving up means that he is obstinate and wrong at the same time and that you are again, correct to give up.

3) you are right but simply cannot explain your point so you give up.

4) YOU are the one who does not understand what is going on here to the same extent as those with whom you continue to argue. you argue b/c of an understand you think you have that is deeper than the one you actually posses.

5) you are simply lazy (whihc i think isn't the case)

out of the above explanations i think its clear which one i think is most likely.

Barron

[baronzeus]

fold preflop. TT has bad equity anytime it's not Heads Up.


i generally only play AA and KK here, and I like to limp those for deception.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you're wrong and I have explained why, but you won't give up, so I will.


[/ QUOTE ]

you are indeed a gentleman gary.

the problem is, Dom already detailed that pure gentlemen get no pussy, and in this case, lose EV.

you're logic in the above sentance is indicative of a few possibilities.

1) the posters who are arguing with you are incorrect and simply wont grasp or understand your explanations no matter how hard you try so you give up.

2) bernie not giving up means that he is obstinate and wrong at the same time and that you are again, correct to give up.

3) you are right but simply cannot explain your point so you give up.

4) YOU are the one who does not understand what is going on here to the same extent as those with whom you continue to argue. you argue b/c of an understand you think you have that is deeper than the one you actually posses.

5) you are simply lazy (whihc i think isn't the case)

out of the above explanations i think its clear which one i think is most likely.

Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

If anyone had actually made some compelling arguments, I'd accept 4. As it is, they didn't, and I'm pretty sure I understand poker as well as anyone on this thread (and probably this board, with a couple of exceptions).

I've explained why I didn't raise and not one argument on here has pointed out a flaw in my reasoning. The argument seems to come down to "you have a better hand than crappy players, so raise". Well that's not how you win money at poker. You win by taking all factors into account, like maximizing your ability to win the pot in a given set of circumstances combined with exploiting equity edges. It's a balance, and the posters on this thread don't appear to realize this at all.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
you have a better hand than crappy players, so raise

[/ QUOTE ]

here's an example, if you're opponents had literally any hand and played EVERY hand randomly in the same spot (i.e. just change the initial limper's range to include all hands) would you raise TT?

Barron

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you have a better hand than crappy players, so raise

[/ QUOTE ]

here's an example, if you're opponents had literally any hand and played EVERY hand randomly in the same spot (i.e. just change the initial limper's range to include all hands) would you raise TT?

Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course but that isn't what's happening here at all.

You guys don't give the bad players enough credit ... ever. They might suck, their VPIP might be 45%, but they're not total idiots. Come on already.

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure I understand poker as well as anyone on this thread (and probably this board, with a couple of exceptions).

[/ QUOTE ]

See, this is the kind of thing that people here see a lot. Someone who's new toi the board declaring how they understand things much better than all the players who disagree with them.

[ QUOTE ]
I've explained why I didn't raise and not one argument on here has pointed out a flaw in my reasoning. The argument seems to come down to "you have a better hand than crappy players, so raise". Well that's not how you win money at poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one has pointed out the reasoning because it is such an obvious play for most of the posters. Almost everyone here will raise TT against "horrendous" players.

Here's some reasoning for you. Your equity edge is often NOT small; it is frequently pretty significant. Your argument about overcards fails because the horrendous players will chase anyway, and if they call and you bet an all undercard flop, their incorrect calls will not be incorrect enough for you to have foregone the preflop raise. Giving up your preflop edge is not worth it if you can't make it back postflop.

As for "that's not how you win money at poker," yes it is. You push preflop edges when they're significant, which TT frequently is against bad limpers. They're likely to have something like 87 or 55 or A9. You really think you shouldn't raise against those hands?

HPFAP DOES NOT APPLY in the situation you're describing. They don't assume your opponents are awful players. SSHE does, and it says this is a raise.

Run some TwoDimes simulations and see what you get. A lot of the time your edge is massive.

[ QUOTE ]
It's a balance, and the posters on this thread don't appear to realize this at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assure you that many of them do.

Your TT argument is a lot like the argument not to raise AK preflop, which is also a bad play.

Being new here doesn't have anything to do with my experience. I've been playing hold'em for 6 years, and other forms for 10 years. I understand the game, no matter how many times I've decided to post here. Kids on here think they're a lot brighter than they really are, I tell you.

And with respect to your comments about HFAP, at 15/30 horrendous players as two of my opponents makes it even more imperative that I call and be able to face them with 2 bets cold on the flop. The advice in SSHE is not relevant to this situation at all. If you don't see why, then I can't help you. Good luck at the tables though.

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
Being new here doesn't have anything to do with my experience. I've been playing hold'em for 6 years, and other forms for 10 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct, but it does mean you shouldn't be so sure you're a better player than everyone and you especially shouldn't point it out even if you think it. I'm sure there are plenty of people here who have more experience than you (not that I'm one of them).

[ QUOTE ]
at 15/30 horrendous players as two of my opponents makes it even more imperative that I call and be able to face them with 2 bets cold on the flop. The advice in SSHE is not relevant to this situation at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem a lot more sure than I would be that everything is gonna work out just right for you to be able to checkraise the button's flop bet. What if someone else bets? Or you hit your set and WANT them to chase so you wish the pot were big? Or the button gets tricky and inexplicably takes a free card? All of these things are possibilities.

Why is SSHE not relevant? "Because it's 15/30" is not a correct answer. You've described a game with a fivehanded pot involving bad players who are openlimping and overlimping. That's a lot more similar to SSHE than HPFAP.

EDIT: While I agree that a lot of people don't give bad players enough credit, I still think your equity is big against their range of limping hands. Run some numbers and think about it. You are CRUSHING a lot of the hands they limp with. That's the point.

[baronzeus]

i just realized this is a 15/30 hand. post this in small stakes. you will get better answers there

[La Brujita]

[ QUOTE ]
Kids on here think they're a lot brighter than they really are, I tell you.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a ridiculous statement. If you knew how incredibly skilled and well respected these players are I think you would be shocked.