Too weak tight? Flop bottom set

[tbach24]

Button could very well be raising a draw sensing weakness from your flat-call and knowing that the original bettor will fold. There are a lot of connecting cards on the turn. You really have to raise the bet on the flop.

I don't see why 99 and TT are unlikely.

[legend42]

[ QUOTE ]
So since "on" is a preposition, is the usage of "whom" correct here?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[Post-Oak]

[ QUOTE ]

What an incisive reply! Oh, wait, no.. Implicit in FoxwoodFiend's comment is the assumption that many players who could reasonably be described as "sound" are willing to get their stacks in on this flop with a hand worse than 222, and such an assumption is apposite to the hand under discussion (ya know, since it's a hypothetical hand against a generic villain).


[/ QUOTE ]

There are many more factors to consider than the fact that some opponents would play for their whole stack here without a set. Ignoring all factors but one results in a useless generalization. Once again, a generalization which does not take into account the specifics of the hand (description of table, description of villain, villain's opinion of hero's style of play, stack sizes, preflop action, action on the flop) is useless because it does not take into account all relevant factors. It's as if I asked "Should horse thieves be hanged?" and he answered "There are situations where it is right to punish criminals."

[ QUOTE ]

While I take issue with his premise (most reasonable players aren't going broke here with the worse hands in their likely range, not even at 50nl), your rejoinder is nonsensical and needlessly dismissive.


[/ QUOTE ]

We are in agreement that his premise is faulty. My "rejoinder" was not nonsensical (see above). It's clear that you fancy yourself an intellectual. You will need to significantly improve your reading comprehension if you ever hope to live up to your pretensions.

[ QUOTE ]

What the hell are you talking about?


[/ QUOTE ]

I was talking about his comment that "every hand you should think about what is probable". Don't you realize that "what is probable" changes given differing circumstances? Do I really have to run down a list of relevant factors for you once again?

[ QUOTE ]

Here, I will make it easy: if your opponent will raise with hands that aren't sets, and he will do this with some frequency, then folding the flop when it's $110 to you with $350 in the pot isn't the best play.


[/ QUOTE ]

If your opponent will raise here with A high, then folding the flop is not the best play either. You see, this is why we are speaking about a specific opponent in a specific circumstance.

At least you seem to understand the concept that if the villain were to raise with an over pair here only infrequently, then folding would still be the best option.

[ QUOTE ]

Foxwood is basically taking issue with Ciaffone's definition of "sound", as are many of the other dissenters in this thread.


[/ QUOTE ]

I called the player "solid". I later added this description:
"I think he would have raised with AA, KK, QQ or JJ most all of the time, since he was not in EP and there was already a limper in front of him. So far I had seen him as a solid, ABC type player"

It is not my fault (nor Ciaffone's) if some people don't understand what a "sound" or "solid" player is. You act as if the term "solid player" could have any number of meanings. That is simply not the case. If you don't know what it means, that is your problem.

[ QUOTE ]

In most games being played today there are very few opponents you should be folding this flop to, period. You should proceed charily, but you shouldn't abandon the hand when facing such a modest amount of aggression from a 'solid' player.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, worthless... Tell me HOW you would proceed. Saying you should proceed is meaningless. The poster suggested raising, but also claimed he would be able to do this without playing for his stack. Explain to me how this is possible. I need a specific line (complete with actual numbers and a plan of action). I am not saying folding is the only viable option. But don't hem and haw and try to have it both ways. If you are willing to go broke here, just come out and say it. And why do you describe the villain as showing "modest" aggression? He just raised a bettor and a cold caller. What more does he need to do? Punch you in the face?

[ QUOTE ]

Basically, you're all arguing over the putative hand range of a hypothetical opponent given a general description of his play.


[/ QUOTE ]

What did you think this forum was for?

[SpeakEasy]

Wow. Post-Oak, if you want advice, stop blasting the responders. Take a deep breath and relax.

You asked, too weak tight? Yes, it was too weak tight. Raise on the flop, don't call. Bet the pot. If you're scared to play this hand if raised, then fold, but don't call.

[KaneKungFu123]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow. Post-Oak, if you want advice, stop blasting the responders. Take a deep breath and relax.

You asked, too weak tight? Yes, it was too weak tight. Raise on the flop, don't call. Bet the pot. If you're scared to play this hand if raised, then fold, but don't call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Post-Oak is real [censored], isnt he?

why is so much time being devoted to such a simple situation?

[VanVeen]

"You will need to significantly improve your reading comprehension if you ever hope to live up to your pretensions."

Haha. You think so? Okay!

"If your opponent will raise here with A high, then folding the flop is not the best play either"

Either? Ace high isn't a set.

"It is not my fault (nor Ciaffone's) if some people don't understand what a "sound" or "solid" player is. You act as if the term "solid player" could have any number of meanings."

Your mental model of a "solid" or "sound" player differs from mine. The hand range I assign to your opponent given that description and the other information you've provided about the hand isn't the same as the hand range you assign to him, nor do we expect your opponent to do similar things on later streets with his various hands. So, when FoxwoodFiend says 'tight players don't only raise sets', implying that they're quite likely to raise hands like 99/TT/A8/67, etc. if they're holding them, and you reply that such a generalization is 'useless' in the context of this specific hand, can you understand why I would intercede on his behalf? The answer is yes, yes you can, because one's general model of a "solid" or "sound" opponent is a variable used to determine the villain's probable hand range, something a player needs before proceeding (of course!).

Let me remind you of the foregoing dialogue between you and Foxwood.

Foxwood: I am willing to lose my stack on set versus set because the vast majority of times you get your stack in on this type of board you're winning.

You: Please talk about the specific hand. I realize that a set is a relatively good hand.


Foxwood is basically saying that a set is a good hand relative to (got that?) his opponent's probable hand range, and if the money goes in he expects to win the majority of the time, indicating that he thinks "solid" opponents go broke a lot with 99/TT, etc. I disagree with this. You were just being a captious prick.

Foxwood: Tight players not only raising with sets isn't borderline useless just because it's a general rule and this is a specific hand-every hand you should think about what is probable instead of worrying about the fact that in this particular instance you might be wrong.

You: Yes, in every hand you need to be thinking about the specific situation. Thinking "I have a set!!!!!" does not qualify.

Your reply is simply nonsensical. You can see why, of course, because you are GOOD AT READING and THINKING IMPARTIALLY and JUDGING IDEAS instead of DISMISSING OTHERS because THEY DISAGREE WITH YOU.

And dude, I know what the forum is for. Most hands are cut and dry. They are discussed to help players learn the concepts needed to analyse hands on their own. You have successfully shown with your hand that you can be in a very marginal situation with a flopped set, one that requires thought and accurate opponent modelling to play profitably. Bad players with no read should prob just ditch the hand on the flop. Playing "weak-tight" isn't always a crime. In your haste to make this clear to us all you successfully managed to piss me off your NEEDLESS and UNPROVOKED derision of those who volunteered their opinion. You do it a lot. It's annoying.

[barongreenback]

[ QUOTE ]


Why would you play 22 pre-flop if you would fold when you hit a set with this board?

[/ QUOTE ]
In the BB in an unraised pot, maybe?

[Post-Oak]

[ QUOTE ]


Post-Oak is real [censored], isnt he?

why is so much time being devoted to such a simple situation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there any way to turn off the automatic censoring when reading posts?

[Post-Oak]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow. Post-Oak, if you want advice, stop blasting the responders. Take a deep breath and relax.


[/ QUOTE ]

I did not "blast" most all responders. The first posters I took issue with were a couple of guys who claimed that I left out relevant information from the hand description in the book. This was simpy not true. I invited each of those posters to post any such relevant info that I happend to omit.

My rude behavior towards Foxwood was caused by my frustration with his refusal to answer any specific questions.

For example, he says:
"But there are ways to get the proper information to make sure folding is correct. Reraise him to get him to muck 99 or 10 10, and if he pushes then you can consider folding.... There are many lines where you can pick up information instead of folding a set because somebody raises you 100 bucks."

Why respond to the thread with a claim that you can raise here, without getting committed to the hand, and then refuse to offer an example of how this can be done?

I didn't attack guys like tbach who simply said they are willing to play for their stack here and want to get the money all-in. I understand his logic, even if I disagree.

All I want is an example of how you can reraise the flop raiser and still get away from the hand.

For example:
I would reraise half the pot. So with the pot at $350, I would call the $110 and add $230 on top. If he calls I am basically done with the hand. Although the pot is $920 and I only have ~$600 left, I am done with the hand, even if he only bets $100 on the turn.

Now that line is pretty horrible, but at least it is an actual plan. Or maybe he could have said, "on second thought I like the idea of calling and leading the turn with a blocking bet." Simply claiming you would magically reraise and still be able to sniff out a set without losing your stack is nonsense.

And the only other poster I "blasted" happened to attack me first.

[Post-Oak]

[ QUOTE ]

Your mental model of a "solid" or "sound" player differs from mine. The hand range I assign to your opponent given that description and the other information you've provided about the hand isn't the same as the hand range you assign to him, nor do we expect your opponent to do similar things on later streets with his various hands. So, when FoxwoodFiend says 'tight players don't only raise sets', implying that they're quite likely to raise hands like 99/TT/A8/67, etc. if they're holding them, and you reply that such a generalization is 'useless' in the context of this specific hand, can you understand why I would intercede on his behalf? The answer is yes, yes you can, because one's general model of a "solid" or "sound" opponent is a variable used to determine the villain's probable hand range, something a player needs before proceeding (of course!).


[/ QUOTE ]

You are missing a key ingredient. There were posters who said that they would be willing to play for their stack here because the hand range I am assigning the villain is way too small. I did not claim that these posters were spouting nonsense. The reason Foxwood's replies were worthless is because he wanted it both ways. He was claiming:
1. villain can have all kinds of hands here
2. he would reraise the flop raise
3. he was not willing to play for his stack

I have tried to explain that the third claim is not logically consistent with the first 2 when you take the stack/pot size into account for this specific hand. Do you see now where I am coming from? I just want him to explain how he can reraise the flop raise and then not play for his stack against a guy who is loose enough to have all of the listed hands here.

[ QUOTE ]

Let me remind you of the foregoing dialogue between you and Foxwood.

Foxwood: I am willing to lose my stack on set versus set because the vast majority of times you get your stack in on this type of board you're winning.

You: Please talk about the specific hand. I realize that a set is a relatively good hand.


Foxwood is basically saying that a set is a good hand relative to (got that?) his opponent's probable hand range, and if the money goes in he expects to win the majority of the time, indicating that he thinks "solid" opponents go broke a lot with 99/TT, etc. I disagree with this. You were just being a captious prick.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I tried to clarify if Foxwood was saying
a. he was willing to go broke here (this specific hand) with 22
b. in general he is willing to go broke with bottom set on this board

He clarified that (a) was not correct. So you are mistaken as to what he was trying to say. He specifically said that he would reraise, but that he would be able to do it in such a way that he would know if he was beat, and so would not be playing for his stack if called.

[ QUOTE ]

Foxwood: Tight players not only raising with sets isn't borderline useless just because it's a general rule and this is a specific hand-every hand you should think about what is probable instead of worrying about the fact that in this particular instance you might be wrong.

You: Yes, in every hand you need to be thinking about the specific situation. Thinking "I have a set!!!!!" does not qualify.

Your reply is simply nonsensical. You can see why, of course, because you are GOOD AT READING and THINKING IMPARTIALLY and JUDGING IDEAS instead of DISMISSING OTHERS because THEY DISAGREE WITH YOU.


[/ QUOTE ]

The reply is not nonsensical. The reply is a sarcastic way to grab his comment that "every hand you should think about what is probable" and turn it against him. I am pointing out that you have to be considering what is probable in this specific instance, and not generally speaking. Saying something along the lines of bottom set is usually the best hand on this board does not meet the requirement of considering all factors involved. There are more factors than your two cards and what the board is (preflop action, flop action, etc.)

[ QUOTE ]

In your haste to make this clear to us all you successfully managed to piss me off your NEEDLESS and UNPROVOKED derision of those who volunteered their opinion. You do it a lot. It's annoying.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO, I very rarely deride another poster unless I am attacked first. I don't think I do that a lot. I was just trying to get Foxwood to post a specific line of action. The way I went about it was probably too abrasive, and then things escalated from there. It's not like I just blasted anyone who disagreed with me. Or at least I don't think so.