80/160 GAME AT BELLAGIO - Page 8

Ironman · #71 04-14-2005, 10:41 AM

I think this is the key piece of information about playing Dan Negr...I mean villian. He is not playing poker (and you should not expect him to be playing poker) when he sits down at this table. He's killing time. He's making a BIG ENTRANCE. He's building an aura about his game. He needs to stroke his ego. But he is not playing poker.

I don't think you can treat these guys with the same respect that you would treat someone who "needs the money".

The pot is roughly 5 grand...that's one big bet in the "real" game he has come to play that night.

I would have been shocked if he turned over the second best hand.

ggbman · #72 04-14-2005, 10:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I went scrolling to the end, hoping you hadn't posted the results yet.

I think the right play against a very good player is to fold to the checkraise on the river. A very good player is way more likely to go nine-bets on the turn with a huge draw than with second set. And if you're the type (as I am) who would never go nine-bets there without pocket queens, and if the very good player suspects that you are that type of player, then when I put it all together, it's a no-brainer fold on the river. You can't have the best hand anymore.

Tommy

[/ QUOTE ]

Since a very good player isn't going 9 bets on the turn without the nuts, let alone a hand that cant beat 22, this line of thinking is moot IMO

andyfox · #73 04-14-2005, 11:33 AM

Good points. I know there have been times where I was 100% sure I was beat and called anyway. Because I'm not good enough to fold. Because I'm not good enough to trust my read 100%. Because there were soooo many chips in the middle and it was only one more bet. It's a leak.

I don't think this case qualifies though. Yes, it's more likely he has a flush than a set, but I wouldn't be 100% sure and I couldn't quantify whether I was 93% sure or 98% and, therefore, whether a fold was correct. But the general point that since we only have three options in poker, it sure is a shame not to at least consider all three, is apt.

skp · #74 04-14-2005, 12:26 PM

Tommy's posts are alwyas insightful. This one is no exception.

In fact, his post in this thread is unassailable given the assumptions in it. But the whole point is how reliable are those assumptions given villain's turn actions and other sundry factors?

I am not even sure that Tommy is saying that he would fold here. He is simply saying that he would fold if a,b,and c are true and if Tommy can accurately deduce that they are true.

Indeed, if Tommy were dead right on all of his assumptions, then he wouldn't have bet the river in teh first place when the flush card came. In fact, if he was certain about his assumptions, he shouldn't bet the river even if the board paired (unless he made quads). After all, his assumption is that villain knows for certain what hero holds. Therefore, hero's bet would be pointless even if he filled up because he wont get called by a busted draw, a worse full, and will get raised by quads.

MVicuna · #75 04-14-2005, 01:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Tommy's posts are alwyas insightful. This one is no exception.
...
Indeed, if Tommy were dead right on all of his assumptions, then he wouldn't have bet the river in teh first place when the flush card came. In fact, if he was certain about his assumptions, he shouldn't bet the river even if the board paired (unless he made quads). After all, his assumption is that villain knows for certain what hero holds. Therefore, hero's bet would be pointless even if he filled up because he wont get called by a busted draw, a worse full, and will get raised by quads.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting, if that in fact was Tommy's line.

In a game with no cap heads up maybe you can reach on almost 100% certainty when your in a set over set situation. A lot of us online players used to only a 4 bet cap always have enough room for error we'd payoff with 22 or JJ or 88 in this situation, but going 9 on the turn the villian could very well reach that 100% certainty that you have a set of Q's or J's so he won't be calling just check-raising. So while to a lot of online players it looks like an autobet because we get payed off everytime, its actually a wasted bet live because of the turn action.

I do ignore the fact you missout on getting check-raised on a bluff, but thats never happening enough to make up for all the times you payoff with the worse hand.

MarkV.

Nightwish · #76 04-14-2005, 01:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hero only needs to believe his hand will be good 3.73% of the time to make the call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now we're talking. Yes, for the reasons you stated, I agree that calling the river is right.

But the general attitude that gets displayed on this forum way too much is that "pot is big, must call" ignoring the fact that there are definitely situations where it is very clear that Hero is behind 90%, 95%, or even more. It was clear in reading some of these posts that people were not considering whether they needed to be good here 1%, 3%, or 10% of the time for a call to be good. And considering those kinds of things is very important.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you tell the difference between the hero being good 1%, 3%, or 5% of the time?

Ulysses · #77 04-14-2005, 01:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hero only needs to believe his hand will be good 3.73% of the time to make the call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now we're talking. Yes, for the reasons you stated, I agree that calling the river is right.

But the general attitude that gets displayed on this forum way too much is that "pot is big, must call" ignoring the fact that there are definitely situations where it is very clear that Hero is behind 90%, 95%, or even more. It was clear in reading some of these posts that people were not considering whether they needed to be good here 1%, 3%, or 10% of the time for a call to be good. And considering those kinds of things is very important.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you tell the difference between the hero being good 1%, 3%, or 5% of the time?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, there are often times when I'm probably good 1 in 100 but there's no way I'm good 1 in 20.

Schneids · #78 04-14-2005, 01:56 PM

Ikke, between you and Tommy this post became worth all the time it took me to read it.

Thanks.

andyfox · #79 04-14-2005, 02:08 PM

Yup, any post that elicits responses from Tommy and Ikke is certainly worthwhile.

ggbman · #80 04-14-2005, 03:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hero only needs to believe his hand will be good 3.73% of the time to make the call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now we're talking. Yes, for the reasons you stated, I agree that calling the river is right.

But the general attitude that gets displayed on this forum way too much is that "pot is big, must call" ignoring the fact that there are definitely situations where it is very clear that Hero is behind 90%, 95%, or even more. It was clear in reading some of these posts that people were not considering whether they needed to be good here 1%, 3%, or 10% of the time for a call to be good. And considering those kinds of things is very important.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you tell the difference between the hero being good 1%, 3%, or 5% of the time?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, there are often times when I'm probably good 1 in 100 but there's no way I'm good 1 in 20.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an excellent point, but i dont think it applies to this thread because hero is good so much more often that that. P.S. are we ever going to get results?