Preflop bluff turns into money by the river

[ZootMurph]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, I'll throw in a minumum of reasoning to my previous post.

Your statement: "My whole idea was that you miss the flop 2 out of 3 times, and knowing he will fold any flop he misses, I will win a nice pot 2 out of 3 times. So, I'm going into the hand as a 2:1 favorite against him" is pretty ridiculous. First, you're only taking into account unpaired hands hitting a pair on the flop; second, you're not accounting for flopping a draw; third, you can't be certain he folds on the flop in a big pot for one bet - your read just isn't that strong; fourth, this hypothetical action actually contradicts your given read "MP2 is a LAG preflop(47%/31%), but very rarely shows down hands, either folding after the turn with nothing or jamming the pot" -- but he'll now fold for one bet on the flop?; fifth, there are four people to act behind you, including one "classic calling station;" sixth, despite flopping NOTHING you are betting into the calling station and the LAG who likes to see the river; seventh, if you think you have adequate responses to all these points, then please explain to me why 7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] is a better hand to this with than 72o -- the bulk of your +EV argument is essentially stealing a pot by investing at minimum 2BBs.

Lastly, nice apology; however, in the future when someone criticizes a play, responding with, in effect, "am I the only good player here who varies his play or is everyone else a robotic ABCer?" is not the best way to win friends and influence people. Good luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

Catt... I agree with you that I didn't take into account his hitting a draw. I did account for big pairs, and I did believe my read was that strong. Unfortunately, I can't give you any basis for my read, as we all get reads on players based on what we see. The only way I can verify my read is the flop action, where I bet and he folds. Also, as I said to ErrantNight... there are going to be times when I hit a big flop too. These cancel out the times he has a big hand. Further, since I don't know what he was holding, I think I have just as good a chance as he did to flop a big draw as well, so I would have to guess that the times he flops a draw and I flop a draw cancel each other too. My hand in this case is simply a draw oriented hand, which probably gives me a better chance at flopping a draw than MP2's holding. But, I'm fine with calling it even for the sake of this discussion.

As for the way MP2 was playing. I looked at his stats, and he shows down a lot, 53% of the time. It was just a read I had from watching him at this table. Maybe he was having a bad day and getting into the frame of mind where every hand is a loser... I don't know. I just know that, at this table, on this day, he seemed to be folding a LOT on the flop after raising preflop. Again, as for reads... all I can say is we all have reads on players... if we don't trust our reads, then we can't maximize situations that occur on the table as we are playing.

Unfortunately, there isn't much to be able to discuss or argue with when talking about reads. Most of your arguments are on my reads. I have to trust my reads, whatever the numbers may be saying. I can't tell you that you are wrong, just like you telling me my read was wrong cannot be realistic, since you were not there. Basically, the first thing you have to do when going through someone else's hand is look at their reads and base your responses to them. Questioning them doesn't change the way the hand played out, because the player posting the hand played the hand based on their read. So you, too, should be basing your criticism of the hand on the read given. Finally, I think the result (the LAG in MP2 folded the flop with two Broadway cards showing), verifies my read more than anything else could.

I really can't answer anything about your fifth point. I don't really understand it. My definition of a calling station and yours may be different. To me a calling station is someone that, ONCE IN A HAND, will not let go of the hand IF THEY HAVE ANYTHING AT ALL. So, a calling station can fold A2 preflop, but can't fold A2 postflop if the flop contains a 2, or 34, 35, or 45. My definition of someone being a calling station doesn't influence preflop decisions, in general.

As I said to ErrantNight, I agree with your sixth point. It was dumb betting into the tight calling station postflop.

As for your seventh point. 76s is not better than 72o for the situation, except that it is intrinsically a better hand. So, this play would be even better with AA... but then it wouldn't be considered to be making a play, just standard stuff. The truth of the matter is that I wouldn't make that play with 72o. I feel that part of the value of the play is the hand itself. VERY VERY little. But the hand offsets possibilities which affect the numbers. If I did this with 72o, then my chances of flopping something worth fighting with would be miniscule, and therefore would not offset some of the possibilities of MP2s hand, like flopping a draw or having a big pair. Whereas 76s has many possibilities itself that will offset the extremes for MP2. I don't know exactly what you were looking for with your seventh point, but I hope I answered it. If not, I look forward to further discussion about it.

Finally, I didn't say "GOOD" player... I said [ QUOTE ]
... is there anyone out there besides me who isn't an automaton?

[/ QUOTE ] To me, this doesn't infer superiority. I think all posters here are better than average players. The majority are better than me, without question. However, part of any player's game, in my estimation, is varying your game. All those who think no one pays attention really have a long way to go in getting better, simply because they have to overcome preconceived notions that EVERYONE is a fish because they play online, play at Party Poker, play 2/4, etc. And, at the time I posted this, I was wondering if anyone besides me actually varied their game. I know we've all read HEPFAP, and it is clearly talked about in that book, as well as several others. But we don't see many non standard plays here to help us understand when we find a situation to make one of these plays. Further, any time there is a nonstandard play posted, everyone posts the standard response (don't 3 bet the preflop with 76s). Unfortunately, in this specific instance, I really didn't put enough information in my initial post, and that threw some things off. Follow that up with Entity getting pissed over my responses just threw this whole thread out of line. Some of the fault is, without question, mine. That's why I apologized.

[Catt]

If you're going to post a hand in which the wisdom or donky-ness of your play depends on incredibly specific reads that will generate incredibly specific post-flop responses, then you need to include those reads in the original post (or consider not posting it, as it contains little to educate and little to comment upon). And for the love of God, do not include in the original post a read that contradicts the "pull a read out later to justify my play" expansion on the original read. Your OP described MP2 as LAGgy pre-flop and either jamming or folding after the turn post-flop. That read does not even resemble "he will fold for one bet in a big pot if the flop misses him." I am not arguing with the nature of your read - I am pointing out that your expanded read contradcits the original read you provided to your readers.

My fifth point was simply that you have four players, including two blinds, to act behind you. even if "calling station" doesn't carry over to pre-flop play, you've got four hands behind you, any one of which could be a solid hand. This fact impacts the wisdom of three-betting 76s.

On the 76s versus 72o distinction. I don't get your argument at all. The play has +EV IYO because of the specific reads, not the intrinsic value of the hand. Even if you now want to include intrinsic hand value, the argument that 'I have better chances to flop something worth fighting over' is pretty much totally negated when it's apparent that you'll fight even when you flop nothing.

Also, it's a poor habit to adopt results-oriented justifications for plays. You "accounted" for big pairs because he didn't cap pre-flop? How did you account for that at the time it was raised to you and you're contemplating fold-call-raise? And did this accounting also account for hands like TT - 77 that he might not cap? You don't retroactively say "this was +EV because he didn't cap me." Similarly, "I think the fact that MP2 folded the flop verifies my read more than anything else." Ugh.

On a final point - I don't think anyone could read your "Am I the only one varying my play" post without coming away feeling condescended to; it is frankly dripping with defensiveness and condescension. You may very well not have intended it so, but perhaps in the future think carefully about the words you write and the sentiments they will likely express to your readers.

My opinion on the hand is that it is rank spewing on a dimension not often seen. If you think it is an example of adjusting one's play to specific table reads worthy of comment, then you need to do a much better job of (1) providing detailed reads on your opponents (including the guys behind you who folded pre-flop), and (2) backing up the play of the hand, mathematically, to account for those times when your reads are not perfect (i.e., "I think this is very -EV normally, moderately -EV in some cases, and neutral to +EV in this specific case, because even if my reads are off and I don't get the pre-flop action I desired or the flop I was looking for, here is the expectation with this hand . . ."). But to repeat a point from before - if the worthiness of hand depends almost entirely on very intricate, specific reads, it's probably not a hand worthy of a post.

[ZootMurph]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're going to post a hand in which the wisdom or donky-ness of your play depends on incredibly specific reads that will generate incredibly specific post-flop responses, then you need to include those reads in the original post (or consider not posting it, as it contains little to educate and little to comment upon). And for the love of God, do not include in the original post a read that contradicts the "pull a read out later to justify my play" expansion on the original read. Your OP described MP2 as LAGgy pre-flop and either jamming or folding after the turn post-flop. That read does not even resemble "he will fold for one bet in a big pot if the flop misses him." I am not arguing with the nature of your read - I am pointing out that your expanded read contradcits the original read you provided to your readers.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you, Catt. I'm sorry I wasn't specific enough in my initial post. I did say this again when I specified the information later. I didn't even read where I said after the turn. It was supposed to be after the flop, and I just typed the wrong thing. Back in the old days, the flop was actually called the turn, and I still refer to it as such on ocassion when I'm not thinking. Not proofreading my post was my fault.

[ QUOTE ]
My fifth point was simply that you have four players, including two blinds, to act behind you. even if "calling station" doesn't carry over to pre-flop play, you've got four hands behind you, any one of which could be a solid hand. This fact impacts the wisdom of three-betting 76s.

[/ QUOTE ]

A solid hand doesn't necessitate a hand that can call a 3 bet. KQ is a solid hand. Many (not all) players, myself included, would not call a 3 bet with it. At the time, I judged my chances and made my play. Admittedly (and I have said this in previous posts), my evaluation of the odds was quite a bit off.

[ QUOTE ]
On the 76s versus 72o distinction. I don't get your argument at all. The play has +EV IYO because of the specific reads, not the intrinsic value of the hand. Even if you now want to include intrinsic hand value, the argument that 'I have better chances to flop something worth fighting over' is pretty much totally negated when it's apparent that you'll fight even when you flop nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

All I'm saying is 76s makes the play more valuable than 72o, because 76s is a better hand. As I said before, AA would make this play more valuable, because it is a better hand. The play has value with 72o. Has MORE value with 76s, and has even more with AA. Simply stated, the better the hand the better the value on any play. However, in this specific situation, 72o is basically the same as 76s, if you are just playing the situation. If you are just playing the cards, no way can 76s be playable in any way. Combine the cards and the situation, and 76s is more valuable a play than 72o.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, it's a poor habit to adopt results-oriented justifications for plays. You "accounted" for big pairs because he didn't cap pre-flop? How did you account for that at the time it was raised to you and you're contemplating fold-call-raise?

[/ QUOTE ]

I accounted for big pairs by saying that the few times he has a big pair will be offset by the few times I flop a big hand. I said that the fact he didn't cap preflop verified that he did not have a big pair. Accounting for something in your calculations and having it verified by actions later are two different things. If I didn't explain this correctly, my apologies.

[ QUOTE ]
And did this accounting also account for hands like TT - 77 that he might not cap? You don't retroactively say "this was +EV because he didn't cap me."

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I accounted for big pairs as above. As for hands like TT-77 or worse, I felt he was folding enough that he would have no trouble folding hands like this if an overcard came.

[ QUOTE ]
Similarly, "I think the fact that MP2 folded the flop verifies my read more than anything else." Ugh.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you verify a read, just out of curiosity. I watched this player fold the flop a LOT during the time at the table before this hand. I said that. He folded again. All this is verification of a read, isn't it?

[ QUOTE ]
On a final point - I don't think anyone could read your "Am I the only one varying my play" post without coming away feeling condescended to; it is frankly dripping with defensiveness and condescension. You may very well not have intended it so, but perhaps in the future think carefully about the words you write and the sentiments they will likely express to your readers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you.

[ QUOTE ]
My opinion on the hand is that it is rank spewing on a dimension not often seen. If you think it is an example of adjusting one's play to specific table reads worthy of comment, then you need to do a much better job of (1) providing detailed reads on your opponents (including the guys behind you who folded pre-flop), and (2) backing up the play of the hand, mathematically, to account for those times when your reads are not perfect (i.e., "I think this is very -EV normally, moderately -EV in some cases, and neutral to +EV in this specific case, because even if my reads are off and I don't get the pre-flop action I desired or the flop I was looking for, here is the expectation with this hand . . ."). But to repeat a point from before - if the worthiness of hand depends almost entirely on very intricate, specific reads, it's probably not a hand worthy of a post.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. This has been said several times now. I didn't give all information necessary initially, and as I've said several times now, I'm sorry. Don't know what else you are trying to accomplish here but to get me to say I'm sorry again... So, Catt... I'm sorry I didn't get all the relevant information in the initial post.