|
|
#51
08-01-2005, 09:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 5-5 NL at Foxwoods - very deepstacks
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The point is, by buying in for the minimum in this game, where people are routinely sitting down w/ 1000 BBs+++, you might as well hang a sign around your neck that says, "weak-tight nut peddler: raise me at will." [/ QUOTE ] So are you saying that I can't use that to my advantage? I did in an earlier hand which is how I doubled up. I raised to 30 with AKo. Got 2 callers behind me - flop KK9. I make a continuation bet of $70, get one caller. Turn T. I check, Villain checks. River 8 - I check Villain bets 250, I CR all in and double up. I fully expect these guys to try and push me around. A lot of people would criticize me for checking the turn and river but wearing the "weak-tight" nut-peddler sign around my neck I thought it was the best way to get my money in the middle. I was right. So do you think that hand made it more or less-likey that they would try to bully me later on? [/ QUOTE ] To clarify, I was citing your having bought in for the minimum as a reason that should sway you to call. Despite the fact that villain does not know that you only bought for $500, he is aware that you've only got $1k in front of you, which at any given point in time in that game probably represents about 1/4 of the *average* stack at the table. Thus, you *cannot* be laying down top set in spots like this because people love to push around short stacks in that game and you're apt to be ahead waaaay more often than you're behind. I'm sorry to hear that this was one of those times that he had the straight, but there's really nothing you can do about it. Now if you both had $10k in front of you . . . that's a different story. 
|
|
#52
08-01-2005, 09:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: RESULTS and my 2 cents
I hate to sound like an ass but... I am bewildered that anyone would ponder this call in this spot, and furthermore, I am bewildered that someone who thought he needed to be ahead here 82% of the time here is putting $500 on a poker table.
|
|
#53
08-01-2005, 09:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: RESULTS and my 2 cents
[ QUOTE ]
Basically if I could somehow quantify the % of time Villain has the nuts vs. the % of time he is semi-bluffing - I could better determine if this is a +EV call. [/ QUOTE ] Yet a parade of experienced NL players (a number of whom play in that very game) telling you it is an easy call is something that not only won't you accept, you call them idiots.
|
|
#56
08-01-2005, 09:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: RESULTS and my 2 cents
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Basically if I could somehow quantify the % of time Villain has the nuts vs. the % of time he is semi-bluffing - I could better determine if this is a +EV call. [/ QUOTE ] Yet a parade of experienced NL players (a number of whom play in that very game) telling you it is an easy call is something that not only won't you accept, you call them idiots. [/ QUOTE ] I said that those who said it is an "insanely" easy call were idiots. Can you tell me the last time you called off 90% of your stack on the turn as a huge underdog and still felt (after the fact) that it was an easy call? I will bet that all of your answers will include some sort of read on your Villain as being extremely aggro., etc. I had no such read. The only read I had was that Villain limped with an off-suit 2 gapper - to me that meant it was that much more likely he was holding the nuts this hand (if he limps T7o he'd surely limp 86o and of course 86s). The way a "game" plays may or may not tell you anything about the way Villain plays. Like I said before, Villain WAS NOT one of the deep stacks at the table. He bought in for around $1K and barely had me covered. So it is a mistake to think that Villian was one of the guys at the table sitting with $10K looking to bully a short-stack. Had the raise come from one of them, I agree that this is an easy call.
|
|
#58
08-01-2005, 09:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 5-5 NL at Foxwoods - very deepstacks
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] So you would advocate open-limping in MP w/ 1010? [/ QUOTE ] Yes. Mix it up (especially when you are opening), but mostly I would limp with TT here. The reason is that you have described the game as people way overbetting their hands (not to mention the pot). [/ QUOTE ] Ok. I think you've misunderstood me. I don't think it's a fair characterization of the FW 5-5 game to say that people are routinely overbetting their hands. Rather, there are at any given time multiple stacks of 1,000 BB's + sitting in the game, and the players who buy in big usually *perceive* someone who buys in for the minimum, or who only has a grand behind, as a weak player who can be bullied around and who will only put his stack in with the nuts or pretty damn close. (The reason why is actually perfectly illustrated in this thread, as there's actually some question as to whether or not this is a call for OP) That is not to say that every time a tight player opens, that some LAG sitting w/ $10k reraises him with crap and fires three barrels to get him to lay down an overpair. From my limited experience playing in and watching this game, this is more the exception than the rule. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Hero may be the shallow stack, but he's still got plenty of room to manuever w/ 200 bb's in front of him. [/ QUOTE ] You would think so. This would be the case in a normal game; however, you have described this game as being full of LAG fish who routinely over bet/raise the pot by massive margins, even when they are up against weak-tight nut peddlers. [/ QUOTE ] Again, this characterization of the game--in my experience, at least--is way off the mark, and I don't know how you arrived at this impression from what I've written in earlier posts in this thread. The game plays deep, and most of the good players in the game are buying in deep and splashing around a bit preflop, but most of the big stacks play quite well postflop. The game does play bigger than a typical 5-5, but not by so much that a 200 bb stack doesn't have some room to play poker. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I think not raising here is incredibly weak-tight, [/ QUOTE ] You have to adapt your strategy to differing game conditions. If that means playing like a weak-tight nut peddler, then so be it. Some games you should play tighter than normal (and vice versa). This is one of them. [/ QUOTE ] Again, this is just my opinion, but I think that open-limping with 1010 is very weak-tight. I guess maybe I'm just a silly LAG retard, but I don't think I've open-limped w/ tens in middle or late position once in my life. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] and makes for all kinds of uncomfortable situations when the flop comes 8-high, for example, and gives us what amounts to a marginal overpair, which will often be the best hand but that we probably won't feel comfortable playing for our stack with . . . [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, playing for your stack with a marginal hand is not good. We both agree there is no need to do that. Imagine if (gasp) a real fluke occurred and an OVERCARD to your precious TT hit. [/ QUOTE ] Well, if you open for $30, get five callers and the flop comes Axx, it's a routine check-fold. But what if you got those same five callers and the flop came as it did? Is this not a good spot for us to double up w/ 200 bb's? What about on an A10x flop? Wouldn't it be nice for us to have a nice big pot to bet into then? And wouldn't it make it much more likely for someone w/ AJ or AQ to pay us off than if the pot had been limped five ways preflop? [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I think you are missing out on some serious value by not raising here. I'm not trying to be a dick, but have you ever played in this game? 'Cause if you're only raising w/ five hands in this game, you're gonna get slaughtered. [/ QUOTE ] You're not being a dick at all. Explain to me how I would get slaughtered. Even if I took it to the extreme and only set mined, apparantely there are LAG fish who will raise me when I finally come out betting the flop. They won't run me off of any strong hands. They can keep the $5 blinds if they want them. What I want is for them to make one of their intimidating 2X pot raises when I finally come alive. Can they really be that clueless (again, this is how the game has been described in response to OP's post). [/ QUOTE ] No, they're not that clueless, at least on the whole. There are some soft spots in the game, for sure, but some good and very good players as well. And again, to clarify, I was saying that one would get slaughtered if a preflop raise enabled everyone at the table to narrow down our holdings to five hands . . . [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] You're right, folding is not ridiculous, especially since it's an unraised pot, and villain very well could have the straight. [/ QUOTE ] It sounds like these guys call raises with garbage too. [/ QUOTE ] Well, not necessarily. I believe when OP noted he had seen villain show down 107o, it was a limped pot. So when a tight player suddenly comes alive and raises preflop, chances are somewhat less that someone's in there w/ an 86. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Yet he could also have a smaller set, two pair, a pair and a flush draw, or a straight draw/flush draw combination. He could also have absolutely nothing. [/ QUOTE ] So why is it wrong to set mine in this game? [/ QUOTE ] I never said it was wrong to set mine in this game. In fact, I think that buying short and playing tight can be a very profitable strategy in this game because the bigger stacks have a hard time properly adjusting their play to the $1k ish stacks. All I was saying is that if we're going adopt this strategy, we have to be prepared to put our stack in the middle w/ 55 on this board, let alone 1010. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The point is, by buying in for the minimum in this game, where people are routinely sitting down w/ 1000 BBs+++, you might as well hang a sign around your neck that says, "weak-tight nut peddler: raise me at will." [/ QUOTE ] Again, this makes no sense. I WANT them to raise my bets (or should I just say "sets"). Nut peddlers love LAG fish who think the proper thing to do is aggressively raise a nut peddler who is sitting with a short stack. [/ QUOTE ] Yet another statement of mine taken out of context. I was citing this as a reason why hero should be calling villain's bet . . . [ QUOTE ] How do you reconcile these two ideas (both of which you seem to espouse, if I am not mistaken): 1. you need to raise PF with TT to start building a pot 2. people will raise you all-in for many times the pot with semi-bluffs or pure air [/ QUOTE ] Well you don't *need* to do anything. Play pocket tens for set value for all I care. I think it's more a matter of one's playing style and personal preference, but I happen to favor raising. That's all. [ QUOTE ] Is it because you think LAGs playing with 1000BBs will fold to a MP opener who routinely raises all kinds of hands? They may all fold if they have nothing and you are the only one in the pot with them. I rather play the TT for set value against these hyper aggressive fish, rather than take their blinds. The reason I am calling them "fish" is because that is how they are being described. [/ QUOTE ] Again, I don't know where you got the impression that this game is populated by fish. Also, I'm not advocating opening with "all kinds of hands"; 1010 is a premium holding. And finally, I think you are exaggerating the frequency with which players (other than thabadguy [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]) are making huge raising with pure air, as well as the degree to which postflop play is laggy in general. Okay, I've hand enough. I feel like I just wrote a [censored] book or something. I hope at least some of what I wrote made sense.
|
|
#59
08-01-2005, 09:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 5-5 NL at Foxwoods - very deepstacks
[ QUOTE ]
To the OP: Dude, give it a rest. [/ QUOTE ] Leave me alone...I have 28 posts until I get to 1000. I am trying to squeeze them all into this thread. In all seriousness, I am done. After all, I friggin' called the raise.
|
|
#60
08-01-2005, 10:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 5-5 NL at Foxwoods - very deepstacks
[ QUOTE ]
2)The reason he fired that bet into you on the turn is because of limp preflop, the villain is not putting you on TT here at all..almost always he is doing this with nothing and trying to take it away. [/ QUOTE ] TBG, I can't really believe you're saying this. At the Foxwoods game I almost never see significant money being put in without somebody having a monster and the average player is not bullying shortstacks-he's too busy nut-peddling to worry about players with only 1K in front of them. When I read this post, I thought there's almost no hand this villain, if he's an average 5-5 NL player at Foxwoods, has anything other than the straight. I would fold here, but then again I would not put myself in hero's position (raise preflop, have more $ in front of me, etc.) Edit: Just saw the results after I posted...I think everybody who advocated an "easy call" just isn't familiar enough with the Foxwoods game-it's not a bunch of terrible lags waiting to pound away at shortstacks. For the most part people are just playing their cards and not thinking too much about the way their opponents will respond to their bets. A HUGE overbet normally means the nuts (thabadguy is hardly the typical Foxwoods player)
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
