raised 99 with Ace on flop against pfreraiser

[tiltaholic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
friends-

Don't cap preflop with 99.

Sykes is correct, check/fold. Hero missed this flop and doesn't have the odds to continue, especially against a TAG.

Do you normally play tables this tight? If so, I recommned seeking out some looser tables.

Regards, LG

[/ QUOTE ]

he's likely weak - so i'd fire a bet on the flop.
what hands raise UTG but won't cap it preflop? any tag will know you have AQ or AJ...if he has JJ-KK he's folding a lot here.

(and i wouldn't cap preflop out of position against this guy)

[/ QUOTE ]

I get 1:7 to my flop bet, that means I need only 14% of success to break even. According to probability of 30% of KK, QQ, JJ, TT, TAG should fold half of the time with such hands to give me the profit.
I think the bet on TAG would be correct, weak players as I notice calls their QQ to the end anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

your usage of "weak" is incorrect.
a weak player will tend to fold.
a passive player will tend to call down.

calling down with QQ on an ace high board is playing passively.
folding with QQ on an ace high board is playing weakly.

how do you figure he has KK-TT 30% of the time?

[tiltaholic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
friends-

Don't cap preflop with 99.

Sykes is correct, check/fold. Hero missed this flop and doesn't have the odds to continue, especially against a TAG.

Do you normally play tables this tight? If so, I recommned seeking out some looser tables.

Regards, LG

[/ QUOTE ]

he's likely weak - so i'd fire a bet on the flop.
what hands raise UTG but won't cap it preflop? any tag will know you have AQ or AJ...if he has JJ-KK he's folding a lot here.

(and i wouldn't cap preflop out of position against this guy)

[/ QUOTE ]

As always, tilt, you rock. What would your play be if he raises? Fold? Call and fold turn UI?

[/ QUOTE ]

i fold if he raises the flop.

[friends]

[ QUOTE ]

your usage of "weak" is incorrect.
a weak player will tend to fold.
a passive player will tend to call down.


[/ QUOTE ]

Very interesting interpretation.
According to mine weak means "not reasonable", the contrary to strong: "reasonable".
When there is a raise from early position, and the raiser is TAG, that means he has AT, AJ, AQ, AK, AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, the probability of KK, QQ, JJ, TT (especially if this player did not cap preflop about 25-27%, that means 3/4 of time this player has an Ace in his hand. With, for example, KK you should pay 2,5BB to get to know the truth, that means that on the flop (when I bet) you have a bit more than 1:1 in pot odds to win by the river, and your chances to win are maximum 1:3 (25% I have lower middle pair +10% of catching a set), that means, that calling with KK for you to the end means -EV.
That is not strong play, strong play is to fold or to raise and to see the reaction.
Where did I find the figures?
The probability to get AA (KK or 44) on preflop -1/220, AK (AQ, AT) - 1/82.

[tiltaholic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

your usage of "weak" is incorrect.
a weak player will tend to fold.
a passive player will tend to call down.


[/ QUOTE ]

Very interesting interpretation.
According to mine weak means "not reasonable", the contrary to strong: "reasonable".
When there is a raise from early position, and the raiser is TAG, that means he has AT, AJ, AQ, AK, AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, the probability of KK, QQ, JJ, TT (especially if this player did not cap preflop about 25-27%, that means 3/4 of time this player has an Ace in his hand. With, for example, KK you should pay 2,5BB to get to know the truth, that means that on the flop (when I bet) you have a bit more than 1:1 in pot odds to win by the river, and your chances to win are maximum 1:3 (25% I have lower middle pair +10% of catching a set), that means, that calling with KK for you to the end means -EV.
That is not strong play, strong play is to fold or to raise and to see the reaction.
Where did I find the figures?
The probability to get AA (KK or 44) on preflop -1/220, AK (AQ, AT) - 1/82.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm not picking on you.
but in the language of poker, weak does not mean "not reasonable".

i still think your calculations are wrong.
on an ace high board (one ace present) these are the possible combinations of hands that a tag will 3-bet preflop:

AA - 6 combinations
KK - 12
QQ - 12
JJ - 12
TT - 12
AQ - 12
AK - 12

note- i think most tags won't 3-bet AQ, so i think it should be AQs only, but i'll leave it as AQ and 12.

those numbers mean that there are 30 ways for him to have an ace (AA, AK, AQ) and 48 ways for him to have KK-TT. you can play with the numbers and other hands like AJs to see how it works out. but 30/78 he has an ace, or about 37% of the time.

and your statement about strong vs weak play doesn't make sense. sometimes it is correct (very strong) to take a passive line and simply call down. sometimes that same line is not strong play.

but you get the idea...

[Sykes]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
friends-

Don't cap preflop with 99.

Sykes is correct, check/fold. Hero missed this flop and doesn't have the odds to continue, especially against a TAG.

Do you normally play tables this tight? If so, I recommned seeking out some looser tables.

Regards, LG

[/ QUOTE ]

he's likely weak - so i'd fire a bet on the flop.
what hands raise UTG but won't cap it preflop? any tag will know you have AQ or AJ...if he has JJ-KK he's folding a lot here.

(and i wouldn't cap preflop out of position against this guy)

[/ QUOTE ]

I get 1:7 to my flop bet, that means I need only 14% of success to break even. According to probability of 30% of KK, QQ, JJ, TT, TAG should fold half of the time with such hands to give me the profit.
I think the bet on TAG would be correct, weak players as I notice calls their QQ to the end anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

your usage of "weak" is incorrect.
a weak player will tend to fold.
a passive player will tend to call down.

calling down with QQ on an ace high board is playing passively.
folding with QQ on an ace high board is playing weakly.


[/ QUOTE ]


stop, just stop.

calling down with QQ here is not playing passively, it's playing correctly.

this is a perfect WA/WB situation.

if you fail to see this, then there is no hope for you.

[tiltaholic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
friends-

Don't cap preflop with 99.

Sykes is correct, check/fold. Hero missed this flop and doesn't have the odds to continue, especially against a TAG.

Do you normally play tables this tight? If so, I recommned seeking out some looser tables.

Regards, LG

[/ QUOTE ]

he's likely weak - so i'd fire a bet on the flop.
what hands raise UTG but won't cap it preflop? any tag will know you have AQ or AJ...if he has JJ-KK he's folding a lot here.

(and i wouldn't cap preflop out of position against this guy)

[/ QUOTE ]

I get 1:7 to my flop bet, that means I need only 14% of success to break even. According to probability of 30% of KK, QQ, JJ, TT, TAG should fold half of the time with such hands to give me the profit.
I think the bet on TAG would be correct, weak players as I notice calls their QQ to the end anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

your usage of "weak" is incorrect.
a weak player will tend to fold.
a passive player will tend to call down.

calling down with QQ on an ace high board is playing passively.
folding with QQ on an ace high board is playing weakly.


[/ QUOTE ]


stop, just stop.

calling down with QQ here is not playing passively, it's playing correctly.

this is a perfect WA/WB situation.

if you fail to see this, then there is no hope for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

listen up, "passive" doesn't equal "incorrect". playing passively can be correct sometimes. and calling down with QQ on an ace-high board IS DEFINITELY playing passively.

WA/WB? wtf are you talking about?
what hands are the OP way ahead of?
are you talking about the 3-betting tag?
if so, he can't use the WA/WB line because he has position on the OP - so in no way is this a perfect WA/WB.

settle down.

this is all a semantic argument anyway. i was merely pointing out some vocabulary issues.

[Sykes]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
friends-

Don't cap preflop with 99.

Sykes is correct, check/fold. Hero missed this flop and doesn't have the odds to continue, especially against a TAG.

Do you normally play tables this tight? If so, I recommned seeking out some looser tables.

Regards, LG

[/ QUOTE ]

he's likely weak - so i'd fire a bet on the flop.
what hands raise UTG but won't cap it preflop? any tag will know you have AQ or AJ...if he has JJ-KK he's folding a lot here.

(and i wouldn't cap preflop out of position against this guy)

[/ QUOTE ]

I get 1:7 to my flop bet, that means I need only 14% of success to break even. According to probability of 30% of KK, QQ, JJ, TT, TAG should fold half of the time with such hands to give me the profit.
I think the bet on TAG would be correct, weak players as I notice calls their QQ to the end anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

your usage of "weak" is incorrect.
a weak player will tend to fold.
a passive player will tend to call down.

calling down with QQ on an ace high board is playing passively.
folding with QQ on an ace high board is playing weakly.


[/ QUOTE ]


stop, just stop.

calling down with QQ here is not playing passively, it's playing correctly.

this is a perfect WA/WB situation.

if you fail to see this, then there is no hope for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

listen up, "passive" doesn't equal "incorrect". playing passively can be correct sometimes. and calling down with QQ on an ace-high board IS DEFINITELY playing passively.

WA/WB? wtf are you talking about?
what hands are the OP way ahead of?
are you talking about the 3-betting tag?
if so, he can't use the WA/WB line because he has position on the OP - so in no way is this a perfect WA/WB.

settle down.

this is all a semantic argument anyway. i was merely pointing out some vocabulary issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, usually when people say "playing passively" they usually mean not getting max value out of the hand.

Talking about WA/WB (way ahead/way behind). I was talking about villian and not OP. Hence why I said check/fold would be the best play here.

And you can use the WA/WB line in position (QQ) by just calling down here. Many times people will show you JJ/TT/99 or something ridiculous and your hand will be good.

[friends]

OK, I did not consider Ace on flop in my calculations.
Lets imagine we are on the button with KK, TAG raises from EP, we reraised, blinds fold and there is A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] on flop.
Now lets look at the math:
AA - 3 combinations: AsAh, AhAc, AsAc not 6.
KK - 2 combinations (we have 2 kings)not 12.
QQ,JJ,TT - 4 combinations each.
AK - 6 combinations (we have 2 kings)
AQ - 12 combinations
AJ - 12 combinations.
So the probability that TAG has an Ace is:
30 (comb. with ace)/
47 (total possible combinations)*100%
= 64%.
The chances our hand will be winning by the river:
36%+6% (the probability of catching a set 1/10.9 to river)=42% with KK and 35%with QQ.

[friends]

[ QUOTE ]

your usage of "weak" is incorrect.
a weak player will tend to fold.
a passive player will tend to call down.


[/ QUOTE ]

SSH, page 175: "In small stakes games you will often find weak opponents will to CALL on the flop with almost nothing"
According to Ed's interpretaion weak opponents CALL too much but not FOLD too much.
May be Ed does not understand the poker terminology?
I met this meaning a lot in Matthew Hilger book, but I do not think it is worth to quote him here.

PS. Weak players usually play with weak hands to far, while strong players tend to fold their weak hands, and it is much easier to bluff on them, IMHO.

[DCWildcat]

[ QUOTE ]
SSH, page 175: "In small stakes games you will often find weak opponents will to CALL on the flop with almost nothing"
According to Ed's interpretaion weak opponents CALL too much but not FOLD too much.
May be Ed does not understand the poker terminology?


[/ QUOTE ]

Ed's using weak to mean "bad/stupid," (more accurately: "too loose, too passive") while it normally just means "too passive." Hence a player can be tight/weak.

Use your common sense, y'all, there's enough contextual stuff here for your understanding.


***
"Hey, are we being too literal?"
"No you idiot, he said comb the desert!"