A humble question

[worm33]

[ QUOTE ]
Judge not by ego, or lack thereof, but by logic and strength of argument. My complaint is not that players are too aggressive or egotistical or passive or anything other than uninformative. Here's a thread up right now, an original post and three reponses:

Original post:
"30/60 party 10 handed. I'm in third position w/ 55, 2 limpers in front of me, I limp, folded around to the bb who raises, 3 calls....flop comes 278 rainbow, bb bets, 2 folds, I raise...turn 4, bb checks, I bet....river 9, no flush possibility.... bb checks, I??? is this too thin for a value bet?"

The three responses, in their entirety:

1) "Bet with impunity."

2) "Bet . . . not thin."

3) "I check behind here."

Why bother to respond if you're not going to explain why you would either bet or check behind? What value is there in just saying do this or do that if no reason for the action is given? What will the poster learn from these answers and how will this help any of us improve our poker?

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason I am sure myself and gonores gave such short answers is there isnt much to talk about. When we say bet that means we think we have the best hand. The reason we think we have the best hand is because we have a pair. We think pair is good. So we bet. The reason we think pair is good is because villian has shown no strength and it looks very much like 2 high cards. Which dont beat a pair.

[andyfox]

OP wouldn't have posed a question unless he wanted an answer. Of what use is saying, "Bet" or "Check Behind" if there is no explanation for why to do so? The fact that you (and I) happen to agree with the first two responses and disagree with the third doesn't mean that the first two don't require explanations and the third does. Without reasoning the answers are useless. What's simple for you might not be so for me, and vice versa. What we learn from all three responses is exactly nothing.

Compare, instead, if answer 2) has said:

I would bet. BB 3-bet preflop then only called when you raised on the flop. He check-called on the turn. In my experience this would seem to indicate two unimproved big cards. When the river is still no faces or aces, I wiould think my hand is good and my opponent might well call with A-K or something similar.

And if answer 3 had said:

I check behind here. Opponent checked the turn and river, he seems passive and would probably not call with any hand you can beat. Did the turn put a flush draw on board? The only thing I can see him calling with is a hand with a ten in it.


We could then evaluate the logic in both responses and discussed which would have been the better play.

BTW, I don't mean for this to be an attack on any of the three respondents, all of whom I have a lot of respect for.

Roget’s II: The New Thesaurus, Third Edition. 1995.


aggressivity

NOUN: See aggressiveness.




any questions?


google it, yahoo-it, webster it, whatever. 4 years of english I might not use but i still possess.



Tex

[andyfox]

I agree with betting. All I'm saying is just saying "bet" is not of any help to the poster. In your current post, by contrast, you have given reasons, which can then be thought about by the original poster, and commmented about by others.

[Ulysses]

Or you could have just written something simple like "A large percentage of the hands experienced players find interesting enough to post often involve close/marginal decisions in relatively short-handed high-limit situations where aggression is an important part of optimal play." holla

[NLSoldier]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Judge not by ego, or lack thereof, but by logic and strength of argument. My complaint is not that players are too aggressive or egotistical or passive or anything other than uninformative. Here's a thread up right now, an original post and three reponses:

Original post:
"30/60 party 10 handed. I'm in third position w/ 55, 2 limpers in front of me, I limp, folded around to the bb who raises, 3 calls....flop comes 278 rainbow, bb bets, 2 folds, I raise...turn 4, bb checks, I bet....river 9, no flush possibility.... bb checks, I??? is this too thin for a value bet?"

The three responses, in their entirety:

1) "Bet with impunity."

2) "Bet . . . not thin."

3) "I check behind here."

Why bother to respond if you're not going to explain why you would either bet or check behind? What value is there in just saying do this or do that if no reason for the action is given? What will the poster learn from these answers and how will this help any of us improve our poker?

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason I am sure myself and gonores gave such short answers is there isnt much to talk about. When we say bet that means we think we have the best hand. The reason we think we have the best hand is because we have a pair. We think pair is good. So we bet. The reason we think pair is good is because villian has shown no strength and it looks very much like 2 high cards. Which dont beat a pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

heh, yep. Short posts are underrated. For questions like this the person asking the question should be willing to put in the time to deduce your reasoning just as you just did here, rather than forcing the responder to make a long elaboration.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
Roget’s II: The New Thesaurus, Third Edition. 1995.


aggressivity

NOUN: See aggressiveness.




any questions?


google it, yahoo-it, webster it, whatever. 4 years of english I might not use but i still possess.



Tex

[/ QUOTE ]

or you could check out merriam webster's site:

[ QUOTE ]
aggressive
One entry found for aggressive.


Main Entry: ag·gres·sive
Pronunciation: &-'gre-siv
Function: adjective
1 a : tending toward or exhibiting aggression <aggressive behavior> b : marked by combative readiness <an aggressive fighter>
2 a : marked by obtrusive energy b : marked by driving forceful energy or initiative : ENTERPRISING <an aggressive salesman>
3 : strong or emphatic in effect or intent <aggressive colors> <aggressive flavors>
4 : more severe, intensive, or comprehensive than usual especially in dosage or extent <aggressive chemotherapy>
- ag·gres·sive·ly adverb
- ag·gres·sive·ness noun
- ag·gres·siv·i·ty /"a-"gre-'si-v&-tE/ noun



[/ QUOTE ]

Barron

[climber]

[ QUOTE ]
OP wouldn't have posed a question unless he wanted an answer. Of what use is saying, "Bet" or "Check Behind" if there is no explanation for why to do so? The fact that you (and I) happen to agree with the first two responses and disagree with the third doesn't mean that the first two don't require explanations and the third does. Without reasoning the answers are useless. What's simple for you might not be so for me, and vice versa. What we learn from all three responses is exactly nothing.

Compare, instead, if answer 2) has said:

I would bet. BB 3-bet preflop then only called when you raised on the flop. He check-called on the turn. In my experience this would seem to indicate two unimproved big cards. When the river is still no faces or aces, I wiould think my hand is good and my opponent might well call with A-K or something similar.

And if answer 3 had said:

I check behind here. Opponent checked the turn and river, he seems passive and would probably not call with any hand you can beat. Did the turn put a flush draw on board? The only thing I can see him calling with is a hand with a ten in it.


We could then evaluate the logic in both responses and discussed which would have been the better play.

BTW, I don't mean for this to be an attack on any of the three respondents, all of whom I have a lot of respect for.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hear this is how the forums are in heaven...just gotta be patient i guess...

[worm33]

[ QUOTE ]
OP wouldn't have posed a question unless he wanted an answer. Of what use is saying, "Bet" or "Check Behind" if there is no explanation for why to do so? The fact that you (and I) happen to agree with the first two responses and disagree with the third doesn't mean that the first two don't require explanations and the third does. Without reasoning the answers are useless. What's simple for you might not be so for me, and vice versa. What we learn from all three responses is exactly nothing.

Compare, instead, if answer 2) has said:

I would bet. BB 3-bet preflop then only called when you raised on the flop. He check-called on the turn. In my experience this would seem to indicate two unimproved big cards. When the river is still no faces or aces, I wiould think my hand is good and my opponent might well call with A-K or something similar.

And if answer 3 had said:

I check behind here. Opponent checked the turn and river, he seems passive and would probably not call with any hand you can beat. Did the turn put a flush draw on board? The only thing I can see him calling with is a hand with a ten in it.


We could then evaluate the logic in both responses and discussed which would have been the better play.

BTW, I don't mean for this to be an attack on any of the three respondents, all of whom I have a lot of respect for.

[/ QUOTE ]


Maybe I am wrong but if I was a beginning player and I posted a question like he did, and got 2 answers saying "bet with impunity" and "bet and its not thin" I would think well maybe i'm missing something here for not seeing this as an obvious bet. And then in the future when this same situation came up he could use our posts saying its not close to easily bet again.

[andyfox]

It's evident OP didn't see it as an obvious bet, otherwise he wouldn't have posted and asked. Listen, anyone can post any replies they want, I'm just trying to put myself in the question asker's place. He asks whether he should bet or not and gets three replies, two saying bet, one saying don't bet. No reasons are given, no explanations, no logic offered. How is he to determine which advice is best? But if you explain why you think a bet is called for, and the other guy explains why he thinks a check is best, then the two positions can be evaluated. Just saying do this or do that doesn't help anyone determine whether the logic behind the recommended action is proper or flawed.