|
|
#41
10-14-2004, 04:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
well, the book said, flop a set or fold... that was what i was going on.
I hope I didn't actually say that. What page is that on? 
|
|
#42
10-14-2004, 05:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
[ QUOTE ]
well, the book said, flop a set or fold... that was what i was going on. I hope I didn't actually say that. What page is that on? [/ QUOTE ] looking back, it wouldn't be in the book as you didn't actually talk about this scenario. i got the recommendation from your preflop charts. i don't have the book with me, so i can't check. discussions with other members of this forum likely led to the "flop or set or fold" justification of the play. working out the math in the other thread, with a few assumptions on pot size if you win, "flop a set or fold" actually is a break even play to call in the situation (seat 5, 3 bet to you). Therefore assuming superior postflop play to your opponents, this is a +EV play. My arguement is you are likely up against a bigger pocket pair. even in crazy loose games, unless you know the 2 players to be maniacs, even weak players know enough about position to not 3 bet early with a junk hand or ragged ace. If they have JJ, QQ, KK, or AA it will not be very easy to get them off of their hand. If we are assuming the game is loose enough to warrant 3 bets cold for 3-4 players, then we can also assume KK would call you down even if the ace hits. With the likelyhood that we are up against a bigger pocket pair, the assumption of "flop a set (and win) or fold" is clouded by the chance that we may flop a set and be up against a bigger set. We also may hit a lowball flop, decide to play our overpair strong and lose to a bigger overpair for a few more bets. Basically if "flop a set or fold" is break even assuming we win when we flop a set, then adding in the chance of flopping a set and losing or not flopping a set and likely being up against an overpair make this individual recommendation wrong in my eyes. The arguement spiraled out of control where unrelated issues of rarity and variance came up... but in the end, i think this specific play should not be the "default" play for the situation. i think the default and ONLY play should be fold. the only way it isn't -EV is if player 3 and 4 don't have a bigger pocket pair, or around 2 more people don't call the 3 bets cold behind you (unlikely even in loose games). If you disagree with this, and don't mind explaining this one specific play, I would love any insight i'm missing. Until then, TT goes in the muck! funny side note, i actually had TT in seat 5 last night after the lengthy thread. sadly it was folded to me and i picked up the blinds with a raise.
|
|
#43
10-14-2004, 05:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
[ QUOTE ]
with a few assumptions on pot size if you win [/ QUOTE ] Just because you are assuming something doesn't make it so. I believe you are greatly exaggerating the number of times that you will get beaten by set over set. FWIW, I have already stated that there will actually be times that your TT takes it unimproved as hard as this may be to believe. You had already stated that you had not read the post-flop section yet but you are already making assumptions that Ed has a fit-or-fold mentality regarding the TT. If you had read the post-flop section you would find that he most certainly would not recommend playing it this way. I think you made assumptions about needing to flop a set or ditch it...I don't recall too many agreeing with you. although, I don't remember too many going out of their way to disagree with this either except yours truly....but I did admittedly skim through a lot of the posts in the previous thread so if you really did have a lot of supporters for the philosophy "Obviously you ditch it right away if you don't flop a set" then I wouldn't be too surprised (although I certainly wouldn't agree).
|
|
#44
10-14-2004, 06:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
[ QUOTE ]
Just because you are assuming something doesn't make it so. [/ QUOTE ]exactlly... i was implying the assumption was that the pot was on the LARGE side if you won. if we are playing fit or fold and flop the set and bet and pick up the pot right there, that is terrible! because on the long shot of winning a large pot we hit and got a smallish pot, so the results we based the call preflop on were wrong. "just because you assume something doesn't make it so" adds to my fold this situation preflop arguement. [ QUOTE ] I believe you are greatly exaggerating the number of times that you will get beaten by set over set. [/ QUOTE ] i never said how often that would happen... i said that assuming it wouldn't happen was break even. then assuming it would happen 1 in 1,000,000 times pushes the bet to the negative side. (SIDE NOTE: my 88 in the big blind got rocked by AA who open limped last night in front of a folding small blind. board was A82-6-J no straight or flush possible on the river as we capped it. it does happen) [ QUOTE ] FWIW, I have already stated that there will actually be times that your TT takes it unimproved as hard as this may be to believe. [/ QUOTE ]if TT unimproved wins the pot, then JJ+ would win the pot and my arguement is that it is likely to be out there. if it is out there and TT would have taken the pot, you'll likely be putting bets in all the way to the river. this is a break even at best high variance play... i don't like the call. i would fold every time. IF you were going to call, you MUST raise. that is why i find this play 100% wrong.
|
|
#46
10-14-2004, 06:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
[ QUOTE ]
you should read the post-flop sections of SSH. [/ QUOTE ] i'm almost done with the book... can someone please just explain the call with TT in seat 5 when it is 3 bet to you? it seems like such an obvious fold to me. we can go back and forth on general poker theory all day, but this is a pretty cut and dried example... should you ever call here? should you ever cap here? if there is a 5 bet cap should you 4 bet? i say fold every time, but i almost hope i'm wrong, and my game has a hole that someone could plug up as i could apply the ideas somewhere else.
|
|
#47
10-14-2004, 06:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
Cap if they're maniacs, call (to see whether anyone caps) if they're LAGs, fold if they're rocks. Why is this difficult?
|
|
#48
10-14-2004, 12:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] the TT in seat 5 for 3 bets recommendation will probably win about 6% of the time in that situation. [/ QUOTE ] 1 - math please, otherwise your entire argument is bullsh[/b]it [/ QUOTE ] well, the book said, flop a set or fold... that was what i was going on. [/ QUOTE ] There's no math behind that statement.
|
|
#49
10-14-2004, 03:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
can someone please just explain the call with TT in seat 5 when it is 3 bet to you?
Read beginning the bottom of p.85. Maybe that will help answer your question?
|
|
#50
10-14-2004, 04:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A quick note about \"rareness\" of bets
[ QUOTE ]
can someone please just explain the call with TT in seat 5 when it is 3 bet to you? Read beginning the bottom of p.85. Maybe that will help answer your question? [/ QUOTE ] Uh, Ed. You missed the part of his post where E-drug trader used page 85 to wipe his ass after he "actually crapped himself." Edit: My mistake. He only used pages 56-80 to wipe his ass.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
