From the Text Book: HAND READING

[SeaEagle]

I have to generally agree with TMTTR on this post. I won't go so far as to say it's a bad beat post, but the decpetion in the OP was uncalled for IMO.

The original post started out with
[ QUOTE ]
For all aspiring poker demons, a hand reading exercise!

[/ QUOTE ]
followed by reads and an admonition that
[ QUOTE ]
The man to watch here is on the Button.

[/ QUOTE ]
and finally a p.s. that said
[ QUOTE ]
This is not so hard

[/ QUOTE ]

Since I think hand reading is an important skill and it was not at all clear to me what villian had, I assumed this was a good learning excercise, especially since you inferred it was not hard for you to read villian's hand. Subsequently, I followed this thread with baited breath only to find that, from a learning standpoint, I was completely wasting my time.

If you want to start threads of this type, I for one would appreciate it if you labeled them something like "Guess the Donk Hand" and not "From the Text Book: HAND READING"

[Mister Z]

I'm assuming he's a decent player, and is somewhat paying attention to Nap here...

He would've 3-bet with AA, KK, QQ, AK, and maybe JJ - I think those are out of the equation. After the flop he has to have you on AA or KK if he has a read on you being a non-overly-aggressive player. The turn raise then rules out AQ. He knew he had at least 3 players going to the flop for at least 2 SB a piece so he probably thought he had odds to chase his set with his 44 or 33. That's my pick.

[fish43]

AQ -- he has top pair and probably thinks he is the one in charge of the hand. Your lack of a 3-bet on the turn makes makes him think the top pair is good.

[Mister Z]

[ QUOTE ]

Villain shows 7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 4[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
MHING (but I did get to laugh)


[/ QUOTE ]

Moral of the story - keeds, never LRR with AA! [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[slavic]

[ QUOTE ]
You make a good point. I have not played much full-ring of late so certainly need to brush up on my analysis, and coming from the HUSH forum I probably will call down a little too easily in such spots.

Do you guys assume a player is "reasonable" until shown otherwise? or do you assume "chook" until ability is demonstrated (which is the tendency is the HUSH forum)?

[/ QUOTE ]

It really depends on the game, and I think it's safe to say that most players play poorly (even if they are a good full ring player) at first in a short game. Assuming them to be a "chook" (that sounds awfull australian to me) is likely a safe line. As I've moved into the larger games (30-60 -> 1/2) in full ring play it becomes more clear that even if the new player is a nutcase he is a significantly better nutcase than has been presented in the past. It would be wise to feel him out a little before getting into a 13BB war with 2nd pair.

With all of the hand logging that now goes on, I'm sure that this aproach is not used by many anymore online but I find it a little more prudent when confronted with an unknown. I'm willing to gamble, I just need some direction to the level of my gamble versus this player.

[naphand]

[ QUOTE ]
I am confident in my own intelligence

[/ QUOTE ]

Translateion: I am arrogant and too proud to admit that I could be wrong.

You have made a series of assumptions concerning the reason/s why I posted, they are all wrong. Yet rather than consider this you refuse to accept the possibility of error at all and attempt to inculcate the forum with your vacuous accusations.

[ QUOTE ]
It was nothing of the sort.

[/ QUOTE ]

NOTHING? Overstatement is the refuge of weak argument. This was a hand reading exercise, period. I explained very clearly that my opponent was "unknown" and I gave the relevant facts that were available to me at the time. You choose to think of this as a "disguise", an argument you have utterly failed to substantiate - everything you have said is based a priori on incorrect assumptions.

That the large majority of responders chose to assume an unknown is half-decent (I accept this is not unreasonable, but it is far from complete) in no way invalidates the exercise. It does make it harder. You also did not see this, and you feel "cheated". Diddums, go fetch your rattle.

[ QUOTE ]
Earlier, Meep 42 wrote: "It's a thinly veiled bad beat post."

[/ QUOTE ]

Meep responded to me by saying

[ QUOTE ]
I was joking... thusly the :P in my post.

[/ QUOTE ]

A fact which presumably you feel you can safely ignore, but which completely negates your argument.

Perhaps my thread title was a bit misleading, in the UK this is called being "tongue-in-cheek" (hence the exclamation mark after "hand reading exercise!"). I am beginning to understand that quite a few forum users seem unable to cope with this more abstract humour and require everything homogenised and spoon fed in the most obvious and standardised way. Much like their food.

<sigh>

I chose this hand as it was merely the most extreme example from my days play. Again perhaps my mistake, I had no idea people were so sensitive to AA-cracked hands. I was under the impression people were familiar with stripsqueeze's original threads in the HUSH forum? Most of those posts were almost unfathomable, many were bad beats, they were for fun and making them "easy" to read would have spoilt that fun.

Everyone enjoyed them because it was so damn hard to fathom the logic of these guys. I doubt strip would have posted this hand - not because it was AA getting cracked - but because it is not too hard to see the possibility of 74 in opponents hand. Most weeks no-one got the hand right, in fact I think it was at least 80% of weeks with no correct answer.

For this hand, people guessed just about every other combination, one or two almost got there. And that was what I was looking for - how many people would consider this "unknown" player a chook and allow him to have the hand he did.

Of course, if I had known I would be flamed by some arrogant little twerp for daring to post an AA beat, I would have perhaps chosen another situation. On the other hand, one of the considerations I had when I posting was to gauge reaction (perhaps this is all a little too subtle for you?). Nevertheless, it is nice to see who the maggots are when they come crawling out of the wordwork... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[naphand]

Point taken.

I was being ironic (why else would I use the phrase "poker demons"?). I also had not realised how sensitive to cracked Aces some of you guys would be. I was coming from the stripsqueeze posts on HUSH (mentioned in the OP) and perhaps did not clue you guys up enough. I recall now that strip did start with a long introduction to his post. Oh well, my bad.

[naphand]

[ QUOTE ]
Moral of the story - keeds, never LRR with AA!

[/ QUOTE ]

I am glad you mention this. As it happens I was reading about LRR with hands like AA in EP just the other week. The writer (besides emphasising that you really need to be sure of a raise) says you will have to expect to see some tough beats if you do this, as you potentially let in all sorts of mischief. He was right.

Extra value can be costly... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[naphand]

The reason I ask is that almost every responder has assumed the player is "reasonable" to some degree. No-one appears to have considered an unknown player may have an unexpected hand.

That said, there are clearly quite a number of "not entirely unreasonable" hands that would play out the same way. I had reasons for choosing this particular hand, one of which was to see what kind of ranges forum-people would put "unknowns" on. It seems some people misunderstood the post, or feel it was not as obvious as I suggested, which is fair comment. However, I still believe that when confronted by an unknown player we need to be prepared for surprises and I for one feel quite reluctant to lay this down here.

[TakeMeToTheRiver]

[ QUOTE ]
Point taken.

I was being ironic (why else would I use the phrase "poker demons"?). I also had not realised how sensitive to cracked Aces some of you guys would be. I was coming from the stripsqueeze posts on HUSH (mentioned in the OP) and perhaps did not clue you guys up enough. I recall now that strip did start with a long introduction to his post. Oh well, my bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will ignore your rant to me -- which was 95% erroneous, off point and immature (are you 14?) -- and take this as the admission and apology that was called for. You led people to believe that this was a "hand reading exercise" which it was not.

My suggestion: If you are going to be tounge-in-cheek on a message board, you need to be far more over the top. This has little to do with Brit humor versus Yankee humor -- it has to do with making yourself clear in writing since we cannot hear the tone of your voice. If you're original post was called "When DONKS attack" or "Guess the Chook's hand!" (whatever a Chook is...) I would have had no problem.

I do apologize if I hit a nerve with my method of criticism but it now appears that you got the point.

[ QUOTE ]
arrogant little twerp

[/ QUOTE ]

You know so very little -- I may be a wanker but I am certainly not a twerp.

[Do you see that? -- that is an attempt at self-deprecating humor -- just in case you missed it]