Flopped the 2nd nut straight vs imposing 2+2 player

[banditbdl]

[ QUOTE ]
Call/reraise usually means the nuts

[/ QUOTE ]

While this kind of broad advice might be close to true in general, the fact that UTG+1 just went all-in for a roughly pot-sized raise and that it's a draw heavy board makes a set or maybe even top two pair just as plausible here to me.

[LuvDemNutz]

[ QUOTE ]
You must admit that Villain played it very oddly though. Call/reraise usually means the nuts, and there's no huge draw (e.g. flush draw with two overs) that it also could be. However, Villain might've figured that since no player had yet called in the hand, no one had any of the (many) straight outs that could ruin Villain's set, and did not raise.

[/ QUOTE ]


Call/reraise can also mean - I have a strong hand and position so I can dump if a scare card hits the turn (call) - then, well schucks now, I'm pot committed anyway so I might as well push and see what happens (reraise).

[Dr. StrangeloveX]

[ QUOTE ]
Great post and great reply. Poker is all about making good decisions. Its the process that counts. Its being able to keep your head when the pressure's on and go through the process step by step. You can't judge these kind of decisions by results. It's easy to say now when you see the results, and it's easy to say "you shoulda" but we (and you) can't duplicate the situation and the information you had, so it's pointless for us (or you) to criticize the actual decision. Don't waste time trying to re-analyze your decision. Keep analyzing them and making them just like you did this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a 100bb decision. 100bb is way too shallow to deduce that second nuts, especially this particular second nut, is behind--and especially against a "very imposing" player.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Time to move down in levels 'til you're ready to put the chips in the middle.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the assumption is I'm playing with scared money, and I'm not. I need to make the right decisions about putting my chips in the middle whether I'm playing NL200, NL400 or NL600.

Feel free to criticize the decision, but I don't think the advice to move down in limits is warranted.

Garland

[/ QUOTE ]

Quitting poker might be.

[Garland]

[ QUOTE ]
UTG+1 just went all-in for a roughly pot-sized raise and that it's a draw heavy board makes a set or maybe even top two pair just as plausible here to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I seriously don't think a good 2+2er is pushing top two in this spot.

Garland

[VanVeen]

This fold is ludicrous. CO raises TT after 3 limpers let's say 25% of the time; CO doesn't raise 88 an appreciable % of the time; CO always limps q9s; CO limps Q9o <10% of the time. A "solid" and "imposing" 2+2er 3bets when the action gets to him a high % of the time whether he's holding q9 or a set, so let's just ignore his flat call - it doesn't alter the relative frequency of him holding a set or straight. So, how many nut straights can CO possibly have? ~4 (~28% of his range). How many sets? ~5.25 (~36%). How many 97s? ~2.5 (~17.5%) . How often is he getting out of line with JT or some other hand you have crushed? Rarely, but still sometimes (esp. w/shortstack all-in), so let's assign ~2.5 (~17.5%) additional hands to his range that have <20% equity. UTG+1's hand range is too wide to significantly alter CO's range, but we can probably reduce the probability of CO having a set ever-so-slightly and lower his equity vs. your hand when he has a set or two pair. With these reasonable and modest assumptions, all predicated on the stats you provided accurately reflecting the preflop play of CO, the call is a fairly easy one given the pot odds you're being offered. Not only that, but you've defined your hand range well enough with your 3bet that a keenly observant (note: there are 0 at nl600 full-ring, but that's beside the point) opponent will now when assigning you a hand range increase the % of it that you'll fold, which will change the way he plays against you (and force you to adjust).

FWIW, if, in your opinion, q9 represents the overwhelming majority of CO's hand range when he shoves, someone is doing something wrong. Someone in this hand is too easy to play against. Let me say that again: someone in this hand is too easy to play against if you can correctly fold this hand.

I did this very quickly and haphazardly - no time to figure out the profitability of calling after assigning opponent this range, but I'm fairly certain the call is not very close. Feel free to correct me.

[Garland]

This is the kind of analysis I want to see. However, I'm hoping this analysis isn't results oriented.

[ QUOTE ]
So, how many nut straights can CO possibly have? ~4 (~28% of his range)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure you're assuming you mean Q9s, but in that case there's only 3 (since I have the 9[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]). However, I assumed (right or wrong) that CO could limp with Q9o which increases the number of hands to 12 (3 9s x 4 Qs).

The after thoughts I had that should sway my opinion that I should call:

(a) I didn't accurately assess that he could have 97 as well.
(b) I have a backdoor flush draw.

It's unfortunate that CO played in the only fashion that let's him have the last shot, and his stone-call reraise screamed a monster, but I guessed the wrong monster.

Garland

[bobneptune]

hello garland,

an interesting hand and i have only one real comment/criticism of your play : what's the point of playing a one-gapped connector if when you hit the absolute miracle flop dead on the nose, you fold to real pressure ???

i mean , if the flop had come all your suit, you probably wouldn't have gotten any takers for a big pot.

[Garland]

[ QUOTE ]
an interesting hand and i have only one real comment/criticism of your play : what's the point of playing a one-gapped connector if when you hit the absolute miracle flop dead on the nose, you fold to real pressure ???

[/ QUOTE ]

If you look at the original post, you'll discover I'm in the BB, and I had no choice but to play the hand.

Garland

[bobneptune]

you certainly had to take a look at the flop, but being in the bb didn't compell you to re raise to $220 putting almost half your stack in that pot, total.

it just looks like you wilted when the test came for the money.

if you play anything other than big connecting cards, you are likely to be on the idiot end if you click. don't play them for a big pot if you aren't willing to go to mattresses with what is likely to be the best hand, but not an absolute lock hand.

its an opinion :-> :-> :->