Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > PL/NL Texas Hold'em > Small Stakes Pot-, No-Limit Hold'em
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 12-02-2005, 05:32 PM
Bukem_ Bukem_ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 240
Default Re: 200 NL

[ QUOTE ]


You aren't missing anything. I think (and most posters too I believe) the correct line is to fold the flop without a better read.



[/ QUOTE ]

When I first played full ring, and a guy like this was betting into me, I would drop AK without too much thought.

But that was mostly due to the fact that I was less likely to make the correct read/decision on later streets.

My Aks played very profitably taking this approach.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 12-02-2005, 05:35 PM
MTBlue MTBlue is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 91
Default Re: 200 NL

lol, this guy has setminer stats. He's not calling raises with KJo or KQo. I rarely fold this against a normal player but against a rock this a clear fold. I like to play big pots with weak players not multitabling nits. If you can put villain on a hand that hero can beat that villain would limp call a raise with OP let me know.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 12-02-2005, 05:37 PM
4_2_it 4_2_it is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mayor of Simpleton
Posts: 403
Default Re: 200 NL

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


You aren't missing anything. I think (and most posters too I believe) the correct line is to fold the flop without a better read.



[/ QUOTE ]

When I first played full ring, and a guy like this was betting into me, I would drop AK without too much thought.

But that was mostly due to the fact that I was less likely to make the correct read/decision on later streets.

My Aks played very profitably taking this approach.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is the best post on the importance of reads that we have had in a while. I don't think any of us disagree about the fundamentals here. We disagree based upon our read of villain's actions and his probable holdings.

Now let's get the result so somebody can say I told you so [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 12-02-2005, 05:43 PM
swolfe swolfe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 632
Default Re: 200 NL

[ QUOTE ]
Now let's get the result so somebody can say I told you so [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

didn't OP say he folded the turn? i guess the world will never know [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 12-02-2005, 05:54 PM
Moozh Moozh is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 40
Default Re: 200 NL

I'm suprized to see that no one else has tried to put this guy on a specific hand range. With an opponent who has only a 15% VPIP, I would think we could narrow it down a lot here.z

Let's start with the hands that beat you. AA, AK, TT, 44, KT, K4, T4. For a guy only playing 15% of his hands I think we can rule out K4 and T4. KTo is very unlikely for a 15%er, but it would be nice to know the villian's position at the table. 44 is very possible, but wouldn't AA, AK, and TT fit into the top 5% of PFR hands? To me it looks like KTs, 44, or maybe a slowplayed AA, AK, or TT.

What are we ahead of? A whole lot, but what hands would he play that way? KQ? QJ? QQ, JJ? Maybe an adventurous smaller pair.

So, how does that affect our decision. I see 3 combos of 44 and 2 combos of KTs. Discount the aces and tens because of the limp preflop and we can say 3ish combos of AA and 2 combos of TT. That's about 10 cominations of hands we're behind.

There are 6 combos of AK to tie.

What about hands were ahead of? 8 combos of KQ, but would he limp in with KQo and then play it like that? Maybe cut it down to 4. Then there's QJ. He could be semi-bluffing. Lets limit it to the 4 combos of QJs. QQ and JJ are 6 combos each, but let's only give him credit for 2 or each since it would be strange to play them that way. That gives us up to 12 combinations that we beat.

Now those numbers are all assumed. If someone thinks some hands are more likely than others, just change the numbers to match the probabilities.

With the numbers I have, let's see what happens if you call. If you're behind, you're drawing to at best 3 outs, so we'll just simplify and say 0 outs. If he has AK, we'll say you split 100% of the time. If you're ahead, you'll win 100% of the time except against QJ which you beat 67% of the time.

So, you pay $160. 10 times you win $0. 6 times you are returned $212 (AK). 4 times you are returned $283 (QJ). 8 times you are returned $425. Out of 28 times, your net result on a call (assuming my combination numbers) would be +$47.28.

Now perhaps those numbers are a bit optimistic, but I think you're in better shape than you might think. Also, one more thing to think about was your flat call on the flop. Would you think that would make it more or less likely for him to bet a worse hand on the turn?

EDIT: Whoops, I just realized that we're on the turn and that you have an ace, so you'll beat QJ closer to 85% of the time here. Not a huge difference in the numbers, but maybe enough to bump it up to +50ish.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 12-02-2005, 06:36 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 200 NL

[ QUOTE ]
So, you pay $160. 10 times you win $0. 6 times you are returned $212 (AK). 4 times you are returned $283 (QJ). 8 times you are returned $425. Out of 28 times, your net result on a call (assuming my combination numbers) would be +$47.28.

[/ QUOTE ]
I could be wrong here, but calculating it this way you would be returned $47.28 after paying $160. That's actually a net loss of -112.72 right?
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 12-02-2005, 07:05 PM
Moozh Moozh is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 40
Default Re: 200 NL

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, you pay $160. 10 times you win $0. 6 times you are returned $212 (AK). 4 times you are returned $283 (QJ). 8 times you are returned $425. Out of 28 times, your net result on a call (assuming my combination numbers) would be +$47.28.

[/ QUOTE ]
I could be wrong here, but calculating it this way you would be returned $47.28 after paying $160. That's actually a net loss of -112.72 right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I took that into account. I totalled up all the 'returned' numbers, subtracted (28*160) from that number, and then divided by 28 to get the +45.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.