|
|
#21
06-15-2005, 09:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: too weak here or ok?
I suppose this raise would be table dependant...I may not raise here at a very aggressive table; however, most microlimit tables where I have played (Cryto, Stars, Multi-poker) I have made a lot of BB/100 by raising with hands like this in MP. I would bet this flop the same way every time. The only minor problem now is the donk raise...a slight curve ball...
IMO the concept here is that your hand improves in value as everyone before you folds...no one is saying that QTs is a terrific hand..it's only marginal, but being the first in and playing with aggression could lead to an easy small pot.. 
|
|
#22
06-15-2005, 12:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: too weak here or ok?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] This is a raise under some circumstances. [/ QUOTE ] I changed your post. I'm sure that you mind. Queen high sooted is hardly worth a raise with 5 yet to play. Even at Paradise there'll be stronger callers. As much as I hate open limping in MP, I'd rather fold than raise here. [/ QUOTE ] The acronym used for that is FYP. Of course, I still disagree with you. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] ... it's more likely that you're behind a weak king or ace, which you would be glad to fold out with a raise. [/ QUOTE ] I'm sure there are facts to back up the assertion that it's likely the A or K is weak. Assertion to the contrary without evidence is spewage, albeit minor. [/ QUOTE ] The assertion is easily backed up with math. Suppose he has an ace - AK -- 60-40 dog -- 16 ways - AQ and AT -- 68-32 dog -- 24 ways - AJ -- 58-42 dog -- 16 ways - A9-A2 -- 52-48 dog -- 128 ways So 128/184 = 70% of the time that he has an ace, he has a weak ace and you're just worse than 50-50 against him (hot/cold). You can easily repeat the calculation for kings. [ QUOTE ] There are 8 overcards to our Q and 15 to the T. Do you really think the fish mucked the majority of those? [/ QUOTE ] I don't know if they mucked a "majority" of those. I'm also not going to give up immediately if an overcard falls. In short-handed situations, you should be afraid to show down second pair unless you have a read that will tell you otherwise. [ QUOTE ] I understand the 2+2 mindset is to be aggressive. I have embraced that ideal because of my nature and having seen the value of getting my money in hard with +EV situations. But I think it needs to be tempered with some grasp of the likelihood of our vulnerability. [/ QUOTE ] You may want to rethink your ideas about vulnerability. QTs flops... - Top pair with the queen 9.6% of the time. In this case, the probability that an overcard will fall on the turn is 17% and the probability that an overcard will fall by the river is 31%. So about 70% of the time, your top pair of queens remains top pair. - Top pair with the ten 7.6% of the time. In this case, the probability that a bad overcard will fall on the turn is 25% and the probability that a bad overcard will fall by the river is 45%. About 55% of the the time, your top pair of tens will remain top pair. These numbers don't even take into account the chances of improving via a flush, two pair, trips, straight draws, and so forth. [ QUOTE ] Crap, what was the flop again? We got so balled up in gay preflop that I forgot. Can we quit playing cards now and start playing poker? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] You're welcome to bail out of this conversation at any time. But what you have demonstrated so far is a not-so-solid understanding of preflop play based on weak assumptions about postflop play.
|
|
#23
06-15-2005, 01:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: too weak here or ok?
[ QUOTE ]
In short-handed situations, you shouldn't be afraid to show down second pair unless you have a read that will tell you otherwise. [/ QUOTE ] FYP.
|
|
#24
06-15-2005, 01:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: too weak here or ok?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] In short-handed situations, you shouldn't be afraid to show down second pair unless you have a read that will tell you otherwise. [/ QUOTE ] FYP. [/ QUOTE ] Whooops. Big typo. Thanks. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#25
06-15-2005, 02:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: too weak here or ok?
No problem. Great post. I knew it was a typo.
|
|
#26
06-15-2005, 02:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: too weak here or ok?
Yes, I like it. It's not close enough that you should call just because you bet on the same round. The only thing that could happen is that you catch one of your "outs" and end up paying off with a second best hand.
|
|
#27
06-15-2005, 02:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: too weak here or ok?
[ QUOTE ]
The only thing that could happen is that you catch one of your "outs" and end up paying off with a second best hand. [/ QUOTE ] Or you could catch one of your outs and end up winning the pot with the best hand. I'm sure I've heard of that happening occasionally.
|
|
#28
06-15-2005, 02:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: too weak here or ok?
[ QUOTE ]
The assertion is easily backed up with math. Suppose he has an ace - AK -- 60-40 dog -- 16 ways - AQ and AT -- 68-32 dog -- 24 ways - AJ -- 58-42 dog -- 16 ways - A9-A2 -- 52-48 dog -- 128 ways So 128/184 = 70% of the time that he has an ace, he has a weak ace and you're just worse than 50-50 against him (hot/cold). You can easily repeat the calculation for kings. [/ QUOTE ] Excellent stuff. A big eye-opener. [ QUOTE ] You may want to rethink your ideas about vulnerability. QTs flops... - Top pair with the queen 9.6% of the time. In this case, the probability that an overcard will fall on the turn is 17% and the probability that an overcard will fall by the river is 31%. So about 70% of the time, your top pair of queens remains top pair. - Top pair with the ten 7.6% of the time. In this case, the probability that a bad overcard will fall on the turn is 25% and the probability that a bad overcard will fall by the river is 45%. About 55% of the the time, your top pair of tens will remain top pair. These numbers don't even take into account the chances of improving via a flush, two pair, trips, straight draws, and so forth. [/ QUOTE ] It does make me rethink my ideas. Thanks [ QUOTE ] You're welcome to bail out of this conversation at any time. But what you have demonstrated so far is a not-so-solid understanding of preflop play based on weak assumptions about postflop play. [/ QUOTE ] Noted, and thanks. Oh, and FYP didn't really apply. I didn't "fix" anything. On that you'll have to agree.
|
|
#29
06-15-2005, 02:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: too weak here or ok?
Hmm. I've thought about this for a bit longer now.
[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] It's close enough to call with the backdoor flush and the fact that Hero raised preflop. It smells like a slowplayed high pocket like AA or KK though.
|
|
#30
06-15-2005, 03:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: too weak here or ok?
[ QUOTE ]
It smells like a slowplayed high pocket like AA or KK though. [/ QUOTE ] No it doesn't. If he had AA/KK here he would almost definitely 3-bet preflop to get it heads up against you with the dead money in the pot from the blinds or (quite likely at these stakes) to get the blinds to call another bet preflop and possibly even to get you to cap with a dominated hand. His hand is almost definitely 22-99 here, IMO.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
