Big pot with 88

[Spicymoose]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For those of you who don't like my play, would anything change if I had 99 or TT?

For those of you that do like my play, would anything change if I had 22-77? What would you change if anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like TT much better. You beat more pairs (99/88 for example). It helps rule out AT as a holding since you hold two T's already, so you can make AK more likely.

In a nutshell, with TT you beat a significantly larger range of hands he could hold.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, although the PPs are possible, I don't think they are that likely at all. Is this passive guy really raising preflop with 88,99? Is he then proceeding to check the flop, and then call two with two overcards? I guess we do beat a few more hands that are occasionally there, but if we have TT, it is far less likely he has AT, which is one of the hands we could of potentially extracted value from with our other PPs.

That beat you:
99/TT = 12
AQ = 12
KQ = 12
36 hands

I don't see him holding anything with a J or he'd have raised on the turn. With passive players, I easily see them passively calling down top pair. AA/KK are out since he didn't raise the flop or turn.

Hands you beat:
AK = 16
AT = 16
77 = 12
40 hands you beat.

I don't see him calling 2 bets on the flop with 55 and lower given all 3 flop cards would be over his pair.

So, there's more hands you beat than beat you, but how many of those hands is going to call a river bet with? Frankly, I'm astounded he called with ace high. This is where a WTSD% is useful as a read. For those that only go to showdown 30%, I'm crediting them for a hand. For those at 50%, I feel better putting in a value bet at the end.

[Spicymoose]

[ QUOTE ]
That beat you:
99/TT = 12
AQ = 12
KQ = 12
36 hands

Hands you beat:
AK = 16
AT = 16
77 = 12
40 hands you beat.


[/ QUOTE ]
Please do some reasonable weighting with these hands.

[ QUOTE ]
Frankly, I'm astounded he called with ace high.

[/ QUOTE ]

You shouldn't be. As I said, he was extremely passive.

[ QUOTE ]
Please do some reasonable weighting with these hands.


[/ QUOTE ]
They're already waited by the number of possibilities.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Frankly, I'm astounded he called with ace high.

[/ QUOTE ]

You shouldn't be. As I said, he was extremely passive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Passive != loose caller. My desire to bet the river depends on if he's weak-tight or weak-loose about seeing showdown.

[Spicymoose]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please do some reasonable weighting with these hands.


[/ QUOTE ]
They're already waited by the number of possibilities.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not good enough. You need to further weigh by the chance that he would play the given hand this way.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please do some reasonable weighting with these hands.


[/ QUOTE ]
They're already waited by the number of possibilities.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not good enough. You need to further weigh by the chance that he would play the given hand this way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Give me a break, now you're just throwing roadblocks up to validate your play. Tweaking 99/TT to 8 hands vs 12 isn't a major adjustment.

That said, I wouldn't have had the balls, so nice hand.

[Spicymoose]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please do some reasonable weighting with these hands.


[/ QUOTE ]
They're already waited by the number of possibilities.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not good enough. You need to further weigh by the chance that he would play the given hand this way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Give me a break, now you're just throwing roadblocks up to validate your play. Tweaking 99/TT to 8 hands vs 12 isn't a major adjustment.

That said, I wouldn't have had the balls, so nice hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry for sounding harsh. I wasn't talking about the 99/TT tweak. My main problem I have with your listings of hands that beat me, and hands I beat is that they are not equally likely.

- AQ, although there are 12 combos, must be SIGNIFICANTLY decreased for not betting the flop, nor showing any agression. I would weigh this down to maybe 2 combos.

- AK, this needs to be weighted a bit since not everyone, even if passive, will cold call two on the flop, then call all the way down. Enough of the time they do, so I will give this a maybe 60% weight, so instead of 16 combos, around 10.

- Underpairs to the J. These need to be weighted a bunch too. Is he really checking the flop, and then calling two? Then calling down the rest? Yeah, it could happen, but I would drop this down to around 20% or so, so instead of 12 combos of 99/TT, only around 2 or 3.

You may disagree with my weights, which is fine. But you must remember when counting combos, that you have to see how likely it is that they play a hand in that particular fashion.

[Entity]

In a pot this big with this many players I think you're looking at a textbook situation of reverse implied odds. You're hoping he has AT or AK and can't put you to the test with either of them (you'll be wrong if you're guessing that at 10/20+), which each have not only 10 outs twice against you, but considerable folding equity should they choose to exploit it. Add that to the fact that a LP bet a QJ6 flop after coldcalling preflop and you're drawing to 2 outs far more than you're ahead, and you're praying to god the entire field doesn't catch up more often than you'd like.

Once you get to the river it's a solid bet, but I'm really sold on a flop checkfold here. It's multiway, you're not best often, and when you are you won't be by the river very often at all.

Rob

[ QUOTE ]
You may disagree with my weights, which is fine. But you must remember when counting combos, that you have to see how likely it is that they play a hand in that particular fashion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but combos don't just vanish. If the hero had a range of X hands preflop, you can narrow down holds, but you can't remove really remove combos.

He had 16 ways to hold AK preflop. If you only weight that at 10 post flop, what happened to the other 6 combos? That "weight" has to be given to some other hand he could have held.

I don't really recall seen any examples in books in hands are weighted in the fashion you're saying. The examples just start with a range of X hands, then start removing hands and weight based on the combos of the hands that are left.

It's somewhat inherently weighted. You give 100% to AK, and 0% to 55. 55 isn't 0%, but AK isn't 100% either. As long as both hands are in the same category (e.g. you win), shuffling a few % here and there between them isn't statistically useful.

[Spicymoose]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You may disagree with my weights, which is fine. But you must remember when counting combos, that you have to see how likely it is that they play a hand in that particular fashion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but combos don't just vanish. If the hero had a range of X hands preflop, you can narrow down holds, but you can't remove really remove combos.

He had 16 ways to hold AK preflop. If you only weight that at 10 post flop, what happened to the other 6 combos? That "weight" has to be given to some other hand he could have held.

I don't really recall seen any examples in books in hands are weighted in the fashion you're saying. The examples just start with a range of X hands, then start removing hands and weight based on the combos of the hands that are left.

It's somewhat inherently weighted. You give 100% to AK, and 0% to 55. 55 isn't 0%, but AK isn't 100% either. As long as both hands are in the same category (e.g. you win), shuffling a few % here and there between them isn't statistically useful.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the inherant weighting of possible combos is not enough. Most of the time we do give 0% or 100% to our combos, but that is incomplete. When you are able to, you really should do further weighting. The combos "vanish", because we are assuming that since he only plays this way say a certain percentage of the time, he folds these hands, and therefore they don't exist as combos.

Sorry if I can't really explain this well. StellarWind made a good post about how to do this.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showth...page=0&vc=1