|
|
#21
04-15-2005, 02:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] That's because I don't think position is nearly as important on a weak passive table. [/ QUOTE ] This is something you may want to consider reviewing. Position is the most important aspect in this game, regardless of the game's texture. That said, I understand your desire to play hands like this, and this is a good choice for a hand that is right on the cusp here. But would you play T7s? T8s? Your hand is good multiway but in any game -- even a passive game -- is helped MUCH by the benefit of position. 3 limpers limp behind you, SB completes, BB checks. 7 to the flop for 7SB. Flop comes J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. SB checks, BB checks, UTG bets. Now what's the right play here? Rob [/ QUOTE ] I call planning to raise a non-heart non-ace turn. 
|
|
#22
04-15-2005, 02:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] That's because I don't think position is nearly as important on a weak passive table. [/ QUOTE ] This is something you may want to consider reviewing. Position is the most important aspect in this game, regardless of the game's texture. That said, I understand your desire to play hands like this, and this is a good choice for a hand that is right on the cusp here. But would you play T7s? T8s? Your hand is good multiway but in any game -- even a passive game -- is helped MUCH by the benefit of position. 3 limpers limp behind you, SB completes, BB checks. 7 to the flop for 7SB. Flop comes J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. SB checks, BB checks, UTG bets. Now what's the right play here? Rob [/ QUOTE ] I call planning to raise a non-heart non-ace turn. [/ QUOTE ] I don't know that raising TPNK is going to be profitable in general when you're getting led into on the flop by a noted passive player. Yeah, there's a chance he's betting a flush draw, but is the chance of that greater than something like QJ, JT, etc? This is one of those situations where reverse implied odds comes into play, where raising sucks but so does calling, and folding isn't right either. That's why I don't like being out of position with these hands. There's probably a sample size issue, but I honestly doubt they're profitable for most good players in the first couple of seats. Rob
|
|
#23
04-15-2005, 02:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
[ QUOTE ]
I think you're overvaluing suited cards and undervaluing pocket pairs, but it could be that we're just arguing semantics. It's rare that I find a situation where pocket pairs aren't profitable limps, but I can find many situations where suited two gappers aren't. [/ QUOTE ] Against 5 opponents 22 will win less than 18% of the time whereas J8s will win 24% of the time. Remember, I said this table was passive. I think I'd much rather play the J8s than 22.
|
|
#24
04-15-2005, 02:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] That's because I don't think position is nearly as important on a weak passive table. [/ QUOTE ] This is something you may want to consider reviewing. Position is the most important aspect in this game, regardless of the game's texture. That said, I understand your desire to play hands like this, and this is a good choice for a hand that is right on the cusp here. But would you play T7s? T8s? Your hand is good multiway but in any game -- even a passive game -- is helped MUCH by the benefit of position. 3 limpers limp behind you, SB completes, BB checks. 7 to the flop for 7SB. Flop comes J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. SB checks, BB checks, UTG bets. Now what's the right play here? Rob [/ QUOTE ] I call planning to raise a non-heart non-ace turn. [/ QUOTE ] I don't know that raising TPNK is going to be profitable in general when you're getting led into on the flop by a noted passive player. Yeah, there's a chance he's betting a flush draw, but is the chance of that greater than something like QJ, JT, etc? This is one of those situations where reverse implied odds comes into play, where raising sucks but so does calling, and folding isn't right either. That's why I don't like being out of position with these hands. There's probably a sample size issue, but I honestly doubt they're profitable for most good players in the first couple of seats. Rob [/ QUOTE ] Well, if you don't want to play that flop then you can play it like 22 and fold. I think I'd rather stick around but I'm stubborn that way. John
|
|
#25
04-15-2005, 02:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I think you're overvaluing suited cards and undervaluing pocket pairs, but it could be that we're just arguing semantics. It's rare that I find a situation where pocket pairs aren't profitable limps, but I can find many situations where suited two gappers aren't. [/ QUOTE ] Against 5 opponents 22 will win less than 18% of the time whereas J8s will win 24% of the time. Remember, I said this table was passive. I think I'd much rather play the J8s than 22. [/ QUOTE ] It isn't all about showdown equity. In fact, it's rarely about showdown equity. It's about implied odds and reverse implied odds, and your opponents don't have random hands here. Reverse implied odds can suck with a hand like J8s. They very very very rarely suck with 22. I really hope you can see the difference between these things. If you're saying that 22 isn't profitable based on showdown equity estimations, you're WAY off. Rob
|
|
#26
04-15-2005, 02:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] That's because I don't think position is nearly as important on a weak passive table. [/ QUOTE ] This is something you may want to consider reviewing. Position is the most important aspect in this game, regardless of the game's texture. That said, I understand your desire to play hands like this, and this is a good choice for a hand that is right on the cusp here. But would you play T7s? T8s? Your hand is good multiway but in any game -- even a passive game -- is helped MUCH by the benefit of position. 3 limpers limp behind you, SB completes, BB checks. 7 to the flop for 7SB. Flop comes J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. SB checks, BB checks, UTG bets. Now what's the right play here? Rob [/ QUOTE ] I call planning to raise a non-heart non-ace turn. [/ QUOTE ] I don't know that raising TPNK is going to be profitable in general when you're getting led into on the flop by a noted passive player. Yeah, there's a chance he's betting a flush draw, but is the chance of that greater than something like QJ, JT, etc? This is one of those situations where reverse implied odds comes into play, where raising sucks but so does calling, and folding isn't right either. That's why I don't like being out of position with these hands. There's probably a sample size issue, but I honestly doubt they're profitable for most good players in the first couple of seats. Rob [/ QUOTE ] Well, if you don't want to play that flop then you can play it like 22 and fold. I think I'd rather stick around but I'm stubborn that way. John [/ QUOTE ] You're completely missing the point I was trying to illustrate, which is that 22 is an easy fold in these situations, which is why reverse implied odds are much worse on a hand like J8s. Hot/cold equity is not the way to determine which hand you'd rather have. Rob
|
|
#27
04-15-2005, 02:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
I don't care *how often* I win. All I care about is *how much* I win.
When 22 wins, it will almost always be because I made a set, which I will be able to bet aggressively in order to maximize the pot I'm about to drag. When J8s wins, it will often be because my uber-weak TP held up, or because I got lucky and sucked out on the turn or river. I'm going to have to do a bunch of calling and hoping in this hand and if I drag a large pot, it will frequently be a pot that my opponents built, not me. Note also that J8s is far more likely to get me to a losing showdown than 22. I'm reasonably happy with my post-flop play, but there's just no question that 22 is going to be a far easier hand to play postflop that J8s. The size of the pot you pull down will reflect that.
|
|
#28
04-15-2005, 02:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
[ QUOTE ]
If you're saying that 22 isn't profitable based on showdown equity estimations, you're WAY off. [/ QUOTE ] I'm saying that 22 isn't profitable UTG against "3 or 4 callers". I don't see how that can be way off. John
|
|
#29
04-15-2005, 02:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If you're saying that 22 isn't profitable based on showdown equity estimations, you're WAY off. [/ QUOTE ] I'm saying that 22 isn't profitable UTG against "3 or 4 callers". I don't see how that can be way off. John [/ QUOTE ] 3 or 4 callers would dictate that we're got a 5 or 6-way pot, right? Or are you considering the BB to be a caller? I'm just trying to clarify. Rob
|
|
#30
04-15-2005, 02:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I think you're overvaluing suited cards and undervaluing pocket pairs, but it could be that we're just arguing semantics. It's rare that I find a situation where pocket pairs aren't profitable limps, but I can find many situations where suited two gappers aren't. [/ QUOTE ] Against 5 opponents 22 will win less than 18% of the time whereas J8s will win 24% of the time. Remember, I said this table was passive. I think I'd much rather play the J8s than 22. [/ QUOTE ] This is not a good way to look at these two hands. J8s has more ways to win and will win a higher % of the time when it's taken to showdown. That is undeniable. However getting to showdown will cost you a buttload with J8s and you'll lose with it in expensive ways and not be able to pump it when you do hit it. This drastically cuts the profitablility and EV of J8s. 22 on the other hand is an easy flop fold when you miss but when you hit you can make serious bank. It is a ridiculously easy hand to play.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
