Marginal hand #2 Play or no play

[fl0w]

I'd fold so fast it isn't even funny.

[grjr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Showing hands where you make marginal calls and then hit a nice draw does not prove that making the marginal calls is correct

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I knew that sooner or later someone would bring this up. I thought it would be post #3 so it was "sooner". For you gamblers out there the "under" is a winner. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Don't worry. They won't all be winners.

Oh, and I don't think I'm trying to prove anything. I thought these types of hands would lead to some lively discussion and maybe help some of those people who have a VP$IP of 12% and complain they can't beat the .50/1 limit.

[Messy Harry]

Is a raise on the flop the best play? I'd be interested to here some responses.

I know it builds the pot for when you hit your draws and might buy you a free card on the turn. But either the better has a set and is going for value OR he's onto your free card play and making you pay for it. Either way, it drove out the other two callers who could have contributed 2 more BB's to the pot if you hit either of your draws on the turn. Then you could raise the turn.

[Entity]

This is a fold for me, even with the button. I'd coldcall with T9s and maybe T8s and be more likely to coldcall with blinds.

[GrunchCan]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think I'm trying to prove anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe you. And I believe that the discussions garnered in the last couple days have been good for the forum. But I also think you tend to disregard advice even in the face of mathematical proof. You do this to your own detriment. It takes a lot of energy to write a long & thorough EV evaluation of a marginal situation. And while I'm sure some lurkers & thread contributors may benefit from the analysis, the OP's general refusal to accept such an analysis is also a little frustrating.

[jrz1972]

[ QUOTE ]
Is a raise on the flop the best play?

[/ QUOTE ]

I strongly agree with the flop raise. If you knew that MP2 was going to immediately 3-bet and fold out the other two players, then obviously you would want to just call, but Hero didn't know that at the time. (Remember, MP2 is LPP. They don't do a lot of 3-betting).

Basically, Hero is raising with his flush draw for value. The fact that he might get a free card is just gravy.

[grjr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, I called because of the reasons I already outlined. I'll call this every time with a raiser and 2 others. If the blinds come along then great but I won't base my decision on whether I think they will or not. Whether that's correct or not I'll leave that up to you guys.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the things I've noticed in your posts is that you dismiss other people's arguments out of hand. I don't think this is the best way to use this forum to improve your game.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's called a debate. I reply with my opinions and you replay with yours. Doesn't mean I'm right and doesn't mean you're right.

If everybody always followed the majority opinion then things would be pretty boring. Sometimes you have to think outside the box. My idea is to offer a differing viewpoint to make you think about these types of situations.

You are dealt a lot more marginal hands than you are ultra premium hands so you have more opportunity to win or lose money with them. If you take the time to read my opinion and think about it a little and then decide it's baloney that's fine. At least you had a different viewpoint than yours to compare with.

[ QUOTE ]
*Everyone* in this thread (except you) is in agreement that this is a fold preflop. While nobody is arguing that it's a huge leak, you might want to ask yourself if you're making a systematic mistake in preflop hand evaluation, or whether we're all wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I DO appreciate all the comments and compare them with my own thoughts. I then decide which course I want to follow. I WILL NOT follow a path because everyone else does. If I'm wrong then I have no one to blame but myself.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I assumed you would call preflop if the pot wasn't raised. Was that wrong to assume?

The example I gave was what more often than not happens when you DO hit the flop. Naturally, if you miss the flop you fold or check.

I included all my bets to show the pot size then deducted what I put in to show the profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) This is an easy preflop call with no raise, easy fold in the given situation.
2) Your claim is false. The 50% number was an overestimate (to be generous to your position). 33% turns out to be a better choice.



[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not following you here. What claim did I make that is false?

[/ QUOTE ]

"More often than not" is the false claim. It's more like "half as often as not".

[bottomset]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a fold for me, even with the button. I'd coldcall with T9s and maybe T8s and be more likely to coldcall with blinds.

[/ QUOTE ]

that is prob my range as well, unraised pots with bad limpers you can limp along with alot of 1gappers, and sconnectors

the big difference is that implied odds for these hands thrive on seeing the flop for 1bet, every additional bet going preflop makes it harder to get to the break even point

so if forced to pay 2bets to see the flop, the only connectors worth playing have 1pair value, in that you will win a decent % of the time with toppair(orsecond pair on occasion) Tens or Jacks, where as pair of 6's,7's,8's are much less likely to hold up

say the breakeven point for your hand is 12 to 1(prob reasonable, as small pockets are around 10/1) and you are getting 5 to 1 on a call .. you need to make up 5-7SB when you hit strong

but if forced to pay 2bets, getting the same relative odds that is 10/2 .. you need to make 10-14SB to get back to even, considerably tougher and less likely to happen with small connectors, and 1gappers

also a main consideration is position, you really want the button with these hands, yes you do in the hand in this thread .. but an action line UTG limp, UTG+1 raise 2caller you in MP2 or Hijack isn't a very good spot to be w/ say 97s .. this applies when the pot is unraised as well, but you do have a little more flexibility in those situations

[grjr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think I'm trying to prove anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe you. And I believe that the discussions garnered in the last couple days have been good for the forum. But I also think you tend to disregard advice even in the face of mathematical proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

With all due respect, Grunch, I don't believe you proved yesterday that calling 2 bets with a gutshot and BDFD was -EV since you didn't consider the outs for the gutshot.

[ QUOTE ]
You do this to your own detriment. It takes a lot of energy to write a long & thorough EV evaluation of a marginal situation. And while I'm sure some lurkers & thread contributors may benefit from the analysis, the OP's general refusal to accept such an analysis is also a little frustrating.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said in another response, I appreciate all the comments and analysis.

"...general refusal to accept such an analysis..." In other words, "I'm right and you're wrong". If I believe I have a valid position I'm going to state it. For many of these situations there is no "right or wrong"/"black or white".

I consider each opposing opinion strongly and then decide what's best for me using all the information I have. Hopefully you can understand that and not take it as an insult when I don't agree 100%.