And I put him on 24offsuit too! - Page 2

gildwulf · #11 12-21-2005, 04:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Thank you, that's what I was trying to say in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please tell me you are joking because you have an insane amount of pot equity and dead money on this turn.

#12 12-21-2005, 04:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Thank you, that's what I was trying to say in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you hate money?

squeek12 · #13 12-21-2005, 04:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thank you, that's what I was trying to say in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please tell me you are joking because you have an insane amount of pot equity and dead money on this turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

"No, see, either he's way ahead or way behind. The queen in his hand gives him a very strong hand for this board of QQ7. His hand is not vulnerable to overcards. Personally I think he played it a little too aggressive here. Just make sure one bet goes in on each street. You were "way ahead" in this situation and just unlucky that someone happened to hit their .1 outer. However, if you had been "way behind" you would have lost a lot drawing dead."

This is how I felt at the time. If that's terribly wrong so be it, I don't claim to be a terrific player. I capped the flop, which screams Q good kicker. SB still leads the turn which tells me that he either thinks that he has a better kicker or just hit his worse kicker and that's why I don't raise. My name is Jason, and I'm a little weak on later streets...there, I've got the first step out of the way. BTW, if I raise the turn and get 3-bet, what now?

gildwulf · #14 12-21-2005, 04:55 AM

Bayes' theorem dude: there's one queen left in the deck which means the likelihood of him having one is extremely small. You need to start thinking in terms of putting players on hand ranges and probabilities of hands and less "oh my god, he might have a queen" Play some six-max...it will help you grow a pair on the later streets

squeek12 · #15 12-21-2005, 05:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Bayes' theorem dude: there's one queen left in the deck which means the likelihood of him having one is extremely small. You need to start thinking in terms of putting players on hand ranges and probabilities of hands and less "oh my god, he might have a queen" Play some six-max...it will help you grow a pair on the later streets

[/ QUOTE ]

You see, I interpret that differently. I think that everytime he bets and raises it is more likely that he has the other queen or a hand that beats mine:

his flop 3 bet, likely to have a queen, but since he's in the SB, prolly a small kicker.

he calls cap, tells me nothing

he leads turn, tells me he could have a queen with a better kicker or a boat now so I just call

if I raise the turn and he 3-bets, I assume he's got me beat and i'm drawing thin.

that's the way I look at the theorem anyway.

flawless_victory · #16 12-21-2005, 05:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Bayes' theorem dude:

[/ QUOTE ]
this is possibly a concept that is even more misapplied than WA/WB... bayes thoerem is even less relevant to this hand than WA/WB concept.
gl, youll need it.

flawless_victory · #17 12-21-2005, 05:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i am going to be a good guy and give you a really good piece of poker advice.
FORGET EVERYTHING YOU EVER LEARNED ABOUT THIS "WA/WB" BS. YOU ARE COMPLETELY MISAPPLYING A COINCEPT THAT SUCKS TO BEGIN WITH. YOU PLAY IN THIS HAND IS VERY VERY HORRIBLE.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, see, either he's way ahead or way behind. The queen in his hand gives him a very strong hand for this board of QQ7. His hand is not vulnerable to overcards. Personally I think he played it a little too aggressive here. Just make sure one bet goes in on each street. You were "way ahead" in this situation and just unlucky that someone happened to hit their .1 outer. However, if you had been "way behind" you would have lost a lot drawing dead.

Go back to posting in microlimits flawless. Maybe they'll like your crazy chip spewing there. This forum is for the "big dogs" of 2/4.

[/ QUOTE ]
i think u got me dude. nh.

squeek12 · #18 12-21-2005, 05:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bayes' theorem dude:

[/ QUOTE ]
this is possibly a concept that is even more misapplied than WA/WB... bayes thoerem is even less relevant to this hand than WA/WB concept.
gl, youll need it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the encouragement jackass, I'm doing just fine without perfect knowledge of all of these abstract theories and BS. So I might have misplayed a hand, I'm sure it's never happened to you. My winrate over a significant sample is about 2BB/100, so I guess I'm doing okay. The only reason I even played this hand is b/c my VPIP is only about 14.5 and I've been looking for spots to increase it a little.

#19 12-21-2005, 06:01 AM

So what if you think you might be behind on the turn. Theres a great chance you are ahead and you have players in between to make up for when you arent. I cap the turn given the chance.

When pots are large and multiway, generally you should get agressive and try to win it instead of watching it slip by when a flop-peeler like the sb finds a gutshot on the turn and doesnt know about partial outs.

To the SB:

Personally, I wouldnt even complete this preflop, but depending on how bad your opponents are and how likely they will pay you off, this can be OK.

On the flop: I know you like to see the turn card, but two other players seem to have really good hands. Also, when players are raising back and forth with others between them on the flop, it often represents a flush draw or trips in this case, meaning that your runner-runner outs are tainted.

On the turn:
Some players like to semi bluff raise their gutshots on paired boards. However, given the substantial action on the flop, I like that you choose not to semi bluff raise.

On the river:
While you hit your miracle donk-hand, I still wouldnt bet out. Since the mp bet out last hand, you can safely c/r the field. However, the way you played it, I would have probably 3bet the river, since your opponents will have trouble reading your hand and be completely obsessed with their pitiful trips

gildwulf · #20 12-21-2005, 12:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bayes' theorem dude:

[/ QUOTE ]
this is possibly a concept that is even more misapplied than WA/WB... bayes thoerem is even less relevant to this hand than WA/WB concept.
gl, youll need it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was this directed at me or original poster? I was just talking about calculating the probability of a given hand given an opponent's raise to get out of that 'I must be beat' mindset.