Math question: folding an underfull

[Yeti]

[ QUOTE ]
Mods, I think you guys should change the guidelines for this forum to 10-20NL and higher.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is the solution. Threads like this should just be answered immediately with the correct reply (ok, obviouisly I am guilty here), then locked. Threads like this are just gonna give the wrong advice to beginners, not to mention wasting everyone's time.

[TheBeloved]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It appears your problem is more "emotional" than mathematical.

You are trying to use math to justify "tilted" play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably true. It isn't even that I was on tilt during the hand (when I'm on tilt I donk my stack into the middle with far worse hands and try to make fancy plays- I don't fold), but I think the memory of being on tilt affected my judgment. Still I have never used math with hand ranges- more just played on feel, and I'm trying to expand my approach.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the heat of the moment your "feel" should be far superior to any math skills. (you should spend time off table incorporating math into your overall "feel" )

ps I put the tilted in quotes to mean a kind of inverted scared (i'm gonna lose) tilt.

[Shaun]

[ QUOTE ]
The hand ranges you put him on are inconsistant from one street to another.
[ QUOTE ]
Let's say his range is, KJs and KQs which I beat but also AA, KK, and AK which beat me

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As for the turn and why I played it the way I did, I really didn't like this guy's flop check because the way he was playing it seemed unneccessary- like he was trying to let us catch up

[/ QUOTE ]
You have to decide what he's doing with AA. Leaving that to one side, though, if his turn range is likely quads or trips why would you not be eager to get the money in.
[ QUOTE ]
Of course if I lead the turn he is going to likely fold all pocket pairs because he's tight and knows I am too.

[/ QUOTE ]
So now you think he checks the flop with pocket pairs. Does he wants to let you catch up? On the turn, do expect him to bluff these pairs? If so why are you so confident in his river range?
[ QUOTE ]
he is either way behind, has a lock, or has a few outs to beat me that I can see

[/ QUOTE ]
Pot control is not an issue here. Increasing your equity in a small pot is unimportant when you have a big edge in a big pot. Your only concern is to play the big pot as often as possible.

James

[/ QUOTE ]

Good points. I played with villain again and my read is still that he's tight but he plays well and knows his opponents.

While again, I was probably wrong not to raise turn, I still think when he bets strong on that river I have either been drawing dead or have let him catch a larger full.


I think he would check AA on this flop because it is likely he is up against at most 4 outs (or perhaps one of the 2 kings). Hands like 77, 99, though I think he bets the flop because giving free cards could lose him a pot that is his to take as long as no one flopped big.

So while I think he plays most pocket pairs by betting the flop, I think AA is a little different. On the river I don't think he is betting with QQ, AQ or a worse pair, he'd likely check behind thinking he's only getting action from a hand that beats him. Watching him some more I am pretty sure of that.

[Rman]

Two things:

1.You can´t be drawing dead on turn unless he has KK, or K2(1 out). You cant play decent no limit poker if you worry about these hands in this spot instead of worrying about how to get the money in.

2.His riverbet is not very strong by any means.

[El Diablo]

Shaun: In your last post you said you were "probably wrong not to raise the turn." That means you are still missing the point. Given your read of his hand as "KJs and KQs which I beat but also AA, KK, and AK" based on his flop check, the turn check-call is just plain horrible.

Yeti: I think changing the guidelines to 10/20 and up will maybe help a little. Mods locking or moving the threads that are so basic or bad to the medium or small forum would of course also be a big help. I suggest adding a couple of mods (flawless, fsu, Yeti, whoever) and cleaning up this forum, as it has turned into quite the cesspool again.

[RikaKazak]

[ QUOTE ]
Ben, BF, Shaun:

I believe a number of the responses in this and some other recent threads are because this forum was created largely due to people's desire of having an NL forum where the discussion was oriented around somewhat advanced concepts. The level of hands that have been posted lately often are obvious in nature or show glaring basic mistakes. There are two other NL forums where people can learn basic stuff.

Additionally, Shaun, I and a couple of others asked you a simple serious question about your turn reasoning. Instead of focusing on the responses you did not like, how about just addressing the question that was asked? Perhaps that could result in some actual poker discussion that you could learn from. Yet, for some reason, you did not even respond to the question.

Mods, I think you guys should change the guidelines for this forum to 10-20NL and higher. People w/ interesting hands can use their judgement as to when something at lower stakes is interesting enough to post in this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think changing it to 10/20 is going to help anything. I think only asking serious hand questions, with legitimate reads, etc. etc. should be allowed. As far as me laughing at the origianl post, this hand is so retarded it's a waste of my time to read it. This sounds like one of my NL 50 students coming to me and saying, "should I have gotten AA all in pf, is that an ok play?" I mean come on, I thought "high stakes" meant "high thinking" but it's turning into low stakes for people with more money.