|
|
#33
05-10-2006, 01:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Who can fold this flopped straight? (from the SB).
i agree with traz, for the same reason i agree with everything 2paul2 says.
|
|
#34
05-10-2006, 01:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Who can fold this flopped straight? (from the SB).
[ QUOTE ]
Ed, When did you start observing PP NL$50? I am impressed [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Hewas probably observing for ideas for SSNLHE.
|
|
#36
05-10-2006, 01:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ok, a couple of things...(just woke up)
Not quite sure what Ed Miller is showing me (although I'm honored to see him posting in my thread). That hand played out VERY differently from the hand I posted. It is heads up, so it is quite a bit different than both the blinds showing real strength on a low connected flop.
Ok, next. This is in no way a brag post. I'm very much convinced (mostly by all the trash talking, talking down to), that this was a pretty horrible fold. At the time I thought it was the right move, but now I know it isn't. I'm not a results oriented person. However, I did feel fairly smart when he turned over the hand I put him on, and THAT IS WHY I posted the hand here. To reassure myself that I am not smart. That I cannot fold this hand. I am not a confident player by any means. I don't think I'm better than anyone here, or most the people I play against. The hand was posted purely to get this response, so that next time, I know that no matter what my read is, I can't fold a hand like this. So...it has served it's function, and I appreciate all the help.
|
|
#37
05-10-2006, 01:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ok, a couple of things...(just woke up)
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think I'm better than anyone here, or most the people I play against. [/ QUOTE ] But you are clearly better than UTG. Tell the dealer you want the seat to his left. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
|
|
#38
05-10-2006, 02:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Who can fold this flopped straight? (from the SB).
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Ed, When did you start observing PP NL$50? I am impressed [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Hewas probably observing for ideas for SSNLHE. [/ QUOTE ] I've been playing some 50NL for the past week or two to get acquainted with how people in those games play... yes, it's with the SSNL book in mind.
|
|
#39
05-10-2006, 02:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ok, a couple of things...(just woke up)
[ QUOTE ]
Not quite sure what Ed Miller is showing me (although I'm honored to see him posting in my thread). That hand played out VERY differently from the hand I posted. It is heads up, so it is quite a bit different than both the blinds showing real strength on a low connected flop. [/ QUOTE ] You're right.. it's a very different situation. Nevertheless, I think your fold is predicated upon the notion that your opponent almost never has a lot of hands (based on your read) that he otherwise could have, and I don't think he plays predictably enough to pin him down so closely.
|
|
#40
05-10-2006, 02:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ok, a couple of things...(just woke up)
[ QUOTE ]
I am not a confident player by any means. I don't think I'm better than anyone here, or most the people I play against. The hand was posted purely to get this response, so that next time, I know that no matter what my read is, I can't fold a hand like this. So...it has served it's function, and I appreciate all the help. [/ QUOTE ] Here's the way I see it... "going with your reads" is important, but to do that correctly, you also have to be aware of how likely your read is to be correct. No read is perfect... there's always uncertainty. Your opponent could have changed gears, you could have happened to only see him in a particular situation before, he could be on tilt or playing randomly, or whatever. To borrow a concept from investing... you need a "margin of safety" with your reads. That is, "going with your read" is great if you can be somewhat wrong about it and still be making the right play. It's a lot dicier when your read has to be almost perfect for the play to be correct. Furthermore, and here's something I may want to write an article about.. hehe.. you should take into account the prior probably of ANYONE playing the way you think your opponent plays. That is, not only do you have to think, "How closely do I have my opponent pinned down?" but you also should think, "What percentage of all players happen to play the way I think he plays?" If it's a high percentage of players, then you should be more confident in your read than if almost no one else plays this way. Why? It's a Bayesian thing... if very few people actually play the way you think this guy plays, then the chance your read is off goes up. Here's a quick (though very imperfect) example. Say you have observed him for a while, and you think he only overbets postflop with really strong hands. A fair number of people play that way... or at least it's a plausible way to play, so it's somewhat believable. Now say you have observed him for a while, and you think he overbets the pot only when he holds specifically jack-five (say you've seen him do it three times already). No one plays that way... and because of that, you should be very suspicious of your read, even if you have a fair amount of evidence to suggest the read. Basically, the more "plausible" your opponent's play, the quicker you should be to give him credit for playing that way. If you think your opponent does something really bizarre, then you need a lot more evidence to convince you of it. In your example, I don't think you gave yourself a margin of safety. You assumed that your opponent played in this very strange way... and you had to be almost exactly right to make the play you did.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
