Math question: folding an underfull

[GTL]

while some of the posts were lame, i think we would do this guy a dis-service if we didn't try to pound the fact that he must, must, must bet and raise this turn card. if he wants to be a winning no limit player he must understand this. after saying this, i agree, that we got a whole bunch of that and no answer to the other question.

[Benholio]

[ QUOTE ]
while some of the posts were lame, i think we would do this guy a dis-service if we didn't try to pound the fact that he must, must, must bet and raise this turn card. if he wants to be a winning no limit player he must understand this. after saying this, i agree, that we got a whole bunch of that and no answer to the other question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, some of the flame posts mention the turn, but half of them don't have any strategic content at all. Either "LOLOMGHAHA" or "you should quit playing poker" etc... This isn't going to pound anything into the guys head except anger or embarassment.

If you are going to blatantly flame someone, at least include some strategy in the post, unless the guy is just trolling.

/derail

[GTL]

at the same time, this is an internet forum, you are gonna get flamed for this post. no way around it

[El Diablo]

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.

[aba20]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

As a new 5/10 player I completely agree. I think the discussion will be better for the group of us that just moved up in medium stakes room. I feel out of place posting 5/10 hands in high stakes forum.

[bugman68]

uh u left out bottom set in your range.

[Shaun]

I appreciate the last few posts. I will try and answer questions.

Bugman you mentioned 22- the way this guy was playing, I didn't see him coming in for a raise with 22 position or not, because I'd seen him limp quite a few hands, pocket pair that turned into a set included. 22 is definitely a possibility for a lot of players in this spot and may have been for him too, but I'm pretty sure it was out of his range. This guy was playing in a way that I thought his range could include KQ here, but not 22.

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. There was another guy in the pot too who was not nearly as tight and it's the kind of situation where I thought a check from the PF raiser was asking for trouble, and that made me think maybe he wants trouble?

If I checkraise the turn it's going to be big enough to where I am committed to the pot. 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.

So it's a case of hoping for a bet from him when he is either way behind, has a lock, or has a few outs to beat me that I can see (A, 2, K, maybe Q). Not raising the turn is bad in the last scenario and that scenario is most likely so again, I'm not happy with how I played the turn. Then again, not raising the turn is fine when he holds something like JJ IMO.

If the river was not an Ace, I would have lead out small enough that I could call a raise and small enough that he would pay off with the hands I beat.

I guess another factor is that I basically ran bad for a month where being in spots like this and ending up with the losing hand became fairly common. A lot of those times I felt like I was probably beat but still put in money only to find out, yeah, I was beat.

That isn't logical but you get conditioned to expect it after seeing it for a while right or wrong. I still think I was beat on the river and I can't explain why. That's why I was looking for some sort of math that would give me a better idea of how to handle the river in future situations.

[TheBeloved]

It appears your problem is more "emotional" than mathematical.

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

[barongreenback]

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

[Shaun]

[ 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.