AJ off - man i hate that hand. - Page 4

Buckmulligan · #31 01-07-2007, 08:40 PM

i call down, i expect to win around 50% of the time.

Poker Gestalt · #32 01-07-2007, 09:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Villain is LAG.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is he LAG??? .86 AF.... IMO your beat here a large portion of the time... A c/r from a .86 is very scary. Unless ive seen something that tells me that this c/r is sometimes a bluff then your probably beat.

Poker Gestalt · #33 01-07-2007, 09:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I would ALWAYS call this down against a more aggressive opponent.

[/ QUOTE ]

But its a fold vs. a passive... I.e. This hand

Buckmulligan · #34 01-07-2007, 09:15 PM

36/16 isn't... ummm... passive.

Poker Gestalt · #35 01-07-2007, 09:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
36/16 isn't... ummm... passive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree... its not passive pre flop... how about post?

Mr. Zero · #36 01-07-2007, 10:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
36/16 isn't... ummm... passive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree... its not passive pre flop... how about post?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I'm just not ready to make that conclusion, either way, based on 200 hands. Easy call IMO.

threads13 · #37 01-07-2007, 10:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
36/16 isn't... ummm... passive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree... its not passive pre flop... how about post?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a matter of an interpretation of stats.

The aggression factor is calculated as:
(bet % + raise %)/(call %).

Since a loose player(and he is loose) he may be calling a bit more hands but have the same raising standards of a TAG. Therefore, his AF will go down even though he may be just as aggressive.

Poker Gestalt · #38 01-07-2007, 10:55 PM

I take back what I said earlier. Thanks for explaining this to me. Two others explained this whole stat issue to me in the AK thread. Thx again

unterfish · #39 01-08-2007, 01:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Weighting outs (combo, combinations, outs, weighted outs):

66, 3, 0, 0
33, 3, 0, 0
A6, 9, 6, 1
A3, 9, 7.5, 1.3
Q6, 9, 8, 1.4
Q3, 9, 8, 1.4
63, 9, 8, 1.4

Total = 6.5

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the thorough analysis. I estimated around 6 outs as well, but not that exact.
But I dont think I get it. Why 7.5 outs against A3? We have 9 outs (3 6s, 3 Qs, 3 Js).
Furthermore, why is this a clear call with 6.5 outs getting 6-to-1?
And we are getting 3.5-to-1 for a call-down no matter what.
Is this guy check-raising us with a worse hand more than 20% of the time?
I actually dont know, but would guess not. A turn check-raise is rare IMO. And a bluff/semibluff turn check-raise much rarer.

bozlax · #40 01-08-2007, 02:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
But I dont think I get it. Why 7.5 outs against A3? We have 9 outs (3 6s, 3 Qs, 3 Js).

[/ QUOTE ]

Gotcha. The 6s only count for half because we would then split with A3.

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, why is this a clear call with 6.5 outs getting 6-to-1?
And we are getting 3.5-to-1 for a call-down no matter what.

[/ QUOTE ]

Implied odds, we have position on him. If we catch and he bets, we are at least making one more bet. And, yeah, we're getting 3.5:1 on a calldown, if we call his river bet (if he makes one), which we don't have to if we don't improve (I think I've already said that, tho).

[ QUOTE ]
Is this guy check-raising us with a worse hand more than 20% of the time?
I actually dont know, but would guess not. A turn check-raise is rare IMO. And a bluff/semibluff turn check-raise much rarer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't actually know, since we don't have a real read, and OP doesn't seem to be talking. But since we make up the difference in implieds, the times he's semi-bluffing is just gravy (think I already said that, too).