No pair... pot, make one pair... pot pot

[Jason Strasser (strassa2)]

Stop looking for some sort of formula here because it doesnt exist. Sometimes I do crazy [censored] with nothing, more often I don't.

[Number27]

Sorry, I wasn't looking for a formula; but more what your thinking would be when you did pot it on the river with nothing. For instance, would you have made the same play with a hand like KJ there and what would your thought process be.

[KRANTZ]

[ QUOTE ]
The more I think about poker, the more I realize that there are some very good players who make very big technical errors. I think the general 2p2 mantra on a hand like this would be to check the turn and bet the river, or vice versa. But the important thing to do in poker is in my mind is to set up your opponents. Lots of the very successful big game players get away with technical mistakes that even a very beginner on 2p2 might not make, but the reality is that the benefits of working an overal gameplan on an opponent successfuly far outweighs hedging perfect Sklansky-dollar bets.

-Jason

[/ QUOTE ]

this is very sound analysis

[Chaostracize]

Isn't this really just a matter of A. Have you 3 barrel bluffed in this game? and B. Do you have an extensive history against villain?

I know being generally psycho lag makes people's ranges very wide against you, and I agree that villain is likely to call a PSB if he's calling 1/2 pot on river, but to be honest, I think a PSB is going to end up being a bluff on this river a LOT more than it's going to be for value. In which case, that's not horrible either.

[Jason Strasser (strassa2)]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't this really just a matter of A. Have you 3 barrel bluffed in this game? and B. Do you have an extensive history against villain?

I know being generally psycho lag makes people's ranges very wide against you, and I agree that villain is likely to call a PSB if he's calling 1/2 pot on river, but to be honest, I think a PSB is going to end up being a bluff on this river a LOT more than it's going to be for value. In which case, that's not horrible either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I have 3-barrel bluffed before. More than once. Not a ton of history but I think we had some.

Seems like your argument that a PSB is a bluff is a perfect reason to play the hand exactly as I did. Am I missing something?

-Jason

[Jason Strasser (strassa2)]

It would be something incredibly complicated involving partial differential equations, Laplace transforms and basic knowledge of electromagnetic wave propagation that goes something like:

I don't think he can call this, and I would play a big hand just like this.

[Number27]

Heh... point taken.

[FoxwoodsFiend]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I know you're aggressive and all that jazz but I think you're overrating how often JJ is going to just call off two straight PSBs with an ace on board (especially given the previous PSB before the ace hit). The lower you get on his spectrum of non-set pocket pairs, the less likely he is to call so I think that the chances of getting called by a worse hand are slim (in the case of KK/JJ) to none (in the case of 88 or 55).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where I think I see a gap in your logic, from my perspective. My opponent has a brain, lets presume, and because of this shouldn't he realize that his calldown with JJ is the same calldown as with 55? I obviously am not value betting worse. You seem to think of it as a gradient, I think though that most opponents will lump all their hands that don't beat a value bet but beat a bluff in one group. There definitely is a slight gradient, but it's fairly insignificant IMO. Generally the tougher the player, the flatter this gradient.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree for the most part. I was actually being charitable to try listing some worse hands that might call you. I was basically thinking that JJ snaps off more missed pocket pair or A7 bluffs than does 55. For the most part I think JJ only calls here if the player is tilting/frustrated against you but JJ and 55 both call here very rarely.

[ QUOTE ]
That's fair. I think this river decision, isolated by itself is probably very close to neutral expected value.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I actually think it's significantly -EV.

[ QUOTE ]
But as part of a bigger plan, I think it really helps my game. The more times I can fire big on the river like this, the easier time I have getting paid off with big hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a lot of people overplay this concept, and I wouldn't be surprised if you do. If this bet is largely -EV, you'll have to make up for it by getting called when you have a monster in the future. But how often is this the case? You get more marginal hands than monsters and if you generally play very aggressively on the river that means you're betting big with way more weak hands than strong hands-if you try skewing it more towards the big hands people will notice you haven't been betting the river that often and you lose the benefits you're trying to accrue.

But the only way for you to advertise your thin value bets (and thus get paid off) is to get them called which is normally going to be by a better hand OR to show it (which I don't think is often wise). So either you're wasting money very often for the occasional pay-off or you're giving away your hand too often.

Now, there are other ways this bet makes sense in the meta-game (namely people don't call the turn as lightly because they know you bet the river often, even if they don't know what), but I think from the perspective of getting called when you have a monster it's like saying "I'll give up $800 a few times but when I get a monster this guy'll pay me off $1100." It's not worth it to trick your opponents when you have monsters if it costs you money.

[MDMA]

I think you misunderstood him; he meant that the vast majority of the times you are going to get called, it's going to be a by a better hand. Hence, a bluff rather than a value bet. I reckon you thought he meant that your bet is going to get perceived as a total bluff (or nuts) a large percentage of the time, which of course is of course would be the reason you would want to value bet it.

[luckychewy]

No reads make it a little tough. As played PF and on flop I would definatly bet turn here as you say some people wouldn't I think that's a big flaw.

Once you get to the river and he checks I start to think what hands would raise early PF, check/call twice and then check again. It seems like there are plenty more hands that call and beat you than don't. A bet here is something I don't like for two reasons:

A) Your hand is good enough for showdown and as you have already said you bet for value not as a bluff. Very rarely if ever does your opponent fold a better hand here.

B) If villain did have a draw of some sort, he will fold river unless he decides to make an extremely ill-advised bluff.

I am very interested to hear what happened, along with what you would do if he had moved in. Yes I know he could almost never do this with less than A9 here, but do you ever start to realize some opponents think A LOT less than us? Hey, he could've misclicked, right?

With all this being said, I think he called and you lost to A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img].