three river call/fold decisions

[ender555]

Sam,

Do you always try and give percentages of the amount of time a certain player will have a certain hand? I'm just curious how you come up with these numbers. Is it just practice?

[cero_z]

Hi Sam,

In hand 1, your reasoning for calling the all-in is sound, if your opponent is fairly bad. Good players will know that players who play your style are much more likely to make "big calls" of the sort you made in this hand, since they (LAGs) are used to poor players vastly overplaying their medium hands and trying big bluffs against them. So unless you can really rule out being behind, you are going to be in a spot where you are a 2:1 favorite sometimes, and drawing to 5 outs most of the time. Against a frustrated, mediocre or worse player (who's not a nit), you can pretty much rule out being behind.

Your reasoning for betting the turn is sound, IMO, but given that reasoning, a much smaller bet makes sense. After all, with missed overcards etc., they basically need to feel you're bluffing or worried to raise you. That "almost full pot" bet sends that exact message. You put them in a tougher spot by betting half pot, IMO; it makes an all-in awkwardly large, and plants more fear that their overcards may be no good if they hit.

Also, if the turn goes check-check, and a scary card (to you) hits, this type of opponent's bet size on the river is pretty easy to read, right?

[aggie]

[ QUOTE ]
for fear of a check-check where he would have to wonder if a fourth diamond hit the board.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sam, this is the only part of you're logic i'm not 100% convinced of. You've been running this guy over and he's frustrated. Basically i think he expects you to bet the turn. Even if you had a naked diamond on the turn he might expect you to bet it since he probably considers you a maniac. Because you're so aggressive players might be more likely to take the chance that you won't check behind.

So the guy is frustrated and wants to take a stand. Yes a big diamond is the most likely holding. But i think both an overpair (with or without a diamond), a set, or a small flush are more likely than you're guessing. And even when he does turn up with just the diamond he's 30-40% to win the hand.

I definitely understand you're logic and think it's close but i'm still leaning towards folding this turn.

[cero_z]

Sam,

Hand 2 was analyzed well by Strassa. Myself, I pretty much always call in these spots, and it seems I usually regret it. Do I regret it more than 2 times out of 3, though? Probably not, but it's close. I guess what you have to ask yourself is, "How likely is it that Jackal thinks I have a T or better after I call the turn?" The higher that number, the better a fold looks, obviously.

Hand 3: I have personally never folded a hand that strong in that situation. How well do you know this guy? Doesn't he think about how others play? With your image, I don't see how you can get away from this. Plus, when a guy has 27K in front, some think they should bet more with their good hands, since "3K won't matter that much to him." This would make AA possible. However, super-nits often don't think about this or anything else, really, besides their vaginas.

[Jason Strasser (strassa2)]

Sam,

Your analysis and decision I think was pretty straight forward. I guess you are saying that your decision to call was one that most don't make, but I think for most people in this game, IF they decide to bet the turn against the standard poor player in this game, they will also be the ones typically making this big call. I have made this call before, obviously.

I also think, though, that a very good player will not be committed to calling this all in once he bets the turn as KKF said. I do think that betting the turn and folding to an all in is acceptable, and in order to counteract good players, you can't be too predictable in terms of hand strength on the turn. The turn is such a key street and so many players play it very predictably and that makes them easier to play against.

-Jason

[IHateCats]

I think it really turns on whether you really think he’s ready to snap & how tough you think he is. You can only justify this call if you really think he’s weak and has truly snapped. The gap I see in your logic is your 100% discounting of his having a overpair with or without a diamond or set (tiny % likely) here. I and most other players certainly wouldn’t give a free card here to most other players but against you with your very, very high % tendency to fire at any check on the turn where you've got position on a scary board, in his shoes this is precisely how I would play this board vs you with JJ or better a substantial % of the time knowing your willingness to make some very tricky/borderline calls and it’s a strategy that I’ve used with some success is to mix big semi bluff overbets with overpairs & big hands and letting you make these calls in really, really bad shape. Yes, sometimes I get gutted on sets, flushes and 2 pair here but with this call you are equally in that wretched < 10% to win zone if you are up against an overpair with a diamond here. You may think you know for certain that this opponent won't do this but I don't think you can discount it as completely as you seem to in your logic. Now you know better than most when someone who doesn’t understand your play has snapped and is trying to bluff you out but I don’t think your logic is nearly foolproof enough to justify this call considering how big a dog for this size of bet that you are if you are up against any sort of overpair, especially one that includes a higher diamond.

[luckychewy]

[ QUOTE ]
Sam,

Your analysis and decision I think was pretty straight forward. I guess you are saying that your decision to call was one that most don't make, but I think for most people in this game, IF they decide to bet the turn against the standard poor player in this game, they will also be the ones typically making this big call. I have made this call before, obviously.

I also think, though, that a very good player will not be committed to calling this all in once he bets the turn as KKF said. I do think that betting the turn and folding to an all in is acceptable, and in order to counteract good players, you can't be too predictable in terms of hand strength on the turn. The turn is such a key street and so many players play it very predictably and that makes them easier to play against.

-Jason

[/ QUOTE ]

[KingNeo]

Sam,

Your logic in hand # 1 is acceptable, but I hope you realize that you need to be so DEAD on with your read to even make this a marginal call. With that said there is no way that this can be a profitable call in the long run. I understand that you are making this call dependent on the opponent and situation.

I might not be correct to say this, but I think the main reason you posted this hand was because you won it. I think you lose this hand ALOT more than you actually win it.

Like I said earlier, I have no problem with your analysis other than it has to be 100% correct to make this call even close to being correct.

[IHateCats]

Welcome back Samoleus.

To those replying to Samoleus, you really, really need to understand his play to make a coherent reply, Samoleus is probably the trickiest/laggiest player at the the Party 10/20 and is unequalled at putting people on tilt. Many less expereienced players sitting at the table with him for the first time will not realize his strategy and overplay weak/marginal hands against him. For those who have never played against him, his PT stats are mid 30's/50+ for PFR/VPIP. [ED] at 6max.

[Yeti]

KingNeo,

Good post.