Big hand vs. Allen Cunningham

[Nate.]

[ QUOTE ]
In a bubble, Cunningham's play does look a lot like an OOP float which is why I made it so clear in my OP that this is NOT what I was putting him on.

If he was floating the flop with the intention of leading the turn against me then my push becomes an easier play... My question is if my play is still profitable in the long run iff this is not an OOP float and cunning has at least an ace in the spot given that he would lay down a good ace and maybe two pair.


Nate,
yes, I meant I lose when he calls 82.8% of the time obviously not 88%

Why would fake tells not work against Cunningham? Yes, he is an amazing reader of players (debatably the best in the world?) But I have not shown down a bluff all day therefore he can not have any specific reads about the way in which I act when I actually am bluffing.

Given my reads pf and flop play are standard. These are admitably crazy reads but I am still very confident with them and am sure enough to put my tournament life on the line that they are correct. I am posing this question to 2p2 under the assumption that my reads are correct, if they are wrong they make my play more likely to be successful but I am extremely confident that he has at least a pair of aces here.

I am absolutly not looking for confirmation that I made a great play against a great player. If you look into my post history I post mostly hands that I butcher and I appreciate being told how wrong I played my hands.

Since I posted hands from deeper in this tournament it can be assumed that Allen did fold here. In fact, he flopped two pair and mucked it because he had me on a set. (He told me this at the table but then I overheard a conversation that he had with his girlfriend where he was talking about our hand and told her that he had folded two pair because he thought I had flopped a set)

I did NOT think that he had two pair, I thought that he had AJ/AQ but I did think that he was capable of folding two pair here and I am wondering if, given my assumptions that he was fairly strong but capable of folding, my play was still correct.

Lastly, I am not posting this because "I made a strong move on a great player" because I would not have tried this move on a weaker player. I think one of Allen's strengths is that he is capable of laying down big hands when he thinks that he is beat. If I was against a weaker player I would not have thought that they were capable of laying down a big hand and I would not have attempted this move.

Was I right in my assumtions? This time I was but I am curious if in the long run plays like this will end up with me going busto more often than they end up with me having a 100k stack to play with.

As always, thanks for your contributions.

-Steve

[/ QUOTE ]

Steve --

Interesting. Wow. He folded two pair (he says).

I'm not sure what you're asking here.* You seem to be asking half what to do against Cunningham As Perceived By Cornell Fiji, which is really a simple arithmetic question, and half whether or not shoving there is a good play in general, which depends on a few things but will often be. The issue is that against your imagined opponent the question is trivial, and the way you played the hand is usually terrible. (Against standard opponents I don't need to get into why the preflop minraise is bad, and even against a nit who will, you say, never float you on the flop, why not make it a bigger pot he's frequently conceding?)

But you really might want to look at the way you make reads on opponents and expect them to react, and what you expect to gain from the resultant threads. A while back you posted a live hand against Superfluous Man; I don't remember the exact details but I'm pretty sure you called preflop and check-called two streets with garbage and then led the river on a Q5373 or whatever board, and expected your smallish river bet to represent a three and to get him to fold a pretty big hand. Superfluous Man later posted and said that he would have called with most ace-highs but happened to have eight-high or whatever. It sounds harsh, but essentially no part of your analysis of the opponent, the board texture, or the over-the-table dynamic was correct, and it took you way too long to admit it (if you ever did; I can't remember). All the while, people were attempting to give you good and useful advice.

Now, again, my goal here is not to fling mud; please feel free to look and laugh at any of the threads where I've been way off. I want to emphasize that there is often a middle ground to be sought in posting, because if you treat reads as exact the questions are usually basic arithmetic and if you treat them as completely fluid it's usually difficult to say anything substantive. So we should welcome responses that take into account neighborhoods of tendencies, that isolate dimensions along which the question pivots, and that estimate the severity of the pivoting.

--Nate


*Has anyone else here taken creative writing classes? The joke I want to make is: "I think you might have two threads here."

[billyjex]

AC must be lying. How the [censored] could he fold two pair here?

[MLG]

i could see him folding 89 if he thought villain was a nit.

[registrar]

[ QUOTE ]
AC must be lying. How the [censored] could he fold two pair here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Forgive me for being naive, but that he's lying is surely a given here?

[billyjex]

[ QUOTE ]
i could see him folding 89 if he thought villain was a nit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems a little crazy to me, given AK/AQ can be a decent part of nitty hero's range here.

[MLG]

i think the point would be, that he thought AK/AQ would just call. still i would doubt he did in fact have 2 pair.

[Cornell Fiji]

Nath,
I am not looking for kudos on a great play. (See my other threads where I post poorly played hands.) I am looking for reasoning why I should not be putting my chips at risk here. I am vehimently defending my point because without discourse the antagonistic arguments will not be fully developed and will not be very helpful.

I do think that my play was a good one given my assumptions but nevertheless I am looking for a well hashed out argument against my play other than "ZOMG never bluff Cunningham he is gods gift to poker and will never make a bad play." Cunningham is great but was clearly playing conservative and I think that this hand is a good example of how his play could be exploited in this situation.

As for the results, I thought that he might be lying to me (even after staring me down for no less than 5 minutes... I thought about calling the clock but I did not want to make any sudden movements for fear that he might see into my soul)

I later heard him tell his girlfriend he had aces up but that he had me squarely on a set (although he thought I might have had AK he was confident with his read that it was a set presumably because he thought AK would just call his turn bet and that I would be hesitant to go broke with a one pair hand)

[Cornell Fiji]

Nath, Nate, MLG, Good2cu, others who play this high:

Holding all other things equal what do you find to be more indicative of a monster: A quick push, a 20 second hesitation before pushing, or a minute hesitation before pushing?

[Nate.]

[ QUOTE ]
Nath, Nate, MLG, Good2cu, others who play this high:

Holding all other things equal what do you find to be more indicative of a monster: A quick push, a 20 second hesitation before pushing, or a minute hesitation before pushing?

[/ QUOTE ]

CF --

This is difficult to answer in general, but if I had to choose I'd say 20 seconds.

--Nate

[MLG]

meh. i think that most people who bluff do so quickly (at least from medium skill players). very few players sit and think and talk themself into a giant bluff. they usually talk themself out of it. so immediately moving in to me signals v strong hand or bluff, nothing middle strengthed. where as a tank generally is the nuts, or a middle strengthed hand and not usually a bluff.