Live Turn Checkraise

[James.]

also, i think KK/AJs makes up as much as 30% of button's range postflop. that's the portion of his range he would likely fold if c/r.

i also estimated that as much as 26% of his range will be 3betting the turn. keeping in mind that of the times he 3bets, i'm only losing 22% of the occurrences. without getting too involved(due to lack of time) in the maths, i really don't see how anyone can label it as "spew". if you do, you either don't understand the actual costs involved or you just don't want ot accept certain facts.

[Aces McGee]

[ QUOTE ]
i really don't see how anyone can label it as "spew". if you do, you either don't understand the actual costs involved or you just don't want ot accept certain facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I'm not one of the ones who thinks this is spew (I think it's only marginally bad), I think you need to prove or make a better case for some of these "facts" that you mention. If you want us to assume that KK and AJs are 30% of his range postflop, then you don't need us to analyze the hand for you. If you want to define "trying to play well" such a way that makes this favorable for you, fine -- but again, if you do, you don't really need us.

My opinion is that in trying to play well, he's not raising KK (or JJ/TT) on that flop all that often, and if he does, he's not betting the turn with it after you three-bet the flop. I don't think he's three-betting AJs preflop much either. If you want to convince me otherwise, you'll have to give me something more than "KK/AJs are 30% of his range postflop." If you don't want to convince me otherwise, then don't. But it's wrong to say that these things are facts without even attempting some justification.

Also, will someone defending this play please please please address the fact that there's a third player in the hand?

-McGee

[TheCount212]

Ditto. You must be psychic and know the K is coming. Barring that, this line is maniacal.

[James.]

[ QUOTE ]
But it's wrong to say that these things are facts without even attempting some justification.

[/ QUOTE ]

i would categorize more as unfair than wrong. i will try to lay out my thinking, justification, and math later tonight when i get home.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, will someone defending this play please please please address the fact that there's a third player in the hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

will address it later as well as it is not a purely negligible factor.

[Mike Gallo]

Hey Aces,

I always thought you had a cool handle. Heres my answer to this...

[ QUOTE ]

Also, will someone defending this play please please please address the fact that there's a third player in the hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hero has trapped third player in the middle. Hero checked the turn the player in the middled checked and the player trying to play well bets,our hero raised and the player in the middle has to call two cold with the possibilty of calling one more bet.

Another factor to consider. Player trying to play well recognizes that the turn is where good players reveal the true strength of their hand.

Hero has shown player trying to play well the true strength of his hand.

[fishyak]

This thread just won't die. It is good to see the serious propeller heads break out their slide rules and work out the EV numbers. But live, not a single propeller head can or should try this math quiz.

Even if the math shows this line to be EV when totally speculative guesstimates about the liklihood of folding are included, I think the best that you can say about this play is that it is "read dependant." If I put myself in the Button's position after being hit with the c/r, and I review the board and my opposition, I have 3 possibilities: 1) Classic 2 pair c/r, but that is really inconsistent with probable PF holdings. You didn't cap my 3bet PF.
2) A set of 88's? My leading "worst case scenario."
3) A play of some kind.

The pot is working its way to big and for 2 more BB, I get to see a showdown. LP also has to act before I do. Sets are rare so if I get bit by one, so be it. To me, the fact that you played tight before is not enough by itself to make me fold. Have you EVER been tricky at the table? Do I think that you are good enough to choose this hand to be tricky and make your tight image pay off after hours of tight?

Because this board does NOT tell or sell me on a good reason to fold, and because of my absolute position, unless LP 3 bets, I call your c/r and call a river bet. I smell a play or draw. If it is two pair, my ace gives me good outs, and if you have the set I'm now down yet either. I call down.

But I admit I am putting myself in Button's position. Your read may allow you to appropriately put a higher estimate of the liklihood of getting your opponents to fold and be correct. That issue is totally read dependant and no one who wasn't there can really argue against your personal estimate that two folds are possible.

But if I sit on the Button, I'll pay to see your cards.

[James.]

AA-QQ, AQ-AK, AJs-AKs

14/47 combos that will fold=30%
12/47 combos that will 3bet=26%
the rest will call down=44%

(.30*12.5)+(.26*8/46*17.5)+(.26*38/46*-3)+(.44*15.5*8/46)+(.44*38/46*-2)=4.33

my assumption is surely high for the % of the time he'll fold as we should weight the average a bit but i don't have time for it. i'm sure some errors were made or details overlooked in the above calculation as i've rushed through it. my point is, even if he's folding 15-20% of the time this is going to actually show more profit than simply calling.

aces, you seem to infer that i'm trying to twist some details to meet my purposes. i'm not necessarily here to seek evaluation of the play, when i made it i was well aware that i would get folds often enough for it to show profit. i'm just trying to make other people aware that on every street of hold em it's important to evaluate every decision available and make use of the best choice available. sure, calling is the easy thing to do but falling into that semirobotic calldown trying to hit isn't always going to be the best move.

sometimes you can use a good/solid image, tightish/easy to read opponent, a protected pot situation, and alot of money in the middle to make an unorthodox move to try to win it then and there(which is the best result of all). i didn't include the weakness i sensed in the turn bet, the fact i had the raise cut as quickly as he had put his chips in the pot, or numerous other little details that had occurred throughout the night to culminate this into being a good play. it's a "had to be there" thing, but that doesn't mean it's merits can't be interpreted on some other levels.

[BigBadBabar]

[ QUOTE ]


i'm not necessarily here to seek evaluation of the play, when i made it i was well aware that i would get folds often enough for it to show profit...

it's a "had to be there" thing, but that doesn't mean its merits can't be interpreted on some other levels.

[/ QUOTE ]

well, what are we supposed to do then? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] we either agree or disagree with you, or somewhere in between, and you were there with the live reads to overrule those ideas as you saw fit. this has been an interesting thread.

[Aces McGee]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey Aces,

I always thought you had a cool handle

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. I don't really like it. I also didn't steal it from Turbo Texas Hold 'Em, where there is a character named Bullets McGee. I also think it's funny that everyone calls me Aces, even though I sign my posts "McGee." [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Hero has trapped third player in the middle. Hero checked the turn the player in the middled checked and the player trying to play well bets,our hero raised and the player in the middle has to call two cold with the possibilty of calling one more bet.



[/ QUOTE ]

I recognize that the player in the middle has to call two cold, but he's already shown he's willing to take a lot of heat with whatever he's holding. Even if he has a hand he "should" fold, that doesn't mean he will.


-McGee

[Aces McGee]

[ QUOTE ]
aces, you seem to infer that i'm trying to twist some details to meet my purposes

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mean for it to come off exactly that way. But your mind is made up about a lot of highly debatable things, and you hadn't seemed terribly interested in the discussion of them.

[ QUOTE ]
i'm not necessarily here to seek evaluation of the play, when i made it i was well aware that i would get folds often enough for it to show profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

QED.

[ QUOTE ]
sure, calling is the easy thing to do but falling into that semirobotic calldown trying to hit isn't always going to be the best move.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. However, I also think that calling (robotically, semi-robotically, or otherwise) happens to be the right play here. As you surely know, the easy play -- the kind of play even a terrible player would make -- is quite often correct.

Every so often (although not much anymore), one of the long-time, higher-limit posters comes to the SS board and posts a hand to which everyone's original reaction is along the lines of "Clarkmeister, wtf? This is the worst play I've ever seen." And then Clark or whoever it is explains the concepts behind it and most everyone eventually gets it and makes money because of it. That's why those guys are so revered here.

So I can appreciate what you were trying to do (not gain reverence; to get the board thinking in a way they maybe hadn't before.) Ultimately, I don't think it's the right hand to do it with, but I also think you've come up quite a bit short in justifying it (I still don't think you've addressed the third player in).

-McGee