"I have a big hand and pot odds. I fold"

[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]
jcm,

If you think that there is no such thing as spider sense or that the on the spot intuition you pick up after hundreds of thousands of hands is *always* subservient to math you can quickly do in your head, you are always going to repeat hand #2, over and over and over again.

[/ QUOTE ] I completely agree with you, which is why poker is such a great game. But I think, in the light of day, away from the heat of the table, you should be able to translate that "spidey sense" into english and math terms.

I too want to worship at the altar of adanthar, but I can't do it on faith alone.

[adanthar]

I am very reluctant to do one because that shifts the focus back on the hand, but OK, here you go:

"On the river, reviewing the whole hand, BB never has a medium pair. If he played it that scared PF and cautious on the turn, he never approx. value bets (it was a bunch of chips although I didn't really count) on the river when a Q hits into the PFR, who overcalled. That makes no sense.

He could have exactly a suited connector with a 6, but again, his bet makes little sense. He basically has to be on a total bluff. I guess he could do that, but not often. Throw the sixes and bluffs into the Harrington 5%. You can throw *SB* having a jack in there, too (he almost never does, but it has happened) and they basically cancel each other out.

His other legitimate betting hands are exactly AA, AQ, KK, QQ. QQ doesn't help me. AA, whatever. AQ might do this. Scared/slowplaying kings are possible but also pretty unlikely. Jacks make up the majority of his betting range and I have one or two tells that make me weigh them more on top of it. I fold."

Again, this post is not about the hand at all.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

If you think that there is no such thing as spider sense or that the on the spot intuition you pick up after hundreds of thousands of hands is *always* subservient to math you can quickly do in your head, you are always going to repeat hand #2, over and over and over again.

[/ QUOTE ]

We've had this discussion a long time ago, but the math you can do in your head isn't made irrelevant here. It's just that a lot of people need to go the extra step and actually evaluate how often they're going to be beat. The intuition comes in in trying to come up with a reasonable figure regarding how often your hand is good. This doesn't mean that you have to come up with actual numbers, but if you need to be good 20% of the time, you can see if your intuitive sense is that that will be true.

I think the flush hand is an excellent example, because it's both more common and also represents a scenario where there a large class of hands that beat you and not a lot of other hands that are going to play the same way. And while I think you're right that a lot of us probably make the mistake of calling too much on the river rather than folding too much, it's worth remembering (I'm not saying you don't) that folding too much is a mistake too.

[A_PLUS]

To play Devil's advocate some more. There was a great post on Paul Phillips Blog, about using this 'pot-oddsless awareness' I think he called it 'anti-math guy' or something against opponents as a bluff. The hand was against Daniel N. and phillips made a blantant smallish value bet thinking Daniel had a weak made hand with air. So, you do need to be aware of the play as a bluff, especially against good opponents.

Against the unknown, it is still a math play, it is just we overestimate how often they get their without the hand they are representing.

[sunrise]

I think there is a lot of irrelevance with reference to the pro's. Pro's are def. going to play different against Pro's vs amateurs or unknowns. The 2+2'er's are most likely going to play differently against unknowns vs other 2+2'ers or other known online players.

I agree that it is still a math play against an unknown. Course once you've developed a read on someone in a specific tourney, even if you've never played them before, do they become "known"?
Here's another question. At the beginning of a tournament, and lets say its this 33R for example...Would you say lump sum everyone at the table as being a donk until they develop an image?? Or, would you say try to have no pre-conceived image of their play and simply develop it as time goes by??

I'm not sure which mode of thinking is more appropriate. The lower the buyin I'm usually apt to lump them all together as donks until I pick up on that someone plays TAG more, or LAG, or maniac, etc....

[A_PLUS]

It is a weighted average type thing. I dont eliminate complete donkey hands from their range, until I have reason to do so, and I dont give them a high likelihood until they give me a reason as well.

But at lower levels, I do hit the brain shut off once my hand reaches a certain level of strength. I just decide "my hand is good" and take whatever line I think will get the chips in. Sure I am wrong on occasion, but I think it occasionally busting when they have a monster is better for my results than folding the best hand would be. I am usually suprised on the good side. the 30ra on dise, isnt bad like a 10-20$ party or stars event, but it is very far from a major as well. You see alot of players only play the min 30$, and I dont notice a huge difference from the 10-20$ events on dise. Usually, hit hand, bet it works great, at leats until you get deep, where I have seen a ton of great players (probably b/c the average player is so weak)

[THEOSU]

Or, for those that were hung up on Adanthar's example, here's a better one. Villain in this hand is never doing this with a hand I beat, and yet, like a donk, I say to myself "great, he's got a set" and click call. WTG me.


Oh, bah, can't find a converter that supports FTP at the moment. Deal with it.


Full Tilt Poker Game #637724897: $200,000 Guarantee! (3906433), Table 49 - 150/300 Ante 25 - No Limit Hold'em - 19:56:15 ET - 2006/05/14
Seat 1: DrewBoski (15,720)
Seat 2: DoctoJones (4,750)
Seat 3: festermouly (5,405)
Seat 4: Antoshka (10,210)
Seat 5: terrible_kid (2,835)
Seat 6: BJH74 (9,950)
Seat 7: Osogood (5,870)
Seat 8: LebanonJon (4,845)
Seat 9: THEOSU (10,845)
DrewBoski antes 25
DoctoJones antes 25
festermouly antes 25
Antoshka antes 25
terrible_kid antes 25
BJH74 antes 25
Osogood antes 25
LebanonJon antes 25
THEOSU antes 25
terrible_kid posts the small blind of 150
BJH74 posts the big blind of 300
The button is in seat #4
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to THEOSU [Ah Kd]
Osogood folds
LebanonJon folds
THEOSU raises to 750
DrewBoski calls 750
DoctoJones folds
festermouly folds
Antoshka folds
terrible_kid folds
BJH74 calls 450
*** FLOP *** [6d Kc 7h]
BJH74 bets 1,500
THEOSU raises to 5,000
DrewBoski raises to 14,945, and is all in
BJH74 folds
THEOSU calls 5,070, and is all in
DrewBoski shows [7d 7s]
THEOSU shows [Ah Kd]
Uncalled bet of 4,875 returned to DrewBoski
*** TURN *** [6d Kc 7h] [Kh]
THEOSU: gl all
*** RIVER *** [6d Kc 7h Kh] [5h]
DrewBoski shows a full house, Sevens full of Kings
THEOSU shows three of a kind, Kings
DrewBoski wins the pot (24,265) with a full house, Sevens full of Kings
THEOSU stands up
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 24,265 | Rake 0
Board: [6d Kc 7h Kh 5h]
Seat 1: DrewBoski showed [7d 7s] and won (24,265) with a full house, Sevens full of Kings
Seat 2: DoctoJones folded before the Flop
Seat 3: festermouly folded before the Flop
Seat 4: Antoshka (button) folded before the Flop
Seat 5: terrible_kid (small blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 6: BJH74 (big blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 7: Osogood folded before the Flop
Seat 8: LebanonJon folded before the Flop
Seat 9: THEOSU showed [Ah Kd] and lost with three of a kind, Kings

OSU -

Why raise the flop?

[THEOSU]

[ QUOTE ]
OSU -

Why raise the flop?

[/ QUOTE ]

Kramer,

I had been just calling bets on the flop for the past several orbits and I had been having the best hand. I raised to mix my play up, to isolate the BB and to try to get all my chips in here agianst a lesser hand. At least I succeeded on 1 of the 3.

[petvan]

This I get, but there must be a tendency to get a little results oriented in your thinking, since everytime you fold, you never lose more money than you have already invested, and in most cases, you never know if you made the right decision. Thus, you might tend to think you are making great +EV folds, when in fact your missing +EV plays that simple math is offering.

I definately understand that if you can put yourself on a loser, the sooner you fold the better, assuming you can't win by bluffing. I would have to think that its only the best players who can consistently ignore math and make feel plays that are relatively profitable (ie expectation exceeds that which would be attained through normal play).