6000th Post. Let\'s Try This Hand Reading Thing Again
 

About 2 months ago BigT said this in his 2500th post.

[ QUOTE ]
The secret to hand reading is to actually do it. There are lots of players I know who are good hand readers but that can not do it in the amount of time they have or who only do it when they are playing their A game and really concentrating. The reality of sng's is that you are often playing your B game because of the number of tables and decisions you are forced to make. My advice to those players is to practice to the point that your A game becomes such a habit to you that it now becomes second nature for you and you do it when you are playing your B or even C game. When you subconsciously hand read you don't have to ensure that you are in fact hand reading, and the amount of time and effort that will save you is huge. Unfortunately, there is no way around it... you will have to put in a lot of work to get good at this. If you want to spend this time at cash games, go for it, or if it means playing less tables, turning off the TV when you play, or just concentrating a little more, do it. It's worth it.

So now that you know you have to practice... what exactly is it you have to practice? You have to practice putting people on a range and you have to have the ability to accurately adjust this range as soon as new information becomes available to you. This means that you also need to know what new information is and how to interpret all of it. This is a daunting task and it'll take time to get good at. It's okay though because you guys spend half the day putting people on ranges only now you're doing it with 100BB and not 10BB. I'd like to go through a hand I played the other day to take you through this example:

[/ QUOTE ]

While everyone remembered that thread for the [censored] storm that thread started, and the ensuing forum war, I don’t think nearly enough people learned from the advice given at the very beginning. Honestly I didn’t “get” his post until a couple of weeks ago, and I have since become a much better player, both postflop, and preflop. Once you start playing like a robot without thinking about your hands your games suffers a lot. Too give you an idea I will post I hand which MikeMcq1 posted last week.

[ QUOTE ]


PokerStars Tournament, Big Blind is t50 (9 handed) Converter on pregopoker.com

UTG (t1465)
UTG+1 (t1530)
MP1 (t1575)
MP2 (t1425)
MP3 (t1310)
CO (t1325)
Button (t2360)
Hero (t1345)
BB (t1165)

Preflop: Hero is in SB with 5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]
<font color="gray">UTG folds</font>, <font color="gray">UTG+1 folds</font>, <font color="gray">MP1 folds</font>, <font color="gray">MP2 folds</font>, MP3 calls t50, <font color="gray">CO folds</font>, <font color="gray">Button folds</font>, Hero calls t25, BB checks


[/ QUOTE ]

Preflop: K5s is a decent hand we are getting 8:1 on our call. Assuming we are competent at playing postflop this should be a call.

[ QUOTE ]
Flop: (t150) T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (3 players)
<font color="red">Hero bets t100</font>, BB calls t100, MP3 calls t100

[/ QUOTE ]

Here we have two options he can bet or check.
I would check

1. Are hand isn’t very strong and is pretty vulnerable, I want to keep this pot as small as possible.
2. It gives us the ability to reevaluate and possibly fold as without putting much in the pot. Let’s say BB bets MP3 raises this is an easy fold. If BB bets MP3 call this is a fold as well.
3. You can get additional value because the limper will be betting large chunk of his limping range.

Equally important as to why you should check you should understand why betting here is bad.

1. You are bloating the pot OOP (Yes I know this is redundant)
2. You can get bluffed off the hand (combodraw, or some lagtard who thinks his ATo or K2s is the nuts here) While both these situations are somewhat rare you should keep them in mind.
3. A lot of worse hands are folding while most better hands are calling or raising.

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">Hero bets t100</font>, BB calls t100, MP3 calls t100

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what happened. At this point we have no idea how strong our hand is.

Create a range for hands that limp and call bets on that flop it could be as wide as
JQ, 78,89, 79s Any two hearts, JT,QT,AT, A6 Kxs, K9,KJ, KQ
And less commonly AA, KK,TT,66, KTo, AK.

The range on the BB is even wider
With all the hands that the limper has plus T6,Kx, Maybe even Tx.

Your hand looks pretty good against the range. The problem is that there are dozens of turn cards which could improve your villains hand, and you basically have to guess if they do or don’t. You are too shallow to play a guessing game here
The pot is about 1/3rd of our stack on the turn. So we are now pretty much playing for stacks.

I’m aware people may think that I’m being results oriented because we have two callers on this flop. However any time this flop bet gets uncalled we have the best hand when he get called we will by stuck with a big pot OOP against a huge range of hands.

[ QUOTE ]
Turn: (t450) A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (3 players)
Hero checks, BB checks, MP3 checks

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a pretty big scare card on the turn it fills qj’s straight, two pairs any A6,AT, and AK and it gives a pair to the nut flush draw.
Again we have two options bet or check.

Betting here serves no purposes as it won’t fold out many better hands, and it won’t induce calls from many worse hands.

This is a clear check.

[ QUOTE ]
Hero checks, BB checks, MP3 checks

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the best outcome for us.

[ QUOTE ]
River: (t450) 5[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (3 players)

[/ QUOTE ]

This river card is good for us. It gives us two pair, but it also completes any flush draws.

Again we have two options on this river bet or check.
In the original thread most people said to check/call, which I think is a bad.

Consider the following
The villains in this hand are almost always betting the turn or raising the flop with two pair or set.
That means villains ranges of are the following are basically missed draws, one pair hand, made draws.
Pretty much every single draw got there except flopped gutshots.
Therefore by checking we are either hoping that villains are making thin value bets with one pair hands, or bluffing with missed draws in a multiway pot.
Although people will bet this river occasionally with those hands, but it will be infrequent.

By betting here we can control the pot, gain value from worse hands and fold to better hands.

Earlier I said that betting bloated the pot, that is not the case on the river as we don’t need to worry about future streets.
We can control bet sizing here if we bet 200-300 and fold to a raise we are only losing 200-300 chips. Compare that to facing a 400 chip river bet from on of the villains. Saving those extra 100-200 chips can be very important.

What hands can we get value from here?
In a $27 and most buyin SNG’s people will be calling this river with
Kx, Ax, T6, T5, 56,

Obviously once we bet this river we have the intention of folding to any raise.

[ QUOTE ]

River: (t450) 5[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (3 players)
<font color="red">Hero bets t250</font>, <font color="red">BB raises to t500</font>,
<font color="gray">MP3 folds</font>, Hero...

[/ QUOTE ]

On this river we are getting 5.8:1. We aren’t really beating anything, but we are getting insanely good odds, either calling or folding here is fine, but I would lean towards a fold, because
Minraising is often the sign of a very strong hand.
BB can have any two cards
Call, Check, Raise is a line that looks a lot like a flush.


Too many people on this forum try to treat playing postflop like pushbotting. The thing is postflop play isn’t nearly as easy. In any SNG you will run into several unexploitable plays these plays are always right. People try to create unexploitable post flop play by following the same system, when you have an overpair, pot, pot, shove. When a scare card comes c/c. When you flop tp out of the blinds bet. The thing is not every overpair, or every scare card is created equal. Your opponents, stack sizes, board texture are all relevant. When I first started watching poker on TV I remember all the pros would say, well I go over all the action in the hand and try to come to a conclusion. I would always listen to that and think you know that makes sense, but I rarely did it.
When hand reading the following should go through your head,

What is his range of hands preflop?
Given preflop what is his range of on the flop?
Given preflop and flop… etc.

I often see posts on this forum where people suggest potential hands for villains that the villain will never have. Everyone this forum should have the ability to hand read or learn how to do so. In SNG’s hand reading is basic induction a skill everyone should have. By focusing and applying this skill you will become much better.

Re: 6000th Post. Let\'s Try This Hand Reading Thing Again
 

I am very pleasantly surpised at how good this post is. I'm also happy and somewhat honored that you tried to continue a thread that really didn't serve the purpose it was meant to.

This thread proves to me you've grown a lot as a player and that you have a LOT of potential. Honestly, I always thought you were a good player, but this has shown me you have the thought process to be pretty [censored] successful. Congrats on 6000 and thanks for the post.

Re: 6000th Post. Let\'s Try This Hand Reading Thing Again
 

Very nice post, well said.

I started with SNGs and moved to cash games. Recently, I made the backwards switch and finding a lot of people making silly mistakes post-flop. A lot of SNGers will improve if they put some time into playing cash games.

Re: 6000th Post. Let\'s Try This Hand Reading Thing Again
 

Nice post. Thanks for the effort you put into it.

Sometimes this is Ax that has put you solidly on TP and wants you to take a stab at the river, feeling you will fold on the turn. You can't always interpret call-check-raise as a flush draw. It's no good talking about ranges if you then discount the range without reason.

A flush draw needs to fold the flop, by the way. (A good reason to bet top pair, actually; I'm not sure why you're so keen on checkfolding. Risking being bluffed is part of poker. And worse hands don't always fold. Sometimes they call and hope to get lucky.) A pair plus FD is enough to chase, so maybe he had that, but he must have had specifically 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

You need to think about what hand you have portrayed to him and what type of player he is, as well as what hands his action fits. Handreading does not end at just coming up with conceivable ranges.

Re: 6000th Post. Let\'s Try This Hand Reading Thing Again
 

[ QUOTE ]
Nice post. Thanks for the effort you put into it.

Sometimes this is Ax that has put you solidly on TP and wants you to take a stab at the river, feeling you will fold on the turn. You can't always interpret call-check-raise as a flush draw. It's no good talking about ranges if you then discount the range without reason.

A flush draw needs to fold the flop, by the way. (A good reason to bet top pair, actually; I'm not sure why you're so keen on checkfolding. Risking being bluffed is part of poker. And worse hands don't always fold. Sometimes they call and hope to get lucky.) A pair plus FD is enough to chase, so maybe he had that, but he must have had specifically 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

You need to think about what hand you have portrayed to him and what type of player he is, as well as what hands his action fits. Handreading does not end at just coming up with conceivable ranges.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow this post is so bad on so many levels

1.He never said call/check/raise is always a flush draw but it obvioulsy is frequently.
2.You can easily discount parts of ranges as the hand progresses, if you put someone on a pfr range of TT+ AQ+ and they keep firing at an ace high board are you going to say well they could have TT JJ QQ KK my A2 is way ahead of his range.
3.Nobody ever folds a flush draw on this flop, nor should they have you ever heard of implied odds.
4. He is not keen on checkfolding he is checking to control the pot. He basically only plans on folding if his villains show a very strong line.
5. You never ever need to think about what hand you portray in any sng (I may be wrong about the really high buyins like 530+)Your opponents suck and they will not hand read here. Many good winners who post a lot on 2p2 don't hand read well donkeys aren't going to bother putting you on a hand.

I hate to come off as a dick but seriously you have posted so much wrong in this thread it is terrible. Considering BigT who's a winner at high cash games is impressed by it I find it unbelievable that you are so critical of this post especially when you had so much wrong.

Re: 6000th Post. Let\'s Try This Hand Reading Thing Again
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nice post. Thanks for the effort you put into it.

Sometimes this is Ax that has put you solidly on TP and wants you to take a stab at the river, feeling you will fold on the turn. You can't always interpret call-check-raise as a flush draw. It's no good talking about ranges if you then discount the range without reason.

A flush draw needs to fold the flop, by the way. (A good reason to bet top pair, actually; I'm not sure why you're so keen on checkfolding. Risking being bluffed is part of poker. And worse hands don't always fold. Sometimes they call and hope to get lucky.) A pair plus FD is enough to chase, so maybe he had that, but he must have had specifically 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

You need to think about what hand you have portrayed to him and what type of player he is, as well as what hands his action fits. Handreading does not end at just coming up with conceivable ranges.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow this post is so bad on so many levels

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, like I didn't know a loyal follower would be along to kiss arris within a few minutes. Luckily, I know my post was good and your critique won't be. So let's see.

[ QUOTE ]
1.He never said call/check/raise is always a flush draw but it obvioulsy is frequently.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say he always said it was. I said you should not discount other things it can be.

He has written a post about hand ranges in which he narrows a hand range without any reason. I think it's reasonable to talk about that.

[ QUOTE ]
2.You can easily discount parts of ranges as the hand progresses

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. With reason. You cannot discount any part of the range for no good reason.

[ QUOTE ]
if you put someone on a pfr range of TT+ AQ+ and they keep firing at an ace high board are you going to say well they could have TT JJ QQ KK my A2 is way ahead of his range.

[/ QUOTE ]

See how you have a good reason to narrow their range there? You've picked a quite specific example. But in the one at hand, villain's bet fits quite a few different hands, not just a made flush, some of which you beat easily. Do you see the difference?

[ QUOTE ]
3.Nobody ever folds a flush draw on this flop, nor should they

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm done with you, son. I *want* you to call me with a flush draw on this flop. I *want* you to keep calling me, hoping to get lucky. Call me again on the turn because, hey, you still have great implied odds on the river. I *rely* on fish calling because they have flush draws. That's how the chips come my way.

Re: 6000th Post. Let\'s Try This Hand Reading Thing Again
 

repeatedly leading 3way on this board, in this pot, is 'fishy' at best. *wanting* to continue OOP w/TPsK in a monster pot is suicidal.

Re: 6000th Post. Let\'s Try This Hand Reading Thing Again
 

Drzen,
This is Pudge's 6000th post and it was supposed to serve as a valuable learning tool to the forum. While you call me a "loyal follower" I am actually his brother and on numerous occasions have argued with him over how to play hands. I don't want to turn this into a giant argument between us two because this is not what I want to turn the thread into. However I suggest you reconsider your thought process about this hand and your hand reading process in general and try to improve your hand reading skill. I am obviously not perfect in reading hands however I feel like in this instance myself and many other posters who are excellent players would side with pudge rather than you here.

Re: 6000th Post. Let\'s Try This Hand Reading Thing Again
 

[ QUOTE ]
Considering BigT who's a winner at high cash games is impressed by it I find it unbelievable that you are so critical of this post especially when you had so much wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, you need to get over this sort of thinking. You have to put it out there when you think something is wrong, not just join the line of people applauding. BigT can be wrong. Anyone can. Anyway, I agree with BigT that this was a nice post.

And, seriously, saying that you can narrow the guy's range here because you would if he fired at an ace-high flop is seriously lame. Not even realising that this is a very different situation and nothing like that clearcut is, well, not the mark of someone whose criticism I'm taking seriously.

Re: 6000th Post. Let\'s Try This Hand Reading Thing Again
 

[ QUOTE ]

repeatedly leading 3way on this board, in this pot, is 'fishy' at best. *wanting* to continue OOP w/TPsK in a monster pot is suicidal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't suggested repeatedly leading anything. But if I bet top pair on a twoflush board, and two call, count on me firing again on the turn.

Re: 6000th Post. Let\'s Try This Hand Reading Thing Again
 

[ QUOTE ]
Drzen,
This is Pudge's 6000th post and it was supposed to serve as a valuable learning tool to the forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

What am I learning? To assume that someone has a flush because they raise the river? The post is supposed to be about handreading, but rather than take a range and narrow it down, we have simply binned the range because the flush came in.

[ QUOTE ]
While you call me a "loyal follower" I am actually his brother and on numerous occasions have argued with him over how to play hands. I don't want to turn this into a giant argument between us two because this is not what I want to turn the thread into. However I suggest you reconsider your thought process about this hand and your hand reading process in general and try to improve your hand reading skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF? I suggest you explain to me how it is "handreading" in any way, shape or form to assume someone has a flush because they called the flop, checked the turn and raised a threeflush river? They *could* have a flush. They *could* have KT. They *could* have Ax. You cannot take those hands out of their range altogether.

What you can do is decide what's likely. What might they have called with? What might they have checked the turn with? What might they now be raising the river with? But saying that only a flush fits is not "good handreading". It's "discounting hands that don't fit your thesis".

Maybe that's the right thing to do. Convince me. Don't keep telling me I need better skills. Explain to me how it works. How exactly do I discount the other hands in question?

[ QUOTE ]
I am obviously not perfect in reading hands however I feel like in this instance myself and many other posters who are excellent players would side with pudge rather than you here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not care who sides with pudge. If they do not come with reasoning, it means nada to me. I've seen too many posters with many, many posts who post things that are just wrong to think that you can't question them.

Re: 6000th Post. Let\'s Try This Hand Reading Thing Again
 

Please take your crack at the ranges sir. You stated that you lead Flop &amp; fire another bullet on the Turn with two callers, because...you put them on the FD? If your justification for continuing on the Turn is because of this most probable FD, how do you come to disagree with the River fold?

Re: 6000th Post. Let\'s Try This Hand Reading Thing Again
 

Nice post.

At 30 bbs I'm not sure K5s is a good completing from the SB with one limper. You don't really have implied odds for hitting more than top pair and you see how exiting top pair is here. Remember, no one has shown any strength and there's no reason to think you are likely to stack someone just because you hit the hand hard.

You say something about getting value from the limper. I don't think limpers are generally inclined to bluff at the pot. Generally, they are passive and have the need to call more than the need to bluff. If he doesn't have you beat, I think you are going to be better off betting into him than trying to let him bet.

That said, I think checking is good because you hand isn't. Leading and then shutting down might be better though, as (especially in a STT) it's just fine to take down the pot when you are ahead.

On the river you say something about a bet folding better hands. I don't think that's likely. Also, you mention controlling the pot. You aren't making the pot smaller by betting. If villain has a better hand than you he will most likely raise. It isn't a block. If you bet the river, I think it's for value.

As far as hand reading goes, I think you did a good job, but I would be careful not to think I could really read a random limper in a $27. There are just too many times where you will end up shaking your head thinking "how can he have that?"

The minraise on the river is interesting. It's something that I'd love to figure out, but it seems to be pretty well divided between "please call me" and "I think you are FOS."

Re: 6000th Post. Let\'s Try This Hand Reading Thing Again
 

[ QUOTE ]
I am actually his brother

[/ QUOTE ]

We need the breakdown on this whole Pudge, Inyaface, Eagleskickass, BigT, Toronto (?) crew.

Re: 6000th Post. Let\'s Try This Hand Reading Thing Again
 

[ QUOTE ]
Please take your crack at the ranges sir. You stated that you lead Flop &amp; fire another bullet on the Turn with two callers, because...you put them on the FD? If your justification for continuing on the Turn is because of this most probable FD, how do you come to disagree with the River fold?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, dude. I'm not firing at this turn. I didn't say I would (I was talking to the other guy about the more general case). I didn't have a problem with the action as it is. I bet out on the flop and I curse the turn. I said if I fire on a twoflush flop with TP, I will generally fire again on the turn. It's precisely because I put Ax solidly in both guys' ranges that I don't fire on the turn.

Re: 6000th Post. Let\'s Try This Hand Reading Thing Again
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am actually his brother

[/ QUOTE ]

We need the breakdown on this whole Pudge, Inyaface, Eagleskickass, BigT, Toronto (?) crew.

[/ QUOTE ]
Alright this the deal Inyaface is my older brother Pudge is my twin brother and apathy and Bigt both are very good friends of inyaface as they went to high school together and were good friends before poker. BTW it's very strange talking about people who you have known for years and calling them their 2p2 sn.

Re: 6000th Post. Let\'s Try This Hand Reading Thing Again
 

I will expand on this later as I'm about to head out for the night, and for that matter I'm taking a train for the bulk of the day tomorrow and I can't respond then. FWIW there is a chance I make some drunk posting later night. Also FWIW I have a bit of buzz now so sorry if I offend anyone, namely Drzen.

Drzen you are wrong and you didn't seem to read my post.
I think most vilians are playing two pair or a set stronger at some point in the hand.
Therefore I eliminate those hands in my river range, yes they are there occasionally, but a very small percent of the time.

I don't think one pair hands are minraising the river, and I don't think air is minraising the river therefore I think villians most likely hand is a flush. As I said in my OP the river decision is really close and either is fine.

Microbet,

I have an regarding preflop it is close, however I probably complete too much and this isn't really the crux of the hand. Also I have a theory about completing which I might expand on later the jist is that starting a SNG with 1500 chips and 1480 your ROI will be the same.

I get I'm not the average donkey, but if I limp I'm leading this flop checked to almost every time.

I don't think I said anything about the river bet folding better hands. I said it allows us to fold to better hands for cheaper.
As for i whether it is a block or a value bet, can't it be both?

Ya I agree with you about the fact that a random limper can have any two, but in this example I'm assuming he is not an incredibly big donkey, just a regular donkey.

Re: 6000th Post. Let\'s Try This Hand Reading Thing Again
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am actually his brother

[/ QUOTE ]

We need the breakdown on this whole Pudge, Inyaface, Eagleskickass, BigT, Toronto (?) crew.

[/ QUOTE ]
Alright this the deal Inyaface is my older brother Pudge is my twin brother and apathy and Bigt both are very good friends of inyaface as they went to high school together and were good friends before poker. BTW it's very strange talking about people who you have known for years and calling them their 2p2 sn.

[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot about James.

Re: 6000th Post. Let\'s Try This Hand Reading Thing Again
 

Yeah, I was wrong about the folding better hands part. I had written and not posted replies a couple of times and wanted to get something submitted before my kids started screaming again.

Re: 6000th Post. Let\'s Try This Hand Reading Thing Again
 

[ QUOTE ]
Nice post.

At 30 bbs I'm not sure K5s is a good completing from the SB with one limper. You don't really have implied odds for hitting more than top pair and you see how exiting top pair is here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand why I'm hating top pair so much. I am mostly going to be ahead. I cannot be playing this hand just for the chance of hitting a flush draw, surely?

[ QUOTE ]
Remember, no one has shown any strength and there's no reason to think you are likely to stack someone just because you hit the hand hard.

[/ QUOTE ]


This seems to be the underlying assumption of the eagles' guy's posts: that a flush is guaranteed to rake in big money whenever you hit with it. But even in this hand, the guy is not stacking us with a made flush, if he has it.

[ QUOTE ]
You say something about getting value from the limper. I don't think limpers are generally inclined to bluff at the pot. Generally, they are passive and have the need to call more than the need to bluff. If he doesn't have you beat, I think you are going to be better off betting into him than trying to let him bet.

That said, I think checking is good because you hand isn't. Leading and then shutting down might be better though, as (especially in a STT) it's just fine to take down the pot when you are ahead.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see the problem with betting here, and betting again on a safe turn. I'm losing money to a bigger king but most of my opponents a/ raise bigger kings PF and b/ raise them on the flop.

I can see that I don't have much hand to be playing a big pot but I'm not keen on letting it check through, so I bet a smallish bet on the turn. Am I beat often enough that this is a bad play? (And can other posters please note that I'm discussing a different turn, not an ace.)

[ QUOTE ]
On the river you say something about a bet folding better hands. I don't think that's likely.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he said it would get value from worse hands and he could fold to better hands.

I think this is close either way. Does Ax call but not bet here?

[ QUOTE ]
Also, you mention controlling the pot. You aren't making the pot smaller by betting. If villain has a better hand than you he will most likely raise. It isn't a block. If you bet the river, I think it's for value.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he meant that he isn't stuck facing a bigger bet than he wants to call from a hand he might be beating, so losing value. You are saying the same thing from a different angle.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as hand reading goes, I think you did a good job but I would be careful not to think I could really read a random limper in a $27. There are just too many times where you will end up shaking your head thinking "how can he have that?"

The minraise on the river is interesting. It's something that I'd love to figure out, but it seems to be pretty well divided between "please call me" and "I think you are FOS."

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where I felt the "hand reading" was lacking. There's no discussion here of what hands do that, and whether we can actually beat any of them. I think we can maybe look to villain like someone who had TP on the flop, was scared by the ace, and took it checking through to mean that no one had an ace and is now pretending to have a bigger hand than we do or is simply betting in the hope that TP is still good. (Other players do not always assume you play well! I think hand reading should not be done without taking into account the other players' styles and your own image.) I think this is the "you're FOS" side of your equation. The other side is obviously that he has the made flush or perhaps aces up.

Re: 6000th Post. Let\'s Try This Hand Reading Thing Again
 

[ QUOTE ]
I will expand on this later as I'm about to head out for the night, and for that matter I'm taking a train for the bulk of the day tomorrow and I can't respond then. FWIW there is a chance I make some drunk posting later night. Also FWIW I have a bit of buzz now so sorry if I offend anyone, namely Drzen.

Drzen you are wrong and you didn't seem to read my post.
I think most vilians are playing two pair or a set stronger at some point in the hand.
Therefore I eliminate those hands in my river range, yes they are there occasionally, but a very small percent of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I don't think that's an issue.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think one pair hands are minraising the river, and I don't think air is minraising the river therefore I think villians most likely hand is a flush.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay. Well, I did read your post and you didn't give any reason those hands wouldn't minraise the river and you don't again here. So I guess I wasn't wrong. You didn't "hand read". You excluded hands that didn't fit your thesis. That's different. FWIW, I think Ax does sometimes raise here precisely because *your* action looks like a TP that was scared by the turn ace and they think you might fold if you have something a bit better. Actually, it's a damned good move on their part because that would be a correct read, and we just folded the best hand.

And I'm not offended. Why would I be? You discounted hands just because you don't think they ever raise. I think they sometimes do.

Re: 6000th Post. Let\'s Try This Hand Reading Thing Again
 

Drzen,
I tried to stay out of this but you have said so much wrong I feel it is necessary to step in and say something.

[ QUOTE ]
Dude, you need to get over this sort of thinking. You have to put it out there when you think something is wrong, not just join the line of people applauding. BigT can be wrong. Anyone can. Anyway, I agree with BigT that this was a nice post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously BigT is wrong sometimes but considering he is beating 5/10NL and 10/20NL for a lot of money I value his opinion highly because his results dictate that he is a very good player who knows what he is doing.

[ QUOTE ]

And, seriously, saying that you can narrow the guy's range here because you would if he fired at an ace-high flop is seriously lame. Not even realising that this is a very different situation and nothing like that clearcut is, well, not the mark of someone whose criticism I'm taking seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can narrow his range here on the river because he is min re raising which is almost always a a value bet because it has little fe. Sure other hands are possible but it seems unlikely because he has not shown any interest to get a lot of money in the pot until the river when the flush card hit. Sure he could have two pair/set/straight/bluff but it is pretty unlikely because with two pair/straight/set he is likely not calling the flop and then checking the turn against two other opponents and on a drawy board. Sure it is possible but it is not likely. Given how this hand played out it seems quite clear that villain will have a flush a lot of the time.

[ QUOTE ]

I haven't suggested repeatedly leading anything. But if I bet top pair on a twoflush board, and two call, count on me firing again on the turn.


[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously this is situation dependent but consistently betting two streets with tpnk is a huge leak. You bloat the pot with a marginal hand when frequently if you are getting called it is by a better hand.

Re: 6000th Post. Let\'s Try This Hand Reading Thing Again
 

[ QUOTE ]
Drzen,
I tried to stay out of this but you have said so much wrong I feel it is necessary to step in and say something.

[ QUOTE ]
Dude, you need to get over this sort of thinking. You have to put it out there when you think something is wrong, not just join the line of people applauding. BigT can be wrong. Anyone can. Anyway, I agree with BigT that this was a nice post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously BigT is wrong sometimes but considering he is beating 5/10NL and 10/20NL for a lot of money I value his opinion highly because his results dictate that he is a very good player who knows what he is doing.

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't comment on the substance, man.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And, seriously, saying that you can narrow the guy's range here because you would if he fired at an ace-high flop is seriously lame. Not even realising that this is a very different situation and nothing like that clearcut is, well, not the mark of someone whose criticism I'm taking seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can narrow his range here on the river because he is min re raising which is almost always a a value bet because it has little fe.

[/ QUOTE ]

But we are folding! You don't see the contradiction?

[ QUOTE ]
Sure other hands are possible

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's just stop there. That's the point. Pudge says other hands are not possible bar sets and two pair hands. He says that other hands cannot raise here. I say they can. You agree. We're done with it.

And btw, I don't think continuing with TP on the turn when I've bet the flop is a leak. I think letting an FD have a free card is. YMMV.

Re: 6000th Post. Let\'s Try This Hand Reading Thing Again
 

[ QUOTE ]

This seems to be the underlying assumption of the eagles' guy's posts: that a flush is guaranteed to rake in big money whenever you hit with it. But even in this hand, the guy is not stacking us with a made flush, if he has it

[/ QUOTE ]

1. We don't need to stack him to get value if he has a flush he has made enough money from us that his flop call is fine.
2. We are better than most people the average donk will donate more money if we are drawing to a flush.

Re: 6000th Post. Let\'s Try This Hand Reading Thing Again
 

Drzen,
Nice selective quoting

You quote

sure other hands are possible

My actual quote

Sure other hands are possible but it seems unlikely because he has not shown any interest to get a lot of money in the pot until the river when the flush card hit.

Pudge never said he has a flush 100% of the time but he as a flush a lot here.

Second you seem to think there is a contradiction to folding to a river bet that I said is almost always a value bet. That makes sense, a value bet is almost always a better hand therefore we should fold.

third
If you think calling with a flush draw getting good odds is a mistake. But stacking off with tpnk in a 3 way pot isn't a leak you have to seriously evaluate your game.

Re: 6000th Post. Let\'s Try This Hand Reading Thing Again
 

[ QUOTE ]
Honestly, I always thought you were a good player, but this has shown me you have the thought process to be pretty [censored] successful.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ya I guess BigT thought the post was terrible. The fact that he didn't say anything indicates that he agrees with what was said.

Re: 6000th Post. Let\'s Try This Hand Reading Thing Again
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This seems to be the underlying assumption of the eagles' guy's posts: that a flush is guaranteed to rake in big money whenever you hit with it. But even in this hand, the guy is not stacking us with a made flush, if he has it

[/ QUOTE ]

1. We don't need to stack him to get value if he has a flush he has made enough money from us that his flop call is fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're working from results backwards. If the turn had not been an ace and you'd bet again, he's not making his money, he is folding. He got lucky.

You said that no one should fold a flush draw on this flop. But how often can you continue after another bet on the turn? I generally assume if I have an FD that the flop bettor will fire again at most turns. How many times will that mean missing with your flush draw, for how much money, and how much will you make when you do hit? You made it this time, but how many times for how much will you make it?

[ QUOTE ]
2. We are better than most people the average donk will donate more money if we are drawing to a flush.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find that most "donks" don't give value for a flush. You need them to have made a decent hand too. I agree that the way this hand has turned out, the flushholder would make money from a bad player. But he would consider himself lucky, a/ that an ace came on the turn, which let him have a free shot at his flush and b/ that the hapless donk hit his kicker on the river. I don't count on that happening every time I chase a flush!

Re: 6000th Post. Let\'s Try This Hand Reading Thing Again
 

[censored] I said I wouldn't post in this thread again, but Drzen you are [censored] retarded.

Please answer this question why would a one pair hand ever minraise this river?

If you want to answer with well he's a donk then ignore the rest of my post, because for this exercise I'm assuming my opponents are not complete tool box donkeys like yourself

Re: 6000th Post. Let\'s Try This Hand Reading Thing Again
 

[ QUOTE ]
Drzen,
Nice selective quoting

You quote

sure other hands are possible

My actual quote

Sure other hands are possible but it seems unlikely because he has not shown any interest to get a lot of money in the pot until the river when the flush card hit.

Pudge never said he has a flush 100% of the time but he as a flush a lot here.

[/ QUOTE ]

He said villain is *never* raising with a worse hand!

[ QUOTE ]
Second you seem to think there is a contradiction to folding to a river bet that I said is almost always a value bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I said there is a contradiction to saying that the bet has no fold equity when we folded!

[ QUOTE ]
That makes sense, a value bet is almost always a better hand therefore we should fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

A value bet is almost always what the other person *thinks* is a better hand.

[ QUOTE ]
third
If you think calling with a flush draw getting good odds is a mistake. But stacking off with tpnk in a 3 way pot isn't a leak you have to seriously evaluate your game.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said no one ever folds a flush draw on this flop. You did not say no one ever folds a flush draw to this action. Even so, I don't think the odds are "good". If a third heart falls on the turn, you're not likely to get another cent out of it (so your call is -EV). If it doesn't, another bet makes you fold (so your call is -EV).

And dude, way to miss the point! Betting again on the turn is not the same as putting your whole stack in.

Re: 6000th Post. Let\'s Try This Hand Reading Thing Again
 

Drzen
Stop being such a [censored] nit especially when you are wrong
I said his raise has LITTLE FE if you are going to dissect my posts word by word and debate every little thing at least get it right.

Okay I was wrong people will fold a flush draw on this flop to a lot of action. LOL you got me way to pwn me based on my grammar. Maybe instead of worrying about nitty mistakes like this you should learn how to play poker.

Re: 6000th Post. Let\'s Try This Hand Reading Thing Again
 

[ QUOTE ]
[censored] I said I wouldn't post in this thread again, but Drzen you are [censored] retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine.

[ QUOTE ]
Please answer this question why would a one pair hand ever minraise this river?

[/ QUOTE ]

I explained why. You bet the flop. TP. You checked the turn, scared of an ace. You have Kx. You then bet the river when the FD came in. You have Kx and you're FOS.

Instead of calling me names, why don't you explain why no one ever thinks like that? Your whole post totally ignores how your action looks to them. Does that have no part in your "hand reading"?

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to answer with well he's a donk then ignore the rest of my post, because for this exercise I'm assuming my opponents are not complete tool box donkeys like yourself

[/ QUOTE ]

You assumed your opponents play exactly the same way you do? And you're calling me a tool box donkey? Okay, man. Whatever makes you smile, hey?

Re: 6000th Post. Let\'s Try This Hand Reading Thing Again
 

[ QUOTE ]
Drzen
Stop being such a [censored] nit especially when you are wrong
I said his raise has LITTLE FE if you are going to dissect my posts word by word and debate every little thing at least get it right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, my apologies.

[ QUOTE ]
Okay I was wrong people will fold a flush draw on this flop to a lot of action. LOL you got me way to pwn me based on my grammar.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to pwn anyone. I want better players to *explain* why they think I'm wrong, not just keep saying "you're wrong". I don't become wrong just because pudge or you or BigT or BigT's really good grandma say so. I think plenty of players fold this flop with a flush draw. It depends what draw it is and what they think about you, what you might have, how heavy the future action might be, what the other caller might have.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe instead of worrying about nitty mistakes like this you should learn how to play poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm trying to. It's just unlucky for me I've run into guys who prefer mouthing off to giving a lesson.

Re: 6000th Post. Let\'s Try This Hand Reading Thing Again
 

[ QUOTE ]

You assumed your opponents play exactly the same way you do? And you're calling me a tool box donkey? Okay, man. Whatever makes you smile, hey?

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you [censored] kidding me? I really hope your a troll because nobody can actually be this stupid

Re: 6000th Post. Let\'s Try This Hand Reading Thing Again
 

Excellent river analysis. It is something that is critical yet few people understand. All it does is give worse hands the chance to showdown for free. Nothing better is checking and you lose value from worse hands that will call but not bet for value. The options in this situation are either check/fold or bet. Check/call is easily the worst of the three.

Re: 6000th Post. Let\'s Try This Hand Reading Thing Again
 

[ QUOTE ]
Excellent river analysis. It is something that is critical yet few people understand. All it does is give worse hands the chance to showdown for free. Nothing better is checking and you lose value from worse hands that will call but not bet for value. The options in this situation are either check/fold or bet. Check/call is easily the worst of the three.

[/ QUOTE ]

You lose value to worse hands but you give it up to better hands. Is that a consideration? How likely to be best do you need to be here to bet for value? I'd bet this every time in a limit game. Should I be betting with the same frequency in NL? That's an area I don't have a good grip on, so I'd welcome your analysis.

You also allow worse hands to bluff you out (I don't think this is what's happened here but it's a possibility if you bet here). Is that something that would concern you or do you think that checking is more likely to induce the bluff here?

Why is check/folding good though? That seems to me to assume that he can *only* have the FD or a better two pair if he bets. Again, I don't think that's necessarily the case. I think a smallish bet would make it a tougher decision. A lot of players are going to bluff here, aren't they?

I liked the bet and I'd fold to the raise. I don't think we're always beaten at all, but I don't think I'll win often enough to make it worth calling it.

Re: 6000th Post. Let\'s Try This Hand Reading Thing Again
 

Your thought process is good and everything on this post flop hand, but I still think good post flop play has limited correlation with SnG success. You are ultimately risking too much to win too little with these hands. You are much better to wait for much better risk/reward type spots when the blinds themselves are worth fighting for. Just my opinion.

As always for people who want to play a post flop game, SnGs are the wrong place, imo.

Re: 6000th Post. Let\'s Try This Hand Reading Thing Again
 

What hands are going to bluff?

QJ has a straight. [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]'s have a flush. There is no possible draw on the flop that didn't get there. If he bets he is going to have a hand. Now he might not always have you beat (like he might just have Ax) but if you bet that Ax hand will call so it is a wash. The downside to checking is that better hands will never check and worse hands sometimes will. It could be that check/calling +EV compared to check/folding but betting will be even more +EV and that is why c/c'ing is incorrect.

The time to check/call (or consider it) is when the draw doesn't come in. C/c'ing when it does isn't good poker at all.

Edit - And yes this is coming from a LHE player as this concept is critical in LHE but imo it applies in NLHE as well.

Re: 6000th Post. Let\'s Try This Hand Reading Thing Again
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You assumed your opponents play exactly the same way you do? And you're calling me a tool box donkey? Okay, man. Whatever makes you smile, hey?

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you [censored] kidding me? I really hope your a troll because nobody can actually be this stupid

[/ QUOTE ]

I explained why I felt you couldn't completely exclude Ax from your opponent's range and your bro's answer is that he assumes the guy isn't a donk. I think you should keep out of threads started by people you are related to because you don't seem to be able to handle disagreement with them too well. In the interests of a peaceful existence, I'm happy to call it quits with you. You, and your brother, clearly prefer flaming other posters than defending your thinking, so what's in it for me? I've gained nothing from talking to you. Cheers now.

Re: 6000th Post. Let\'s Try This Hand Reading Thing Again
 

Man I read the OP, saw it was a long thread and I thought there was going to be a good discussion.

DrZen, just give up, you are wrong.

In any case, I don't think they are flaming you. They are just calling out your very weak arguments, which is certainly fair game on an internet forum.

Re: 6000th Post. Let\'s Try This Hand Reading Thing Again
 

[ QUOTE ]
What hands are going to bluff?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it not a bluff if you have a made hand but don't think it's winning?

Okay. QhT might call the flop loosely. He has seven and a half pretty clean outs against top pair. That's the only busted draw I can think of. I guess JhT is the same sort of thing but I'm happy to assume we're not against a donkey. So okay, not much is going to bluff.

[ QUOTE ]
QJ has a straight. [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]'s have a flush. There is no possible draw on the flop that didn't get there. If he bets he is going to have a hand. Now he might not always have you beat (like he might just have Ax) but if you bet that Ax hand will call so it is a wash. The downside to checking is that better hands will never check and worse hands sometimes will. It could be that check/calling +EV compared to check/folding but betting will be even more +EV and that is why c/c'ing is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, thanks for going through that. That sure beats "you are a tool box donkey".