Caesars Palace 2-5: $2,000 Pot, Turn and River Check-raises

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]

He's not an erratic LAG; He's a suicide bomber. And he killed you along with him this hand because you played it too soft at too many opportunities.

"Going too far" after somebody calls bets/raises usually denotes something like betting/raising the turn, getting called, and then overbettng the river, not this kind of action.

And he obviously doesn't know how to play his style "reasonably well".

Next time, say, "BB is a loose cannon idiot, looking to make superstar plays", then you will get the analysis you want. Your description was either deliberately misleading, wishful thinking, sour grapes, or a product of misaligned observational skills.


[/ QUOTE ]

In the many hours I've played with this guy, he never did anything remotely approaching this. My description was accurate.

After the hand, he announced he had just a bluff and he kind of threw his hands up in the air. He was disgusted with himself for making that play. He left the table for about half an hour.

I still don't know what inspired him to do it. In every other hand where he made a big move at the pot and he got seroous resistance (two calls of a trun check-raise), he simply let it go.

Besides, this guy didn't just make a continuation bluff. He check-raised after two players said they had a river hand worth at least $200. It's an insane bluff.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Daliman, Dynasty, and others who say folding is correct: does it not strike you as odd that you are saying that you are not ahead here even 1 in 4 whereas several other players who all beat these games are saying that you are ahead here more often than not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Based on his comments, I'm assuming Daliman is a winning player in his games just like I am.

I definitely don't think I'm good here 1 in 4 times. I'm not even sure about 1 in 10. It's an extraordinary occurence for somebody to make an all-in check-raise bluff on the river against two players who like their hand on a board where top card paired on the river.

[mikech]

[ QUOTE ]
I definitely don't think I'm good here 1 in 4 times. I'm not even sure about 1 in 10. It's an extraordinary occurence for somebody to make an all-in check-raise bluff on the river against two players who like their hand on a board where top card paired on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]
let's set aside whether the river fold is a mistake and discuss earlier streets. you mentioned your experiment of NEVER raising preflop; you must be a terror to play against, but whatever, nevermind that either. do you still think not raising the flop is correct? against this old lady who's calling down with QQ on an ace-high board, are you seriously worried about alerting her of kicker issues?

[epdaws]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I definitely don't think I'm good here 1 in 4 times. I'm not even sure about 1 in 10. It's an extraordinary occurence for somebody to make an all-in check-raise bluff on the river against two players who like their hand on a board where top card paired on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]
let's set aside whether the river fold is a mistake and discuss earlier streets. you mentioned your experiment of NEVER raising preflop; you must be a terror to play against, but whatever, nevermind that either. do you still think not raising the flop is correct? against this old lady who's calling down with QQ on an ace-high board, are you seriously worried about alerting her of kicker issues?

[/ QUOTE ]

Mike's right here; the vehemence of the responses are not based solely on his incorrect river decision. It's the fact that he showed the equivalent aggression of a tranquilized Bassett Hound, and then got blown off the best hand.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I definitely don't think I'm good here 1 in 4 times. I'm not even sure about 1 in 10. It's an extraordinary occurence for somebody to make an all-in check-raise bluff on the river against two players who like their hand on a board where top card paired on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]
let's set aside whether the river fold is a mistake and discuss earlier streets. you mentioned your experiment of NEVER raising preflop; you must be a terror to play against, but whatever, nevermind that either. do you still think not raising the flop is correct? against this old lady who's calling down with QQ on an ace-high board, are you seriously worried about alerting her of kicker issues?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the hand were heads-up, I think it's correct. I'm getting a bigger raise in later. With others in the pot, I want a read on their interest in the pot.

I'm not interested in being a terror to play against. I don't care if I post a hand and somebody says I played like a pussy because they would have raised several times where I didn't.. I'm just interested in winning.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

how/why did you arrive at this "new" read by the river? you already had a read that he's a lag, that he goes too far with bluffs even after he's been called. your rationale for not raising the turn is so that you could allow him to continue bluffing on the river. yet when he does, you fold. nice way of sticking to your read and your plan.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're taking too much from my description. This is a guy I thought would make $50-$100 continuation bets on the turn. I had never seen him make anything approaching an $800 pure bluff check-raise on the river which had no hope of working against the Older Lady after she bet $200.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough, then your fold was correct.

[epdaws]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm getting a bigger raise in later.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've convinced that you will never raise, ever. So I don't believe this. Hell, some funky chip riffling scared you.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not interested in being a terror to play against. I don't care if I post a hand and somebody says I played like a pussy because they would have raised several times where I didn't.. I'm just interested in winning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Winning starts by folding winning hands.

[Rocaix]

This hand would've played itself, it you had just raised pot preflop and then potted the flop when you hit. It's about 20X easier to read hands when you take the betting lead.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
It's about 20X easier to read hands when you take the betting lead.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. In fact, I've often found it easier to read opponents when I allow them to take the lead. More importantly, it becomes very difficult to read my hand in these situations.

This is really a seperate discussion. But, I don't agree with the idea of betting to "define your hand". I don't want to define my hand. That lets my opponents know what I've got. I want my opponents hands defined and mine to remain unclear to them.

[thedustbustr]

Dynasty,

With all due respect, you should really study some basic NL theory. There's a lot of nice posts in SSNL for limit aplayers transitioning to NL.

A lot of people are arguing about whether the river fold is correct or not. Who cares, it's probably marginal no matter which way you favor. The point is, you should never have had to make that decision, if you had played the hand more optimally.

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, I've often found it easier to read opponents when I allow them to take the lead. More importantly, it becomes very difficult to read my hand in these situations.

[/ QUOTE ]
Have you considered that it may be different in NL? (For that matter, have you considered that perhaps the knowledgable posters who are thrashing your line may be right?) Yes, your hand was very disguised, yes, it looked like a weak hand, and look, he blew you right off of it. You wouldn't have lost a 400bb pot if you had defined your hand.

I don't think you EVER bet to "define your hand" in NL. But if you want "your opponents hands defined", you really need to bet. It almost worked out in this situation (I guess a case can be made for river fold being correct as played), but playing so passively probably won't get you too far.

I hope my tone isn't condescending, I apologize if it is. I do think your tone is too condescending though, stop defending your play like it is gospel, because most of the people who actually play this game think it sucks. Given that, you have to realize that there is a non-trivial probability that you have a lot to learn at NL.