2/4 B&M - Bet or checkraise monster flop that I capped preflop?

[shane88888]

[ QUOTE ]
There are WAY more loose passive players at 2/4 than gamblers. At least in any east coast casino I've played in. In fact in any given session I'll likely see 1 or 2 preflop caps, and 5 or 6 3-bets. And I'm usually responsible for a third of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you play at night (and not the daytime retired crowd), I stand by my "worst 2/4 game in America" statement.

[ QUOTE ]
You don't think any strength can be assumed about their hand? There's a wide range of options, but you can certainly narrow it down a lot more than from "random hands".

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, you can certainly narrow it down. Go ahead; narrow it down. I did above. Once again, Pokerstove is free.

[ QUOTE ]
Lol. Please come play in my games if you think thats close enough. Not to mention that you don't win with your set all 13% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, if your games really are that tight, it would be a waste of my time to play in your games. Not to mention, a 2/4 game like that, considering the rake + toke, seems like a bitch to beat.

Second, how close is almost then? Again, you criticize but provide no answer.

And, as the Pokerstove shows, your JJ will hold up on its own/backdoor into something more than enough without flopping a set.

[jjshabado]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are WAY more loose passive players at 2/4 than gamblers. At least in any east coast casino I've played in. In fact in any given session I'll likely see 1 or 2 preflop caps, and 5 or 6 3-bets. And I'm usually responsible for a third of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you play at night (and not the daytime retired crowd), I stand by my "worst 2/4 game in America" statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can't beat a loose-passive game, you can't beat anything.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't think any strength can be assumed about their hand? There's a wide range of options, but you can certainly narrow it down a lot more than from "random hands".

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, you can certainly narrow it down. Go ahead; narrow it down. I did above. Once again, Pokerstove is free.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why, I don't care enough to download it and do it. I stand by my comment that your pokerstove analysis was very optimistic in the hands you were facing. You don't agree that assuming you're facing 3 completely random hands is a little silly?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lol. Please come play in my games if you think thats close enough. Not to mention that you don't win with your set all 13% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, if your games really are that tight, it would be a waste of my time to play in your games. Not to mention, a 2/4 game like that, considering the rake + toke, seems like a bitch to beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you retarded? When did a loose-passive game mean it was tight?

I think I'm done here since you can't seem to accept that a) random hands are not a realistic range to put 3 of 5 players on, b) 2/4 games are often loose/passive and VERY easy to beat, c) that many plays in poker would be 'almost' correct by your definition, and if you made them all you'd be very bad.

Edit: Maybe you just need a definition of loose-passive: loose meaning many people play too many hands and play them too far. Passive meaning they don't raise/3-bet/cap without the nuts (and even then they'll sometimes just call to keep the game friendly).

[shane88888]

[ QUOTE ]
Why, I don't care enough to download it and do it. I stand by my comment that your pokerstove analysis was very optimistic in the hands you were facing. You don't agree that assuming you're facing 3 completely random hands is a little silly?

[/ QUOTE ]

Profound. If you don't care enough to provide anything new, then why comment at all?

I conceded earlier that three random hands is excessive; that's why I ran the numbers on the top 50% of hand and the top 25% of hands (which you have ignored).

See, when a question comes up, I like to find an answer. Not write, "That's wrong," and add nothing further.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you retarded? When did a loose-passive game mean it was tight?

I think I'm done here since you can't seem to accept that a) random hands are not a realistic range to put 3 of 5 players on, b) 2/4 games are often loose/passive and VERY easy to beat, c) that many plays in poker would be 'almost' correct by your definition, and if you made them all you'd be very bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good specific analysis here. And good work not quoting the entirety of my post.

a) Addressed above. I already reran Pokerstove. Your "reasoning" for not capping JJ still stinks.
b) Way to change the subject. You review the salad and ignore the steak.
c) Guess what, you're in a forum where all we discuss is *precisely* 'almost' correct decisions.

[jjshabado]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why, I don't care enough to download it and do it. I stand by my comment that your pokerstove analysis was very optimistic in the hands you were facing. You don't agree that assuming you're facing 3 completely random hands is a little silly?

[/ QUOTE ]

Profound. If you don't care enough to provide anything new, then why comment at all?

I conceded earlier that three random hands is excessive; that's why I ran the numbers on the top 50% of hand and the top 25% of hands (which you have ignored).

See, when a question comes up, I like to find an answer. Not write, "That's wrong," and add nothing further.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you retarded? When did a loose-passive game mean it was tight?

I think I'm done here since you can't seem to accept that a) random hands are not a realistic range to put 3 of 5 players on, b) 2/4 games are often loose/passive and VERY easy to beat, c) that many plays in poker would be 'almost' correct by your definition, and if you made them all you'd be very bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good specific analysis here. And good work not quoting the entirety of my post.

a) Addressed above. I already reran Pokerstove. Your "reasoning" for not capping JJ still stinks.
b) Way to change the subject. You review the salad and ignore the steak.
c) Guess what, you're in a forum where all we discuss is *precisely* 'almost' correct decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't see your second hand pokerstove results. I must have missed it when posting my reply to your previous post. You don't think 50% of hands is maybe a little wide for 3 players to call a double sized raise? Anyway, I'm not going to continue arguing hand ranges with you. I'll let SSHE be my argument for not-capping with JJs.

b) The fact that you don't seem to understand typical 2/4 game conditions, or worse you don't seem to understand what loose-passive even means, tends to weaken your argument. You can claim I'm changing the subject, but basic poker knowledge seems pretty relevant to this discussion.

c) You're right we discuss them. Discussing is different from saying its a good play. You were defending the argument that you could call for set value when you were only getting 5:1 odds because it was "almost" correct.

I frequently don't quote everything because it would cause the posts to grow extremely fast. Was there something specific there you think I should have addressed?

[Frond]

In a 2/4 hand a few weeks back I had AJs in the SB, everyone limped in, I raised, everyone called(9 players!), I flopped the nut flush, first to act, I thought I would get tricky and check it hoping for a bet, it didn't happen, I ended up betting it out on the turn and ended up winning a good pot but my flop play stunk on this one. I should have bet out with the pot already good sized and a bunch of limpers yet to act.

For your hand: Cap PF, bet it out. Don't get too tricky esp. in 2/4

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Against 5 opponents I doubt if you have an equity edge with JJ. (I'm sure someone will chime in w/ figures.)

Calculations show your equity to be around 19% against 4 limpers and one 3 bettor.

[/ QUOTE ]

You just contradicted yourself with your own figures.
Paraphrasing: You don't have an equity edge, yet you're getting 5-1 on a near 4-1 shot.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would never cap preflop w/ JJ, rarely do w/ AA.


The question is, can I wait til the turn to c/r?

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously? You don't cap AA?

[/ QUOTE ]

Rarely, might be a stretch. I would say that when given the option I cap around 50% of the time.

I don't like to give away the strength of my hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

If it's that obvious when you cap preflop that you have AA/KK, you should widen your range.

You realize if you cap with QQ, JJ, AKs, AQs and sometimes AJs(lots of players going into the flop) preflop, it helps disguise when you have AA/KK?

Just a thought.

b

[JJH3984]

Not capping here is ultra nitty.

[shane88888]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't see your second hand pokerstove results. I must have missed it when posting my reply to your previous post. You don't think 50% of hands is maybe a little wide for 3 players to call a double sized raise? Anyway, I'm not going to continue arguing hand ranges with you. I'll let SSHE be my argument for not-capping with JJs.

b) The fact that you don't seem to understand typical 2/4 game conditions, or worse you don't seem to understand what loose-passive even means, tends to weaken your argument. You can claim I'm changing the subject, but basic poker knowledge seems pretty relevant to this discussion.

c) You're right we discuss them. Discussing is different from saying its a good play. You were defending the argument that you could call for set value when you were only getting 5:1 odds because it was "almost" correct.

I frequently don't quote everything because it would cause the posts to grow extremely fast. Was there something specific there you think I should have addressed?

[/ QUOTE ]

a) I'm glad you're going to stop arguing hand ranges with me. But when did you ever start? You never presented your likely ranges anywhere in this thread (other than a reraise means AA/KK/AK or maybe QQ).

Now, if calling two more when already in (with sub-par holdings) isn't the definition of loose and passive, then what is?

Yeah, I did think 50% was a wide range. You didn't read the second set of Pokerstove results where I ran the middle three players as the top 25% of hands. I ran them both for comparison's sake.

Here's some more, putting ALL the villains on top 10% of hands:
Player 1 JJ: 24.243%
Player 2 88+,A9s+,KTs+,QTs+,AJo+,KQo: 18.9%
Player 3 88+,A9s+,KTs+,QTs+,AJo+,KQo: 18.9%
Player 4 88+,A9s+,KTs+,QTs+,AJo+,KQo: 18.9%
Player 5 88+,A9s+,KTs+,QTs+,AJo+,KQo: 18.9%

You're also not getting 5:1, you're getting 5.75:1. Anything over 17.39% equity is profitable.

And if you're gonna use SSHE as your rationale, try citing the friggin book. Again, you say I'm wrong, but counter with nothing.

b) Hey, I'm not the one claiming loose passives call reraises with only strong hands.

c) Discussing isn't saying something is a good play or a bad play. Discussing is saying WHY something is a good play or a bad play.

Seriously, read entire sentences (and apparently entire posts). I never claimed that you should cap JJ for set value alone. This isn't the difference between 2:1 and 10:1, this is a matter of percentage points. 7.5:1 and 5.75:1, plus implied odds.

I said it's almost correct to cap it for set value alone. Then, when you consider how strong JJ is unimproved (as verified by Pokerstove), it makes the decision clear.

See what I did right there - that's called a decision-making process.

[JJH3984]

or you can just call the guy a nit and move on.