#41
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NL50: 3 barrels against 2+2er
The prior hand where Shipit called a 6BB raise OOP with 87s didn't really give either of us any useful info. One of the limpers called. Flop was AJ2 montone (Shipit flopped a flush), checked it, the limper bet 80% of pot into me, I had a trivially easy fold with 55, and Shipit c/r limper AI.
The only reason I included it in OP was to show sc's were in his range for the preflop call. I don't think you can read too much else from that hand given it didn't go past the flop. I didn't c/c river because I didn't 100% have him on a draw, it was to get him to fold an AK/AT. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NL50: 3 barrels against 2+2er
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] fishy stats ? :< was only 40 hands yo [/ QUOTE ] aggression factor of 1, cold called 87cc OOP in BB. Two things most tags don't do (altho cold calling weakish middle card hands like 87cc/J9cc is becoming more common). I'm saying the AF of 1 is bad, and the cold calling of those suited connector type hands could be bad. The two added together would give me an impression that your not that great. [/ QUOTE ] I don't really play that TAG of a game to be honest, and I'm fairly happy to play 78s OOP vs someone whos been running at 7/5.. Either way my stats are closer to 20 / 16 / 2.25 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NL50: 3 barrels against 2+2er
good discussion
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NL50: 3 barrels against 2+2er
[ QUOTE ]
good discussion [/ QUOTE ] lol, the analysis of the hand makes me feel like a tard. I hate to say it but it feels more like one of the calls that just felt right. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NL50: 3 barrels against 2+2er
People put way too much stock in stats over meaningless sample sizes imo. Your aggression factor was 1 over that sample, that doesn't mean I had you pegged as passive (in fact, I pretty much ignored it).
As I said before, 40 hands is nothing and I was pretty much card dead. And given I had 55 that hand, your implied odds with the 87s were terrible (unless you were planning on c/r a lot of flops if it was HU - I don't know). If I had been 7/5 over 500 hands it's a different story... |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NL50: 3 barrels against 2+2er
no offence, and I'm not sure who suggested the check/call line on the river but its clearly really bad. If you are that far ahead of his range that you can check/call KQ then clearly a river bluff is profitable as well.
I would think ship has a draw here like 5% of the time lol. Not even, <2%. The river blanking on draws and calling on the turn would be a reason I would want to call on the river. Reasons to fold is that the river is an easy valuebet for every big hand AQ and better. Also some would for sure valuebet AK here. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NL50: 3 barrels against 2+2er
[ QUOTE ]
People put way too much stock in stats over meaningless sample sizes imo. [/ QUOTE ] No one is saying that stats are the end all here, but they make a difference. Im also citing the fact about that 87 hand. You may say that its not a big deal then why include it in your op? I believe it is a big deal as its your first impression of villain and it should make you believe villain is a looser player. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NL50: 3 barrels against 2+2er
or at least a fishier TAG. Both of those things together suggests to me he's a fishier tag.
My wording is weak on purpose. I don't know for sure if he's good or not, neither do I really care. But suspecting he may be bad makes me not want to make a bluff that depends on him folding AK (even on the scariest of boards). |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NL50: 3 barrels against 2+2er
I included it to show that villain may be a loose preflop player. I don't then automatically assume that he is going to be loose post. In fact, the reason I even fired 2 let alone 3 barrels here was that I knew he was 2+2, and not some random NL50 donk who would call me down with A2.
Apologies if I'm coming across as all defensive. That's not my intention. Obviously I was unsure whether this was a good play, and hence why I posted, and I'm glad of the discussion it's generated. I like hands like this that require a bit of deeper thinking because: a) It's a nice deviation from the standard ABC poker we mostly play against the fish at these levels b) It's the sort of thinking you'll have to be using more and more when you move up limits due to the stronger opposition I just wish he'd 3bet me preflop.... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NL50: 3 barrels against 2+2er
[ QUOTE ]
no offence, and I'm not sure who suggested the check/call line on the river but its clearly really bad. If you are that far ahead of his range that you can check/call KQ then clearly a river bluff is profitable as well. [/ QUOTE ] How do you figure? That can only be true if he's calling with a lot of worse hands that he'd be betting with, which is highly unlikely to be the case. Betting in that case would fold crappy hands and still cost you money to some of the better hands, including ones that beat you that might check behind. |
|
|