|
|
#41
11-09-2006, 07:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Am I playing a marginal hand too passively?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If I go all in in an SNG with KK -- a prima facie *strong hand* -- and get called by AA, I have a *weak* hand. This is a concept you have to get absolutely straight. The strength of your hand is relative. [/ QUOTE ] *sigh* [/ QUOTE ] I'm feeling that way myself. It's like talking to a small child who has an idea in their head and will not let it go. [ QUOTE ] If you were playing the game in terms of hot and cold equity, then you would fold many hands in this position because they are "relatively weak". [/ QUOTE ] Yes, now you're getting it. [ QUOTE ] This would include hands such as QQ, JJ, KQs, and AQ. [/ QUOTE ] How are QQ/JJ relatively weak? QQ is destroying his range. I'm very likely folding both KQs/AQ here too. [ QUOTE ] What you fail to understand is that it doesn't matter how much you win hot and cold relative to another player. What matters is how often you win relative to YOUR SHARE OF THE POT. [/ QUOTE ] Dude, your thinking has you calling the raise with KJo if you have a full table. And Q9s. Better hope they don't all fold if you have Q9s though. [ QUOTE ] For example, if you have 5 opponents [/ QUOTE ] You have one so far. [ QUOTE ] any hand that will win more than 20% of the time is profitable and would be incorrect to fold, even if you are a big underdog to the preflop raiser. [/ QUOTE ] LOL. Here you are, telling me that I am not understanding that it's not about H&C equity (which I of course do understand because the example I gave was simply to show that hands have relative, not absolute, value, not to show that you should judge them solely by their H&C strength, which was, remember, your mistake) and here you are telling me I should be calling with anything that has sufficient equity! Well, if the whole table was calling and we were all all-in after we called, I'd be absolutely correct to call with Q9s. You are right. It'd be profitable. But it won't and we wouldn't be even if the whole table did. [ QUOTE ] If your broadway cards are suited and the pot is multiway, the threat of domination is often diminished enough to warrant a call. [/ QUOTE ] If I was on the button and a couple had called already, I would not be folding my AJs. But I'm not, they haven't, I am and so should you. Just for fun, I Stoved it for you. Here's our hand against the PFR, a loose caller (calling 30% of his hands, so very loose) and a random BB (I stopped it at 20 million hands because I don't have the time to run it all the way through but you get the idea): 20,535,087 games 117.125 secs 175,326 games/sec Board: Dead: equity (%) win (%) tie (%) Hand 1: 42.0136 % 41.51% 00.52% { 99+, AQs+ } Hand 2: 24.6935 % 23.71% 00.99% { AJs } Hand 3: 15.1262 % 14.70% 00.43% { random } Hand 4: 18.1667 % 17.25% 00.92% { 55+, A2s+, K5s+, Q7s+, J8s+, T8s+, 98s, A7o+, A5o, K9o+, Q9o+, J9o+, T9o } And here it is against raiser plus random BB (what we actually ended up with, as it happens, and again, I didn't let it run all the way through but the point should be clear): 13,341,548,681 games 38.579 secs 345,824,118 games/sec Board: Dead: equity (%) win (%) tie (%) Hand 1: 46.4129 % 45.06% 01.36% { 99+, AQs+ } Hand 2: 29.7120 % 28.33% 01.38% { AJs } Hand 3: 23.8751 % 23.34% 00.53% { random } 
|
|
#42
11-09-2006, 07:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Am I playing a marginal hand too passively?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If I go all in in an SNG with KK -- a prima facie *strong hand* -- and get called by AA, I have a *weak* hand. This is a concept you have to get absolutely straight. The strength of your hand is relative. [/ QUOTE ] *sigh* [/ QUOTE ] I'm feeling that way myself. It's like talking to a small child who has an idea in their head and will not let it go. [ QUOTE ] If you were playing the game in terms of hot and cold equity, then you would fold many hands in this position because they are "relatively weak". [/ QUOTE ] Yes, now you're getting it. [ QUOTE ] This would include hands such as QQ, JJ, KQs, and AQ. [/ QUOTE ] How are QQ/JJ relatively weak? QQ is destroying his range. I'm very likely folding both KQs/AQ here too. [ QUOTE ] What you fail to understand is that it doesn't matter how much you win hot and cold relative to another player. What matters is how often you win relative to YOUR SHARE OF THE POT. [/ QUOTE ] Dude, your thinking has you calling the raise with KJo if you have a full table. And Q9s. Better hope they don't all fold if you have Q9s though. [ QUOTE ] For example, if you have 5 opponents [/ QUOTE ] You have one so far. [ QUOTE ] any hand that will win more than 20% of the time is profitable and would be incorrect to fold, even if you are a big underdog to the preflop raiser. [/ QUOTE ] LOL. Here you are, telling me that I am not understanding that it's not about H&C equity (which I of course do understand because the example I gave was simply to show that hands have relative, not absolute, value, not to show that you should judge them solely by their H&C strength, which was, remember, your mistake) and here you are telling me I should be calling with anything that has sufficient equity! Well, if the whole table was calling and we were all all-in after we called, I'd be absolutely correct to call with Q9s. You are right. It'd be profitable. But it won't and we wouldn't be even if the whole table did. [ QUOTE ] If your broadway cards are suited and the pot is multiway, the threat of domination is often diminished enough to warrant a call. [/ QUOTE ] If I was on the button and a couple had called already, I would not be folding my AJs. But I'm not, they haven't, I am and so should you. Just for fun, I Stoved it for you. Here's our hand against the PFR, a loose caller (calling 30% of his hands, so very loose) and a random BB (I stopped it at 20 million hands because I don't have the time to run it all the way through but you get the idea): 20,535,087 games 117.125 secs 175,326 games/sec Board: Dead: equity (%) win (%) tie (%) Hand 1: 42.0136 % 41.51% 00.52% { 99+, AQs+ } Hand 2: 24.6935 % 23.71% 00.99% { AJs } Hand 3: 15.1262 % 14.70% 00.43% { random } Hand 4: 18.1667 % 17.25% 00.92% { 55+, A2s+, K5s+, Q7s+, J8s+, T8s+, 98s, A7o+, A5o, K9o+, Q9o+, J9o+, T9o } And here it is against raiser plus random BB (what we actually ended up with, as it happens, and again, I didn't let it run all the way through but the point should be clear): 13,341,548,681 games 38.579 secs 345,824,118 games/sec Board: Dead: equity (%) win (%) tie (%) Hand 1: 46.4129 % 45.06% 01.36% { 99+, AQs+ } Hand 2: 29.7120 % 28.33% 01.38% { AJs } Hand 3: 23.8751 % 23.34% 00.53% { random } [/ QUOTE ] How are you supposed to calculate that stuff when its 2 bets back to you? [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]
|
|
#43
11-09-2006, 11:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Am I playing a marginal hand too passively?
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't played at these levels for a while now, and it is possible that they have gotten much tighter since the legislation, and this may influence the decision to call or fold. I play mostly live with many bad players cold-calling an early raiser; my impression was that this would be the case at the microlimits. But rather, if this is the case: the raiser is tight, and the players behind you will likely not participate, then go ahead a fold. [/ QUOTE ] I haven't read ahead past this post so someone might have already said this. The fact that you mostly play live is where I can see your loss of perspective here. The online tables have been tightening up for over a year now. Live and online play conditions are far different. Live is so much juicier. I would very likely call this in the same situation in a live game because you almost know for a fact that you'll get at least three callers behind you. The average micro game online doesn't play like this, AT ALL. It's far tighter and in far more skilled on average as well. There are still plenty of fishies, but the concentration of talent is far more dense. Again, it comes down to game conditions. If I was a live table that was tight for some reason, the first thing I'd do is look for another table, but folding AJs would be just as correct in this specific situation as it would in a live game of the same tightness. I understand your position and agree with you about live games. AJs is a veritable gold mine just waiting for the right flop.
|
|
#44
11-09-2006, 11:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Am I playing a marginal hand too passively?
[ QUOTE ]
What you fail to understand is that it doesn't matter how much you win hot and cold relative to another player. What matters is how often you win relative to YOUR SHARE OF THE POT. For example, if you have 5 opponents, any hand that will win more than 20% of the time is profitable and would be incorrect to fold, even if you are a big underdog to the preflop raiser. [/ QUOTE ] Facts: The pot is one way when it's our turn to act here. Table conditions haven't been dictated that we're getting callers. Our share of the pot after we call is half immediately, but we're already a dog to UTG very likely. I really think your live game bias is effecting your comments. The games aren't even close to being as juicy as live play. Not close. I can see this argument coming from myself about two years ago. I now know that I was wrong because I didn't adjust to table conditions well enough. To the new guys who are quoting SSHE as if it's the bible, stop. You're sitting in the booster seat in the back of the car. Pay attention to what Drzen and some of the vets are saying. It'll help you plug some money leaks. Game adjustment on the fly is vastly underrated by short time players. I didn't know, until I knew, if that makes any sense.
|
|
#45
11-09-2006, 12:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Am I playing a marginal hand too passively?
**Grunch**
Preflop- I fold to an UTG raise. Flop- Fold, why are you calling this you have 3 outs, 4 (maybe )if you count the backdoor flush draw. Turn- As played I would raise this to see where you are at/value bet. respond accordingly. River- At this level i would think that UTG has you beat as he raised someone who have been raising the entire time. Good Fold.
|
|
#46
12-02-2006, 03:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Am I playing a marginal hand too passively?
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I'm misreading the chart - it does say Against A Raise but does that excluse raises before you? i.e. it only applies if you've limped and the raiser is behind you? If so... oops. [/ QUOTE ] With AJs its worth it to see if you get a promising flop, but with that board on the flop I would have ditched. Your J is worthless unless you want a BDSD and you're drawing to three outs vs possible domination from someone holding QQ. IMO you played PF correctly but should have cut your losses on the flop. As far as the chart in SSHE goes, you made the right play. Calling a raise and then calling another as it was only one back to you with a strong AJs. The thing is that with AJs against posisble holdings in this hand you want to have a straight/flush draw on the flop. Also, heed the advice of some of the vets here. That SSHE chart isn't gospel. You have to modify it.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
