Lets talk about AQ....

[21times20]

you can't have it both ways, it really seems like your arguments for calling with AQ are based on some magical power to both get payed off when you hit, and also somehow get these same hands to fold when you miss

[Stumpy]

ChopChoi, I agree, and that just makes calling worse, when it sucks already.

(Cliff Notes: 21Times20 said it in one sentence.)

Dave,

You've just demonstrated that you don't even know how to operate PokerStove properly. But somehow you've turned that into a flame at others.
You can't put spaces in the range. 99+ does not mean 99-AA,AK. Not in Pokerstove, not on 2+2.

If all you got out of my post is that it was -10 chips, you didn't understand it.
I didn't look at the worst case scenario, I looked at the absolute best case scenario.


[ QUOTE ]
I mean, you're not really counting the times we fold a better hand (like he holds AK and the flop is TJ3, we bet and he has to fold). Or the times he's afraid of the overcards, even though we don't have one of them. Or the times that he checks and we check behind, and then our Q comes on the turn and he bets and we push and he calls with JJ on a 359Q board (he goes for the c/r on the flop). I think this is something that really math based players miss sometimes, we're not playing with our cards face up. It's about playing the situation/man etc. It's not a huge factor here, but it matters, and the math can't account for that.

[/ QUOTE ]

So now you're calling a re-raise with AQo OOP and leading into the re-raiser? That seems like a terrible idea. When you lead at a JT3 flop, there are 18 combinations of TT-AA that the re-raiser is likely to have. There are 12 AK combinations.

It's really telling that you picked about the worst possible flop example for you to bluff at, and used bluffing it as your reason why calling the re-raise was OK. I really think it'd be good for you to try and come up with a re-raising range where leading that flop is going to make you money.

As far as free cards go, you must realize that overall, the guy in position is going to get the best of that matchup. If a free card helps you once in a while, it'll help him much more often, because he actually gets to decide when and if a free card happens. Yes, you can lead into him, but I am 100% sure that is terrible.

You're taking a situation that is bad, and then coming up with all the good strange cases that might happen 2% of the time and saying my gut tells me these things outweigh the basic -EV result. But you're completely ignoring all the terrible 2% cases that can happen. I'm sure this is a great talent as a lawyer, but as a poker player, it sucks.


[ QUOTE ]
It sounds like it still comes out to be EV neutral when considering that your scenario was generous to AQ, but utilized a range for villian that was too tight. It still comes out as a wash for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dave, I'm quickly (if not already) going to stop debating you, because of responses like this. You've done no actual work to justify your conclusion, but decide it's correct. I'm getting absolutely nothing out of your posts. They're just a list of random feelings you have.

Post what you think the average re-raising range is for the ChopChoi example. If you want to throw "random bluffs" in, fine, but you have to say they happen 5% of the time or some other such figure.

Tell me what actions you're taking on different kinds of flops. There aren't that many. You're pretty shallow, so you're basically seeing the turn all in, or one of you is folding before that.

Also, when trying to discuss things, defining a situation and sticking to it would be a huge help. If you want to discuss AQo against a wide re-raising range, fine. But I don't think 99+,AQ+ is a bad default re-raising range.

[Bakes]

Your a [censored] moron Dave D, I've tried to help you in this thread a little bit. Its been some tough love but you are obviously too retarded to grasp even the most basic concepts. Your inability to listen and learn is dumbfounding. I don't know why I even respond to your posts other than to laugh at the idiocy that you come back with.

It would take the best post in your 2+2 career to redeem yourself at this point, I sure hope you make it.

[Dave D]

My bad about poker stove. It's telling that I don't use it that often. I think people use it as a crutch too much anyway. I guess I didn't realize that about the space thing, but it hasnt been an issue in the past. I usually type more specific ranges, and other people are usualy the ones that rely on it. Honestly, if you look at the best posters, they don't really use poker stove that much either. Only for very specific let me figure out my equity aagainst a very specific situation. I'm just not a believer in assigning hand ranges all the time, especially online, and especially early on, there's just too much donk out there.

Also, as I said previously, this is a really nitty argument Bakes makes. OMG you said 99+ but didn't say AK. Obviously AK would be in villian's range, I didn't say it wasnt or anything. His comment was being really nitty for no reason, so I flamed it, I guess.

Honestly Stumpy, I tried to explain at least once that I didn't take take your math as an example of worst case scenario. I was giving you reasons why it's *not* the best case scenario either. But, other factors that you neglected aside, I think the scenario comes out only slightly +EV. Your example doesnt consider villian bluffs, doesn't consider times we beat hands we're not actually ahead of, and utilizes a range that is too tight. That's my point.

ALSO the point that I'm making is that it's hard for math to really account for those things, and that's why I don't really like using poker stove all that much.

I think that honestly stumpy you are a little weak tight. I think you are way too scared of villian's range. People are dumb. Today for example I raised AA PF, and then C bet a JQ3r flop. He raised and I pushed and he called... with JT. I mean villians are gonna, fold, especialy early on, because they're sometimes weak tight, or sometimes scared of overcards, or sometimes missed, or sometimes raised AJ and missed the flop.

As far as free cards, we havent really defined what position we're in. We were sorta talking about both, and position doesn't matter that that much, except for the obvious that it's best to be in position. My point though was when we're IN position, we're often getting a free card.

Also, I'm not taking 2% of the time. I mean in my experiance lately the Cbet works a TON of the time. Also, see earlier comment about your range being too tight and why your "best case" situation isn't really best.

Also, I forget which well known writer said this, but at any given time 10% of villian's range is bluffs. I believe in that. It's just kinda standard. I don't think that online, assuming no reads, we can ever nail a villian down to 99+, AK and that's it. I ONLY used that as a WORST case scenario.

As far as my plans for flops, I gave you them. A couple years ago there was a great post by I think strassa (although I'm probably wrong) about how if most people c-bet 80% of the time or something, they'd be making few mistakes. I'm a believer in that, and it's amazing how often the c-bet takes down the pot, regardless what I have. Now I realize there have been posts about how people online in general have been floating more as a result of HoH and stuff and so c-bets arent as good as they used to be (and c-bets get made so much more by others now too). I've definitenly noticed it myself (and maybe this also has to do with how I used to only play on party, and how party was SO different, and maybe I'm just a dinasour who's still adjusting from party, which is true) But I still think that's a legit outlook, to cbet most of the time.

[Stumpy]

Dave, don't take this personally. It just came to me, and I find it too funny to not post.