|
|
#71
09-18-2007, 12:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 400: What a Sweet Ending
[ QUOTE ]
If he hadn't posted results this would be an allright thread. I don't know what you want though, it looks like your bragging. You obviously couldn't play the hand any better to reach SD. Are you looking for better lines? Something could be said about villains range that he would probly 3bet 89s 910s A9s and any number of pps OOP from the SB in a likely HU situation. I would guess hes more likely to flat call with QQ+ in a blind steal situation. Even taking that in mind, I still think I stack off here. It would have been much better if you had done a street by street analysis and countered everyone raise replys with your thoughts. [/ QUOTE ] I didn't want anything but to share the chuckle I got after he brought his Aces full to showdown. Like I said, I was planning to put LC in the title. 
|
|
#72
09-18-2007, 01:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 400: What a Sweet Ending
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] This brings a question into my mind of how much do you rely on SPR's? It seems as though Qtip hasn't managed to get near his favorable/target SPR so he almost playing the hand like walking on eggshells. Is this the correct thing to do? Does REM take over at any point? (Take over is perhaps the wrong word). Against the range of the villain here, we're ahead of the vast majority of his range, and can get excellent value out of over pairs TT-QQ, should we not bet because we've got a high SPR? On one hand, I see exactly what Qtip is saying with dealing with a c/r, puts you in an awful situation, according to SPR you played it right. On the other hand (without being results orientated) REM says you probably left a hell of a lot of value on the table which may have paid you off. Seems like they are working 'against' each other (yes, I know the principles aren't meant to be direct comparisons, just two separate tools). - Confused and trying to learn, don't flame me. [/ QUOTE ] Peleus: Well...I see what you're saying, and my answer would be summed up in one type of concept. You don't think about what his range is but rather what his range is if you get all in. I mean, as sunny has said and others here, if his range is only pps here and he's the type to get in 11 times the pot with an overpair, my line blows something fierce. [/ QUOTE ] I do understand this concept of what his range is when the money gets in, but are we going to get all-in every pot? I know I am missing something here. Aren't you missing out on value in smaller pots with crappy SPR's? Idk the more this thread goes on the more I learn about the concepts in this book, but this is not clicking. [/ QUOTE ] Thats half my thinking as well. But then I also know Qtips reply will be along the lines of you shouldn't be going past the commitment threshold of putting 10% of your stack in, without being committed to the hand. On the flip side you should be trying to get all in if you are committed, and welcoming aggression. I think he is correct in this as well. I think this is actually a good example the more I think about it of a well played hand based around commitment, and deciding if you are committed or not, rather then trying to do an in between line of yeah get some value but what do I do if he pushes. Well done Qtip on that point. As another interesting note, we're saying here that Qtip played well as he is planning around commitment, and playing slower as he has an awkward SPR. On the flip side we're saying the villain played poorly, why is that? Isn't the villain facing the same problems? Bar 3 betting the flop to achieve a lower SPR in the first place, isn't the villain also playing 'correctly' on these principles? Surely the possibility or having AA above us shouldn't change the way we play the hand dramatically between the two. I would absolutely love and appreciate Sunny's opinion on how he would play AA in this situation, and how you can balance out REM / SPR's to try and maximize overall value (I know he commented briefly before). Even if he tell's me I'm totally off the concepts in his book. - Peleus
|
|
#73
09-18-2007, 09:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 400: What a Sweet Ending
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] This brings a question into my mind of how much do you rely on SPR's? It seems as though Qtip hasn't managed to get near his favorable/target SPR so he almost playing the hand like walking on eggshells. Is this the correct thing to do? Does REM take over at any point? (Take over is perhaps the wrong word). Against the range of the villain here, we're ahead of the vast majority of his range, and can get excellent value out of over pairs TT-QQ, should we not bet because we've got a high SPR? On one hand, I see exactly what Qtip is saying with dealing with a c/r, puts you in an awful situation, according to SPR you played it right. On the other hand (without being results orientated) REM says you probably left a hell of a lot of value on the table which may have paid you off. Seems like they are working 'against' each other (yes, I know the principles aren't meant to be direct comparisons, just two separate tools). - Confused and trying to learn, don't flame me. [/ QUOTE ] Peleus: Well...I see what you're saying, and my answer would be summed up in one type of concept. You don't think about what his range is but rather what his range is if you get all in. I mean, as sunny has said and others here, if his range is only pps here and he's the type to get in 11 times the pot with an overpair, my line blows something fierce. [/ QUOTE ] I do understand this concept of what his range is when the money gets in, but are we going to get all-in every pot? I know I am missing something here. Aren't you missing out on value in smaller pots with crappy SPR's? Idk the more this thread goes on the more I learn about the concepts in this book, but this is not clicking. [/ QUOTE ] Of course we aren't going to get AI on every pot. However, you have to consider that a flop bet sets up an AI on this hand and it also is likely to get raised by a lesser hand. IF we get raised we are very uncomfortable if this player will raise with a lesser hand, but maybe not go AI with it. This leaves us in a spot where we have to risk all of our money to win a third of his (plus the pot). You have to think about where your value comes from in this hand. Your hand has showdown value and you would like to win a medium-sized pot by getting this player to put in ~2 bets in with a worse PP while not getting pushed out of the pot. There are alternatives to the line taken here. You could bet the flop with the intention of checking the turn which gives the same net affect. I like checking the flop a little better though as a flop c/r is common on a board like this against an aggressive opponent.
|
|
#74
09-18-2007, 11:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 400: What a Sweet Ending
I wouldn't check behind here because IMHO the value of betting the flop is greater than the deception it adds for later streets and to camouflage the fact that you sometimes check behind with AK. This flop is just to good for you, he could raise you here with a lot of pocket pairs or even air (you could also say I would bet here because of the fact I will C-bet a lot of hands here which would be air which villain knows of course). Besides any ace will slow down the action and villain is unlikely to give you a raise on the turn if you bet there. If the flop was like Q95r, I think a check behind would be better, because he won't raise you as often with pocketpairs.
|
|
#75
09-18-2007, 11:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 400: What a Sweet Ending
[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't check behind here because IMHO the value of betting the flop is greater than the deception it adds for later streets and to camouflage the fact that you sometimes check behind with AK. This flop is just to good for you, he could raise you here with a lot of pocket pairs or even air (you could also say I would bet here because of the fact I will C-bet a lot of hands here which would be air which villain knows of course). Besides any ace will slow down the action and villain is unlikely to give you a raise on the turn if you bet there. If the flop was like Q95r, I think a check behind would be better, because he won't raise you as often with pocketpairs. [/ QUOTE ] On a Q94r flop he has relatively more out than on our flop. Also, deception isn't the only reason for checking.
|
|
#76
09-18-2007, 11:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 400: What a Sweet Ending
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] This brings a question into my mind of how much do you rely on SPR's? It seems as though Qtip hasn't managed to get near his favorable/target SPR so he almost playing the hand like walking on eggshells. Is this the correct thing to do? Does REM take over at any point? (Take over is perhaps the wrong word). Against the range of the villain here, we're ahead of the vast majority of his range, and can get excellent value out of over pairs TT-QQ, should we not bet because we've got a high SPR? On one hand, I see exactly what Qtip is saying with dealing with a c/r, puts you in an awful situation, according to SPR you played it right. On the other hand (without being results orientated) REM says you probably left a hell of a lot of value on the table which may have paid you off. Seems like they are working 'against' each other (yes, I know the principles aren't meant to be direct comparisons, just two separate tools). - Confused and trying to learn, don't flame me. [/ QUOTE ] Peleus: Well...I see what you're saying, and my answer would be summed up in one type of concept. You don't think about what his range is but rather what his range is if you get all in. I mean, as sunny has said and others here, if his range is only pps here and he's the type to get in 11 times the pot with an overpair, my line blows something fierce. [/ QUOTE ] I do understand this concept of what his range is when the money gets in, but are we going to get all-in every pot? I know I am missing something here. Aren't you missing out on value in smaller pots with crappy SPR's? Idk the more this thread goes on the more I learn about the concepts in this book, but this is not clicking. [/ QUOTE ] Thats half my thinking as well. But then I also know Qtips reply will be along the lines of you shouldn't be going past the commitment threshold of putting 10% of your stack in, without being committed to the hand. On the flip side you should be trying to get all in if you are committed, and welcoming aggression. I think he is correct in this as well. I think this is actually a good example the more I think about it of a well played hand based around commitment, and deciding if you are committed or not, rather then trying to do an in between line of yeah get some value but what do I do if he pushes. Well done Qtip on that point. As another interesting note, we're saying here that Qtip played well as he is planning around commitment, and playing slower as he has an awkward SPR. On the flip side we're saying the villain played poorly, why is that? Isn't the villain facing the same problems? Bar 3 betting the flop to achieve a lower SPR in the first place, isn't the villain also playing 'correctly' on these principles? Surely the possibility or having AA above us shouldn't change the way we play the hand dramatically between the two. I would absolutely love and appreciate Sunny's opinion on how he would play AA in this situation, and how you can balance out REM / SPR's to try and maximize overall value (I know he commented briefly before). Even if he tell's me I'm totally off the concepts in his book. - Peleus [/ QUOTE ] Using all this with the commitment threshold clears everything up for me. Thanks so much.
|
|
#77
09-18-2007, 01:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 400: What a Sweet Ending
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I wouldn't check behind here because IMHO the value of betting the flop is greater than the deception it adds for later streets and to camouflage the fact that you sometimes check behind with AK. This flop is just to good for you, he could raise you here with a lot of pocket pairs or even air (you could also say I would bet here because of the fact I will C-bet a lot of hands here which would be air which villain knows of course). Besides any ace will slow down the action and villain is unlikely to give you a raise on the turn if you bet there. If the flop was like Q95r, I think a check behind would be better, because he won't raise you as often with pocketpairs. [/ QUOTE ] On a Q94r flop he has relatively more out than on our flop. Also, deception isn't the only reason for checking. [/ QUOTE ] Now what is your point here exactly? I mentioned the fact that checking behind is also to camouflage your AK hands, yeah and of course head off potcontrol but that is logical... My point is that I think betting out here has more value then checking behind, because you could have completely missed this flop and villain knows that so he might give you a lot of action.
|
|
#80
09-18-2007, 03:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 400: What a Sweet Ending
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I wouldn't check behind here because IMHO the value of betting the flop is greater than the deception it adds for later streets and to camouflage the fact that you sometimes check behind with AK. This flop is just to good for you, he could raise you here with a lot of pocket pairs or even air (you could also say I would bet here because of the fact I will C-bet a lot of hands here which would be air which villain knows of course). Besides any ace will slow down the action and villain is unlikely to give you a raise on the turn if you bet there. If the flop was like Q95r, I think a check behind would be better, because he won't raise you as often with pocketpairs. [/ QUOTE ] On a Q94r flop he has relatively more out than on our flop. Also, deception isn't the only reason for checking. [/ QUOTE ] Now what is your point here exactly? I mentioned the fact that checking behind is also to camouflage your AK hands, yeah and of course head off potcontrol but that is logical... My point is that I think betting out here has more value then checking behind, because you could have completely missed this flop and villain knows that so he might give you a lot of action. [/ QUOTE ] My point is that on a Q94r flop you should be more likely to bet than on our flop as he may have more outs. The thing about pot control must not be THAT logical since it has caused so much debate here. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] You stated as deception vs. value and there is more reasons to check besides deception. That is why I said that. I agree that you can bet if that is your read on your opponent. However, that is an exception to the rule. There always is an exception.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
