Pocket 2's: Is this good 1 in 9 here?

[beyazkus]

hi smurf,

I have to say I would have played it differently. I wouldn't have bet the flop in the first place, with five other players in the pot it seems too likely that some of them will have at least pair, a good club draw, or a made flush. frankly your reasoning with regard to taking a free card wouldn't have occured to me, but then again your aren't last to act, so I can't see how you could trust that your taking a free card play on the Turn wouldn't be sabotaged, did you presume that the two player would fold to your bet on the flop? am I missing something?

well, the Turn check seems fine. would I bet on the river? I certainly would not, with 3 op staying until the river one has to have a better club so it is highly unlikely that your flush with the 2 of clubs is the best hand. the question seems to be can I get all 3 players to fold, with at least one of them with a better hand. against 3 calling stations, I don't think they will all fold enough to make a bet on the river profitable.

[beyazkus]

ok a newbie question. I tried to grunch again, but after reading all the posts I see that the debate seems to have reached conclusion, and there is this git at the end who goes my a unknown foreign name who seems to be trying to rub it in [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] sorry, smurph [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]) do you guys always grunch for heavens sake? ah well, perhaps posting daily is better...

[rigmarole]

[ QUOTE ]

This is flawed thinking, your actions should be dicated by your holding, the board, your opponents and the situation. Just randomly engageing with a marginal holding because they usually play weaker starting hands than you is not sound reasoning.


[/ QUOTE ]

Key words here are opponents and situation and given the situation that the table was so weak would a deviation from standard tight play not be +EV?


[ QUOTE ]
Playing lose is guaranteed to give you your biggest wins. Just look at the average table, The biggest winner is almost always a LAG, LPA or a LPP. This is the nature of variance, but it is not how long term profit is made.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I'm not advocating this deviation as an adoption of "standard" play style. Do you just continue to play tightly when after several orbits you realize that you are probably at the most loose passive tables you have sat in ages? I don't think so. I think what is key here is being able to realize the difference between sitting at the loosest table you have in ages and rationalizing the situation as being something it is not. (I admit I could not do this consistently but I would bet that the OP may be experienced and real enough with himself to)
This is more along the line I'm thinking But not just along the lines of preflop play if you know your opponents are timid you push them every chance you get.

[ QUOTE ]
The goal of preflop play is to maximize your time spent playing after the flop against weak players and weak hands and minimize it against strong players and strong hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again understanding the situation for what it was was OP's play that bad?


[ QUOTE ]
value bet >>>> relentless bluffing in the micros LHE yo.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no doubt to the truth of that statement, but again the OP was in a situation where he realized that there was a good chance that given his opponents tendancies so far a bet (though not standard for his holdings) may be correct for the situation.

Ok... I'm definately going to hell for this one... if I realize I am at a table with nothing but timid bambi's I'm breaking out the assault rifles shooting until their clips are empty. Yes these deer may shoot back, but I'm actually counting on it.


Rig

[rigmarole]

[ QUOTE ]
If this is ur philosophy for beating low limit holdem you need lots of help.

[/ QUOTE ]

no not my philosphy... I do realize that tight is right but I also think there are times where tight is not right (though those times are indeed few and far between.)

Yes.... Help.. need LOTS of help

But there's hope for me. After all, I am here.

I'm sure this will all get worked out in a couple of 10k or so hands.

One last thing... by the river... OP had dug himself into a hole... calling it down would most likely have lost it... if the situation was truely as stated, it is probable that the pot would have been lost to a bigger flush.

Rig

[DaBizomb]

[ QUOTE ]
ok a newbie question. I tried to grunch again, but after reading all the posts I see that the debate seems to have reached conclusion, and there is this git at the end who goes my a unknown foreign name who seems to be trying to rub it in [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] sorry, smurph [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]) do you guys always grunch for heavens sake? ah well, perhaps posting daily is better...

[/ QUOTE ]

ha why are you apologizing? at least you had the right read!

[beyazkus]

[img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll probably be considered a blasphemer for this....

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on the quality of the statements that I'm about to read.

[ QUOTE ]
Was this truely that bad?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
I would think that this is one of those cases you want to engage your opponents with what you would consider your marginal holdings because in most cases they are still better then the crap they are playing.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the bottom flush draw and 22 against 5 opponents on a T97 board is better than the crap they are playing? Do you think they're all on 64o?

[ QUOTE ]
In otherwords deviation from standard play may have indeed been correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

It *may* be correct, but you mere possibility does not present itself as plausibility. I hope you make an argument in your next sentence...

[ QUOTE ]
I've seen it often said that you always have your biggest sessions playing in the mode you least play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope... it's just going to be a bunch of assertions...

[ QUOTE ]
You can't be tight all the time. You have to wear all the masks to be truely good..

[/ QUOTE ]

So in order to be good, I must learn to suck.

[ QUOTE ]
some times you have to be the mouse, the eagle and yes even the madman.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I must be a madman sometimes because...

[ QUOTE ]
It's not always about pot odds, implied odds etc. it's also about your opponents and the situations that arise from hand to hand and game to game.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's about how you respond to those situations. You can respond stupidly by throwing out a logical basis for play and play bad for the sake of being a madman. I don't think you've made the argument that it's to your benefit to do so... I don't think you've made any argument so far.

[ QUOTE ]
What makes a good poker truely great is being able to know when to wear which mask.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think most good players know never to wear the donkey mask. I think just wasted five good minutes.

[Smurph64]

Hey rig, I don't think anyone here thinks this is all bad, well maybe they do but that isn't really the point.

The point is that yeah I read the situation correctly and guessed that I could win the hand this way.

But that was a intuitive guess that is wrong so many times that its ridiculous to think that 'playing' this way can win me money.

What the other posters I believe are doing here is calling me out on this concept that I made the right move because I analyzed that was my best way to win the hand.

Clearly it wasn't. Now fate may have had it that I would have lost if I didn't do what I did in this hand but that really isn't relevant.

This is an intuition bluff anyway you slice it and no its not good here 1 in 9.

I got lucky with a bad play. Pure and simple.

The fight for me is recognizing that its ok to play outguess with tables and it's ok to play outguess with certain players but that this is so far out there that it was spew.

When you are blasting away at a table and the players and have their numbers, its important to realize that you will need cards to beat the whole table.

As others have told me over and over again, its a leak to think that making people fold is the way to beat the game.

Yes I can make people fold, but folding opponents don't make me the most money.

[rigmarole]

I'm either very misunderstood... very wrong and even possibly very misunderstood and very wrong, (and I probably do not help it) at this point I am OK with any of these possibilities as sooner or later I will get it.

I do realize the hand for what it was (probably not nearly as intimately as many of you. But is'nt that why I am here?)

5 streets and no aggression from his opponents whatsoever... not even a spitball?

By the river he had the low flush. What is the probability he was beaten by a bigger flush. Pretty good I would imagine. What is the probability that he was beaten by a bigger flush but not one holding an ace or a high card? Now given the passiveness of his opponents what is the likely hood that he would have won by checking it down as opposed to betting? I don't know the answer to any of these... but should he not make any effort to protect his hand given the tendancies his opponents shown?

If you are against a table full of bad opponents especially especially loose and pasive should you not go after them?

Please show me where this line of thinking is wrong so that I may correct.


Thanks

Rig

[Xylocain]

[ QUOTE ]
By the river he had the low flush. What is the probability he was beaten by a bigger flush. Pretty good I would imagine.

[/ QUOTE ]

The odds of you beeing beat is ~1 when you are called.

[ QUOTE ]
What is the probability that he was beaten by a bigger flush but not one holding an ace or a high card? Now given the passiveness of his opponents what is the likely hood that he would have won by checking it down as opposed to betting?

[/ QUOTE ]

What I think you are asking, but you make it more complicated than it is, is:
1. how often does can we make a better hand fold and 2. how often are we called by worse hands.

The answers are simple.
1. Never or essentially never.
2. Never or essentially never. A worse hand would be something like TP or two pair and they would have given action earlier.


[ QUOTE ]
If you are against a table full of bad opponents especially especially loose and pasive should you not go after them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Get it out of your head that micro LHE is about 'going after' bad players with weak holdings. If they suck that bad and are passive, then just add a few more hands pre flop and value bet thinner. Trying to push them off their made hands is equivalent of setting money on fire.