TT against one of our best..Wynn 30

[Victor]

i had my doubts before but now im convinced. gonores sucks at poker. sorry.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
Doug 3-bets with a baby pair here? Seriously?

[/ QUOTE ]


From the hijack vs. a Lag with a real tight guy behind him and at least one real tight blind? Um, yeah. I had a coronary when you tried to defend flat-calling with TT and stopped his range at hands like AJo and A9s and 66. It seemed you were totally ignoring the players and the situation.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
88

[/ QUOTE ]

I warned you about this. You're out of the club. No reporting my hands until I'm damn good and ready. Daryn, we'll teach you the secret handshake when you're out here for the series.

As far as the hand goes, I guess I could write something up on it, but I think the logic behind my play is pretty elementary (hint, try to forget that Joe has TT here and play the hand from my perspective). Love it or hate it, it's not a super-deep-thinking sort of hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a pretty sick play if by sick I mean it makes me sick.

[gonores]

[ QUOTE ]
That's a pretty sick play if by sick I mean it makes me sick.

[/ QUOTE ]

I realize you're trying to be cute and all, but that is seriously overstating things. It's not a massive strategical flaw in my thinking or anything like that, its a [censored] misread.

Bottom line is that when Joe checks the turn, I have it made up that there is not a single hand he could have that I could say he played well. I know him well enough to know that hands all possible hands that contain exactly one ten are going in the muck preflop. I now have to process the hand and figure out what was more likely.

1) That Joe would flat call preflop with a pocket pair TT or greater.

or

2) That Joe would check 77/99 on the turn to two LAGs left to act who both showed aggression at every opportunity postflop.

Considering that my databank on Joe includes knowledge of a number of posts that make cute commentary on my LAGginess and that I was in standard, LAGgy form going in to the hand (therefore giving me a pretty wide range of isolating hands), I felt it more likely for him to check the nuts on the turn than for him to flat-call with TT+ preflop, Mr. Bayes be damned.

Obviously, I got the decision wrong this time. The read has been adjusted and provisions will be made for next time. Certainly nothing to be making a stink over.

I ran this hand by a few people from my point of view, only I ended it with Joe betting the river, me calling, and him rolling 99. I couldn't even get a "wow" out of anyone...I got a lot of "well, yeah, what else could he have?" I think the response toward my hand is a lot more positive if I posted the hand from my point of view.

[gonores]

For the record, I feel Justin's ranges here for sleeves' hand and my hand are pretty much spot on.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's a pretty sick play if by sick I mean it makes me sick.

[/ QUOTE ]

I realize you're trying to be cute and all, but that is seriously overstating things. It's not a massive strategical flaw in my thinking or anything like that, its a [censored] misread.

Bottom line is that when Joe checks the turn, I have it made up that there is not a single hand he could have that I could say he played well. I know him well enough to know that hands all possible hands that contain exactly one ten are going in the muck preflop. I now have to process the hand and figure out what was more likely.

1) That Joe would flat call preflop with a pocket pair TT or greater.

or

2) That Joe would check 77/99 on the turn to two LAGs left to act who both showed aggression at every opportunity postflop.

Considering that my databank on Joe includes knowledge of a number of posts that make cute commentary on my LAGginess and that I was in standard, LAGgy form going in to the hand (therefore giving me a pretty wide range of isolating hands), I felt it more likely for him to check the nuts on the turn than for him to flat-call with TT+ preflop.

Obviously, I got the decision wrong this time. The read has been adjusted and provisions will be made for next time. Certainly nothing to be making a stink over.

I ran this hand by a few people from my point of view, only I ended it with Joe betting the river, me calling, and him rolling 99. I couldn't even get a "wow" out of anyone...I got a lot of "well, yeah, what else could he have?" I think the response toward my hand is a lot more positive if I posted the hand from my point of view.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doug,

No offense meant and I hope none taken. I had no idea that the turn check was defensive in nature. I thought it was intended to confuse and set up meta-play for future hands, which I dislike although I can understand the impetus against people you're playing with very frequently.

Even so, though, why would Joe check the turn with 99/77? After all, you closed the action on the river, and the last thing he wants to do is shut the LAG out of the pot.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
Even so, though, why would Joe check the turn with 99/77?

[/ QUOTE ]

One could also ask why he'd check the turn with TT.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even so, though, why would Joe check the turn with 99/77?

[/ QUOTE ]

One could also ask why he'd check the turn with TT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because there are a lot of ways that he's beat here?

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even so, though, why would Joe check the turn with 99/77?

[/ QUOTE ]

One could also ask why he'd check the turn with TT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because there are a lot of ways that he's beat here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I know that's what Joe was thinking. What I wanted was a correct answer. Checking TT here is horrific.

[Clarkmeister]

BTW, I do find it funny that the only guy who played his hand well here was DeNiro.

By boxing scoring it goes:

DFM 39
Deniro 40
JT 37