Play a Hand With the Masters #3 Results and Panel Comments

[NoahSD]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The real issue is whether Hero can get a call by a hand that he beats. I just don't think TT calls often enough here to make the push the right move.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about JJ, KK, AA, AQ, A9?

[/ QUOTE ]

Everything but A9 there is very unlikely because of the preflop cold call.

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i guess i wasn't clear. i was curious about this part:

[ QUOTE ]

The villains timing was not strong, I remember, on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Online timing tells do exist, are sometimes extremely useful, and every time I see a post say "pay no attention, it might as well be Internet lag" I laugh to myself.

That's all I'm gonna say about it, but most people who 4 table or less already know that and most people who 6+ table are not going to be able to follow the action well enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow, that was not useful.

timing tells are not a signficant part of my game, but i would guess that "not strong" timing means a relatively quick bet. anyone have opinions besides "i know a lot of things and you don't"?

[etizzle]

guys, the river action is simple.

No one in their right mind check-calls the turn with a hand that beats ours on this board. Theres just no chance. Maybe if they were much deeper, but at this depth the BB would have to feel great about getting it all in with 55 or 79. When he check-calls the turn, he simply cannot have a hand we beat, and is not likely to have hearts either.

his check on the end makes it clear he does not have hearts (plus he couldnt have reasonably called with a flush draw on the turn anyways). So if he a) doesnt have hearts and b) we are winning on the turn, then the river play is simple. We dont even have a pot sized bet left so it looks like the best play is to shove it in.

I would expect him to fold, but maybe he will make a big call like he in fact did.

[grandgnu]

[ QUOTE ]
No offense bro, but if you really think the '2 of 3 2+2 experts agree' line is a good way of thinking about things, you are in serious trouble.

leaving out the pure statistical nonesense of the line, who F#^$&ing cares if ZJ and Shaniac agree with you. I think they will both admit they have been wrong before.

If you want to me taken seriously, you have to make arguements that stand up on their own merits.

[/ QUOTE ]

My arguement does stand on its own merit. Put very simply:

1. Villian played his hand terribly
2. Villians play makes it difficult to adequately narrow his range down. His min-checkraise on the flop and check-call on the turn could all mean he's drawing to a straight or a flush, has a pair + draw, or has the dreaded 6/8 for the made straight (and possibly the flush redraw) and is hoping we'll hang ourselves.
3. If Villian played his 10/10 this poorly, it is not impossible to see him playing the made straight or the flush on the river just as poorly.
4. Betting the river like Hero did in this spot, in most instances, is going to result in a muck from hands that we beat, and a call from hands that beat us.

Plenty of bad players exist who will make plays that don't match up with the information you think they are giving you. I have seen a guy stick around with 2/2 on a 10/J/Q board and hit his set on the river to bust another guys 2 pair. I have seen 3/3 call a pre-flop raise, completely miss the overcard flop to a guys pair of Queens and stick around to make his set later in the hand. I have seen a lady heads-up call a pre-flop raise with 10/5 offsuit, flop comes down K/9/6 and call her opponents all-in bet (which was not insignificant) because she thought she had a straight draw.

I understand that Villians play suggests he is either testing the waters on the flop or has a monster. But his turn call remains confusing. Villian should have raised more pre-flop or on the flop, but he didn't (i.e. he didn't play like we would expect someone to play that hand)

His call on the turn was terrible, again making it difficult to put him on 10/10 if you give Villian credit for being able to play the game (which would have been seriously misplaced)

And his river check-call was also terrible. If Villian can play this hand this poorly, he could have easily had the 6 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 8 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] or any two hearts, etc. and then when Hero lost on the river everyone would be chiming in (oh yeah, he was trapping you, how could you NOT see that by his play, it was SO obvious).

Either way, I now know how to play my made hands against Hero in the future, for maximum "trappage" [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

I still stand by my belief that a river check is the best play in the long term. I understand what others are saying, but I don't believe you get paid off often enough (but you do bust the other times) to make trying to squeeze another 600+ chips out of Villian a +EV play in the long run.

[grandgnu]

[ QUOTE ]
guys, the river action is simple.

No one in their right mind check-calls the turn with a hand that beats ours on this board. Theres just no chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's that line of thinking that allows players like Josh Arieh to call pre-flop raises with 3 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 6 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] and bust players when he hits his flush.

Once you start assuming that someone just in no way could play a hand in "x" fashion, you are hurting your own game. You say that no player in their right mind would play it that way? Do you realize how terrible some of the players are out there?

They don't think like you and I, they don't worry about pot odds, they don't realize they shouldn't try to check-raise three streets in a row, etc. Many bad players would hit their flush on the river and check, hoping to check-raise.

[THEOSU]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i guess i wasn't clear. i was curious about this part:

[ QUOTE ]

The villains timing was not strong, I remember, on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Online timing tells do exist, are sometimes extremely useful, and every time I see a post say "pay no attention, it might as well be Internet lag" I laugh to myself.

That's all I'm gonna say about it, but most people who 4 table or less already know that and most people who 6+ table are not going to be able to follow the action well enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow, that was not useful.

timing tells are not a signficant part of my game, but i would guess that "not strong" timing means a relatively quick bet. anyone have opinions besides "i know a lot of things and you don't"?

[/ QUOTE ]

The sudden unexpected delayed check is usually my most reliable online tell. A player's been very quick to act throughout the tournament, checks quickly on the flop, quickly calls a bet onthe flop, then waits about 10 seconds and checks the turn... that's almost always an indication he hit that card. Maybe the "not strong" timing indicated that villain quickly checked both the turn and the river?

[Ryendal]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's round the numbers and make the river shove pot sized. We then have to be ahead 91% for it to be +cev.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everybody seems to be agree with theses numbers, WOW, that's great.

Does somebody could explain theses please ? I simply don't understand them.

Thank you

[madmisha]

10% of the time you are head your opponent calls, 100% of the time you are behind, your opponent calls the fulcrum for a profitable call is 91%. 91/10 = 9.1% calls when ahead vs. 9% calls when behind.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
100% of the time you are head your opponent calls, 10% of the time you are behind, your opponent calls

[/ QUOTE ]

I can pull numbers out of my butt, too, and these have just about as much validity as the 10% when ahead figure.

[durrrr]

river isnt THATT hard of a push. Jason played the hand well, wasnt an easy hand (turn being by far the hardest part IMO); however I think the river isnt too close at all.