|
|
#51
08-30-2007, 10:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: I thought this was supposed to be a good flop...
[ QUOTE ]
What about this hand: You have QQ in BB in a sixhanded game. UTG calls 1 folds CO raises Button calls SB calls BB (HERO) ?? [/ QUOTE ] Fold. Someone is going to flop a set and it's not you. 
|
|
#52
08-30-2007, 10:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I thought this was supposed to be a good flop...
those scenarios (QQ ; AA) are totally different
|
|
#53
08-30-2007, 12:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I thought this was supposed to be a good flop...
Except it's the exact same principle.
Sure AA will be easier to play postflop, and will have less bad flops, but it's still a super easy value 3-bet with QQ in that situation.
|
|
#54
08-30-2007, 01:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I thought this was supposed to be a good flop...
No its not when were argumenting about postflop playability. AA QQ are just so much easier to play postflop ooP then 99 and our opponents are certainly going to make mistakes even in a big Pot and therefore the value of building a pot and raising for immediate value is much higher. There scenarios have just absolutely nothing to do with our scenario. I dont how ppl come to the idea these scenarions are compareable and why they should be an argument.
|
|
#55
08-30-2007, 03:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I thought this was supposed to be a good flop...
Fair enough. Fwiw, I was only referencing the AA scenario for the sake of the QQ question. I realize 99 is a lot different.
I'd still say it's an easy raise, though.
|
|
#56
08-31-2007, 01:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I thought this was supposed to be a good flop...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] a little fact from game theory - in multi street two-person games with multiple raises possible the value of position is negligible. not that it's relevant to the current scenario... [/ QUOTE ] Cool. Do you have a proof? Or a reference to a proof? Or just an informal argument? Is it in Mathematics of Poker somewhere I overlooked? [/ QUOTE ] Wow, I really hope I didn't write that. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#57
08-31-2007, 03:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I thought this was supposed to be a good flop...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] a little fact from game theory - in multi street two-person games with multiple raises possible the value of position is negligible. not that it's relevant to the current scenario... [/ QUOTE ] Cool. Do you have a proof? Or a reference to a proof? Or just an informal argument? Is it in Mathematics of Poker somewhere I overlooked? [/ QUOTE ] Wow, I really hope I didn't write that. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] LOL =) With QQ we meet a solution that is absurd but according to game theory you should just call here. AA should always be raise of course.
|
|
#58
08-31-2007, 07:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I thought this was supposed to be a good flop...
[ QUOTE ]
So please explain to me why the problem we run into in the OP has anything to do with our position? If hero were OTB an raised the action had gone, c - c - c - Hero bets - UTG calls - MP raises - CO 3-bets - Hero hates him self just as much as if he were OOP. The problem in OP has absolutely nothing to do with hero beiing OOP. [/ QUOTE ] I agree that the original post is loosely connected to what Iīm saying. But you cannot be serious when youīre saying there is no difference between being in position or OOP in the OP. Comparing two players checkraising the field with two reraisers that uses position to their advantage is two different worlds IMO. The problem with being OOP is that you donīt have a clue whether they are using position as a weapon or if they actually have a hand.There is a huge risk you end up calling down a second best hand just because the pot is big. I think this is sort of a nolimit situation when it is good to use pot control and to see the flop texture before doing anything. Personally I think that we can lose those 0.6 sb or more in this hand. And just because we have calculated the EV to 0.6 Sb preflop doesnīt mean that it is the difference between limping and raising preflop. You could miss out taking bets from people taking stabs at the pot on the flop. You could get the opportunity to checkraise people with inferior made hands on certain flops. Things you most probably canīt do if you preflop raise. So actually the 0.6 sb cost for limping is worst case scenario.
|
|
#59
08-31-2007, 07:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I thought this was supposed to be a good flop...
[ QUOTE ]
But you cannot be serious when youīre saying there is no difference between being in position or OOP in the OP. [/ QUOTE ] I AM NOT! Of course beeing OOP sucks. BUT WHY DOES IT SUCK MORE IN A 8 SB POT THAN IN A 5 SB POT? You still havent presented convincing evidence that the negative effects of being OOP is magnified by raising.
|
|
#60
08-31-2007, 07:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I thought this was supposed to be a good flop...
Donīt you think we have some kind of sample issue even if I have it?
And even if I would have enough sample sizes it was a question about this particular lineup. And for what I know there is not possible to filter out hands where players also have certain characteristics. Maybe Iīm too sensitive.But if you think Iīm being wrong couldnīt you say so without suggesting stupid things.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
