Nonstandard with TPTK?

[jfk]

I'd generally be more respectful of the BB's range than the LMP given the player descriptions.

The LMP could easily be putting in that third flop bet with the A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]. Even passive players understand the equity equation involved here, if only by instinct and experience. Given the pot size I'd have liked to see the turn and see what action developed.

[Howard Beale]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd generally be more respectful of the BB's range than the LMP given the player descriptions.

The LMP could easily be putting in that third flop bet with the A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]. Even passive players understand the equity equation involved here, if only by instinct and experience. Given the pot size I'd have liked to see the turn and see what action developed.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is reasonable but the problem we all have in evaluating live hand situations is that try as we might we can't include the visuals. Player catagorizing is the best we can normally do but Nate is the one who was there and he got something from LMP that convinced him he should be finished w/ this hand.

[jfk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd generally be more respectful of the BB's range than the LMP given the player descriptions.

The LMP could easily be putting in that third flop bet with the A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]. Even passive players understand the equity equation involved here, if only by instinct and experience. Given the pot size I'd have liked to see the turn and see what action developed.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is reasonable but the problem we all have in evaluating live hand situations is that try as we might we can't include the visuals. Player catagorizing is the best we can normally do but Nate is the one who was there and he got something from LMP that convinced him he should be finished w/ this hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree and have no quarrel with the way he played it. The main consideration is in looking at the pot size, expected to be 9BB here, into which Nate needs to put one more SB. Against a passive type perhaps LMP may reveal more about the strength of his hand on the turn.

I don't like Nate's equity here or the playability of the hand but I like the price offered to see a turn card.

[Nate.]

jfk --

I was drawing to runners >95% of the time. That's it. This was the kind of guy who gave away lots of physical information.

--Nate

[jfk]

[ QUOTE ]
jfk --

I was drawing to runners >95% of the time. That's it. This was the kind of guy who gave away lots of physical information.

--Nate

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough, though this then brings up the questions as to the mechanics of your read. If LMP is that rich in tells, might it have been possible to get away from your hand without investing any flop bets? Might you have been able to invest a single flop bet and look for the read on the turn?

Based on your read, the flop fold is fine despite the two bets invested, but were those bets necessary?

Also, just for the sake of being thorough, what hand(s) specifically did you feel you were behind? Is LMP more likely to play a set this fast here or nut flush? Is he not the sort of raise the turn with a nut/near nut holding against two players showing aggression?

[Nate.]

jfk --

Sure, one advantage to calling the flop is that I get LMP's physical read on the turn before I invest much, but combinatorially he's just so likely to have complete garbage -- one reason I want to exploit the edge now.

--Nate

[Sailboats]

Who was the 2+2er? I have been playing the 20/40 all week lately...

[AlexSem]

Nate,

What do you think about BB being ahead of you on that flop? I mean, the range of hands he 3-bets outta BB is what, JJ-AA and AK and AQ?

I would be inclined to simply call it down, dumping in case a club comes. You are either ahead and vulnerable, or behind and drawing dead.

Assuming he has AK one club, he auto-3bets you, assumign he has JJ with a club, he most likely 3-bets you. Assuming he has AQ no club, he 3-bets you.

I just don't see what you're beating other than JJ no club or AK no club that makes this raise anything but a spew, considering your reverse implied odds you're in deep trouble.


My point is - your raise is not for value, and you're only going to chase out AK no club or JJ no club, all other hands 3-bet you and then what...

[Nate.]

Sailboats --

BB is a lurker.

AlexSem --

BB was tightish, but not so nitty that AQ doesn't have an edge here. I think this BB autobets that flop, and I beat enough pocket pairs / AK that, with the overlay from LMP's wide garbage-filled distribution, I have an immediate edge.

--Nate

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
Sailboats --

BB is a lurker.

AlexSem --

BB was tightish, but not so nitty that AQ doesn't have an edge here. I think this BB autobets that flop, and I beat enough pocket pairs / AK that, with the overlay from LMP's wide garbage-filled distribution, I have an immediate edge.

--Nate

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're probably underestimating how much having three clubs and two broadway cards on board here hurts your equity 3-ways. I wouldn't raise this flop.

Rob