6000th Post. Let's Try This Hand Reading Thing Again

[bluefeet]

repeatedly leading 3way on this board, in this pot, is 'fishy' at best. *wanting* to continue OOP w/TPsK in a monster pot is suicidal.

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]

repeatedly leading 3way on this board, in this pot, is 'fishy' at best. *wanting* to continue OOP w/TPsK in a monster pot is suicidal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't suggested repeatedly leading anything. But if I bet top pair on a twoflush board, and two call, count on me firing again on the turn.

[Eagles]

Drzen,
This is Pudge's 6000th post and it was supposed to serve as a valuable learning tool to the forum. While you call me a "loyal follower" I am actually his brother and on numerous occasions have argued with him over how to play hands. I don't want to turn this into a giant argument between us two because this is not what I want to turn the thread into. However I suggest you reconsider your thought process about this hand and your hand reading process in general and try to improve your hand reading skill. I am obviously not perfect in reading hands however I feel like in this instance myself and many other posters who are excellent players would side with pudge rather than you here.

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]
Drzen,
This is Pudge's 6000th post and it was supposed to serve as a valuable learning tool to the forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

What am I learning? To assume that someone has a flush because they raise the river? The post is supposed to be about handreading, but rather than take a range and narrow it down, we have simply binned the range because the flush came in.

[ QUOTE ]
While you call me a "loyal follower" I am actually his brother and on numerous occasions have argued with him over how to play hands. I don't want to turn this into a giant argument between us two because this is not what I want to turn the thread into. However I suggest you reconsider your thought process about this hand and your hand reading process in general and try to improve your hand reading skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF? I suggest you explain to me how it is "handreading" in any way, shape or form to assume someone has a flush because they called the flop, checked the turn and raised a threeflush river? They *could* have a flush. They *could* have KT. They *could* have Ax. You cannot take those hands out of their range altogether.

What you can do is decide what's likely. What might they have called with? What might they have checked the turn with? What might they now be raising the river with? But saying that only a flush fits is not "good handreading". It's "discounting hands that don't fit your thesis".

Maybe that's the right thing to do. Convince me. Don't keep telling me I need better skills. Explain to me how it works. How exactly do I discount the other hands in question?

[ QUOTE ]
I am obviously not perfect in reading hands however I feel like in this instance myself and many other posters who are excellent players would side with pudge rather than you here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not care who sides with pudge. If they do not come with reasoning, it means nada to me. I've seen too many posters with many, many posts who post things that are just wrong to think that you can't question them.

[microbet]

[ QUOTE ]
I am actually his brother

[/ QUOTE ]

We need the breakdown on this whole Pudge, Inyaface, Eagleskickass, BigT, Toronto (?) crew.

[microbet]

Nice post.

At 30 bbs I'm not sure K5s is a good completing from the SB with one limper. You don't really have implied odds for hitting more than top pair and you see how exiting top pair is here. Remember, no one has shown any strength and there's no reason to think you are likely to stack someone just because you hit the hand hard.

You say something about getting value from the limper. I don't think limpers are generally inclined to bluff at the pot. Generally, they are passive and have the need to call more than the need to bluff. If he doesn't have you beat, I think you are going to be better off betting into him than trying to let him bet.

That said, I think checking is good because you hand isn't. Leading and then shutting down might be better though, as (especially in a STT) it's just fine to take down the pot when you are ahead.

On the river you say something about a bet folding better hands. I don't think that's likely. Also, you mention controlling the pot. You aren't making the pot smaller by betting. If villain has a better hand than you he will most likely raise. It isn't a block. If you bet the river, I think it's for value.

As far as hand reading goes, I think you did a good job, but I would be careful not to think I could really read a random limper in a $27. There are just too many times where you will end up shaking your head thinking "how can he have that?"

The minraise on the river is interesting. It's something that I'd love to figure out, but it seems to be pretty well divided between "please call me" and "I think you are FOS."

[Pudge714]

I will expand on this later as I'm about to head out for the night, and for that matter I'm taking a train for the bulk of the day tomorrow and I can't respond then. FWIW there is a chance I make some drunk posting later night. Also FWIW I have a bit of buzz now so sorry if I offend anyone, namely Drzen.

Drzen you are wrong and you didn't seem to read my post.
I think most vilians are playing two pair or a set stronger at some point in the hand.
Therefore I eliminate those hands in my river range, yes they are there occasionally, but a very small percent of the time.

I don't think one pair hands are minraising the river, and I don't think air is minraising the river therefore I think villians most likely hand is a flush. As I said in my OP the river decision is really close and either is fine.

Microbet,

I have an regarding preflop it is close, however I probably complete too much and this isn't really the crux of the hand. Also I have a theory about completing which I might expand on later the jist is that starting a SNG with 1500 chips and 1480 your ROI will be the same.

I get I'm not the average donkey, but if I limp I'm leading this flop checked to almost every time.

I don't think I said anything about the river bet folding better hands. I said it allows us to fold to better hands for cheaper.
As for i whether it is a block or a value bet, can't it be both?

Ya I agree with you about the fact that a random limper can have any two, but in this example I'm assuming he is not an incredibly big donkey, just a regular donkey.

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice post.

At 30 bbs I'm not sure K5s is a good completing from the SB with one limper. You don't really have implied odds for hitting more than top pair and you see how exiting top pair is here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand why I'm hating top pair so much. I am mostly going to be ahead. I cannot be playing this hand just for the chance of hitting a flush draw, surely?

[ QUOTE ]
Remember, no one has shown any strength and there's no reason to think you are likely to stack someone just because you hit the hand hard.

[/ QUOTE ]


This seems to be the underlying assumption of the eagles' guy's posts: that a flush is guaranteed to rake in big money whenever you hit with it. But even in this hand, the guy is not stacking us with a made flush, if he has it.

[ QUOTE ]
You say something about getting value from the limper. I don't think limpers are generally inclined to bluff at the pot. Generally, they are passive and have the need to call more than the need to bluff. If he doesn't have you beat, I think you are going to be better off betting into him than trying to let him bet.

That said, I think checking is good because you hand isn't. Leading and then shutting down might be better though, as (especially in a STT) it's just fine to take down the pot when you are ahead.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see the problem with betting here, and betting again on a safe turn. I'm losing money to a bigger king but most of my opponents a/ raise bigger kings PF and b/ raise them on the flop.

I can see that I don't have much hand to be playing a big pot but I'm not keen on letting it check through, so I bet a smallish bet on the turn. Am I beat often enough that this is a bad play? (And can other posters please note that I'm discussing a different turn, not an ace.)

[ QUOTE ]
On the river you say something about a bet folding better hands. I don't think that's likely.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he said it would get value from worse hands and he could fold to better hands.

I think this is close either way. Does Ax call but not bet here?

[ QUOTE ]
Also, you mention controlling the pot. You aren't making the pot smaller by betting. If villain has a better hand than you he will most likely raise. It isn't a block. If you bet the river, I think it's for value.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he meant that he isn't stuck facing a bigger bet than he wants to call from a hand he might be beating, so losing value. You are saying the same thing from a different angle.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as hand reading goes, I think you did a good job but I would be careful not to think I could really read a random limper in a $27. There are just too many times where you will end up shaking your head thinking "how can he have that?"

The minraise on the river is interesting. It's something that I'd love to figure out, but it seems to be pretty well divided between "please call me" and "I think you are FOS."

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where I felt the "hand reading" was lacking. There's no discussion here of what hands do that, and whether we can actually beat any of them. I think we can maybe look to villain like someone who had TP on the flop, was scared by the ace, and took it checking through to mean that no one had an ace and is now pretending to have a bigger hand than we do or is simply betting in the hope that TP is still good. (Other players do not always assume you play well! I think hand reading should not be done without taking into account the other players' styles and your own image.) I think this is the "you're FOS" side of your equation. The other side is obviously that he has the made flush or perhaps aces up.

[futuredoc85]

[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes this is Ax that has put you solidly on TP and wants you to take a stab at the river, feeling you will fold on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]
almost never, how do you put someone who checks the flop and turn solidly on TP? this statement is borderline moronic.

[ QUOTE ]
It's no good talking about ranges if you then discount the range without reason.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ax will almost never minraise this river when every possible draw has hit, thus we discount it greatly even if we dont completely eliminate it.

[ QUOTE ]
A flush draw needs to fold the flop, by the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

no, not really. Implied odds make this call ok as Eagles said







[ QUOTE ]
He has written a post about hand ranges in which he narrows a hand range without any reason. I think it's reasonable to talk about that.

[/ QUOTE ]

it would be if he didnt have a reason but he did
[ QUOTE ]

Yes. With reason. You cannot discount any part of the range for no good reason.

[/ QUOTE ]
see above

[ QUOTE ]
if you put someone on a pfr range of TT+ AQ+ and they keep firing at an ace high board are you going to say well they could have TT JJ QQ KK my A2 is way ahead of his range.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
But in the one at hand, villain's bet fits quite a few different hands, not just a made flush, some of which you beat easily. Do you see the difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

i am beginning to think you are an idiot, you are beating very very little of the villains range.

[ QUOTE ]
3.Nobody ever folds a flush draw on this flop, nor should they

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm done with you, son. I *want* you to call me with a flush draw on this flop. I *want* you to keep calling me, hoping to get lucky. Call me again on the turn because, hey, you still have great implied odds on the river. I *rely* on fish calling because they have flush draws. That's how the chips come my way.

[/ QUOTE ]

now its confirmed, you're an idiot. the fact that you "Want people you with a flush draw," and yet still advocate calling the river minraise when the flushdraw and the straight draw both hit means you need serious work at things way less complicated than handreading.

[ QUOTE ]
call again on the turn blah blah blah blah

[/ QUOTE ]

you advocate leading flop and turn here with TPNK, 2ndPNK respectively, in a 3-way pot? Micro stakes NL is like 3 forums up i suggest you spend some time there before you even think about hand reading. And FWIW, you can't write my post off as a loyal supporter of pudge. IIRC, our only direct interaction on 2p2 was him calling me an idiot.

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes this is Ax that has put you solidly on TP and wants you to take a stab at the river, feeling you will fold on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]
almost never, how do you put someone who checks the flop and turn solidly on TP? this statement is borderline moronic.


[/ QUOTE ]

You know. I just do not have the time to discuss this with someone who gets it so [censored] wrong. *He* puts *us* on TP because *we* bet the flop. No one checked. I have never, not even once suggested that we should bet the turn here or anything like it. I have never, not even once advocated calling the river raise. I said that you could not discount a set of hands, not that it was wrong to fold. You have gone firing off because you think that I am saying that because there are hands you cannot discount, you should call the raise. I haven't said anything like that, only that it is wrong to discount the hands in question without reason. You are right that there's a moron here though. Pat yourself on the back for getting that much spot on.