50NL KJs TPGK line? - Page 2

jimpo · #11 10-08-2007, 04:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So what do you beat that he's raising flop with, that's not a draw?

[/ QUOTE ]

White below:

<font color="white">No idea, he did fold though :P Maybe QJ, 88-TT?

I am on a dowswing and it feels like every villain is playing totally randomly against me. I find it very difficult at the moment to "trust" opponents to play logically, and for that reason I end up making stupid calldowns etc.

Also, I guess I did not have as many hands against the villain at that time, so his stats might have looked more donkish.
</font>

DaycareInferno · #12 10-08-2007, 04:26 PM

you're not committed to anything when you know you're beat. if a guy raises you twice consecutively when you have tp3k, you're beat. its an important concept, but if a hand unfolds in such a way that you have a really good idea of what your opponent has, you can bend the rules quite a lot when it comes to committment.

wingchunflush · #13 10-08-2007, 04:29 PM

I dont like this at all on the turn, I prefer to lead. The check raise is so suspect. What are you raising with UTG that makes villian fold. I still think that in most cases any hand that will raise you on the flop is going to call you here.

CmnDwnWrkn · #14 10-08-2007, 04:37 PM

I would recommend folding to the flop raise. TP2K is not a hand that is worth building a pot with OOP. The turn and the river are just going to be so difficult to play, it isn't worth it.

jimpo · #15 10-08-2007, 04:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
you're not committed to anything when you know you're beat. if a guy raises you twice consecutively when you have tp3k, you're beat. its an important concept, but if a hand unfolds in such a way that you have a really good idea of what your opponent has, you can bend the rules quite a lot when it comes to committment.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is effectively the same as saying "do as you feel like, when the book agrees with you, use it as a rationale, when it doesn't, just say it does not apply to this case". Which is the same as that the book is worthless.

I mean the concepts are either correct or they are not.

I know I've personally had a hard time digesting the teachings of PNL1 and I am not sure if I fully agree with it or not.

DaycareInferno · #16 10-08-2007, 05:02 PM

if a guy shows you his cards, and they're better than yours, are you going to call him on the river because you're committed? those stack to pot ratios are just a guideline to use. as there is less money behind, the odds you're being laid on bets get closer and closer to actual odds, since you can't keep losing more and more money. most bets offer favorable odds, so once you approach a certain point in a hand, you have to have a pretty good idea that you're behind to lay it down for those favorable odds. sometimes you will have a pretty good idea, so you can go ahead and lay it down anyway.

Matt Flynn · #17 10-08-2007, 05:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]

This is effectively the same as saying "do as you feel like, when the book agrees with you, use it as a rationale, when it doesn't, just say it does not apply to this case". Which is the same as that the book is worthless.

[/ QUOTE ]

jimpo,

is your issue that you don't like that commitment decisions can change? or that we say you should adapt to new information? or that deciding whether you're committed (and under what circumstances) isn't helpful? honest question, i'd like to address this if i can.

matt

jimpo · #18 10-09-2007, 03:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This is effectively the same as saying "do as you feel like, when the book agrees with you, use it as a rationale, when it doesn't, just say it does not apply to this case". Which is the same as that the book is worthless.

[/ QUOTE ]

jimpo,

is your issue that you don't like that commitment decisions can change? or that we say you should adapt to new information? or that deciding whether you're committed (and under what circumstances) isn't helpful? honest question, i'd like to address this if i can.

matt

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't necessarily have a problem with the book right here (although I have indeed had hard time wrapping my brain around the book's concepts). I think my problem is more with people telling "the book is great, but you don't have to do as it teaches, just bend the rules". I either want to follow the concepts or not, otherwise it's just one more confusing aspect to think about with no real help.

Here I see flop as a "commitment threshold" decision based on the pot-stack ratios, isn't that correct? Either I am too behind his range and fold, or I think QJ, 88-TT, 89, occasional bluff are big enough part of his range to commit profitably.

I don't think turn gives me any critical information to change my commitment plan. My flop play is quite weak, and people do play turn like that with QJ, 88-TT, 89, bluff. They don't always take a free card, I know I don't. Which was also proven by his fold.

Thanks for taking the time to answer this, I was surprised to see you notice my mention of the book [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Zagga · #19 10-09-2007, 04:03 AM

[x] OP hates money

fold preflop
fold flop
fold turn (I don't think he will bet there after you called his raise OOP on the flop, if he has a draw or a weaker J. If he has a draw (9T, 56) he will check the turn to take a free card. This guy surely has you beat on the turn!)

achtzhen · #20 10-09-2007, 06:02 AM

I just wanted to say OP does not hate money if he r pf.

You must be able to play in these kind of pos. if you are going to be doing that though.

Your cbet might have looked weak to a big stack inviting a r.

Im not a big fan of the raise on the turn though I like c/c better against this villain and yes on the river also.