grade the level of poker thinking in this explanation

[Heisenb3rg]

Im going to be a dick and say the people who are just saying c/r the flop because we have an equity edge , end of thought... have a more narrow thought process than seminoles. Even if it does lead to the probabile correct acton.

A good thought process should be weighing the value of retaking the initiatve vs pumping a SMALL flop equity edge.

EG if he had an overpair to the board, he can raise you on any safe turn where he now has an equity edge... If you check the turn, your hand is face up and he can now fold to any of your outs...

My point is not therefore you should check/call (because there are much more factors to weigh) but merely how retaking the iniative has lost you value on future streets, to pump your equity on the flop.

Retaking initiatve then checking a later street has value lost by revealing information about your hand. If you balance well then this shouldnt matter as much, but most people I play with dont take a lot of c/r, check lines on boards like this... Value gained on this hand, may be lost on another hand where you check to balance, but wish you could bet. If you dont check a later street, you are forced to bet, when maybe it is not best to..

Yes this is a lot to consider at the table, but can be done away from the table.. Stored in your head as situations where pumping a small equity edge on the flop is not worth the disadvantage of retaking the initiative..
They certaintly exist.

[ggbman]

Sigh, [censored] people.

Heinsen the comment about wanting to c/r the flop being narrow minded and wanting to pump a small equity edge is silly.

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

95,040 games 0.032 secs 2,970,000 games/sec

Board: 2h 3h 4s
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 62.794% 57.65% 05.14% 54793 4886.00 { AhKh }
Hand 1: 37.206% 32.07% 05.14% 30475 4886.00 { 22+, AJs+, AJo+ }


---



Note that i was a sport here and spotted you the BB NEVER capping AT, KQs, type hands, which he is obviously going to do a fair amount since he capped 44 here. C/r the flop is obviously better than chceck calling by a wide margin, and my first post in the thread also examines more than just the flop play if that is what concerns you.

Mike and others who are crucifying this guy... WHO THE [censored] CARES? I mean so he's wrong here, big deal. And players run really good or bad over huge samples of hands... not groundbreaking. I've run bad over a 250k stretch of hands last year, and i also ran amazing over the first 100k hands of poker i played, which ends up mattering a lot more since if i didnt i would not have had any more to play with. Some people run sick good or bad for tons of hands, some run sick good/bad when they play way above their normal limit. What makes any of this of enough importantance to any of you to invest enegery in? This is not shocking or new stuff, let it be, and play poker and make however much $$$ you make an hour instead of investing time disussing how people can run really good or bad in a strategy forum when we have beaten it to death, and establishing how well we think one guy has to have run to make what he has made over X hands is pointless.

[Heisenb3rg]

ggb you misinterpreted/misunderstood. My point is very valid because a lot of people DO think of it as simple as equity edge = raise.

Im not saying edge in this EXACT scenario.. Im saying IN GENERAL in similar scenarios.

Big pot, without intiative, equity edge on flop, no fold equity, equity < 50% on most turns, opponent strong range, possibly best hand UI etc.. Are properties of similar hands, where you would want to change your play depending on slight tweaks of these variables.

There should be some of sort of thought process distinguishing HOW MUCH equity is needed in order for you to want to change your line. This is implicit in your answer you may just not have realized it.

In this scenario its correct specifically bceause you have a significant equity edge on the flop, which outweighs the POSSIBLE disadvantage of retaking intiative against his range. There's also many other reasons where having initiative in this scenario on the turn/river isnt bad at all. But there are many exceptions in similar hands where this is not true.

Just equity edge HU on flop = raise IS narrow minded, because while it works in most cases (and this one), there are exceptions. Without analyzing the many other factors, the exception wont be realized. (This is mostly done subconciosuly, and from pattern recognition from years of experience by a good player)

IE Put a lot of KQ/KJ hands in his range and there's value in having him 3-Barrel you, where he will fold UI on turn to a c/r. This is ignored in the thought process.

BTW your equity calc is only one bet that goes in once youve check-raised, which is fairly insignificant... is +0.2SB enough to blindly neglect the play on future streets? I doubt it.

(Reminder: Im not referring to YOUR thought process, im referring to the narrow minded thinking of equity edge = raise, the end. If this IS how you thought about it, my guess is you subconcously considered a lot of other factors that you didnt mention.)

[Victor]

"Im not saying edge in this EXACT scenario.. Im saying IN GENERAL in similar scenarios. "

nice try heis.

the rest of you rambling posts (which i didnt read the first time and wish i hadnt ever) are fairly idiotic (and surprisingly insulting.) go ahead and extend my analysis on this hand to all other situations that arent close to the same. makes sense bc ya i just exactly said any and every time we have an equity edge we should raise.

[emerson]

[ QUOTE ]
, equity < 50% on most turns,

[/ QUOTE ]

You would do best to forget this on the flop. Look at your edge on the current street. Using the future street <50% ev argument, casinos would not take don't pass bets at craps. But they take as much as you would like to bet because they know they have the best of it on the come out roll, even though the come out is not usually 7 or 11 AND the player will have an edge after the come out roll. Think like the casino does on the flop when you have a big edge with a drawing hand. Get the money in now while you have the edge and then get by as cheaply as possible if your bets will have no fold equity.

[MitchL]

I agree that hero's response as far as the flop and river go are simplistic. Obv, you are not worried about trying to fold out a better hand when you have an equity edge on the flop and I think his river fold is pretty atrocious and extremely exploitable. I think he underestimates the range of any thinking bb in this situation.

I also agree with the OPs premise that if a player of this caliber is able to win and succeed at high stakes online games for many years, then maybe LHE is not worth playing for a living. I have been losing for 3 months in a game that most people with a pulse and any patience could beat and that leads me to believe the same. If its possible to run good for several years then certainly it is possible to run bad for that long. Though neither scenario is probable I think it is definitely frustrating to put so much effort into a game that is so luck-oriented.

[dangerfish]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that hero's response as far as the flop and river go are simplistic. Obv, you are not worried about trying to fold out a better hand when you have an equity edge on the flop and I think his river fold is pretty atrocious and extremely exploitable. I think he underestimates the range of any thinking bb in this situation.

I also agree with the OPs premise that if a player of this caliber is able to win and succeed at high stakes online games for many years, then maybe LHE is not worth playing for a living. I have been losing for 3 months in a game that most people with a pulse and any patience could beat and that leads me to believe the same. If its possible to run good for several years then certainly it is possible to run bad for that long. Though neither scenario is probable I think it is definitely frustrating to put so much effort into a game that is so luck-oriented.

[/ QUOTE ]

Variance yes. Luck no.

[ucnoles]

[ QUOTE ]
Though neither scenario is probable I think it is definitely frustrating to put so much effort into a game that is so luck-oriented.

[/ QUOTE ]
No one is making you play...and are you the first to discover that poker involves luck? It has been said many times, any given player can win on any given day, but good players find a way to win more than they lose. If you have been losing for the last 3 months in what you describe as an easy game, maybe you should find better things to do with your time.

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that hero's response as far as the flop and river go are simplistic. Obv, you are not worried about trying to fold out a better hand when you have an equity edge on the flop and I think his river fold is pretty atrocious and extremely exploitable. I think he underestimates the range of any thinking bb in this situation.

I also agree with the OPs premise that if a player of this caliber is able to win and succeed at high stakes online games for many years, then maybe LHE is not worth playing for a living. I have been losing for 3 months in a game that most people with a pulse and any patience could beat and that leads me to believe the same. If its possible to run good for several years then certainly it is possible to run bad for that long. Though neither scenario is probable I think it is definitely frustrating to put so much effort into a game that is so luck-oriented.

[/ QUOTE ]

imo a HUGE part of one's limit hold'em success has to do with how they play when things are going to hell, and to hell they often go. i have heard countless people described as "good players when things are going their way", but these same people totally lose their minds when they start blowing. it's easy to play well (or at least not horribly) when things are going your way.

(this is not at all intended to suggest you are not playing well during the last few months, mitch. but rather to suggest that I am sure go_seminoles was blessed with the ability to avoid really [censored] luck. we both know how a particular idiot completely murdered the CB 30 game for 2 straight months, and he was arguably one of the worst players ever. it happens in this dumb game.)

as far the reasoning go_seminoles gives for his play in this particular hand, it explains a lot.

[emerson]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree that hero's response as far as the flop and river go are simplistic. Obv, you are not worried about trying to fold out a better hand when you have an equity edge on the flop and I think his river fold is pretty atrocious and extremely exploitable. I think he underestimates the range of any thinking bb in this situation.

I also agree with the OPs premise that if a player of this caliber is able to win and succeed at high stakes online games for many years, then maybe LHE is not worth playing for a living. I have been losing for 3 months in a game that most people with a pulse and any patience could beat and that leads me to believe the same. If its possible to run good for several years then certainly it is possible to run bad for that long. Though neither scenario is probable I think it is definitely frustrating to put so much effort into a game that is so luck-oriented.

[/ QUOTE ]

Variance yes. Luck no.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it just depends on your definition of luck. I think positive variance is good luck and negative variance is bad luck. I think that's how most people think of it. Now, if you think that luck is a mystical power that brings you good or bad fortune, then you're right. It is not luck and neither is anything else.