i always want to fold but i feel like i'm supposed to call

[Requin]

Please stop before jfish hurts himself

[Jay Riall]

Without more of a read I think checking flop is fine. Checking behind here is never really going to be a huge mistake but betting and getting all-in here will definitely be very bad vs a very significant % of people.

Also, jfish you suck. plz get out of this thread [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[jlocdog]

jfish,

I think you are a valuable contributor to this forum. Calm down bro. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

edit- I'm just waiting for you to respond, 'I'm perfectly calm dude'....'calmer then you are'........'calmer then you are'

[Josh.]

[ QUOTE ]
sure, but what are the arguements that that matters?

i'm confused, are people that saying it does matter also saying it correlates to his postflop play? that high vpip and pfr is more likely to mean donk? and if they are saying that, are they saying he can bluff more? raise with a Q more?

[/ QUOTE ]


re-read triumph's question. even though maybe 10% or 20 or whatever % of 35 hand samples you run at 50/30, most of the time your stats will look taggish. the point is that CHANCES ARE he's a lag, even if there's a chance he isnt one

and yes to your second paragraph. at least that's how i felt at the table. mainly that he could overplay AQ, which is all that i need. i tanked on the flop but decided that there's a good chance he's a lag and that a lag can overplay T9/AT/AK or AQ-, so i went with it. he flopped middle set

fwiw (not much) i now have 133 hands on him at 38/14

i also think i have to bet here. i don't get check-raised THAT often (and if it's that easy of a fold as it seems to be to most of you, then that's more of a reason to bet), and a random 50/30 over 35 hands is often going to call 3 times with AQ or KQ or AJ or whatever he feels like stacking off with. maybe i'm reading too much into his stats, but there are a lot of people that aren't reading enough into them. they do mean SOMETHING. sean made an excellent analogy to a player who 3-bets you the first hand you play together. there are important inferences you can make from even the smallest of samples. the one i made here (stats combined with the fact that my extensive datamine didn't include him) is that this guy, with probably 80 or 90% certainty, is not a tag

results are in there for anyone who felt like reading

[Tooty816]

For those who advocate a check on the flop, would you then just call the villain down on a safe turn and river? That line just seems so weak to me. You might be missing out value for when the villain has something like QT and is just going to check/call you down.

If you're losing, you're going to lose money, and you're obviously going to lose more if you bet the flop than if you check behind the flop.

However, if you're winning and you check, you also win less than than if you bet the flop.

I think the deciding factor here is the villains stats indicating that there's a good chance that he's lag and therefore holding hands like AQ KQ that makes this hand a bet on the flop.

Most villains holding QQ JJ will cr flop or cr turn. But because of his stats, there's now a good chance that he's also doing this with hands like AQ KQ that makes betting the flop profitable.

I just hate to play like the villain has the nuts especially when he's showing these kinds of stats.

However, the villain is still acting strong on the blank turn. I will need reads to stay in the hand.

[blankoblanco]

[ QUOTE ]
For those who advocate a check on the flop, would you then just call the villain down on a safe turn and river? That line just seems so weak to me. You might be missing out value for when the villain has something like QT and is just going to check/call you down.


[/ QUOTE ]

i guess it's a good thing he has QT approx 0% of the time

[Big_Jim]

As far as ignoring the stats goes, I mostly meant with how it relates to his post flop tendencies. You do bring up some valid points though, and I may reconsider.

I typically assume that people are pussies, so when I get c/red on a bad board that is hardly a bluff inducing board, with hardly any draws, and a board that people will typically c/c on with one pair, I wouldn't even sweat a fold here.

As far as the drama in this thread goes... I'm seriously considering starting more active modding of personal attacks.

Okay: Shoving the flop is retarded.
Not Okay: You are a retard.

In general, everybody [censored] relax.

[Janis N.]

I personally like the line as played. 35 hands isn't much but it's more than nothing. I'd like checking flop behind against a TAG reg.

I wish people would spend less time calling others idiots and more time explaining why they think the others are idiots.

[Tooty816]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For those who advocate a check on the flop, would you then just call the villain down on a safe turn and river? That line just seems so weak to me. You might be missing out value for when the villain has something like QT and is just going to check/call you down.


[/ QUOTE ]

i guess it's a good thing he has QT approx 0% of the time

[/ QUOTE ]

You only know that now that you got check/raised on the flop. I don't know about you guys, but I wouldn't be able to exclude QT from a guy who's playing 50/30 pre.