Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Tournament Poker > STT Strategy
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 04-17-2006, 03:45 PM
gisb0rne gisb0rne is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 1,372
Default Re: $114 hand vs. Ryanghall

I fold and it's not even close. I put him on AA or maybe KK. The raise is so big relative to the blinds that if people call behind him they are making a very big mistake. Thus by flat calling he gains the possiblity of reraises behind him, without the risk of allowing people in too cheaply.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-17-2006, 03:47 PM
suzzer99 suzzer99 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: guuhhhn inner nets
Posts: 13,634
Default Re: $114 hand vs. Ryanghall

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm confused. Doesn't ryan reraise any monster here? Except maybe AA, but a lot of people don't even do that. I say you can call and bet a safe flop, or push. I guess I lean towards #1, just in case someone behind me wakes up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would ryan re-raise QQ-AA here? That's terrible poker playing. Actually, he shouldn't re-raise any hand that he calls with here. I think that ryan is calling this with TT+/AKo+ considering there are 6 other people behind him, I would think he folds 99 and lower/AQ-.

Folding jacks here would probably be the correct play.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? You really want 2+ more callers to your QQ? I don't even like to see that with AA. I feel like I won the lottery if my AA holds up 3-way. UTG+1's range is something like 15-20% here I would think. Did he just lose his chips on the previous hand? If so then he could be a lot wider than that. This widens ryans range a TON, and widens the range of those acting behind him. To me, his call here means he has a good hand, that he wants to see if he can get UTG's chips, but is a little scared of someone waking up behind him. Flat-calling with QQ would be horrible IMO.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-17-2006, 03:47 PM
Sykes Sykes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chasing donks
Posts: 4,336
Default Re: $114 hand vs. Ryanghall

[ QUOTE ]
Why wouldn't he reraise KK, QQ and probably AA?

[/ QUOTE ]

For the same reason he wouldn't re-raise 99/TT/JJ/AQ/AK.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-17-2006, 03:49 PM
Sykes Sykes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chasing donks
Posts: 4,336
Default Re: $114 hand vs. Ryanghall

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm confused. Doesn't ryan reraise any monster here? Except maybe AA, but a lot of people don't even do that. I say you can call and bet a safe flop, or push. I guess I lean towards #1, just in case someone behind me wakes up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would ryan re-raise QQ-AA here? That's terrible poker playing. Actually, he shouldn't re-raise any hand that he calls with here. I think that ryan is calling this with TT+/AKo+ considering there are 6 other people behind him, I would think he folds 99 and lower/AQ-.

Folding jacks here would probably be the correct play.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? You really want 2 more callers to your QQ? UTG+1's range is something like 15-20% here I would think. Did he just lose his chips on the previous hand? If so then he could be a lot wider than that. This widens ryans range a TON, and widens the range of those acting behind him. To me, his call here means he has a good hand, that he wants to see if he can get UTG's chips, but is a little scared of someone waking up behind him. Flat-calling with QQ would be horrible IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]


You're terrible. I'm not even going to discuss why you're wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-17-2006, 03:52 PM
suzzer99 suzzer99 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: guuhhhn inner nets
Posts: 13,634
Default Re: $114 hand vs. Ryanghall

[ QUOTE ]
You're terrible. I'm not even going to discuss why you're wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ha ha, that's keeping with the spirit of STTF. You'll do well here.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-17-2006, 03:54 PM
Melchiades Melchiades is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Norway (London currently)
Posts: 5,040
Default Re: $114 hand vs. Ryanghall

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not even going to discuss why you're wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then don't bother posting. People post here to learn. If you're not interested in educating people, stick to posting questions and reading the forum.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-17-2006, 03:55 PM
Sykes Sykes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chasing donks
Posts: 4,336
Default Re: $114 hand vs. Ryanghall

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not even going to discuss why you're wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then don't bother posting. People post here to learn. If you're not interested in educating people, stick to posting questions and reading the forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

It should be [censored] obvious to an expert sng player like suzzer.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-17-2006, 03:56 PM
Marwan Marwan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,824
Default Re: $114 hand vs. Ryanghall

against random donk i'd see a flop, I think we're behind Ryan's range here a lot of the time.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-17-2006, 03:56 PM
pooh74 pooh74 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 3,804
Default Re: $114 hand vs. Ryanghall

[ QUOTE ]

Ryanghall is utg+1

[/ QUOTE ]

Ryanghall's stars SN is "UTG+1". Consider that one "noted"!!!!

Gotcha ryan!!! hahahahha
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-17-2006, 03:56 PM
Pudge714 Pudge714 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Black Kelly Holcomb
Posts: 13,713
Default Re: $114 hand vs. Ryanghall

Assuming Ryanghall knows who you are. I think he can only call a shove with KK+.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.