|
|
#51
10-30-2007, 02:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: FTP $750K : M=60 : KK OOP facing turn shove rr on scary board
Without direct reads, the stats can help you in establishing indirect leads. Like, "Wow, this clown has an ROI of -88%" as you push the call button on the turn.
Betgo, I like your reasoning for a call on the turn, but I have a question: Is leading the turn the best line? Would Hero be better off check/calling the turn and river? It seems that this line allows us to still make chips off Villain betting TP or bluffing, while we lose less when Villain shows up with better than one pair. 
|
|
#52
10-30-2007, 02:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: FTP $750K : M=60 : KK OOP facing turn shove rr on scary board
[ QUOTE ]
Without direct reads, the stats can help you in establishing indirect leads. Like, "Wow, this clown has an ROI of -88%" as you push the call button on the turn. [/ QUOTE ] I kind of see it the opposite way. I play a lot of cheap SnGs, and the donk play I see most often is someone flopping a nice hand, getting bet into, and throwing it all in. I think someone in the STT forum was talking about this: at the low levels, the players tend to be very straightforward; most likely if they make a very large bet they have a very strong hand. (This might be part of Phil Hellmouth's rationale for not likely to call big river bets.) I'm not sure how many players satellite in to the FTP $750K $1M. The primary turbo satellite 2.5 hrs before awards about 200 seats. Also not sure if you can correlate satelliting-in with weak players; I've see lots of FTP pros in the primary satellite. Turns out that this player did satellite in. In fact, that was his only career ITM.
|
|
#53
10-30-2007, 05:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: FTP $750K : M=60 : KK OOP facing turn shove rr on scary board
The rule with AA is that "if you limp with aces, you never go broke with aces". Obviously there are exceptions, but that's the rule (flop a set and go broke, have a read on some jackass but he gets lucky, etc).
Why should it be any different with KK?
|
|
#54
10-30-2007, 05:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: FTP $750K : M=60 : KK OOP facing turn shove rr on scary board
[ QUOTE ]
The rule with AA is that "if you limp with aces, you never go broke with aces". Obviously there are exceptions, but that's the rule (flop a set and go broke, have a read on some jackass but he gets lucky, etc). Why should it be any different with KK? [/ QUOTE ] because it's a stupid fkin rule re: a stupid fkin play
|
|
#55
10-30-2007, 08:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: FTP $750K : M=60 : KK OOP facing turn shove rr on scary board
[ QUOTE ]
The rule with AA is that "if you limp with aces, you never go broke with aces". Obviously there are exceptions, but that's the rule (flop a set and go broke, have a read on some jackass but he gets lucky, etc). Why should it be any different with KK? [/ QUOTE ] This is incorrect. I believe it comes from Cloutier/McEvoy, which is pretty much all misinformation. If you limp AA/KK, of course you sometimes go broke with it. There are some situations where you can get away from it. You don't automatically go allin with one pair in a limped pot, but of course you sometimes go broke or double up with it.
|
|
#56
10-31-2007, 03:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: FTP $750K : M=60 : KK OOP facing turn shove rr on scary board
[ QUOTE ]
Are you guys basing real-time decisions on OPR ? [/ QUOTE ] Sometimes, but obviously taken with a huge grain of salt. E.g. I might be willing to give a solid winner on high stakes more credit for floating. You need a solid sample size though, and it's not like it's a big factor in making a decision.
|
|
#57
10-31-2007, 12:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: FTP $750K : M=60 : KK OOP facing turn shove rr on scary board
Which is why I said "Obviously there are exceptions...", however, in this particular hand, it's not the exception and you do NOT want to go broke here.
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The rule with AA is that "if you limp with aces, you never go broke with aces". Obviously there are exceptions, but that's the rule (flop a set and go broke, have a read on some jackass but he gets lucky, etc). Why should it be any different with KK? [/ QUOTE ] This is incorrect. I believe it comes from Cloutier/McEvoy, which is pretty much all misinformation. If you limp AA/KK, of course you sometimes go broke with it. There are some situations where you can get away from it. You don't automatically go allin with one pair in a limped pot, but of course you sometimes go broke or double up with it. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#58
10-31-2007, 12:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: FTP $750K : M=60 : KK OOP facing turn shove rr on scary board
Well, if you NEVER limp with big pairs, then you shouldn't be interested in this thread so don't reply at all. If you do limp once in a while, then once in a while you'll find yourself in a position where you *thought* there would be a raise behind you, but there wasn't, and then maybe you do get interested in this thread.
It's funny how some people seem to never make mistakes and know everything, yet have a significantly lower ROI than other people that willingly admit their mistakes. I'm not specifically referring to anyone in particular here, but I'm always amused (and sometimes disgusted) by that.
|
|
#59
10-31-2007, 12:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: FTP $750K : M=60 : KK OOP facing turn shove rr on scary board
balto, i don't mind limping with hands like AA/KK now and then, but i don't subscribe to harrington's idea to do it at random. i like to do it when i'm pretty sure someone behind me WILL raise who would have otherwise folded if i had raised. if the guy is probably going to be on my immediate left and is over aggressive, i specifically like this because he can raise, i can see what everyone else does pf, then i get to close the action. if everyone else folds, i have the option of smooth calling. if there is one or more calls, i can re-raise and win a much sweeter pot than the blinds/antes. obviously, there is a place for limping with big pairs at later stages in a tournament where there are lots of short stacks that are desperate and moving all-in every hand, but folding to a raise in front of them.
again, i like limping at times with big pairs, but i like to do it for a reason rather than on a purely random "mix it up" whim. edit: i don't like being in the spot you are where reads are tough and you're OOP. i'm fairly good at putting my opponents on a range of hands in other spots, but not in a spot like this, which is why *for me*, this is a spot where i see no point in going broke.
|
|
#60
10-31-2007, 02:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: FTP $750K : M=60 : KK OOP facing turn shove rr on scary board
[ QUOTE ]
Which is why I said "Obviously there are exceptions...", however, in this particular hand, it's not the exception and you do NOT want to go broke here. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The rule with AA is that "if you limp with aces, you never go broke with aces". Obviously there are exceptions, but that's the rule (flop a set and go broke, have a read on some jackass but he gets lucky, etc). Why should it be any different with KK? [/ QUOTE ] This is incorrect. I believe it comes from Cloutier/McEvoy, which is pretty much all misinformation. If you limp AA/KK, of course you sometimes go broke with it. There are some situations where you can get away from it. You don't automatically go allin with one pair in a limped pot, but of course you sometimes go broke or double up with it. [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] IMO that rule is incorrect. First of all, the money is shallow by cash game standards. A big pair plays about the same as TPTK or bottom two pair. You should sometimes be willing to go allin with those hands in a limped pot. Also, when you limp KK and don't get a reraise, your hand is well disguised.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
