|
|
#21
11-19-2007, 03:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Second pair and nut flush draw OOP
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] betting more on the flop/turn help define villains hand more/charge draws. also it creates a bigger pot for the villain to bluff at on the river as played. [/ QUOTE ] This is what I'm looking for. Thank you, sir. By the way, are you saying that it's a good thing that the pot is big on the river? I assume you mean that a big pot is going to encourage the guy to bluff more frequently on the river. I agree that this is good. He doesn't want to give up on a pot he has invested so much in. However, along the same lines, with a bigger pot, the bluff is going to be bigger relative to my stack. That's going to make it a scary call for me. [/ QUOTE ] eh this is one of the times that you didnt improve by the river but the fact is a lot of the time you're not going to have just a naked mid pair. youre going to trip up or 2 pair up or flush and so a big pot is a good thing with a hand and a strong draw like this. 
|
|
#22
11-19-2007, 03:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Second pair and nut flush draw OOP
[ QUOTE ]
River: (1,510) 5 (2 Players) Hero checks, MP2 bets 600, Hero calls 600 [/ QUOTE ] FYI he had K10...seems like a pretty weak bluff to me. If he made it 1,000 I almost certainly would have folded.
|
|
#23
11-19-2007, 04:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Second pair and nut flush draw OOP
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] betting more on the flop/turn help define villains hand more/charge draws. also it creates a bigger pot for the villain to bluff at on the river as played. [/ QUOTE ] This is what I'm looking for. Thank you, sir. By the way, are you saying that it's a good thing that the pot is big on the river? I assume you mean that a big pot is going to encourage the guy to bluff more frequently on the river. I agree that this is good. He doesn't want to give up on a pot he has invested so much in. However, along the same lines, with a bigger pot, the bluff is going to be bigger relative to my stack. That's going to make it a scary call for me. [/ QUOTE ] Big pots may encourage bad bluffs but only a ballsy villian will bluff the river after you fired two bets. Only a really uber ballsy villian would bluff the river after you fired two pot sized bets. And only a uber ballsy really GOOD villian would fire a pot sized blufff on the river when you fired two pot sized bets previously here. A suck bet is not what he wants to bluff with here because too many people call him. So I don't think the pot size matters as much as you may think.
|
|
#24
11-19-2007, 06:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Second pair and nut flush draw OOP
[ QUOTE ]
admittedly the difference between 2.5 and 3bb is small at 20/40 but still you're raising over 3bb with a weak hand OOP "LOL." [/ QUOTE ] 3x is perfect in this spot since it's early and stacks are still deep. no one will ever say "man, i wish i had saved those extra 25 chips by 2.5xing it instead." plus being oop is another reason to raise more since sometimes people will throw their hand away for that extra t25. if you only make bigger raises with your real hands, then you're playing super exploitably. [ QUOTE ] bet more of the flop because your hand is worth a lot but likely to be behind an A that calls/raises your bet. [/ QUOTE ] first off, you're not behind an ace and second, isn't that a reason to bet less? pokenum -h kd jd - ac 2c -- ad jh 3d Holdem Hi: 990 enumerated boards containing Ad 3d Jh cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV Kd Jd 505 51.01 485 48.99 0 0.00 0.510 Ac 2c 485 48.99 505 51.01 0 0.00 0.490 [ QUOTE ] im far from a nit but i've also realized that ADVISING people to open wider and putting them in unfamiliar (read: uncomfortable) situations is not the best way to give advice. betting more on the flop/turn help define villains hand more/charge draws. also it creates a bigger pot for the villain to bluff at on the river as played. being an uber-nit is one thing. but being spewy will win you even less tournaments. [/ QUOTE ] ok well now you're just saying too many things now. you're "far from a nit" but opening kjdd in ep is spewy? if you advocate smaller raises pf, then why are you telling him to bloat the pot oop postflop? is that not a spew? also, why do you want to charge draws here? villains calling with draws is basically the best thing that can happen here. on a last note, if someone is trying to develop a laggier style of play, then playing more pots and being in tougher spots is exactly how to get better. harder spots cause people to think, and if they can learn from that, then they're improving. telling people to play in a style where their decisions are outlined for them does absolutely nothing to help them improve their play. that's what this forum is about, not coming in here and insulting posters while giving sub-optimal at best advice.
|
|
#25
11-19-2007, 06:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Second pair and nut flush draw OOP
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] betting more on the flop/turn help define villains hand more/charge draws. also it creates a bigger pot for the villain to bluff at on the river as played. [/ QUOTE ] This is what I'm looking for. Thank you, sir. By the way, are you saying that it's a good thing that the pot is big on the river? I assume you mean that a big pot is going to encourage the guy to bluff more frequently on the river. I agree that this is good. He doesn't want to give up on a pot he has invested so much in. However, along the same lines, with a bigger pot, the bluff is going to be bigger relative to my stack. That's going to make it a scary call for me. [/ QUOTE ] Big pots may encourage bad bluffs but only a ballsy villian will bluff the river after you fired two bets. Only a really uber ballsy villian would bluff the river after you fired two pot sized bets. And only a uber ballsy really GOOD villian would fire a pot sized blufff on the river when you fired two pot sized bets previously here. A suck bet is not what he wants to bluff with here because too many people call him. So I don't think the pot size matters as much as you may think. [/ QUOTE ] No one is talking about calling a pot sized bet on the river here. And we’re not talking about thinking villains here either because obviously if the guy is going to bet after 2 checks then he’s not the type to think about why he bets. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] admittedly the difference between 2.5 and 3bb is small at 20/40 but still you're raising over 3bb with a weak hand OOP "LOL." [/ QUOTE ] 3x is perfect in this spot since it's early and stacks are still deep. no one will ever say "man, i wish i had saved those extra 25 chips by 2.5xing it instead." plus being oop is another reason to raise more since sometimes people will throw their hand away for that extra t25. if you only make bigger raises with your real hands, then you're playing super exploitably. [ QUOTE ] bet more of the flop because your hand is worth a lot but likely to be behind an A that calls/raises your bet. [/ QUOTE ] first off, you're not behind an ace and second, isn't that a reason to bet less? pokenum -h kd jd - ac 2c -- ad jh 3d Holdem Hi: 990 enumerated boards containing Ad 3d Jh cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV Kd Jd 505 51.01 485 48.99 0 0.00 0.510 Ac 2c 485 48.99 505 51.01 0 0.00 0.490 [ QUOTE ] im far from a nit but i've also realized that ADVISING people to open wider and putting them in unfamiliar (read: uncomfortable) situations is not the best way to give advice. betting more on the flop/turn help define villains hand more/charge draws. also it creates a bigger pot for the villain to bluff at on the river as played. being an uber-nit is one thing. but being spewy will win you even less tournaments. [/ QUOTE ] ok well now you're just saying too many things now. you're "far from a nit" but opening kjdd in ep is spewy? if you advocate smaller raises pf, then why are you telling him to bloat the pot oop postflop? is that not a spew? also, why do you want to charge draws here? villains calling with draws is basically the best thing that can happen here. on a last note, if someone is trying to develop a laggier style of play, then playing more pots and being in tougher spots is exactly how to get better. harder spots cause people to think, and if they can learn from that, then they're improving. telling people to play in a style where their decisions are outlined for them does absolutely nothing to help them improve their play. that's what this forum is about, not coming in here and insulting posters while giving sub-optimal at best advice. [/ QUOTE ] I had a whole thing typed out and it got lost so I’m pretty pissed off but here goes. you contradict yourself all over the place. Firstly, you say “oh who cares about saving the extra t25” when on the other hand you say that the extra t25 might cause people to fold? wtf? And I’m raising about 2.5 here with all hands so don’t just go interpolating off of what I say so that its convenient for your [censored] piece by piece analysis of my post. Secondly LOL @ you picking A2cc when he’s behind AxQd 47% vs 52%. If you know anything about proving by contradiction you’d know that simply showing ONE example of it being false doesn’t mean that it is for all cases. Really, if you’re going to be a nit, then cover your own ass and say that he’s only behind about half of the aces. Thirdly, he doesn’t just have a naked pair of jacks. He also has the nut flush draw. That’s why we’re bloating the pot because as you’ve showing he’s “ahead” of a lot of the hands that call him anyway, so why not put a lot of money in on the flop when your hand loses a bunch of equity if you miss on the turn. The turn bet is read based, and I’m saying that if he’s going to bet he should bet more than that if he feels that he is ahead. Which he said in OP and which I said in an earlier reply. If you even read my original reply, I said that the turn is a check. But he said he had a read so why not let him try to go with that develop those skills that involve making thinner bets? And last, I only started to take a tone and insult people when they did the same to me. I did not just come in off the bat and insult the guy. Other people and the OP both came in and got really defensive and pretty sarcastic and so I replied in the same manner. Also I don’t see you replying to any threads, and actually you didnt even respond to this thread, you just came in here to pop off at me. So if you think you can do better, then actively participate and maybe I’ll take your criticism seriously.
|
|
#26
11-19-2007, 06:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Second pair and nut flush draw OOP
if you're "trying to develop a laggier style of play" you should be doing it from late position, not UTG+1, i always thought a successful LAG style involved a lot more abusing position regardless of your cards rather than raising your pretty drawing hands more OOP
and if someone can explain to me why i am wrong i'll be glad to listen, but in my opinion purposely putting yourself in awkward, tough positions in an effort to improve your game is laughably ridiculous...im pretty sure improving your game is about learning how to avoid these awkward positions, not trying to figure out how to squeeze your way out of them while bleeding away the least amount of chips
|
|
#27
11-20-2007, 12:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Second pair and nut flush draw OOP
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] betting more on the flop/turn help define villains hand more/charge draws. also it creates a bigger pot for the villain to bluff at on the river as played. [/ QUOTE ] This is what I'm looking for. Thank you, sir. By the way, are you saying that it's a good thing that the pot is big on the river? I assume you mean that a big pot is going to encourage the guy to bluff more frequently on the river. I agree that this is good. He doesn't want to give up on a pot he has invested so much in. However, along the same lines, with a bigger pot, the bluff is going to be bigger relative to my stack. That's going to make it a scary call for me. [/ QUOTE ] Big pots may encourage bad bluffs but only a ballsy villian will bluff the river after you fired two bets. Only a really uber ballsy villian would bluff the river after you fired two pot sized bets. And only a uber ballsy really GOOD villian would fire a pot sized blufff on the river when you fired two pot sized bets previously here. A suck bet is not what he wants to bluff with here because too many people call him. So I don't think the pot size matters as much as you may think. [/ QUOTE ] No one is talking about calling a pot sized bet on the river here. And we’re not talking about thinking villains here either because obviously if the guy is going to bet after 2 checks then he’s not the type to think about why he bets. [/ QUOTE ] If your not going to even try to understand what I'm posting then why bother responding...
|
|
#28
11-20-2007, 02:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Second pair and nut flush draw OOP
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] betting more on the flop/turn help define villains hand more/charge draws. also it creates a bigger pot for the villain to bluff at on the river as played. [/ QUOTE ] This is what I'm looking for. Thank you, sir. By the way, are you saying that it's a good thing that the pot is big on the river? I assume you mean that a big pot is going to encourage the guy to bluff more frequently on the river. I agree that this is good. He doesn't want to give up on a pot he has invested so much in. However, along the same lines, with a bigger pot, the bluff is going to be bigger relative to my stack. That's going to make it a scary call for me. [/ QUOTE ] Big pots may encourage bad bluffs but only a ballsy villian will bluff the river after you fired two bets. Only a really uber ballsy villian would bluff the river after you fired two pot sized bets. And only a uber ballsy really GOOD villian would fire a pot sized blufff on the river when you fired two pot sized bets previously here. A suck bet is not what he wants to bluff with here because too many people call him. So I don't think the pot size matters as much as you may think. [/ QUOTE ] No one is talking about calling a pot sized bet on the river here. And we’re not talking about thinking villains here either because obviously if the guy is going to bet after 2 checks then he’s not the type to think about why he bets. [/ QUOTE ] If your not going to even try to understand what I'm posting then why bother responding... [/ QUOTE ] actually, 90% of your post was about how "ballsy" the villain was, and i addressed that. how about you go more in depth then, since i cant seem comprehend what you're talking about
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
