|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
LoudmouthLee
Member of the Year
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 10:25 pm Post subject: 481 |
 |
|
Atlantic City: Wednesday
ManaSpryte, LML and 3 others go to the Trump Taj to play in a $50+15 NL Tournament.
After the first break (2 hours), all 5 of us were still around, my being the apparent lowstack at $6,500 (5k to start)
10 hands after we reconveine, I get dealt pocket 6's. I push, looking to steal the blinds and the antes.
I get a caller who turns over AKo.
Flop: 10-J-Q
Needless to say I flipped out.
ManaSpryte, OTOH, finished in 20th, cashing for the tourney.
_________________
-LmL
I'm sorry. I have no desire to talk to you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 6:05 am Post subject: 482 |
|
|
Why did you flip out? You were a 55% favourite, and you lost. Not that big a deal.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LoudmouthLee
Member of the Year
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 7:50 am Post subject: 483 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| Why did you flip out? You were a 55% favourite, and you lost. Not that big a deal. |
Just a bad flop 
_________________
-LmL
I'm sorry. I have no desire to talk to you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doc Borodog
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 5:27 pm Post subject: 484 |
|
|
Bad weekend. Including Grrrrl's losses for the tournament Saturday (which I won) and my cash game Friday night (which I bankrolled), my tournament loss Saturday, and my absolute beat-down in the NL cash game afterward, I'm down $290.
Man I hate NL cash games. I got rivered like you would not believe. Several runner-runners, not to mention hands that I simply had to pay off on the end because the river made me TPTK, two pair, trip nines, or a full house, all of which lost.
Gak. I hate NL cash games. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:13 pm Post subject: 485 |
|
|
Losing with a full house is an art form (assuming there weren't two pairs on the board, or similar cheats )
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doc Borodog
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 4:48 pm Post subject: 486 |
|
|
Wow, did I have some crappy luck last night. I had pocket Aces 4 times. All were cracked, as well as pocket queens and pocket jacks. It seemed like every time the board either came paired and someone had trips, or someone flopped a set, or flopped a straightflush draw that rivered. I raise UTG with aces, get coldcalled by 86s, who flops 3 6s. I raise aces UTG and get cold-called by the SMALL BLIND, after it FOLDS TO HIM with T8s, who makes a straight on the river. I get capped preflop with JJ, and the flop is AKK. I cap with aces vs queens and he flops a set. I raise Aces UTG+1 after UTG limps pocket 4s and the flop comes QQ4.
I also lost half of a $350 Omaha 8 kill pot when the damn river card made the low.
However, I played some damn fine poker, if I do say so myself, and still made money on the evening. If it weren't for those damn beats, though, I'd have cashed out for about $500 playing $3-$6 kill. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 9:06 am Post subject: 487 |
|
|
I saw a power distribution on The Wizard of Odds but it was separated into pairs, suited, and unsuited. I put it together like Borodog did way back.
The system goes from 0 to 40. Callable cards range from 10 for late position to 19 for UTG (according to WoO)
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 9:51 am Post subject: 488 |
|
|
I'm going to make ones for 8, 6, 4, 3, and 2 player tables tomorrow.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doc Borodog
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 5:31 pm Post subject: 489 |
|
|
| That's an interesting power rating system, Samadhi. however, I have to say that any system that says AQo is unplayable under the gun seems fishy to me. Give me AQo UTG in a 10 handed game and see what happens. I'll give you a hint: I starts with "R" and ends with "aise." I mean, there are only 1.8% of hands that dominate you, and only a 15% chance that one of them is out in the 9 hands behind you. Not playing AQo UTG is -EV, in my opinion, and raising is clearly better than calling. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 6:00 pm Post subject: 490 |
|
|
Just passing it along. http://www.wizardofodds.com/holdem
The scaling from 0 to 40 is based on the ev for hands that you can find on the 10 player link from that page.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doc Borodog
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 8:08 pm Post subject: 491 |
|
|
Ok, so no one likes to hear whining about bad beats, but I just thought these were particularly gruesome.
$20+$2 NLHE S&G on Party Poker, first hand of the tournament. Middle position, AQ of diamonds. One limper for 15, I make it 75 to go. One caller behind me. All others fold. The pot is 190 chips.
The flop comes Ten high plus two rags, two diamonds. I bet out 150 chips. The cold caller raises me the minimum to 300 chips. Well, I didn't want to go out like this, but I have two overs plus the nut flush draw, and the minimum raise is fishy, I'm pretty sure it's a steal. I go all-in.
The guy immediately calls, and shows . . . Q9 of clubs. No pair, no draw, and dominated. He is dead to two outs, the remaining non-diamond 9s. One of which he promptly catches on the river. 91% favorite on the flop, 95% favorite on the turn, totally ass-****ed on the river, busted out on the first hand.
From there it's all a blur. Next tournament I get all my money (about 600 chips with the blinds at 25-50) in with AQ, having raised preflop and missed with a king on board, and get called by a guy with just slightly more chips than me who has . . . 96 of clubs. No 9s, 6s, or straight draws on the board. One club. Turn-river, runner-runner, bam-bam, club-club.
Next tournament: I raise preflop with two red tens and get 1 caller. Flop comes down 9TJ; the Jack and 9 are clubs, the T is a spade. Not wanting to let in the obvious straight and flush draws, I go all in and get called by Q8 of clubs. CRAP. But miraculously, the board pairs 9s on the turn! Tens full of 9s! Hooray! My luck is finally --- thud.
GUESS what card the river was.
Jesus H. Christ. 30 minutes, 3 tournaments, $66. @#$% |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 9:08 pm Post subject: 492 |
|
|
Your call in the first tournament was a clear mistake, IMO. Steal-raises are very rare (and even moreso on PP), and you had shit. The fact he was domianted and caught... that's very nice. But once you get raised in this position, fold.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doc Borodog
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 9:25 pm Post subject: 493 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Your call in the first tournament was a clear mistake, IMO. Steal-raises are very rare (and even moreso on PP) |
Wrong. A minimum raise is always very fishy in my opinion. The majority of times someone min-raises me they end up having jack shit, at best something like top pair weak kicker. The people who really out-flop you with either slowplay, or bet hard to protect their hand on a drawy-heavy board.
Yes, all I had was two overcards and the nut flush draw against what I thought was a pure bluff. Clearly "shit." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 4:41 pm Post subject: 494 |
|
|
"Wrong" based on what, exactly? Of us two, I'm the one who plays more tournaments and more no-limit.
| Quote: |
| A minimum raise is always very fishy in my opinion. |
A minimum raise often means a monster who's trying to milk you, unless it's done as a response to a post oak bluff. Sometimes people punish "stupid" bets by raising, but if you bet pot and are raised, you are facing a monster.
| Quote: |
| The majority of times someone min-raises me they end up having jack shit, at best something like top pair weak kicker. |
Odd, seeing as we play on the same site, in the same tables, yet our experience is so vastly different. Maybe we invoke other behaviours in our opponents or something.
| Quote: |
| The people who really out-flop you with either slowplay, or bet hard to protect their hand on a drawy-heavy board. |
Min-raising is a sort of slow play, especially if you're acting after the bettor.
| Quote: |
| Yes, all I had was two overcards and the nut flush draw against what I thought was a pure bluff. Clearly "shit." |
You had shit. At the time you bet, your hand was shit. You may have had outs, you may have had draws, you may have had the other guy figured out, but you had shit. This is something you should always consider, IMO. It's too easy to think of draws as made hands, but they really aren't.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doc Borodog
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 5:08 pm Post subject: 495 |
|
|
We can agree to disagree on the min-raise. I still contend that it always smells fishy to me; someone testing the waters to see if I actually have anything without risking a lot of chips. Most times I am min-raised I have the best hand (of course there is selection effect; if I get min-raised and I really don't have anything at all, like a completely missed AK, I'll usually release, unlease I can put a spectacular read on my opponent, which is pretty much impossible online).
But as for this:
| Quote: |
| You had shit. At the time you bet, your hand was shit. You may have had outs, you may have had draws, you may have had the other guy figured out, but you had shit. This is something you should always consider, IMO. It's too easy to think of draws as made hands, but they really aren't. |
This is a dangerous flaw in you thinking in my opinion. Betting and raising on the flop with two overcards and the nut flush draw is usually a value bet. The semi-bluff aspect of it (in that your opponent may often fold without showdown) is a nice bonus.
You really have to have a situation where your opponent flopped at least two pair or a set before you're in real trouble. Even if one of your overcards is dead (he has a pair and that's his kicker), you are still only a 53:47 dog. Given that you raised preflop, even if your opponent has 1 pair he will have to fear a big overpair, which you would likely be playing the same way. I'm sure you'll agree that your opponent would release a single pair to an all-in from the preflop raisor more than 3% of the time, which is all you from the semi-bluff to make your hand the favorite. You have plenty of outs and usually enough of an overlay from the preflop raise and call in the pot when you get called.
Give me the same situation again, and I would do EXACTLY the same thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:16 pm Post subject: 496 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| This is a dangerous flaw in you thinking in my opinion. Betting and raising on the flop with two overcards and the nut flush draw is usually a value bet. |
And value bets are great when you're playing in ring games. In tournaments, however, it's very different, because when you're out, you're out. Personally, I wouldn't take 1:3 pot odds on a 1:2 shot, if missing means I bust. I just have a very good record in tournaments without having to resort to these odds.
| Quote: |
| The semi-bluff aspect of it (in that your opponent may often fold without showdown) is a nice bonus. |
With this I agree, but it's important to pick your spot. If the pot is big compared to my stack, I will gladly push on the flop with a missed AK or something similar. If it's 150 chips and I have 850 left, I'll actually check-fold some of the time.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doc Borodog
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2005 8:10 pm Post subject: 497 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| With this I agree, but it's important to pick your spot. If the pot is big compared to my stack, I will gladly push on the flop with a missed AK or something similar. If it's 150 chips and I have 850 left, I'll actually check-fold some of the time. |
But the situation in question was much more like the first one you describe than the second.
There were 640 chips in the pot, I had only 575 chips left, I have two over cards and the nut flush draw against what I believe is a stinky bluff that smells to high heaven. I'm pushing all-in every single time here. I was right and got beat by a 3 outer on the river.
As for the min-raise, I watched Rachel play last night in two tournaments, placing in both of them. She was min-raised several times in those two tourneys, and in every case the person had a weak hand or nothing (I advised her to call them down in several cases, all of which she won). She lost the second tourney heads up, placing 2nd, when she flopped second pair, king kicker, bet out and was min-raised. I advised her to go all-in. She was called (eventually) by second pair, 4 kicker, who spiked a 4 on the river.
The place to fear the min-raise is on the river, not the flop. A min-raise on the river usually means a good hand that they want to make a few more chips out of without forcing you to layd own your hand. Unfortunately you're pretty much always tied to the pot then and have to pay them off. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 9:15 am Post subject: 498 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| There were 640 chips in the pot, I had only 575 chips left, I have two over cards and the nut flush draw against what I believe is a stinky bluff that smells to high heaven. I'm pushing all-in every single time here. I was right and got beat by a 3 outer on the river. |
Then you should push yourself on the flop, not wait to be raised and then push. More chance of buying this way.
| Quote: |
| She was min-raised several times in those two tourneys |
Did she bet pot?
| Quote: |
| She lost the second tourney heads up, placing 2nd, when she flopped second pair, king kicker, bet out and was min-raised. |
Second pair is a strong hand in a heads up match. He didn't think he had junk, and I agree with him.
| Quote: |
| The place to fear the min-raise is on the river, not the flop. |
I disagree. When you consider the reasons for raising, you'll see min-raising only makes sense if and only if you're trying to milk.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 1:10 am Post subject: 499 |
|
|
Or if you're not playing a perfect player.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:12 am Post subject: 500 |
|
|
Well yeah, it's implied ( ) whenever discussing poker strategy you're assuming your opponent is rational.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:31 am Post subject: 501 |
|
|
Well, no offense, but that's not very rational.
First, you'd have to assume they have the same knowledge that you do, then you'd have to assume that they make the same conclusion as you, then you'd have to assume they have the same brain power to recognize that conclusion as quickly as you, and then you'd have to assume they're sober enough to put that conclusion to good use.
That's a lot of assumptions.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:34 am Post subject: 502 |
|
|
You're more than welcome to find a better idea.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:10 am Post subject: 503 |
|
|
Sure. I'll remember to make all those assumptions when playing against you. Otherwise, I'll go with a general assumption of mediocrity, and take my plus ev, and be happy.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:26 am Post subject: 504 |
|
|
Yeah, because God knows all those assumptions really don't work for me. All that money I made is just on the variance, I'm sure.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:45 am Post subject: 505 |
|
|
And no one is better.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:52 am Post subject: 506 |
|
|
I'm sure you're better than Sklansky, therefore I value your opinion more than his. And not a word on game theory in general, of course. Just curious: how do you know it's +EV?
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:43 pm Post subject: 507 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| Quote: |
| There were 640 chips in the pot, I had only 575 chips left, I have two over cards and the nut flush draw against what I believe is a stinky bluff that smells to high heaven. I'm pushing all-in every single time here. I was right and got beat by a 3 outer on the river. |
Then you should push yourself on the flop, not wait to be raised and then push. More chance of buying this way. |
Dude. I seriously think you are losing it. I should bet 775 chips into a pot of 190 chips . . . why?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| She was min-raised several times in those two tourneys |
Did she bet pot? |
Slightly less. I usually advise her that barring special circumstances, a slightly smaller (say 3/4) than pot size bet is sufficient.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| She lost the second tourney heads up, placing 2nd, when she flopped second pair, king kicker, bet out and was min-raised. |
Second pair is a strong hand in a heads up match. He didn't think he had junk, and I agree with him. |
I know second pair is a strong hand heads up. That's why I told her to push with second pair king kicker. I also know that the minimum raise is stinky and weak. Which is why I told her to push with second pair king kicker.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| The place to fear the min-raise is on the river, not the flop. |
I disagree. When you consider the reasons for raising, you'll see min-raising only makes sense if and only if you're trying to milk. |
Dude, you're missing the point. Of course that's the only place it makes sense. Which is why it's so stinky from a player who doesn't know what he's doing. Which is the majority of players that play $10 SNGs on Party. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:00 pm Post subject: 508 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Dude. I seriously think you are losing it. I should bet 775 chips into a pot of 190 chips . . . why? |
Because if you're going to call a raise anyway, you might as well push yourself. I think your decision to call anyway is the wrong part here, but if that's your strategy, pushing makes more sense than betting and waiting to be raised.
| Quote: |
| Slightly less. I usually advise her that barring special circumstances, a slightly smaller (say 3/4) than pot size bet is sufficient. |
This is seen as a sign of weakness by some players.
| Quote: |
| I know second pair is a strong hand heads up. That's why I told her to push with second pair king kicker. I also know that the minimum raise is stinky and weak. Which is why I told her to push with second pair king kicker. |
So I'm confused. On one hand, you say "weak hands min-raise". On the other, you say "he had a good hand and he min-raised". So which is it?
| Quote: |
| Dude, you're missing the point. Of course that's the only place it makes sense. Which is why it's so stinky from a player who doesn't know what he's doing. Which is the majority of players that play $10 SNGs on Party. |
Like I told to Samadhi, I believe this attitude is not the best. Unless I have notes on someone, I assume he's an okay player, which means he won't do a weak bluff-raise.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 3:19 am Post subject: 509 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| I'm sure you're better than Sklansky, therefore I value your opinion more than his. And not a word on game theory in general, of course. Just curious: how do you know it's +EV? |
Because I have more money. QED
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 7:02 am Post subject: 510 |
|
|
Please tell me you're kidding.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doc Borodog
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:56 pm Post subject: 511 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Dude. I seriously think you are losing it. I should bet 775 chips into a pot of 190 chips . . . why? |
Because if you're going to call a raise anyway, you might as well push yourself. I think your decision to call anyway is the wrong part here, but if that's your strategy, pushing makes more sense than betting and waiting to be raised. |
That's crazy. By that logic, I should go all-in on every flop.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Slightly less. I usually advise her that barring special circumstances, a slightly smaller (say 3/4) than pot size bet is sufficient. |
This is seen as a sign of weakness by some players. |
Perhaps by some poor players.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| I know second pair is a strong hand heads up. That's why I told her to push with second pair king kicker. I also know that the minimum raise is stinky and weak. Which is why I told her to push with second pair king kicker. |
So I'm confused. On one hand, you say "weak hands min-raise". On the other, you say "he had a good hand and he min-raised". So which is it? |
Poker hands are relative. He showed that he had a weak hand (second pair, terrible kicker) with his min-raise, which is how I knew that second pair, kicker kicker was very likely the best hand. Which it was.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Dude, you're missing the point. Of course that's the only place it makes sense. Which is why it's so stinky from a player who doesn't know what he's doing. Which is the majority of players that play $10 SNGs on Party. |
Like I told to Samadhi, I believe this attitude is not the best. Unless I have notes on someone, I assume he's an okay player, which means he won't do a weak bluff-raise. |
Then you're assuming wrong. I see these weak min-raises (which are not necessarilly bluffs, just mediocre holdings) all the time, particularly in the first half of the tournament when the chaff has not been separated yet. I'll follow Sklansky's advice; when you're playing low stakes, it is best to assume an unknown opponent is incompetent. You just leave too much profit on the table when you assume the average boob knows what he's doing, because nine times out of ten he doesn't.
On the other hand, I did see a min raise yesterday from a powerful hand; it does happen. A hand went down 5 way, unraised, K72 rainbow flop. The SB bet out, the BB min-raised, and the UTG seat min-raised again. The SB went all in, BB called, UTG called. SB showed AK, BB showed K5 (yeah, he sure had a powerhouse when he min-raised, didn't he?), and UTG showed a set of 7s.
But this is the exception that proves the rule I think. He clearly had 2 players interested in putting chips in the pot, and there were no straight or flush draws, and the kings were likely duped up, killing each other's outs. His min-raise was a pot builder, meant to tie people onto a pot that he would almost certainly win. If that board had been 2 suited, I bet he would have raised much more to protect against the flush draw. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 2:14 pm Post subject: 512 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| That's crazy. By that logic, I should go all-in on every flop. |
I really don't see how you got to that. It does mean if you're semi or pure-bluffing, and intend on going in if raised, you might as well push, but I'm pretty sure it's all it means.
| Quote: |
| Perhaps by some poor players |
Well, yeah. But you should play against the people in your table. It's actually a problematic issue, because some people will raise anything under a pot bet, whereas others will raise anything they think is "too large" ("you're buying!"), so notes are of extreme importance, and so is betting the pot (which everybody seem to respect).
| Quote: |
| Poker hands are relative. He showed that he had a weak hand (second pair, terrible kicker) with his min-raise, which is how I knew that second pair, kicker kicker was very likely the best hand. Which it was. |
I'm sorry, but that makes no sense to me at all. Are you saying he knew his hand is weak relative to that of Grrrrl, and so he knew to min-raise?
To clarify: IMO he thought the pot was his, and tried to squeeze as much of it as possible. When your wife pushed, he was committed in more than one way, so he was forced to call. I don't see a consistent theory about this hand that would end up with "and this is why when people min-raise they have a weak hand" other than hindsight. If he thought his hand was weak and tried to bluff, he'd've folded when she pushed, unless at this stage his stack was small compared to the pot, which wasn't the case, IIRC.
| Quote: |
| Then you're assuming wrong. I see these weak min-raises (which are not necessarilly bluffs, just mediocre holdings) all the time, particularly in the first half of the tournament when the chaff has not been separated yet. |
I don't consider 2*pot a weak bet. I don't know why you do. Also, I find it upsetting you value your own experience so much over my own. I'd like to think you have some respect for me, considering I've spent months doing nothing BUT playing small no-limit tournaments on partypoker.
| Quote: |
| You just leave too much profit on the table when you assume the average boob knows what he's doing, because nine times out of ten he doesn't. |
That's correct. I play for low variance, which is why I lay down a lot of hands. I don't think it hurts my final outcome a lot, though, because I place in first place twice as often as I finish third. That's a big difference between tournament strategy and ring game strategy.
| Quote: |
| BB showed K5 (yeah, he sure had a powerhouse when he min-raised, didn't he?) |
Yes, he did. With a short-handed table, he had top pair in an unraised pot. He had no reason to be afraid. Personally I would've folded after the SB went in (fear of trips/two pair), but until then I'd've played the same in his position - make it a pot-size if checked or bet small to me, min-raise a pot bet.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doc Borodog
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 1:19 am Post subject: 513 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| Quote: |
| That's crazy. By that logic, I should go all-in on every flop. |
I really don't see how you got to that. It does mean if you're semi or pure-bluffing, and intend on going in if raised, you might as well push, but I'm pretty sure it's all it means. |
It wasn't a semi-bluff. I don't know how many times I have to say this. It was a value bet.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Perhaps by some poor players |
Well, yeah. But you should play against the people in your table. It's actually a problematic issue, because some people will raise anything under a pot bet, whereas others will raise anything they think is "too large" ("you're buying!"), so notes are of extreme importance, and so is betting the pot (which everybody seem to respect). |
Wait . . . so your argument for me "respecting" someone's crappy minimum raise (and hence folding a hand that is favorite over virtually anything my crappy opponent is holding) is that . . . some players raise anything?
And betting the pot is usually a little too much in no-limit. Read Caro for the math. And the yahoos don't "respect" a 190 chip bet any more than a 150 chip bet. I can't believe you'd honestly think otherwise.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Poker hands are relative. He showed that he had a weak hand (second pair, terrible kicker) with his min-raise, which is how I knew that second pair, kicker kicker was very likely the best hand. Which it was. |
I'm sorry, but that makes no sense to me at all. Are you saying he knew his hand is weak relative to that of Grrrrl, and so he knew to min-raise? |
Come on. How many times do I have to explain this? The donk in question is a DONK. "Huh. She bet. Wonder if she has anything. Maybe my 7 is good? I think I'll min raise. Uh oh. She went all-in. She must be trying to buy my pot! I'll call! D'oh! Oh wait, two pair on the river! I'm Da Man!" Of course he doesn't know his hand is weak relative to Rachel's hand. He made a weak play that told me his hand was weak relative to her hand.
| Quote: |
| To clarify: IMO he thought the pot was his, and tried to squeeze as much of it as possible. |
And if he thinks the pot is "his" with second pair, terrible kicker, even heads up, he's a complete and total donk.
| Quote: |
| When your wife pushed, he was committed in more than one way, so he was forced to call. |
Wrong. The blinds were at 200-400. You didn't even ask about the blinds, yet you assume he's pot committed? The pot had 800 chips in it before my wife bet 600. That's 1400. He min raised to 1200, making 2600 chips in the pot. She went all in for something like 2500. He could have folded and still retained almost 3000 chips. Getting 5:3 on second pair terrible kicker against a bet and reraise is not pot committed. He just sucked. Stop trying to assign intelligent motives to bad players.
| Quote: |
| I don't see a consistent theory about this hand that would end up with "and this is why when people min-raise they have a weak hand" other than hindsight. If he thought his hand was weak and tried to bluff, he'd've folded when she pushed, unless at this stage his stack was small compared to the pot, which wasn't the case, IIRC. |
He has no concept of weak and strong, or what is a good size bet. He raises the minimum because it's the damn default, for Pete's sake. Think about that. Don't know how much to bet or raise? Why not just click the button and bet or raise what's it's already set for! How convenient! That is what the minimum bet or raise says to me: I'm a doofus who doesn't know what to bet, so I'll just go with the default.
And you've provided no rationale AT ALL for respecting a minimum raise, other than that it only makes sense if you have a powerful hand you want to milk, which is completely irrelevent because it doesn't have to make sense to a senseless player.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Then you're assuming wrong. I see these weak min-raises (which are not necessarilly bluffs, just mediocre holdings) all the time, particularly in the first half of the tournament when the chaff has not been separated yet. |
I don't consider 2*pot a weak bet. I don't know why you do. |
I don't consider 2 times the pot a weak bet. Do the math. I bet 3/4 pot. Pot is now 7/4. He raises 3/4 of original pot. That's a raise of 3/7. That's a raise of like 43%. And now the pot is 10/4 it's original size, or offering me OVER 3:1 on my call. There are two options for such a tiny raise: a) Opponent is good and has such a powerful hand he doesn't need to protect it, and b) Opponent is a donk and has no idea what he's doing. For reasons I cannot fathom, you assume A is more likely than B. I'm going to keep assuming B is much more likely than A.
| Quote: |
| Also, I find it upsetting you value your own experience so much over my own. I'd like to think you have some respect for me, considering I've spent months doing nothing BUT playing small no-limit tournaments on partypoker. |
You find it "upsetting" that I value my experience more than yours? You've got to be kidding me. Of course I respect you and your opinion on the game. I know you've played a lot. But I can't accept something that directly contradicts something I see several times a tournament, and does not make theoretical sense to me given my understanding of applicable game theory and my opinion about the psychology of the average player.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| You just leave too much profit on the table when you assume the average boob knows what he's doing, because nine times out of ten he doesn't. |
That's correct. I play for low variance, which is why I lay down a lot of hands. I don't think it hurts my final outcome a lot, though, because I place in first place twice as often as I finish third. |
Fine. I have no problem with that. But don't tell me that playing to minimize variance means that +EV hands are "shit," or that drunken schlubs on Party Poker $10 tournaments know enough that I have to fear every default-sized raise means my opponent has me beat.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| BB showed K5 (yeah, he sure had a powerhouse when he min-raised, didn't he?) |
Yes, he did. With a short-handed table . . . |
The table wasn't short handed. The blinds were 15-30 and there were still 9 people seated.
| Quote: |
| , he had top pair in an unraised pot. He had no reason to be afraid. Personally I would've folded after the SB went in (fear of trips/two pair), but until then I'd've played the same in his position - make it a pot-size if checked or bet small to me, min-raise a pot bet. |
Now I see we get to the heart of the matter, why my stance bothers you so much. My claim is that only bad players make minimum raises on the flop, and now we see that you make minimum raises on the flop with weak holdings (like top pair terrible kicker). You'd fold if your opponent came back over the top of you? If I'm betting in this hand, you can bet I have top pair 5 kicker beat, will take your minimum raise for the sign of weakness that it is, and come back over the top of you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 8:09 am Post subject: 514 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| It wasn't a semi-bluff. I don't know how many times I have to say this. It was a value bet. |
I think just until I'm convinced. My point is that you do NOT want to go all-in in that situation, because you'd have something like 50% of winning if you do, but it also means you'll lose the tournament 50% of the time. Personally, I win more than 50% of the tournaments I play, so it's not a value bet if you consider the money involved, and not the chips.
| Quote: |
| Wait . . . so your argument for me "respecting" someone's crappy minimum raise (and hence folding a hand that is favorite over virtually anything my crappy opponent is holding) is that . . . some players raise anything? |
No... did you really forget how we got to this branch of the discussion? You were saying "she bet and got min-raised with shit". I pointed out I'm talking about min-raising pot-sized bets, and not small bets, that are considered weak, whether it's a right call or not.
| Quote: |
And betting the pot is usually a little too much in no-limit. Read Caro for the math. And the yahoos don't "respect" a 190 chip bet any more than a 150 chip bet. I can't believe you'd honestly think otherwise. |
I don't. I'm as likely to bet 200 as I am to bet 150 in this spot, though, depending on how many people are in and how scary the board looks.
| Quote: |
| He made a weak play that told me his hand was weak relative to her hand. |
Am I missing anything? Did he not have a second pair?
| Quote: |
| And if he thinks the pot is "his" with second pair, terrible kicker, even heads up, he's a complete and total donk. |
I guess I'm a donk, then. Like I said, I'd've played the same (well, not really. I'd've pushed after she bet, but I can see the argument for his play as well).
| Quote: |
| Wrong. The blinds were at 200-400. You didn't even ask about the blinds, yet you assume he's pot committed? |
Yes. PP has 8000 chips total, and in heads up, you can't start folding. Unless he had a huge chip lead, he shouldn't walk away from this pot.
| Quote: |
| The pot had 800 chips in it before my wife bet 600. That's 1400. He min raised to 1200, making 2600 chips in the pot. She went all in for something like 2500. He could have folded and still retained almost 3000 chips. |
You're telling me you wouldn't take a 1:2 shot with second pair in heads up?
| Quote: |
| Getting 5:3 on second pair terrible kicker against a bet and reraise is not pot committed. He just sucked. Stop trying to assign intelligent motives to bad players. |
Like I said, I guess I'm a bad player. I also apparently suck at math. If he has to put 2500 chips for a pot that's now 5100 chips, why is that 5:3?
| Quote: |
| He has no concept of weak and strong, or what is a good size bet. |
You're basing this on this one hand?
| Quote: |
| He raises the minimum because it's the damn default, for Pete's sake. |
I disagree, and I don't see what led to this conclusion.
| Quote: |
| Think about that. Don't know how much to bet or raise? Why not just click the button and bet or raise what's it's already set for! How convenient! That is what the minimum bet or raise says to me: I'm a doofus who doesn't know what to bet, so I'll just go with the default. |
That's one interpertation, no doubt. Then again, the guy did make it to be heads up in this tournament. The default must've worked really well for him until that point.
| Quote: |
| And you've provided no rationale AT ALL for respecting a minimum raise, other than that it only makes sense if you have a powerful hand you want to milk, which is completely irrelevent because it doesn't have to make sense to a senseless player. |
Well, I'm sorry to disappoint. My other assumption is that players are not complete morons unless I have a reason to assume otherwise, and then logic binds me to respect min-raises on my pot-sized bets.
| Quote: |
| I don't consider 2 times the pot a weak bet. Do the math. |
I'm talking about the size of the original pot. I don't think it's correct to ignore it.
| Quote: |
| And now the pot is 10/4 it's original size, or offering me OVER 3:1 on my call. |
Look, your pockets are not infinitely deep, this is a freezeout tournament. I don't know why you keep ignoring it in your calculations. I wouldn't go in with a nut flush draw even if I got 1:4 on my money, value or no value.
| Quote: |
| For reasons I cannot fathom, you assume A is more likely than B. |
Yep. Mostly because no-limit idiots prefer pushing to playing small. Also, because I don't have to take the risk, so I don't. I don't like risks, even if they're +EV. I prefer sitting on my +EV ass and let the value players slug it out until I can step in and dominate them.
| Quote: |
You find it "upsetting" that I value my experience more than yours? You've got to be kidding me. Of course I respect you and your opinion on the game. I know you've played a lot. But I can't accept something that directly contradicts something I see several times a tournament, and does not make theoretical sense to me given my understanding of applicable game theory and my opinion about the psychology of the average player. |
So, I contradict your experience. But my experience is more vast. It doesn't make theoretical sense, despite me giving you a consistent theory about it. All that's left is the psychological evaluation. Again, this is derived from experience. IMO weak no-limit players belong in one of two groups: callers and pushers. You can tell a caller by the fact he'll call you all the way, then lose on the river even if you've been bluffing (this is the funniest variation. Usually they fold on the river or when you push on them, but always call the flop). You can tell a pusher by the fact he'll go all-in on a 60 chip pot, and then say something like "haha, pussies" when people fold to him. Anything else should be at least feared until otherwise proven.
| Quote: |
| But don't tell me that playing to minimize variance means that +EV hands are "shit," or that drunken schlubs on Party Poker $10 tournaments know enough that I have to fear every default-sized raise means my opponent has me beat. |
I believe I replied to this point earlier in this post. There are two principle points here.
| Quote: |
| The table wasn't short handed. The blinds were 15-30 and there were still 9 people seated. |
| Quote: |
| A hand went down 5 way, unraised, K72 rainbow flop. |
I must've misunderstood this, then.
| Quote: |
| Now I see we get to the heart of the matter, why my stance bothers you so much. |
Your stance doesn't bother me - IMO you're wrong, because you value your own skill too much compared to other people at the table (being better is only effective if you try prolonging the game. You'd take a value bet even if it meant you might bust early), and you're still thinking in ring-game concepts. Like I said, I misunderstood the hand. I wouldn't have played like this if the tournament was just beginning.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
austinap
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 1:30 pm Post subject: 515 |
|
|
I have to agree with anthrax about throwing away +EV hands in tournaments. I do it a lot, and it gets me into paying position. If the goal of the tournament was to play some predetermined length of time with unlimited pockets, and the person with the most chips at the end won, then you'd be right to take all those slight favorite hands to the river.
Unfortunately, thats not how tourneys are structured though. You have a far from unlimited number of chips, and the goal is to get into 1. paying position and 2. after 1 is completed, get first. Depending on the tournament, sometimes the biggest goal is just to get paid (all the payments are fairly equal) and sometimes the only goal is first (where the prize is huge compared to second, etc..).
I dont think its ever a good idea to put a lot of money into a pot where you have a flush draw, straight draw, second pair, etc.. even if you are a favorite to hit the hand. Sure, if you play the hand 100 times that way, you would make a few thousand chips, but in a tournament, it would equate to you leaving the tournament right there 48 times or so. An even better example would be some of the multi-way pots that come up quite often in low limit tournaments: split 3 ways, you might be ahead of everyone with a 40% chance of winning, but this still equates to you leaving 60% of the time if you get pos committed here.
Obviously the choice depends on a lot of things, such as your stack compared to the blinds, compared to the pot, their stacks, how many places from the money you are, etc. It just doesnt make much sense to get into those races early in the game, when you can usually just sit back and wait a little bit until you have something that looks a little better with the flop. Another thing Ive noticed is that the people who do get involved in those, even if they do win, get involved in too many of them and end up giving away much of their lead. If it works for you, then I guess go ahead and do it. Im quite happy throwing those away more often than not, and grinding my way up to the top. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doc Borodog
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 10:46 pm Post subject: 516 |
|
|
Antrax, we're going in circles.
You're right about one thing, it was 2:1 on his call in the heads up hand my wife lost. He only had to call her 2500, not his whole 3000. My mistake. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doc Borodog
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 4:03 am Post subject: 517 |
|
|
Participated in the WPT -- WORST POSSIBLE TOURNAMENT -- tonight.
OMFG it was horrific. I have never seen slower players. My table was 8 handed, and the levels were 30 minutes. The button started on me.
When I next dealt, the blinds had doubled. I'm not kidding. It was that slow. Actually, no, they tripled. They went from 5-10 to 15-30. WTF?
When I dealt next, the blinds had doubled again (almost, to 25-50). Next deal, doubled again.
During this excruciating stretch I had exactly 3 playable hands. Pocket 4s, pocket 6s, and KQs. The 4s and 6s missed completely, the KQs I flopped two overs and the flush draw and it ragged off (at least the guy let me draw for cheap).
The one hand I would have won I was in the BB of the first round. A7o. The flop was A34 rainbow. A lot of players had limped and I didn't care for my kicker, so I checked to see what the action would be. The dude behind me bet, the dude to his left raised, and a thired dude cold called. I t was early, I didn't know where I was, so I just folded. The turn and river came 7, 7.
Turns out the better had no hand and no draw, the raiser had no hand and no draw, and the cold-caller had T3o and took down the pot. 
This turned into a pattern, the whole table betting, raising, calling, with no hand and no draw. It was unreal.
All the while, no one knew when it was their action, what the bet was, their name, or who the President was. They kept acting out of turn, splashing the pot, etc. One guy could never figure out why the pot was being pushed to whoever won, and made us wait while he furrowed his brow and stared at the board for a minute before shaking his head and giving up. Not to mention the jerk to my right who was constantly shouting in my ear and calling me "Mark."
To cap all of this off, I finally went in for almost 500 after one limper when the big blind was 100. I had ATs. The big blind called me with QT. Sweet. The limper called me with QJ. Schweeter; they're sharing Queens. All I have to do is dodge a Q or a J. The board:QQK8J.
Wow. What a waste of $25. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 3:42 pm Post subject: 518 |
|
|
| Mackay, in the happy thread, wrote: |
The hubby just (by "just" I mean about five hours ago, now) talked me into playing a tournament of pot-limit Omaha Hold'Em.
I've never played Omaha before. I've never played a pot-limit game. And I've never played in a big online tournament.
And I came 5th out of 1,355 people! \o/
(CP came 209th.  )
I won $7. Entry was free, so that's pretty sweet. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
