
justblaze
Members-
Content Count
4,423 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Everything posted by justblaze
-
Justblaze,I'm pretty sure this part of your statement is wrong.At the extreme, suppose the BB was the world's biggest fish. Say he will call to showdown with anything (even with 32 UI, hoping for a split), and that he will never bet or raise with any hand except for on the river with the nuts.Against this opponent, in a blind structure where the SB is 1/2 of the BB, it would be marginally correct to at least open-limp with any two (even 32o) if the SB (at least, if the rake is small), since you'd be getting 3-1 immediate on your limp (even 32o is 2-1 to win by the river vs. an random hand) an
-
screech, two things are obvious:a) this is a very interesting hand. much more so than it would seem.B) i think the turn play is both read dependant and style dependant. if i grant you that calling is marginally +ev as compared to raising, im still raising. i like to get a wild image. it helps me get paid.
-
ok, this question has got me annoyed. a few people i respect are disagreeing with me (not here - ive been thinking bout this for an hour now), so im going to do some more research and get back to you guys.
-
That's bad advice.If you advocate playing the player and not the cards, you need to realize that some situations, completing is better than raising and better than folding.When the person is a loose passive and will show down any pair, why do you want to raise low suited connectors? Getting paid 3 to 1 against a villain who doesnt bluff is an easy complete, but you almost definitely don't have an equity edge - so raising is bad.its still garbage, man. first of all, for metagame purposes, you are narrowing your sb steal range for anyone paying attention. secondly, you lose a lot of fold equity
-
because you are ignoring the fact that the big blind may fold. then you win the whole pot. you also get fold equity on later streets. i play exclusively shorthanded limit, so im playing in the blinds almost every other hand in many sessions. saving that one small bet is a relatively miniscule benefit to the potential disaster of a) waving a flag to an observant player that says 'id like to see the flop here but my hand isnt very good' and B) giving the big blind a free look at a flop with a hand he may fold to a preflop raise.
-
not quite. the three numbers are shorthand for the 3 most commonly used (and most generally useful) pokertracker stats on opponents - Voluntarily Put $ in Pot, PreFlop Raise, and Agression Factor (VP$IP/PFR/AF). VP$IP: what percentage of the time does player enter a pot voluntarily? this is essentially 'flops taken' except it also includes rare times where a player will limp and then fold to bets before the flop, and does not include times where a player is in the big blind and has no choice but to see a flop. it is a more accurate assessment of looseness/tightness than flops taken %PFR: strai
-
I left the 88 combos in the weighted out calculation. AA-TT -> 30 combos, 5 outs99- -> 1 combo, 0 outs88 -> 3 combos, 0 outs(30 x 5 + 4 x 0) / 34 = 4.41 outsnot to be nitpicky, but AA has you drawing to 2 outs... so its (27x5 + 3x2 + 4x0)/34 = 4.14 outs = insufficient odds at 10-1. 0.8 is passive. Like I said, I treat it the same as a 1.2 for a 20VPIP. These guys simply don't 3-bet the flop with overs vs multiple opponents often, if at all. I would be much more concerned about him making a play if this flop were HU or if he might knock someone out on the flop with a 3-bet. Again,
-
by open limp do you mean to limp then fold to a raise?no, i mean open-limp as in you are the first person to enter the pot, and you limp. this can be done in some situations, but never in the small blind (or on the button, or in the cutoff, or in the hijack - theres just no strategic justification). you are opening the action with a sign of weakness, and letting the big blind see a flop with any two cards. if you decide your cards are good enough to play, make sure you force the big blind to do make the same decision.
-
If it wasn't for the gauruntee that the pot would be 3-way and villian would be OOP the whole hand, I could see 55. 14% is not that high a pfr% in 6-max. I've been 3-bet, and I have 3-bet with 55 before, but it's almost always an isolation 3-bet.even if we take out 55, we still have 88 adding 3 combos, for 7/33, which means we must discount our outs by 20% and therefore do not have proper odds to peel the river. Is it in your range after you bet the flop, someone raises, and someone else cold calls? Are you a passive player?ive seen AK, AQ played like this a million times by players with
-
because based on the read we have been given, villain seems extremely passive with a narrow steal range and an even smaller flop range (not my argument, just the one that has been made - i 3bet pf and bet-fold flop).
-
ewwwwwwww.
-
rule #1: NEVER OPENLIMP. the first time someone open limps from SB i label him a donkey until proven otherwise. rule #2: play the man. against tight players i raise pretty much any two suited cards, Ax, Kx, most Qx, any two connected cards above 7, pretty much anything. against a loose player that range comes down a lot.
-
I agree, but I think when someone shows an AF to one extreme or the other, it is usually somewhat indicative of his play. Plus the whole reverse implied odds thing in a small pot.or hes a moderately crappy player on a crappy run of 30 hands. more stats are needed. ATSB? WTSD? W$SD? you dont check these things when dealing with steal defense? i have ATSB and W$SD on my HUD.
-
Fair enough, if you can back that up with hard numbers I'll take your side of it. Only possible 3-betting hands we're that far behind here are 99 and AA and there's only 3 ways villain can hold those for a total of 4 combos (and I think it's generous to give 99 at all here).AA - 3 combosKK - 6 combosQQ - 6 combosJJ - 6 combosTT - 6 combos99 - 1 combos (edit: forgot the 9 on the flop, it's 1 not 3 here)So you think 4 of 30 is a significant percentage? We have 5 outs the vast majority of the time here.Jeff88, 55. hes raising 14% of his starters PF. if you dont think 55 is in the range here, i
-
Getting 10-1 and perhaps some overlay from the button and drawing to 5 outs? Why should he fold that? Unless we're playing with a 60 card deck, I'm calling that.Jeffbecause some significant percentage of the time that we are drawing, we are drawing to less than 5 outs. unless we are playing with a 30 card deck, im folding.
-
30 hands is kinda useless man, whats his ATSB?
-
thanks.I often post reads..and at 6 Max I am getting more accustomed to looking at the ShowDown along with their overall stats.But since he had 5 hands at table....good advice though.i was kind of kidding, :oops: I misread the intent.thanks for clarifying :-) Good to have you in strategy. You are missed.im desperately avoiding writing an essay thats due tommorow. interesting to note how many posters are playing 3-6 6max. thanks guys, you're all paying my rent this month!
-
screech, id just like to reiterate that if you are drawing 100% of the time here, you should fold the turn. i dont think you are, but you do, and its your read.
-
thanks.I often post reads..and at 6 Max I am getting more accustomed to looking at the ShowDown along with their overall stats.But since he had 5 hands at table....good advice though.i was kind of kidding, its pretty tough to get a read on a guy you have 5 hands on. with that said, WTSD is a good stat to have your eye on, but is fairly meaningless with a small sample (i pretty much disregard it for villains with less than 100 hands). W$SD is a far better indicator of their showdown standards. the real reason i made the comment is that you are in a pretty tough spot here without a read. sometim
-
I agree. At the time I was 5-tabling and censored up the action. I though button had capped. You're kidding right?I know I screwed up on the flop check, but how big a pot do you need before you call down? This pot is very big. The board is not that scary. Button is in an excellent position to bluff. I'm getting 3.6:1 to call down.i bet the flop, and if button raises, you can put him on a medium pair fairly easily, making it a lot easier to fold the river UI. but, you cant really fold the river at this point given the previous action. at the very least you want to see his coldcalling stan
-
I don't think your villain is 3-betting any overpair here. He is too passive.The button does make things dicey, but I still like it.So you don't think he's 3-betting the turn with an overpair, but you think he's 3-betting the flop with overcards??? That's my point. This guy is passive enough that after he 3-bets the flop, I'm drawing almost all the time. Since when did raising the turn with a drawing hand and 0 fold equity become profitable?a) you are greatly over-estimating how passive a .8 AF is with 32 VPIP.B) if you are drawing almost all the time, fold the turn, since you are drawing
-
I considered this, but decided against it because I am likely behind to BB, but ahead of button. I don't mind button padding the pot in this case.Also, I can't fold to a 3-bet. Villians actions to the turn mean either an overpair, or an overplayed AK (I doubt this though, given his stats). If he 3-bets, I can safely assume an overpair (or unlikely 99/88), but I will be getting sufficient odds to outdraw. i just think the line you took is incredibly weak. im either folding the turn or raising it. i dont like drawing to 5 outs. also, for metagame purposes, the turn raise here does a lot for
-
I quite like thisim very tricky