[Is This Standard? Basic Hand, 2-5]

no no, Jesus, i said this like 500 times, I was only advocating a c/r IF he had more chips.in which case it would look something like.pot is 95ishvillain bet 50, a check raise to 140ish is sufficient.

Deeper stacks makes it infinitely worse unless we're so deep that we can get villain to fold an overpair and we have reason to believe the villain is capable of folding an overpair.

[Is This Standard? Basic Hand, 2-5]

I have no idea where you're getting numbers from.. Im honestly lost at what this means.

This was in reference to your strategic recommendation for the hand this thread is about where you want us to check-shove 250 more dollars into a pot where every hand that beats us calls and every hand that we beat folds.

[Is This Standard? Basic Hand, 2-5]

I'm sure if I had the drive to really treat poker like a career, it would be different. but truthfully, I'd rather work in a factory 12 hours a day then sit at my computer multi-tabling on Pstars.

I think a lot of people are like this and it's certainly admirable to have that kind of drive for traditional work.That said, it's also likely why those of us that do grind out multi-tables of poker for hours every day to pay the bills know what we're talking about here.

[Is This Standard? Basic Hand, 2-5]

Also, even though the Chip Reese quote is not relevant here, I think it's important to note that a lot of great players became great players through tons of experience. However, they did not all have the same tools available to study poker that are available today. Thus, many of them will make fundamental mistakes that don't hurt them as much because they are amazing at other aspects of the game. Take Negreanu, for instance. He gets made fun of a lot on 2+2 for his play because he does some things that are fundamentally incorrect, but he overcomes them through his ability to read people well and control pot size and get people to do what he wants. All this means is that improving certain fundamentals would make him that much better and he has admitted as much and has strived to improve at NLHE through studying what the internet kids are doing. Lastly, even if you bought into the statement that the mathematically correct decision isn't always the best descision, shoving 250 more into a 200 dollar pot when we're drawing to two outs or our opponent is folding a worse hand isn't a case where that would be applicable.EDIT: This post rambles, but I hope the point is clear.

[Is This Standard? Basic Hand, 2-5]

and that zach sucks at NL

Well, I guess that settles it. I'm with Royal now.

[Is This Standard? Basic Hand, 2-5]

I'd like to LOL at the fact that you seem to care so much, yet your conclusion here is that I either suck at poker, or am just trying to get a rise.In both cases, you're wasting your breath, so why do it?because you see merit in trying to prove me wrong. Unfortunately, that can't be accomplished.

I'm not "wasting my breath". Not even in the least. I care about new players getting horrible, horrible, fundamentally horrible advice since this forum is where I got my start. I hope that they can read through this and see that what you're saying, in this thread at least, will make them worse players. I don't know if that's the case across the board because, like I said, I think it's reasonably possible you're arguing just to argue. I want people who might think you know what you're talking about to question that and then question your advice before deciding whether to agree or disagree with you rather than just take your word for it because you have a high post count. Quite frankly, I think the advice you're giving in this thread is a disservice to anyone who comes here in order to learn the game.

[Is This Standard? Basic Hand, 2-5]

LOL at this thread still going.Okay, there are only two possibilities here:1) Royal is arguing just to argue.2) Royal is actually bad at poker and doesn't understand fundamentals.Come to your own conclusion as to which is the case.Take care, all!

[Is This Standard? Basic Hand, 2-5]

If we say that vilain doesnt bluff the river, our equity goes down by allowing him to go to the river.do you understand that part? you should, you wrote that in your paragraphp.s. while you guys discuss this hand in another thread, or on aim, please discuss a litle bit more indepth as to how you play this hand aftet the turn.My assumption is that you (and maybe others) are voting, check/call the turn and check/call the river. If he checks behind on river, so what...is that accurate?

You have to be arguing just for the sake of arguing.If we say the villain doesn't ever bluff the river, this hand is even easier to play. We call the turn and check-fold to a bet. How could that be any simpler?

[Is This Standard? Basic Hand, 2-5]

QFMA (quoted for my argument)

This isn't your argument unless you somehow have changed math.

[Is This Standard? Basic Hand, 2-5]

For the record, I don't think live or online has anything to do with. In either setting, raising the turn in this scenario is fundamentally horrible.

[Is This Standard? Basic Hand, 2-5]

Also, I think you should've been more clear all along that you wanted to turn 99 into a bluff because that seems to be a point of confusion, for me at least.

[Is This Standard? Basic Hand, 2-5]

You're not folding AA or KK out with 100 blinds, either.

[Is This Standard? Basic Hand, 2-5]

LOL, yeah, definitely someone that slowplays AA and then bets the turn is going to piss themselves over a relatively short stack check-raising them on the turn.

[Is This Standard? Basic Hand, 2-5]

I guess the overriding problem you have is that you're only attributing risk to letting the villain see a river. You're attributing zero risk to raising a turn. Until you see how that's flawed, you won't understand the mistake.

[Is This Standard? Basic Hand, 2-5]

ok. You bet 50 into 100. villain folds, 100% of the time, you win 10,000100 in pot. + 50 (villain folds, take back 50 ) hero wins = 10,000Nowyou bet 50 villain calls.80% of the time you win 12,000100 in pot, you bet 50. he calls, pot = 200- your 50bet = 150 x 80 = 12,00020% of the time you lose 3,000100 in pot, you bet 50. he calls. you miss out on 150 of equityx20 = 3000total 9,000..

You've already deducted the 20% of the time you lose by just calculating the 80%.

[Is This Standard? Basic Hand, 2-5]

Of course, but we don't expect a call, we expect him to fold A-high. Our intent isn't to get value from his hand. It's to protect the value that our hand has. If we happen to get value from him, then woohoo. But this is neither our expectation or intent there.Mark

Yeah, I think you're arguing the same point, though. We can't force our opponents to make mistakes, but we hope they do. When we bet with 99, we want AK to call because it's a worse hand and we get money from worse hands that call.

Hi!I <3 Naismith

Thanks!Also, I wouldn't fold that QQ hand you posted in the Bored at Work thread on the 16th!

[Is This Standard? Basic Hand, 2-5]

Semantics, but I disagree. We lead 99 on an 8542 board after the flop goes c/c because we believe the guy has AK. We are not looking for a call, we're just making sure he doesn't get a free pull at the river. We lead 99 on a 862 flop after we've raised pf because we want someone to call with worse (78 or something)I understand we think the same way, but I like having a 3rd bet for protection category because I think logically it makes more sense. (we aren't really betting in this situation to get AK to call. We don't expect a call.)Mark

When we lead with 99 on an 8542 board after the check-check flop, we want him to call with A-high as long as we're sizing our bet such that he's not getting the proper odds. For instance, in this specific hand, the flop has 100 in it, if we check through and open-shove turn for 300, it is much better that he calls than folds, right?

[Is This Standard? Basic Hand, 2-5]

I disagree with this a little and I think this is where RT is going. We also bet to protect our hands at times. For instance, when the flop checks through we can generally bet the turn to protect against his AK getting a free draw to 6 outs on the river. We don't however want to c/raise and bloat the pot in order to protect our hand. Protecting our hand is not worth creating a huge pot on the turn with one more card to come. Protecting our stack >>> protecting our hand. So the correct play if you want to protect your hand is to lead the turn. This both protects our hand and protects our stack.

Mark, when we "bet to protect our hand," we're just betting to get a worse hand to call.

[Is This Standard? Basic Hand, 2-5]

I agree with pretty much everything you've said in this thread, and generally tend to disagree with most of what RT says, but your bolded is slightly incorrect. If there was a way to be 100% sure that we were ahead on the turn (and be able to narrow villain's hand to AK/AQ), then raising would be the correct play. Unfortunately, there's really no way that we can be 100% sure and in practice, check raising this turn becomes very, very bad.

I did say somewhere that if there was some dynamic involved that we could get the villain to call off with worse, raising isn't horrible. To your point, though, you're saying that if we know he has AK/AQ 100%, raising is correct. I'd counter that that would depend on what he thinks he does on the river with A-high or if we think we can get value out of A-high on the turn.Still, though, I think that's a tangent discussion that distracts from this specific hand where we can narrow down the villain's range but don't know it exactly.

[Is This Standard? Basic Hand, 2-5]

Lastly, I'll say this. Royal obviously is firm in his belief here, which is admirable. For everyone else that is trying to learn, please, please, please ignore his advice in this specific thread. I am certainly not saying to ignore his advice in other threads. I'm just saying he is giving fundamentally incorrect, fundamentally bad advice in this specific thread that will make you worse players.

Guess I didn't really mean, "lastly".

[Is This Standard? Basic Hand, 2-5]

The problem with this hand Is that MY advice was spot on from the start.and that zach sucks at NL, and matt always gets into marginal situations with small edges and is probably very swingy.righht?matt, your results stil very swingy?

LOL at making this a personal thing.Also, LOL even harder if either Matt or Zach posts their graph.

[Is This Standard? Basic Hand, 2-5]

you bet to get him to call with worse, or to fold better. and thats it? thats the whole point of betting in NL?

In a nutshell, yes.EDIT: LOL, Zach.

[Is This Standard? Basic Hand, 2-5]

Okay, I see there's no convincing you of this. There's simple math involved that doesn't even entail factoring in the percentage of time he slowplays or bluffs or whatever. The simple math is this. If we raise the turn, we lose an extra 250 every time we're wrong. If we check-call the river, we lose an extra 100-200 every time we're wrong.EDIT: I'll also add that if he never bluffs the river, we have an easy check-call on the turn and check-fold on the river and we lose nothing on the river, though no one has a 0% river bluff range.Lastly, I'll say this. Royal obviously is firm in his belief here, which is admirable. For everyone else that is trying to learn, please, please, please ignore his advice in this specific thread. I am certainly not saying to ignore his advice in other threads. I'm just saying he is giving fundamentally incorrect, fundamentally bad advice in this specific thread that will make you worse players.

[Is This Standard? Basic Hand, 2-5]

We CAN dodge 9 outs 80% of the time.

I don't know where you're getting 9 outs from. He can never have 9 outs.

If you were reading this villain correctly, then you can agree he WONT invest any bluffs on the river (after we call his turn)

It's impossible for any of us to make that specific read, but it's still irrelevant. It doesn't matter if he won't invest any more on the river. If we raise the turn, he's only investing more money when he has us beat. I don't know why this isn't registering. The ONLY reason we ever raise this turn is if there's some sort of dynamic where we think he'll call us lightly. Let me reiterate this point. It doesn't matter if he never bluffs the river (though *never* is unlikely). It matters that raising the turn only makes us lose more money when we're beat. Raising this turn is a big time losing play.

I said This is what I would do IF i had more chips behind.. So the c/r is not a SHOVE. it would be a check / raise leaving me with still probably 300 behind.

Check-raising the turn with more money behind is infinitely worse unless we're deep enough that we've decided we can bluff out overpairs. These are extremely, extremely simple poker fundamentals:We bet to get called by worse or to fold out better.Ask yourself which one you plan on accomplishing when you bet. Make a quick range analysis. If it's unreasonable that any part of his range folds that beats you or calls that you beat, do not bet/raise.In this instance, his range consists of overcards and overpairs. He folds the first and calls the second. Do not raise.

[Is This Standard? Basic Hand, 2-5]

wow. you guys are so far off in this hand its incredible. I'd say, flat the turn, and dodge is a safe bet, knowing you're only dodging about 9 outs. but common.If you guys seriously cant tell you're ahead in this hand after his 50 on the turn, something is wrong with the way you think in term of "being in the villains shoes"we're all winning players in NL holdem cash games, live or online, so no advice is generally bad, but I cant comprehend how you all have trouble missing reading this villain.

It's not a safe bet. It's the way to maximize your value. Let's say we all agree that we're ahead after seeing his 50 dollar bet on the turn. Give me one reason to raise that makes sense other than not wanting to have to make a river decision.EDIT: For the record, I think the majority of responses are "reading this villain" correctly. Hell, I think you're reading the villain correctly. I just think you're reacting to your read in a totally incorrect manner.