Jump to content

jmbreslin

Members
  • Content Count

    4,785
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About jmbreslin

  • Rank
    Poker Forum Veteran

Previous Fields

  • Favorite Poker Game
    8-Game

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0
  1. How many of my Canadian brethren are cashing out? I'm not sure what to do. Wouldn't be surprised if I woke up tomorrow and the sites were down completely.
  2. Be careful, jumping up in stakes to clear bonus or because you're fed up with the donkish play at micro stakes are both good ways to deplete your bankroll very quickly.
  3. I agree 100%. But let's remember that assessments of ev aren't as objective as people sometimes think they are. The ev of calling vs raising the river depends to a large extent on certain assumptions (the range of hands we put villain on, what we interpret his small bet to mean, etc). The assumptions we make determine whether a play is + or -ev. The disagreement between me and other posters here is around those assumptions. My post above wasn't meant to imply that I agree raising is better than calling in terms of ev but that I prefer to call to reduce my variance. Rather, I disagree that raising is +ev over calling because my assessment of the hand is different. But here's another aspect to the river decision that I don't think has been sufficiently discussed. In order for raising the river to be +ev, we have to expect villain to call with a worse hand often enough to make up for the times we run into the better part of his range. We can't just say that the range is balanced between between stuff we beat and stuff that beats us and conclude that raising the river is +ev. If he folds his worse hands a high percentage of the time (which I think is likely, especially if you put random non-QT hands in his range), then calling may still be the better play.
  4. I find it interesting that there is such an inconsistency between responses here and responses in the tourney hand I posted. In that hand the common response was "It's a $4.40, they do stupid things so don't give them credit." Here, even though it is also micro stakes, the response is "you have to exclude hands from his range that he shouldn't play that way, because playing those hands that way is stupid." So which one is it? Do unknown micro players play stupidly, or do they deserve some credit? Because it can't be both.Besides, my caution on the river isn't about skeletons under the closet. I'm not advocating cautious play because I'm scared of one possible hand he could be holding, or even two. I'm advocating caution on the river because, as I have repeatedly stated, the number of hands that beat us on the river far outnumbers the hands we beat. There isn't a range of hands we beat there and I'm saying call because I'm worried about AA. I'm saying call because I see little to no value in raising when there are several hands that beat us and only one or maybe two that we beat.As I stated before, the way I play may cause me to lose out on value in some spots. I admit that. It's a lower-variance approach to the game and I'm fine with that.
  5. No, I advocated caution on the river before he posted the results.In lots of cases I would agree that a weak bet is a scared bet with a weak hand, but not in this case based on how villain played the hand up to that point. A small bet on a paired river after check-raising the turn is different than a small bet on the river in lots of other circumstances.
  6. Even if we just limit the range that beats us to the ones you mention (which I don't think we can necessarily do), the question is what hands does he play up to the river the way he did that Hero beats on the river? The only hand is basically QT. So although there aren't a huge number of hands we lose to, they far outnumber the likely hands we beat. Maybe you wouldn't but lots of micro players would. There are basically two common types of players at these stakes, neither of which understand proper bet sizing: the ones that shove their big hands because they get excited or perhaps they're trying to look like they're bluffing, and the ones that bet ridiculously small with their big hands because they don't want to scare off the money or because they want to entice a raise.
  7. Yes, I play quite a bit of 5NL and 10NL Rush so I'm well familiar with the context. And you simply can't be surprised at anything you see when playing 5NL Rush. Some players just don't like to raise, especially from early position. And those players will often do very strange things postflop in an effort to be fancy or play like the guys they see on television. Players can be very unpredictable at these stakes, so in a situation like this when he gives me a cheap call on the river (assuming I call the turn) I'll take it. I might lose out on some value now and then, but I also cut down on big pots lost.
  8. Or TT or QQ or even AA.The check-call flop, check-raise turn there is a very strong move and is typical of big hands. On the turn what could he possibly be playing that Hero beats? If you are going to call the turn check-raise, then I call down the river. The only thing that river card changes is Hero now beats QT and 33 is less likely. But 22, TT, QQ, and AA are still just as likely as they were before and Hero loses to all of them.
  9. It's a Rush tourney, I don't have many (if any) past hands to evaluate. The thing is, if he's donking with a weak hand then raising to push him off his hand is not a +ev play. I'm better off calling and letting him fire again on the turn. But since it looks like a close decision even if he only shoves the tighter range I gave him, and an easier call if he's shoving a wider range, I've come around to seeing that raising the flop and calling a shove probably would have been the right play.I'm working on my mindset during these tournies, my biggest weakness by far is my willingness to put a healthy stack at risk in the middle stages. I've realized that constantly checking the tourney info (my position relative to how many players are left) affects my play in a negative way. What I need to do is focus on accumulating as many chips as possible no matter what my stack size and how many people are left until we get to the bubble where a bit of caution may be warranted. That doesn't mean I should play reckless up that point, but I shouldn't be backing off hands like this one because I don't want to put my top 5 stack at risk when there are still 40 left in the tourney.
  10. You can still learn to make better decisions than your opponents in Rush. You're just basing your decisions on different information and filling some gaps with reasonable assumptions, which you have to do even if you use a HUD because you rarely have a large enough sample to get a solid read. You can also take notes on opponents when they do unusual things or make plays you can exploit. I'm a huge fan of Rush.
  11. I wouldn't bother posting hands for feedback if I felt I played the hand correctly. What gets interpreted by others as validation of my own play is in most cases just the way I challenge people's ideas as part of my learning process. Opinions don't convince me, reasons convince me. And sometimes I have to push people a bit to get at their reasons.
  12. I agree about his likely level of strategic thinking but even micro donks can become more careful and selective based on their stack size. I even agree that he could be donking a wide range; where I find myself disagreeing is how his range changes if I raise the flop and he pushes. Most of the responses here seem to suggest that his range doesn't change at all. I could be wrong but I have a hard time accepting that his stacking off range is the same as his donking range.Anyway, suppose I peel the turn too. What rivers are you folding? Obviously any heart. Would you fold to an Ace? A 2, 5 or 7?
  13. Here's a paraphrased version of the exchange:donk4life: He'd stack off with a wide rangejmbreslin: I don't think he would (along with a reason why)donk4life: It's $4.40, you're giving him too much creditThe problem is when someone disagrees with your advice, instead of engaging them and trying to make a convincing case for your point you just get annoyed with them for disagreeing. It's that "I'm better than you so just do what I say and don't argue" attitude that drives me insane. And unfortunately I see it often in the strat forums.
  14. C'mon man. So you're saying that your poker advice is analogous so telling me the sky is blue? If I go to the doctor and he says "you have problem x, you need surgery," do I just say, "okay doc, whatever you say"? Absolutely not. I ask questions because I want to understand what the problem is, why he thinks surgery is necessary, what the other options are, and so on. I don't care if Phil Freakin Ivey himself tells me I should raise the flop - if he doesn't explain why, I'm going to ask. And if his reasoning doesn't make sense to me, I'm going to press him on it. Only when I'm convinced will I accept the advice.
×
×
  • Create New...