jmbreslin

Stealing the blinds from UTG 7-handed?Without a specific read I would have to give my opponent benefit of the doubt in the first hand and fold. Throwing in another 1950 chips and losing will completely eliminate Hero's decent chip lead at this point.

How often would opponents make those kinds of reraises with hands you are crushing or leading? In the first hand you made a large UTG raise and the button came over the top with a huge reraise. Without a read, I'd have to assume he's playing a pocket pair that has you beat. Similarly with hand 2. I'd fold the first hand but call the 2nd and hope to make a set on the flop.

From the way that statement was written I had assumed he was talking about when the M's had gotten low enough that people were in push/fold mode.

Wait a minute, doesn't play usually loosen up when the M's get low rather than tighten up?

It's a much better place to be aggressive for the larger stacks as they can take advantage of the smaller stacks not wanting to bust out on the bubble. With the middle stack, Hero might be better off being patient and waiting for the smaller stack to bust out before playing hands like 77 aggressively.

That's just about as good a flop as you can expect when you call with A7. If you're not prepared to go all the way with it, no sense playing it in the first place.

Man, that's complicated.I think a bet of 150-200 will scare off too many of the limpers, especially since you mentioned that post-flop play has been tight at the table. I'd be inclined to make a really small bet (trying to make it look like you connected with something but are afraid to bet bigger), in which case you might get a raise from someone, or just check if you feel confident that one of them will bet.

Cut-and-pasted from the wikipedia explanation:"As the percentage of stack needed to call becomes lower, the range of cards the caller will need becomes wider, and he or she becomes less likely to fold. Consequently, fold equity diminishes. There will be a point at which a caller will need a sufficiently small percentage of their stack to call the all-in that they will do so with any two cards. At that point, the all-in bettor will have no fold equity."Are there any guidelines for determining how the % of your opponent's stack needed to call affects your fold equity? In the hand posted here, t

Seriously, I'd like to make sure I understand the concept of fold equity...

Somebody correct me if I'm mistaken, but if your stack is 2000 and your opponents' is 8000, you have about zero fold equity, right?

I looked around on Full Tilt (where the OP said he was playing) and the only "freerolls" I could find were satellites with Full Tilt Point entry fees, which you can only earn through the bonus (which means you have to play for real money to begin with). Where do you find out about these freerolls with cash prizes?Edit: Never mind, I found them. I had no idea...Just out of curiosity, approximately how long does a typical 2700 person NL tournament take to play online?

Forgive my ignorance, but how do you build a bankroll when you're not playing for real money?

So "shiz-nite" is a good thing?

What concerns me about villain here is that he's playing this hand much differently from how he's been playing prior to this hand. After some aggressive play early on (based on the first hand posted) he went into passive limp/call mode and his stack bled. Now he's back to aggressive play, with the PF re-raise and the lead OOP on the flop. I don't think he's bluffing. Granted his PF reraise may have been an attempt to block a blind-steal, but based on the description of his play I'd say he definitely has something. So I don't quite agree with the overall 46% equity estimate.

I don't understand this statement. What do you mean by Hero having "calling odds to the river"? On the flop the total pot is 875 and it's 350 to Hero to call. That's about 2.5/1 by my rough calculations; Hero only has MPTK and he's not drawing to very many outs. If you have good reason to think he's bluffing, or for some other reason would fold to a raise, then I'd raise him. Otherwise, I see no reason to continue with this hand.

How do you interpret the all-in check-raise from that villain? Is he just trying to prevent you from playing sneaky again, or something else?

I'm a newbie myself so I'm not the best person to be responding but my understanding of getting maximum value is that you basically want to get as much money into the pot when you are a statistical favorite while at the same time minimizing your potential losses when you are behind. For example, a set on the flop is a big favorite over a flush draw (something like 75%) so you want to get as much money into the pot as you can whenever that situation arises. Statistically, you'll lose 25% of the time; but you'll make money in the long run because you'll win 75% of the time.Does that make sense

If that's true then it sounds like the SB+BB+ante raise strategy is based on trying to find the balance between a raise that is big enough to force some players off the pot and/or potentially win the pot outright but not risking more than is necessary. In the above scenario a 3xBB raise would be risking 1200 extra chips to win 1050, when a raise of 1000 would have the same impact with slightly less risk. Does my interpretation make sense?

The one advertised at the top of the page, Hold'em Wisdom for All Players. Can't remember which chapter but he definitely advocates 3xBB for experienced players and 5xBB for beginners. He may play differently himself because his advice is for players less experienced than he. He also advocates using standard raises to give away less information.

First-in, maybe; but I don't like that move when the big stack has already limped in and there are still 3 players after you to act. Your M is down to about 6 so things are getting pretty tight, but I don't think you're desperate enough yet for this move.

Why 2.5? In his new book Daniel advocates 3xBB for experienced players and 5xBB for less experienced players.

I'm not sure about the weaker A. Villain has been identified as a tight player who has only reraised with AA, KK, and TT. Suddenly he's going to attempt to block a steal by reraising with a weak A? Possible, but I still think KK is more likely. This is small stakes and most players at those levels aren't nearly as tricky as at the higher levels.

I guess it depends on the quality of player. Many players in the low buy-ins like to play draws aggressively (incorrect as it may be). Though I admit the KT 2-pair may be more likely. I still think he would have led with a smaller bet with a set - most low buy-in players love to slowplay/trap with sets.

I agree, though I wouldn't necessarily rule out a smaller flush draw. By the time the action came around to him in the BB, he was getting almost 4-1 odds to call the raise. He could have called with AXd or even took a stab with J9d, depending on the type of player he is.

That pot-sized bet just screams flush draw to me. I think most players would have reraised PF with AA, KK, AK, no? If so, that tells me he called PF with a diamond connectors (he got solid odds to do so) or perhaps with TT or 55. If he did play TT or 55, I think you would have seen a smaller bet on the flop; I think the pot-sized bet indicates a flush draw.