monkeywicked

I think this is right on. Because the PFR is short, he could be pushing with a much wider range of hands, and the Cut-Off would a lot less to call. In this case, I think I'd pay him off. HOWEVER, in different circumstances folding a bottom set might make a lot more sense. If both players are tight and deep stacked and this same situation comes up, well, hell yeah, you can fold if you like. It starts to become one of those situations where you at least know there is VERY GOOD chance you're up against an overset. And then just pick one decision and fly with it. You might be right or wrong

Everyone seems to be in favor of a raise on the flop. I'm not 100% convinced. I know I would certainly be tempted to do so, but after thinking it through, I think I'm leaning towards a smooth-call. My thoughts: The Villain either has A a dominated hand, like an overpair or bottom 2P, B a monster draw (13-15 outs), or C a flopped str8 or flush. If you reraise on such a scary board there's a good chance he'll fold A the single pair. Even if he thinks he's good, he might not risk his whole stack. After all, he just ran into the nut-flush and he might be gunshy. If he has B or C he'll proba

A little smirk or laugh when someone has made a big bet and you're staring them down often means they're bluffing. One of the best examples of this can be seen at and I think on the Circuit they refered to this as the "Feldman smirk." I've used this before with great success. A guy bet out huge on the river of a missed-flush board, the player behind him (who clearly had a pair of aces) folded, and I started staring at the bettor. After a few seconds he gave me this little shrug/smile, like "Do whatever you want, I don't care," and I called him with a low pair, winning the large pot. [Oh

i'm a bit surprised that QQ is beating out AK as a hand to push with. AK only truly fears AA. even against KK you're only a 1-2 dog. QQ, though, you better hope they have AK or QQ (or JJ?!) when the chips go in. i guess i just don't like being dominated... anybody else feel the same?

There's quite a few factors to take into account here. 1. Stage of the tourny: early. The blinds are low, the stacks are high. There's plenty of time. I suspect that most players wouldn't want to go broke with QQ so early. This pushes the guy's hand towards KK or AA. 2. Pot-committed? No. Maybe he thought he was, but with 4K or so in the pot and the guy's stack is over 14,000 (I'm assuming he had DN covered?) he doesn't have to stick his money in. Again, this pushes the hand towards AA or KK. 3. Is he going in against clear strength? Hell yes. There is, by my count, a raise, a rera

wrong. in a big tourney it's more like <10% have AA in that spot, not 90%. whether he actually is now or not, DN has a solid reputation as a very aggressive player, and considering the size of the pot many opponents would go all-in there hoping they had the advantage and expecting a race at worst with AK or potentially *any* pair.I'm curious about this myself. So: I've set up a poll in a New Topic: "Poll Related to DN'S KK Laydown." It's hardly scientific, but maybe it'll give us an inkling of who has a better sense of the situation... Check it out. Take a vote.

This poll is in reply to: AND wrong. in a big tourney it's more like <10% have AA in that spot, not 90%.

So I just got home from my Sunday game where the following situation came up. We're all dealers at a small poker room, and are pretty decent players, but since we're friends we get a little silly in our home game. Anyhow there's $10 in the pot and the flop comes 234 with two spades. Larry bets $8 and Bill says, "I know you just have over cards, I'm all-in. Oh, by the way, I haven't looked at my hand yet." (I don't remember exactly, but say it's $60 more.) Larry: "Come on, you really haven't looked?" Bill: "Swear on my mother." Etc. etc. Finally, Larry, and the rest of us decide that B

An interesting thread. Lots of good points, and for the most part it stayed civil! A few random thoughts: 1. Yeah, definitely add a 100K game. Give it some title to distinguish it from the 10K Championship Event. Someone said that this wouldn't be +EV for the pros, but I think they care more about the glory than the money. And the WSOP has been 10K forever. it hasn't even grown to relation to inflation. Think of the excitement around a 100K event. I think the ratings would be huge. Maybe make it a rebuy event? Ha. 2. Bring back HORSE and all the other games. The WSOP should represe

Stop blaming the book for your bad play.Sigh. I try not to get involved in these spats, but I want to make a few quick points:1. My comments about SSII are insightful and potentially useful to any other poker players with similiar problems. Anyone who reads the two contradicting quotes from his chapter and is confused (as I was momentarily) will see one (humble) opinion on what DB's poker strategy is. 2. Your comment is useful to no one. 3. The point of these bulletin boards is to create a database of thinking related to poker playing. If you're thinking about making a post that does n

Ha. Yeah. Very good advice (well, except for number 5). My profit in this game has increased dramatically since I started writing down notes and tracking results.

From the book. The situation is you have an OESD on a flop of A54DB: "With that flop, I'm going to lead right off and bet. If he plays back at me, I can now be quite sure he's got two aces or better. So, I'm about a 9 to 5 dog. The pot odds will compensate a little bit for that price, but it won't be laying me enough to put the rest of my money in. But I don't want that same guy, who might be a pretty good player, taking J-10 and making the same play.... [so] I can't let him succeed. I want him to fear me. I want him to have the opinion I'm going to defend the money I put out there. I

I've been playing and winning at NL for almost a year now. Recently I bought SSII online. I read SSI when I was first starting poker, but I was curious to see some of the new chapters. Anyhow, I reread Brunson's chapter on NLHE, and I felt like it really threw my game off. I consider myself an aggressive player, but after reading his chapter I felt like I went from aggressive to maniac. It's that whole, "I'll call him with the worst hand (as long as I have an out)" mentality that seemed unhealthy to me. I think, with Brunson, you kind of have to read between the lines. He's so into talki

I started at Party, but then moved to PR now that I'm on an Apple. I started playing the $25 PL games (four at a time) and built my $300 up to $2000 in a couple months of playing. From there I moved quickly to $50 and $100 NL games and thought the swings have been bigger, I am now up $3600 in a very short amount of time. I like PR a lot. I feel like the players are smart enough that I can read them, but not smart enough to win. On Party, I felt like I was always out there with a wing and a prayer (is that the expression?). Sure, maybe I had a positive EV, but the swings were brutal, and

Okay. First question: What takes more skill, tournys or the big games?I thought BG made a decent argument on the CardPlayer clip. He felt that in tournys you spend more time beating up weak players, whereas in the "big game," to turn a profit you need to be able to beat the best regularly. I can understand this point. However, you could argue that tourny play must be able to adapt to a wider range of opponents. Furthermore, it's not as if there aren't great poker players mixed in with the fish. Daniel regularly has to go through great players on his way to tourny wins (e.g. Chan at the Fi