CobaltBlue 662 Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 Caesar's Palace 2/5 NLHE (9-handed)BB $1300UTG $4000UTG+1 $600Cobalt $530Cobalt is Button w/ A Q . I've been playing mostly TAG at a very LAG table. It hasn't been particularly working for me (I've won one pot in 1.5 hours). UTG+1 has been there for a few rounds. On his very first hand at the table when he came into the BB, I raised in MP w/ JJ to $20. It got called in two spots and he re-raised to $100. I called and another guy called. The flop was Axx...he went all-in, we folded. He seemed to be a decent young player somewhat of the Shannon Shorr mold. UTG is a super loose gambler. He's pretty tricky with his aggression. BB is also fairly LAG but competent.Pre-flop:UTG straddles, UTG+1 calls, 2 folds, MP3 calls, CO calls, Cobalt raises to $80, 1 fold, BB calls, UTG calls, UTG+1 goes all-in for $600, Cobalt ?($450 to call all-in to win $790)Let's add an interesting wrinkle...UTG is probably going to call with any two broadways or any pair. Link to post Share on other sites
Merby 3 Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 Insta-dumpDo you really want to flip for your stack? I mean, even if you put him on garbage, you're not a *huge* favourite (two unpaired overs against two unpaired unders). More likely, you're up against a small pair (where you're a 50/50 dog) or a big ace. If you're up against AJ or AT, then it's a dream call; if you're up against AK, it's a nightmare.To me this *really* looks like a "I'll take that pot, thank-you very much" raise that people make with any pair or AK, so his most likely holdings put you as a coin-flip dog or dominated. Link to post Share on other sites
KTW 0 Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Speed of Light Insta Fold. It's only AQ and there were 2 others who called the $80 raise with 1 re-raising allin with 1 LTA after you? There would be lightning I would fold so fast. Link to post Share on other sites
mtdesmoines 3 Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Pre-flop:UTG straddles, UTG+1 calls, 2 folds, MP3 calls, CO calls, Cobalt raises to $80, 1 fold, BB calls, UTG calls, UTG+1 goes all-in for $600, Cobalt ?($450 to call all-in to win $790)Let's add an interesting wrinkle...BB is probably going to call with any two broadways or any pair. Are you steaming ?? Link to post Share on other sites
CrazyJoe 0 Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 if BB calls with any 2 broadway any pair, doesnt that add more than enough to call here, you are already getting like 1.7 to 1, with the BB calling thats 2.7 to 1, you only need 27% equity against both hands and I don't think that's too far off. It's probably a fold, but I don't think it's auto-muck, a call probably isnt that bad and might be good for your image. Link to post Share on other sites
ScreenDreams 0 Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Are you steaming ??Thats exactly what I was thinking too. Just from the start how this post is introduced stating that he hasn't won a pot for 1.5hrs sets up his emotional situation. Therefore now simply wants to desperately win a pot, and play horrible like the other players.gg Link to post Share on other sites
Zach6668 513 Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 I THOUGHT YOU QUIT CASH GAMES!!!!!1 Link to post Share on other sites
David_Nicoson 1 Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 We can win a side pot of 530 x 3 + 80 = 1670 by investing 530 - 80 = 450. Break even at 450/1670 = 27% equity win tie pots won pots tied Hand 0: 22.034% 20.76% 01.28% 1298231878 79957472.83 { AcQh }Hand 1: 52.637% 51.28% 01.36% 3207393712 84931612.33 { JJ+, AKs, AKo }Hand 2: 25.329% 23.90% 01.43% 1495001430 89234396.83 { 22+, ATs+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs, ATo+, KTo+, JTo } This looks like a loser to me.I'm confused on who's calling here. It's UTG who is super gambler, right? Link to post Share on other sites
Acid_Knight 2 Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Honestly dude, if you're even CONSIDERING this, you really should take longer away from the table Link to post Share on other sites
tskillz187 0 Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Don't play TAG for 1.5 hours to call off your stack with AQ with two people behind you to act. Link to post Share on other sites
A_Bullets_A 0 Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 I'm thinking you probably don't even think about calling if you didn't put in $80 already. Is it just me or is that raise to $80 pretty huge? I'm just wondering why it was so much. Link to post Share on other sites
CrazyJoe 0 Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 We can win a side pot of 530 x 3 + 80 = 1670 by investing 530 - 80 = 450. Break even at 450/1670 = 27%equity win tie pots won pots tied Hand 0: 22.034% 20.76% 01.28% 1298231878 79957472.83 { AcQh }Hand 1: 52.637% 51.28% 01.36% 3207393712 84931612.33 { JJ+, AKs, AKo }Hand 2: 25.329% 23.90% 01.43% 1495001430 89234396.83 { 22+, ATs+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs, ATo+, KTo+, JTo } This looks like a loser to me.I'm confused on who's calling here. It's UTG who is super gambler, right? i think UTG+1's range is too tight here, but even expanding it a little prob. doesn't make it right. OP can probably find a better spot, but if he's looking to gamble and the BB is going to call with that range then maybe. Problem is BB might not be as predictable as this, this uncertainty leans toward a fold. Link to post Share on other sites
tskillz187 0 Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 I'm thinking you probably don't even think about calling if you didn't put in $80 already. Is it just me or is that raise to $80 pretty huge? I'm just wondering why it was so much.The straddle makes it $10 blind and makes it a round of 5-10nl and couple callers in front, plus it's a laggy table, need to beef up the raise a little bit. I'd probably put it to $65-70 but $80 isn't absurd. Link to post Share on other sites
A_Bullets_A 0 Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Yeah, I wasn't thinking about that straddle. So then there was over $40 in the pot already with those limpers. I guess $80 doesn't seem like so much then. Link to post Share on other sites
David_Nicoson 1 Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 i think UTG+1's range is too tight here, but even expanding it a little prob. doesn't make it right. OP can probably find a better spot, but if he's looking to gamble and the BB is going to call with that range then maybe. Problem is BB might not be as predictable as this, this uncertainty leans toward a fold. equity win tie pots won pots tied Hand 0: 25.053% 20.01% 05.04% 2248569161 566029775.17 { AcQh }Hand 1: 45.563% 40.73% 04.83% 4576106270 542767544.17 { 99+, AQs+, AQo+ }Hand 2: 29.384% 28.00% 01.38% 3146253791 154973242.67 { 22+, ATs+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs, ATo+, KTo+, QTo+ } It's closer than it seems at first glance, but are we really going to see a call with 22? I left out a little dead money, too, but it's in the noise.Edit: Fixed range. Link to post Share on other sites
Zach6668 513 Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 You missed QTo+ from the second range, fwiw. Link to post Share on other sites
David_Nicoson 1 Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 You missed QTo+ from the second range, fwiw.That's because he probably calls with any broadway, so I just figured he folds QJ and QT.OK, yeah, I ****ed that up. Link to post Share on other sites
Zach6668 513 Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 We have to take into account the that the loose guy isn't calling 100% of the time, since his range isn't 100% broadway + pairs... so the x% that he folds, we get it in with AQo HU, which is almost definitely not good. Link to post Share on other sites
CobaltBlue 662 Posted July 17, 2007 Author Share Posted July 17, 2007 Do you really want to flip for your stack?This whole "don't flip for stacks" stance is a little misplaced. If he shows me JJ, I'm calling in an instant, because I'm getting considerable odds.I realize that the "attitude" of the post isn't conducive for "clear thinking"...but I was taking these factors into account. The fact that I haven't won much certainly plays into their image of me...and suggests that it's possible that they can run me over. I don't think that's paranoia. Let's also factor that I'm raising a bunch of limpers...in a straddled pot...on the button. I can easily have a "weaker" hand here...which in turn can make UTG+1's range weaker. He was a decent enough player to be able to read the situation and not have to have AA/KK/AK here. Link to post Share on other sites
CobaltBlue 662 Posted July 17, 2007 Author Share Posted July 17, 2007 I'm confused on who's calling here. It's UTG who is super gambler, right?Fixed the OP. UTG is the super gambler and potential caller. He might even call with medium suited aces. Link to post Share on other sites
Lavitz 0 Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Holy dead money city. Look at all those poor callers trapped. I can go either way with this. Thing that sucks is with all those callers and action, some people probably are holding some of your outs (ie aces). Link to post Share on other sites
CobaltBlue 662 Posted July 17, 2007 Author Share Posted July 17, 2007 Holy dead money city. Look at all those poor callers trapped.Exactly. That's the problem here. If the blinds/straddler had folded and then UTG had re-raised or gone all-in, it would've been a pretty easy muck. I'm almost absolutely sure I'm ahead of them, and I'm not nearly as sure as most of you that UTG+1 has me stomped. Link to post Share on other sites
Merby 3 Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 This whole "don't flip for stacks" stance is a little misplaced. If he shows me JJ, I'm calling in an instant, because I'm getting considerable odds.I realize that the "attitude" of the post isn't conducive for "clear thinking"...but I was taking these factors into account. The fact that I haven't won much certainly plays into their image of me...and suggests that it's possible that they can run me over. I don't think that's paranoia. Let's also factor that I'm raising a bunch of limpers...in a straddled pot...on the button. I can easily have a "weaker" hand here...which in turn can make UTG+1's range weaker. He was a decent enough player to be able to read the situation and not have to have AA/KK/AK here.Don't worry, I am willing to flip all the time if I feel that I am either ahead or a coinflip. I said "don't flip for stacks" because it's a common catch-phrase, but you're right: in a cash game, I don't mind at all if I feel I have the proper equity and pot odds.In this *particular* situation, I am happily tossing my hand into the muck because I have seen this play many times, and in my experience, the player that makes this play is holding:90% of the time: any pocket pair or AK10% of the time: Something else (might be ATC here if he feels everyone is weak and will fold...)I am folding because against his projected range, we are either a coinflip dog or are dominated. It's a situation I don't like to find myself in. Link to post Share on other sites
David_Nicoson 1 Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Just to bound the upside on this hand, let's pick out exactly the hands we want to see out of their ranges. equity win tie pots won pots tied Hand 0: 38.194% 38.10% 00.09% 37605222 90090.00 { AcQh }Hand 1: 28.809% 28.72% 00.09% 28342890 90090.00 { JTo }Hand 2: 32.997% 32.91% 00.09% 32475906 90090.00 { 88 } Our equity is 1690 x 0.38194 = 645. So a call in this case nets us 645 - 450 = 195.And on the other hand, it could be like this. equity win tie pots won pots tied Hand 0: 04.777% 03.95% 00.82% 487750 101611.00 { AcQh }Hand 1: 16.956% 16.51% 00.44% 2037231 54631.00 { QTs }Hand 2: 78.266% 77.77% 00.49% 9594804 60759.00 { AA } EV = 1690 x 0.04777 - 450 = -369 Link to post Share on other sites
CobaltBlue 662 Posted July 17, 2007 Author Share Posted July 17, 2007 In this *particular* situation, I am happily tossing my hand into the muck because I have seen this play many times, and in my experience, the player that makes this play is holding:90% of the time: any pocket pair or AK10% of the time: Something else (might be ATC here if he feels everyone is weak and will fold...)The title's 'typical insta-muck'. We obviously disagree, but I regard this situation as somewhat atypical. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now