Soy Un Looser (sh) (2/4)

[Naismith 0]

I get stubborn in pots like this myself. I certainly hate folding for minraises, which is why I suck so much at limit. This is almost always a small pair. I guess it comes down to whether you can push this particular villain off a smallish pair here. I think if that's the goal, I would prefer a flop push.

[tskillz187 0]

I think we all agree what his most likely holding is. Just that we disagree on how he is most likely to play it. I think it's very hard to push him off this hand ever, once he minraises.

[CobaltBlue 662]

I think it's very hard to push him off this hand ever, once he minraises.

I agree with that...which is why I called as opposed to pushing him in. We've got as many as 6 "real" outs and then another 8 "bluffing" outs assuming he gives up on the turn (which is not unheard of).As for results, the J peeled on the turn, he bet $35, and I pushed him in for his last $53. He called with the K T and bricked the river. Obviously, my read was a little off and my outs were pretty dirty, but it wasn't a "terrible" spot. If I push the flop, I assume he calls and I'd be drawing quite slim. As it stood, I got a little bit of money in behind and got a good chunk in ahead.

[mtdesmoines 3]

I agree with that...which is why I called as opposed to pushing him in. We've got as many as 6 "real" outs and then another 8 "bluffing" outs assuming he gives up on the turn (which is not unheard of).As for results, the J peeled on the turn, he bet $35, and I pushed him in for his last $53. He called with the K T and bricked the river. Obviously, my read was a little off and my outs were pretty dirty, but it wasn't a "terrible" spot. If I push the flop, I assume he calls and I'd be drawing quite slim. As it stood, I got a little bit of money in behind and got a good chunk in ahead.

Cobalt almost got cobalted.

[coremiller 0]

As for results, the J peeled on the turn, he bet $35, and I pushed him in for his last $53. He called with the K T and bricked the river. Obviously, my read was a little off and my outs were pretty dirty, but it wasn't a "terrible" spot. If I push the flop, I assume he calls and I'd be drawing quite slim. As it stood, I got a little bit of money in behind and got a good chunk in ahead.

You got lucky and hit a 4-outer when it was somewhat predictable that you might be drawing that slim (see my earlier post in which I suggested one of Villain's likely holdings was a flush draw with overs that takes away our outs), and even when you hit one of your four outs, you still had to dodge 12 outs on the river. I can't imagine how this was a good play. Justifying this mistake with "I got a little bit of money in behind and got a good chunk in ahead" is wrong-headed thinking. "I made a small mistake, and got very lucky it didn't turn out to be a bigger mistake" strikes me as a much more accurate appraisal.

[CobaltBlue 662]

You got lucky and hit a 4-outer when it was somewhat predictable that you might be drawing that slim (see my earlier post in which I suggested one of Villain's likely holdings was a flush draw with overs that takes away our outs), and even when you hit one of your four outs, you still had to dodge 12 outs on the river. I can't imagine how this was a good play. Justifying this mistake with "I got a little bit of money in behind and got a good chunk in ahead" is wrong-headed thinking. "I made a small mistake, and got very lucky it didn't turn out to be a bigger mistake" strikes me as a much more accurate appraisal.

I realize that you think I'm being results-oriented, but I really think it's the other way around. You think I would've bet in the first place or called the min-raise if I knew his exact hand? Obviously not. I admitted that I got fortunate in a worst-case scenario...in which my play was a tad -EV. However, against his range of hands, I believe an argument can be made that it's neutral or marginally +EV to call in this situation.Hand 0: 21.608% 20.67% 00.93% 13509 609.50 { QsJd }Hand 1: 78.392% 77.46% 00.93% 50612 609.50 { JJ-22, AcKc, AcQc, AcJc, AcTc, Ac9c, Ac8c, Ac7c, Ac6c, Ac5c, Ac2c, KcQc, KcJc, KcTc, QcJc, QcTc, JcTc, Tc9c }Simplifying, assuming there was no more betting in the hand, I was getting the correct odds to call against that range. Then, add in that implied odds and bluffing odds are larger than the associated reverse implied odds. Continuing with the range assessment, I called $14 getting 5-1 as a 4-1 underdog...and then proceeded to win $88 more as a 4-1 favorite. I'd call that a decent (or at least defensible) play.

[coremiller 0]

Simplifying, assuming there was no more betting in the hand, I was getting the correct odds to call against that range. Continuing with the range assessment, I called $14 getting 5-1 as a 4-1 underdog...and then proceeded to win $88 more as a 4-1 favorite. I'd call that a decent (or at least defensible) play.

I'm not shocked that you have a slight equity edge against his range, but that's really irrelevant, since you can't assume there will be no more betting in the hand. Equally irrelevant is that you won $88 more as a 4-1 favorite, unless you first multiply it by the likelihood (at the time you made the decision) of its occurrence, and the include the likelihood and payoffs of the other possible outcomes.Given that, I'm not sure how you justify your assumption that "implied odds and bluffing odds are larger than the associated reverse implied odds"; I'm convinced it's precisely the other way around, which is really the key issue in the hand. I'm too tired, though, to assign probabilities and payoffs to outcomes and figure out all the math, even assuming it could be done accurately (which is doubtful, because you'd have to include probabilities that he would bet vs. checking, fold to a bet, etc., and there's no way to precisely estimate those). It's something of a judgment call, and since all the reasonable arguments have been made already, we can agree to disagree.Edit: I also noticed that the range you assigned him did not include the possibility he's holding a third 4. I think this is a mistake.

[Acid_Knight 2]

I'm obviously not gonna catch up on all the threads that I missed, but this one looked like fun.Cobalt - Like Naismith said, getting stubborn in spots like this is easy because it's potentially cheap and if nothing else, you'd like to make your opponents believe that you won't be folding for minraises, no matter how badly you've missed the flop.In actuality, I tend to agree with coremiller here although I don't really like a lot of his actual reasoning for the decisions.I feel that your outs are terrible. You sometimes have 4-6 outs, but if he has a flush draw (which I feel is a VERY large % of his range) then you probbaly only have 4 outs and can maybe bluff the other big card (the A or the K) that isn't a part of his flush draw. He easily shows up with a hand like KQcc or KJcc here and you're just in terrible shape. I think more often than not, if he has a middle pair, he's shoveling right there on the flop. I think his range is made up mostly of draws and hands that he feels are way ahead, which probably means trips or an unlikely big pair.The pot odds are ok, but are weak considering that he's unlikely to check the turn and when he bets, you'll be left with no FE. If you hit a pair, you're pretty much gonna stack off every time if he's got you beat since the pot odds will just be too much.All in all, I think a fold is in order here (I'd rather float if he had another $50 or more) almost all of the time. You can start calling the minraise more often if they start doing it with any frequency, but I think that most players aren't going to observe that you folded for a minraise once and then deviate from their normal gameplan (which likely never includes minraises) to go out of their way to minraise you to try and buy pots more cheaply.

[David_Nicoson 1]

I see a lot of parallels with this hand. Pretty much everybody else hated that one as well. What's your view on it Cobalt?

[Acid_Knight 2]

I see a lot of parallels with this hand. Pretty much everybody else hated that one as well. What's your view on that one Cobalt?

It's weird. In Cobalt's hand, he's got no hand but he's got position. In your hand, you had an ok hand and no position. I think that those factors neutralize each other and put you both in very gross positions.The thing with your hand David was that there were so many draws and that your hand can actually be ahead of all of the draws as well as many one pair hands. There are also a lot of terrible turn cards for you to see where you are just gonna fold as well as some which will just get you into trouble.In Cobalt's hand, there aren't many draws. Like you, he could be drawing dead or close to it. The difference is that Cobalt will see so few cards that enable him to continue with the hand and often catching what seems to help is the one that gets him stacked. He's never ahead and probably won't be able to bluff to win either, so he's really usually relying on catching a card to win, which won't happen enough to make it profitable.In your hand, you're not looking to improve your hand becuase it's unlikely that you will. You're just trying to gage whether or not the turn helps your opponent or if you were already behind.The hands are similar in that they're marginal situations that the consensus was that the forum disliked them, but aside from that, I feel they're really different.

[David_Nicoson 1]

In your hand, you had an ok hand and no position.

I had position on the villain.

[Acid_Knight 2]

I had position on the villain.

I read my reply to your original thread and I thought you were OOP and my comments were based on that. In position, your hand is much easier to play and is MUCH different than Coablt's here. You have showdown value and FE. He has neither of these. That really makes the 2 hands like night and day.

[Naismith 0]

The hands are similar in that they're marginal situations that the consensus was that the forum disliked them, but aside from that, I feel they're really different.

They're also similar in proving that you like folding to minraises, limit donk.

[Acid_Knight 2]

They're also similar in proving that you like folding to minraises, limit donk.

"Friday night was kind of uneventful. I bluffed a guy out of a pot when I raised prelfop with A4o and the flop came down KT7 with 2 spades. I led for $120 and he made it $240. I hate minraises. I ask him why he did it. The player on my right informs me that it was obviously to annoy me (true) and the guy who made the raise said it was to take down the pot right there (not true) which is absurd. I raise $400 more, he folds and I show him the hand and ask him not to min raise me anymore."That's from my blog. I probably reraise minraises (when deep enough to fold after being shoved on without looking like a tool) as much as I call or fold to them. It's probably a leak, but I like it.

[David_Nicoson 1]

It's weird. In Cobalt's hand, he's got no hand but he's got position. In your hand, you had an ok hand and no position. I think that those factors neutralize each other and put you both in very gross positions.The thing with your hand David was that there were so many draws and that your hand can actually be ahead of all of the draws as well as many one pair hands. There are also a lot of terrible turn cards for you to see where you are just gonna fold as well as some which will just get you into trouble.In Cobalt's hand, there aren't many draws. Like you, he could be drawing dead or close to it. The difference is that Cobalt will see so few cards that enable him to continue with the hand and often catching what seems to help is the one that gets him stacked. He's never ahead and probably won't be able to bluff to win either, so he's really usually relying on catching a card to win, which won't happen enough to make it profitable.In your hand, you're not looking to improve your hand becuase it's unlikely that you will. You're just trying to gage whether or not the turn helps your opponent or if you were already behind.The hands are similar in that they're marginal situations that the consensus was that the forum disliked them, but aside from that, I feel they're really different.

You make a lot of valid points.The way in which I think they're similar is that they're situations we hate at least in part because of reverse implied odds, but we're getting this absurdly good price to continue. We all seem to hate the min-raise when someone else does it. That seems to be evidence that it's a good play. Lots of times a min raise bluff can be very profitable if our opponent folds even occasionally. I think we need to think more about how to address these small raises in general, because we can end up leaking.

[tskillz187 0]

I think we need to think more about how to address these small raises in general, because we can end up leaking.

I like it. You guys come up with a plan, prove to me it works, and I'll agree to implement it into my game.

[Acid_Knight 2]

You make a lot of valid points.The way in which I think they're similar is that they're situations we hate at least in part because of reverse implied odds, but we're getting this absurdly good price to continue. We all seem to hate the min-raise when someone else does it. That seems to be evidence that it's a good play. Lots of times a min raise bluff can be very profitable if our opponent folds even occasionally. I think we need to think more about how to address these small raises in general, because we can end up leaking.

Yeah, I agree with everything that you're saying. I just think it's hard to compare the hands on a larger scale apart from the minraise itself becuase in your hand, you have a made hand. You have position and the only real RIO comes from the times when you're already losing and decide not to fold since it's unlikely that you'll be improving your hand or even appearing to catch a card that improves your hand.In Cobalt's case, he's got no hand and really the only implied odds that he has are reverse implied odds. He's trying to catch a card to win the pot when he doesn't know which cards are winners and which aren't.

[No_Neck 0]

I like it. You guys come up with a plan, prove to me it works, and I'll agree to implement it into my game.

minraises are one of the things I take notes on whenever I see it. It can mean such a wide variety of things from different people.

[tskillz187 0]

Disclaimer: Taking notes will not be part of the implementation. More of the you guys put your minds together and come up with a strategy that is impossible to be taken advantage and I implement said strategy having put in 0 of the work. TY.

[David_Nicoson 1]

Yeah, I agree with everything that you're saying. I just think it's hard to compare the hands on a larger scale apart from the minraise itself becuase in your hand, you have a made hand. You have position and the only real RIO comes from the times when you're already losing and decide not to fold since it's unlikely that you'll be improving your hand or even appearing to catch a card that improves your hand.In Cobalt's case, he's got no hand and really the only implied odds that he has are reverse implied odds. He's trying to catch a card to win the pot when he doesn't know which cards are winners and which aren't.

Right, my hand > Cobalt's hand, except for maybe the stack size considerations. I felt like Cobalt might be compelled to approve of my line and join my min-raising-calling support group.

[tskillz187 0]

min-raising-calling support group.

Is this the unexploitable strategy? I think your hand > Cobalt's hand and in both spots Fold > Call. Which is what I said about your hand a month ago, so I'm either not getting better at poker (very likely), or they are the right calls (possible). Obviously those aren't mutually exclusive.

[David_Nicoson 1]

Is this the unexploitable strategy?

Probably not.The thing that makes the min raise work in a largish pot is that it threatens the whole stack for cheap. E.g.,Big stacks.PreflopHero raises with A A . Villain calls on the button. Flop J J T :diamond:or J Q 5 Hero bets. Villain min raises. Hero ??.We're in a slightly ahead/way behind situation, getting excellent pot odds to compensate. I think a lot of times we need to dump this when we're OOP but call it when we're in position. I think we need to make the villain commit something on the turn, not just threaten to commit it on the flop.

[tskillz187 0]

Probably not.The thing that makes the min raise work in a largish pot is that it threatens the whole stack for cheap. E.g.,Big stacks.PreflopHero raises with A A . Villain calls on the button. Flop J J T :diamond:or J Q 5 Hero bets. Villain min raises. Hero ??.We're in a slightly ahead/way behind situation, getting excellent pot odds to compensate. I think a lot of times we need to dump this when we're OOP but call it when we're in position. I think we need to make the villain commit something on the turn, not just threaten to commit it on the flop.

To me #1 is easy call to try and get to showdown cheaply and reevaluate, #2 is not the same way I don't really know how to articulate why. One easy reason is because we have no redraw outs, a J or A on the turn here and we are fairly sure that we have the best hand, there is no such card that gives us the same security for hand #2. Other than that I can't identify why I think it's not the same, or why it is worse to call in hand #2 but I feel sorta strongly against it. Something compels me to think it's a losing play whereas in #1 I think it's a winning play.

[Acid_Knight 2]

To me #1 is easy call to try and get to showdown cheaply and reevaluate, #2 is not the same way I don't really know how to articulate why. One easy reason is because we have no redraw outs, a J or A on the turn here and we are fairly sure that we have the best hand, there is no such card that gives us the same security for hand #2. Other than that I can't identify why I think it's not the same, or why it is worse to call in hand #2 but I feel sorta strongly against it. Something compels me to think it's a losing play whereas in #1 I think it's a winning play.

You think hand 1 is an easier call becuase there are fewer bad turn cards and more ways that we're currently ahead. The problem is that in hand 1, he only needs 1 card to have us drawing to 2 outs, where in hand 2, he needs to have both cards match up with the board in some way to give him an edge over us.The thing is, essentially both hands are the same and he posts it cleverly to disguise that. We have a hand which beats all other 1 pair hands and loses to everything else. We are in position, but we are not drawing to anything. We are getting a good price to continue, but what are we hoping for on the turn. There are any number of massive combo draws that we are a slight underdog to or made hands that we are a massive underdog to. We are almost never far ahead.The hands are so read dependant. Sometimes I will call. Sometimes I will reraise and sometimes I just muck it. It has everything to do with how clever my opponents are, what my image is and every other variable that goes into a poker hand.The thing is that if you're constantly folding in these situations, you're probably giving up less than if you're constantly trying to navigate your way to the end of these hands without a map or any real idea of what you're looking to accomplish.

[tskillz187 0]

The thing is that if you're constantly folding in these situations, you're probably giving up less than if you're constantly trying to navigate your way to the end of these hands without a map or any real idea of what you're looking to accomplish.

Yeah, I guess I'm just not too concerned about these spots because they happen so rarely to me that I don't see a leak. Also we're OOP in these hands. Get some sleep.