Soy Un Looser (sh) (2/4)

[David_Nicoson 1]

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.

I agree that the second board is scarier to the hero.On the first board, a villain without a jack or a big pair has to have a lot of courage to fire a second barrel on the turn.On the second board, the villain can fire a second bullet on a brick turn with A X knowing he's not betting into the nuts.The upshot of this is that putting in a little raise with complete air on the suited board is a pretty good play.

[Naismith 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.

The problem with this is you don't really want to set the precedent that you're so easily pushed off a hand. If you're "constantly folding in these situations", someone will definitely pick up on the fact that you're bluffable with the absolute minimal risk.

[tskillz187 0]

The problem with this is you don't really want to set the precedent that you're so easily pushed off a hand. If you're "constantly folding in these situations", someone will definitely pick up on the fact that you're bluffable with the absolute minimal risk.

I guess. But to cover this up you pretend you Hollywooded it and say something like "You always no when I have absolutely nothing, I can't even call that minraise!" I think your scenario may work best in online when it's hard to save face and even harder to get a read on why the hell Villain is minraising you.

[Acid_Knight 2]

The problem with this is you don't really want to set the precedent that you're so easily pushed off a hand. If you're "constantly folding in these situations", someone will definitely pick up on the fact that you're bluffable with the absolute minimal risk.

Tskillz pointed out that the situations don't come up THAT often. Also, your opponents never know what you have. I know that it's bad to become exploitable in any way and if you're only continuing with big hands after the flop, you'll be in touble and you'll get run over.As a general blanket rule, folding in these situations is probably more profitable in the long run than calling is. But, you're 100% correct that you can't become predictable and you have to show that you're willing to play back at someone with air (or AA, turned into air) on one of these boards to keep them guessing.

[tskillz187 0]

(or AA, turned into air)

That can't be right. I deleted the clause right before it by accident and I think that's more right. (play back with air or something like that). I don't see how turning AA into air to show that you aren't going to become exploitable to minraises is a good idea, ever.

[Acid_Knight 2]

That can't be right. I deleted the clause right before it by accident and I think that's more right. (play back with air or something like that). I don't see how turning AA into air to show that you aren't going to become exploitable to minraises is a good idea, ever.

The idea is that if you're reraising with AA here, you're not really looking for action. That is to say, you're not intending to do it for value because you don't expect him to call with worse hands often enough for it to be profitable so you're essentially turning AA into a bluff. You're hoping that the hand ends right there becuase if it continues, you're unlikely to win. Essentially that means that your hand can be AA or 56o since you don't plan to get to showdown with it.

[tskillz187 0]

The idea is that if you're reraising with AA here, you're not really looking for action. That is to say, you're not intending to do it for value because you don't expect him to call with worse hands often enough for it to be profitable so you're essentially turning AA into a bluff. You're hoping that the hand ends right there becuase if it continues, you're unlikely to win. Essentially that means that your hand can be AA or 56o since you don't plan to get to showdown with it.

Acid, if you ever talk to me with that tone again I will slap you. I understand the premise, my argument is that it's stupid. There are many more opportunities for us to do this when we have 56o. Don't turn AA into a bluff, fold it or use it for it's worth. I guess if I were playing in a game where I knew I was a big dog because everyone was a better thinking player than I was I could turn it into a bluff and show it. If I did this with AA in any game I play with any regularity people would think I was protecting my AA, not turning it into a bluff.

[Acid_Knight 2]

Acid, if you ever talk to me with that tone again I will slap you. I understand the premise, my argument is that it's stupid. There are many more opportunities for us to do this when we have 56o. Don't turn AA into a bluff, fold it or use it for it's worth. I guess if I were playing in a game where I knew I was a big dog because everyone was a better thinking player than I was I could turn it into a bluff and show it. If I did this with AA in any game I play with any regularity people would think I was protecting my AA, not turning it into a bluff.

I lurk on 2+2 a lot, mostly reading the high stakes NL stuff. One of the things that I've really learned there is that you have to play marginal hands in the same way that you'd play the nuts or air. For example, at lower stakes and most live games, your opponents are generally overbetting with the nuts. As you move up in limits, people start overbetting with the nuts or total air (keep in mind that big draws on the flop are often played as the nuts and are included in that group). At the highest levels, the best players will overbet shovel with air, one pair or the nuts. Doing this takes away your ability to put them on a missed draw and profitably call with bottom pair on a fairly coordinated board becuase you can't be sure that they're not shoveling 1 pair with a good idea of where you're at in the hand and the fact that you can make Hero calls.Yeah, AA might be the best hand or it might not be. Obviously we'd like to know insetead of blindly raising with a hand that might be best and hoping for our opponents to fold rather than to call. We really wanna be able to show up on that board with AA when we've 3 bet the flop becuase then our opponents have to include basically the whole range of hands in our range from one pair to combo draws to the nuts to air. If we only raise with big hands and air, it's just too easy for them to play against us.

[David_Nicoson 1]

I lurk on 2+2 a lot, mostly reading the high stakes NL stuff. One of the things that I've really learned there is that you have to play marginal hands in the same way that you'd play the nuts or air. For example, at lower stakes and most live games, your opponents are generally overbetting with the nuts. As you move up in limits, people start overbetting with the nuts or total air (keep in mind that big draws on the flop are often played as the nuts and are included in that group). At the highest levels, the best players will overbet shovel with air, one pair or the nuts. Doing this takes away your ability to put them on a missed draw and profitably call with bottom pair on a fairly coordinated board becuase you can't be sure that they're not shoveling 1 pair with a good idea of where you're at in the hand and the fact that you can make Hero calls.

I have a suspicion that this is somewhere I can grow. I always like to know if I'm bluffing or value betting. If I'm not sure, it feels like I'm just sort of lobbing grenades over the wall and hoping I hit the enemy.

[tskillz187 0]

Acid's whole post

Sadly I don't think I'll ever need to incorporate that into my poker game. *Sigh*It's seriously a concept that seems so foreign and wrong to me I can't wholely (wholly?, it's damn sure not holy) grasp it. When I'm playing best nuts is played same as air is played same as draws, never ever is marginal hand included in there. There just aren't enough people willing to put me on 1pr hand and try to push me off, they either aren't capable of bluffing, or will figure out my hand and decide that their hand is not good and c/f or that there hand is good and bet/raise.

[tskillz187 0]

I have a suspicion that this is somewhere I can grow. I always like to know if I'm bluffing or value betting. If I'm not sure, it feels like I'm just sort of lobbing grenades over the wall and hoping I hit the enemy.

Hhahahaah perfect analogy. I mean I always like to think of the reason why I'm bluffing. It's never "so that villain can not exploit my medium strength hands". The concept really goes against everything I do while playing poker.

[Acid_Knight 2]

Hhahahaah perfect analogy. I mean I always like to think of the reason why I'm bluffing. It's never "so that villain can not exploit my medium strength hands". The concept really goes against everything I do while playing poker.

I have a sneaking suspicion that most of us will never approach playing poker at such a level where many of our opponents are thinking at these levels. The better players will pick up on the "nuts or nothing" situations and begin to exploit those though. That's what we want to try and avoid.David, I was in no way hinting that we blindly do anything. I'm not sure if that's what you were saying or not.

[David_Nicoson 1]

I have a sneaking suspicion that most of us will never approach playing poker at such a level where many of our opponents are thinking at these levels. The better players will pick up on the "nuts or nothing" situations and begin to exploit those though. That's what we want to try and avoid.David, I was in no way hinting that we blindly do anything. I'm not sure if that's what you were saying or not.

I thought it was implied by the concept. If we overbet with unimproved pocket aces on the river, do we want called or not?

[mtdesmoines 3]

I thought it was implied by the concept. If we overbet with unimproved pocket aces on the river, do we want called or not?

Maybe.

[Acid_Knight 2]

Maybe.

The point that he's making is that if we're overbetting, we should know if we're bluffing or doing it for value.I guess what I said before was confusing becuase they're 2 different events. If we're gonna start overbetting with the nuts and overbetting for bluffs, then we should do it with hands inbetween. In the 2 hands that David described, I'm not suggesting an overbet. I was merely pointing out that we should be willing to take the same line with AA (when we think we're ahead) as we would with any hand that we think we're losing to as well. If we don't think AA is the best hand but we think he'll fold a better one, then turn it into a bluff. No big deal.

[tskillz187 0]

No big deal.

Yeah it is! I can't get my head around it and it certainly seems like we are puttin in huge bets not knowing whether or not we want calls just to stay random. I'm not really sure I get what you're saying if thats not the case. Is it that we should be value bet shoving 1pr hands? I can live with that, it's just very hard to be sure you're vbetting and even harder (for my level currently) for this to be profitable at all.I'm not even blindly criticizing it, just saying I don't understand it :)Oh, and for good players in the game, instead of making thin value shoves shouldn't I just not donk shove any hands? Value with them all and then the bets are smaller? I don't know I'm not often in games where I have to worry too much about good players so when we are tangling I just try and keep it manageable so I can crush a bad player later. I mean, I guess that's not optimal, but picking on weaklings and avoiding good people seems to be more profitable than trying to make your money off of the good players while opening yourself up to the bad ones.

[Acid_Knight 2]

Yeah it is! I can't get my head around it and it certainly seems like we are puttin in huge bets not knowing whether or not we want calls just to stay random. I'm not really sure I get what you're saying if thats not the case. Is it that we should be value bet shoving 1pr hands? I can live with that, it's just very hard to be sure you're vbetting and even harder (for my level currently) for this to be profitable at all.I'm not even blindly criticizing it, just saying I don't understand it :)Oh, and for good players in the game, instead of making thin value shoves shouldn't I just not donk shove any hands? Value with them all and then the bets are smaller? I don't know I'm not often in games where I have to worry too much about good players so when we are tangling I just try and keep it manageable so I can crush a bad player later. I mean, I guess that's not optimal, but picking on weaklings and avoiding good people seems to be more profitable than trying to make your money off of the good players while opening yourself up to the bad ones.

In no way am I ever saying that we should make a bet without knowing its intent. When we make a bet, it's a probe bet (to find out where we're at to some degree), a value bet or a bluff. Technically, there are different stages that people bet at:Value bet or bluff.Value bet, semi-bluff, bluffValue bet, semi-bluff, probe bet, bluffValue bet, semi-bluff, probe bet, bluff (or raise) inducing bet, bluffWhen you make any bet, you should know what your intent is. Obviosuly there is some leeway as you're still trying to figure out what your opponent holds, but you shouldn't make bets unknowingly.ON A SEPARATE TOPIC:I was suggesting that when you are devising your range for making a bet, you should do the best that you can to include all possible types of hands in the range for the bet. Obviously there's no sense in turning a hand with obvious showdown value into a bluff. Sometimes this means that you check behind on the river with A high because you think it can win. Sometimes it means that you bet a set on a board against an opponent (who you believe has a straight) when the flush comes to make him fold. It means that if you're going to overbet, or 3 bet, or whatever, that you should do your best to show up with air, the nuts and everything in between.I guess most of this is just me thinking out loud becuase even in the games I play in, this kind of sophistication is wholly (that's the spelling TSkillz) unnecessary. The players aren't that observant and they're often not thinking deeply enough to be playing on the same level that you are. It's good to recognize that value-bet shoving 1 pair hands (that you feel are best) is a great move if you think it's more likely to induce a call from your opponent. It's especially good in a spot where he'll feel it's a "nuts or nothing" situation and call you lightly.Ok, i'm talking too much.The most important point that I want to keep clear is that you should never make a bet without knowing its intention. If you're shoving 1 pair on a coordinated board, it's becuase you feel that your opponent will call with worse hands often enough to make it profitable.

[tskillz187 0]

I guess most of this is just me thinking out loud becuase even in the games I play in, this kind of sophistication is wholly (that's the spelling TSkillz) unnecessary. The players aren't that observant and they're often not thinking deeply enough to be playing on the same level that you are. It's good to recognize that value-bet shoving 1 pair hands (that you feel are best) is a great move if you think it's more likely to induce a call from your opponent. It's especially good in a spot where he'll feel it's a "nuts or nothing" situation and call you lightly.

1. Feel free to think outloud. Especially when it's about ideas I haven't considered and worked through.2. I don't understand when a game gets this difficult, $50-100nl (live?). Something up there I would think, and even then there are usually some businessmen that aren't talented enough to play at that level.It's very tough for me to think about because I'm kind of deciding what I want to do with poker. Do I really care to be the best I can be? I don't know. Making money might be the new #1 goal, weird as it sounds that has always been #2. I would like to think I just wouldn't play in a game where there were people thinking that deeply because it would be a very tough game and I could find easier ones. I know if I had the money though, I'd sit. That's something I'm working on!

[Acid_Knight 2]

I really play poker because I love the competition and the challenge.The money is awesome, but it is secondary. It's also probably easier to say that cause I'm having a crappy year.My goal is really only to play at a level where I'm challenged by the players at the table, but not overwhelmed by them. Also, I want to money to make a difference to me. I can't really lose enough at a 1/2 NL game (unless I employ the Naismith Strategy, PM him for details*) to matter either way, so I generally like 5/10 type games. I like playing higher, but only if losing the money can't really hurt me, and losing a big number at 10/20 would make me very sad.*He'll probably just send you back a PM calling me names. Don't listen.

[Royal_Tour 0]

Hhahahaah perfect analogy. I mean I always like to think of the reason why I'm bluffing. It's never "so that villain can not exploit my medium strength hands". The concept really goes against everything I do while playing poker.

exactly, and ya LOL at the analogy.

[CobaltBlue 662]

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?

I actually agree with most of the people on that thread that it's generally a fold. I have a strong dislike for medium overpairs on a very coordinated board. I think the decision gets closer when you get into the AA/KK/QQ range though. We'll have put in a large percentage of our stack just calling this min-raise...and we're very rarely far ahead...if we're ahead.In my hand, I had a much stronger feeling that I knew where I was at. Obviously, I wasn't putting him on an exact hand, but I knew I was behind (odds-wise) and I gave him a medium pair 75% of the time with a draw making up the remainder. Unless he had A4/44/33, I didn't imagine he'd have connected particularly strongly with this flop. Also, maybe it's a poor excuse, but stack size and meta-game made up a huge amount of my thought-process in this hand. I'm going to fold in spots fairly similar to this 90% of the time. I felt like this was one of those somewhat exceptional cases.I will ask y'all this though...let's change the scenario a smidge and say we're holding K Q in my hand...y'all don't mind a call quite as much in that case, correct?

[coremiller 0]

I will ask y'all this though...let's change the scenario a smidge and say we're holding K Q in my hand...y'all don't mind a call quite as much in that case, correct?

It's a little bit better. The K outs are less likely to be dirty, if he has a flush draw we hold one of his outs, we can rule out some holdings for him (like KQs, KJs, K10s, etc.), and if he has a smaller flush draw we have a redraw possibility if a club comes on the turn. So our odds are a little bitter, and our reverse implied odds aren't quite so bad. Given the price, I think that makes calling more reasonable.

[coremiller 0]

EDIT: sorry, double post.

[Acid_Knight 2]

I will ask y'all this though...let's change the scenario a smidge and say we're holding K Q in my hand...y'all don't mind a call quite as much in that case, correct?

It's very marginally better. The fact that you have a club and are probably domianted less is helpful, but only a little bit. It really doesn't change much of what was said except that you have 5 outs that look clean instead of 4.

[David_Nicoson 1]

Acid,I've reread this whole mess a few times, and I think I understand the disconnect point. I think there are two different ideas:

1. Sometimes it's appropriate to bluff with a hand with medium absolute ranking because we think we're behind to our opponent's holding but we can represent a hand that beats him.
2. It's important to make wagers with medium strength hands in order to simultaneously bet for value against the hero call (or at least threaten to do so) and also bluff against the rest of his range.

A is easy to understand. B is not, as you can tell from the imprecision of the language in B.