Qdjd Flop Straight Fd Against Fish

[No_Neck 0]

Alright so I suck at reading, but it seems like we are really arguing the same thing. I mean everyone agrees that he played the hand well.Samuh I really enjoy your comments on hands but you can do seem to throw in like idiot and stupid for no reason... and I just read your post above and it is pretty dead on. I leave you with a pic.Also basejester you do make a lot of pointless posts (i know I am guilty of the same)

[simo_8ball 0]

It's also the "know-it-all without having proven results" attitude you often bring to the table

I apologise if I come across that way. FWIW though, as others have said, you often come across with a "know-it-all and I damn well have the results to prove it" attitude.

and the fact that you spend a lot of time just analyzing very trivial information. Yes, there are some great hands that can and should be thoroughly analyzed, but this isn't one of them.

If you look carefully, I wasn't trying to analyse this hand. I have tried my best to minimise analysis of this specific hand. I've simply been trying to reassert BaseJester's points, which have been totally misinterpreted. He is correct in everything he has said in this thread, and as a result of several people (you included) just not getting it he has been insulted left right and centre. My analysis in this thread was really just explaining basic pot odds theory because it had been misunderstood earlier in the thread.

However when it comes down to it, a lot of the hands I've responded to recently are really standard spots where there is one BEST way to play it.The fact of the matter is, a lot of standard spots have a single best way to play it, especially in lower level games where history between players is not much of a factor (especially because even though 2 players may have played with each other a lot, their games aren't really advanced enough to the point that they're really using the metagames in their favor). A lot of these spots really don't require THAT much thinking, and there is one way of playing that will be significantly better than other options.Results are the best tool imo in judging the credibility of one's argument, not so much in a specific hand, but in the grand scheme of things. Whether you want to believe it or not, I am (and most would do better to) going to end up putting a lot more credit into the words of a proven MSNL+ winner than someone who speculates a lot at uNL/SSNL. I've seen a lot of Simo's posts, and occasionally I just end up wanting to smash my head into a wall based on some of the things he's said. Personally, I think he has a ton of FPS, and that's why I made the comment that he should be looking to plug his bigger leaks (and a lot of the FPS seems to generate from all of the theory and speculation that he does).

I assume this is directed mostly around the 'Big Draw' thread that you kept dismissing. I cannot remember ever going into such unnecessary detail before (or since). You said it wasn't anywhere near close. I said it was close. For some reason the math of that hand intrigued me. I don't know why you had/have such a problem with me spending some of my spare time creating equations for stuff like that. I just wanted to see how close the decision actually was, and it turned out that it was pretty damn close. Yes, it's not important, and yes it was time that could have been spent "improving my game", but why does that matter to you?If there have been other posts or threads that have annoyed you I'd appreciate you providing a couple of links. I don't remember any other disagreements we have had, but I could be wrong.

[SCS 0]

FWIW, I do think BaseJester brought up some good points. I think most of the negativity towards him comes from his first few posts in the thread.I think it's sort of ironic that a hand that everyone agrees on the way is play generates so much heated debate.

[Snamuh 0]

I apologise if I come across that way. FWIW though, as others have said, you often come across with a "know-it-all and I damn well have the results to prove it" attitude.If you look carefully, I wasn't trying to analyse this hand. I have tried my best to minimise analysis of this specific hand. I've simply been trying to reassert BaseJester's points, which have been totally misinterpreted. He is correct in everything he has said in this thread, and as a result of several people (you included) just not getting it he has been insulted left right and centre. My analysis in this thread was really just explaining basic pot odds theory because it had been misunderstood earlier in the thread.I assume this is directed mostly around the 'Big Draw' thread that you kept dismissing. I cannot remember ever going into such unnecessary detail before (or since). You said it wasn't anywhere near close. I said it was close. For some reason the math of that hand intrigued me. I don't know why you had/have such a problem with me spending some of my spare time creating equations for stuff like that. I just wanted to see how close the decision actually was, and it turned out that it was pretty damn close. Yes, it's not important, and yes it was time that could have been spent "improving my game", but why does that matter to you?If there have been other posts or threads that have annoyed you I'd appreciate you providing a couple of links. I don't remember any other disagreements we have had, but I could be wrong.

Here's an example of one. I posted this hand in the Challenge thread a while back and you advocated shoving river in order to get called by a flush?!?!?!?!? The hand occurred on June 1, so the discussion would probably be around that time.http://www.pokerhand.org/?3170034

[BaseJester 1]

Here's an example of one. I posted this hand in the Challenge thread a while back and you advocated shoving river in order to get called by a flush?!?!?!?!? The hand occurred on June 1, so the discussion would probably be around that time.http://www.pokerhand.org/?3170034

Challenge thread discussion

[Snamuh 0]

Challenge thread discussion

Thank you.I'd also like to say that some of his advice in that response was good. 3betting flop is decent, though in that spot, I didn't think it was ideal (because I just felt like he was making a move). Turn bet is probably a good play as well, but if we bet, we have to bet/call, and it's just a pretty crappy spot. In retrospect, I don't even know if I'd bet/call the turn or not, but I feel like we really aren't getting it in with much worse.I do, however, think that the river advice makes my head asplode.

[simo_8ball 0]

FWIW a lot of that discussion was because you asked if there was another line you could take. I decided to offer up alternative lines. In most cases I would actually play it exactly as you did.Just to expand on it though:The reason I said to reraise the flop is that these kind of moves are fairly common for me:http://www.pokerhand.org/?3069026http://www.pokerhand.org/?3069428http://www.pokerhand.org/?3112607Sometimes these kind of bluffs don't work and people see me do what seem to be pretty crazy things as a result. People see me bet/3bet flops then fold to a shove. So, when I make reraises, I tend to get people shoving quite lightly on me. I don't consider these moves to be FPS. This style of play is very profitable for me.I'd say I was wrong about reraising the flop though in that instance. If you had KJ rather than J7 I'd quite like the 3bet because we beat QJ/JT/J8/etc. I would also expect a hand like Ad-Xd to shove on me a decent % of the time expecting a lot of fold equity.I think the argument for betting the turn is valid. When he checks the turn I think he will usually have a hand we beat (a flush or a boat would likely keep betting), but it will likely be a hand with a lot of outs. I probably check behind, but there's definitely a case to be made for value betting. I assume you agree with that assessment. A river shove is very thin. I fully admit that. Given that you say you would never shove a jack there, if you were villain with JT would you call Snamuh's shove?

[krup24 0]

Nice blanket statement with no real meaning. You need to be arrogant in a sense to be successful in this game, but you also need to be honest about where you are making mistakes in your game. Seriously, explain this statement and how it makes any sense at all. I'm successful because I'm aware of my abilities and I'm constantly finding weaknesses in my game and improving them. I also don't take uncontrolled shots or do anything to jeopardize my bankroll. Being CONFIDENT about my game certainly will not be my downfall.Edit: Oh and NOW I'll be arrogant and ask "Who are you to say something like that? Are you accomplished enough to even understand what it takes to be a successful higher stakes player (meaning stakes above uNL)?"

I think its pretty straight forward. You always think your way is the right way to play a hand and don't want to listen to any other sides. Call people idiots, stupid, talks shit on simo. pretty much the definition of arrogant.and i agree you need to be arrogant in this game. and i am an accomplished player who has a full time job. sure i play low-mid stakes but i don't really have the aspirations to play high stakes. but thanks for asking.

[Snamuh 0]

I think its pretty straight forward. You always think your way is the right way to play a hand and don't want to listen to any other sides. Call people idiots, stupid, talks shit on simo. pretty much the definition of arrogant.and i agree you need to be arrogant in this game. and i am an accomplished player who has a full time job. sure i play low-mid stakes but i don't really have the aspirations to play high stakes. but thanks for asking.

Neither of these statements are true. The first sentence, you speak in absolutes and it's not even close to true. The second sentence is usually the result of people bringing it onto themselves.

[NoBBiR 0]

Neither of these statements are true. The first sentence, you speak in absolutes and it's not even close to true. The second sentence is usually the result of people bringing it onto themselves.

Huh?

[krup24 0]

Neither of these statements are true. The first sentence, you speak in absolutes and it's not even close to true. The second sentence is usually the result of people bringing it onto themselves.

srry i shoulda said most of the time. and i don't think jester did anything to warrant that. he was pulling (attempting) theory out and discussing the hand in a logical sense. then u attack simo who does nothing but help anybody who asks for his assistance. if you want people to fear hitting the reply button ur (occassionaly) doing a good job. you definitely have talent, skill, and understanding of the game. hopefully your attitude, which is that of an 18-21 yr old punk know it all, will change. best of luck sir.

[Snamuh 0]

srry i shoulda said most of the time. and i don't think jester did anything to warrant that. he was pulling (attempting) theory out and discussing the hand in a logical sense. then u attack simo who does nothing but help anybody who asks for his assistance. if you want people to fear hitting the reply button ur (occassionaly) doing a good job. you definitely have talent, skill, and understanding of the game. hopefully your attitude, which is that of an 18-21 yr old punk know it all, will change. best of luck sir.

I'd rather give good advice in a harsh way than give bad advice in a nice way. And seriously, if you are affected by harsh criticism on an internet poker forum, you shouldn't post in the first place.Jester has made a few valid points but over a series of threads, he's made a few harsh posts as well to warrant harsh responses.

[Snamuh 0]

If you're going to raise the flop, raise you like you ****ing mean it. What do you want to happen here? I'm pretty sure it's not get to the turn with the stack size you did.

Hand looks good to me. I might raise to 22 on the flop but I don't hate the sizing here either because it sets up a good turn shove amount. Nice hand.

I think the turn stack size is great in relation to the pot. And this turn card is probably not going to be great for villain, so it's a great shove card to maximize fold equity (though I'd probably shove just about any turn).

On what street do you think the hero made money?It's the same damn hand as the other thread, and it's pretty meaningless to deem a play a correct with no notion of how often he folds. It would stand to reason from the description that it's very seldom, in which case the hero loses money on the turn action. Against a player who can fold, it would be a good line.

To prove my point in my last response, here are the first few posts by Jester in this thread (at least the ones before I entered this thread) as well as mine. His two posts here are the main reason I brought the attitude to the thread. Like I said, my harsh responses are usually brought on by the actions of someone else. In this case, it was Jester's aggressiveness with his initial responses.

[NoBBiR 0]

I'd rather give good advice in a harsh way than give bad advice in a nice way. And seriously, if you are affected by harsh criticism on an internet poker forum, you shouldn't post in the first place.Jester has made a few valid points but over a series of threads, he's made a few harsh posts as well to warrant harsh responses.

That's utterly ridiculous though because you're not a "you have to pick one of the two" situation. You could give good advice and turn down the pointless personal insults.That's all anyone is saying.

[Snamuh 0]

That's utterly ridiculous though because you're not a "you have to pick one of the two" situation. You could give good advice and turn down the pointless personal insults.That's all anyone is saying.

And based on my first few responses of this thread, you'll see that I do give good advice in a polite way. Then once someone else gets more aggressive, I turn on the burners as well.

[BaseJester 1]

To prove my point in my last response, here are the first few posts by Jester in this thread (at least the ones before I entered this thread) as well as mine. His two posts here are the main reason I brought the attitude to the thread. Like I said, my harsh responses are usually brought on by the actions of someone else. In this case, it was Jester's aggressiveness with his initial responses.

I don't think our harsh responses are really comparable.

[BellaireDrew 2]

I really like Snamuh's advise no matter how he comes off. Last thing I want happening is him not posting strat here anymore because some think he comes off a little harsh.

[IQCrash 1]

I really like Snamuh's advise no matter how he comes off. Last thing I want happening is him not posting strat here anymore because some think he comes off a little harsh.

[David_Nicoson 1]

Here are some numbers on the line where the hero bets the pot and reraises all-in. The hero prefers that QT call the push, but it's not much different if he folds. Contrast that with the OP's line, where the hero much prefers that the villain fold, because the hero makes the pot big and then steals it.I'm generally suspicious of any thought process that includes outplaying a villain from out of position, but his stats are pretty crazy.5.75 preflop 61.15 5.75 Hero's flop bet 2.25 5.75 Villain's flop match 5.75 5.75 Villain's flop raise 8.00 23 in pot when back to hero 53.15 Bet size of push 76.15 Pot size before villain's call 1.43 odds pot offering to villain 1.78 Ato's odds to improve 1.66 QT's odds to improve 0.38 QT's equity 129.30 total pot if called 48.66 QT's $Equity 0.62 Hero's Equity 80.64 Hero's $Equity 27.49 Hero's net equity if called by QT 23.00 Hero's net equity if villain folds 17.93 Hero's $equity if he calls 12.18 Hero's net equity if he calls

[Snamuh 0]

Here are some numbers on the line where the hero bets the pot and reraises all-in. The hero prefers that QT call the push, but it's not much different if he folds. Contrast that with the OP's line, where the hero much prefers that the villain fold, because the hero makes the pot big and then steals it.I'm generally suspicious of any thought process that includes outplaying a villain from out of position, but his stats are pretty crazy.5.75 preflop 61.15 5.75 Hero's flop bet 2.25 5.75 Villain's flop match 5.75 5.75 Villain's flop raise 8.00 23 in pot when back to hero 53.15 Bet size of push 76.15 Pot size before villain's call 1.43 odds pot offering to villain 1.78 Ato's odds to improve 1.66 QT's odds to improve 0.38 QT's equity 129.30 total pot if called 48.66 QT's $Equity 0.62 Hero's Equity 80.64 Hero's $Equity 27.49 Hero's net equity if called by QT 23.00 Hero's net equity if villain folds 17.93 Hero's $equity if he calls 12.18 Hero's net equity if he calls

There's a few CR vids that contain hands emphasizing this point, and it's a really good one. This isn't the really same circumstance, but you can generate a lot of value betting earlier streets with the intention of taking them off their hands on later streets. Though in this hand, you are really just building the pot for your monster draw.

[BaseJester 1]

Because a huge donk is going to have a one pair here a LOT, and a ton of them are going to fold the turn (or we're going to be getting it in with around 40% equity).

Don't try to come up with ranges for donks. Their ranges are all over the place and tend to be very random. Don't try to give reason to those without reason.

Isn't this first statement a description of the villain's range? If so, what's the distinction you're making in the second statement?

[Snamuh 0]

Isn't this first statement a description of the villain's range? If so, what's the distinction you're making in the second statement?

My comments are just stating that a donk's range is going to be so wide here, a fair amount of which he's not going to want to get his stack in with. Donk's ranges tend to be so wide and erratic that you can't even really break them down (they'll often end up suprising you with what they show up with).

[mln_falcon 0]

lol the internet.I have to say that after Base's first couple of posts in this thread, I ignored his argument. It was only after Simo posted that I realised what Base was trying to say.I think it's really important to be clear in your posts. This is something both Simo and Snamuh do (in different ways), They are both pretty good at conveying the message. The way I see Snamuh, he is actually one of the most helpful people on the boards. He comes across as arrogant, and probably is, but that's not really important, it's the quality of the advice, and his is solid.I find Simo's advice mostly solid as well, especially as he is playing the levels most of these hands are posted at. I think Simo and Snamuh agree on the best line a lot, but like the results in poker, we don't remember those times.To people reading the forums, remember that every piece of advice given is by different players, with their own playing style and strategy. It's no use just reading the forum and going "hmm interesting", you have to think about why that player is giving that advice and whether it fits into your own strategy. Although the majority of hands posted (I find) are standard spots anyway that either play themselves, or the two decisions are close enough to flip a coin on.2 last things. To wrap up the the monsterdraw/close decision argument; Maybe the math can be close, but the correct decision is not. If the Math is close enough then the correct decision is always to err on the side of aggression?And Simo, maybe Snamuh is correct that you shouldn't be so focused on the math and focus on your leaks. It seems to me, because you're always going on about it, that not playing is your biggest leak, so focusing on the math and these discussions actually adds to your leak. I know I lose so much playing time because I get obsessed with the forum (although my forum game is a lot more weak tight than yours, I read a lot more than I post).

[BellaireDrew 2]

^^^^^THIS^^^^^

[Snamuh 0]

(although my forum game is a lot more weak tight than yours, I read a lot more than I post).

This made me lol.