Jump to content

Is This Standard? Basic Hand, 2-5


Recommended Posts

Actually I <3 you all. Especially stupidhead. I am posting from my phone in the middle of missouri... Fml
<3 u 2.Lots of love ITT.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 258
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I can't pokerstove AKQ vs 99 though

He doesn't have AKQ offsuit.

I'm Jon.

listen, there is no denying the fact that its better to not go to showdown. if you can win without any gamble.There was an article that said. (i'll try and find it) that thunder keller steam rolled his local casino cuz he hardly ever went to showdown. just kept scooping pots.and Matt (acid_knight) should attest , you cant get a graph like his, thats a constant Up "rocketship" by always getting into gambling situations.
But c/raising the turn is gambling. You're making a huge gambling that he doesn't have an overpair. Lead the turn if you don't want to go to showdown. That is a MUCH cheaper way to not get to showdown vs AK.Mark
Link to post
Share on other sites
But c/raising the turn is gambling. You're making a huge gambling that he doesn't have an overpair. Lead the turn if you don't want to go to showdown. That is a MUCH cheaper way to not get to showdown vs AK.Mark
When I said C/R the turn, it was only with the turn play as presented, and assumed that we'd see another really lame potatoes turn bet like $50. SO OFTEN in live poker, you will see a hand play thus:PF raise to $25Flop bet: "same bet" $25Turn action: "same bet" $25River action: "same bet" $25We raise the turn, we're getting a fold 50% of the time, we're ahead 25% and 25% ... meh we have two outs. 75% of the time, we're getting what we want from raising the turn, as played was my point.
Link to post
Share on other sites
But c/raising the turn is gambling. You're making a huge gambling that he doesn't have an overpair. Lead the turn if you don't want to go to showdown. That is a MUCH cheaper way to not get to showdown vs AK.Mark
HOnestly Mark,I really do like the idea of leading the turn. I wont tell you that.. but I gues i just did. lolmy only thinking here, is that we're leading the turn somewhat blind. Its the check/behind on the flop that starts my thought process. then his weak turn bet is screaming "pathetic attempt to take a pot that Hero appears to be uninterested in"if we c/r now, all the sudden its like awakening a monster. His only option in that spot is to HAVE a good hand. (put yourself in villains shoes.)
Link to post
Share on other sites
People.Humor me for 1 second please. Look over simple math as it may be wrong, buut who knows.we have a pot of 100 dollars. over 100 hands.we are a 4-1 favorite to win every time. and we bet 50 everytime giving villain 3-1. making his choice incorrect.so.100 in pot. we bet 50. villain calls.80% of the time we win 200. = 16,00020% of the time we lose 150 = 3,000total = 13,000number 2we bet 50. and villain folds. 100% of the time we win 150 = 15,000total 15,000is this correct?
As Zach pointed out:You win 100% of the time when they fold, but uncalled bets are not part of the pot. Each time you bet $50 into $100 and they fold, you win $100, not $150.Also in the first part, how can you win $200 80% of the time but lose only $150 the other 20%? The pot is $200 regardless.
Link to post
Share on other sites
As Zach pointed out:You win 100% of the time when they fold, but uncalled bets are not part of the pot. Each time you bet $50 into $100 and they fold, you win $100, not $150.Also in the first part, how can you win $200 80% of the time but lose only $150 the other 20%? The pot is $200 regardless.
We could always bet $1,000,000 and when he folds we'd win 100% of $1,000,150.We'll have the best winrates ever.
Link to post
Share on other sites
We could always bet $1,000,000 and when he folds we'd win 100% of $1,000,150.We'll have the best winrates ever.
we only win $1,000,100 imo... we bet 1 milly into $100..
Link to post
Share on other sites
As Zach pointed out:You win 100% of the time when they fold, but uncalled bets are not part of the pot. Each time you bet $50 into $100 and they fold, you win $100, not $150.Also in the first part, how can you win $200 80% of the time but lose only $150 the other 20%? The pot is $200 regardless.
ok. You bet 50 into 100. villain folds, 100% of the time, you win 10,000100 in pot. + 50 (villain folds, take back 50 ) hero wins = 10,000Nowyou bet 50 villain calls.80% of the time you win 12,000100 in pot, you bet 50. he calls, pot = 200- your 50bet = 150 x 80 = 12,00020% of the time you lose 3,000100 in pot, you bet 50. he calls. you miss out on 150 of equityx20 = 3000total 9,000..
Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you argue we are dodging 9 outs AND that he will never put a chip in on the river with worse?Is he going to bluff AK on a Q river or not?Royal, raising the turn to dodge 6 outs is bad. It's mathmatically bad. you dont KNOW he doesnt have you beat either. this thread is tilting the shit out of me

Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course, but we don't expect a call, we expect him to fold A-high. Our intent isn't to get value from his hand. It's to protect the value that our hand has. If we happen to get value from him, then woohoo. But this is neither our expectation or intent there.Mark
It doesn't matter how often we expect to get called, it's still a value bet. The chance of us getting called could be 1% but we are still betting because we think we are ahead of his range.Protection bets and blocker bets are value bets.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dead to me
You are the second person to say that to me in this thread...But for real you have been gone forever and with our triangle you never know how that will end...
Link to post
Share on other sites
People.Humor me for 1 second please. Look over simple math as it may be wrong, buut who knows.we have a pot of 100 dollars. over 100 hands.we are a 4-1 favorite to win every time. and we bet 50 everytime giving villain 3-1. making his choice incorrect.so.100 in pot. we bet 50. villain calls.80% of the time we win 200. = 16,00020% of the time we lose 150 = 3,000total = 13,000number 2we bet 50. and villain folds. 100% of the time we win 150 = 15,000total 15,000is this correct?
Don't forget the few times the villain bluff/raises or the few times the villain actually trickily played AA/KK and then raises turn.
Link to post
Share on other sites
ok. You bet 50 into 100. villain folds, 100% of the time, you win 10,000100 in pot. + 50 (villain folds, take back 50 ) hero wins = 10,000Nowyou bet 50 villain calls.80% of the time you win 12,000100 in pot, you bet 50. he calls, pot = 200- your 50bet = 150 x 80 = 12,00020% of the time you lose 3,000100 in pot, you bet 50. he calls. you miss out on 150 of equityx20 = 3000total 9,000..
You've already deducted the 20% of the time you lose by just calculating the 80%.
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a cool reunion. I can't wait to see who got fat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You've already deducted the 20% of the time you lose by just calculating the 80%.
no, , i'm also losing additional funds 20% of the time.so over 100 hands. 20% of the time i'm losing 100 thats in the pot. plus an additional 50.thats a subtraction from the 80% of the time i win
Link to post
Share on other sites
How can you argue we are dodging 9 outs AND that he will never put a chip in on the river with worse?Is he going to bluff AK on a Q river or not?Royal, raising the turn to dodge 6 outs is bad. It's mathmatically bad. you dont KNOW he doesnt have you beat either. this thread is tilting the shit out of me
I (me.) am saying that the way this hand has played out, That once we're faced with a bet of 50 on the turn, that i've narrowed his range down to AK,AQbasically any paint is a scare card to me.I cant guarantee that he wont bluff the river, but if we flat his turn, and a total brick hits, I have a feeling he gives up.The reason I am strongly advocating this play is because I want to win this hand on the turn, Its his 1/2 pot bet after it goes check/check that strikes me as 2 over cards.And I say this because If he had an Over Pair, say AA or KK.normally after a 3 bet preflop, he would Cbet when checked too on the flop.. Now maybe he is the type of villain to not cbet on a semi dry board. hoping to trap a little.well it didnt work, on the turn we checked again and the board didnt change. So if he really felt confident that his overpair was ahead on the flop, he would certainly feel its ahead on the turn, so why bet>?we show zero interest in the hand. To say its mathematically incorrect is a little much. If we know he has AK. we are a super admin. The best play would be call the bet, hope we dodge a A and hope he bluffs river.but theres lots of hope in there, firstly, we need to dodge the 6 outs, (not that hard) but secondly, we need this villain to bluff after getting his first bluff called.something that prob wont happen.so as a super user admin, we see he has AK, we check the turn, he bets 50. we raise. we win the hand uncontested, we dont need to dodge any outs. we dont lose any equity, since we never expected him to bluff any further anyways.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the overriding problem you have is that you're only attributing risk to letting the villain see a river. You're attributing zero risk to raising a turn. Until you see how that's flawed, you won't understand the mistake.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess the overriding problem you have is that you're only attributing risk to letting the villain see a river. You're attributing zero risk to raising a turn. Until you see how that's flawed, you won't understand the mistake.
No. you guys think im missing that. I fully understand that if villains range is JJ+ , and AKs AQs. then ya, check raise is spewy, and could cause trouble.but I eliminated a big PP.seriously. i'm not tryng to level anyone. I'm serious when i say i narrowed him down to 2 overs its a gift :club:
Link to post
Share on other sites
He doesn't have AKQ offsuit.
*sigh*This was going to be my reply.I dunno...maybe I could salvage it with some joke about a Pineapple variant. Nah.RT, I do very much value your input in strat, but I hope that you can see from all of the replies that c/ring the turn here is bad.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. hopefully, this is my last post.I will say this:I understand each and every point made, even though some differ than others, I will accept the fact that the majority, if not all of you, believe that it is better to do anything than check raise the turn. I will accept all your stats, number of hands logged, and previous advice as recognition to your advice in this thread as being strategically sound.But finally, I will say, My advice was on par, and accurate to the hand in question. Is there merit in playing this way? I will argue yes, as results show. Do I have validity for why? yes, i stated it allI dont have any fancy words, or numbers to help my cause, but I'm sticking to my path on ths one. God speed all

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, there are occasionally times when small stack sizes might dictate c/ring this turn, but I don't think this is one of them. I think it's a pretty clear b/f or c/c on the turn.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...