Is This Standard? Basic Hand, 2-5

[Acid_Knight 2]

AK vs 99 on that board only has 13.6% equity anyway, not 20%.

[Acid_Knight 2]

I can't pokerstove AKQ vs 99 though

[BaseJester 1]

How have you been playing poker so long and you don't even know why you bet?There are 2 reasons. ONLY 2 reasons.1. You bet to get a worse hand to call2. You bet to get a better hand to foldEverything past that elaborates on one of those 2 categories.

This is wrong. #2 should read2. You bet to eliminate opponents.Getting better hands to fold is one case and getting worse hands to fold is another. Sometimes we gain by a villain folding a hand that is a worse than ours, even heads-up. A value bet is a bet such that the villain's call increases our expected final stack. It's not just any bet when the hero is the favorite.

[Acid_Knight 2]

This is wrong. #2 should read2. You bet to eliminate opponents.Getting better hands to fold is one case and getting worse hands to fold is another. Sometimes we gain by a villain folding a hand that is a worse than ours, even heads-up. A value bet is a bet such that the villain's call increases our expected final stack. It's not just any bet when the hero is the favorite.

Right. What i stated is the most simplistic case of things and it's usually how it's explained.Obviously there are situations where you bet and you hope that your opponent folds his hand which is worse than ours because we have a higher expectation by winning the pot outright than we do by tricking them into calling and realizing equity in the pot which would bring our expectation to a lower point than if we had just gotten them to fold.Like I said though, all of these things stem out from those 2 ideas which are essentially:You bet for valueYou bet as a bluffI'm just trying to get people away from thinking things like "I'm betting to see where I'm at" or "I'm betting to protect my hand" or any other ideas which are not true and really hurt people who are coming up in the poker world. There are many branches of those categories, but everything can be dumbed down to one of those two things.

[looshle 6]

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.

My point is though, that if he is never bluffing a Q with AK or a K with AQ he only has 6 outs. Also we are not positive that he never has a better hand. While its more likely he does have a whiffed AK, to take AA/KK/QQ out of his range is a mistake. If he only has AK/AQ then yes we should c/r but we never know that. We are dodging 6 cards if we are ahead which means we will win roughly 87& of the time. C/R the turn and risking more money is not worth it when dont ALWAYS have the best hand are that huge of a favorite vs the hands we want to protect against.Also, if we KNOW he has AK im more inclined to c/r the turn and I don't see how you could think otherwise. Whats your thought process on that?

[Zach6668 513]

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

Guilty.

[Royal_Tour 0]

Also, if we KNOW he has AK im more inclined to c/r the turn and I don't see how you could think otherwise. Whats your thought process on that?

exactly what i'm saying. If i was playing this hand, given the preflop action, and the flop (that flop in particular) goes check/check.. Then the turn is another useless brick, and i (hero) check again, He bets, this sorta sets off the idea that it isnt AA/KK. but rather AK.. and here's why... If i'm thinking as the villain, there are two reasons to check back the flop.1 - because i'm trapping a safe board with AA/KK. 2 - because I missed and i'm not 100% sure if I should bet, so I'll see what the turn brings and see what "hero" does.So - the turn bricks, and hero checks. Still thinking as villain, You have to start to imagine that the Hero in this hand does not like his hand, and is not interested. OR.. he has a total monster that he's trying to slowplay. So in either case, whether its uninterested air, or a monster. The Villain gains nothing by betting AA/KK on the turn. WHY? because he's either Way ahead, or way behind.What does make sense, is if Villain has AK or AQ and now bets the turn hoping that our Hero is uninterested in this hand.Once the hero check/raises the bet, The villain (who was starting to put the Hero on somethhing by this point) Now has the worst case happen. He was check raised.So do you see why, If you're thinking on a high enough level that a check/raise in THIS particular hand, is Ok. if not better

[Naismith 0]

LOL, yeah, definitely someone that slowplays AA and then bets the turn is going to piss themselves over a relatively short stack check-raising them on the turn.

[Royal_Tour 0]

LOL, yeah, definitely someone that slowplays AA and then bets the turn is going to piss themselves over a relatively short stack check-raising them on the turn.

I'm guessing you missed the part at the very beginning of this entire argument, where i said I would only play this way with 100bb'sif i was playing a similar short stack like the OP, I wouldnt even be in this hand in the first place.

[Naismith 0]

You're not folding AA or KK out with 100 blinds, either.

[Naismith 0]

Also, I think you should've been more clear all along that you wanted to turn 99 into a bluff because that seems to be a point of confusion, for me at least.

[Royal_Tour 0]

You're not folding AA or KK out with 100 blinds, either.

Also, I think you should've been more clear all along that you wanted to turn 99 into a bluff because that seems to be a point of confusion, for me at least.

I never said any of the above.If you can Just stop trying to prove another point and listen to the one i'm making, then comment. please.The whole idea is we dont narrow villains range to AK/AQ until we check the turn, and he bets. Now if we look at this hand, on the turn, and "call"and check/call the river. We think this because, 1 - we're not 100% certain he doesnt have AA/KK. 2 - we want him to bluff.My line, and reasoning however, is this. We check the turn, villain bets, Now we look and, "Raise"1 - we expect him to fold AK/AQ. Our line is repping strength and we'll win the pot uncontested. 2 - We didnt expect to gain any equity on the river from any bluffs, after we call his turn bet.3 - We eliminate the % of time that he hits the river, because we win this pot uncontested on the turn.THE only thing standing in the way of this, is that Its possible he has AA/KK. But if you listen to what i've said over and over, is that I eliminate a big PP for reasons stated.If you want to say I'm crazy for that, thats fine. argue that portion. Dont argue that its stupid to check/raise because it wont fold out AA. tell me why you bellieve he has AA.

[Stupidhead 2]

THE only thing standing in the way of this, is that Its possible he has AA/KK. But if you listen to what i've said over and over, is that I eliminate a big PP for reasons stated.If you want to say I'm crazy for that, thats fine. argue that portion. Dont argue that its stupid to check/raise because it wont fold out AA. tell me why you bellieve he has AA.

Because live players are idiots and are capable of doing anything.

[Royal_Tour 0]

Because live players are idiots and are capable of doing anything.

Oh i see. This thinking is inline with all the live pro's who said Internet players will never beat live games cuz they dont have the physical tell aspect.Its very obtuse and shallow in respect to strategy to sit at any table and just assume every play anyone makes is going to be opposite of whats good.Furthermore, it doesnt matter if you play donkeys, or regs, your thought process should cover everything leading up to that point, and it got there, what you think the reasoning is from both sides, and what you think is going to happen next.if you cant think taht way, I guess multitabling with a 16/12/3.5 PT stat is your best bet.

[Acid_Knight 2]

I love how you turn everything into a personal attack against the people who are critical of the advice that you're giving.

[looshle 6]

Oh i see. This thinking is inline with all the live pro's who said Internet players will never beat live games cuz they dont have the physical tell aspect.Its very obtuse and shallow in respect to strategy to sit at any table and just assume every play anyone makes is going to be opposite of whats good.Furthermore, it doesnt matter if you play donkeys, or regs, your thought process should cover everything leading up to that point, and it got there, what you think the reasoning is from both sides, and what you think is going to happen next.if you cant think taht way, I guess multitabling with a 16/12/3.5 PT stat is your best bet.

2 things1) to say that people aren't going to bet AA/KK on the turn is pretty bad IMO. the whole point of checking the flop is to get 1 or 2 streets of value from a hand like 99. There are a good amount of pairs that don't fall into the nuts or uninterested.2) you ARE turning 99 into a bluff bc you never expect to get called by worse. Your thinking is flawed in the fact that you think oh he has 6 outs and I know he has AK and I want to protect. If your plan is to not showdown your hand and to raise the turn to win with a c/r your hand DOESNT MATTER. If you aren't doing the same thing with hands like JThh or other hands like that in this same spot, you're not understanding poker on the level you think you are.I have a really strong feeling if you have JThh you are just c/f the turn in the same spot.

[Naismith 0]

For the record, I don't think live or online has anything to do with. In either setting, raising the turn in this scenario is fundamentally horrible.

[Stupidhead 2]

if you cant think taht way, I guess multitabling with a 16/12/3.5 PT stat is your best bet.

This is false and misleading.I run 6/3/1 48 tabling.

[looshle 6]

This thinking is inline with all the live pro's who said Internet players will never beat live games cuz they dont have the physical tell aspect.Its very obtuse and shallow in respect to strategy to sit at any table and just assume every play anyone makes is going to be opposite of whats good.These aren't the same at all. You're comparing decent to good Internet players with an average a good knowledge of the game vs a random 2-5 NL player who is generally going to be a losing player with a greater chance of just being a button pusher.

[looshle 6]

Also, a lot of live players are extremely stubborn and close minded even when they have some REALLY good players trying to help them.RT, you're wrong. You have some of the best cash game players that have posted on FCP (not me) telling you that and explaining why. These guys make a shitload of money doing this on a daily basis and play decent stakes for the interwebs. Instead of adamantly defending yourself, just try to think about it differently and realize WHY you're wrong. You have a pretty good opportunity to grow as a poker player here and you're just shutting it down bc i dont know why?

[Acid_Knight 2]

I've never understood why live players take offense to people saying that internet players have a better fundamental understanding of the game than live players do.Just because you're a winning live player, this doesn't mean that you can't be as good as or better than internet players. It is simply an assessment (and an accurate one imo) of the overall pool of players who play live compared to those who play online. There will be some live players who win and are better than the average internet play and there will be some who win and whose skillset and fundamental understanding of the game are below those of the average internet player.It's pretty obvious that it's a much harder game to beat online because there are so many more people who study the game compared to the number who study the game and only play live. If you want to contend that this isn't the case, then you could do some experiment where you take an average 1/2 player online and put him in a 1/2 live game and visa versa.Live players who defend the skills needed to play live and talk about "tells" are spouting bullshit out of their mouth. Yes, tells are great. As someone who's logged a ton of hours live and online, I can tell you that it's much better to be sitting there and be able to see your opponent. However I can also tell you that if you're playing against an average to good player isn't going to give off glaring physical tells or even that much at all. Additionally, the things that give away your opponent's hand more than anything are their tendencies, betting patterns and bet sizing. That's why online poker exists and that's why you can beat the crap out of people without ever seeing them. The ability to read physical tells is not a prerequisite for understanding and beating the game of poker, but a solid foundation in the fundamentals of the game and knowing what hands your opponent is capable of playing and what lines he's apt to take are the things that will dictate whether or not you can beat the game. This is why online players are better than live players on average - because the only way that they can beat the game is by understanding the mechanics of it better than their opponents.

[Acid_Knight 2]

Also, a lot of live players are extremely stubborn and close minded even when they have some REALLY good players trying to help them.RT, you're wrong. You have some of the best cash game players that have posted on FCP (not me) telling you that and explaining why. These guys make a shitload of money doing this on a daily basis and play decent stakes for the interwebs. Instead of adamantly defending yourself, just try to think about it differently and realize WHY you're wrong. You have a pretty good opportunity to grow as a poker player here and you're just shutting it down bc i dont know why?

This is a good post. I will say that a lot of players overall are very stubborn, not just live players.I will also say that the first step to becoming a better player is to begin to realize all of the ways that you suck at the game of poker so that you can start working on them. I don't care how much money I win at poker, I'll still readily admit the spots in which I make mistakes, need improvement or just generally suck. I will also adamantly defend my position in spots where I know I'm right as well.

[NoSup4U 0]

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

sighhh me :(Mark

[trystero 0]

it's clear that Royal and 4BB agree that we a read on villain is crucial. Royal's assuming that villain won't bluff the river, so to him it doesn't make sense to simply call; it's fold (to a bigger pair) or shove (to overs). And he doesn't feel that the villain ever has a bigger pocket pair, so there's no reason to just call and allow villain to play perfectly against us on the river. He bets when he hits and checks when he misses. That's really the point of dispute; what villain is going to do. My problem w/that Royal is that you can't make that assumption, because even though I doubt he ever has a bigger pocket pair, and I'm not concerned with the small chance that he does, we cannot rule out the fact that he'll try to bluff on the river

[Snamuh 0]

it's clear that Royal and 4BB agree that we a read on villain is crucial. Royal's assuming that villain won't bluff the river, so to him it doesn't make sense to simply call; it's fold (to a bigger pair) or shove (to overs). And he doesn't feel that the villain ever has a bigger pocket pair, so there's no reason to just call and allow villain to play perfectly against us on the river. He bets when he hits and checks when he misses. That's really the point of dispute; what villain is going to do. My problem w/that Royal is that you can't make that assumption, because even though I doubt he ever has a bigger pocket pair, and I'm not concerned with the small chance that he does, we cannot rule out the fact that he'll try to bluff on the river

If Royal's read is that villain will never bluff the river, then it allows hero to play perfectly against villain.If one could actually see villain's cards, the correct play on the turn would be to check raise to whatever amount villain would call with. Without seeing the cards though, you can never make an assumption that precise, so check raising the turn becomes fundamentally horrible.