Is This Standard? Basic Hand, 2-5

[BaseJester 1]

I'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.

I don't feel that you refuted RT's "You bet to win a hand" with this."Betting to protect a hand" is eliminating opponents when the hero happens to be ahead. Eliminating opponents (who are not drawing dead) is good whether the hero is ahead or behind.If the hero check/raises the turn instead of calling, knowing that the villain will fold, he has increased his equity from x% to 100%. It doesn't matter if the villain folds correctly or incorrectly. Clearly, the hero gains more when x is small (he's bluffing), but the merit of the bet doesn't leap from asinine for x<50% to genius for x>50%."He'll never call with worse" is a reason to avoid betting on the river, when the villain's equity is 0 or 1.

[Acid_Knight 2]

I don't feel that you refuted RT's "You bet to win a hand" with this."Betting to protect a hand" is eliminating opponents when the hero happens to be ahead. Eliminating opponents (who are not drawing dead) is good whether the hero is ahead or behind.If the hero check/raises the turn instead of calling, knowing that the villain will fold, he has increased his equity from x% to 100%. It doesn't matter if the villain folds correctly or incorrectly. Clearly, the hero gains more when x is small (he's bluffing), but the merit of the bet doesn't leap from asinine for x<50% to genius for x>50%."He'll never call with worse" is a reason to avoid betting on the river, when the villain's equity is 0 or 1.

Just increasing our equity from X% to 100% isn't the end of things. It does matter if the villain folds correctly or incorrectly. If out bet coupled with his call increases out dollar expectation in the hand, we want our bet called. If his call slightly decreases our $$ expectation in the hand, we'd prefer him to fold. I mean, we make a bet and he folds and we win $100 100% of the time, that's great. If we make the bet and he calls with a worse hand, maybe our expectation goes up to $105, but we lose the hand 14% of the time. Maybe we make the bet and he calls and our expectation drops to $97 because he now wins 22% of the time. Obviously we care if he's folding correctly or not and we care about our bet sizing as it influences our expectation of the hand.When you make a bet and your opponent calls with a hand he shouldn't, you make money. There are many occasions though where you do want them to fold the worst hand because their call would decrease the overall $$ expectation of the situation for you. Likewise, there are situations where drawing dead or not, you want your opponent calling the bets with the worst hand because although your win 100% when you fold, you win 100% of a smaller number than you would 85% of the time where you win the larger pot. It's really a math problem at that point because there is an inflection point that you can look at (knowing the exact hand or even ranges) where you can tell if it's in your best interest that they fold the hand or that they incorrectly call the bet to draw to a better hand getting poor odds. Betting for value is still betting for value even if you don't expect them to call. You have the best hand and you are betting because there is value in betting. Sometimes that value is realized when they call with a worse hand and sometimes you get value when they fold and they can't realize the 23% equity that they would've had in the pot if they had called you.

[Royal_Tour 0]

If his call slightly decreases our $$ expectation in the hand, we'd prefer him to fold. I mean, we make a bet and he folds and we win $100 100% of the time, that's great. There are many occasions though where you do want them to fold the worst hand because their call would decrease the overall $$ expectation of the situation for you. Betting for value is still betting for value even if you don't expect them to call. You have the best hand and you are betting because there is value in betting. Sometimes that value is realized when they call with a worse hand and sometimes you get value when they fold and they can't realize the 23% equity that they would've had in the pot if they had called you.

QFMA (quoted for my argument)

[Royal_Tour 0]

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?

I appreciate the feedback, but I dont want to turn this into another nonsensical live vs online debate. and thats where these threads always end up

[Naismith 0]

QFMA (quoted for my argument)

This isn't your argument unless you somehow have changed math.

[Acid_Knight 2]

QFMA (quoted for my argument)

The math of the given situation does not back up your argument at all for why the hand should be played as it was.

[Royal_Tour 0]

The math of the given situation does not back up your argument at all for why the hand should be played as it was.

If we say that vilain doesnt bluff the river, our equity goes down by allowing him to go to the river.do you understand that part? p.s. while you guys discuss this hand in another thread, or on aim, please discuss a litle bit more indepth as to how you play this hand aftet the turn.My assumption is that you (and maybe others) are voting, check/call the turn and check/call the river. If he checks behind on river, so what...is that accurate?

[Stupidhead 2]

[Royal_Tour 0]

havent seen anything of substance from you.. so i guess that icon is appropriate.I really am interested in seeing someone provide an optimal line.you guys are doing nothing but commenting on how poor my line is without giving any advice on what is the best, optimal line. How do I become a real overall long term winner? obviously i was wrong here, so please provide where the best line is.

[Naismith 0]

If we say that vilain doesnt bluff the river, our equity goes down by allowing him to go to the river.do you understand that part? you should, you wrote that in your paragraphp.s. while you guys discuss this hand in another thread, or on aim, please discuss a litle bit more indepth as to how you play this hand aftet the turn.My assumption is that you (and maybe others) are voting, check/call the turn and check/call the river. If he checks behind on river, so what...is that accurate?

You have to be arguing just for the sake of arguing.If we say the villain doesn't ever bluff the river, this hand is even easier to play. We call the turn and check-fold to a bet. How could that be any simpler?

[Royal_Tour 0]

You have to be arguing just for the sake of arguing.If we say the villain doesn't ever bluff the river, this hand is even easier to play. We call the turn and check-fold to a bet. How could that be any simpler?

well we can never be 100%. That seems to be the stance of choice. So we can't guarantee he doesn't bluff. We have to call the turn and check/fold to any bet?Is there a reason why you think he holds AA/KK here more often than him bluffing a river with AK?

[Acid_Knight 2]

If we say that vilain doesnt bluff the river, our equity goes down by allowing him to go to the river.do you understand that part? you should, you wrote that in your paragraph

Why do you acknowledge Loosh's post and then continue on the path that you're right here and everyone else is wrong?

[BaseJester 1]

If the hero check/raises the turn instead of calling, knowing that the villain will fold, he has increased his equity from x% to 100%. It doesn't matter if the villain folds correctly or incorrectly.

Perhaps I should have written instead, "Regardless of the correctness or incorrectness of the fold, the hero's equity increases from x% to 100%." Below you refute, "Regardless of the correctness or incorrectness of the villain's play, our expectation is the same." I did not mean that.

It does matter if the villain folds correctly or incorrectly. If out bet coupled with his call increases out dollar expectation in the hand, we want our bet called. If his call slightly decreases our $$ expectation in the hand, we'd prefer him to fold. I mean, we make a bet and he folds and we win $100 100% of the time, that's great. If we make the bet and he calls with a worse hand, maybe our expectation goes up to $105, but we lose the hand 14% of the time. Maybe we make the bet and he calls and our expectation drops to $97 because he now wins 22% of the time. Obviously we care if he's folding correctly or not and we care about our bet sizing as it influences our expectation of the hand.When you make a bet and your opponent calls with a hand he shouldn't, you make money. There are many occasions though where you do want them to fold the worst hand because their call would decrease the overall $$ expectation of the situation for you. Likewise, there are situations where drawing dead or not, you want your opponent calling the bets with the worst hand because although your win 100% when you fold, you win 100% of a smaller number than you would 85% of the time where you win the larger pot. It's really a math problem at that point because there is an inflection point that you can look at (knowing the exact hand or even ranges) where you can tell if it's in your best interest that they fold the hand or that they incorrectly call the bet to draw to a better hand getting poor odds. Betting for value is still betting for value even if you don't expect them to call. You have the best hand and you are betting because there is value in betting. Sometimes that value is realized when they call with a worse hand and sometimes you get value when they fold and they can't realize the 23% equity that they would've had in the pot if they had called you.

I feel we have chased our tails somewhat with the definition of betting for value. When RT suggested that the hero could bet, expecting the villain to fold, and increase his equity, didn't people tell him that was wrong because it was neither betting for value nor bluffing? Do your two reasons for betting include betting as a favorite and causing the villain to fold or not?

[Acid_Knight 2]

well we can never be 100%. That seems to be the stance of choice. So we can't guarantee he doesn't bluff. We have to call the turn and check/fold to any bet?Is there a reason why you think he holds AA/KK here more often than him bluffing a river with AK?

Poker is about frequencies and ranges. How can you possible have played as long as you have and not understand this? He doesn't have a hand, he has a RANGE OF HANDS that he plays like this. He has frequencies that he checks back the flop and that he bets the flop and how often he slowplays and how often he bluffs the river. It's your job to figure out what his range is and what frequency he checks back AK on the flop or how often he bluffs rivers and then you create a line to maxmize profit in that given situation.Checkraising this turn is wrong because you lose the most when you're behind and win the least when you're ahead. It's that simple in this case. Call the turn. If the river is an A, K or Q, decide if and how frequently he will bluff the card and act accordingly.

[looshle 6]

The point is his equity with AK is like 13% so any c/r you are going to make to be profitable is going to have to be tiiiiny and probably LESS than a check-min raise if you factor in that we dont always have the best hand.

[king1305 0]

Doing something because you're afraid they'll hit a long shot card is pretty dumb, j/s.c/c turn and river (or possibly c/f, whichever is best depending on texture) to let them barrel off w/ worse, lose the min vs hands that beat us.

[krup24 0]

I really am interested in seeing someone provide an optimal line.

fold pf for serious.zach's been gone so long he even learned how to play NLnice graph AK

[Stupidhead 2]

havent seen anything of substance from you.. so i guess that icon is appropriate.I really am interested in seeing someone provide an optimal line.you guys are doing nothing but commenting on how poor my line is without giving any advice on what is the best, optimal line. How do I become a real overall long term winner? obviously i was wrong here, so please provide where the best line is.

LOLOLOL

[babylondonks 5]

LOLOLOL

SHUT UP YOU 6/3/1 NIT

[slink 1]

Glad to see some of the old school come out of 4bb to post here. It is what this forum needs. Keep it up!

[shynepo3 0]

I didn't realize this thread would cause all this uproar...and i thought it was a pretty basic hand..lol...sorry RT..so is the general opinion, or the right thing to do, unless i know the raiser to be extremely aggressive with marginal hands, to fold pre?

[trystero 0]

Yea you're going to be out of position and you can't feel confident on any flop unless you spike a 9, and you aren't getting the price to set mine.

[shynepo3 0]

Try again.

so this is how much you made last year Acid Knight? wow...what limits were you playing mostly? this is mostly online right?

[Stupidhead 2]

SHUT UP YOU 6/3/1 NIT

u hurt my feelings

[KingJames 11]

so this is how much you made last year Acid Knight? wow...what limits were you playing mostly? this is mostly online right?

pretty sure AKs graph is for play money;)and yes the general consensus is to fold to that 3bet preflop. Calling 3bets oop is generally bad bc most of the time you have to c/f and when you do make a set it's more difficult to extract value oopas mark said (he's good at poker) you want to be able to make at least 10x the size of the bet you are calling preflop when you are set-mining, and ideally your stacks will be deeper...So that is a good rule to keep in mind preflop... Like if a 20bb short stack nit pos scumbag opens from middle position you gotta dump your small pps... Generally