A9s Oop

[Ninja Ace 1]

Yeah because you know, so many people here respect you dude. I have no idea what you get out of posting here at all.

<3 u too buuuuddddyyy

[mtdesmoines 3]

<3 u too buuuuddddyyy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um0tEvQ5gVM...feature=related

[mtdesmoines 3]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um0tEvQ5gVM...feature=related

Oh and not leading this flop is horrible.

[Stupidhead 2]

ZOMG WALL OF TEXTPeople do indeed miss the flop 2/3rds of the time and everybody and their mother who c-bets knows that. Do you realize that 0.66 to the fourth power is 19%? Sounds a whole lot less effective hmmm. We do have to get through 4 players after all.

While we don't get everyone to fold that much on the flop, we win the hand a lot more of the time. If we get calls, we still hit a diamond or A around 22% of the time. And even when we miss there are gonna be plenty of good spots to double barrel.

And I'm saying firing at multiway limped pots is pointless. This isn't a raised pot nor is it a heads up or even three way pot, it's not worth taking pot control out of our game until we make a hand. Like its such a basic Sklansky concept that you don't bluff into a ridiculous amount of people it's not even funny.

If we had next to no equity in this pot that concept would apply here. But we're always going to have roughly 35%-40% equity no matter what anyone else has. Semi-bluffing with what is likely to be 12 outs does not need to work that much of the time for it to be profitable.

What if we get raised? Then we have a hand we can't fold OOP getting into some gross spots. In that situation the poster posts here and we all give advice on how the semibluff was pointless.

If we decide to lead out it would be the intention of 3betting and getting the money in. If we check it would be to check/raise with the intention of getting it in.

I mean you're talking about crap like barreling retards off of top pair. It's the toppest pair they're not going to fold! Would you sit down at a .01/.02 online game and tell someone to add the double barreling in limped pots to their game? It's absolutely ridiculous.

If a K or Q peels off on the turn it's a very easy double barrel. I do agree that in a limp pot a lot of players aren't going to fold top pair on a blank turn. But there are def some super nitty players that just think everyone has the nuts where I would double barrel any card against.

The whole reason set mining works is the exact same reason we don't want to semi-bluff here. And set mining is passive play hoping for *shock face* a deep mistake.What boards are we waiting for? 99x , A9x, XdXdXd. Not even 923r. Yeah... it's that nitty.

Not leading out on a 932r flop with A9 multiway is rly bad.

Stop worrying about the "maybes" and the "what if he's doing this with" that are low percentage portions of his range. Do people show up with this shit? Absolutely. Do they show up with it nearly as often? Not at all.

Low percentage? What? The vast majority of hands that limp are going to fold. The only hands that don't fold that we either don't beat or aren't a favorite against are Jx and sets. It's fine to disagree with someones advice, but you're talking down to Matt like he's never played poker or is still grinding 5NL. I really can't fathom how you can be so condenscending to players who have had a ton of more success than you have, and are willing to give you advice.

[BaseJester 1]

If we had next to no equity in this pot that concept would apply here. But we're always going to have roughly 35%-40% equity no matter what anyone else has.

Yeah, except for sets.

Semi-bluffing with what is likely to be 12 outs does not need to work that much of the time for it to be profitable.

If the hero bets the pot and exactly one player calls, he loses about $2.50 (using 37.5% equity). So the hero breaks even on the flop action if everyone folds 29% of the time and exactly one player calls 80% of the time, if my arithmetic is correct.I'd probably lead this flop, but I really want to know stack sizes for the other players, because I'm more concerned about the pot size on the turn in relation to those stacks than I am picking up the current pot. Edited August 30, 2010 by BaseJester

[Stupidhead 2]

Yeah, except for sets.

Fair enough. Though it's a pretty small portion of everyone's range so it doesn't change things that much.

If the hero bets the pot and exactly one player calls, he loses about $2.50 (using 37.5% equity). So the hero breaks even on the flop action if everyone folds 20% of the time and exactly one player calls 80% of the time, if my arithmetic is correct.I'd probably lead this flop, but I really want to know stack sizes for the other players, because I'm more concerned about the pot size on the turn in relation to those stacks than I am picking up the current pot.

I'd bet closer to 3/4 pot here if I were to lead out. I also think that the 20% number is a bit inaccurate since there are hands that would hit that flop that probably won't even call a flop bet (A2, 54, etc.).I do agree that stack sizes should be factored in.

[Acid_Knight 2]

If we decide to lead out it would be the intention of 3betting and getting the money in. If we check it would be to check/raise with the intention of getting it in.

Most of what you said was correct, but I wanted to address this specifically.If we go to c/r, yes, we are obviously going to put our stack into this pot pretty much no matter what someone else does on the flop.However if we're leading, I'm not necessarily bet/3betting here. I'm leading at the pot and I'll decide how I want to proceed against various villains depending on what their hand ranges are, what their stack sizes are and how often I think I'm gonna get them to fold if I shove on them. Sometimes I might bet/3bet, and against other guys, you might actually have to lead/fold if they are only raising the flop with a set there and you're not getting the right odds if they're pricing me out. Against other people, lead/calling might be correct depending on various circumstances. I'm not leading to get my stack in here everytime, I'm leading because I think I'm gonna show an immediate profit doing so and sometimes, the stack just so happens to end up in there .

[Stupidhead 2]

Most of what you said was correct, but I wanted to address this specifically.If we go to c/r, yes, we are obviously going to put our stack into this pot pretty much no matter what someone else does on the flop.However if we're leading, I'm not necessarily bet/3betting here. I'm leading at the pot and I'll decide how I want to proceed against various villains depending on what their hand ranges are, what their stack sizes are and how often I think I'm gonna get them to fold if I shove on them. Sometimes I might bet/3bet, and against other guys, you might actually have to lead/fold if they are only raising the flop with a set there and you're not getting the right odds if they're pricing me out. Against other people, lead/calling might be correct depending on various circumstances. I'm not leading to get my stack in here everytime, I'm leading because I think I'm gonna show an immediate profit doing so and sometimes, the stack just so happens to end up in there .

Good point. I just like jamming and binking against live players so I can see the explosion afterwards.

[BaseJester 1]

I also think that the 20% number is a bit inaccurate since there are hands that would hit that flop that probably won't even call a flop bet (A2, 54, etc.).

I agree with your comment but note that it applies to the 19% Ninja Ace calculated, not the 20% break-even point (which turns out should be 29% ).

[babylondonks 5]

Good point. I just like jamming and binking against live players so I can see the explosion afterwards.

confirmed fish itt

[Ninja Ace 1]

Good point. I just like jamming and binking against live players so I can see the explosion afterwards.

Totally worth it. I wish I had more situations where someone shoves a flop on me and I say "well I have 9 high so I can't fold", hit, and they go monkey nuts. One guy threw chips at a dealers head it was fantastic.