Tournament Hand

[TrueAce13 18]

lol at the condescending tone of that post. Every time someone explained why your play was definitely not optimal, you keep arguing that it is. Every time someone would explain here is why you can do the c/c flop, ch/evaluate turn; you would think its laughable, b/c god knows, we have to raise to "see where we are at"And the last thing that is laughable about that large novel that you just wrote saying, "i don't care if you are the best player in the world", "I don't care about your results". That's a complete joke. If someone with great results, tells me that my thought process is wrong, I'm gonna take that advice. They have those results for a reason! When talking poker, you do want to talk to people who are better than you or are open to more ideas than just one thought process, and people who are striving to get better. I will leave you with this, do you really think you fit into any of those categories?

[akashenk 12]

lol at the condescending tone of that post. Every time someone explained why your play was definitely not optimal, you keep arguing that it is. Every time someone would explain here is why you can do the c/c flop, ch/evaluate turn; you would think its laughable, b/c god knows, we have to raise to "see where we are at"And the last thing that is laughable about that large novel that you just wrote saying, "i don't care if you are the best player in the world", "I don't care about your results". That's a complete joke. If someone with great results, tells me that my thought process is wrong, I'm gonna take that advice. They have those results for a reason! When talking poker, you do want to talk to people who are better than you or are open to more ideas than just one thought process, and people who are striving to get better.I will leave you with this, do you really think you fit into any of those categories?

That post was for irishguy. I would normally tell you to mind your own business, but while I'm here...I'm not really concerned about fitting some arbitrary categores you have come up with or proving my worth to you. I don't know why you are so preoccupied with proving your worth to me. This and the fact that you would cheerfully accept that your thought process is wrong just because someone has told you so tells me you are all-too eager to do everything in your power to be accepted by people you randomly assign value to. I guess its some psychological manipulation to make you feel valued. Ok, I get it. You're insecure, and it helps you. Fine.As for your grand conclusion "They have those results for a reason!", I am 100% in agrement with you. However, you have spent scant little time considering what that or those reasons are, and there lies your problem. Spend some time thinking about it. Meditate on it. See if you can come up with some original conclusions using your own brain. It might change your life.And please, spare me the repeated calls for open mindedness. There is so little space to spare in the tiny, claustrophobic chamber which contains the combined thought processes of you, donk and some others on this board that if a single new thought were to somehow find its way inside, it would probably start an uncontrollable fusion reaction.

[donk4life 34]

Half the people that have posted in this thread stating why you are wrong I don't have any connection with. Not sure how that can be considered group think.

[akashenk 12]

Half the people that have posted in this thread stating why you are wrong I don't have any connection with. Not sure how that can be considered group think.

you need to study history.

[kobe2odom8 14]

you need to study history.

just a history major nbd

[TrueAce13 18]

Getting a grad as well. Nbd

[donk4life 34]

go figure, his reads are off once again.

[akashenk 12]

go figure, his reads are off once again.

Wow, you're in college? Ahh, that explains everything. I'm amazed you have time to post on forums like this in between classes, beer bongs and late night philosophical debates about which country produces the best weed. Here I was wondering if I was getting sage advice from a real life poker pro and in reality it was some kid who spends far too large a portion of the day in his underwear. My lord, you must have a long and storied resume of poker accomplishment. No wonder trueace fawns over you.In all seriousness, I hope you have had success and the internet poker situation hasn't hurt you too much. And I hope you've gotten some sound financial advice. I, for one, have a tremendous amount of admiration and respect for people who really know about history. But, as a general rule, people who write checks do not. Forget about catching two-outers and gut shots. You're going to need real luck.P.S., I wonder what fine institution of higher learning you and your furry friends on this board attend.P.P.S. There's about 30 million people in the U.S. alone whom you have no direct connection with that think like you do... not necessarilty about this hand, but in general. I wonder if that makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside?

[Mercury69 3]

Donk4Life is a pretty good player and gives pretty good feedback, but that doesn't make him any less of an *******. Filter through the "tone" and you can get some good intel.

[TrueAce13 18]

Meh

[donk4life 34]

Wow, you're in college? Ahh, that explains everything. I'm amazed you have time to post on forums like this in between classes, beer bongs and late night philosophical debates about which country produces the best weed. Here I was wondering if I was getting sage advice from a real life poker pro and in reality it was some kid who spends far too large a portion of the day in his underwear. My lord, you must have a long and storied resume of poker accomplishment. No wonder trueace fawns over you.In all seriousness, I hope you have had success and the internet poker situation hasn't hurt you too much. And I hope you've gotten some sound financial advice. I, for one, have a tremendous amount of admiration and respect for people who really know about history. But, as a general rule, people who write checks do not. Forget about catching two-outers and gut shots. You're going to need real luck.P.S., I wonder what fine institution of higher learning you and your furry friends on this board attend.P.P.S. There's about 30 million people in the U.S. alone whom you have no direct connection with that think like you do... not necessarilty about this hand, but in general. I wonder if that makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside?

I'm a graduate student in Geography, I also teach labs for Climatology. I work more than 40 hours every week. So yeah, once again, very nice read on your part.And if you want to compare results of our poker careers, I'd be happy to.

[donk4life 34]

and ffs if Mercury comes in here to defend me than you know you're ****ing wrong.

[irishguy 14]

I am fighting in a circle, because you guys seem to refuse to address issues I bring up in my posts. All you do is reply with another barrage of random thoughts, scenarios, claims (and in other cases, insults). I have to say this latest posts of yours is quite confusing. Rather than trying to dissect it, I will ask that you actually respond to the post I made.. #118. I'm trying to understand your train of thought and see if there is something of value to bel gleaned from it, or if its something I disagree with. From what you posted previously, I have to say your logic doesn't make a lot of sense. Feel free to respond to my actual post and tell me where I'm either misunderstanding what you wrote, or where you disagree with my conclusions.

I'm on a phone and can't see which post your referring to but I'm fairly certain I've answered all your points repeatedly however you continue to ignore the counter points.We've established that the only hands that flat your c r are hands that have us beat or draws-which we make it mathematically correct for them to call with-you say either way not another chip gets put into the pot. Which is just super unlikely and even if it is the case means we've lost value-or cost ourselves more chips to find out we're beat. This also comes with your next post-yes there are multiple ways to play hands but the assertion that there's no right or wrong is just wrong when we're talking about a game that has math as a large factor because with math we are given right answers and wrong answers. And either way you calculate it playing the hand 'your way' loses us more

[Mercury69 3]

I'm eating blueberries and pineapple. Together!

[TrueAce13 18]

sighh, I'm such a nut hugger

[akashenk 12]

I'm on a phone and can't see which post your referring to but I'm fairly certain I've answered all your points repeatedly however you continue to ignore the counter points.We've established that the only hands that flat your c r are hands that have us beat or draws-which we make it mathematically correct for them to call with-you say either way not another chip gets put into the pot. Which is just super unlikely and even if it is the case means we've lost value-or cost ourselves more chips to find out we're beat.This also comes with your next post-yes there are multiple ways to play hands but the assertion that there's no right or wrong is just wrong when we're talking about a game that has math as a large factor because with math we are given right answers and wrong answers.And either way you calculate it playing the hand 'your way' loses us more

Well, I guess we'll have to wait till you're at a computer in order ot get a reply to my post.As for the math, I'd love for you to show me the equation which describes all of the various outcomes of this hand including those that will determine for us what our opponent will do in all possible situations. I believe the university donk attends probably has a super computer you could get access to to perform the calculation. The results could be enlightening.

[akashenk 12]

I'm a graduate student in Geography, I also teach labs for Climatology. I work more than 40 hours every week. So yeah, once again, very nice read on your part.And if you want to compare results of our poker careers, I'd be happy to.

Well, when I heard you were a history student undergrad, I assumed that you found the field so diverting that you decided to delve even deeper into the subject. Apparently that's not the case. Congratulations on widening your field of interest into more scientific realms. I'm certain it makes you a fascinating conversationalist at parties.As for results, I am quite certain you are far and away ahead of me. I play maybe two or three tournaments a month and almost no cash nowadays. I would guess you have played a billion more hands than I. I assume all this makes you far more rich (at least from poker) than I, and far more likely to develop carpal tunnel syndrome. Watch out for that.And lastly, on the subjects of history and science, if you did in fact take that seriously and study the material as opposed to the girl in the tanktop in the next row, if you did attend class instead of sitting in your room browsing for porn and hitting the bong, then I assume you might be able conjure up an example or two in history or science where one set of beliefs was widely held by lots of people (and their pets... didn’t want to leave you out, trueace), only to be replaced by a completely different and often contrary set of beliefs. I’m certain folks like you would call the folks holding that disavowed set of beliefs “idiots”, “morons”, etc. What will that eventually make you, I wonder?

[irishguy 14]

Well, I guess we'll have to wait till you're at a computer in order ot get a reply to my post.As for the math, I'd love for you to show me the equation which describes all of the various outcomes of this hand including those that will determine for us what our opponent will do in all possible situations. I believe the university donk attends probably has a super computer you could get access to to perform the calculation. The results could be enlightening.

Feel free to repost it-I won't be near a computer for awhile. Its adorable when people who think that they are much smarter then they actually are try to be condescending. How do we ever do math as it relates to poker without some sort of super computer.In our line we've established what we lose on the hand. In yours: 1:) when villian shoves with hands that crush us we lose an additional 4k 2:) when villian shoves on us with draws and we fold we lose our 4k plus and additional chips we could've gained on future streets.3:) when villain folds bluffs or hands that we beat (k9, j9 etc) yes we win the pot but we lose additional value which could've gained on future streets.4:) when villian calls-according to you they have us beat or a draw which lose a shit ton of value on be giving them a great price and we check to them on future streets-so even if 50% of the time they call they have Aj Aq etc and the other 50% they have a draw- 33% of the time they will hit so even in the absolutely ludicrous likelihood that they check back both streets with either when they do call we lose.Math isn't a myth be smarmy and condescending all you want it doesn't change that fact.

[akashenk 12]

Feel free to repost it-I won't be near a computer for awhile. Its adorable when people who think that they are much smarter then they actually are try to be condescending. How do we ever do math as it relates to poker without some sort of super computer.In our line we've established what we lose on the hand.In yours:1:) when villian shoves with hands that crush us we lose an additional 4k2:) when villian shoves on us with draws and we fold we lose our 4k plus and additional chips we could've gained on future streets.3:) when villain folds bluffs or hands that we beat (k9, j9 etc) yes we win the pot but we lose additional value which could've gained on future streets.4:) when villian calls-according to you they have us beat or a draw which lose a shit ton of value on be giving them a great price and we check to them on future streets-so even if 50% of the time they call they have Aj Aq etc and the other 50% they have a draw- 33% of the time they will hit so even in the absolutely ludicrous likelihood that they check back both streets with either when they do call we lose.Math isn't a myth be smarmy and condescending all you want it doesn't change that fact.

Hmm, you and others call people idiots. You joke about how you hope you play against others who think the way I do so you can make more money. I ask you to back your hyperbole and claims up with facts and logic and I'm being smarmy? I'm being condescending? I don't think you know what those words mean.Anyhow, thank you for providing some analysis here. I think it highlights everything you are missing about the merits of the c/r. #2 describes the potential lost value on future streets. It doesn't describe potentially losing chips, perhaps all of them, when the villain catches us from behind at a later point when you aren't so inclined to insta-fold. and it doesn't describe the chips we could lose by bleeding them into the pot with a loser. #3 discusses losing value in the form of being ahead, but doesn't discuss the chips we could lose if our opponent catches up. I assume according to you math, these things never happen. But it seems you do realize that hands can catch up, because you suggest that is a possibility in #4. Of course, you somehow discount the possibility that we are the ones who will catch up.The only example you give that doesn't have a corollary where we either save chips we would have lost, or gain chips we wouldn't have won is #1. I admit, if the villian shoves (it doesn't really matter what he has) we will fold and lose 4K we wouldn't have lost by calling. But I will repeat it here... when the opponent calls our c/r, it makes our decisions on future streets easier because it greatly reduces the likelihood they have a big hand on the flop. And given the pot-size dynamics and our opponents likely hodings, it make it more likely we get to the river cheaply (for free, in fact), which I think is critical to the chances of us winning with such a mediocre hand. I believe the 4K we pay and the risk of #1 occurring are well worth it if we mean to try and win the hand.By the way, since you are so mathematically inclined, perhaps you can explain the mathematical wisdom of even caling the flop? Everyone seems to agree that c/f is definitely the play to make on the turn. If you view the extra 4K I am paying as a total waste, then how is the 4K you're paying by calilng not a total waste? What, you'r hoping to catch that 5-outer on the turn which could still be behind a bunch of hands? That doesn't seem to be worth it.Here are the previous posts I was looking for you to explain. Since so much of the issues revolving around this decision have to do with wht the opponent will do on the turn...First I asked:"Instead of going in circles, how about this... please tell me what hand(s) you would bet the turn with if you were our opponent, and approx. how muich you would bet had we gone through the c/c scenario and had we gone through the c/r scenario (assuming you flatted the c/r). I think that would give us a good look into exactly how you would play the hand."Then you said:"As villain if hero checks flop I'm betting 100% of my range almost every single time-there are hands I may check behind dependent on hero. If called and checked to on turn I am only betting here with with two pair or better or maybe a better ace. This a flop that makes perfect sense for hero to hit and when he check calls I think his hand becomes fairly polarized-I'm only commiting my stack here with a made hand..checking behind with a draw.As villain in your line-I'm shoving over your c r with all two pair hands, sets, combo draws and some plain draws almost always-notice this includes hands your 70/30 ish against-and I'm folding all hands you beat..I may just flat the odd draw and big aces.When checked to on the turn I'm betting pretty much every hand I flatted the flop with almost always-if I think you'll pay me off with a weak ace I may check behind and value bet river"Then I wrote:"This is great insight... So when your opponent plays the hand as weakly as possible... check calling the flop and checking the turn (all after raising pre-flop, mind you), then you get cold feet, not wanting to commit any more chips to the pot unless you catch a made hand. However, when your opponent has shown at least some strength, not to mention appears to have commited himself to the pot, then you're "betting pretty much every hand I flatted the flop with". Ok, well here's the disconnect. I think that is ass-backwards. Now, I'm not going to call you a horrible player, or say that you are stupid like some others on this board. I will simply say I 100% disagree with the way you would play the opponent's role in this hand, or to put it another way, I would not play it that way."And I was looking for you to respond.

[donk4life 34]

Well, when I heard you were a history student undergrad, I assumed that you found the field so diverting that you decided to delve even deeper into the subject. Apparently that's not the case. Congratulations on widening your field of interest into more scientific realms. I'm certain it makes you a fascinating conversationalist at parties.As for results, I am quite certain you are far and away ahead of me. I play maybe two or three tournaments a month and almost no cash nowadays. I would guess you have played a billion more hands than I. I assume all this makes you far more rich (at least from poker) than I, and far more likely to develop carpal tunnel syndrome. Watch out for that.And lastly, on the subjects of history and science, if you did in fact take that seriously and study the material as opposed to the girl in the tanktop in the next row, if you did attend class instead of sitting in your room browsing for porn and hitting the bong, then I assume you might be able conjure up an example or two in history or science where one set of beliefs was widely held by lots of people (and their pets... didn’t want to leave you out, trueace), only to be replaced by a completely different and often contrary set of beliefs. I’m certain folks like you would call the folks holding that disavowed set of beliefs “idiots”, “morons”, etc. What will that eventually make you, I wonder?

We aren't talking about scientific theories or religious oppression. We are talking about a poker hand. Can opinions change in the game of poker? Absolutely, look what has happened in just the past few years where games have become so much tougher and strategies are constantly adapting. No one is arguing that you can't have a different opinion. But that doesn't mean that opinion is right. Every poker hand against any particular player has an optimal line. Over the long run, in order to be successful, you engage in the most optimal lines in order to be successful. Against some players, c/ring this flop may very well be the play. But against this player it's not. It's getting too tricky. Assigning a range for this player will not be very difficult by either betting or check/calling the flop. Yeah, on the flop his betting range is pretty wide. And honestly, b/fing this flop may be best. But basing it on whether to c/c than c/r, c/c is safer, less variance route. You want to c/r to find out where you're at, shut down better hands and force draws to play passively. Against a standard, tight player, you can accomplish this same thing by c/c. By c/c we have the same amount of info going to the turn as we do from c/ring. It's a pretty trivial fold if he continues to bet a decent amount into us, he's a standard player in more than likely a low buy-in tournament. Standard players aren't going nuts in these spots with worse hands.

[irishguy 14]

Hmm, you and others call people idiots. You joke about how you hope you play against others who think the way I do so you can make more money. I ask you to back your hyperbole and claims up with facts and logic and I'm being smarmy? I'm being condescending? I don't think you know what those words mean.Anyhow, thank you for providing some analysis here. I think it highlights everything you are missing about the merits of the c/r. #2 describes the potential lost value on future streets. It doesn't describe potentially losing chips, perhaps all of them, when the villain catches us from behind at a later point when you aren't so inclined to insta-fold. and it doesn't describe the chips we could lose by bleeding them into the pot with a loser. #3 discusses losing value in the form of being ahead, but doesn't discuss the chips we could lose if our opponent catches up. I assume according to you math, these things never happen. But it seems you do realize that hands can catch up, because you suggest that is a possibility in #4. Of course, you somehow discount the possibility that we are the ones who will catch up.The only example you give that doesn't have a corollary where we either save chips we would have lost, or gain chips we wouldn't have won is #1. I admit, if the villian shoves (it doesn't really matter what he has) we will fold and lose 4K we wouldn't have lost by calling. But I will repeat it here... when the opponent calls our c/r, it makes our decisions on future streets easier because it greatly reduces the likelihood they have a big hand on the flop. And given the pot-size dynamics and our opponents likely hodings, it make it more likely we get to the river cheaply (for free, in fact), which I think is critical to the chances of us winning with such a mediocre hand. I believe the 4K we pay and the risk of #1 occurring are well worth it if we mean to try and win the hand.By the way, since you are so mathematically inclined, perhaps you can explain the mathematical wisdom of even caling the flop? Everyone seems to agree that c/f is definitely the play to make on the turn. If you view the extra 4K I am paying as a total waste, then how is the 4K you're paying by calilng not a total waste? What, you'r hoping to catch that 5-outer on the turn which could still be behind a bunch of hands? That doesn't seem to be worth it.Here are the previous posts I was looking for you to explain. Since so much of the issues revolving around this decision have to do with wht the opponent will do on the turn...First I asked:"Instead of going in circles, how about this... please tell me what hand(s) you would bet the turn with if you were our opponent, and approx. how muich you would bet had we gone through the c/c scenario and had we gone through the c/r scenario (assuming you flatted the c/r). I think that would give us a good look into exactly how you would play the hand."Then you said:"As villain if hero checks flop I'm betting 100% of my range almost every single time-there are hands I may check behind dependent on hero. If called and checked to on turn I am only betting here with with two pair or better or maybe a better ace. This a flop that makes perfect sense for hero to hit and when he check calls I think his hand becomes fairly polarized-I'm only commiting my stack here with a made hand..checking behind with a draw.As villain in your line-I'm shoving over your c r with all two pair hands, sets, combo draws and some plain draws almost always-notice this includes hands your 70/30 ish against-and I'm folding all hands you beat..I may just flat the odd draw and big aces.When checked to on the turn I'm betting pretty much every hand I flatted the flop with almost always-if I think you'll pay me off with a weak ace I may check behind and value bet river"Then I wrote:"This is great insight... So when your opponent plays the hand as weakly as possible... check calling the flop and checking the turn (all after raising pre-flop, mind you), then you get cold feet, not wanting to commit any more chips to the pot unless you catch a made hand. However, when your opponent has shown at least some strength, not to mention appears to have commited himself to the pot, then you're "betting pretty much every hand I flatted the flop with". Ok, well here's the disconnect. I think that is ass-backwards. Now, I'm not going to call you a horrible player, or say that you are stupid like some others on this board. I will simply say I 100% disagree with the way you would play the opponent's role in this hand, or to put it another way, I would not play it that way."And I was looking for you to respond.

Smarmy and condescending was referring to your use of the term super computer when this is really pretty basic math. Yes there are times where villain would've caught up with a hand he folds a han like k9 and we can factor that in-it still makes it a horrid play folding these hands out cus they might catch up. And yes we might catch-but you've stated a million times that nobody is putting another chip in the middle on the turn and river so how does catching up if we are behind really change things all that much. You claim villain is only calling with a draw/or aj/aq and our c r looks super strong that villains not going to be putting more money in-so when the turn hits giving us a big draw why aren't you advocating leading???I've answered that post-but again our check calling the flop isn't necessarily weak as you assert. What hands do you think villain puts us on that raise pre and check call that flop? I think our hand becomes pretty much polarized to a marginal ace...then it becomes if villain thinks that and has a draw does he think we are capable of folding an ace in this spot? Maybe-I've stated previously a bluff is possible however we've expressed interest in the hand by calling the flop it's unlikely the villain is commiting himself on the turn with air or with a draw-looks more like he's betting to protect his hand. You keep saying the c r looks like you've committed yourself but it really doesn't and clearly by your plan to fold to any shove your not...the fact that you again check turn/river really erasing any strength your c r would've shown. What kind of hand do you think villain puts you on when you c r flop (giving draws ridiculously good odds) then check the turn? Then check the river? As for the check calling 4k being a total waste-lol....a ton of villains will bet this flop with 100% of their range and when we call will not bet the turn with air, k9 type hands or draws....

[akashenk 12]

We aren't talking about scientific theories or religious oppression. We are talking about a poker hand. Can opinions change in the game of poker? Absolutely, look what has happened in just the past few years where games have become so much tougher and strategies are constantly adapting. No one is arguing that you can't have a different opinion. But that doesn't mean that opinion is right. Every poker hand against any particular player has an optimal line. Over the long run, in order to be successful, you engage in the most optimal lines in order to be successful. Against some players, c/ring this flop may very well be the play. But against this player it's not. It's getting too tricky. Assigning a range for this player will not be very difficult by either betting or check/calling the flop. Yeah, on the flop his betting range is pretty wide. And honestly, b/fing this flop may be best. But basing it on whether to c/c than c/r, c/c is safer, less variance route. You want to c/r to find out where you're at, shut down better hands and force draws to play passively. Against a standard, tight player, you can accomplish this same thing by c/c. By c/c we have the same amount of info going to the turn as we do from c/ring. It's a pretty trivial fold if he continues to bet a decent amount into us, he's a standard player in more than likely a low buy-in tournament. Standard players aren't going nuts in these spots with worse hands.

We aren't talking about scientific theories or religious oppression. We are talking about a poker hand. Can opinions change in the game of poker? Absolutely, look what has happened in just the past few years where games have become so much tougher and strategies are constantly adapting. No one is arguing that you can't have a different opinion. But that doesn't mean that opinion is right. Every poker hand against any particular player has an optimal line. Over the long run, in order to be successful, you engage in the most optimal lines in order to be successful. Against some players, c/ring this flop may very well be the play. But against this player it's not. It's getting too tricky. Assigning a range for this player will not be very difficult by either betting or check/calling the flop. Yeah, on the flop his betting range is pretty wide. And honestly, b/fing this flop may be best. But basing it on whether to c/c than c/r, c/c is safer, less variance route. You want to c/r to find out where you're at, shut down better hands and force draws to play passively. Against a standard, tight player, you can accomplish this same thing by c/c. By c/c we have the same amount of info going to the turn as we do from c/ring. It's a pretty trivial fold if he continues to bet a decent amount into us, he's a standard player in more than likely a low buy-in tournament. Standard players aren't going nuts in these spots with worse hands.

This is the most reasoned post you have made on this thread. Perhaps I am rubbing off on you. Anyhow, I wasn't talking about religious oppression and theories. I was simply referring to the fact that the truth today is often replaced by a new truth tomorrow. If hubris holds no valid place in the scientific world, it shouldn't hold a place in the world of poker which is FAR less definitive given the human factors.Now, as to your other points... You say that the c/r , c/c decision may rely on the player we are going against. I completely agree. Maybe the c/r with such mediocre holdings is too tricky and will not work agains this player. Or maybe our opponent doesn't pay attention to stack sizes and wil not think we are commiting to the pot (which is what we really want them to believe). I am perfectly wiling to admit there are cases where c/r is worse than c/c. This is because I am ready to admit when making a poker decision, you are not necessarily going to make THE optimal play (unless you have a super computer handy).The ENTIRE purpose of my comments in this thread are to convey that.. I don't really like our hand, I don't think I can get the villain to fold a draw, I'd like to play it in a way where we can put as few chips in as possible, while giving us a chance to see a cheap river and catch up (if that's what we need to do), and lastly, I don't want to be left with a tough decision on the turn which could cost me my tournament life if I make a mistake. I believe the c/r helps us in all of these regards. and, I also feel the c/c is a bit of a pointless play, unless you are against a very passive player who may give you the benefit of a check on the turn even if you play the hand weakly. Again, against certian players a c/c may do all the things I want the c/r to do just as well. I just don't think this happens to be a passive opponent. They don't typically make it this far in a tournament, for one, and I don't think a passive opponent would bet the flop.As for variance, I'm not sure I agree. Yes we risk more chips, so if you define variance based on volume of chips bet, then you are right. However, again, this play makes it so we make easier decisions going forward. I really think the chances of us losing a huge amount or all of our chips is much smaller with the c/r play. Now, maybe YOU would never lose that many chips with c/c. But the best players in the world make mistakes at innopportune times. Who's to say after playing for a week that you or anyone else wouldn't slip up in this situation like our hero.

[akashenk 12]

I disagree with so much of what you say here, irishguy.1) I mentioned the super computer, because the "math" you are talking about is not as simple as counting outs and figuring odds. The real math of this situation is evaluating huge volumes of permutations which compare the likelihood of our opponent improving by the river and us improving by the river, not to mention calculating the possible actions by our opponent on the turn and river based on what they have and what kind of player they are. In order to do a true mathematical analysis comparing c/c vs c/r you would need a super computer to come up with an optimum strategy.2) "Yes there are times where villain would've caught up with a hand he folds a han like k9 and we can factor that in-it still makes it a horrid play folding these hands out cus they might catch up"Just because you say its true doesn't make it so. In your "mathematical" analysis you chose to consider all of the bad things that can happen with my strategy and ignore the good things. I don't do a mathematical analysis except to claim that my strategy makes certain important good outcomes more likely.3) "And yes we might catch-but you've stated a million times that nobody is putting another chip in the middle on the turn and river so how does catching up if we are behind really change things all that much. You claim villain is only calling with a draw/or aj/aq and our c r looks super strong that villains not going to be putting more money in-so when the turn hits giving us a big draw why aren't you advocating leading???"That's not what I said. What I said is, we will not put another dime in unless we catch that diamond on the river which likely gives us the nuts and is hidden. A value bet would be called for in this case, or a c/r on the river. As for advocating leading, I actually did make a case for this as an appropriate play to follow up our c/r. I think it would be a really good play, but I chose to favor the more conservative approach. My entire strategy in this hand is to get to the river where either I can catch up or perhaps win with my original Ace mediocre kicker. This is my idea of pot control.4) "I've answered that post-but again our check calling the flop isn't necessarily weak as you assert. What hands do you think villain puts us on that raise pre and check call that flop? I think our hand becomes pretty much polarized to a marginal ace...then it becomes if villain thinks that and has a draw does he think we are capable of folding an ace in this spot? Maybe-I've stated previously a bluff is possible however we've expressed interest in the hand by calling the flop it's unlikely the villain is commiting himself on the turn with air or with a draw-looks more like he's betting to protect his hand."Raising pre flop and then check calling with an A and coordinated board IS weak imo. It pretty much screams that you either have a weak A, a draw or an under pair. For the same reason that big hand will raise our c/r in most situations, we would raise their flop bet in most situations with a similarly strong hand. At this point in the tourney, with the stacks we have, what strong hand is going to just essentially give a free card with multiple draws out there?5) "You keep saying the c r looks like you've committed yourself but it really doesn't and clearly by your plan to fold to any shove your not...the fact that you again check turn/river really erasing any strength your c r would've shown. What kind of hand do you think villain puts you on when you c r flop (giving draws ridiculously good odds) then check the turn? Then check the river?You are completly wrong here given the fact that pretty much everyone who has commented on this thread has said one reason they wouldn't raise is it commits them to the pot. It doesn't to me, but I think its clear most people would view your putting a third of your chips in as a serious commital to see it through to the end. The check on the river is a bit weak however I think its not very likely our villain will bet and/or bluff this river, and again, our main hope is to catch up. If we do, we would welcome a bet/bluff attempt. If we don't and our oponent bets, we have to decide whether they are capable of bluffing the river, which is pretty much the only thing we can beat.6) "As for the check calling 4k being a total waste-lol....a ton of villains will bet this flop with 100% of their range and when we call will not bet the turn with air, k9 type hands or draws...."I don't think I agree that a "ton" of villains (what.. 5 sumo wrestlers?) would follow up their flop bet with a check turn, but there are plenty of villains who would be happy to keep the lead on the turn, particularly if they think they have us beat with AJ/AQ or think we will fold a draw. Also, the smaller pot makes bluffing a more viable option for a villain looking to make us fold what they should accurately assume is a mediocre hand. The key I guess would be the percentage, that would make one play or the other, but this determinaton isn't that important. The only thing I am considering is whether the 4K raise will increase the likelihood that the villian will check behind and give us a chance to catch that river. I think it undoubtedly would.

[irishguy 14]

I disagree with so much of what you say here, irishguy.1) I mentioned the super computer, because the "math" you are talking about is not as simple as counting outs and figuring odds. The real math of this situation is evaluating huge volumes of permutations which compare the likelihood of our opponent improving by the river and us improving by the river, not to mention calculating the possible actions by our opponent on the turn and river based on what they have and what kind of player they are. In order to do a true mathematical analysis comparing c/c vs c/r you would need a super computer to come up with an optimum strategy.2) "Yes there are times where villain would've caught up with a hand he folds a han like k9 and we can factor that in-it still makes it a horrid play folding these hands out cus they might catch up"Just because you say its true doesn't make it so. In your "mathematical" analysis you chose to consider all of the bad things that can happen with my strategy and ignore the good things. I don't do a mathematical analysis except to claim that my strategy makes certain important good outcomes more likely.3) "And yes we might catch-but you've stated a million times that nobody is putting another chip in the middle on the turn and river so how does catching up if we are behind really change things all that much. You claim villain is only calling with a draw/or aj/aq and our c r looks super strong that villains not going to be putting more money in-so when the turn hits giving us a big draw why aren't you advocating leading???"That's not what I said. What I said is, we will not put another dime in unless we catch that diamond on the river which likely gives us the nuts and is hidden. A value bet would be called for in this case, or a c/r on the river. As for advocating leading, I actually did make a case for this as an appropriate play to follow up our c/r. I think it would be a really good play, but I chose to favor the more conservative approach. My entire strategy in this hand is to get to the river where either I can catch up or perhaps win with my original Ace mediocre kicker. This is my idea of pot control.4) "I've answered that post-but again our check calling the flop isn't necessarily weak as you assert. What hands do you think villain puts us on that raise pre and check call that flop? I think our hand becomes pretty much polarized to a marginal ace...then it becomes if villain thinks that and has a draw does he think we are capable of folding an ace in this spot? Maybe-I've stated previously a bluff is possible however we've expressed interest in the hand by calling the flop it's unlikely the villain is commiting himself on the turn with air or with a draw-looks more like he's betting to protect his hand."Raising pre flop and then check calling with an A and coordinated board IS weak imo. It pretty much screams that you either have a weak A, a draw or an under pair. For the same reason that big hand will raise our c/r in most situations, we would raise their flop bet in most situations with a similarly strong hand. At this point in the tourney, with the stacks we have, what strong hand is going to just essentially give a free card with multiple draws out there?5) "You keep saying the c r looks like you've committed yourself but it really doesn't and clearly by your plan to fold to any shove your not...the fact that you again check turn/river really erasing any strength your c r would've shown. What kind of hand do you think villain puts you on when you c r flop (giving draws ridiculously good odds) then check the turn? Then check the river?You are completly wrong here given the fact that pretty much everyone who has commented on this thread has said one reason they wouldn't raise is it commits them to the pot. It doesn't to me, but I think its clear most people would view your putting a third of your chips in as a serious commital to see it through to the end. The check on the river is a bit weak however I think its not very likely our villain will bet and/or bluff this river, and again, our main hope is to catch up. If we do, we would welcome a bet/bluff attempt. If we don't and our oponent bets, we have to decide whether they are capable of bluffing the river, which is pretty much the only thing we can beat.6) "As for the check calling 4k being a total waste-lol....a ton of villains will bet this flop with 100% of their range and when we call will not bet the turn with air, k9 type hands or draws...."I don't think I agree that a "ton" of villains (what.. 5 sumo wrestlers?) would follow up their flop bet with a check turn, but there are plenty of villains who would be happy to keep the lead on the turn, particularly if they think they have us beat with AJ/AQ or think we will fold a draw. Also, the smaller pot makes bluffing a more viable option for a villain looking to make us fold what they should accurately assume is a mediocre hand. The key I guess would be the percentage, that would make one play or the other, but this determinaton isn't that important. The only thing I am considering is whether the 4K raise will increase the likelihood that the villian will check behind and give us a chance to catch that river. I think it undoubtedly would.

Like I said I'd prefer leading flop-then checking but I don't think the check is horrible..I think it's close. My point is that it's redundant to repeat that your c r looks like your commiting when your entire plan is to fold... You also keep asserting that villain is so aggressive that he's going to double barrel us for more then half his stack with draws etc yet is going to to flat your c r and be passive the rest of the way-this is conflicting. Your using the info of what the turn card is to help justify the c r but that's info we don't have when we c r...our c r should be representing a hand much stronger then what we have ie turning or hand into a bluff and when we do turn a card which gives us solid reasons to continue our story you want to check in hopes he checks behind so when we do hit our back door draw we can value bet hands like aj etc..but again you say he's only ever got draws or aj etc when calling the c r so we then allow him to see the river with his draws-which according to you he never puts another chip in-so he doesn't bluff missed draws on the river-and then again you say how super strong our hand looks simply with the c r that not a chip goes in again but now you think you can value bet when our back door gets there vs his aj?? Round and round we go..

[irishguy 14]

It's fairly established that the two reasons to raise are:1: to extract value from weaker hands2: to bluff out better hands You say there is another reason:To get us to the river cheaper-a lot of this stance seems to be based on knowing what the turn isAlso your reasoning is essentially the first two reasons:Your raise extracts value from draws that call-however it prices them in making it an error.Your raise is representing a much stronger hand thus attempting to bluff the Aj hands yet you shut down the bluff on the turn making it an error.