Tournament Hand

[akashenk 12]

The reason I don't like a c/r is because I like bet/folding more. Bet/fold accomplishes pretty much everything a c/r does, we get called by worse hands, and we lose less when we are beat. We don't even need to bet that big. 2800-3200 is plenty. And I'd do this if I thought villain was passive and doesn't get out of line that much. If I had seen him be more aggro and spazzy, then I'd check with the plan to check/call to get him to bluff. Based on the reads OP provided, bet/fold sounds like the best option.

b/f is certainly a viable option and may be better than c/c, thought I'm not sure it accomplishes everything the c/r does. I don't think our opponent has to have a big hand or monster draw in order to raise our bet as they would in order to shove our c/r. They could put out a raise for purely informaitonal purposes or with a fairly marginal hand that happens to have us beat. Again, if our intention is to fold to any raise, then I don't necessarily see what is to be gained by betting first. Our opponet has too many options at his disposal in position. Folding a hand that has him crushed (like if he had KK or A8) would be a huge mistake, and getting too involved by pushing all-in over his raise or calling him down on future streets could also be very risky.I do think that if you put out a fairly substantial bet, rather than a standard one, it could accomplish some of thethings that the c/r does. It makes it seem like we are committed to the pot and may prevent the opponent from bluffing or making a thin value bet. And, it could get a hand like A10/AjJ/AQ to fold in that spot. In my mind, a substantial lead out looks a little weaker than a check/min raise, but the difference may be negligible.

[akashenk 12]

Hey guys, added together we've probably played millions of hands of poker, studied the game at a high level for years, and continuously try to make ourselves better. But, we'll never have the wisdom of some dolt who has been grinding his 1/2 live game at some shitty Indian casino for years.So there's no pointing in arguing with him, we just aren't on that level.

Insecure much?I agree you aren't likely on my level, at least when it comes to deep analysis of hands. In the online world which you are neck-deep in, you make your living by making standard plays without giving them much thought and taking advantage of a pluthera of bad opponents. You rely on playing multiple tables at once and grinding out tiny mathematical advantages. This may be a very luritive activity, but it certainly doesn't lend itself to "studying the game at a high level". You simply don't have enough time nor do you likely pay much attention to anything but the most remarkable hands. If you displayed any actual thought-based analysis in this hand, as opposed to ego-based analysis, I might believe that you are "continuously trying to make yourself better", but frankly, I think you are deluding yourself.

[Stupidhead 2]

Insecure much?I agree you aren't likely on my level, at least when it comes to deep analysis of hands. In the online world which you are neck-deep in, you make your living by making standard plays without giving them much thought and taking advantage of a pluthera of bad opponents. You rely on playing multiple tables at once and grinding out tiny mathematical advantages. This may be a very luritive activity, but it certainly doesn't lend itself to "studying the game at a high level". You simply don't have enough time nor do you likely pay much attention to anything but the most remarkable hands. If you displayed any actual thought-based analysis in this hand, as opposed to ego-based analysis, I might believe that you are "continuously trying to make yourslef better", but frankly, I think you are deluding yourself.

POTY

[donk4life 34]

Insecure much?I agree you aren't likely on my level, at least when it comes to deep analysis of hands. In the online world which you are neck-deep in, you make your living by making standard plays without giving them much thought and taking advantage of a pluthera of bad opponents. You rely on playing multiple tables at once and grinding out tiny mathematical advantages. This may be a very luritive activity, but it certainly doesn't lend itself to "studying the game at a high level". You simply don't have enough time nor do you likely pay much attention to anything but the most remarkable hands. If you displayed any actual thought-based analysis in this hand, as opposed to ego-based analysis, I might believe that you are "continuously trying to make yourself better", but frankly, I think you are deluding yourself.

Actually, I played HU during my tenure as an online poker player, where I focused on maybe 1 or 2 tables a time. Playing heads up required deep analysis of hands, and it required making a number of non-standard plays against a variety of opponents. As a matter of fact, I would argue that playing heads up requires more deep-level thinking than your 1/2 cash game at your local casino. But hey, those old nitty men can sure do some crazy things and make you think on another level.You see, I can be just as condescending as you.

[Stupidhead 2]

[Gallo 1]

Ok, I told myself I wasn't going to make a reply in here because I basically didn't want to get dragged into this. Aka, listen, I'm much older than these guys (donk, trueace, stupid and higway) siggggh. But I've learned a ton from these guys and other players their age. I've been able to check my ego at the door when I've discussed hands with these guys and because I've been able to do that I've listened more and learned even more about poker and hopefully have become a better player because of them. My results are not as good as these guys, maybe TrueAce , but I'm happy with everything I've learned and I'm happy with how my game evolved. So, tbh, just check your ego and listen and take in what they're trying to help you with. You have asked them numerous times to discredit your c/r strategy and they have and then they gave you reasons why and showed you what the best line to take when you check the flop.Let me try this.When you c/r flop here are the results.1. Villain folds. (We no longer allow him to keep betting worse hands and therefore do not increase our stack, in other words we lose value)2. Villain shoves, we fold. (If we were behind a hand like AQ or AJ we can no longer catch up to him because we never ever get to see the turn or the river. So now we can't draw out and we've lost an extra 4k when we could've seen the turn for a much cheaper price.)3. Villain just calls and we check the turn. (Um, this is pretty bad. You say you assume that villain will most often check here, right? If that's the case then not only have you given villain a great price to call for his draw, but now you've also given him the river as well. Are you checking the river as well? Are you betting? Are you folding if he bets river? I think if you've taken this line, you have to call a ton of river bets if the flush didn't get there and you still have no real clue as to "where you're at" because your hand is under repped.)There is a reason why the "young internet kids" have been doing so well in "live" tournaments. Even Daniel has changed his game a bit and started to take in and learn from these "young internet kids".Edit: And no disrespect to Irishguy for not mentioning you, only because I don't think I've ever spoken to you. But he's also made some very good points.

[donk4life 34]

GL Gallo.

[akashenk 12]

Thanks for the reasoned post, Gallo. Before I comment on your individual points, let me just say I am not one of these people who think youngsters have nothing to offer. Maybe every single one of these guys (except TrueAce is a really great poker player with lots of knowledge and intelligent things to say . Maybe we can learn a great deal from them in general. That is not the point here. You have done a fairly good job summarizing the objections to the C/R play. All of your points have some merit, which is why I have never discounted c/c as a horrible play. However, again the points you raise do not actually discredit the c/r play because they do not address what is trying to be achieved with the play. All they address is generic poker principals like “we don't want a hand behind us to fold”, which should not be applied in every single instance. I have already done this in numerous other posts, but allow me to go through them one by one and, again, please point out where I'm going so wrong if you like.1) In order to be concerned about losing value by folding out worse hands, two things MUST be true. Both our opponent and us will have to be willing to put more money into the pot on future streets. Otherwise, there is NO VALUE to be lost. Now, I am open to the possibility that our opponent may bluff the turn in the c/c scenario. I don’t know if this is an extreme likelihood, but I think it is a definite possibility and certainly more likely than in the c/r scenario. But here’s the problem. Everyone here pretty much agrees they will fold to any bet on the turn, with perhaps the exception of calling about 6K to try and draw to our flush. If you’re folding to most bets, then how is it that we gained value by only c/c the flop? And let’s look at the 6K situation. I am expected to believe that, our opponent will stone cold bluff (ie bet a hand from way behind) the turn by making a standard raise? I highly doubt it. If they’re going to bluff, they will put real pressure on us and, again, we will fold. The BEST case scenario, is that our opponent does make such a small bet as a bluff, and we are fortunate (or unfortunate as the case may be) to have gotten a turn card which allows us to chase a big hand. Even in that scenario, we are likely no more than about a 20% favorite to catch that hand. The math and pot odds might say it is a reasonable call, but it’s not like we are in any sort of good shape here. And if we miss, are we then likely to call the river? So all this tells me, there is little good that can happen if we c/c hoping that an opponent from way behind will provide value. Our opponent would have to make some very borderline plays. We’d have to make some tough decisions, and last, but not least, we’d have to dodge whatever our opponent needs to catch up to us. In the middle of the tournament, when stacks our deep, we can pursue these possibilities. At this point in the tournament, we can’t take those sorts of risks. I see no problem with ending the hand on the flop and winning a small pot, even if we are ahead at that point.2) I’ll speak to AJ/AQ in a moment, but first let me say that I only expect our villain to shove our c/r with a monster or perhaps a big draw. If they do, yes we lose an extra 4K in the process, and I have mentioned that as being the greatest weakness of the c/r line. Now, if they have a monster, I am going to assume we are not upset about folding. We are only upset that we lost an extra 4K, right? But before even discussing any other possibility, what if we c/c and then check the turn and our villain shoves then? We will fold, right? Well, that’s good and yes we saved 4K over my line. But our decision to fold will not be a based on anything other than our aversion to losing all of our chips. When we fold to the shove on the c/r we know our villain is way ahead or at worst in a coin flip. When we fold to the c/c/c shove, we are only doing so to be careful. I think this is an important distinction. We cannot discount the % of times we will be folding the best hand, perhaps even one which is WAY ahead when our villain shoves the turn. This would be a crucial mistake at this point in the tournament.Now, let’s look back at the other possibility on the flop. What if our opponent shoves after our c/r with a big draw of some sort. Irishguy has made an emphatic argument that it would be really bad for us to fold here. He is willing to flip a coin for his tournament life in this situation. I am not so eager. I have stated numerous times that if the payout structure merited being a little less cautious, then flip away. But if moving up really mattered, I am not looking to flip coins at this stage. And remember, there are lots of hands that have us completely dominated on the flop too. You can’t just assume you are in a flip situation. You are in a flip situation AT BEST. I have no problem folding to the c/r shove and KNOWING I made a good decision.Now, as for AJ/AQ, I think it is much less likely we get a shove from a hand like that. It’s just so risky for our opponent to do so after we just showed we are committed to the pot by check min-raising them. If they do take that risk, then it’s really not a huge deal for us. We are well behind and can fold in peace. However, we can’t completely discount the potential that our opponent with AJ/AQ may fold to our check raise. Look at it from their perspective. If they call, they are committing themselves to a marginal hand (a hand that is not a whole lot better than ours). If they raise they are committing themselves to the hand. Now, based on some of the other posts I have seen from people on this board, I get the feeling that they have no problem busting out of tournament with AJ/AQ in this situation, but we can’t discount the people who don’t play a hundred tournaments a day and/or do not like committing all of their chips to the pot in marginal situations. We have real fold equity here for hands like AJ/AQ and here’s the beauty of it… if we c/r and our opponent does decide to call with AJ/AQ (the most likely scenario), they aren’t all of a suddenly going to get frisky on the turn with their marginal holdings unless they hit their second pair. Why would they suddenly be willing to risk lots of chips on the turn when they weren’t on the flop? The same cannot be said with the c/c scenario. A player holding AJ/AQ in that situation may look at the fact that we have played the hand so weakly and don’t seem too involved and assume they are good and continue to lead the hand by betting their fairly marginal hand.3) We have not really discussed leading the turn after our c/r or even after c/c. In my original post on this thread (#7 on page 1), I discussed leading the turn in order to put big pressure on our opponent. Since we are now fairly sure our opponent does not have a monster (since they didn’t shove the flop in response to our c/r), I think leading has a lot of merit. It certainly protects our hand just in case they decided to play it slow and only flat with a draw. In my discussion, however, I was concerned that the 6 may have hit one of their draws and I felt that checking was a safer play. Maybe the lead out post c/r is the better play though. I don’t know that we can discuss and argue every single permutation. There are plenty of other debatable plays in this hand that led up to our decision on the flop.As to your other points here, regarding our slow play on the turn and what happens on the river. Again, this has been debated previously, primarily between irishguy and myself. But let me repeat my thinking here. There is this concern that we are giving our opponent great odds to draw by c/r. The problem with this idea is, if we c/c flat the flop, then we are giving them infinite odds to draw, and this followed us giving them infinite odds by checking the flop in the first place, and will be followed by us giving them infinite odds by checking the turn. How is this a fundamentally better scenario than making them pay for seeing the next card? If you’re going to say c/min-raise is wrong because it doesn’t protect against a draw, you can’t say that c/c is better because it does even less to protect against a draw.As for the river my thinking is simple. If a non-diamond hits I am checking almost every time. I think it would be fairly difficult for our opponent to bluff here for the same reasons it was fairly difficult for them to do so on the turn. Again, unlike the c/c scenario, we look much more like we are committed to the pot. Even if a club hits, are they going to risk their chip stack that we didn’t hit the club, or wouldn’t call them regardless? I think ck/ck is the most likely scenario. Now, if they do bet, again, I think we can assume they either caught something big on the turn or the river and we can fold without much regret. I will say this, though, if our opponent does bet the river, our decision is not as easy as it would have been had they bet the turn. But, and this is really the lesson of this entire thread, it is still easier than it would have been in the c/c scenario. If we get to the river and miss our diamond in that case, our opponent will have more tools at his disposal since we have shown absolutely now interest in this pot. Folding the best hand would be a huge mistake.If a diamond hits the river, we can play it one of two ways. At this point we know our opponent is likely fairly marginal. We can check, trying to trap, or we can throw out a value bet, hoping our opponent makes a loose call, or even goes nuts. Either one of these would be fine. I think the value bet would probably be more +EV and we have the added benefit that if he folds, we don’t have to show our hand, so I think that is the line I would take.I believe I have addressed all of your points. Again, if you find folly in my logic, then feel free to respond. I would like to add that, there is a huge factor that I didn’t discuss much previously in this post which I think needs to be emphasized, and that is the fact that with the c/c our turn decision is really hard. Again, the whole point of this thread was that our villain didn’t know what to do. A large percentage of the posts in this thread from the resident poker experts have claimed that they would be able to make the right decision based on things like bet sizing, timing tells, their experience, their skill, etc, etc. This is all well and good, but I think it’s fairly useless in a forum about strategy. If I base my strategy on the idea that “I’m really good at poker and will always make the right decision”, then what’s the point of discussing strategy in the first place? The summation of all this “skill and experience” seems to be.. on the turn, I’ll call if the pot odds dictate I should and I’ll either fold to the slightest aggression displayed from my opponent (because, after all, I am good and KNOW I am beat), or I’ll play for my whole stack with my marginal holdings (because after all, I have another tournament starting in 5 minutes, so who really cares). To me, there is just so much folly in ANY of these strategies at this point in the tournament if your goal is to advance.

[akashenk 12]

Actually, I played HU during my tenure as an online poker player, where I focused on maybe 1 or 2 tables a time. Playing heads up required deep analysis of hands, and it required making a number of non-standard plays against a variety of opponents. As a matter of fact, I would argue that playing heads up requires more deep-level thinking than your 1/2 cash game at your local casino. But hey, those old nitty men can sure do some crazy things and make you think on another level.You see, I can be just as condescending as you.

Yes, it would appear we both have the capacity to be condescending. But, I don't go out of my way to be condescending to you. You made a smarmy post out of nowhere that added nothing to the conversation and I responded in kind. Maybe I shouldn't do such things because it just brings me down to your level. And maybe I will refrain from doing so in the future. But I really wish you would refrain from making self-aggrandizing posts which tout your experience, education, success, whatever. These might be great things and they may serve you well in the real world, but they have no place in this forum and thread in particular. I don't care if you are the greatest poker player who ever lived, and neither should anyone else who reads these posts. Unless you can make a reasoned argument against what I am saying here, then none of your apparent expertise matters. You and others have made some actual poker points, and I believe I have responded to all of them in various posts throughout the thread. I don't feel were are at the point where you have discredited my suggested line of play in any way other than stating you disagree with it and prefer another. That's fine. We can agree to disagree. I am not claiming my line is mathematically ideal, though I am not prepared to say it isn't. To argue that it does not have merit, you have to actually use that (apparent) brain of yours to make a logical and persuasive case. You have failed to do so to this point.And by the way, I fail to see how playing heads up (I'm glad you slowed down to only playing a couple tables) and learning from that has much relevance to the situation in this thread.

[Mercury69 3]

I didn't find Donk4life's post to be condescending at all. It was more reminiscent of Cyrano de Bergerac's monologue in the bar, in which he is initially "insulted" by someone trying to provoke a fight. Instead, the great wit and swordsman turns the tables and takes the man down several pegs. At least THAT guy knew when he was licked.

To whit:

"Young man, I am afraid your speech was a trifle short. You could have said at least one hundred other things, varying the tone of your words. Let me give you some examples.In an aggressive tone: "Sir, if I had a nose like that, I would amputate it!"Friendly: "When you drink from a cup your nose must get wet. Why don't you drink from a bowl?"Descriptive: "Tis a rock! A peak! A cape! No, it's a peninsula!"Curious: "What is that large container for? To hold your pens and ink?"Gracious: "How kind you are. You love the little birds so much you have given them a perch to roost upon."Truculent: "When you light your pipe and puff smoke from your nose the neighbors must think the chimney's afire."Considerate: "Be careful when you bow your head or you might lose your balance and fall over."Thoughtful: "Place an umbrella over your nose to keep its color from fading in the sun."Arcane: "Sir, only the beast that Aristophanes calls the hippocampelephantocamelos could have had such a solid lump of flesh and bone below its forehead."Cavalier: "A hook to hang your hat upon."Emphatic: "No breeze, O majestic nose, can give thee cold - save when the north winds blow."Dramatic: "When it bleeds, it must be like the Red Sea."Admiring: "What a fine sign for a perfume shop!"Lyrical: "Is that a conch shell? And are you Triton risen from the ocean?"Naïve: "Is that monument open to the public?"Rustic: "That don't look like a nose. It's either a big cucumber or a little watermelon."Military: "The enemy is charging! Aim your cannon!"Practical: "A nose like that has one advantage: it keeps your feet dry in the rain."There, sir, now you have an inkling of what you might have said, had you been a witty man of letters. Unfortunately, you're totally witless and a man of very few letters: only four that spell the word "fool." But even if you had the skill to invent such remarks, you would not have been able to entertain me with them. You would have uttered no more than a quarter of such a jest, the first syllable of the first word, for such jesting is a privilege I only grant myself."

[irishguy 14]

I've said that by raising we are giving ourselves an incredible price when shoved on if we believe a large part of his shoving range is draws. I've also stated multiple times that on the turn villains put in over half his stack this leads many of us to believe that villain isn't likely to be bluffing/semi bluffing-you however stated that you feel villain is double barreling 100% of his range…there's really no getting around this difference of opinion. The logic falls apart to me in that you've said you'd be more inclined to take the c c line if you were deeper-where to me if villains sitting on 150bbs the likely of him double barreling/triple barreling a much larger portion of his range would seem to be much higher.As to the constant use of us checking "giving infinite odds" that's just ludicrous..it's akin to saying we should never ever check...

[akashenk 12]

Irishguy.. you said"I've said that by raising we are giving ourselves an incredible price when shoved on if we believe a large part of his shoving range is draws."That's your opinion. I don't think calling off our whole stack (when we still have a reasonable amount of chips) hoping to win a flip in this situation is a good play, particularly since the chances of us actually being in a flip situation are not that high. You say we can reasonable deduce that his shoving range includes big draws. Ok, What percent of his shoving rainge are big draws? I'd say it is more likely he has a monster, or a hand like AK ifhe shoves.You said: "I've also stated multiple times that on the turn villains put in over half his stack this leads many of us to believe that villain isn't likely to be bluffing/semi bluffing-you however stated that you feel villain is double barreling 100% of his range…there's really no getting around this difference of opinion."I don't say he is double barrelling 100% of his range. I say that there are lots of reasons for him to bet this turn includng making a thin value bet which he may not believe is so thin. Regardless, when he bets, we almost always fold, so him betting is bad for us no matter what. The c/r really handcuffs him and prevents him from betting the turn. No, he will not bet 100% of the time after a c/c, but it is much more likely he will than after a c/r. We have removed the likelihood he will bluff, semi-bluff or make a value bet with a mediocre hand. This is critical.You said: "The logic falls apart to me in that you've said you'd be more inclined to take the c c line if you were deeper-where to me if villains sitting on 150bbs the likely of him double barreling/triple barreling a much larger portion of his range would seem to be much higher."The logic is quite simple. When stacks are deeper, you can play hands weaker.. take more chances, make looser calls. You can put chips into the pot and then the hard turn decision becomes less so when the consequences of you being wrong are miniscule. At the point in the tournament that involves this thread, if you are wrong, you are gone. Sure, our opponent may also play the hand differently if stacks are deeper. He may not even shove or make a big raise in reaction to our c/r if he's super strong. That makes analyzing the c/r vs c/c optioin difficult when considering an early-tournament scenario. I would just say I am more likely to think c/c is ok at that point than I am in the case of this thread.You said: "As to the constant use of us checking "giving infinite odds" that's just ludicrous..it's akin to saying we should never ever check..."For someone who is so mathematically inclined, this should be obvious to you. The reason our opponent gets "good" odds when we c/r is that he only has to put in X chips to win a big pot, and assumedly, the ratio of the pot size to X is large enough to justify the odds of him actually catching his draw (on two streets, of course). If the number of chips he has to put in is 0, then he has infinite odds. He risks nothing to win something. Now, if we KNEW exactly what our opponent had, and he was behind us, then yes, checking our hand to him would be mathematically wrong EVERY TIME, unless we also KNEW that he would bet and we could then c/r. However, we don't KNOW what our opponent has, and we also need to consider what might happen in future action. Let's say we KNEW our opponet only had one out. It would be mathematicall wrong to just give him a free card, but since the chance of him hitting is so low, we may be willing to risk it to try and extract more value at a later point. So, checking here is certainly a reasonable play, even though you are giving your opponent infinite odds to catch up. In our particualr case, there is much more to consider beside how many outs our opponent may have (if they're behind). We need to consider the likelihood of them folding and we need to consider what happens if they catch. Again, the risk of ruin of making a mistake or getting unlucky in this hand is great (our tournament is over). IMO you can't just play the straight math like you might in cash and move on if it doesn't work out for you unless the payout structure dictates that this is reasonable. No one has ever won a torunament (and the requisite big payday that usually accompanies the win) when they busted out at some random point in the money. But there are plenty of folks who have won tournaments (and requisite big payday that usually accompanies the win) when they didn't bust out at some random pont in the money.

[akashenk 12]

I didn't find Donk4life's post to be condescending at all. It was more reminiscent of Cyrano de Bergerac's monologue in the bar, in which he is initially "insulted" by someone trying to provoke a fight. Instead, the great wit and swordsman turns the tables and takes the man down several pegs. At least THAT guy knew when he was licked.

You may not have thought donk4life's post was condescending.. but donk4life did, as was demonstrated by his own words to that effect. And therefore I am bound to respond to him on his level of thinking as opposed to some abstract level where your thoughts might exist. That being said, I would tend to believe that Cyrano de Bergerac would have thought donk4life's post condescending too, seeing as he probably knows what the meaning of the word condescending is. And even in his own "battle", had Cyrano not believed the words of his rival were condescending, then I doubt he would have gone to such lengths to reply... unless Cyrano was just a plain old a-hole, or psychopath. Neither of these conclusions are supported by any evidence in this thread.

[donk4life 34]

He said smarmy, I know who is behind it now. VERY FUNNY.I don't think anyone was ever condescending until you started with your douchey posts

[Acid_Knight 2]

With my first post in 8+ months on this site, I'd just like to take the time to call akashenk a moron for all of the reasons that people have already pointed out. I look forward to the pointless insults he tries to throw my way for my stellar contributions to this thread.Ian, Irishguy said "smarmy" a couple of pages ago first, so it is likely just carry over.

[irishguy 14]

Irishguy.. you said"I've said that by raising we are giving ourselves an incredible price when shoved on if we believe a large part of his shoving range is draws."That's your opinion. I don't think calling off our whole stack (when we still have a reasonable amonut of chips) hoping to win a flip in this situation is a good play, particulalry since the chances of us actually being in a flip situation are not that high. You say we can reasonable deduce that his shoving range includes big draws. Ok, What percent of his shoving rainge are big draws? I'd say it is more likely he has a monster, or a hand like AK ifhe shoves.You said: "I've also stated multiple times that on the turn villains put in over half his stack this leads many of us to believe that villain isn't likely to be bluffing/semi bluffing-you however stated that you feel villain is double barreling 100% of his range…there's really no getting around this difference of opinion."I don't say he is double barrelling 100% of his range. I say that there are lots of reasons for him to bet this turn includng making a thin value bet which he may not believe is so thin. Regardless, when he bets, we almost always fold, so him betting is bad for us no matter what. The c/r really handcuffs him and prevents him from betting the turn. No, he will not bet 100% of the time after a c/c, but it is much more likely he will than after a c/r. We have removed the likelihood he will bluff, semi-bluff or make a value bet with a mediocre hand. This is critical.You said: "The logic falls apart to me in that you've said you'd be more inclined to take the c c line if you were deeper-where to me if villains sitting on 150bbs the likely of him double barreling/triple barreling a much larger portion of his range would seem to be much higher."The logic is quite simple. When stacks are deeper, you can play hands weaker.. take more chances, make looser calls. You can put chips into the pot and then the hard turn decision becomes less so when the consequences of you being wrong are miniscule. At the point in the tournament that involves this thread, if you are wrong, you are gone. Sure, our opponent may also play the hand differently if stacks are deeper. He may not even shove or make a big raise in reaction to our c/r if he's super strong. That makes analyzing the c/r vs c/c optioin difficult when considering an early-tournament scenarion. I would just say I am more likely to think c/c is ok at that point than I am in the case of this thread.You said: "As to the constant use of us checking "giving infinite odds" that's just ludicrous..it's akin to saying we should never ever check..."For someone who is so mathematically inclined, this should be obvious to you. The reason our opponent gets "good" odds when we c/r is that he only has to put in X chips to win a big pot, and assumedly, the ratio of the pot size to X is large enough to justify the odds of him actually catching his draw (on two streets, of course). If the number of chips he has to put in is 0, then he has infinite odds. He risks nothing to win something. Now, if we KNEW exactly what our opponent had, and he was behind us, then yes, checking our hand to him would be mathematically wrong EVERY TIME, unless we also KNEW that he would bet and we could then c/r. However, we don't KNOW what our opponent has, and we also need to consider what might happen in future action. Let's say we KNEW our opponet only had one out. It would be mathematicall wrong to just give him a free card, but since the chance of him hitting is so low, we may be willing to risk it to try and extract more value at a later point. So, checking here is certainly a reasonable play, even though you are giving your opponent infinite odds to catch up. In our particualr case, there is much more to consider beside how many outs our opponent may have (if they're behind). We need to consider the likelihood of them folding and we need to consider what happens if they catch. Again, the risk of ruin of making a mistake or getting unlucky in this hand is great (our tournament is over). IMO you can't just play the straight math like you might in cash and move on if it doesn't work out for you unless the payout structure dictates that this is reasonable. No one has ever won a torunament (and the requisite big payday that usually accompanies the win) when they busted out at some random point in the money. But there are plenty of folks who have won tournaments (and requisite big payday that usually accompanies the win) when they didn't bust out at some random pont in the money.

I'm not advocating a c r call shove at all-just stating by doing this your giving yourself a really good price if you think he's shoving, aces, sets, two pairs, combo draws, flush draws, straight draws, bluffs etc etcAnd you have said if checked to twice you and most villains would bet the turn with anything they bet the flop with.On one hand you say your tournament chips are to valueable to be taking a coin flip and then on the other you say you'd rather risk losing that extra 4k then make a bad fold..this seems conflicting as in tournaments generally a bad fold is better then a bad call or a bad bet or a bad raise...-your thought process seems really backwards to me-if we are wrong on this turn-so what? If villain is stupid enough to double barrel this much of his stack with anything we are Ahead of oh we'll we've invested like 20% of our stack we move on..certainly not a case of if we are wrong we are gone...I'd rather have him show me air then invest 35% of my stack on the flop and get shoved on..or be facing further bets but to each their own I suppose-as I've said again and again as much as I prefer to lead this flop we can't panic and assume that he's on a draw when he bets the flop we certainly assign it as part of the range but we can't just jump and bet every single flop worrying that we may be giving bottom pairs or gut shots infinite odds to catch up. Anyways this is completely pointless to keep rehashing..good luck at the tables

[Mercury69 3]

Perception is 9/10ths of the law.

[akashenk 12]

He said smarmy, I know who is behind it now. VERY FUNNY.I don't think anyone was ever condescending until you started with your douchey posts

to which "douchey posts" do you refer? You mean the ones where I had the audacity to question why I should listen to people who have paid no attention to what I have said just because of who they (supposedly) are? Or maybe its the ones where I might have take some offense to something some clown, or TrueAce, but I repeat myself, said. Anyhow, spare me your indignation at the nature of my posts. Anyone with just a little reading comprehension can surmise that I have have not been the one to introduce personal attacks into this thread. If I have taken a few oportunities at times to poke fun at the absurd manner in which you and others have conducted yoursleves in this thread, then so be it. I never claimed to be a saint. And, unlike yourslef and the rest of your "posse", I have preferred to discuss the issues at hand, rather than get into idiotic side discussions about who I am or where I play. But, as should be obvious, I am perfectly comforable discussing any topic you like, including your enormous and undoubtedly over-inflated estimation of yourself.

[akashenk 12]

With my first post in 8+ months on this site, I'd just like to take the time to call akashenk a moron for all of the reasons that people have already pointed out. I look forward to the pointless insults he tries to throw my way for my stellar contributions to this thread.Ian, Irishguy said "smarmy" a couple of pages ago first, so it is likely just carry over.

welcome back. I get the feeling you fit right in.

[akashenk 12]

I'm not advocating a c r call shove at all-just stating by doing this your giving yourself a really good price if you think he's shoving, aces, sets, two pairs, combo draws, flush draws, straight draws, bluffs etc etcAnd you have said if checked to twice you and most villains would bet the turn with anything they bet the flop with.On one hand you say your tournament chips are to valueable to be taking a coin flip and then on the other you say you'd rather risk losing that extra 4k then make a bad fold..this seems conflicting as in tournaments generally a bad fold is better then a bad call or a bad bet or a bad raise...-your thought process seems really backwards to me-if we are wrong on this turn-so what? If villain is stupid enough to double barrel this much of his stack with anything we are Ahead of oh we'll we've invested like 20% of our stack we move on..certainly not a case of if we are wrong we are gone...I'd rather have him show me air then invest 35% of my stack on the flop and get shoved on..or be facing further bets but to each their own I suppose-as I've said again and again as much as I prefer to lead this flop we can't panic and assume that he's on a draw when he bets the flop we certainly assign it as part of the range but we can't just jump and bet every single flop worrying that we may be giving bottom pairs or gut shots infinite odds to catch up.Anyways this is completely pointless to keep rehashing..good luck at the tables

I really don't know what you are referring to by "giving myself a relaly good price". I don't think calling all in (16K more) with top pair 10 kicker is a good idea when I BELIEVE I have maybe three outs or some runner-runner possiblity. And I don't think our oponent is going to shove on a pure bluff after our c/r. That would be fairly crazy, and I don't think he's that.You said: "And you have said if checked to twice you and most villains would bet the turn with anything they bet the flop with."Actually, I have not said that, but let's just for the sake of argument assume that I did. Ok. I would only agree to that in the c/c situation. certainly not the c/r. That's the whole point.You said: "On one hand you say your tournament chips are to valueable to be taking a coin flip and then on the other you say you'd rather risk losing that extra 4k then make a bad fold..this seems conflicting as in tournaments generally a bad fold is better then a bad call or a bad bet or a bad raise..."I never said my tournament chips are valuable (though as a general principal, they certianly are). I said (or implied) my tournament LIFE is valuable. I hope you can see the difference. If I were advocating c/r all in then there would be reason to think this is similar to c/r call all-in. At no point have I advocated c/r all in. In fact, I think anything above a min raise is probably getting deminishing returns and makes the play less attractive.And, I don't know that I agee with your general principal that a bad fold is better than a bad call or raise. A bad fold means you have 0% of winning the hand. Make a bad bet or raise and you still have some chance of winning it, unless you're betting/calling while drawing dead. I do think there is a continuum of bad plays one can make in this hand and I think the difficult decision we face on the turn highights this. My c/r is meant to avoid that difficult decision as much as possible and hense, avoid the chance that I might make one of those bad plays.You said: "-your thought process seems really backwards to me-if we are wrong on this turn-so what? If villain is stupid enough to double barrel this much of his stack with anything we are Ahead of oh we'll we've invested like 20% of our stack we move on..certainly not a case of if we are wrong we are gone...I'd rather have him show me air then invest 35% of my stack on the flop and get shoved on..or be facing further bets but to each their own I suppose"So you say you are comfortable contributing 25% of your stack and pretty much let it go on the turn. And I am willing to contribute 40% of my stack and trying to increase my odds of winning the hand or at least not make a critical mistake. I am fine with you having your level fo comfort and me having mine. I don't like being faced with really hard decisions in critical spots because I can and do make mistakes. If the other folks on this board never make mistakes, then more power to them, they don't have to worry about that possibility.The funny thing is, through various posts I have heard things like "I am never folding my A10 in this hand" or, would prefer to shove at some point (flop/turn, whatever). In this case, such decisions would lead to us being out of the torurnmanet, so I don't see how you could not view this as a mistake. We have a MARGINAL HAND after all. Apparently some of you wouldn't.you said: "-as I've said again and again as much as I prefer to lead this flop we can't panic and assume that he's on a draw when he bets the flop we certainly assign it as part of the range but we can't just jump and bet every single flop worrying that we may be giving bottom pairs or gut shots infinite odds to catch up."I agree 100% which is why I advocate the flop check, and even the turn check (even though we're giving infinite odds to draws). As I've stated a thousand times, the primary intention of the c/r is not to get a draw to fold (though I suppose in a very timny percentage of situations, it would). I think its highly unlikely a draw, at least a decent one, will fail to see the river in this hand unless we fold first.You said: " Anyways this is completely pointless to keep rehashing..good luck at the tables"Whether there is a point or not, I do not know. However, I think the problem you are having is many of your posts either mischaracterize what I have said or don't speak to what I have actually said at all. I do appreciate the fact that you are one of the few people who actually chooses to discuss this in a reasoned matter, and beleive me that is a great thing. To a great degree I respect your contributios to this hand analysis. I think wer'e at a point where you basically don't think the extra 4K investment is "worth it" and I do. Maybe you discount the benefits I claim that are gained. That's fine. I think they are real and I believe I have logically laid out why that is so. I am happy to continue to defend my logic until someone comes up with a reason why it is faulty. Professing that some other plan, or some other logic has good points is not an argument unless you can mathematically prove that this alternate plan is ideal. I don't think either one of us can do so with the resources at our disposal.

[akashenk 12]

Perception is 9/10ths of the law.

that's 5/6ths of a well know saying.

[Merby 3]

My god. This is the thread that keeps on giving.I'm stuck at page 5 right now and will have to come back later when more popcorn has popped.

[Gallo 1]

I understand you want to be able to make the easiest decision possible, fine. I've been guilty of that at times. But not every decision is going to be easy, but over time decisions will become easier when you learn to try and take the most optimal line. And the only way to learn is by listening to guys who have the results to show it. You say you don't care who these guys are and what they've done, if you or anyone else wants to learn then you probably should because that's one of the best ways to get better at this game.---------If you're going to c/r flop, then you might as well just jam, it's the easiest way to find out if you're ahead or not.

[TrueAce13 18]

welcome back. I get the feeling you fit right in.

To think, he is the one who coached Donk! We grow up so fast!

[psufans2 1]

****KKKKK THIS ISNT WHERE I PARKED MY CAR!!!