another 1/2 lhe hand

[dimseven 0]

I still haven't seen a cohesive argument from anyone besides Aseem, Ice, people in my corner.

Hilarious.

[JaysonWeber 0]

If you read him as a rock or a good playerSince when is a Rock a good player? Rocks are passive when they miss, I'll bet this blind to the turn depending on his reactions (or online,click time) and how the board looks. i've listed so many reasons why it sucks, and instead of actually addressing them, you're telling me to sit in your game. Peterrus agree's w/ me here. You already read that and disagree with it, I'm sorry to hear that but that's all the reasoning I think I need to do.Here's a question though, If you're calling here how many times do you think you're gonna win this hand?

[wrto4556 0]

against AK we are winning 30% of the time. Considering he doesnt have AK every time and we have suited cards that can beat big hands this is a terribly easy call.

[akishore 0]

It's true that reverse implied odds are huge here if You don't have the discipline to be able to fold this hand with an A up there. True, Your opponent could have a lesser hand (jacks or something) but it's not good to get involved with A-4. What I meant in the first place is what You meant too, if we hit our flush, then we can "milk" our opp. Not just a flush, but if the board comes with 2 4's and we hit trips, or we hit 2 pair with A 4 with no face cards on board to threaten us (opp having a face card as the kicker)

i get what you're saying, but to be nitpicky, if you're going to fold everytime you don't flop two pair or better, the degree to which you're seen as "tight" and "rock" increases, which in turn decreases your implied odds when you do hit nicely...and if you're going to play it like that, i'd rather fold A-4 suited but play 7-6 suited, since you have the same two-pair/trip/flush value, but you have more live cards usually, and you also have some straight value (straights tend to have more implied odds since they're more disguised).aseem

[dimseven 0]

against AK we are winning 30% of the time. Considering he doesnt have AK every time and we have suited cards that can beat big hands this is a terribly easy call.

I think this is a leak.This isn't a heads up game or even short handed.what's your point?

[dimseven 0]

It's true that reverse implied odds are huge here if You don't have the discipline to be able to fold this hand with an A up there. True, Your opponent could have a lesser hand (jacks or something) but it's not good to get involved with A-4. What I meant in the first place is what You meant too, if we hit our flush, then we can "milk" our opp. Not just a flush, but if the board comes with 2 4's and we hit trips, or we hit 2 pair with A 4 with no face cards on board to threaten us (opp having a face card as the kicker)

i get what you're saying, but to be nitpicky, if you're going to fold everytime you don't flop two pair or better, the degree to which you're seen as "tight" and "rock" increases, which in turn decreases your implied odds when you do hit nicely...and if you're going to play it like that, i'd rather fold A-4 suited but play 7-6 suited, since you have the same two-pair/trip/flush value, but you have more live cards usually, and you also have some straight value (straights tend to have more implied odds since they're more disguised).aseem

Aseem, I just pointed out in the first place to WRTO how it would make more sense to call in NL. .This isn't a hand You want to be calling with preflop a lot at all in NL. Once in a LONG while it's ok (makes sense) if You're confident with the specific opponent.

[akishore 0]

If you read him as a rock or a good playerSince when is a Rock a good player? Rocks are passive when they miss, I'll bet this blind to the turn depending on his reactions (or online,click time) and how the board looks.

i'm assuming you'll do this without reads?if so, by the turn, your effective odds will be (1.5+.5)-to-(.5+.5+1) pr 2-to-2. this also assumes he doesn't raise. you think you can bluff successfully by firing two barrels 50% of the time?you seriously underestimate the looseness of low limit players.

i've listed so many reasons why it sucks, and instead of actually addressing them, you're telling me to sit in your game. Peterrus agree's w/ me here. You already read that and disagree with it, I'm sorry to hear that but that's all the reasoning I think I need to do.Here's a question though, If you're calling here how many times do you think you're gonna win this hand?

Peter_rus doesn't even completely apply here--that is with situations where the raise is a steal, not one where the raise is from UTG in a nine-handed game!and i didn't say i disagreed with it. i quoted one passage that was technically flawed, and even chris agrees that it doesn't completely apply here.if i call here, how often am i going to win this hand? do you mean by showdown or do you mean including times where you can bluff at the pot and take it down?if just showdowns, i estimate no more than 30% of the time, and that's being pretty generous. if you include the number of times we can successfully bluff, i really don't have a clue, it varies so much by looseness of player. i'd venture not more than 50% EVER, though.but jayson, you're missing something. this isn't like, we're calling and we get to go to showdown for free or that we just say "i bluff!" and he folds. we have to put money in the pot. we have pretty big reverse implied odds here. did you miss that?aseem

[JaysonWeber 0]

Still Waiting on some people who Disagree too tell me how many times they think they are winning this hand if it's played a bunch of times.. you know long-term for this hand.Let's go I've got my answer ready to rock but I don't want to tell what I think just yet, even though you might disagree

[akishore 0]

against AK we are winning 30% of the time. Considering he doesnt have AK every time and we have suited cards that can beat big hands this is a terribly easy call.

it's not like we're just going to showdown, chris.we will be getting more than enough action a lot of times we flop an ace when we're beat, and not enough action when we flop and ace and we're not beat.and by the way, suitedness makes very little difference heads-up. the power of suitedness comes in multiway pots, when that extra 4% can really push your equity edge (a 4% difference in a five-way pot is a 20% edge, while a 4% difference in a heads-up pot is an 8% edge), but more importantly can give you a huge payoff when you do a hit a flush (since you'll be getting the same odds on your bets but most of your opponents will usually be drawing dead).one thing i really can't understand, and you haven't explained it, is why A-2 suited is playable here while A-9 offsuit isn't.aseem

[dimseven 0]

I don't think we've gotten a read from OP, but 4 out of 5 times this is a simple fold. I don't get the debate, there shouldn't be one. The 1 out of 5 times where You call this preflop is against a loose aggressive raiser or a maniac. That's it.

[wrto4556 0]

the way peter russ' post comes in is that he called with ANY TWO CARDS from the BB against a raise and showed a profit. Here we have A-high and that compensates for the fact that the raise is NOT a steal raise.We have way better postflop skills and a playable hand. We are getting 3.5-1 out of position with A-high against a poor player. How is calling wrong?

[akishore 0]

1) I'm confident WRTO and Jay (whatever) could outplay the raiser post-flop. The OP probably can't, at least not to the degree necessary to make this hand playable. That's like saying "46s in late position is an easy call" because Daniel and Gus can play it profitably. Well, sure they can. They're sick fucks. They can play Uno! card profitably. The same argument goes for WRTO and Jay... this is not a hand that's very easy to play after the flop.

i'm not arguing that they can't outplay him.i'm certain me and you could, as well.what i'm arguing, is that no postflop edge you can have from outplaying him heads-up is going to make up for the huge underdog status you have with reverse implied odds.seriously, overcoming what's probably a 30% underdog status to his 70% favorite status is pretty much impossible unless he's the donkest of donks in the world. he would seriously have to suck mega balls AND ___NOT BE LOOSE___ for any postflop edge to overcome that.as we know, our typical small stakes player is known for _being loose_ and _going too far with their hands_, right?i really can't imagine how you could outplay a loose player when you're 30% to win.aseem

[wrto4556 0]

aseem, him being loose, makes this call a ton easier. do you see why?

[JaysonWeber 0]

Okay Dimseven says 1-5... But Dim If you're saying we're going to lose a lot on the 4 times you think we'll loose you're wrong, As long as you're a good player you can get away from this hand very easily.But you say 1-5...Aseem? Iceman?

[akishore 0]

the way peter russ' post comes in is that he called with ANY TWO CARDS from the BB against a raise and showed a profit. Here we have A-high and that compensates for the fact that the raise is NOT a steal raise.We have way better postflop skills and a playable hand. We are getting 3.5-1 out of position with A-high against a poor player. How is calling wrong?

can you show me where this is?he was in the negative with 27s against both AA and AK, but thought it was better than folding because folding is -0.5 BB (which was actually wrong, since folding is 0 BB).aseem

[akishore 0]

Aseem?

do you mean by showdown or do you mean including times where you can bluff at the pot and take it down?if just showdowns, i estimate no more than 30% of the time, and that's being pretty generous. if you include the number of times we can successfully bluff, i really don't have a clue, it varies so much by looseness of player. i'd venture not more than 50% EVER, though.but jayson, you're missing something. this isn't like, we're calling and we get to go to showdown for free or that we just say "i bluff!" and he folds. we have to put money in the pot. we have pretty big reverse implied odds here. did you miss that?aseem

[holman3rd 0]

If you read him as a rock or a good playerSince when is a Rock a good player? Rocks are passive when they miss, I'll bet this blind to the turn depending on his reactions (or online,click time) and how the board looks. i've listed so many reasons why it sucks, and instead of actually addressing them, you're telling me to sit in your game. Peterrus agree's w/ me here. You already read that and disagree with it, I'm sorry to hear that but that's all the reasoning I think I need to do.Here's a question though, If you're calling here how many times do you think you're gonna win this hand?

Did I say a rock is a good player? no. I said a rock "OR" a good player. Rocks that raise UTG have the goods. A call here against a rock is very loose and the implied odds heads up against this type of player are horrible.If you pair your ace on the flop against a rock, what are you gonna do? If he checks (his non-ace hand) and you bet, you win a small pot. If he has a big ace, you lose, and maybe lose a big pot at that, trying to pair your kicker.If he has a big pair and you don't pair your ace, you lose.That was my point, not that rocks are good players.Think about what types of flops are good for you AND are not also good for the UTG raiser. If you hit your dream flop AND it doesn't help the UTG raiser, it will be painfully obvious to him that he's beat (at least most of the time). Thus, terrible implied odds.

[dimseven 0]

Okay Dimseven says 1-5... But Dim If you're saying we're going to lose a lot on the 4 times you think we'll loose you're wrong, As long as you're a good player you can get away from this hand very easily.But you say 1-5...Aseem? Iceman?

Uh, I didn't say we'll lose 4 out of 5 times. You misread.I said 4 out of 5 times this is a call. Those 4 times account for the rocks and TA's who are raising UTG 10 handed, the 1 time accounts for the LAs and maniacs who are raising UTG 10 handed.

[wrto4556 0]

the way peter russ' post comes in is that he called with ANY TWO CARDS from the BB against a raise and showed a profit. Here we have A-high and that compensates for the fact that the raise is NOT a steal raise.We have way better postflop skills and a playable hand. We are getting 3.5-1 out of position with A-high against a poor player. How is calling wrong?

can you show me where this is?he was in the negative with 27s against both AA and AK, but thought it was better than folding because folding is -0.5 BB (which was actually wrong, since folding is 0 BB).aseem

no, he's not wrong. you lose .5BB in the BB. If you call and only lose .4 BB its better than folding. Do you see why?You do play poker, right?

[wrto4556 0]

aseem, him being loose, makes this call a ton easier. do you see why?

i cant find your post where you said loose postflop not preflop...him being loose postflop...loose in general...is what makes this call even easier. He pays off. He makes mistakes. He cant get away from K high or JJ when we flop TP a flush or a straight.

[akishore 0]

no, he's not wrong. you lose .5BB in the BB. If you call and only lose .4 BB its better than folding. Do you see why?You do play poker, right?

if he thinks folding is -0.5 BB, then he has to subtract 0.5 BB from each number in his simulations.calling and losing 0.4 BB means it cost 0.5 BB to call (put in another small bet to defend) and you only got 0.1 BB back. that's how EV = -0.4 BB.folding is always 0 EV.aseem

[wrto4556 0]

if he thinks folding is -0.5 BB, then he has to subtract 0.5 BB from each number in his simulations.

wrong.

[Steppin Razor 0]

to the OP:the reason you shouldn't give yourself a full three outs for aces is because:1. you can hit your ace and still lose.2. you could be reverse dominated.3. you can't be 100% sure opponent doesn't have an ace. how did you even come to that conclusion anyway?

I don't remember how/why because I played a lot more after this hand, but I just didn't put him on an Ace. After the flop, I knew he had a middle pair (turns out he did have JJ). That's one of the problems with posting a hand history - I can't tell you why I knew Aces would be good, I just picked up something from playing w/him at the table a while.Aside from the PF call, does the flop bet suck because I shouldn't be bluffing here, or because any bluff would look bad since it is after all a bluff? Being low limit I don't take a chance at a bluff often, I just did here.(Except at the rock garden that is Absolute. I bluff them a little more.)

[akishore 0]

aseem, him being loose, makes this call a ton easier. do you see why?

i cant find your post where you said loose postflop not preflop...him being loose postflop...loose in general...is what makes this call even easier. He pays off. He makes mistakes. He cant get away from K high or JJ when we flop TP a flush or a straight.

the little amount he pays off the few times we flop a strong hand don't pay us off enough the times he stubbornly goes to showdown with what is the best hand.if he wins this hand by showdown 70% of the time (your estimate, right?), and he goes to showdown regardless, how can you expect to make up for it by collecting around 2 - 3 BB on average from him the few times you're good?i really don't understand how you expect him to pay you off when he's beat but at the same time expect to outplay him and steal pots from him (at least you and jayson are arguing contradicting things in a way).and you haven't addressed something. don't you agree that we have at least SOME reverse implied odds? how do you play if the flop comes A-9-6? etc.aseem

[akishore 0]

if he thinks folding is -0.5 BB, then he has to subtract 0.5 BB from each number in his simulations.

wrong.

can you explain??aseem