Thoughts On A Bluff

[David_Nicoson 1]

I don't think we should ignore the fabulous pot odds that the villain is getting on the river. It's almost 4.5 : 1.It's easy for a guy on a forum to ignore that because he's getting even money on his reputation. If he says fold the overpair he's right more than half the time (easily) but that's really meaningless. In the real world where money in the pot has value, the villain is going to say, "I guess I have to pay you off" and reluctantly call with his overpair. If the villain doesn't have a pair, the hero might steal this pot on the river. In general, though, I think that's counting on too much. I think if the hero wants to bluff, he should do so on the turn before the villain is pot-committed and while he can still hit outs if called. I'm not a fan of waiting until we miss to put money in the pot. I like to think of it in terms of information. The hero gains no useful information from the river card: he was going to bet a blank or hitting his draw. The villain, on the other hand, does benefit from seeing the blank. We lost the battle of information.

[irishguy 14]

You can't compare the preflop odds of AA vs 22 and AA vs Q4. With 22, you either hit a set or you fold. If you hit a set, you'll get paid off. You're making a small investment with a hand that can't get your into trouble. That's the reason you play small pairs and suited connectors. You call a small bet preflop, hit the flop hard or not at all and then you have easy decisions from there on out.If you're holding Qs9s, then 2 things immediately come to mind. 1: If you want to win the pot, then you'd better make a move at it on the flop or turn to get your opponent thinking that you have a big hand. 2: You actually have a draw and decent odds to chase it on all streets, therefore the river becomes a standard fold instead of a desperation push that comes out of nowhere.Calling 3 barrels or firing 3 barrels? I have called people down with remarkably weak hands, when I have a lot of information to reinforce what I'm doing. I don't call down because I think they might be bluffing. It's the same thing when I fire 3 barrels. I know that my opponent has a small pair and I know that if I fire on all 3 streets, they can't put me on AK anymore and will have to fold. Good poker players have solid evidence and reasoning for why they make any play.The reaction to this thread is TOTALLY based on knowing your cards. That's the idea. We're critiquing the hand from your point of view, so of course we know your cards.You're going to get called on the river here A LOT despite what was said in other threads on other sites because:1: Your play makes no sense. When people are curious, they call bets to satisfy their curiosity. Getting called is bad when you're bluffing. 2: He has more than half of his stack invested in the pot3: He probably has the big pair that he's representing4: He's getting pretty favorable pot odds to call

I know you can't compare the preflop odds of AA vs 22 to AA to that of Q4. People view it as a trouble hand and I understand that. As you said with small pairs or suited connectors you look to hit the flop or exit. Q4 is not a trouble hand to me as I am confident that I'm seldom going broke if I flop just top pair here but to each there own. The bolded part...so you call down because you know they are bluffing? This is my point. Against this opponent I may very well play this hand out in a similar fashion with 33 but perhaps not shove the river. The second bolded part. I agree with this point I'm sure I as well as most others could pull a number of hands out of there history which as stand alone hands would never make sense but given collected information would. If I were villain I'd be more inclined to call this river with a marginal hand if hero raised on the turn. That may not be how you see it. But if as villain with AK got raised on the turn I'd very very likely check call any river bet including a shove.

[irishguy 14]

You said at other points in this thread that he has to be worried about your hand if he has AA or KK. Now you're saying that he'd try and trap with it on the turn as if he has a strong hand like a set? That doesn't make sense.

I believe at other points in this thread I said on the river he needs to be more worried on the river if he has AA or KK. On the turn I think I've often contended that if he has AA or KK he likely bets less hoping I raise or looks to check raise. Even holding AA or KK if he checks I bet 28 he makes it 60 and I shove then what? I'm not sure my point is coming across well but it makes sense in my head. I think by him betting the way he did on the turn he does nothing to further define my hand. I think from his perspective it has to look by the river that I've gotg two pair or better or a busted draw.

[Acid_Knight 2]

I give up on this thead.The play was retarded and I already made my points why.

[Naismith 0]

I don't think we should ignore the fabulous pot odds that the villain is getting on the river. It's almost 4.5 : 1.It's easy for a guy on a forum to ignore that because he's getting even money on his reputation. If he says fold the overpair he's right more than half the time (easily) but that's really meaningless.

LOL. I love that you can even give us the math on reputation value.

[irishguy 14]

I don't think we should ignore the fabulous pot odds that the villain is getting on the river. It's almost 4.5 : 1.It's easy for a guy on a forum to ignore that because he's getting even money on his reputation. If he says fold the overpair he's right more than half the time (easily) but that's really meaningless. In the real world where money in the pot has value, the villain is going to say, "I guess I have to pay you off" and reluctantly call with his overpair. If the villain doesn't have a pair, the hero might steal this pot on the river. In general, though, I think that's counting on too much. I think if the hero wants to bluff, he should do so on the turn before the villain is pot-committed and while he can still hit outs if called. I'm not a fan of waiting until we miss to put money in the pot. I like to think of it in terms of information. The hero gains no useful information from the river card: he was going to bet a blank or hitting his draw. The villain, on the other hand, does benefit from seeing the blank. We lost the battle of information.

He is getting fabulous pot odds. But my read on this villain was that he didn't want to get it all in with out the nuts and I felt based on his play that an overpair wasn't likely. In his spot with 88, A10 etc and maybe AK I may call the river but did not feel as though villain would. I don't think the turn bluff is a bad option at all and against most certainly a more optimal approach than this.

[irishguy 14]

I give up on this thead.The play was retarded and I already made my points why.

Results: Villain folded. This is why hands like this interest me, it comes down to more than who is right or wrong or as you politely put it "the play was retarded". Which is exactly why I seldom post in strat. There are only one are two ways to play hands to the masses here and if you don't follow them you don't know anything. If you thought this was retarded you would sh-t your pants at how I played a K5 hand from the button when I stacked a guy or when I final tabled a tourney yesterday after busting two people when I called a small raise vs two even stacks from the button 83 and busted them both. I am not saying this play was correct(I felt it was at the time) or optimal at all as much as I think it is a mistake to discount it simply because you wouldn't do it. The discussion with people who different view points often leads to a greater thought process which is a good thing.

[Acid_Knight 2]

Results: Villain folded. This is why hands like this interest me, it comes down to more than who is right or wrong or as you politely put it "the play was retarded". Which is exactly why I seldom post in strat. There are only one are two ways to play hands to the masses here and if you don't follow them you don't know anything. If you thought this was retarded you would sh-t your pants at how I played a K5 hand from the button when I stacked a guy or when I final tabled a tourney yesterday after busting two people when I called a small raise vs two even stacks from the button 83 and busted them both. I am not saying this play was correct(I felt it was at the time) or optimal at all as much as I think it is a mistake to discount it simply because you wouldn't do it. The discussion with people who different view points often leads to a greater thought process which is a good thing.

Great, you get me out for one last post.Results do not matter. I didn't blindly say that this play is retarded, I made a statement and then backed it up with like 35 reasons why I felt that way. All you kept saying in the post was that "i felt he was weak" or this or that, but WHY did you feel that way? WHY did you read your opponent that way? Unless you can clearly explain those things and your rationale for making this play, then it's still a bad play. You get people to agree with your line if you can provide a convincing arguement for why you did it, but I don't feel that you ever did in this post. For the most part, the strat forum is populated by people who feel they know something about poker but are trying to learn more. To do that you need to be open minded. This whole post I was looking for you to provide a convincing arguement for why you decided to play this hand like this and I don't really feel that I ever saw it.Nobody here cares how you play K5 from the button or how you did in a tourney with 83. You're not Gus Hansen, and even he can give you definitivie reasons for why he enters every pot that he does. If you're regularly playing hands like K5 and 83 by calling preflop raises with them, I can almost guarantee that you're not a winning player. Yeah, great, you look really smart when you actually hit one of those hands, but the fact is that you need ot get EXTREMELY lucky to hit one of those hands or you need to have EXTREMELY good reads on the players in the pot if you're going to enter. Even then, there's still no reason to get involved with something that trashy.

[Naismith 0]

For the record, I'm a pretty decent player and I guarantee you late in a tournament, if I raised with a premium hand, I'd go broke on any flop that helped 8-3 as well.

[Zach6668 513]

lol @ this thread.AK, will you have my babies?

[Acid_Knight 2]

lol @ this thread.AK, will you have my babies?

You just admire my dedication. Seriously, I must have posted 6 essays explaining how this play is horrible and he still doesn't want to admit that it is. I mean, I misplay hands every session and I'm the first to jump up and down and say "look how badly I screwed this one up!"Oh, and trust me, I'm probably gonna be a horrible father some day and it definitely will not be your children that I'm screwing up.

[irishguy 14]

Great, you get me out for one last post.Results do not matter. I didn't blindly say that this play is retarded, I made a statement and then backed it up with like 35 reasons why I felt that way. All you kept saying in the post was that "i felt he was weak" or this or that, but WHY did you feel that way? WHY did you read your opponent that way? Unless you can clearly explain those things and your rationale for making this play, then it's still a bad play. You get people to agree with your line if you can provide a convincing arguement for why you did it, but I don't feel that you ever did in this post. For the most part, the strat forum is populated by people who feel they know something about poker but are trying to learn more. To do that you need to be open minded. This whole post I was looking for you to provide a convincing arguement for why you decided to play this hand like this and I don't really feel that I ever saw it.Nobody here cares how you play K5 from the button or how you did in a tourney with 83. You're not Gus Hansen, and even he can give you definitivie reasons for why he enters every pot that he does. If you're regularly playing hands like K5 and 83 by calling preflop raises with them, I can almost guarantee that you're not a winning player. Yeah, great, you look really smart when you actually hit one of those hands, but the fact is that you need ot get EXTREMELY lucky to hit one of those hands or you need to have EXTREMELY good reads on the players in the pot if you're going to enter. Even then, there's still no reason to get involved with something that trashy.

Somebodys a people person! I never said you blindly disagreed with me in fact I often said "this villain" and "based on the way he played previous hands". Over twenty posts in this thread I've often said that and am unsure how you missed it. I believe I clearly stated time and time again my thought process on every street you didn't agree with it so you negate it to me as I'm explaining nothing.My arguement for my play may have never convinced you and as I said I am not being results oriented I'm not convinced whether it was the right play either. As in most cases there is not a definitive answer it becomes situation dependant. I do feel as though versus this opponent it wasn't horrid. I felt he'd fold to maximum pressure, I intended to bluff the turn be reevaluated and felt he was weak on the river. That has more to do with this individual player than anything else. The fact the you continually called it retarded when I thought I was making some valid points shows a lot of open mindedness. Again people person I get that nobody cares how I play what my point was no matter what hand I play I think it through. You don't have to agree with my though process thats fine to each there own. Every one has there own style weakness comes from doing things with no thought. Swell that based on nothing further than a few hands I play in certain situations you can guarantee I'm a losing player. That is a unique talent you have but it is a bad read.Thank you for giving me a few things to think about and a different approach to this hand.

[Acid_Knight 2]

in fact I often said "this villain" and "based on the way he played previous hands". Over twenty posts in this thread I've often said that and am unsure how you missed it. I believe I clearly stated time and time again my thought process on every street you didn't agree with it so you negate it to me as I'm explaining nothing.

What about the way he played other hands? Did he put his chips in differently? Does he always make it 4BBs preflop when he has 2 big cards, but makes it 3 BBs with big pairs? What about his 4 BB preflop raise in the hand told you that he was weak? What about his bets on the flop turn and river told you he was weak? In case you missed it, you not only failed to convince me of your thought process, but every other person who posted in this thread also seemed to agree that this play was unnecessary and unlikely to succeed.

My arguement for my play may have never convinced you

In case you missed it, you not only failed to convince me of your thought process, but every other person who posted in this thread also seemed to agree that this play was unnecessary and unlikely to succeed.

Swell that based on nothing further than a few hands I play in certain situations you can guarantee I'm a losing player.

I said I "almost" guarantee it. Hands like K5, Q4, 83 and any other uncoordinated garbage are hands that should be automatically mucked. If you're ever entering pots with them, then it should be YOU who is raising and has control of the pot. Calling raises with these hands is just pretty much throwing away money. Oh and of course you're a winning player, how could you not with such impeccable skills to make me "sh-t my pants at how you played a K5 hand from the button when you stacked a guy or when you final tabled a tourney yesterday after busting two people when you called a small raise vs two even stacks from the button 83 and busted them both." Seriously, I've heard 3 people on this forum EVER admit that they're not a winning player.

[dms26 3]

Is this standard line of thinking for a higher end player or was he drunk and retarded?

I give up on this thead.The play was retarded and I already made my points why.

This is why hands like this interest me, it comes down to more than who is right or wrong or as you politely put it "the play was retarded".

just sayin

[dms26 3]

As in most cases there is not a definitive answer it becomes situation dependant.lay may have never convinced you and as I said I am not being results oriented I'm not convinced whether I do feel as though versus this opponent it wasn't horrid. I felt he'd fold to maximum pressure, I intended to bluff the turn be reevaluated and felt he was weak on the river. That has more to do with this individual player than anything else. Again people person I get that nobody cares how I play what my point was no matter what hand I play I think it through. You don't have to agree with my though process thats fine to each there own. Every one has there own style weakness comes from doing things with no thought. Swell that based on nothing further than a few hands I play in certain situations you can guarantee I'm a losing player. That is a unique talent you have but it is a bad read.

So how are we supposed to agree with you when it's a situation where you're 100% playing the player? We weren't at the table, and the only description we really got was that you felt he was a weak player. But his betting pattern was not weak during the hand IMO. If I put that much of my stack into the pot and get raised on the river I am paying off a better hand. So I guess it's just a case of he played the hand worse than you.I understand you have a different style and that's fine, there are many different styles you can use and still be a winning player. But like Acid said if you're trying to pull this off on a regular basis it's very hard to believe that anyone could be a winning player. I post in strat because there are some good players here that can help my game, hopefully I can help others improve their game too. So I'm not going to advise flat calling a raise preflop, flop, turn and pushing the river with Q high. It's just not a profitable play in 99% of the situations.

[irishguy 14]

What about the way he played other hands? Did he put his chips in differently? Does he always make it 4BBs preflop when he has 2 big cards, but makes it 3 BBs with big pairs? What about his 4 BB preflop raise in the hand told you that he was weak? What about his bets on the flop turn and river told you he was weak? In case you missed it, you not only failed to convince me of your thought process, but every other person who posted in this thread also seemed to agree that this play was unnecessary and unlikely to succeed.In case you missed it, you not only failed to convince me of your thought process, but every other person who posted in this thread also seemed to agree that this play was unnecessary and unlikely to succeed.I said I "almost" guarantee it. Hands like K5, Q4, 83 and any other uncoordinated garbage are hands that should be automatically mucked. If you're ever entering pots with them, then it should be YOU who is raising and has control of the pot. Calling raises with these hands is just pretty much throwing away money. Oh and of course you're a winning player, how could you not with such impeccable skills to make me "sh-t my pants at how you played a K5 hand from the button when you stacked a guy or when you final tabled a tourney yesterday after busting two people when you called a small raise vs two even stacks from the button 83 and busted them both." Seriously, I've heard 3 people on this forum EVER admit that they're not a winning player.

This is from the first post I made in this thread.His raise preflop was standard from the hijack and as a ton of players he c-bet(60% standard) constantly even drunk I observed that. The pots he had played with big pair or hitting flops hard he either check raised or led heavy (ie pot size on coordinated boards). Yes I failed to convince anyone that this play made sense. I said a number of times that I'm not even sure I'm convinced. I made a point early on in this thread that I felt as though even worst case scenario vs a big pair it wasn't out of the realm of possibilities to get him to lay it down on the river. This point was responded harshly that no one would lay down a big pair here. I put that theory to the test on other forums and had an overwhelming response that AA should be folding to this river shove. I made the sh-t your pants statement in haste in an attempt to show the some situations call for different things. I one hundred percent agree that if trash hand are to be played the should be brought in with a raise. I open up my calling standard raise range when I'm in pos. I don't often play trash hands like maybe once every few hundred hands my point was meant to illistrate situational play. Yes everyone online is a winner just ask them! I get it my point there means crap. The whole point I've tried to extend is that I wasn't blindly doing anything in this hand. I genuinly had a strong feeling of where I was, believe it or not. I apologize if I came off hostile at all its that I felt hostility in my direction again thank you for your input.

[cMcMonkey 0]

Ooh, I like banging my head against a wall so I'll throw in my $0.02A.) You can't use the responses on any poker forum as a test of what a typical opponent will do. Most ppl who frequent the forums are decent thinking players, most typical opponents are not which is why you play against them. Most forum regulars think through the entire hand and make comments, most typical players react to what they're holding and only occasionally think about what you might have (or at least only occasionally change their play based on it). So even if every response on every forum said they'd fold AA on the river, that doesn't convince me that even 50% of typical players will fold.B.) You were making a super read dependent play when you were drunk. Maybe you're some kind of physical anamoly, but pretty much everyone on the planet has 2 major things happen when their drunk 1) They're powers of observation and judgment decrease exponentially and 2) They *always* think their powers of observation and judgment have remained the same or gotten better. If you were 100% sober and had 10-20 hands of info on Villain to back up your river shove, it would still be discussed as a polarizing marginal move. With you drunk, it's a recipe for disaster.C.) Even if shoving on the river is the right play (and I contend it was not), you're calling 3 bets, increasing in size, on the way to the river (or turn as you said that was where you were planning to make the move orig.) and have to have the board cooperate. I don't know what kind of range you put him on, but there seems to be a lot of cards you have to dodge to make the board ripe for this move. And I don't remember if anyone else was in this on the flop, but if so that makes it even harder. Its like calling with junk hands pf, sure if you hit the right flop you'll win a good pot, but the chances of that happening are too small to be profitable long-term. You could be Stu Ungar reincarnate and if you're regularly playing garbage hands based only on your perceived ability to outplay ppl post-flop, you're asking for trouble. That's IMHO (and basic poker theory).There's prob more if I thought about it, but its obvious you've dug your heels in and I've already wasted enough time reading the thread.

[irishguy 14]

Ooh, I like banging my head against a wall so I'll throw in my $0.02A.) You can't use the responses on any poker forum as a test of what a typical opponent will do. Most ppl who frequent the forums are decent thinking players, most typical opponents are not which is why you play against them. Most forum regulars think through the entire hand and make comments, most typical players react to what they're holding and only occasionally think about what you might have (or at least only occasionally change their play based on it). So even if every response on every forum said they'd fold AA on the river, that doesn't convince me that even 50% of typical players will fold.B.) You were making a super read dependent play when you were drunk. Maybe you're some kind of physical anamoly, but pretty much everyone on the planet has 2 major things happen when their drunk 1) They're powers of observation and judgment decrease exponentially and 2) They *always* think their powers of observation and judgment have remained the same or gotten better. If you were 100% sober and had 10-20 hands of info on Villain to back up your river shove, it would still be discussed as a polarizing marginal move. With you drunk, it's a recipe for disaster.C.) Even if shoving on the river is the right play (and I contend it was not), you're calling 3 bets, increasing in size, on the way to the river (or turn as you said that was where you were planning to make the move orig.) and have to have the board cooperate. I don't know what kind of range you put him on, but there seems to be a lot of cards you have to dodge to make the board ripe for this move. And I don't remember if anyone else was in this on the flop, but if so that makes it even harder. Its like calling with junk hands pf, sure if you hit the right flop you'll win a good pot, but the chances of that happening are too small to be profitable long-term. You could be Stu Ungar reincarnate and if you're regularly playing garbage hands based only on your perceived ability to outplay ppl post-flop, you're asking for trouble. That's IMHO (and basic poker theory).There's prob more if I thought about it, but its obvious you've dug your heels in and I've already wasted enough time reading the thread.

A.) huh?? Yes people who post in strat forum will likely have a better understanding to get split responses on multiple forums on aspects of how this hand plays from different perspectives imo. If only half the people out of all the threads say they'd call with AA as villain it doesn't automatically make half right and half wrong it makes it debateable. Plus if you had in fact read the thread I stated countless times how unlikely I thought this was.B,) I see your point however I've got some drinking years under my belt. Truthfully 90% of the time sober I'm not in this pot with this hand. I would have been looking howeve to get into pots with said villain with a wide range of seemingly marginal hands as I felt he was exploitable. Sober if am in this pot my play post flop on could've very likely been the same as I felt I had a strong assessment of his play.C.) Again I appreciate you took the time to respond and even in paragraph form. However if you look through this thread countless times I discuss what I felt villains range was as well as given reasons for it based on previous hand that he had played. Also again I have stated that I'm not regularly playing garbage hands cus I think I'm Stu Unger. In retrospect I likely could've waited for a different spot as I found him that exploitable. But a guy who has entered every pot he's played and played ever big hand a certain way and differed enough on this flop for me to notice I felt it was a decent enough spot to try to run a bluff. Thank you for as you put it wasting your time. You do make some valid points.

[Acid_Knight 2]

This is from the first post I made in this thread.His raise preflop was standard from the hijack and as a ton of players he c-bet(60% standard) constantly even drunk I observed that. The pots he had played with big pair or hitting flops hard he either check raised or led heavy (ie pot size on coordinated boards).

Just one last thing about this comment here.Proper grammar would probably help people understand what the hell it says. This is what I get from it.You put him on a steal preflop simply because of the position that he raised from. Even drunk, you realized that he made continuation bets about 60% of the time. When he flopped a big hand, he'd either check raise or make pot sized bets on coordinated boards.Is that an accurate translation?I just want to point out that my comment about you having no read is actually based on the fact that you assume he doesn't have a hand becuase he raised from a certain position on the board. This is a very legit assumption in a tournament or a limit holdem game where LP and button raises are completely necessary (pretty much regardless of your cards) if you want to be a winning player. This however is a NLHE game and in a NLHE ring game, stealing the blinds is not important at all since it will add very little to your stack.

[Jordan 1]

if he wasn't getting like 4:1 on your river push i wouldn't hate the play as much.But, since he was...it's freaking horrible. With this price, you WILL be called by the hands he repped the entire time. And if you don't, and he has one of those hands, congrats, you just bluffed a TAG fish.The only other thing he is folding himself is a busted draw.With this price, there is no way a good solid player folds. I'm sorry, it just isn't happening. The fact that he folded this hand and won should not matter, nor should it had he of called.When you make this play you need to calculate how often he should be calling, and how many times he should be folding, and if your play has an expected value to it. Your play here doesn't. You're lucky you caught him when he had air, or as I said above, he is a TAG fish and is on scared money.I dont know which it was in this case, but something I do know..and you really should too by now, especially if you been playing long enough, that pot odds often justify a river call, even in no limit hold em', when you are getting that massive of a price.- Jordan

[irishguy 14]

Just one last thing about this comment here.Proper grammar would probably help people understand what the hell it says. This is what I get from it.You put him on a steal preflop simply because of the position that he raised from. Even drunk, you realized that he made continuation bets about 60% of the time. When he flopped a big hand, he'd either check raise or make pot sized bets on coordinated boards.Is that an accurate translation?I just want to point out that my comment about you having no read is actually based on the fact that you assume he doesn't have a hand becuase he raised from a certain position on the board. This is a very legit assumption in a tournament or a limit holdem game where LP and button raises are completely necessary (pretty much regardless of your cards) if you want to be a winning player. This however is a NLHE game and in a NLHE ring game, stealing the blinds is not important at all since it will add very little to your stack.

Translation: The amount that he raised and from the position he raised was the table standard and that this certainly doesn't limit him to solely big hands. His c-bet was standard and the amount of it it (60% pot) was standard for his play and the table as well. So again this doesn't give us a whole lot of info. If I remember correctly two or three out of 4/5 pots he had opened in the same manner he bet the pot or check raised the flop on coordinated boards at show down he showed big hands and in the one got a fold showed KK. The other pots he played where he opened up and c-bet for the same amount he folded with out going to showdown. My assumption that he doesn't have a hand is not solely based on the position he raised from (although I see how I gave that perception) but also based on his flop play in comparison to previous hands. The fact that the turn was a blank and he fired again for a similar amount to the pot made me feeling as though he was betting a draw while trying to rep a big pair. This again was based on his previous play. He had check folded in similar spots when flop had played out the same as here.

[irishguy 14]

if he wasn't getting like 4:1 on your river push i wouldn't hate the play as much.But, since he was...it's freaking horrible. With this price, you WILL be called by the hands he repped the entire time. And if you don't, and he has one of those hands, congrats, you just bluffed a TAG fish.The only other thing he is folding himself is a busted draw.With this price, there is no way a good solid player folds. I'm sorry, it just isn't happening. The fact that he folded this hand and won should not matter, nor should it had he of called.When you make this play you need to calculate how often he should be calling, and how many times he should be folding, and if your play has an expected value to it. Your play here doesn't. You're lucky you caught him when he had air, or as I said above, he is a TAG fish and is on scared money.I dont know which it was in this case, but something I do know..and you really should too by now, especially if you been playing long enough, that pot odds often justify a river call, even in no limit hold em', when you are getting that massive of a price.- Jordan

I agree and truth be told wasn't paying attention to the odds I was giving him. As my above post states the only hands I was putting him on were drawing hands and felt very strongly that was the case. I was also very sure he was a tag fish. I said earlier in the thread that looking back I should've broadened the range I was putting him on because while I was confident he didn't have a big pair an arguement could be made for him playing 88,99 etc in a similar fashion with the end result being him having huge odds to call.

[CoranMoran 0]

I'll comment considering it was my hand. Calling with Q4 maybe retarded but I had a very good feel for how this guy played.

Just wait for a better spot.--CM

[Acid_Knight 2]

Translation: The amount that he raised and from the position he raised was the table standard and that this certainly doesn't limit him to solely big hands. His c-bet was standard and the amount of it it (60% pot) was standard for his play and the table as well. So again this doesn't give us a whole lot of info.

Yes, it doesn't limit him to big hands, but it does not do anything to exclude them either. The best part about making the same raise everytime is that it gives away no information.You made the point right there that everyone else in the post has been trying to make. You cannot arbirtarily decide that he's weak when he is making standard preflop raises and standard continuation bets.

[cMcMonkey 0]

A.) huh?? Yes people who post in strat forum will likely have a better understanding to get split responses on multiple forums on aspects of how this hand plays from different perspectives imo. If only half the people out of all the threads say they'd call with AA as villain it doesn't automatically make half right and half wrong it makes it debateable. Plus if you had in fact read the thread I stated countless times how unlikely I thought this was.

Not sure what you're saying here. My point was someone responding to a forum post is likely to be better than the avg player, so what *they* would do in Villains shoes is diff. than what your typical opponent is likely to do. So putting yourself in Hero's shoes and seeing what you would do is giving way too much credit to your opponent.

B,) I see your point however I've got some drinking years under my belt. Truthfully 90% of the time sober I'm not in this pot with this hand. I would have been looking howeve to get into pots with said villain with a wide range of seemingly marginal hands as I felt he was exploitable. Sober if am in this pot my play post flop on could've very likely been the same as I felt I had a strong assessment of his play.

This just shows that you don't see my point. I don't care if you're 120yrs old and have been drinking since you were 5, it doesn't change the physical reactions your body and brain have when your drunk. Maybe it means you need more alcohol to get drunk, but once you're there (and you said you were, multiple times) you're going to make bad decisions and think they're good. You're going to make bad assumptions and bad reads and think you're locked in the zone. You're going to play crap like Q4, get lucky and then when you're sober convince yourself that it was the right move based on bad information. Or you'll play the same crap, lose a few buy-ins and wake up and say "man I was so drunk I played like a total donk and lost a few buy-ins, haha". You mentioned at some point you have no money management, well the first step to fix that would be to stop playing while drinking heavily. If you don't get that, its not a different style its stupidity.Given that you were drunk, we can't give much credit to your read; which based on the info you gave would be a pretty specific read even if you were sober. You saw Villain table 2-3 good hands with a certain betting pattern, and fold 1-2 hands with another one and tagged the two betting patterns as really strong and really weak. Who was he playing against in those other hands? What did he have when he folded? how strong were the strong hands? Is it possible he's playing a strong hand differently b/c he's shown a couple good hands with the same betting pattern and he wants to get paid off? Maybe he's drunk too and is changing his style just b/c. With only 4-5 hands history, you drunk and what his betting indicates, there is no way on earth short of seeing his cards that you can say (with enough certainty to show a profit) that he has a weak hand and will fold to a push. The fact that he did fold just reinforces a poor decision, like drawing to a 1-outer and hitting.

C.) Again I appreciate you took the time to respond and even in paragraph form. However if you look through this thread countless times I discuss what I felt villains range was as well as given reasons for it based on previous hand that he had played.

you saw him hit 2-3 good hands and fold 2 others. It is perfectly reasonable to get 4-5 hands in a row that are good enough to play without being a total donk. You don't know what hands he folded, it could have been complete misses, weak draws, mid-pair. Therefore the only info you have is that you're reasonably sure the flop didn't hit him hard. He could have anything else in the world. Do you know he'll fold a draw? 2-pr? TPLK? Maybe he's a calling station when he has any piece of the flop. Maybe he'll call down with 2-pr no matter what the action. You keep saying you had reasons for making the moves you did and I'm disputing that you had a reason, I'm saying that the information behind that reason is sh-t. Its 5 hands of history while drunk. Its the opposite of seeing monsters, you're making up your mind he has nothing and will fold based on very little evidence.

Also again I have stated that I'm not regularly playing garbage hands cus I think I'm Stu Unger. In retrospect I likely could've waited for a different spot as I found him that exploitable. But a guy who has entered every pot he's played and played ever big hand a certain way and differed enough on this flop for me to notice I felt it was a decent enough spot to try to run a bluff. Thank you for as you put it wasting your time. You do make some valid points.

Perhaps I was a little harsh, I have a New England ball-busting cynical sense of humor. If it was really a waste of time I wouldn't post. :)I question why you're working so hard to defend what's at best a marginal decision?