Devonfish would have min raised pre but as played will bet 9p
Tintin would bet 18p
Craigcu12 would read through his 13 paragaraphs of notes on this villain before deciding wether or not to bet (and how much), but end up 'time out checking' just after paragraph 4.
It all depends? lol I find as i play this level alot your oppo could have pretty much anything?
There is 3 senarios in 2/4p...
1 - Check call to the river then they bet
2 - Call Call Call
3 - 4p flop 4p turn £2 river!
The last few weeks ive found being more agressive with my betting has works out better for me! For some reason the more i bet the more they think im bluffing!? Ive shoved all in on the river with the nuts at least 10 times the last week and a half to win a 20p pot and been called by someone with top pair!
So for me unless your playing regs bet bet bet... Id bet the pot on this flop
standard c bet spot for me here, 75% of pot so around the 20-22p mark.
the reason, i c bet here a lot wether i hit here or miss completely and always to the figures above, so for me its keeps the balance going for myself.
you say they havent been calling down light but i still think theres worse out there that will see another street, and if they are semi competent they could see my bet plainly as a c bet because im on the button. if im met with a call i can evaluate the turn then take a more pot control line if i think the turn is abad card for me or if im raised then its a fold because of the notes.
im a big believer of bet, bet, bet til the action tells you otherwise, so many players are too passive and will call down because they dont have a clue where they are at so its more about punishing them. of course this can catch you out at times and you end up value betting yourself but at times sometimes its best to get action in the future.
yesterday was pretty rubbish so much so i never played once the football started last night. lost £8 in the last 2 days, small win monday then a loss yesterday. dont think i was ever ahead at any point yesterday and at one point i was just trading bins. couldnt win a hand aipf when dominating til i had KK v Larson's QQ (sorry mate i thought you were huge fav there the way i was running)
So I played about 45 mins at NL4 tonight. This is a straightforward situation but I'm wondering what the regs at this level would do with this hand on the flop. I read alot of things in the clinic about playing this level and I wonder what NL4 folks think is the best way to get value. Simple question, then: Bet or check back on the flop and why? Player Action Cards Amount Pot Balance RobinGibb Small blind £0.02 £0.02 £3.81 MauriceGibb Big blind £0.04 £0.06 £7.32 Your hole cards A 10 BarryGibb Fold BorinLoner Raise £0.12 £0.18 £4.08 RobinGibb Call £0.10 £0.28 £3.71 MauriceGibb Fold Flop 9 A 4 RobinGibb Check BorinLoner Of course, the Bee Gees are just pseudonyms. I've only been playing for a few minutes so all I can tell you about Robin is that he's yet to get out of line. I've not seen him get into big pots with ropey hands and he's only showndown "playable" hands. Not seen a huge amount of aggression from him but he hasn't been calling down light either. Posted by BorinLoner
Most would bet 1/2 to 3/4 pot, probably very similiar to yourself:P
And it would be for information no i mean value haha
Predictions..... Calcafold would bet 20/21p. Devonfish would have min raised pre but as played will bet 9p Tintin would bet 18p Craigcu12 would read through his 13 paragaraphs of notes on this villain before deciding wether or not to bet (and how much), but end up 'time out checking' just after paragraph 4. Posted by DOHHHHHHH
Fair play to you, firstly thats very funny.
Secondly, you are about right with my bet amount. Maybe dont need to bet as much a I would, but always bet it
Reason....errrrm we have top pair and we arent exactly going to get value by checking.......
Nobody wants to make the argument for checking back for value? Under-repping our hand to get paid on later streets?
Is betting really a better option against a player that doesn't call down light? He's going to fold all his non-Ace hands to a bet. If we check, do we not get value from a wider range on later streets?
I didn't think there'd be many advocates of checking on this thread. Which is perhaps something to think about.
Nobody wants to make the argument for checking back for value ? Under-repping our hand to get paid on later streets? Is betting really a better option against a player that doesn't call down light? He's going to fold all his non-Ace hands to a bet. If we check, do we not get value from a wider range on later streets? I didn't think there'd be many advocates of checking on this thread. Which is perhaps something to think about. Posted by BorinLoner
don't check mate. at nl4 you are losing value by doing this. some do not believe you have hit an ace or have a worse kicker.
I'm not surprised by these responses. All about "beating NL4" and ignoring the specific reads that have been provided on the player.
Of course we should bet, bet, bet against someone who will call us down light but why would we do this, on this dry board, against someone that won't? Why play against every player as though they're all the same?
I think this a big flaw among some of the winning NL4 players. It's something that costs value at NL4 and hampers attempts to step up the levels. Don't try to "beat NL4", try to beat the individual you're playing against.
I'm not surprised by these responses. All about "beating NL4" and ignoring the specific reads that have been provided on the player. Of course we should bet, bet, bet against someone who will call us down light but why would we do this, on this dry board, against someone that won't? Why play against every player as though they're all the same? I think this a big flaw among some of the winning NL4 players. It's something that costs value at NL4 and hampers attempts to step up the levels. Don't try to "beat NL4", try to beat the individual you're playing against. Posted by BorinLoner
the way it's going for me atm i couldn't even beat myself,if it was possible to play me... "and that's saying something"
and DOHHH, for your imformation i wouldn't bet 9p that's way to much maybe 8 at a push. lol
I'm not surprised by these responses. All about "beating NL4" and ignoring the specific reads that have been provided on the player. Of course we should bet, bet, bet against someone who will call us down light but why would we do this, on this dry board, against someone that won't? Why play against every player as though they're all the same? I think this a big flaw among some of the winning NL4 players. It's something that costs value at NL4 and hampers attempts to step up the levels. Don't try to "beat NL4", try to beat the individual you're playing against. Posted by BorinLoner
not all, i'd refer you to Tintin's
in your post, you say the hand is only after a few minutes so the information at the moment is limited. Past experience does lead to say "bet" based on the short time you've been playing him/her though.
I'm not surprised by these responses. All about "beating NL4" and ignoring the specific reads that have been provided on the player. Of course we should bet, bet, bet against someone who will call us down light but why would we do this, on this dry board, against someone that won't? Why play against every player as though they're all the same? I think this a big flaw among some of the winning NL4 players. It's something that costs value at NL4 and hampers attempts to step up the levels. Don't try to "beat NL4", try to beat the individual you're playing against. Posted by BorinLoner
you are assigning far too much credit to villain if you only played a few orbits with him. If your reads were more solid I don't mind checking the flop back, although I bet it a good bit of time for balancing reasons. From what's in your post though I like vbetting, obv b/f
I agree completely with the above post though. Too many players ask "how do I beat 4nl" , "what do I do with AK facing a 3bet", rather than thinking about specific situations and learning how to think about poker and all the variables in different situations . Just because you can get away with playing robotically doesn't mean it's optimal, even at 4nl
In Response to Re: 2p-4p challenge : fair play mate, just thought it might have been me as it followed my post.. i thought we were cool...which we are. sorry if i seemed a bit snarky. dev Posted by devonfish5
Course, no worries.
Yea, I was 6/7 tabling when I wrote that, totally forgot to quote him.
The term "a few minutes" has apparently led some to think that the read has no value: My poor choice of words. It would have been around 30 minutes and probably 15-20 orbits or so. That's besides the point, though.
Believe it or not, I wasn't actually asking advice on how to play this hand. The point was to discuss how the read should affect the play because I think it's a problem at NL4 that players just play the level and not their individual opponents. That's why I posted in this thread and not the clinic. As I said, it's a straightforward situation but I knew what the responses would most likely be and I wanted to encourage some thought on the alternatives based on the reads.
Calcalfold, this is a poker forum. Debating poker is what it's about.
Larson, I came and sat at your table but you stood before I was dealt a hand. I could only have played for a few minutes anyway.
Comments
Calcafold would bet 20/21p.
Devonfish would have min raised pre but as played will bet 9p
Tintin would bet 18p
Craigcu12 would read through his 13 paragaraphs of notes on this villain before deciding wether or not to bet (and how much), but end up 'time out checking' just after paragraph 4.
lol @dohhhhhhs response.
standard c bet spot for me here, 75% of pot so around the 20-22p mark.
the reason, i c bet here a lot wether i hit here or miss completely and always to the figures above, so for me its keeps the balance going for myself.
you say they havent been calling down light but i still think theres worse out there that will see another street, and if they are semi competent they could see my bet plainly as a c bet because im on the button. if im met with a call i can evaluate the turn then take a more pot control line if i think the turn is abad card for me or if im raised then its a fold because of the notes.
im a big believer of bet, bet, bet til the action tells you otherwise, so many players are too passive and will call down because they dont have a clue where they are at so its more about punishing them. of course this can catch you out at times and you end up value betting yourself but at times sometimes its best to get action in the future.
yesterday was pretty rubbish so much so i never played once the football started last night. lost £8 in the last 2 days, small win monday then a loss yesterday. dont think i was ever ahead at any point yesterday and at one point i was just trading bins. couldnt win a hand aipf when dominating til i had KK v Larson's QQ (sorry mate i thought you were huge fav there the way i was running)
And it would be for information no i mean value haha
Fair play to you, firstly thats very funny.
Secondly, you are about right with my bet amount. Maybe dont need to bet as much a I would, but always bet it
Reason....errrrm we have top pair and we arent exactly going to get value by checking.......
Is betting really a better option against a player that doesn't call down light? He's going to fold all his non-Ace hands to a bet. If we check, do we not get value from a wider range on later streets?
I didn't think there'd be many advocates of checking on this thread. Which is perhaps something to think about.
Its 4nl and making money is simple.
Bet lots when you are likely to have the best hand
Bet a little bit when you might have the best hand
Dont bet when you are beat
Its really that simple.
Dont try and overcomplicate something that is very simple. worse hands will pay you off day in day out, so bet bet bet
Of course we should bet, bet, bet against someone who will call us down light but why would we do this, on this dry board, against someone that won't? Why play against every player as though they're all the same?
I think this a big flaw among some of the winning NL4 players. It's something that costs value at NL4 and hampers attempts to step up the levels. Don't try to "beat NL4", try to beat the individual you're playing against.
"and that's saying something"
and DOHHH, for your imformation i wouldn't bet 9p that's way to much maybe 8 at a push. lol
(* *)
^
dev
Cant be bothered to debate this point (again)
in your post, you say the hand is only after a few minutes so the information at the moment is limited. Past experience does lead to say "bet" based on the short time you've been playing him/her though.
good luck
if it's me i was only joking mate..chill.
if it's aimed at someone else..who?
dev
just thought it might have been me as it followed my post..
i thought we were cool...which we are.
sorry if i seemed a bit snarky.
dev
Course, no worries.
Yea, I was 6/7 tabling when I wrote that, totally forgot to quote him.
Believe it or not, I wasn't actually asking advice on how to play this hand. The point was to discuss how the read should affect the play because I think it's a problem at NL4 that players just play the level and not their individual opponents. That's why I posted in this thread and not the clinic. As I said, it's a straightforward situation but I knew what the responses would most likely be and I wanted to encourage some thought on the alternatives based on the reads.
Calcalfold, this is a poker forum. Debating poker is what it's about.
Larson, I came and sat at your table but you stood before I was dealt a hand. I could only have played for a few minutes anyway.
Grantorino... Yes.