Also, if you think their sizing pre means weakness... as in they arent clued up on how much to bet, then how do you know that the half pot bet sizing on the flop and turn isnt actually their way of playing a massive hand. Maybe this is a villain who doesnt know how to extract max value and he is afraid of losing his customer if he flopped top set for example. You say you dont have any reads. You are OOP and have no idea what villain is holding. You dont know if villain is capable of folding top pair if you miss and barrel again. IMO you've just turned your hand with decent equity onto the turn into a massive bluff, praying oppo folds (but have no idea if he's capable of doing so) if you miss the river, and just getting quite lucky if you hit with just the one card to come. Posted by gazza127
I'm sure the scouts have more than one soul read badge in their store rooms, Gazza. No problem.
Harry, if you want to see me at the tables you can find me on NL4 every couple of weeks. I'm not really rolled to play higher than that and don't have the 'love' of the game to spin it up. Playing the game is actually quite dull most of the time. I think the fact that I'm not very good at the whole silly 'winning' side of the game is largely irrelevant to the fact I don't play very often.
You can just wait until Sarah_C or MissFowler are at the tables. You'll almost certainly see me trying to bother them. lol
Either way Lambert this just shows the exact reason why i didnt like the turn raise. Opponent could have easily shoved in and you have to fold. As it happened he got you to commit more of your stack to the pot when you were behind, but i do feel we got lucky to see the ideal card come on the river.
I'm sure the scouts have more than one soul read badge in their store rooms, Gazza. No problem. Harry, if you want to see me at the tables you can find me on NL4 every couple of weeks. I'm not really rolled to play higher than that and don't have the 'love' of the game to spin it up. Playing the game is actually quite dull most of the time. I think the fact that I'm not very good at the whole silly 'winning' side of the game is largely irrelevant to the fact I don't play very often. You can just wait until Sarah_C or MissFowler are at the tables. You'll almost certainly see me trying to bother them. lol Posted by BorinLoner
So you're just a shameless bum hunter then? Though, to be fair, that isn't a bad couple of bums to hunt
That's pretty results orientated thinking though Gazza. You're right that we don't know what their bet sizing means, but that doesn't mean we should just by default think it must be the nuts until we get notes. It could be AA, but it could equally be A9o or a ton of other hands. Would you have changed your mind and said you liked it if he'd bet/folded the turn? or he'd bet/called and then folded the river?
Well he got me to commit more of my stack in a +EV spot for me. Everytime I call his turn 3bet I make money and he loses money, doesn't matter that I'm behind. Because he'd 3bet the turn, it obv put a stop to any bluffing on the river, so he's not getting another penny out of me unless I hit an eight or non-pairing spade so he's either getting a tiny bit more out of me on the turn or getting stacked.
That's pretty results orientated thinking though Gazza. You're right that we don't know what their bet sizing means, but that doesn't mean we should just by default think it must be the nuts until we get notes. It could be AA, but it could equally be A9o or a ton of other hands. Would you have changed your mind and said you liked it if he'd bet/folded the turn? or he'd bet/called and then folded the river? Well he got me to commit more of my stack in a +EV spot for me. Everytime I call his turn 3bet I make money and he loses money, doesn't matter that I'm behind. Because he'd 3bet the turn, it obv put a stop to any bluffing on the river, so he's not getting another penny out of me unless I hit an eight or non-pairing spade so he's either getting a tiny bit more out of me on the turn or getting stacked. Posted by Lambert180
Well no im not changing my mind if he bet/folds turn. I didnt know the result before I posted before and i would have stuck by it no matter the outcome... although the outcome has just backed up the danger in check/raising here. If he reraises a bit more or shoves then you've just set fire to your money with a hand which had decent equity.
Well, if we're going to be all results orientated; How much money does it save us if we 3-bet-fold the turn, relative to 3-betting the turn and shoving missed rivers? Giving up our equity isn't so bad if we know we're getting a straight answer from our opponent when he shoves.
The one thing I continue to question is, as rancid says, whether the villain is capable of folding the turn to our check-raise and how often we need him to do that to make it better than calling to see the river. He has actually offered us 25% on our call and we're between 20% and 25% against most of his range. We can call profitably if we only average getting a small amount more on the river.
But yeah, we can't worry about running into the top of the villain's range when we decide to check-raise the turn, unless we have reason to believe that the villain's play weights him towards monsters. We'd need reads for that.
If villain shoves the turn and we fold, we do give up our 20% equity in the hand. So when he has AA, etc, we've made a -EV play. However, when he has Ax or something, we turn our 20% equity into 100% equity by making him fold. So that's a very +EV play.
Without knowing his hand, we can't say that it's bad because he could force us to fold with a 3-bet. It's only bad if he 3-bets light sometimes or doesn't fold his weaker Ax hands. Against his entire range, it's probably a good play to check-raise.
The fact that he only clicked back the turn (or near enough) and called the spade river is actually a sign that we've done a good job of representing a set on the turn and not a draw.
Well, if we're going to be all results orientated; How much money does it save us if we 3-bet-fold the turn, relative to 3-betting the turn and shoving missed rivers? Giving up our equity isn't so bad if we know we're getting a straight answer from our opponent when he shoves. The one thing I continue to question is, as rancid says, whether the villain is capable of folding the turn to our check-raise and how often we need him to do that to make it better than calling to see the river. He has actually offered us 25% on our call and we're between 20% and 25% against most of his range. We can call profitably if we only average getting a small amount more on the river. But yeah, we can't worry about running into the top of the villain's range when we decide to check-raise the turn, unless we have reason to believe that the villain's play weights him towards monsters. We'd need reads for that. If villain shoves the turn and we fold, we do give up our 20% equity in the hand. So when he has AA, etc, we've made a -EV play. However, when he has Ax or something, we turn our 20% equity into 100% equity by making him fold. So that's a very +EV play. Without knowing his hand, we can't say that it's bad because he could force us to fold with a 3-bet. It's only bad if he 3-bets light sometimes or doesn't fold his weaker Ax hands. Against his entire range, it's probably a good play to check-raise. The fact that he only clicked back the turn (or near enough) and called the spade river is actually a sign that we've done a good job of representing a set on the turn and not a draw. Posted by BorinLoner
My point is that we dont know any of this. We have not one single read apart from his bet sizings are a bit low.
IMO if we aren't taking the aggressive line on the flop (which is OK) we should continue to be passive on the turn when our equity drops, especially when we can only represent a really narrow range on the turn when we raise... and we have no idea if villain is capable of folding what looks like at least top pair after a 3 bet pre and 2 barrels on an A high flop.
Folding our equity in holdem is not often a very big mistake because we win a lot when we get opponent to fold their equity. In omaha it's much more of a concern when we are forced to fold our equity when we could have took a more passive approach to realise our equity.
In Response to Re: 20NL Mastercash - C/R Turn w/ GS + FD : My point is that we dont know any of this. We have not one single read apart from his bet sizings are a bit low. IMO if we aren't taking the aggressive line on the flop (which is OK) we should continue to be passive on the turn when our equity drops, especially when we can only represent a really narrow range on the turn when we raise... and we have no idea if villain is capable of folding what looks like at least top pair after a 3 bet pre and 2 barrels on an A high flop. Posted by gazza127
This makes no sense at all. The more equity we have in a pot, the worse it is when we are forced to fold our equity. If we raise the flop (when we have more equity) and get 3-bet big we then have to fold a good deal of equity. When we do it on the turn, we are folding less equity!!
In Response to Re: 20NL Mastercash - C/R Turn w/ GS + FD : My point is that we dont know any of this. We have not one single read apart from his bet sizings are a bit low. IMO if we aren't taking the aggressive line on the flop (which is OK) we should continue to be passive on the turn when our equity drops, especially when we can only represent a really narrow range on the turn when we raise... and we have no idea if villain is capable of folding what looks like at least top pair after a 3 bet pre and 2 barrels on an A high flop. Posted by gazza127
This is definitely a legitimate concern. It just comes down to what we make of villain's half-pot, half-pot line. If we think that's more likely to be marginal then we want to check-raise. If we think it's more likely to mean a monster, we want to check-call.
Generally speaking, this line looks more marginal to me than strong. That's not a specific read but we don't have specific reads up to this point and that's what I think is more likely in a vacuum against randomers.
We don't want to be check-raising into a station, obviously.
In Response to Re: 20NL Mastercash - C/R Turn w/ GS + FD : This makes no sense at all. The more equity we have in a pot, the worse it is when we are forced to fold our equity. If we raise the flop (when we have more equity) and get 3-bet big we then have to fold a good deal of equity. When we do it on the turn, we are folding less equity!! Posted by F_Ivanovic
Eurgh i know i know. Its been a long day and i didnt word any of that right. I just dont see why we are raising on the turn when our equity drops. It just seems like we are putting more money into a pot we are less likely to win.
In Response to Re: 20NL Mastercash - C/R Turn w/ GS + FD : This makes no sense at all. The more equity we have in a pot, the worse it is when we are forced to fold our equity. If we raise the flop (when we have more equity) and get 3-bet big we then have to fold a good deal of equity. When we do it on the turn, we are folding less equity!! Posted by F_Ivanovic
This is true. Although when I quote a post and respond with "This is a legitimate concern..." and F_Ivanovic quotes the same post with the response "This makes no sense at all...", you might be forgiven for thinking we don't agree. lol
In Response to Re: 20NL Mastercash - C/R Turn w/ GS + FD : This makes no sense at all. The more equity we have in a pot, the worse it is when we are forced to fold our equity. If we raise the flop (when we have more equity) and get 3-bet big we then have to fold a good deal of equity. When we do it on the turn, we are folding less equity!! Posted by F_Ivanovic
I think semi bluffing with more equity is far better than having less equity
In Response to Re: 20NL Mastercash - C/R Turn w/ GS + FD : This is true. Although when I quote a post and respond with "This is a legitimate concern..." and F_Ivanovic quotes the same post with the response "This makes no sense at all..." , you might be forgiven for thinking we don't agree. lol Posted by BorinLoner
hehe, this is why the game of poker is so good! So many different options available with none of us really knowing what the most optimal line is!
In Response to Re: 20NL Mastercash - C/R Turn w/ GS + FD : I think semi bluffing with more equity is far better than having less equity pot equity + fold equity = total equity yo! Posted by rancid
True. That being said I think our fold equity on the turn when we raise is going to be much higher than our fold equity when we raise on the flop.
Noones mentioned that our flush might not even be good if we get there.
AKs, AQs could easily be in villains range given the action. I'm less inclined to shovel the money in when we dont have the nut draw also. We can convince ourselves its a cooler but i don't think we can justify it when its of our own making chasing a draw with potentially dirty outs and playing it like the nuts.
It's such a tiny part of his range though cos obv the J is out there, I have the T and 9, so it's literally just them 2 combos (AK and AQ)... maybe KQss.
Comments
Harry, if you want to see me at the tables you can find me on NL4 every couple of weeks. I'm not really rolled to play higher than that and don't have the 'love' of the game to spin it up. Playing the game is actually quite dull most of the time. I think the fact that I'm not very good at the whole silly 'winning' side of the game is largely irrelevant to the fact I don't play very often.
You can just wait until Sarah_C or MissFowler are at the tables. You'll almost certainly see me trying to bother them. lol
Well he got me to commit more of my stack in a +EV spot for me. Everytime I call his turn 3bet I make money and he loses money, doesn't matter that I'm behind. Because he'd 3bet the turn, it obv put a stop to any bluffing on the river, so he's not getting another penny out of me unless I hit an eight or non-pairing spade so he's either getting a tiny bit more out of me on the turn or getting stacked.
Well no im not changing my mind if he bet/folds turn. I didnt know the result before I posted before and i would have stuck by it no matter the outcome... although the outcome has just backed up the danger in check/raising here. If he reraises a bit more or shoves then you've just set fire to your money with a hand which had decent equity.
1. If villian 3 bet shoves, can you call
2. What % of the time do you need villian to fold
The one thing I continue to question is, as rancid says, whether the villain is capable of folding the turn to our check-raise and how often we need him to do that to make it better than calling to see the river. He has actually offered us 25% on our call and we're between 20% and 25% against most of his range. We can call profitably if we only average getting a small amount more on the river.
But yeah, we can't worry about running into the top of the villain's range when we decide to check-raise the turn, unless we have reason to believe that the villain's play weights him towards monsters. We'd need reads for that.
If villain shoves the turn and we fold, we do give up our 20% equity in the hand. So when he has AA, etc, we've made a -EV play. However, when he has Ax or something, we turn our 20% equity into 100% equity by making him fold. So that's a very +EV play.
Without knowing his hand, we can't say that it's bad because he could force us to fold with a 3-bet. It's only bad if he 3-bets light sometimes or doesn't fold his weaker Ax hands. Against his entire range, it's probably a good play to check-raise.
The fact that he only clicked back the turn (or near enough) and called the spade river is actually a sign that we've done a good job of representing a set on the turn and not a draw.
IMO if we aren't taking the aggressive line on the flop (which is OK) we should continue to be passive on the turn when our equity drops, especially when we can only represent a really narrow range on the turn when we raise... and we have no idea if villain is capable of folding what looks like at least top pair after a 3 bet pre and 2 barrels on an A high flop.
Folding our equity in holdem is not often a very big mistake because we win a lot when we get opponent to fold their equity. In omaha it's much more of a concern when we are forced to fold our equity when we could have took a more passive approach to realise our equity.
Generally speaking, this line looks more marginal to me than strong. That's not a specific read but we don't have specific reads up to this point and that's what I think is more likely in a vacuum against randomers.
We don't want to be check-raising into a station, obviously.
I think semi bluffing with more equity is far better than having less equity
pot equity + fold equity = total equity
yo!
AKs, AQs could easily be in villains range given the action. I'm less inclined to shovel the money in when we dont have the nut draw also. We can convince ourselves its a cooler but i don't think we can justify it when its of our own making chasing a draw with potentially dirty outs and playing it like the nuts.