Hugo Im sure u probably know what ur on about, and make good points, but I really cnt get on with some of the terminology you use. Its the same with ladyfingers sometimes.
This bluffing range, ev, value, value range, fold equity etc etc,
I must understand what these all are, and now how to apply them, but reading replies riddled with these sort of abbreviations and technical terms, just makes my head spin.
Cud u use examples of each when u are discussing a hand - related to the hand in question of course, or maybe ur own examples.
Only ever read 1 poker book so these terms just send me dizzy.
fair enough sorry its just force of habbit and genuinely prevents longwinded sentences.
without individually explaining each term (i think google or wikipedia will help there) i will try and explain in simple terms why many people don't advocate the term 'asking a question'.
NLH and cards in general is very mathmatical and you need to make OPTIMAL plays to maximise your winnings, with complete information(nye on impossible unless you cheat) there will always be an optimal play.
Therefore a bet that 'asks a question' can not be optimal as there is a right and wrong play depending on opponents whole cards, and this is where opponents hand RANGES come into it, you need to make the optimal play against the whole range of hands your opponent might have.
Take your example, the range of hands villain check raises the flop with would be 66 -77- 88- 99 -10,9- 10,8 - K 10- A,10- various draws, total air, the nuts!...etc etc etc HAND RANGES ARE VERY VILLAIN DEPENDANT SO IT IS YOUR ASSESSMENT OF EACH PLAYER AND THE KNOWLEDGE YOU HAVE OBTAINED PREVIOUSLY THAT FORMULATES THEIR RANGE so in your example alot of the hands villain will check raise the flop with, he will then fold your 4bet, making it the correct/optimal play to bluff them wether that be by smooth calling the reraise and taking it on the turn, or by raising there and then (as you did) YOU DECIDE WHAT IS OPTIMAL FOR MAX PROFIT.
SO HAVING READ THIS- refer back to my last post-
1. u lose value from your opponents bluffing range The range of hands villain will continue bluffing with that you can beat- not applicable in your example as you are on a total bluff.
2. u open yourself to 4 bet semi bluffs that you have to fold to in your example villain may have K Q (OESD) and shove back at you which would mean you have to fold almost all of your own range. and in this case definately your A 4.
3. lose pot control, so villains value range (which is ahead) extracts more value from the increased pot size Say you have a hand like K J (top pair) and you only smooth call the bet, the pot is say £30 then villains value bet on the river if he bet 2/3 pot would be £20. if instead you reraise to ask a question, the pot would be more like £60 so his river value bet of 2/3 the pot would be more like £40.
4. you lose value from the hands that you fold out which vilain would check call the river say again you had a hand like K J (top pair) if you reraise villain will have to fold hands like middle pair and many 1p hands that he would have called a v-bet on the river with. so you miss optimum value.
5) We turn our range face up when we raise the flop. ie in a HU cash game, i'll be defaulting to c/c-ing a K72r board with everything from A high to KQ which means I can get to showdown alot cheaper OOP. But when someone raises the flop to "find out where they are" it is, by definition, because they have a marginal hand.
6) We fold out hands that we were beating that would have paid us off on subsequent streets.
7) We inflate the pot and decrease the stack:pot ratio, which will increase his bluffing frequency, when our plan is to raise/fold.
8) You get enough information from later streets.
Why are you all so frightened to play 3 streets of poker? If the guy is double barreling alot, and we've been folding to alot, then call-call-fold, if he's been 3 barreling, call-call-call. You're all so desperate to know for certain (which is impossible to do) that you are destroying the value that you get from aggressive players that are IP and are probably getting owned alot when you are r/f or b/f middle pair etc. Sure sometimes he'll have the nuts, and somethimes he'll be bluffing, you're job as poker players in these situations is to figure out if he's agressive enough to have a bluff enough to make a call profitable on every street.
Oh, almost forgot,
r/f QQ is awful because we are turning a hand that plays great vs their 3b range into part of our bluffing range, which, for fairly obvious reasons, is dreadful.
its not just internet players that think this way, its all the best players that think this way...
when you raise to find out where youre at they either...
call: you still have no idea whether you have the best hand but now are involved in a much bigger pot with a marginal hand.
fold: ok you found out you had the best hand, unfortunately you just lost all hope of getting money from weaker hands.
raise: well ok they have a better hand, or a draw, or they saw that when we raised we were representing a much stronger hand that were less likely to have so they bluffed us, so we really still dont know where were at, and the worst thing...we had to put in more chips just for the privelidge of finding out were behind.
It seems like its born out of not wanting to get bluffed on later streets or because calling makes our hand look weak, but does it really? think of all the times you flat call with big hands and your opponent doesnt try and double barrell you of a hand. I mean you get just as much information calling and seeing what youre opponent does on later streets as you do raising yet its cheaper.
In extension to royal_hugo's list 5) We turn our range face up when we raise the flop. ie in a HU cash game, i'll be defaulting to c/c-ing a K72r board with everything from A high to KQ which means I can get to showdown alot cheaper OOP. But when someone raises the flop to "find out where they are" it is, by definition, because they have a marginal hand. 6) We fold out hands that we were beating that would have paid us off on subsequent streets. 7) We inflate the pot and decrease the stack:pot ratio, which will increase his bluffing frequency, when our plan is to raise/fold. 8) You get enough information from later streets. Why are you all so frightened to play 3 streets of poker? If the guy is double barreling alot, and we've been folding to alot, then call-call-fold, if he's been 3 barreling, call-call-call. You're all so desperate to know for certain (which is impossible to do) that you are destroying the value that you get from aggressive players that are IP and are probably getting owned alot when you are r/f or b/f middle pair etc. Sure sometimes he'll have the nuts, and somethimes he'll be bluffing, you're job as poker players in these situations is to figure out if he's agressive enough to have a bluff enough to make a call profitable on every street. Oh, almost forgot, r/f QQ is awful because we are turning a hand that plays great vs their 3b range into part of our bluffing range, which, for fairly obvious reasons, is dreadful. Posted by LadyFingrs
So you are telling me that your play has gone full circle back to a calling station? you're just gonna call someone who tripple barrels you with second pair? I hope i never get that good. I understand that you are gonna get agro players who are happy to keep betting with air and the optimal way to get money is just to keep calling but this is not the optimal way to play poker full stop. Sometimes a re-raise on the flop will save you a lot of money. And my thinking is that saving money is as good as winning it
I read this hand through twice just to make sure i had read it right. The raise with QQ is standard and does not really mean much. Our range for raising here is pretty much any 2 cards and the BB knows this. The BB then 3-bets into us, and we flat call. That is a shocking call and i would favour a reraise at this point. So now the flop comes down and we have no idea about what cards the BB is playing and they fire out a half pot c-bet and again we flat call. Were we only looking for a Q to hit to take control of this pot or were we just hoping that our overpair was good. When the turn comes down we have no idea where we are and the pot is building quite large now. We are now faced with a decision which could be for our entire stack at this point and we have no idea where we stand. We have played the hand very badly up to this point by continually answering questions and never asking any of our own. I think for me the answer is to fold and promise to shoot myself if i ever play a hand that badly again.
I'd hate to fold Queens on this board. I probably minimum raise and get out of the way if I meet any resistance. If he flat calls, he probably checks the river if it comes a blank. I can check behind and see what was going on.
In Response to Re: Master Cash 19/12/09 - Make Your Play ONE : So you are telling me that your play has gone full circle back to a calling station? you're just gonna call someone who tripple barrels you with second pair? I hope i never get that good. I understand that you are gonna get agro players who are happy to keep betting with air and the optimal way to get money is just to keep calling but this is not the optimal way to play poker full stop. Sometimes a re-raise on the flop will save you a lot of money. And my thinking is that saving money is as good as winning it Posted by salazar
Guess what *SHOCK HORROR* against habitual bluffers being a calling station is probably the optimal strategy.
EDIT: and blanket arbitrary statements like "saving money is as good as winning it" aren't really a counter to alot of the stuff said by the side i'm on in this argument (especially offshoot).
I don't see how its even an argument, it's standard reasoning, if villain is barreling alot should we
a) call down lighter: to give him more chances to bluff b) raise: raise out all the hands that we beat that would have barreled or get re-raise bluffed or get called and have no idea where we are in a now massive pot that we can't control.
It's madness i tells ya! MADNESS!
Also, tikay, could you elaborate a little on who you feel is an ex-baller?
I tried but couldn't think of any, maybe Boosted J, but I think he still plays 2kNL
In Response to Re: Master Cash 19/12/09 - Make Your Play ONE : So you are telling me that your play has gone full circle back to a calling station? you're just gonna call someone who tripple barrels you with second pair? I hope i never get that good. I understand that you are gonna get agro players who are happy to keep betting with air and the optimal way to get money is just to keep calling but this is not the optimal way to play poker full stop. Sometimes a re-raise on the flop will save you a lot of money. And my thinking is that saving money is as good as winning it Posted by salazar
there are obviously 2 sides here
your taking this as if it is the style we would play every hand exactly, obv gonna make sure our range is balanced in these spots... that way a good villain is obv gonna be less aware of what we have and less likely to bluff on later streets.
I also get the impression you feel like just because we call behind here that we would end up stacking off on the river, not sure if im right but part of what offshoot was saying that if we smooth call and they proceed on later streets you would prob lay it down as it would be far less likely they were running a bluff.
maybe you should look at someone like phil galfond play ( OMGCLAYAIKEN) he emphasises and displays this style alot and is def 1 of the best players out there.
Comments
1. u lose value from your opponents bluffing range
2. u open yourself to 4 bet semi bluffs that you have to fold to
3. lose pot control, so villains value range (which is ahead) extracts more value from the increased pot size-
4. you lose value from the hands that you fold out which vilain would check call the river
loads more reasons but i cant think.....
Hugo Im sure u probably know what ur on about, and make good points, but I really cnt get on with some of the terminology you use. Its the same with ladyfingers sometimes.
This bluffing range, ev, value, value range, fold equity etc etc,
I must understand what these all are, and now how to apply them, but reading replies riddled with these sort of abbreviations and technical terms, just makes my head spin.
Cud u use examples of each when u are discussing a hand - related to the hand in question of course, or maybe ur own examples.
Only ever read 1 poker book so these terms just send me dizzy.
DOHH
Call from BB - expected.
flop....
Check to the raiser....standard....
Button raiser bets...standard.....
Now the hand starts.....The BB re raises, out of position.....
Is he asking me a question, does he have it?
I ask him if hes asking me a question, therefore answering his question with one of my own....and of course, he gives me an answer....
Happened about an hour ago....The key thing everytime, is position!
DOHH
fair enough sorry its just force of habbit and genuinely prevents longwinded sentences.
without individually explaining each term (i think google or wikipedia will help there) i will try and explain in simple terms why many people don't advocate the term 'asking a question'.
NLH and cards in general is very mathmatical and you need to make OPTIMAL plays to maximise your winnings, with complete information(nye on impossible unless you cheat) there will always be an optimal play.
Therefore a bet that 'asks a question' can not be optimal as there is a right and wrong play depending on opponents whole cards, and this is where opponents hand RANGES come into it, you need to make the optimal play against the whole range of hands your opponent might have.
Take your example, the range of hands villain check raises the flop with would be 66 -77- 88- 99 -10,9- 10,8 - K 10- A,10- various draws, total air, the nuts!...etc etc etc HAND RANGES ARE VERY VILLAIN DEPENDANT SO IT IS YOUR ASSESSMENT OF EACH PLAYER AND THE KNOWLEDGE YOU HAVE OBTAINED PREVIOUSLY THAT FORMULATES THEIR RANGE
so in your example alot of the hands villain will check raise the flop with, he will then fold your 4bet, making it the correct/optimal play to bluff them wether that be by smooth calling the reraise and taking it on the turn, or by raising there and then (as you did) YOU DECIDE WHAT IS OPTIMAL FOR MAX PROFIT.
SO HAVING READ THIS-
refer back to my last post-
1. u lose value from your opponents bluffing range
The range of hands villain will continue bluffing with that you can beat- not applicable in your example as you are on a total bluff.
2. u open yourself to 4 bet semi bluffs that you have to fold to
in your example villain may have K Q (OESD) and shove back at you which would mean you have to fold almost all of your own range. and in this case definately your A 4.
3. lose pot control, so villains value range (which is ahead) extracts more value from the increased pot size
Say you have a hand like K J (top pair) and you only smooth call the bet, the pot is say £30 then villains value bet on the river if he bet 2/3 pot would be £20. if instead you reraise to ask a question, the pot would be more like £60 so his river value bet of 2/3 the pot would be more like £40.
4. you lose value from the hands that you fold out which vilain would check call the river
say again you had a hand like K J (top pair) if you reraise villain will have to fold hands like middle pair and many 1p hands that he would have called a v-bet on the river with. so you miss optimum value.
This is a long post sorry x
5) We turn our range face up when we raise the flop. ie in a HU cash game, i'll be defaulting to c/c-ing a K72r board with everything from A high to KQ which means I can get to showdown alot cheaper OOP. But when someone raises the flop to "find out where they are" it is, by definition, because they have a marginal hand.
6) We fold out hands that we were beating that would have paid us off on subsequent streets.
7) We inflate the pot and decrease the stack:pot ratio, which will increase his bluffing frequency, when our plan is to raise/fold.
8) You get enough information from later streets.
Why are you all so frightened to play 3 streets of poker? If the guy is double barreling alot, and we've been folding to alot, then call-call-fold, if he's been 3 barreling, call-call-call. You're all so desperate to know for certain (which is impossible to do) that you are destroying the value that you get from aggressive players that are IP and are probably getting owned alot when you are r/f or b/f middle pair etc. Sure sometimes he'll have the nuts, and somethimes he'll be bluffing, you're job as poker players in these situations is to figure out if he's agressive enough to have a bluff enough to make a call profitable on every street.
Oh, almost forgot,
r/f QQ is awful because we are turning a hand that plays great vs their 3b range into part of our bluffing range, which, for fairly obvious reasons, is dreadful.
when you raise to find out where youre at they either...
call: you still have no idea whether you have the best hand but now are involved in a much bigger pot with a marginal hand.
fold: ok you found out you had the best hand, unfortunately you just lost all hope of getting money from weaker hands.
raise: well ok they have a better hand, or a draw, or they saw that when we raised we were representing a much stronger hand that were less likely to have so they bluffed us, so we really still dont know where were at, and the worst thing...we had to put in more chips just for the privelidge of finding out were behind.
It seems like its born out of not wanting to get bluffed on later streets or because calling makes our hand look weak, but does it really? think of all the times you flat call with big hands and your opponent doesnt try and double barrell you of a hand. I mean you get just as much information calling and seeing what youre opponent does on later streets as you do raising yet its cheaper.
So you are telling me that your play has gone full circle back to a calling station? you're just gonna call someone who tripple barrels you with second pair? I hope i never get that good.
I understand that you are gonna get agro players who are happy to keep betting with air and the optimal way to get money is just to keep calling but this is not the optimal way to play poker full stop. Sometimes a re-raise on the flop will save you a lot of money. And my thinking is that saving money is as good as winning it
This really is excellent stuff, from "both sides".
I gotta go do a Show now, but I'd like to chime in later.
Keep it coming, & it's great to see a debate without it getting all feisty.
Not a bad shout Wilhelm....definately prefer a min raise to a call! At least you're showing strength!
DOHH
EDIT: and blanket arbitrary statements like "saving money is as good as winning it" aren't really a counter to alot of the stuff said by the side i'm on in this argument (especially offshoot).
I don't see how its even an argument, it's standard reasoning, if villain is barreling alot should we
a) call down lighter: to give him more chances to bluff
b) raise: raise out all the hands that we beat that would have barreled or get re-raise bluffed or get called and have no idea where we are in a now massive pot that we can't control.
It's madness i tells ya! MADNESS!
Also, tikay, could you elaborate a little on who you feel is an ex-baller?
I tried but couldn't think of any, maybe Boosted J, but I think he still plays 2kNL
your taking this as if it is the style we would play every hand exactly, obv gonna make sure our range is balanced in these spots... that way a good villain is obv gonna be less aware of what we have and less likely to bluff on later streets.
I also get the impression you feel like just because we call behind here that we would end up stacking off on the river, not sure if im right but part of what offshoot was saying that if we smooth call and they proceed on later streets you would prob lay it down as it would be far less likely they were running a bluff.
maybe you should look at someone like phil galfond play ( OMGCLAYAIKEN) he emphasises and displays this style alot and is def 1 of the best players out there.