In Response to Re: Disillusioned : ... huh? Posted by KAM99
Probably not as clear as I thought it was. We bet big to show we are strong can mean we are not folding. If our opponent has a small pair we give them great odds to set mine as we are saying we will stack off with our big pair. Same can be said for suited connectors and any other hand that is good against a big pair. Also we are turning our hand fairly face up which isn't good!
In Response to Re: Disillusioned : Probably not as clear as I thought it was. We bet big to show we are strong can mean we are not folding. If our opponent has a small pair we give them great odds to set mine as we are saying we will stack off with our big pair. Same can be said for suited connectors and any other hand that is good against a big pair. Also we are turning our hand fairly face up which isn't good! Posted by MattBates
this happened to me last night matt in the primo, some guy who thinks hes a superstar decided to start giving out verbal after he limp re raises in level 1 and im 150bbs deep and hes 100bbs deep, i know theres a decent chance hes doing this with AA but i take a flop with 88 and spike a set and end up stacking his AA. you think theres anything wrong with my play here cos i argued for ages with him?
he wouldnt be moaning if you missed, never understood why people complain in the chat box, main reason because he is wanting a call. its his choice after that too see if his aces are good are not.
In Response to Re: Disillusioned : this happened to me last night matt in the primo, some guy who thinks hes a superstar decided to start giving out verbal after he limp re raises in level 1 and im 150bbs deep and hes 100bbs deep, i know theres a decent chance hes doing this with AA but i take a flop with 88 and spike a set and end up stacking his AA. you think theres anything wrong with my play here cos i argued for ages with him? Posted by THEROCK573
Sounds fine, the good old limp re raise AA! Classic play!
What exactly was his argument against your play? Apart from I am said you beat my AA?
In Response to Re: Disillusioned : this happened to me last night matt in the primo, some guy who thinks hes a superstar decided to start giving out verbal after he limp re raises in level 1 and im 150bbs deep and hes 100bbs deep, i know theres a decent chance hes doing this with AA but i take a flop with 88 and spike a set and end up stacking his AA. you think theres anything wrong with my play here cos i argued for ages with him? Posted by THEROCK573
Why the heck would you argue with him? Only real fish limp/reraise preflop, as they literally turn their hand face up. Only thing you say to ones that get all pro in the chat box is to say, "You're right I suck, but I suck while holding your money. More please!" Then profit off their tilt.
In Response to Re: Disillusioned : Sounds fine, the good old limp re raise AA! Classic play! What exactly was his argument against your play? Apart from I am said you beat my AA? Posted by MattBates
his words were, " you stupid clown, you have just put 20% of ur stack in wen u know i have AA, my hands face up, learn to play donkey "
In Response to Re: Disillusioned : his words were, " you stupid clown, you have just put 20% of ur stack in wen u know i have AA, my hands face up, learn to play donkey " . Posted by THEROCK573
lol, so what hes saying is,
no one should call me. i have AA i want no action with my AA cause i know what im doing and how you should fold ....... unless of course u have the other AA
In Response to Re: Disillusioned : Why the heck would you argue with him? Only real fish limp/reraise preflop, as they literally turn their hand face up. Only thing you say to ones that get all pro in the chat box is to say, "You're right I suck, but I suck while holding your money. More please!" Then profit off their tilt. Posted by KAM99
because im not some shrinking violette who is gonna take s*** off some guy who thinks hes phil ivey. wasnt an argument more him ranting and me winding him up really.
In Response to Re: Disillusioned : lol, so what hes saying is, no one should call me. i have AA i want no action with my AA cause i know what im doing and how you should fold ....... unless of course u have the other AA Posted by Chris_Mc
basically he said i should fold because hes told me what he has by limp re raising, were still so deep though and if i hit my set im getting the lot, its not like im gonna go nuts with 88 on a 7 high board etc
In Response to Re: Disillusioned : because im not some shrinking violette who is gonna take s*** off some guy who thinks hes phil ivey. wasnt an argument more him ranting and me winding him up really. Posted by THEROCK573
That is different, and exactly what I said. I don't mind at all using their ego about how the game should be played to put them more on tilt and ship off more of their money. Long as you not defending yourself, as that is pointless. In other words, even if you are right, why make the fish smarter? Forums aside of course.
In Response to Re: Disillusioned : his words were, " you stupid clown, you have just put 20% of ur stack in wen u know i have AA, my hands face up, learn to play donkey " . Posted by THEROCK573
Well to be fair to him if you did put in 20% of your stack pre with 88 then it's a bad play since you won't flop a set enough times to make it profitable to do so. If you're putting in less than 10% of your stack pre then it's profitable to set-mine (against the correct opponents) 14% is the BE point but only if we know for absolute certain that villain has AA and we'll get his stack every time. So it's accepted as 10% to be +ev because it's rare we will know for certain that villain has AA and will go broke.
In Response to Re: Disillusioned : Well to be fair to him if you did put in 20% of your stack pre with 88 then it's a bad play since you won't flop a set enough times to make it profitable to do so. If you're putting in less than 10% of your stack pre then it's profitable to set-mine (against the correct opponents) 14% is the BE point but only if we know for absolute certain that villain has AA and we'll get his stack every time. So it's accepted as 10% to be +ev because it's rare we will know for certain that villain has AA and will go broke. Posted by F_Ivanovic
hows it a bad play, who says i have to flop a set to win the hand? people limp re raise with AK and AQ, ive even seen people do it with kx hands. i stand by my play
In Response to Re: Disillusioned : Well to be fair to him if you did put in 20% of your stack pre with 88 then it's a bad play since you won't flop a set enough times to make it profitable to do so. If you're putting in less than 10% of your stack pre then it's profitable to set-mine (against the correct opponents) 14% is the BE point but only if we know for absolute certain that villain has AA and we'll get his stack every time. So it's accepted as 10% to be +ev because it's rare we will know for certain that villain has AA and will go broke. Posted by F_Ivanovic
it was me with the AA and your explanation was my thinking exactly.
PS sorry for b1tching rock its your doe and the way you play is up to you!
In Response to Re: Disillusioned : hows it a bad play, who says i have to flop a set to win the hand? people limp re raise with AK and AQ, ive even seen people do it with kx hands. i stand by my play Posted by THEROCK573
Read back what you said:
were still so deep though and if i hit my set im getting the lot, its not like im gonna go nuts with 88 on a 7 high board etc
The bit in bold implies that you think villain must have AA/KK and that you'll get the lot post-flop. Because if he's capable of having other hands you're not guaranteed to get paid when you do hit a set.
Next sentance you said you're not going to go nuts on a 7 high board but what does that mean? That you'll just fold any flop you don't hit a set? Or call one street and then fold to further aggression? With 20% of your stack in pre the SPR is really small (2) and there is hardly any room for post-flop manoevarilty. A c-bet on the larger side is going to be committing and you need to really decide on the flop if your hand is good. If we assume villai is limp/re-raising with TT+ and AK. (the fact you've seen some people limp/3bet with AQ and Kx hands aswell is irrelevant unless we have reads on this player doing so - we tend to just go on avg population and most people's limp/r-r range is even stronger than this)
But anyway vs that range we have 31.34% which doesn't change much on a random flop of 3 cards (excl A or K when our equity is even worse) This means that we're putting money in pre-flop as a 31% eq fave and then folding anyway post-flop the majority of the time or getting it in with 31% equity (which clearly isn't very good)
Now, if you have reason to believe villain can be wider and has hands like AJ/AQ and KT+: Pre-flop we have 46.32% equity against that range. Suppose we shove and villain calls with every hand - 46.32% equity and no fold equity clearly isn't good enough. Now suppose he calls half his AQ combos and all TT+ and AK but folds the rest. That's 60 combos that villain will call with and 72 combos that he folds. So 55% of the time villain folds and we pick up about 22% (accounting roughly for blinds) of our stack. He will call though 45% of the time where we only have 31.4% equity. Meaning we lose about 37% of our stack on average. 22% gain is less than 37% loss making shoving pre-flop a bad play. EDIT: I made a mistake here because he will be folding more times than calling. But it's not by much and without calculation it would still be at least a 10% losing play.
So our options are to call/fold. If we call then we have to navigate post-flop with an SPR of 2 and without the betting lead. If flop is 9 high and villain is c-betting all of his hands then we have 53% equity and can get it in. If it's 10 high we have 42.5% equity and getting it in becomes very marginal even if villain is c-betting every hand and J high then we have 32.75% equity and GII becomes clearly bad. Not too sure what the chances are of 9 high flops through to J high flops and higher are but I don't need to for you to see that calling is still bad. Sometimes we can get it in on the flop and it be profitable, but not by much at all. And the rest of the time we have to fold or we'll be making more mistakes post-flop by continuing.
You can stand by your play all your like. Your a winning player so the rest of your game is obv v good but this is a leak. All of us have them and it's only by acknowledging that something in your game is a leak that you can improve and become even better.
In Response to Re: Disillusioned : Read back what you said: The bit in bold implies that you think villain must have AA/KK and that you'll get the lot post-flop. Because if he's capable of having other hands you're not guaranteed to get paid when you do hit a set. Next sentance you said you're not going to go nuts on a 7 high board but what does that mean? That you'll just fold any flop you don't hit a set? Or call one street and then fold to further aggression? With 20% of your stack in pre the SPR is really small (2) and there is hardly any room for post-flop manoevarilty. A c-bet on the larger side is going to be committing and you need to really decide on the flop if your hand is good. If we assume villai is limp/re-raising with TT+ and AK. (the fact you've seen some people limp/3bet with AQ and Kx hands aswell is irrelevant unless we have reads on this player doing so - we tend to just go on avg population and most people's limp/r-r range is even stronger than this) But anyway vs that range we have 31.34% which doesn't change much on a random flop of 3 cards (excl A or K when our equity is even worse) This means that we're putting money in pre-flop as a 31% eq fave and then folding anyway post-flop the majority of the time or getting it in with 31% equity (which clearly isn't very good) Now, if you have reason to believe villain can be wider and has hands like AJ/AQ and KT+: Pre-flop we have 46.32% equity against that range. Suppose we shove and villain calls with every hand - 46.32% equity and no fold equity clearly isn't good enough. Now suppose he calls half his AQ combos and all TT+ and AK but folds the rest. That's 60 combos that villain will call with and 72 combos that he folds. So 55% of the time villain folds and we pick up about 22% (accounting roughly for blinds) of our stack. He will call though 45% of the time where we only have 31.4% equity. Meaning we lose about 37% of our stack on average. 22% gain is less than 37% loss making shoving pre-flop a bad play. EDIT: I made a mistake here because he will be folding more times than calling. But it's not by much and without calculation it would still be at least a 10% losing play. So our options are to call/fold. If we call then we have to navigate post-flop with an SPR of 2 and without the betting lead. If flop is 9 high and villain is c-betting all of his hands then we have 53% equity and can get it in. If it's 10 high we have 42.5% equity and getting it in becomes very marginal even if villain is c-betting every hand and J high then we have 32.75% equity and GII becomes clearly bad. Not too sure what the chances are of 9 high flops through to J high flops and higher are but I don't need to for you to see that calling is still bad. Sometimes we can get it in on the flop and it be profitable, but not by much at all. And the rest of the time we have to fold or we'll be making more mistakes post-flop by continuing. You can stand by your play all your like. Your a winning player so the rest of your game is obv v good but this is a leak. All of us have them and it's only by acknowledging that something in your game is a leak that you can improve and become even better. Posted by F_Ivanovic
ok thats well explained although a little over my head, i left school with an F in maths so its never been my strong point :-). i understand basic pot odds etc but i do well in tournamets without being this clued up on the maths side of the game so ive never really learned it properly. just say for instance he is only ever doing this with QQ,KK,AA, do i not have implied odds if i stack him every time he makes this play or is it still a losing play?
also another part of my call was that people who limp raise premiums is a pet hate of mine so if he is doing it with AA i wanna doo them, dont know why i just doo, i get a lot of satisfaction from it, maybe a bit silly and stubborn but its just a game after all and i have more money than sence, ha
In Response to Re: Disillusioned : ok thats well explained although a little over my head, i left school with an F in maths so its never been my strong point :-). i understand basic pot odds etc but i do well in tournamets without being this clued up on the maths side of the game so ive never really learned it properly. just say for instance he is only ever doing this with QQ,KK,AA, do i not have implied odds if i stack him every time he makes this play or is it still a losing play? also another part of my call was that people who limp raise premiums is a pet hate of mine so if he is doing it with AA i wanna doo them, dont know why i just doo, i get a lot of satisfaction from it, maybe a bit silly and stubborn but its just a game after all and i have more money than sence, ha Posted by THEROCK573
How can you possibly have implied odds in this spot!!! you are effectively calling for 2 outs 82/18%, the pot would have to offer at least 5 to 1 to be a profitable play. If there were more players in the pot then deffo see the flop, but my pot bet got rid of everyone but you .
Just for the record there are only 3 hands id risk this play with AA KK and 72off lol
In Response to Re: Disillusioned : hows it a bad play, who says i have to flop a set to win the hand? people limp re raise with AK and AQ, ive even seen people do it with kx hands. i stand by my play Posted by THEROCK573
If you read me for AX then rather than flatting a re-ship would have been better IMO
In Response to Re: Disillusioned : How can you possibly have implied odds in this spot!!! you are effectively calling for 2 outs 82/18%, the pot would have to offer at least 5 to 1 to be a profitable play. If there were more players in the pot then deffo see the flop, but my pot bet got rid of everyone but you . Just for the record there are only 3 hands id risk this play with AA KK and 72off lol Posted by robert369
like i just said maths is not my strong point thats why i asked the question, id still welcome you at my table though every day of the week, remove the lock on your stats superstar!!! and ive never played you before until this so your limp raising range could be far wider than AA,KK,QQ AND the mighty 72
Comments
What exactly was his argument against your play? Apart from I am said you beat my AA?
.
it was me with the AA and your explanation was my thinking exactly.