How about if you can make the call 80 times when you are ahead, and fold the 20 times when he has the nuts. Pefection? ........Is this possible? More realistically, 'over time' - make the call 900,000 times, including the 800,000 times you have him beat, and 100,000 times when you are behind - hence saving 100,000 tournaments. Again, if it is possible to make the perfect decision every single time, then why not aim to do so? Posted by DOHHHHHHH
'you dont know what to do in the hand above'
yet you want to always make the perfect decision.
you wont always make the perfect decision so instead just try and make +ev/winning decisions/the best decision you can make.
as yb said and i've said before you are way too results orientated.
and of course equity/ranges applies to tournaments aswell you just have to factor in how much you will cry if you bust out.
I wasnt at the table, dnt no who the player was, have never played with him before, so how can I say what I'd do - I'd be guessing if I gave a concrete answer as to what I'd do.
Id go with what I felt was best at the time.
And as long as the call, fold and raise buttons are all available to you and working, of course it's possible to make the perfect decision every time.
I wasnt at the table, dnt no who the player was, have never played with him before, so how can I say what I'd do - I'd be guessing if I gave a concrete answer as to what I'd do. Id go with what I felt was best at the time. And as long as the call, fold and raise buttons are all available to you and working, of course it's possible to make the perfect decision every time. Posted by DOHHHHHHH
the perfect = optimal decision does not always equal the 'results orientated thinking correct play'.
IF the +C$ev decisions come out as
raise/fold = -300
raise/call = +3500
if he has AA here and we raise call we have made 'the wrong play' in your eyes even though of our two options we 'have made the most optimal play'.
The fact we get it in bad vs AA is neither here nor there, nor is the result of whether we win or lose, if we get it in with AK vs AA and win have we 'made the perfect play'.
(edit, nb the numbers are completely picked out of the air and assume we are thinking about from our initial pf decision onwards, it's the point in general not the numbers for this spot that i'm trying to get across.)
In Response to Re: MTT Hand - Advice / Opinions Needed Please : the perfect = optimal decision does not always equal the 'results orientated thinking correct play'. IF the +C$ev decisions come out as raise/fold = -300 raise/call = +3500 if he has AA here and we raise call we have made 'the wrong play' in your eyes even though of our two options we 'have made the most optimal play'. The fact we get it in bad vs AA is neither here nor there, nor is the result of whether we win or lose, if we get it in with AK vs AA and win have we 'made the perfect play'. (edit, nb the numbers are completely picked out of the air and assume we are thinking about from our initial pf decision onwards, it's the point in general not the numbers for this spot that i'm trying to get across.) Posted by beaneh
No coz when the skill has ended, and the luck takes over, you have lost.
You can't control what happens after the skill ends, so don't worry about it, we have enough on worrying about things we can control.
Same as if I get it in with AA and am called by 23 pre flop, and it comes 2, 2, 2, 4, 5 - The result is a loss, but I played it perfect.
Im not results orientated in that respect, just about things I can control, ie, getting my money in good, or making right/wrong calls/folds.
In Response to Re: MTT Hand - Advice / Opinions Needed Please : No coz when the skill has ended, and the luck takes over, you have lost. You can't control what happens after the skill ends. Same as if I get it in with AA and am called by 23 pre flop, and it comes 2, 2, 2, 4, 5 - The result is a loss, but I played it perfect. Im not results orientated in that respect, just about things I can control, ie, getting my money in good, or making right/wrong folds. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diNshC6tP00 Posted by DOHHHHHHH
the skill ends before the cards are turned up so thinking about the specific hand they hold 'this time' is going to skew your thinking incorrectly. you're playing against a range of how they play this betting pattern not his hand this time.
that clip; is a) not pf so it's can be a dd spot, b) his oppo, who we haven't seen the previous few hours hands of, can never really be value raising worse so against his value range we have to fold but if there are a certain % of bluffs in his range then it may skew it to a call.
He's never folding that in a cash game tho is he surely.
Well I might make some folds, when I shud be calling, and lose money I should be winning, likewise I probably make hero calls when I should be folding, and making money I should be surrendering....
But when you add them together, it must work out as a positive method, as Im a winning player at all of my levels over a sustained period of time.
It works for me, and it has potential to get much better as I get better, whereas the "range over time thing" is just robotic and has v little scope for improvement. - Altho of course it will make you money over time.
If I played 6+ tables id prob have to change everything and learn it, but 2 tabling, give me instincts and feel for a table over a pokerstove any day.
Maybe i'll crash and be completely potless down the job centre by the time im 25, 1 way to find out.
Does the equity v oppos range still apply in mtts then? Surely not, as u have 1 life.....whereas in cash u have as many as u like. Surely it's even more important to get every single decision spot on? Therefore u need to put him on "A HAND" or at least a very specific range? - when there is play ofc, not at shove/fold time. Im no mtt specialist, but once I go deep (not bothered in the first hour, gamble/bust) - Im counting every chip and very protective of my stack, you gotta be in it to win it. I see some unbelievable folds in mtt's from like the main event and stuff - which ud never in a million years see in a cash game. Posted by DOHHHHHHH
So, in the late stages of a MTT, on a board of A-J-J-J-x, if your opponent bet 3k on the river into a pot of 59,000 would you potentially fold K-high (when you're 95% sure it's no good) to conserve chips...?
AT/KT/JT/QQ??? He's never folding that in a cash game tho is he surely. Well I might make some folds, when I shud be calling, and lose money I should be winning, likewise I probably make hero calls when I should be folding, and making money I should be surrendering.... But when you add them together, it must work out as a positive method, as Im a winning player at all of my levels over a sustained period of time. It works for me, and it has potential to get much better as I get better, whereas the "range over time thing" is just robotic and has v little scope for improvement. - Altho of course it will make you money over time. If I played 6+ tables id prob have to change everything and learn it, but 2 tabling, give me instincts and feel for a table over a pokerstove any day. Maybe i'll crash and be completely potless down the job centre by the time im 25, 1 way to find out. Posted by DOHHHHHHH
This isn't cash this is the WSOP, he has possibly played for hours/days with this dude and 'has dem reads yo'
One hand in isolation is not the mark of a player nor a sign of their skill.
If you are in a river spot and are going by your thinking you could well be folding a very high percentage of the time. Your strategy compared to a 'more robot, maths utlising strategy' where a call occurs more. May well 'be the face up correct play' 1/5 times over a small sample of say 50 river situations where 5 is the number of times we (you and the robots) make different decisions. Something like this could well leave you still as a winning player with a dramatically lower winrate. Fixing this one river spot would change your winrate significantly, realising that it's making changes like that to your game and thinking that can benefit you in tonnes of spots in the future is even more significant for your long term winrate/prospects.
It depends what I thought he had obviously - but I prefer a raise, im 99,9% sure im behind against any decent player, so a call wud be for information, and on the off-chance that he might just be a complete donk.
Im not sure if i'd ever find myself in such a grim situation, lol - and I don't think I wud ever not be sure about wether I had the best hand here or not.
I wud have it in my mind that either a) I believe I had the best hand - in that case I wud call, but Id be sure I was ahead, not 95% sure I was behind. This wud be the least likely read.
- or b) I was behind, and could I win the pot with a bluff.....
.......Unless villain has a history of leading weak to induce, or he had seen me exploit weakness previously on the table then....
I don't think I would ever call, but nor wud I fold - I might raise 40k and get him off his hand.
This hand is abit different, as it's such a miniscule decision (assuming there is still plenty of play left) its probably 1/2 big blinds, it's not gonna define my tournament if I lost it -
Also if we are still deep stacked, I don't mind making an information call to use to my advantage further down the line. (altho no doubt i'd get moved to another table v next hand, fml)
He's not value betting an ace, if he is, he's doing it very poorly. (hopefully id have some reads here)
He's definitely not value betting the jack.
I would put him on a hand including the 'x' - or on a pathetic steal attempt himself, and try to blast him out of the pot, with a raise (if there is room) or an overbet all in.
Its a confusing river bet, I dnt like calling, coz he cud be bluffing with a better hand than I have, the raise has more merit here imo.
It depends what I thought he had obviously - but I prefer a raise, im 99,9% sure im behind against any decent player, so a call wud be for information, and on the off-chance that he might just be a complete donk. Im not sure if i'd ever find myself in such a grim situation, lol - and I don't think I wud ever not be sure about wether I had the best hand here or not. I wud have it in my mind that either a) I believe I had the best hand - in that case I wud call, but Id be sure I was ahead, not 95% sure I was behind. This wud be the least likely read. - or b) I was behind, and could I win the pot with a bluff..... .......Unless villain has a history of leading weak to induce, or he had seen me exploit weakness previously on the table then.... I don't think I would ever call, but nor wud I fold - I might raise 40k and get him off his hand. This hand is abit different, as it's such a miniscule decision (assuming there is still plenty of play left) its probably 1/2 big blinds, it's not gonna define my tournament if I lost it - Also if we are still deep stacked, I don't mind making an information call to use to my advantage further down the line. (altho no doubt i'd get moved to another table v next hand, fml) He's not value betting an ace, if he is, he's doing it very poorly. (hopefully id have some reads here) He's definitely not value betting the jack. I would put him on a hand including the 'x' - or on a pathetic steal attempt himself, and try to blast him out of the pot, with a raise (if there is room) or an overbet all in. Its a confusing river bet, I dnt like calling, coz he cud be bluffing with a better hand than I have, the raise has more merit here imo. Gotta go ftw! Posted by DOHHHHHHH
Not much of this makes sense.
And the bits I could understand seem silly.
'if you think there is a good chance he could be bluffing you'll "raise him off his hand?!"
It depends what I thought he had obviously - but I prefer a raise, im 99,9% sure im behind against any decent player, so a call wud be for information, and on the off-chance that he might just be a complete donk. Im not sure if i'd ever find myself in such a grim situation, lol - and I don't think I wud ever not be sure about wether I had the best hand here or not. I wud have it in my mind that either a) I believe I had the best hand - in that case I wud call, but Id be sure I was ahead, not 95% sure I was behind. This wud be the least likely read. - or b) I was behind, and could I win the pot with a bluff..... .......Unless villain has a history of leading weak to induce, or he had seen me exploit weakness previously on the table then.... I don't think I would ever call, but nor wud I fold - I might raise 40k and get him off his hand. This hand is abit different, as it's such a miniscule decision (assuming there is still plenty of play left) its probably 1/2 big blinds, it's not gonna define my tournament if I lost it - Also if we are still deep stacked, I don't mind making an information call to use to my advantage further down the line. (altho no doubt i'd get moved to another table v next hand, fml) He's not value betting an ace, if he is, he's doing it very poorly. (hopefully id have some reads here) He's definitely not value betting the jack. I would put him on a hand including the 'x' - or on a pathetic steal attempt himself, and try to blast him out of the pot, with a raise (if there is room) or an overbet all in. Its a confusing river bet, I dnt like calling, coz he cud be bluffing with a better hand than I have, the raise has more merit here imo. Gotta go ftw! Posted by DOHHHHHHH
lol - you obviously don't remember that particular scenario, JJ.
Nice to see you approaching MTT strategy with a more "open" mindset than a year ago!!!
He can be bluffing with better hands than I have, he clearly doesnt want to check and face a raise from me - so he's tried to take my move away, done a really bad job of it, and if anything, encourage me to do exactly what he doesn't want me to do.
If I think he is bluffing, a raise should get through 100% of the time, unless we are deep enough for him to believe he still has fold equity, has me pegged on king high, and has the balls to call or re-shove all in on an insane bluff, in that case, vwp to him.
I wud feel sick if I made the call with king high for 3k into 59k and he showed me pocket 2's - one thing making the read, another thing acting on it, the latter being the easy bit.
Just raise, get him to fold, and muck the hand - simplez.
I have a hand from a long while ago, it's cash, but is similar to this hypothetical scenario - see if I can find it.
* Edit - lol! James, half way thru my initil reply, when I went back to re-read the question, It clicked! haha - made me laugh - and I admit it did make me alter my reply a tad to consider a call. lol busted, nice work. I was always gonna say raise tho.
Im sure u will agree here, the villain should be folding his hand on the turn - he has no fold equity.
But when he leads out, I know he has no hand - but I prefer the raise to the call - as it shud fold out hands such as 22/33 which he wud also be bluffing with.
V different to the other hand, its even better when your opponent convinces himself his King high cud be good, it;s why Im convinced that raising people who you believe to be bluffing is better than calling them.
looking at all the info available and the stage of the tourney, I see the guy as having a premium pair or ak at worst,you asked the question and got the info and folded correctly,any other move and you are just gambling with a coinflip at best I think you are behind here. good fold.
I personally would fold AK in this spot in an mtt as slow as this.
His range has been narrowed significantly by reraising you and the move is still not vital for him to make at this blind level. He may be getting lary with AQ but even so, I'd much prefer to sit and wait in a long structured mtt and commit to AK later on when the blinds are really biting.
I personally would fold AK in this spot in an mtt as slow as this. His range has been narrowed significantly by reraising you and the move is still not vital for him to make at this blind level. He may be getting lary with AQ but even so, I'd much prefer to sit and wait in a long structured mtt and commit to AK later on when the blinds are really biting. Posted by phil12uk
so does that mean you would just flat pre, or would you still 3bet?
In Response to Re: MTT Hand - Advice / Opinions Needed Please : so does that mean you would just flat pre, or would you still 3bet? Posted by SHANXTA
As played I would play it exactly as you did and fold to his re-reraise.
If you flatted pre, how would you then find out if ur hand is good without committing more chips than you have in this scenario? By flatting, you are simply passing the problem down to a later street. Your move has forced villain to show his potential hand strength and given you every answer needed to fold and move on.
In Response to Re: MTT Hand - Advice / Opinions Needed Please : As played I would play it exactly as you did and fold to his re-reraise. If you flatted pre, how would you then find out if ur hand is good without committing more chips than you have in this scenario? By flatting, you are simply passing the problem down to a later street. Your move has forced villain to show his potential hand strength and given you every answer needed to fold and move on. Posted by phil12uk
I agree with yb that a smaller three-bet would have been more effective. Something in the region of 1,025 still gets the villain to fold his weakish open-raising hands and makes it easier for you to fold AK to a shove (if you're that way inclined).
With his stack, he shouldn't be flatting a raise of that size, but, if he does, you're first to speak on the flop and can put him to the test!
Comments
I wasnt at the table, dnt no who the player was, have never played with him before, so how can I say what I'd do - I'd be guessing if I gave a concrete answer as to what I'd do.
Id go with what I felt was best at the time.
And as long as the call, fold and raise buttons are all available to you and working, of course it's possible to make the perfect decision every time.
You can't control what happens after the skill ends, so don't worry about it, we have enough on worrying about things we can control.
Same as if I get it in with AA and am called by 23 pre flop, and it comes 2, 2, 2, 4, 5 - The result is a loss, but I played it perfect.
Im not results orientated in that respect, just about things I can control, ie, getting my money in good, or making right/wrong calls/folds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diNshC6tP00
AT/KT/JT/QQ???
He's never folding that in a cash game tho is he surely.
Well I might make some folds, when I shud be calling, and lose money I should be winning, likewise I probably make hero calls when I should be folding, and making money I should be surrendering....
But when you add them together, it must work out as a positive method, as Im a winning player at all of my levels over a sustained period of time.
It works for me, and it has potential to get much better as I get better, whereas the "range over time thing" is just robotic and has v little scope for improvement. - Altho of course it will make you money over time.
If I played 6+ tables id prob have to change everything and learn it, but 2 tabling, give me instincts and feel for a table over a pokerstove any day.
Maybe i'll crash and be completely potless down the job centre by the time im 25, 1 way to find out.
It depends what I thought he had obviously - but I prefer a raise, im 99,9% sure im behind against any decent player, so a call wud be for information, and on the off-chance that he might just be a complete donk.
Im not sure if i'd ever find myself in such a grim situation, lol - and I don't think I wud ever not be sure about wether I had the best hand here or not.
I wud have it in my mind that either a) I believe I had the best hand - in that case I wud call, but Id be sure I was ahead, not 95% sure I was behind. This wud be the least likely read.
- or b) I was behind, and could I win the pot with a bluff.....
.......Unless villain has a history of leading weak to induce, or he had seen me exploit weakness previously on the table then....
I don't think I would ever call, but nor wud I fold - I might raise 40k and get him off his hand.
This hand is abit different, as it's such a miniscule decision (assuming there is still plenty of play left) its probably 1/2 big blinds, it's not gonna define my tournament if I lost it -
Also if we are still deep stacked, I don't mind making an information call to use to my advantage further down the line. (altho no doubt i'd get moved to another table v next hand, fml)
He's not value betting an ace, if he is, he's doing it very poorly. (hopefully id have some reads here)
He's definitely not value betting the jack.
I would put him on a hand including the 'x' - or on a pathetic steal attempt himself, and try to blast him out of the pot, with a raise (if there is room) or an overbet all in.
Its a confusing river bet, I dnt like calling, coz he cud be bluffing with a better hand than I have, the raise has more merit here imo.
Gotta go ftw!
He can be bluffing with better hands than I have, he clearly doesnt want to check and face a raise from me - so he's tried to take my move away, done a really bad job of it, and if anything, encourage me to do exactly what he doesn't want me to do.
If I think he is bluffing, a raise should get through 100% of the time, unless we are deep enough for him to believe he still has fold equity, has me pegged on king high, and has the balls to call or re-shove all in on an insane bluff, in that case, vwp to him.
I wud feel sick if I made the call with king high for 3k into 59k and he showed me pocket 2's - one thing making the read, another thing acting on it, the latter being the easy bit.
Just raise, get him to fold, and muck the hand - simplez.
I have a hand from a long while ago, it's cash, but is similar to this hypothetical scenario - see if I can find it.
* Edit - lol! James, half way thru my initil reply, when I went back to re-read the question, It clicked! haha - made me laugh - and I admit it did make me alter my reply a tad to consider a call. lol busted, nice work.
I was always gonna say raise tho.
But when he leads out, I know he has no hand - but I prefer the raise to the call - as it shud fold out hands such as 22/33 which he wud also be bluffing with.
V different to the other hand, its even better when your opponent convinces himself his King high cud be good, it;s why Im convinced that raising people who you believe to be bluffing is better than calling them.