i do agree with your above statement, and yes over time you would/could/should be profitable. what i am saying its the manor in which it is down. "you dont go rabbit shotting with a machine gun"
I have tried to remove 60/40 flips from my game. I agree that a shove here does have the potential to be profitable over time, but I dont agree that we have to take this route.
I think its a tad cavalier making these spots auto stack offs. To just blindly forge ahead and be happy getting it in here is reckless IMO.
Sure we can do it. But we dont have to is my point. I'm not saying I fold either. It would be dynamic/stack dependant. But I would rather keep this pot managable and under my control. Just as jamming here is potentially profitable, an argument can easily be made for keeping it multiway and filling up on value then extrecting value from the field, but equally losing the min vs opponents who wont even considor folding when not filling. So we trade the marginal edge getting it on flop vs maybe 1 opponent with made flush, Ah or Kh, for the significant value of keeping it multiway managing the pot with 3/1 to fillup. Both lines being profitable.
Am simply advocating that we dont have to get it in when we flop a set on such a threatening board limped multiway.
Jesus Christ, how has this thread got so many posts you have the **** NUTS DON on that flop get your stack in the middle for Christ sake....
Amy seriously people DO NOT think at this level they barely look at their own hand, they load up their 2/4 quid, limp EVERY hand and basically generate rake for Sky Poker, I'll just reiterate they DO NOT think, and one more time they DO NOT think, phew.
i think nl 4 sounds very scarey. i think i would rather play dym and the thought of that makes me gag x Posted by pod1
I love this.
Why would you want to play GOOD players who KNOW how to play and can 3bet you light pre, float you, basically out play you. If I could play the same players at NL4 but for NL100 stakes I would be in heaven.
hehe, your right. your arguement falls down though at the point that you think players at nl30 are much better than those at nl4. sat there for 3 hrs today on 1 table (other things going on as well) and i had over a dozen players sit down with between £3 and £9.99. for about an hour myself and haidyboy were the only 2 players with full stacks. ok i only made £80 on that table in a long period of time but i think it woulda taken a tad longer at nl4!
Jesus Christ, how has this thread got so many posts you have the **** NUTS DON on that flop get your stack in the middle for Christ sake.... Amy seriously people DO NOT think at this level they barely look at their own hand, they load up their 2/4 quid, limp EVERY hand and basically generate rake for Sky Poker, I'll just reiterate they DO NOT think, and one more time they DO NOT think, phew. Posted by Dudeskin8
Exactly and thats my point. If you think this is a good spot to go allin vs multiple opponents who'll call that bet with raggy hearts then be my guest. The math is very bad. Plus don doesnt even have the best hand here, and when he does he only has a 12% edgefor a hugely disproportionate pot when called.
In Response to Re: Massive pot. Limped pre. Monotone flop and turn with set. Played correctly. : Exactly and thats my point. If you think this is a good spot to go allin vs multiple opponents who'll call that bet with raggy hearts then be my guest. The math is very bad. Plus don doesnt even have the best hand here, and when he does he only has a 10% for a hugely disproportionate pot when called. Posted by AMYBR
You keep saying this, and I really don't understand.
Were getting better than even money, and we're odds on to win the hand.
hehe, your right. your arguement falls down though at the point that you think players at nl30 are much better than those at nl4. sat there for 3 hrs today on 1 table (other things going on as well) and i had over a dozen players sit down with between £3 and £9.99. for about an hour myself and haidyboy were the only 2 players with full stacks. ok i only made £80 on that table in a long period of time but i think it woulda taken a tad longer at nl4! Posted by pod1
Well that's fairly obvious with the vast difference in stakes but doesn't mean players at NL4 are any worse than NL30 and they would probably do the same hoovering up of shorties sat with £1-2 stacks with the same if not better efficency as you.
In Response to Re: Massive pot. Limped pre. Monotone flop and turn with set. Played correctly. : Exactly and thats my point. If you think this is a good spot to go allin vs multiple opponents who'll call that bet with raggy hearts then be my guest. The math is very bad. Plus don doesnt even have the best hand here, and when he does he only has a 10% for a hugely disproportionate pot when called. Posted by AMYBR
Results orientated poker FTW wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
In Response to Re: Massive pot. Limped pre. Monotone flop and turn with set. Played correctly. : You keep saying this, and I really don't understand. Were getting better than even money, and we're odds on to win the hand. How is this bad? Posted by DOHHHHHHH
I did type this out in detail but wouldnt go up.
So to simplify: Pot size and stacksize vs likely equity in hand when called aiof. Were generating a huge pot with 1 BB invested when a stacked caller can have as much as 39.6% equity in the hand (that we know are hugely unlikely to fold). Plus we are also dealing with a variety of stack sizes that have left themselves very little FE.
Dont now about you but I'm not happy shifting 100+ bigs across the line with 1bb invested with a 10% edge
In Response to Re: Massive pot. Limped pre. Monotone flop and turn with set. Played correctly. : I did type this out in detail but wouldnt go up. So to simplify: Pot size and stacksize vs likely equity in hand when called aiof. Were generating a huge pot with 1 BB invested when a stacked caller can have as much as 39.6% equity in the hand (that we know are hugely unlikely to fold). Plus we are also dealing with a variety of stack sizes that have left themselves very little FE. Dont now about you but I'm not happy shifting 100+ bigs across the line with 1bb invested with a 10% edge Posted by AMYBR
Why? It's not a tournament, we shouldn't be risk averse in +ev spots, assuming we're playing within our bankroll.
In Response to Re: Massive pot. Limped pre. Monotone flop and turn with set. Played correctly. : I did type this out in detail but wouldnt go up. So to simplify: Pot size and stacksize vs likely equity in hand when called aiof. Were generating a huge pot with 1 BB invested when a stacked caller can have as much as 39.6% equity in the hand (that we know are hugely unlikely to fold). Plus we are also dealing with a variety of stack sizes that have left themselves very little FE. Dont now about you but I'm not happy shifting 100+ bigs across the line with 1bb invested with a 10% edge Posted by AMYBR
You have a set on the flop and you are wanting to fold, do you only get it in with the nuts ?
When did I say I'd fold? I never said that, I said we shouldnt be so cavalier about making this an auto stack off given our investment and likely equity of opponents calling range.
I actually said that I'd take a reserved line looking to fillup on value multiway and extract value from the field when filling up.
If we were playing against opponents that could fold a flush draw I would be looking to be seriously more aggro, but they wont, so whats the point?
Doh, yes I agree it is slightly risk averse. But tat is a large slice of my game. There alot of easier spots than this. I've never advocated fold. I've advocated caution. We get it in on flop here were likely 60/40 or <30/70. We dont have to make this a huge pot. Am happy letting a card come off at these stakes as we are likely calling when getting 3bet jammed on. We can protect our hand at turn when fields odds are halved while giving ourselves a chance to improve cheaply and gaining value from the other 4 seats.
I personally dont like getting the money in on flop. I'm not saying its wrong. Am simply saying there are numerous ways to skin a cat while managing variance.
I think most of you guys are giving these players at NL4 too much credit. Looks like you applying your own limit thinking to this kind of situation.
Up the limits you can play with caution and but in all honestly playing passive on this flop with a set seems like bad play.
You could play it looking for a safe turn card and maybe it's a more safe route looking for a better percentage spot. But if a safe card comes how do you get all the money in the middle from a draw when infact you will have to play the turn passive. The guy with the big heart draw will sureley get it in on the flop with better odds than go ahead on turn faciing a chunky bet. The bet you make on the turn in itself will have to extract some value and make it marginal enough so they call, you want them to call right? Your not giving away free river cards are you. So maybe we are beat already but hey we are only taking ourselves to value town on river or on flop either you play it right ?
amybr if you tell me what you think a realistic range for the villain is i'll stove it, but we have absolutely huge equity against a range of flushes/bottom set/2 pair/ pair + fd/nfd etc.
if we assume that you are correct and don has 60% equity, then to not want to get stacks in when he's going to be getting much much better than evens on his money is just stupid imo
Am simply talking about managing variance vs a host of players who have no intention of folding a flush draw. We dont know that they all have a heart, it being NL4 they are all likely going nuts with random junk. Never said I'd fold, never said I wouldnt get it allin. Am simply saying that If I can keep this pot small and under control I would choose to do so, extracting value from the multiway field when filling cheap, rather than recklessly getting it in 60/40 against cowboys. Plus being a 5 handed limped flop its cavalier to assume we instantly have the best hand, not being in favour of clicking and praying to fill.
I've just jumped in half way through, but I've noticed you've said a couple of times 'clicking and praying to fill', I think the point here, is that 90% of the time we don't NEED to fill, we've already got the winning hand, so you're not looking at 'are you getting pot odds to fill up?'
Comments
I have tried to remove 60/40 flips from my game. I agree that a shove here does have the potential to be profitable over time, but I dont agree that we have to take this route.
I think its a tad cavalier making these spots auto stack offs. To just blindly forge ahead and be happy getting it in here is reckless IMO.
Sure we can do it. But we dont have to is my point. I'm not saying I fold either. It would be dynamic/stack dependant. But I would rather keep this pot managable and under my control. Just as jamming here is potentially profitable, an argument can easily be made for keeping it multiway and filling up on value then extrecting value from the field, but equally losing the min vs opponents who wont even considor folding when not filling. So we trade the marginal edge getting it on flop vs maybe 1 opponent with made flush, Ah or Kh, for the significant value of keeping it multiway managing the pot with 3/1 to fillup. Both lines being profitable.
Am simply advocating that we dont have to get it in when we flop a set on such a threatening board limped multiway.
Amy seriously people DO NOT think at this level they barely look at their own hand, they load up their 2/4 quid, limp EVERY hand and basically generate rake for Sky Poker, I'll just reiterate they DO NOT think, and one more time they DO NOT think, phew.
Why would you want to play GOOD players who KNOW how to play and can 3bet you light pre, float you, basically out play you. If I could play the same players at NL4 but for NL100 stakes I would be in heaven.
Exactly and thats my point. If you think this is a good spot to go allin vs multiple opponents who'll call that bet with raggy hearts then be my guest. The math is very bad. Plus don doesnt even have the best hand here, and when he does he only has a 12% edgefor a hugely disproportionate pot when called.
So to simplify: Pot size and stacksize vs likely equity in hand when called aiof. Were generating a huge pot with 1 BB invested when a stacked caller can have as much as 39.6% equity in the hand (that we know are hugely unlikely to fold). Plus we are also dealing with a variety of stack sizes that have left themselves very little FE.
Dont now about you but I'm not happy shifting 100+ bigs across the line with 1bb invested with a 10% edge
I actually said that I'd take a reserved line looking to fillup on value multiway and extract value from the field when filling up.
If we were playing against opponents that could fold a flush draw I would be looking to be seriously more aggro, but they wont, so whats the point?
Doh, yes I agree it is slightly risk averse. But tat is a large slice of my game. There alot of easier spots than this. I've never advocated fold. I've advocated caution. We get it in on flop here were likely 60/40 or <30/70. We dont have to make this a huge pot. Am happy letting a card come off at these stakes as we are likely calling when getting 3bet jammed on. We can protect our hand at turn when fields odds are halved while giving ourselves a chance to improve cheaply and gaining value from the other 4 seats.
I personally dont like getting the money in on flop. I'm not saying its wrong. Am simply saying there are numerous ways to skin a cat while managing variance.
shoving on flop all day, folding to turn
your odds are slightly better of hitting full house if you shove flop and get called by ready made flush.
get it in on flop save the hastle
Looks like you applying your own limit thinking to this kind of situation.
Up the limits you can play with caution and but in all honestly playing passive on this flop
with a set seems like bad play.
You could play it looking for a safe turn card and maybe it's a more safe route looking for a better percentage spot.
But if a safe card comes how do you get all the money in the middle from a draw when infact you
will have to play the turn passive. The guy with the big heart draw will sureley get it in on the flop with better odds than go ahead on turn faciing a chunky bet. The bet you make on the turn in itself will have to extract some value and make it marginal enough so they call, you want them to call right? Your not giving away free river cards are you. So maybe we are beat already but hey we are only taking ourselves to value town on river or on flop either you play it right ?
Heart come on turn, are we c/f this spot ?
if we assume that you are correct and don has 60% equity, then to not want to get stacks in when he's going to be getting much much better than evens on his money is just stupid imo