In Response to Re: 1.5/3: Hero Call? : Calling is definitively bad imo, assuming he is bluffing. The only time you could just c/c is if you were both 300bb's deep and you didn't want to risk him rebluffing the river or hero calling Ahi as your line wouldnt make sense either. As it happens you had a limited risk shoving for an extra ~40bb's so no reason not to if he is bluffing. Bluffs you beat- 22-55. 6,2/6,3/6,4/6,5/5,4/6,8/5,8 Bluffs you don't beat- 10,6/Q,6/K,6/A,6/ 10,9 /A,K/A,Q/A,10- ALL FD's 10hi or more Bluffs that fold to a shove- ALL OF THE ABOVE Posted by pr1nnyraid
Well what played into my mind was a previous hand which was played similar but he led out the river when he hit a gutshot after missing his flush draw. I thought theres a good chance he can have a jack but i also beat a lot of his missed draws or counterfeited pairs.
He wasnt limping strong hands so already his range is a lot weaker and you can discount AJ+ probably and most likely KJ/KQ 99+.
The previous hand he had a flush draw and snap called two streets. So on the river im already assuming his hand is pretty weak. I think he folds complete air to the turn bet though so i dont expect to see a bare ace on the river much or something without any straight draws like QT or K9. I do expect him to have all straight and flush draws though still in his range and random 6's and maybe 55 or 44.
I think he checks back an ace on the river. His pot bet to me meant he had no showdown value or a jack so...
In Response to Re: 1.5/3: Hero Call? : In Response to Re: 1.5/3: Hero Call? : So on the river im already assuming his hand is pretty weak. Posted by offshoot
In Response to Re: 1.5/3: Hero Call? :Text results appended to pokerstove.txt 191 games 0.000 secs 38,200 games/sec Board: 6s 7s 7d Jc Jd Dead: equity win tie pots won pots tied Hand 0: 53.403% 45.55% 07.85% 87 15.00 { 9s8d } Hand 1: 46.597% 38.74% 07.85% 74 15.00 { 55-44, KsTs, Ks9s, Ks8s, K6s, QJs, QsTs, Qs9s, Qs8s, Qs6s, J8s+, J6s, T8s+, Ts6s, 98s, 96s-95s, 86s-85s, 63s+, 54s, 5s3s, 4s3s, K6o, QJo, J8o+, J6o, T8o+, 98o, 96o-95o, 86o-85o, 63o+, 54o } So its not bad. Just not the best play. Posted by offshoot
Just because its +EV doesnt mean its not bad..
open jamming AA for 100bb's is +EV but it's still bad because its not extracting as much value as it could. Apply the same principal to this hand and it should never be just a call.
Given your analysis of hand & villain it seems like this is a good spot to fire the riv.
In Response to Re: 1.5/3: Hero Call? : howcome you dont just bet river then? Posted by LOL_RAISE
Ive been wondering this myself. i think it was because i thought he might call with an ace or with 88-TT and obv a jack and if he checks it back my hand can still be good vs his straight draws and counterfeited pairs. Then when he instapots river the senses start tingling. In the time i had to think, which as you know is short. I decided to call. Obviously when i have time to look back on the hand i can probably remove 88-TT and it makes it easier to just bet again.
I have to re-iterate again i dont think i played this hand that well. I was merely trying to make the point that on the river a call is not terrible.
Your making out like im mining this forum for poker knowledge. Then you also go on to say that i didnt listen to any of the advice taken. I hope you see how ridiculous this sounds.
No one here is obligated to do anything. If people dont want to post in this thread they dont have to. Im not asking anyone for anything. Maybe i dont give advice because i dont feel qualified to? Maybe people have said what i would say anyway. Maybe none of this is very important.
Im sure youve got a point under all this hostility. I know youre very angry about something. But i dont know what it is. I dont really care though.
In Response to Re: 1.5/3: Hero Call? : Are all my posts hostile? When someone who plays infrequently posts a question do I flame them incessantly? This idiot OP who plays all the time, plays awfully and just hoovers up money from the 'I cant tie my shoes brigade' whilst thinking that qualifies him in anyway to class himself as a poker player. He then so kindly posts ridiculously stupid hand histories WITHOUT EVEN A LINE OF HIS OWN THOUGHTS OR DISCUSSION. THEN he gets given advice which is very good, and he says yeah but I called because I don't think about POKA. Do you people really think that winning regs should just post hands here for you people to tell them what you think (the same people they are playing against) whilst at the same time they have to INPUT ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Then when they get flamed you'd all rather say oh naughty language you horrible brute. It's inane. Posted by beaneh
Maybe i should re structure the post you are talking about.. which was essentially, "fair enough Beaneh has for his own reasons rightfully objected to this questionable 'strategy' post, but why do all these fanboys try and take the same stance as you just to get a cheap laugh or acknowledgement"
There is some credit and logic to what OP was trying to do but pretty flawed in the end.. imo he should have written 'misclick f*kkk!' in the chat bar and never talked about the hand ever again.
In Response to Re: 1.5/3: Hero Call? : Maybe i should re structure the post you are talking about.. which was essentially, "fair enough Beaneh has for his own reasons rightfully objected to this questionable 'strategy' post, but why do all these fanboys try and take the same stance as you just to get a cheap laugh or acknowledgement" There is some credit and logic to what OP was trying to do but pretty flawed in the end.. imo he should have written 'misclick f*kkk!' in the chat bar and never talked about the hand ever again. Posted by pr1nnyraid
What are you talking about, im clearly not backing beaneh or offshoot up. I tried to put a post that was meant to add a bit of light hearted humour onto a thread, simple. Clearly it hasnt been taken that way, although neither Offshoot or Beaneh have commented on it so either it was taken in the manner it was intended by them or just ingored as it wasnt, simple as that. Easy as pie.
In regards to the hand, the play by offshoot clearly has some thinking about it going by his stove results. In honesty the level on which its played on is above where i am abilitied to play. As a result i enjoy reading hands and will maybe put a viewpoint if i think i can add some constructive discussion. In this instance i was reading and tried to make the thread which i felt might easily get out of hand and put something lighthearted.
If you have any other issues regarding my post then pm me as i have no interest in this thread any more. Simply my comment has been taken out of context imo.
tbh have posted very little in last 6 months as most spots seem so automatic or situational that I either feel there is little to offer or am tired of setting out same advice.
But it just seems thats its easier to not reply than to just be rude for the sake of it. I really dont see the point of it. And lets be honest, this isnt the first time beaneh has taken the time to go out of his way just to be unpleasant to someone.
But at the same time an argument I've had with beaneh in the past lead to one of the best tweaks into my game. Obv the hand is ridiculous. But if he says its posted as a conversation stimulater (which is also something I tend to do) he really oughtnt to get too much hostility for it.
The discussion of the hand seems to have ended quite a while ago. I think it's best if this thread was allowed to die now. This "friendly banter" can continue elsewhere but this isn't clinic material anymore.
i like the hand to my intial thoughts were its a stright forward fold but reading through the arguments for shoving the river i found intresting. Thanks
I must admit I found the poker discussion in this thread very interesting. The fact that it might be possible to call a big bet on the river with 9 high clearly shows what can be achieved through thinking through all the options of what the villain has - ignoring one's own hand.
However when you bring into the equation your own hand, Mr Shoot, I cannot help but think of the corollary of the adage "don't raise if you have showdown value". i.e if you don't have showdown value, and you put the villain on a weak hand, you have to raise, or fold. On that basis, it cannot be a call. And yes, based on your thought process Mr Shoot, I guess you have to raise.
Don't usually post in here. But thought the hand was pretty interesting & dont get why everyones kicking off. I think this guy has counterfeited low pp's quite often in this spot when he limps in from the button calls a raise and flats the flop, turn is interesting cos alot of people fold small pp's here but some get stubborn. The big river bet would also consist with him being counterfeited and trying to steal the pot, shoving is prob better than calling tho but I actually don't mind the call (call me crazy).
Don't usually post in here. But thought the hand was pretty interesting & dont get why everyones kicking off. I think this guy has counterfeited low pp's quite often in this spot when he limps in from the button calls a raise and flats the flop, turn is interesting cos alot of people fold small pp's here but some get stubborn. The big river bet would also consist with him being counterfeited and trying to steal the pot, shoving is prob better than calling tho but I actually don't mind the call (call me crazy). Posted by lJAMESl
I still think there's just too much junk that beats us to just call. Admittedly I saw the player name originally and maybe that has tainted by reply a little by using my own reads on the player (My first thought was 'He's probably got something silly like T8').
Attempting to just use the reads Shoot has given us let's have a look at pre and and the river.
Pre: Players that limp the button and have this image very rarely fold when we raise from the blinds. Yes we are taking control of the hand and trying to represent strength for a later street, but we must consider the level of thinking our opponent is on. They may not be taking a blind bit of notice of what we are representing, they may, and I think this is the case here, be just looking at the spots on their cards. I'm not in love with the Iso OOP here but I'm sure I've done it plenty in similar spots so I'm not going to go caveman over it. But we can found ourselves in spots like this where we try to standard raise pre/C-bet take it down and then find ourselves shovelling more and more money to make the plan work when initially we were just trying to take down a few quid. In position my thoughts are a lot different obviously.
River: Against a thinking player this is an awful river to barrel, the board has run out so bad to continue that check/give up is the only option in many cases. The only hands that make sense are pocket 7s, pocket Jacks and some Jx hands. Well we're representing a little thin if all we represent are quads and boats. However let's go back to the thinking level of the opponent. If our reads are that they are strictly playing level 1 (their own cards and blind to our actions) then this is a condition to let us lead the river here. Of course we need to be putting them on low PPs and draws throughout the hand. Personally I would probably be putting in £90-£100 on the river to steal.
The downside to that is if they decide to bluff it'll be a shove and I'm folding, but I think he only pot bluffs the river because he is checked to. If we fire the river I think we get a bunch of folds.
Cliffs on river: 9/10 barrelling this river is burning money, this might be the exception.
Check/jam river as played? Our fold equity is dramatically reduced after he has potted it. Yes he more than likely folds now we know the hand but if we do jam we are getting nothing with any value off (Ace kicker and up). I'd prefer to at least fold out the bottom of hands he consider might have a chance of the win.
I still think there's just too much junk that beats us to just call. Admittedly I saw the player name originally and maybe that has tainted by reply a little by using my own reads on the player (My first thought was 'He's probably got something silly like T8'). Attempting to just use the reads Shoot has given us let's have a look at pre and and the river. Pre: Players that limp the button and have this image very rarely fold when we raise from the blinds. Yes we are taking control of the hand and trying to represent strength for a later street, but we must consider the level of thinking our opponent is on. They may not be taking a blind bit of notice of what we are representing, they may, and I think this is the case here, be just looking at the spots on their cards. I'm not in love with the Iso OOP here but I'm sure I've done it plenty in similar spots so I'm not going to go caveman over it. But we can found ourselves in spots like this where we try to standard raise pre/C-bet take it down and then find ourselves shovelling more and more money to make the plan work when initially we were just trying to take down a few quid. In position my thoughts are a lot different obviously. River: Against a thinking player this is an awful river to barrel, the board has run out so bad to continue that check/give up is the only option in many cases. The only hands that make sense are pocket 7s, pocket Jacks and some Jx hands. Well we're representing a little thin if all we represent are quads and boats. However let's go back to the thinking level of the opponent. If our reads are that they are strictly playing level 1 (their own cards and blind to our actions) then this is a condition to let us lead the river here. Of course we need to be putting them on low PPs and draws throughout the hand. Personally I would probably be putting in £90-£100 on the river to steal. The downside to that is if they decide to bluff it'll be a shove and I'm folding, but I think he only pot bluffs the river because he is checked to. If we fire the river I think we get a bunch of folds. Cliffs on river: 9/10 barrelling this river is burning money, this might be the exception. Check/jam river as played? Our fold equity is dramatically reduced after he has potted it. Yes he more than likely folds now we know the hand but if we do jam we are getting nothing with any value off (Ace kicker and up). I'd prefer to at least fold out the bottom of hands he consider might have a chance of the win. Posted by TommyD
Just to clarify, I didn't say I would of played it the same way through the streets, as I wouldn't of. I would of probably folded pre or completed the sb. But the title is 'Hero Call?' and thats what I'm responding too. Don't wanna over anaylse Offshoots play as everyone plays differently. This is what makes poker fun. Would be boring if we all played the same.
In Response to Re: 1.5/3: Hero Call? : Just to clarify, I didn't say I would of played it the same way through the streets, as I wouldn't of. I would of probably folded pre or completed the sb. But the title is 'Hero Call?' and thats what I'm responding too. Don't wanna over anaylse Offshoots play as everyone plays differently. This is what makes poker fun. Would be boring if we all played the same. Posted by lJAMESl
I know for sure you wouldn't have played the hand the same way James, my post wasn't in anyway being critical of your post. I posted my response to call or not waaaaay back in this thread, my latest post was just trying to expand on some key points in the hand for discussion.
To reiterate what I initially posted, I think we are good here a number of times but not enough to make the call against this player. They are bluffing a high amount of the time but we don't beat enough of them. Closer than it looks but not close enough IMO.
Comments
Posted by pr1nnyraid
Well what played into my mind was a previous hand which was played similar but he led out the river when he hit a gutshot after missing his flush draw. I thought theres a good chance he can have a jack but i also beat a lot of his missed draws or counterfeited pairs.
He wasnt limping strong hands so already his range is a lot weaker and you can discount AJ+ probably and most likely KJ/KQ 99+.
The previous hand he had a flush draw and snap called two streets. So on the river im already assuming his hand is pretty weak. I think he folds complete air to the turn bet though so i dont expect to see a bare ace on the river much or something without any straight draws like QT or K9. I do expect him to have all straight and flush draws though still in his range and random 6's and maybe 55 or 44.
I think he checks back an ace on the river. His pot bet to me meant he had no showdown value or a jack so...
Text results appended to pokerstove.txt
191 games 0.000 secs 38,200 games/sec
Board: 6s 7s 7d Jc Jd
Dead:
equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 53.403% 45.55% 07.85% 87 15.00 { 9s8d }
Hand 1: 46.597% 38.74% 07.85% 74 15.00 { 55-44, KsTs, Ks9s, Ks8s, K6s, QJs, QsTs, Qs9s, Qs8s, Qs6s, J8s+, J6s, T8s+, Ts6s, 98s, 96s-95s, 86s-85s, 63s+, 54s, 5s3s, 4s3s, K6o, QJo, J8o+, J6o, T8o+, 98o, 96o-95o, 86o-85o, 63o+, 54o }
So its not bad. Just not the best play.
open jamming AA for 100bb's is +EV but it's still bad because its not extracting as much value as it could. Apply the same principal to this hand and it should never be just a call.
Given your analysis of hand & villain it seems like this is a good spot to fire the riv.
9 high is never a bluff catcher is it, prefer bet on river to fold out missed darws
I have to re-iterate again i dont think i played this hand that well. I was merely trying to make the point that on the river a call is not terrible.
No one here is obligated to do anything. If people dont want to post in this thread they dont have to. Im not asking anyone for anything. Maybe i dont give advice because i dont feel qualified to? Maybe people have said what i would say anyway. Maybe none of this is very important.
Im sure youve got a point under all this hostility. I know youre very angry about something. But i dont know what it is. I dont really care though.
There is some credit and logic to what OP was trying to do but pretty flawed in the end.. imo he should have written 'misclick f*kkk!' in the chat bar and never talked about the hand ever again.
In regards to the hand, the play by offshoot clearly has some thinking about it going by his stove results. In honesty the level on which its played on is above where i am abilitied to play. As a result i enjoy reading hands and will maybe put a viewpoint if i think i can add some constructive discussion. In this instance i was reading and tried to make the thread which i felt might easily get out of hand and put something lighthearted.
If you have any other issues regarding my post then pm me as i have no interest in this thread any more. Simply my comment has been taken out of context imo.
But it just seems thats its easier to not reply than to just be rude for the sake of it. I really dont see the point of it. And lets be honest, this isnt the first time beaneh has taken the time to go out of his way just to be unpleasant to someone.
But at the same time an argument I've had with beaneh in the past lead to one of the best tweaks into my game. Obv the hand is ridiculous. But if he says its posted as a conversation stimulater (which is also something I tend to do) he really oughtnt to get too much hostility for it.
The discussion of the hand seems to have ended quite a while ago. I think it's best if this thread was allowed to die now. This "friendly banter" can continue elsewhere but this isn't clinic material anymore.
Attempting to just use the reads Shoot has given us let's have a look at pre and and the river.
Pre: Players that limp the button and have this image very rarely fold when we raise from the blinds. Yes we are taking control of the hand and trying to represent strength for a later street, but we must consider the level of thinking our opponent is on. They may not be taking a blind bit of notice of what we are representing, they may, and I think this is the case here, be just looking at the spots on their cards. I'm not in love with the Iso OOP here but I'm sure I've done it plenty in similar spots so I'm not going to go caveman over it. But we can found ourselves in spots like this where we try to standard raise pre/C-bet take it down and then find ourselves shovelling more and more money to make the plan work when initially we were just trying to take down a few quid. In position my thoughts are a lot different obviously.
River: Against a thinking player this is an awful river to barrel, the board has run out so bad to continue that check/give up is the only option in many cases. The only hands that make sense are pocket 7s, pocket Jacks and some Jx hands. Well we're representing a little thin if all we represent are quads and boats. However let's go back to the thinking level of the opponent. If our reads are that they are strictly playing level 1 (their own cards and blind to our actions) then this is a condition to let us lead the river here. Of course we need to be putting them on low PPs and draws throughout the hand. Personally I would probably be putting in £90-£100 on the river to steal.
The downside to that is if they decide to bluff it'll be a shove and I'm folding, but I think he only pot bluffs the river because he is checked to. If we fire the river I think we get a bunch of folds.
Cliffs on river: 9/10 barrelling this river is burning money, this might be the exception.
Check/jam river as played? Our fold equity is dramatically reduced after he has potted it. Yes he more than likely folds now we know the hand but if we do jam we are getting nothing with any value off (Ace kicker and up). I'd prefer to at least fold out the bottom of hands he consider might have a chance of the win.
To reiterate what I initially posted, I think we are good here a number of times but not enough to make the call against this player. They are bluffing a high amount of the time but we don't beat enough of them. Closer than it looks but not close enough IMO.