he's got enough behind to make it an interesting decision..

Game #2347074503: Hold'em NL (£0.15/£0.25) - 2006/09/06 - 21:10:40 (UK)
Table "Pavan" Seat 9 is the button.
Seat 1: Foster003 (£25 in chips)
Seat 2: jf4255 (£16.65 in chips)
Seat 3: danaan (£18 in chips)
Seat 4: Jimmyrog (£22.65 in chips)
Seat 5: Reddev005 (£28.40 in chips)
Seat 6: Windyone (£16.15 in chips)
Seat 7: Mad_de888 (£14.40 in chips)
Seat 8: Northcape (£14 in chips)
Seat 9: Leggs007 (£103.44 in chips)
Seat 10: Smiffy44 (£28.87 in chips)
Smiffy44: posts small blind £0.15
Foster003: posts big blind £0.25
----- HOLE CARDS -----
dealt to Smiffy44 [9c 9s]
jf4255: folds
danaan: folds
Jimmyrog: folds
Reddev005: calls £0.25
Jimmyrog sits out
Windyone: folds
Mad_de888: folds
Northcape: calls £0.25
Leggs007: calls £0.25
Smiffy44: calls £0.10
Foster003: checks
----- FLOP ----- [5s 9d Ts]
Smiffy44: bets £1.60
Foster003: folds
Reddev005: folds
Northcape: calls £1.60
Leggs007: folds
----- TURN ----- [5s 9d Ts][Ad]
Smiffy44: bets £5
Northcape: calls £5
----- RIVER ----- [5s 9d Ts Ad][Qs]
Jimmyrog sits back
Smiffy44: ?

Is this a push for anyone against a relatively faceless but predictable enough half buy type? Discuss the important discrepancy between this opponent and our donktastic lappy friends and how it comes into play here.

Yet another reason I like to juice the pot pre-flop.

I wouldn't blame you for checking. Bet vs Check comes down to post-flop reads. Barring any checking isn't going to get you broke.

Originally Posted by Fnord

Yet another reason I like to juice the pot pre-flop.

still having trouble applying this concept in many situations. A limp/complete OOP here is valuable against that demographic of players who like to limp crap like KTo but not call raises with them, and generally can't release their weak top pair to heavy action on the flop and turn.

If you mean bump it up to £1 preflop, I like the idea but outside of a vacuum the semi thinkers at these stakes may latch on to it and reduce my implied odds next time I hit and bet hard at them. My completing range here is suited and occasionally unsuited connectors, gappers, and pairs up to 99.

How often do you raise to isolate in this position?

Originally Posted by pantherhound

How often do you raise to isolate in this position?

I don't want them to fold!

I want to build a big pot, punish hands that figure to hit second best and misreprent my hand from their perspective.

Originally Posted by Fnord

Originally Posted by pantherhound

How often do you raise to isolate in this position?

I don't want them to fold!

so what's your plan when the flop comes 742 rainbow? bet 2/3 of the bloated pot? 1 caller. turn?

Originally Posted by pantherhound

so what's your plan when the flop comes 742 rainbow

Crying Bet.

I don't see why 742 worries you panther. Bet for value?

Originally Posted by LeFou

I don't see why 742 worries you panther. Bet for value?

How much value are we getting exactly against opponents that are kind of tight, easy to push around? The only function of a bet here is to fold to a raise or carry on with little information with a hand we'd rather not have. Or if you like, to protect our lukewarm hand against a host of overs we're up against particularly mulitiway.

Anyway, I checked, he checked behind with T9, and I frowned. The point of this thread was the discrepancy between opponents who call down large bets with draws and those who call down for showdown value in a pot they don't want to commit to. I found the latter and failed to make the distinction.

Originally Posted by pantherhound

Anyway, I checked, he checked behind with T9, and I frowned.

This is way too results oriented. J8 and spade flush are directly in the villains range. Check call, and sometimes even check fold are appropriate. Take a note on this opponent that he didn't bet two pair when checked to on the river. This means when he does bet on a similar completion board next time it becomes closer to a fold.

You have to thrive in likelihoods. Likelihoods are your odds and your value. Have faith in them even when a queer range with missed value pops up occassionally. It wasn't part of the master range. I mean not only do you have to assume the villain played T9, but you also have to tolerate him taking a draw line with two pair he should be raising.

This is why reads are important. If you know the villain to be tight passive, then this becomes an easy river value bet. Not only because you're likely ahead, but because when you're not he often just calls you with a better hand.

Rondavu--wouldn't block betting be better here? I would rather check call (more like c/r) if the flush draw missed...

Originally Posted by benny999

Rondavu--wouldn't block betting be better here? I would rather check call (more like c/r) if the flush draw missed...

What's the difference between a block bet and a value bet in this spot?

You block bet against super aggro players who are going to push a lot when they have it and when they don't if you check to them, knowing you don't have it. Normal players are going to price you in with it and without it.

Block bets are a necessary artform of the higher levels for the most part in my mind, to minimize hard decisions against tough players. I could be wrong.

I would block bet Gabe in this spot, because he would just push if I checked to him.

Originally Posted by Rondavu

I would block bet Gabe in this spot, because he would just push if I checked to him.

Sounds like a great reason to check/call to me.

Originally Posted by Fnord

Originally Posted by Rondavu

I would block bet Gabe in this spot, because he would just push if I checked to him.

Sounds like a great reason to check/call to me.

Hehe. Ya it does. I guess that depends.

Originally Posted by Rondavu

Originally Posted by pantherhound

Anyway, I checked, he checked behind with T9, and I frowned.

This is way too results oriented. J8 and spade flush are directly in the villains range.

Disagree.

I mean not only do you have to assume the villain played T9, but you also have to tolerate him taking a draw line with two pair he should be raising.

Two very conceivable situations from this player in position. these types like cheap flops which they can hit, play slow and think they're concealing their hand.

If you know the villain to be tight passive, then this becomes an easy river value bet. Not only because you're likely ahead, but because when you're not he often just calls you with a better hand.

This is the crux. Tight passives know pot odds and don't like to call that massive second barrell on their draw. However, given the action he is raising any better hand on the river. he never puts me on the flush here and he has about pot behind.

overall, reasons for pushing: he has 55, AT, T9, maybe JJ
reasons for checking: he has TT, umm, AA?

conclusion: shoulda pushed

Originally Posted by pantherhound

This is the crux. Tight passives know pot odds and don't like to call that massive second barrell on their draw.

At these stakes he may either not really know the odds, be bad at math or just not care.

Originally Posted by Rondavu

Originally Posted by benny999

Rondavu--wouldn't block betting be better here? I would rather check call (more like c/r) if the flush draw missed...

What's the difference between a block bet and a value bet in this spot?

You block bet against super aggro players who are going to push a lot when they have it and when they don't if you check to them, knowing you don't have it. Normal players are going to price you in with it and without it.

Block bets are a necessary artform of the higher levels for the most part in my mind, to minimize hard decisions against tough players. I could be wrong.

I would block bet Gabe in this spot, because he would just push if I checked to him.

I think block bets are best against normal players that might check behind with a worse hand - they're like value bets combined with a test, so you can fold if raised. The opp here isn't a super agrro either, so you can respect a raise. Actually I didn't see he is a half buy so blocking is basically a push anyway.

Against a full buy superaggro, it's trickier. I've actually been thinking about this a lot today from reading a 2p2 thread that made me remember a thread by Gabe - http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...oker-34400.htm In this hand he can't really check or block bet small because it is likely to induce a bluff push. It's also not good to check/fold or of course open fold like dsaxton wrote. So he basically bet something that appears comittal, even though only better hands will call/raise it (typical -ev argument), it gets him to make the lesser mistake of folding to a bluff raise. The 2p2 thread that got me thinking about this is http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...Number=7189635 This el diablo guy wrote something like, lets say not doing X (eg a value or protection bet) is a mistake of $Y, but if you do X and your opp causes you a mistake of $Z, which is more than $Y, then you probably shouldn't do X.

Wow that was a lot to type..sorry about the hijack panther.

I like everything that's being said. Thank you for the challenge.