Printable View
Villain is a donk. 52/10/3. That is all.
Villain open limps.
Hero raises with the nuts :ah: :ad:
Villain calls lol.
Flop :kc: :9h: :4s:
Villain leads for a min bet
Hero raises his bet to a litle over the flops pot size
Villain min-raises.
Hero calls
Turn :jd:
Villain leads for a little under pot
Hero wonders if he is good, he has 2 dollars behind if he calls.
Push or fold?
You have one pair, that is all. The Aces are as good as 2s in this situation.
You raise, you get a caller. Could be Paint-x, a pair or SCs. Minbet for me is usually:
a - a draw
b - the nuts and they are trying to milk you.
You reraise and get reraised. slap! Slowplaying a hand. My instincts say set. The turn now gives a straight draw out there on top of the potential set/two pairs.
Hero has 1 pair vs a minbet/reraise and a lead out for just under pot. I say fold.
I strongly disagree with this and have said harsher things to people who post crap like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
Which is why I post my opinion, so I can hear what other people have to say about it. Why do you disagree and where do you think I'm going wrong in the way I'm analyzing the action of the hand?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fnord
AA is a lot better than 22 in this spot because we beat every bare king every 1 pair hand that villain could be holding which is a large portion of his range. We also have 6 outs to a better 2 pr combo if we are up against 2 pr at this point.
As for the hand this is a tough spot for me. I would probably shove cause his range is pretty wide and I'm a big station against donks.
I'd just get it in on the flop, but i cant imagine folding even now.
I agree, but my point was that AA and 22 in reality are still only 1pair and should be played as such against a very co-ordinated board vs aggression. At least in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by meeloche
You're incorrectly categorizing by incorrectly applying terminology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
Do elaborate.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
LOL thoughts on the hand please? To me it looks like 44, k9, some other dumb kx or a pure bluff, but it would be a very weird bluff line.
You have categorized two entirely different hands (AA 22) into the same group (1pair) and have determined that two other things/groups (very coordinated board and aggression) nullify the efficacy of your 1pair 'strawman' categorization. Your interpretation of the meaning of very coordinated board and aggression is also applied to the hand categorically, and that is also incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
first of all this post is too vague for me...so i will "assume" that we are at MY level with my game...
25NL at FR game.
52/10/3 open limping isnt 77+/big broadways...so, its basically set hunting, AXs, or trash gappers, off suit connectors, or worse.
we, i assume, raise to 5X. he calls...we can toss utter trash, off suit conns, most gappers...and get to <TT, AXs, and maybe something like QTo, imo.
flop comes...he minbets...does he really think we fold? or, is he begging us for a raise? ahhh, we nicely raise for him. (i agree, but i am getting a bad feeling). he minraises? now what the hell does that? 999/444, and...?? is the minbet/minRR a bluff? doubt it.
but, with those odds, maybe we call. although, i dont like it.
then....villain decides to donk pot the turn and commit us if we call/push? hello, biggest set line in history...may as well be face up.
of course we fold here, imo.
but here's the kicker...i suck at 25NL right now. but, i can see where a fellow microgrinder like andrew is going with his post....NOW.
with this line on flop...we ought to be scared that our overpair isnt even good to that "set-hunting, please raise me so i can raise you back" action. andrew may be saying we only have 2 outs here, no matter what single pair we hold.
but, what andrew may also be missing is that our 2-outer is much more likely "clean" with an overpair than a pp under bottom set.
i still fold, but i think the "stupidity" posts were a bit harsh when it turns out he may have had the same whistles going off that OP did.
its late, and i apologize in advance if i am talking utter bullshit here, too. just came across it before my tunnel vision completely closes off...lol.
I think J isnt hitting to much in his range, I really think you have to shove/call turn.
I think the more important question is when he minraises flop: folding, calling or pushing turn which is correct. I'm happy to get it in on flop here.
Emphasis mineQuote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
Please re-read the HH again, and tell me that this is a "very co-ordinated board.
http://www.lolcats.com/images/u/07/2...lw3m530p50.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
Don't see how I'm folding here, push flop, push turn, Ship it holla!
If you have information on his post-flop play and you think you're beat fold.
Saying that AA == 22 here is beyond absurd. He plays poker very badly, the OP hasn't a clue what's going through his head (or I would hope he would let us in on his insight beyond the oh so descriptive and masturabatory term "donk".) Maybe he thinks KQ is the nuts, maybe he thinks pressing buttons is fun. Maybe he turned a new leaf when Mike Sexton told him to bet and raise on the last episode of the WPT he saw. Who knows. AA is a strong hand here with suck-out equity against a range that has a lot more 2 pairs in it than it does sets. Taking a stand here is fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chopper
dude this is a short handed forum why would you assume full ring. villain sucks, even though his range is slanted towards huge hands with a 52 vpip its a very small part of his range. thats why i think this decision is closer than you make it appear.
Min re-raise is ominous, but I get it in on flop here for sure.
Especially if your stats are over a decent sample size.
An overall AF of 3 on a tag is one thing, but to try play 50% of all hands with that same aggression, the amount of crap in their range even when they're betting and raising is huge.
You're right. I've been using the wrong terms for what I've been trying to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragnar4
....
If people want to think that he is going to take this line with Kx then go for it. Maybe he called with K9, KJ, QT, J9 that's a selection of hands I've seen limp preflop and call a raise.
Do you all see that? He LIMPS and CALLS. That means he LIKES his hand and isn't raising preflop for:
a - trying to lay a trap. Yes, even 2nl donkeys like to trap so anyone telling me "this isn't in his style" needs to wake up.
b - he is looking to hit. Because um....don't WE limp and call when we have a pp?
Flop:
He leads out for a min. AFTER limp/calling pre. Seriously people, what else would do this apart from someone looking for action? And on that flop, what else would look for action apart from a set or maybe 2P?
We raise (reraise) and he comes over the top of us. He has volunteered money in this hand 4 times:
*Limp
*Call
*Minbet
*Minraise.
He likes his hand. He LOVES his hand. He is looking for a push over the top so we can get our stacks in there and then. With a board like that (yes, unconnected. I was wrong with that) the hand which plays this way is a set. How do I know? Because it's the only hand I would play that way. No other hand makes sense.
Turn:
What hand c/cs flop and leads out on turn? A set. But let's just say he is a complete idiot (which everyone on here seems to want to do) and say he DID do all that shit with something else. Maybe KJ? K9? QT? J9?
Seriously people, he COULD be a complete idiot and be doing all of this with TTs or just trash but isn't poker about doing the right things long enough? We ONLY have a pair against someone who is very willing to stack off. I say again, ONE PAIR. Chopper was right, I was missing the fact if the third ace hits we've got a set vs set situation. But that's a 2-outer and you really want to put your stack on the line for a 2-outer when you could just walk away?
But you're all right. I don't play 10nl, 25nl or 100nl. I don't have years of experience which means I can take the risk that ONE PAIR is a winning hand vs an aggressive player post-flop. Maybe he does have complete junk but the fact we don't know anything about him means we can ONLY take him on his actions. And his actions scream set.
But he plays poker, and he isn't us. So he must be a fish.
Don't let your ego get in the way of your intelligence.
Need to have a read on his postflop play. If 'villian is a donk' means he goes aggro with TPNK then get it in. If it just means he limps a lot PF and you havnt seen him play like this before then he's probably got a minimum of 2 pair.
I probably just shove over on the flop if I read him as terrible, if he's a passive fish I fold to the min-raise on the flop.
I'm not, trust me. But all this thread has spoken about is how it's fine to stack off in this situation because his range is Kx or rags. Only two people have attempted to dissect this hand, me and Chopper.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I can be completely bullsed up wrong. I can be talking out of my arse like a dick in this thread, that's fine because I want someone to sit me down and explain WHY my thinking is screwed up. I've dissected this hand with the experience at my disposal and every time it comes out that:
1- The betting patterns tell me hero is beat and most likely with a set. Yes, there could be an idiot out there playing this way with hands we crush but should we really believe that he is this way without a history?
I've explained where my thinking comes from in every step of this hand. I would very much like to hear where everyone else is getting their actions from rather than just "I'd do this".
"I'd do this blah blah blah" and "standard/you're an idiot if you think that" isn't going to help anyone and makes a lot of people feel looked down upon. Me included. I'm looking for thought processes here, explanations on WHY it would be good to get the rest of the stack in. WHY is hero in a good position cards wise, and not some bs about how our player is a dumbfuck who doesn't know a boat from a set.
Otherwise all I'm hearing in this thread is "I know more than you, neh, neh, neh, neh" pigheadedness. And if you hadn't already noticed, that's what gets me in a rant.
hang on, andrew. if you want advice, berating others isnt a great way to get them to "cough up the goodies."
i understand your frustration. i've, too, made many a post just like this. but, tempered aggression doesnt only apply to poker, it applies to everything.
You're right, Chopper. I can and do let my tongue get away from me at the wrong times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chopper
wufwugy,
I know that I don't know enough about poker to say much around here, but I am looking to learn as much as I can from everyone. This problem is that very often a reply comes across as just a "do this" or "you're an idiot if you question this". That may not be the attitude behind the posts, but without good explanations of why we're wrong, us beginners are not going to learn.
To be perfectly truthful, sometimes its best for posts to not even be made unless it can help us understand what made the person think action "x" in the first place.
no worries. you are passionate about wanting to learn. and, deep down, i think we all are. and, hopefully, that is the kind of person FTR tries to attract/keep. /hugs
back to the analysis...nothing more to see here...lol.
You really don't know what you're talking about and should post more hands and comment on other people's hands less.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
In regards to the hand, push the flop.
this is a shove the flop hand based on the information given
great. lets continue to flame andrew while not providing any dissenting thoughts.
thats all he is asking for.
he provided some reasoning. i also provided mine. and, since it appears to be wrong...
please enlighten me/us.
Andrew,
It's pleases me that you say you do not know enough about poker to comment much around here since with that understanding you'll be able to set aside ego (even when in the face of curt aggression from other members) to listen and try to figure out what others know.
You're right about villain's line. It is a monster line from typical shallow thinkers and he shows up with gin here often. How often we do not know, but this is important, and I'll get to why later. You have also made the mistake of not putting villain on a range and applying equities for both our hands. 22 is not the same as AA for a few reasons, and the most simple may be that 22 has about .2% flop equity vs a set while AA has like 8% or something, not to mention equities vs many other hands.
The reason we're disagreeing with you and felting here is because of fundamental understandings of hand strength and board texture vs this kind of opponent. Let me explain: Vs a 52/10 when we raise and flop AA on K94 we are fist pumping valuowning three barrels shoving river and getting called down by worse hands for a very high profit. When we see this flop we have gin and do not want to fold. We don't necessarily wanna get raised because this player is mainly a station and his range is typically widest when he's just calling us. However, he is also a shallow thinker, and we have a very tough time putting him on a range when he does pretty much anything. We basically have to play our hand vs him. And our hand here is gin.
I do agree that this is the worst line we could be against, but I"m still not folding unless I'm really reading him or feeling it (even standards are wrong sometimes). In general, bad players make bad moves. No matter what kind of bad player they are. I've seen total stations bluff off their entire stack on three streets. This unknown factor exists and we have no clue how high. Fundamentally, this suggests that standard is that we simply should just play our hand strength, and that means felt to his monster line since we're gonna snap pump felt this hand strength vs his range as often as we can.
A theme of skill improvement is reduction in weakness. Not being scared of AA every time we're made to felt KK pf, not looking to fold our sets when that scare card hits, not checking behind our good pairs we should be valuing because we're scared of being raised or having been outdrawn, etc. It's not so much that we learn to not be weak by going through the motions and believing that we gotta felt KK, but that our understanding of the game and opponents deepens and we begin to recognize why KK is gin in a pf felt. We learn this through indirect means. Seeing more hands and more weird situations, seeing wider ranges, opening up our own range and thus invoking worse image, etc.
The better we get the more we don't make big laydowns, and actually sometimes those laydowns could actually be kinda correct, but it really doesn't matter since that aspect of the game is almost counterproductive. We won't progress much in skill levels by learning how to do that stuff and we won't move up successfully even if our winrate in our current game may increase slightly.
I absolutely love maxims. I think I should be writing down all the ones relating to poker I come across or think up then compile them in like a list of fifty. They would be hugely valuable for understanding the game deeper because they succinctly express avenues of thought about standards that matter so much. Here's one: Big laydowns are not what make big winners.
In this hand, I think a good enough rationale for felting is "Shove. Why? Because fuck him, that's why." But this isn't explaining to somebody who doesn't understand why, it's only suggesting that with skill comes certain avenues of thought that seem wrong when not understood.
I'm going to say this once more and then pretty much give this thread up (and possible some of the posters) as a lost cause.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanglow
I know I don't know what I'm talking about. But what I do know is my thought processes throughout this hand as if I was playing it using my experience, limited as that be. But I am asking (nicely this time) if people would please do everyone on this forum the honour of actually explaining why you say to do what you would do. Otherwise how else can others learn?
Opps line is a monster, its also a bluff. The only good reason for calling the flop is to induce a bluff. If you're going to fold here, then fold the flop. If you think you have the best hand, but would fold to a turn bet then push flop. How many times does a villian not bet turn here?
Also, we're applying our version of a monster to a villian who has been categorised as a donk. Our set may be his TPNK.
Thank you, Wufugy and bjsaust.
In essence, my issue is that I am putting the villain within the same type of thinking as myself. Correct?
Wufuwgy, you're saying that with those stats (52/10) that he is a calling station who is very likely to just to call down with one pair as with a "monster". So my question is this; aren't we always told that when a calling station starts playing back at us it's time to get out with anything but the nuts? What type of range would call our raise preflop, minbet the flop and minraise our raise? In essence, be willing to put all the money in there right now. When does a calling station do this apart from on a bluff or a monster?
Are you saying in "reduction in weakness" that at times we learn to ignore the way a player is playing a certain hand because of the way we know he can play generally? In essence we give the impression we are worse than we are by felting and learning how they play with a decent hand?
Why is learning how to do big laydowns bad for our game?
If I'm reading this paragraph right, and the general essence of your thought process, the reason why we felt is because there are enough idiots out there making these types of moves with really bad hands to offset the times when the line he is taking really is what beats us?Quote:
In this hand, I think a good enough rationale for felting is "Shove. Why? Because fuck him, that's why." But this isn't explaining to somebody who doesn't understand why, it's only suggesting that with skill comes certain avenues of thought that seem wrong when not understood.
Personally with the hand as played I think we're beat and I'd fold, but I'd have never got to the point we did. I probably shove flop because we have aces dammit, but that doesnt make it right.
Sometimes they just pick a spot to "take a stand" and play back. Sometimes they actually know their image is really bad and think that means they can bluff spots. Sometimes a calling station means he'll call down with A high/MP/BP/etc but they still get aggro with TP. He may have been trappin g with QQ and is now going batshit thinking he has to get you off a K. Thats why the "read" of donk really isnt very useful here.Quote:
When does a calling station do this apart from on a bluff or a monster?
villain had 44. donk wasn't my read, 52/10/3 was. i just threw donk in there from spite.
Thats the thing, we have no idea what this guy thinks is a good play. Although Im not particularly happy when he takes this line (it is a very strong line) our hand is just simply too good here not to felt it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
Given that we don't have any real reads on the player and all that we know is that he is clearly a donk. It is really hard to put him on any sort of range here because I have no idea what thought process he is going through because he does not grasp the game. He might think this is a great move with any pair, he might not. He might think TP is the nuts, he might not. For all I know he might call a raise with everything he limps. But in my experience he can show up here with 1 pair hands/random BS more than enough times for me to treat AA as the nuts here.
Edit: Also just to clarify why AA is not the same as 22 I thought i'd post some pokerstove stats. Let's assume that your read is correct and that this line means he is super strong and has 2 pair or better and I guess discount him having 94...although he probably could have it.
Board: Kc 9h 4s
equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 05.320% 05.32% 00.00% 8532 0.00 { 22 }
Hand 1: 94.680% 94.68% 00.00% 151848 0.00 { KK, 99, 44, K9s, K4s, K9o, K4o }
equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 19.899% 19.90% 00.00% 31914 0.00 { AA }
Hand 1: 80.101% 80.10% 00.00% 128466 0.00 { KK, 99, 44, K9s, K4s, K9o, K4o }
As you can see much more equity if we have AA, even when he's completely crushing us.
If we think he could have like Kx you can see that it becomes a very easy felt for us.
Board: Kc 9h 4s
equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 69.259% 69.26% 00.00% 580068 0.00 { AA }
Hand 1: 30.741% 30.74% 00.00% 257472 0.00 { KK, 99, 44, AKs, K2s+, AKo, K2o+ }
Without reads on this guy I still think its an easy felt even if we skew his probable range to his stronger possible hands, which dominate us. Obviously after he shows down a set here we are more aware of how he plays his sets and if he only takes this line with a set then it becomes an easy fold on the flop.
It's that last sentence which had me ranting about only having a pair. We know that lots of people overplay AK preflop and I wanted to make sure that we weren't overplaying aces in this spot. Is any hand "too good not to felt" if someone is playing a line which potentially has us drawing to a 2-outer?Quote:
Originally Posted by microgrinder
I'm getting the impression that the only reason why a felt is good is because of the skill level of our opponents rather than based on the actions. Our opponents are just so crazy that they are able to do a hugely powerful move with trash. If this is the case, when do we stop treating people like complete "donks" and begin to take their "plays" seriously unless a read otherwise tells us differently?
I am aware that this line could very well mean that he could have us drawing to a two outter. The thing is we don't have any real reads of how this guy plays so I'm judging his range to be bad enough that it is more profitable to felt with my aces than to fold them here. This is just from how I perceive a typical player with his stats to play and I think I am getting the best of it in this situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
In reality he may not play like this and he may only take this line with the nuts, but I have no reads or knowledge of this, so I must go with what I have seen from past observations of what typical donkish 50/10s could have when taking this line. I really don't have to throw too much into his range here to make shoving better than folding, especially with the pot odds we are given here. (Look at edit in post above).
so many areas to quote, and so little time/energy.
wufungy, THANK YOU for that post. while not explaining everything, you explained it all. great job.
how the hell do you explain this to someone who thinks that laying off big hands is the reason they are playing well?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufungy
i love this. i know this. i just dont DO this. at least not often enough. need another 100 times of it before the light goes on.Quote:
Originally Posted by bjsaust
here's the perfect example for the "big laydown theory." we (andrew and i) were right THIS time, but how is it compared to villain's RANGE? this is where i struggle in explaining to people that big laydowns are BAD for your winrate. sure, you make the big laydown HERE, but that doesnt mean its a GOOD play. god damn...i dont know how to explain it, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by thizzSantaCruz
and, to whoever shouted that "we have AA damnit!" i agree completely. not that there arent reasons to fold AA (they are few, imo), its simply that there are MANY reasons that AA wins 85%+ of the time. laying it down doesnt necessarily help that number. it IS AA, dammit. dont get in the habit of dropping it easily.
Ah, thank you for that edit. I can see now why everyone was going batshit about my AA=22 statement. It's not that the AA is looking for a 2-outer it's the fact that AA is better than a lot of his range rather than the hand I was putting him on. So in essence, was I narrowing the range into a hand too early and thus eliminating a lot of potential earnings?Quote:
Originally Posted by microgrinder
You got it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
The only problem is its hard to define this guys range on this line without knowing his post flop tendencies and the reason is that there's a good chance he doesn't have a good grasp of the value of his hand based on what we've observed preflop. From experience I would say typically 2 pair, set and a bunch of Kxs could be in his range, with it probably skewed towards the 2-pairs and sets because this is typical Loose-Passive line taken with monster hands. Also a small percentage he could have other random 1 pair garbage or doing some really weird bluff or semi bluff.
So we should easily have the equity to move in here. We're Also getting a decent overlay in the pot since I think that the pot is around 40-50BB after he matches our flop raise, assuming OP made a std 5BB open to his limp.
BINGOQuote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
You don't have physical tells, you haven't been playing with him for weeks. Don't pretend otherwise. There is a lot of uncertainty here that needs to come through in our analysis.
How much air is in the range of someone with an aggression stat of 3, playing 50% of hands?
If his aggression factor wasn't so high I'm seriously giving him this range:Quote:
Originally Posted by thizzSantaCruz
How many hands was the sample?Code:Board: Kc 9h 4s
Dead:
equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 19.554% 19.55% 00.00% 3291 0.00 { AcAd }
Hand 1: 80.446% 80.45% 00.00% 13539 0.00 { 99, 44, K9s, K4s, K9o }
The hand for some reason is not in my database. I want t say I had around 80 hands on him, hard to say though.
OK. Ya I honestly think thats his range.
Lots I wanna say in this thread, but I'm kinda brain-farted on poker lately. Been spending so much time thinking it I just can't take much more. So I'll respond later.