How reads can pay off

[Radashack]

Ok well I had been playing with Drawmaster for about an hour and a half at this point, He was a fishy player, and bought a lot of pots, played a bunch of hands out of position, it was a matter of time. The reason I called the turn bet was because I knew I could get wiklund to fold on the river, however draw managed to do that for me. I went with my read that he was full of it and had nothing (he had been betting all the way if he had a hand), and this was obviously a buy.


PokerStars Game #1526963008: Hold'em No Limit ($2/$4) - 2005/04/15 -
07:04:38 (ET)
Table 'Beagle' Seat #6 is the button
Seat 1: PIMP RYDA ($215.55 in chips)
Seat 2: mrlavin ($193.20 in chips)
Seat 3: Francc ($176.65 in chips)
Seat 4: Drawmaster2 ($398.85 in chips)
Seat 5: foutz ($418.85 in chips)
Seat 6: wiklund ($390.70 in chips)
Seat 7: iDumb ($228 in chips)
Seat 8: Radashack ($312.80 in chips)
Seat 9: nedfoxglove ($392.20 in chips)
iDumb: posts small blind $2
Radashack: posts big blind $4
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Radashack [Tc Ts]
nedfoxglove: folds
PIMP RYDA: folds
mrlavin: folds
Francc: folds
Drawmaster2: calls $4
foutz: folds
wiklund: raises $8 to $12
iDumb: calls $10
Radashack: raises $12 to $24
Drawmaster2: calls $20
wiklund: calls $12
iDumb: calls $12
*** FLOP *** [7c Qd Jc]
iDumb: checks
Radashack: checks
Drawmaster2: checks
wiklund: checks
*** TURN *** [7c Qd Jc] [4s]
iDumb: checks
Radashack: checks
Drawmaster2: checks
wiklund: bets $32
iDumb: folds
Radashack: calls $32
Drawmaster2: calls $32
*** RIVER *** [7c Qd Jc 4s] [Qh]
Radashack: checks
Drawmaster2: bets $100
wiklund: folds
Radashack: calls $100
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Drawmaster2: shows [Ks 9c] (a pair of Queens)
Radashack: shows [Tc Ts] (two pair, Queens and Tens)
Radashack collected $389 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $392 | Rake $3
Board [7c Qd Jc 4s Qh]
Seat 1: PIMP RYDA folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 2: mrlavin folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 3: Francc folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 4: Drawmaster2 showed [Ks 9c] and lost with a pair of Queens
Seat 5: foutz folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: wiklund (button) folded on the River
Seat 7: iDumb (small blind) folded on the Turn
Seat 8: Radashack (big blind) showed [Tc Ts] and won ($389) with two
pair, Queens and Tens
Seat 9: nedfoxglove folded before Flop (didn't bet)

[vqc]

Ridiculously good read rada.

I guess you got his, turn call, river bet pattern read pretty well.

Kinda looks like the stop and go to me (by drawmaster) but you owned him.

[iwa]

That is a classic move often known as being "punked" way to take down the fishies mang.

[Bo G]

Was he crying how can you make a call like that with only TT? This is a classic whenever I hear that from a guy who bluffed.

[JeffreyGB]

Any reason you didn't reraise?

[Radashack]

I didn't re-raise because there is no reason to at this point.

If My read is right, he isn't calling a re-raise, and if my read is wrong a re-raise will only cost me money. re-raiseing has a huge -EV here.

[face]

Isn't it possible that you got married to your pocket pair and got lucky? Fish hit cards too. There are two overcards on board, meaning 5 cards he could have that beat you (plus 2 pair, sets, and the 2 overpairs). I have found that I will often get the strong feeling that someone is bluffing or that I can rep a higher hand when I have a pocket pair. I attribute the "gut feeling" to my inner fish's irrational overestimation of the worth of my pocket pair. Does anyone else find themselves oddly apt to bluff or rep a higher hand when you have a middle pocket pair? Of course, the read turned out dead on and you obviously know a lot more about poker than I do, it's just that it might be possible this is results-oriented thinking masquerading as a good read.
(please don't kill me for the suggestion....)

[Radashack]

In contrast perhaps I should post the hundreds of hand histories where i've laid down J's Q's K's and even A's? was I married to this hand, absolutly not. If you know my style of play, you would know that i'm playing near 40% of flops, which requires me not to marry any hand and play them strictly post flop and by my reads on the table.

[face]

When your reads turn out to be correct most of the time -- as I assume yours do -- the idea that you "got lucky" becomes increasingly absurd.

The more interesting point that I was trying to make is that I think sometimes "fishy" instincts, like overvaluation of pocket pairs, lurk beneath the surface of more advanced poker analysis. Although one might think that there are other variables to justify a read, I have found that when I make such a read and just so happen to have a pocket pair, I will intentionally devalue the strength of my read because I know it is partially due to how nice two 10s look in the hole.

Of course, I realize that this is almost certainly due to me being a bad poker player. However, I think acknowledging my own irrationalities and correcting for them is the first step towards better decisionmaking.

I didn't mean to imply that you don't lay it down here 95/100 times, and that when you make such a call you aren't right 95/100 times. I have read your other posts and I'm impressed with your insight and poker knowledge. You are 20x the poker player I am. I just want to suggest, for the sake of argument, that the inner fish never completely dies, and continues to chime in bad advice on a subconscious level way after you'd never listen to such nonsense consciously.

[Radashack]

well the thing you aren't taking into account is the hundred of thousands of hands played. Do I still make dumb plays, very rarely but it happens, am i going to make a dumb play in a situation like this? almost never. Simply because I have absolutly no attachment to my pocket pair. because a pair is just a pair in a 5 card game. What your saying is sound if there is lack of experience, but with experience the subconcious fish is really non exsistant.

[lovemachine]

rada can i get your autograph now so it will be worth something when you win wsop

[a500lbgorilla]

Lead for 40 on the river, better hands are folding. You get a cheap showdown and a raise tells you everything you need to know.

-'rilla

[Radashack]

Lead for 40 on the river, better hands are folding. You get a cheap showdown and a raise tells you everything you need to know.

-'rilla

lead for 40 and this guy will come over the top hard. Then I am facing a semi more difficult situation. Think the check call is the best play in this situation. a 4th of the pot bet on the river looks way weak and is asking to be stomped on.

[Fnord]

I don't like how you put yourself in a spot to make a tough decision later in the hand.

I don't understand min re-raisng wiklund out of postion when you can profitably call for a set. You're setting yourself up as the aggressor out of position with a marginal hand and a live one in the pot.

I don't get the turn check/call, but again your pre-flop move put you in this spot to begin with.

Nice river call at 3:1 given your read.

[michael1123]

Yeah, I think the turn call (and preflop play) are the more borderline decisions. With your read on drawmaster and wiklund's fold, the call on the river seems to be a rather easy one, or at the very least it seems correct (especially after calling on the turn - dumping the hand now would make the turn call rather retarded).

If Wiklund called on the river it'd obviously be a completely different scenario, and it'd be an easy fold, but I'm sure everyone knows that.

Leading small at the river doesn't really make sense because of Drawmaster's aggression AND the fact that Wiklund easily could've had a J here. Raising on the river after Wiklund folded is similarly a very bad play, since as Rada said, drawmaster is never going to call with a worse hand, and will call with most better hands. If they can't call you with less, you never should raise on the river unless its a complete bluff.

[dsaxton]

Lead for 40 on the river, better hands are folding. You get a cheap showdown and a raise tells you everything you need to know.

-'rilla

Personally, I don't understand the idea of betting marginal hands on the river just because you're afraid of having to call something if you check. "Getting a cheap showdown" in this situation basically means "getting a more expensive showdown with a worse hand," if there is one.