???

[dsaxton]

I can't think of what this guy could possibly have. Does anyone even consider calling?

PokerStars Game #2792628913: Hold'em No Limit ($2/$4) - 2005/10/13 - 04:14:03 (ET)
Table 'Lumen II' Seat #9 is the button
Seat 1: dsaxton ($407.65 in chips)
Seat 2: rdegs21 ($400 in chips)
Seat 3: 7D~DoC ($225.95 in chips)
Seat 4: earnstaf ($497.50 in chips)
Seat 6: jrfox ($482.65 in chips)
Seat 8: bigpaul456 ($491.85 in chips)
Seat 9: Magglio12 ($471.50 in chips)
dsaxton: posts small blind $2
rdegs21: posts big blind $4
noo limit: sits out
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to dsaxton [Jc Jh]
7D~DoC: folds
earnstaf: folds
jrfox: folds
bigpaul456: folds
Magglio12: folds
dsaxton: raises $8 to $12
rdegs21: calls $8
*** FLOP *** [3d 7s 5c]
dsaxton: checks
rdegs21: bets $12
dsaxton: raises $20 to $32
rdegs21: calls $20
*** TURN *** [3d 7s 5c] [8d]
dsaxton: bets $24
rdegs21: calls $24
*** RIVER *** [3d 7s 5c 8d] [Ks]
dsaxton: bets $24
rdegs21: raises $308 to $332 and is all-in
dsaxton: ???

[bair]

why bet so little on the turn? the pot is like 80 and u only bet 24, that looked real weak, and then u did the same bet into an even bigger pot, which looks REAL weak, so he is probably bluffing but i still fold.

[dsaxton]

why bet so little on the turn? the pot is like 80 and u only bet 24, that looked real weak, and then u did the same bet into an even bigger pot, which looks REAL weak, so he is probably bluffing but i still fold.

I didn't pay much attention to how big my bet was. I just rolled the ball on my mouse a bit and clicked "bet," but I don't think it matters a whole lot. I don't see why every bet has to be pot-sized. It's not like I mind him calling with a marginal hand.

On the river, it doesn't make much sense to bet big with a K on board when I can't even beat a pair of kings. And checking is obviously a mistake, so I made a small value bet.

[bair]

yeah i realize this, but you have to think about what he thinks you have. so it doesnt really matter if you dont care how big your bet is, cuz he does. which can obviously lead to this bet he made, which is exactly what you dont want w/ JJ here

[iwa]

I think the guy actually hit something quite big on the flop here, hoping to suck you in with an overbet. He probably put you on ak or some kinda pair that he thought he could get you to call with.

[Aces]

I wouldn't call...I think mostly you're beat here and it's an overbet designed to look like a bluff. Either way not worth it.

Could be oddly slow-played trips, AK that couldn't let go, another non-trip PP like QQ/TT/99. I don't think AA/KK would play like this.

[Fnord]

I didn't pay much attention to how big my bet was. I just rolled the ball on my mouse a bit and clicked "bet," but I don't think it matters a whole lot. I don't see why every bet has to be pot-sized. It's not like I mind him calling with a marginal hand.

This line of thinking is horribly flawed.

How well are you running in this game?

[dsaxton]

I didn't pay much attention to how big my bet was. I just rolled the ball on my mouse a bit and clicked "bet," but I don't think it matters a whole lot. I don't see why every bet has to be pot-sized. It's not like I mind him calling with a marginal hand.

This line of thinking is horribly flawed.

How well are you running in this game?

What's flawed about thinking it's ok to bet a semi-random amount sometimes?

Bad beats aside (which I've been having quite a few of lately), I've done very well in these games.

[Fnord]

Bad beats aside (which I've been having quite a few of lately), I've done very well in these games.

If someone draws out on you with implied pot odds (or close enough to it) then you pay him off because you haven't been paying attention, is it really a bad beat?

[cartilago77]

Bad beats aside (which I've been having quite a few of lately), I've done very well in these games.

If someone draws out on you with implied pot odds (or close enough to it) then you pay him off because you haven't been paying attention, is it really a bad beat?

Great statement. So few hands that people consider a "bad beat" actually are. Almost always something the player did wrong in the hand to get into each situation.

[dsaxton]

Bad beats aside (which I've been having quite a few of lately), I've done very well in these games.

If someone draws out on you with implied pot odds (or close enough to it) then you pay him off because you haven't been paying attention, is it really a bad beat?

You're saying he has implied odds to chase a runner-runner in that situation? When do you ever have implied odds for a runner-runner? And you're saying I paid off J-9 with top set because I wasn't paying attention? What?

I bet a random amount on one betting round in one hand in my poker career, and now I "haven't been paying attention" in general. Huh?

You aren't really making any sense at all.

[Fnord]

You're saying he has implied odds to chase a runner-runner in that situation? When do you ever have implied odds for a runner-runner?

Are you suggesting that he needs to hit a straight or even hit anything to win the hand?

[dsaxton]

You're saying he has implied odds to chase a runner-runner in that situation? When do you ever have implied odds for a runner-runner?

Are you suggesting that he needs to hit a straight or even hit anything to win the hand?

No. You said he had implied odds to call. Is he somehow going to build the pot up a bunch with his nothing and then just magically take it down on a weird bluff after there's been tons of action? Is that what you meant by him having implied odds?

[Fnord]

990 games 0.020 secs 49,500 games/sec
Board: 4h 3s 8h
Dead:
equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 96.1616 % 96.16% 00.00% { QdQh }
Hand 2: 03.8384 % 03.84% 00.00% { Jh9d }


65,340 games 0.010 secs 6,534,000 games/sec
Board: 4h 3s 8h
Dead:
equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 81.4601 % 81.46% 00.00% { TT+, AJs+, KQs, AQo+ }
Hand 2: 18.5399 % 18.54% 00.00% { Jh9d }

Depending on how much you're raising, it's quite possible to put you on an even wider range.

[dsaxton]

990 games 0.020 secs 49,500 games/sec
Board: 4h 3s 8h
Dead:
equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 96.1616 % 96.16% 00.00% { QdQh }
Hand 2: 03.8384 % 03.84% 00.00% { Jh9d }


65,340 games 0.010 secs 6,534,000 games/sec
Board: 4h 3s 8h
Dead:
equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 81.4601 % 81.46% 00.00% { TT+, AJs+, KQs, AQo+ }
Hand 2: 18.5399 % 18.54% 00.00% { Jh9d }

Depending on how much you're raising, it's quite possible to put you on an even wider range.

I raised preflop and made a reasonable bet into a field of two players without even being in favorable position, so a safe assumption is that I have an overpair. Plus, you're totally ignoring that there was another player in the hand as well.

It's incredibly simple-minded to just artificially construct a range of "preflop raising hands" and then continue to put me on that range of hands as play continues. Why are you criticizing my thought processes?

I'm not sure what your post is even supposed to mean in terms of an argument.

[Fnord]

I raised preflop and made a reasonable bet into a field of two players without even being in favorable position, so a safe assumption is that I have an overpair.

Ummm.... last time I played NLHE an under half pot bet after a PFR meant "I still have 2 cards, do you want to continue playing your hand?"

I'm not sure what your post is even supposed to mean in terms of an argument.

His call isn't as horrible as you probably thought.

[Demiparadigm]

You were the preflop raiser.
To say that your range has somehow changed because you made a small bet into 2 opponents is ludicrous, and you know it.
They even have a name for it- "continuation"
For him to believe the only hand you would make this play with is a pair higher than J would be incredibly weak.

Dealt to dsaxton [9c 7c]
WIZ69: calls $4
aragon: folds
pools101: calls $4
pastaguy: raises $8 to $12
lazarus59: folds
dsaxton: calls $12

Dealt to dsaxton [8h Jh]
-wArA-: folds
suited101: folds
CindySue1983: folds
primus95: folds
jg23: folds
dsaxton: raises $12 to $16

Dealt to dsaxton [Td 9h]
slamrod: folds
Magglio12: calls $4
HammerG: folds
MIKETODD1968: folds
wearingred: folds
dsaxton: raises $12 to $16

Dealt to dsaxton [7s 6s]
fumbo420 leaves the table
LURPED: folds
dsaxton: raises $18 to $24

Dealt to dsaxton [9c 5c]
dsaxton: raises $18 to $24

Now given your obvious raising standards, How can you possibly argue that the only hand you could have is an overpair?

The point is, you gave your opponent implied odds to draw out on you, and then you paid him off when he did. He made two small mistakes preflop and on the flop, and you made two large ones on the turn and river.

I have had a lot of respect for your game, but the fact that you can't see that makes me seriously question where you are at.
Perhaps you should question it also.

[dsaxton]

I raised preflop and made a reasonable bet into a field of two players without even being in favorable position, so a safe assumption is that I have an overpair.

Ummm.... last time I played NLHE an under half pot bet after a PFR meant "I still have 2 cards, do you want to continue playing your hand?"

Oh, because it's completely standard for an overpair against two opponents. It almost always folds out small pairs and unimproved overcards, while occasionally getting a call from top pair, and doesn't overcommit me to the hand by getting information cheaper when behind. What's your argument for why I should be more?

Overcards would almost always just check in this situation.

[Fnord]

Overcards would almost always just check in this situation.

Alright, I'll be nice and not mock you. Can you find another winning player from 2/4 NL or bigger willing to back that statement up with his observations from watching typical TAggy play? I would bet you one buy-in ($400) that you can't, but I can't figure out a way to make the wager such that I can't be cheated...

[dsaxton]

Overcards would almost always just check in this situation.

Alright, I'll be nice and not mock you. Can you find another winning player from 2/4 NL or bigger willing to back that statement up with his observations from watching typical TAggy play? I would bet you one buy-in ($400) that you can't, but I can't figure out a way to make the wager such that I can't be cheated...

In a three way pot out of position against one of the players, this is an obvious check for just about any player with just overcards. Why would I care enough about this to go find someone else to help convince you to agree with me?

What is your problem, anyways? I've never seen you go on a total frenzy like this before about things this trivial.

[Demiparadigm]

Overcards would almost always just check in this situation.

Alright, I'll be nice and not mock you. Can you find another winning player from 2/4 NL or bigger willing to back that statement up with his observations from watching typical TAggy play? I would bet you one buy-in ($400) that you can't, but I can't figure out a way to make the wager such that I can't be cheated...

In a three way pot out of position against one of the players, this is an obvious check for just about any player with just overcards. Why would I care enough about this to go find someone else to help convince you to agree with me?

What is your problem, anyways? I've never seen you go on a total frenzy like this before about things this trivial.

Because
A) He's right.
B) Its not trivial.

I think you are missing a very important concept in big bet poker.

FWIW, I play 400NL, and I almost always continuation bet into 2 players, more than half the pot, no matter what I raised with. It would be very hard for you to convince me this is a leak, as it has been profitable over thousands of hands.

[dsaxton]

You were the preflop raiser.
To say that your range has somehow changed because you made a small bet into 2 opponents is ludicrous, and you know it.
They even have a name for it- "continuation"
For him to believe the only hand you would make this play with is a pair higher than J would be incredibly weak.

Now given your obvious raising standards, How can you possibly argue that the only hand you could have is an overpair?

The point is, you gave your opponent implied odds to draw out on you, and then you paid him off when he did. He made two small mistakes preflop and on the flop, and you made two large ones on the turn and river.

I have had a lot of respect for your game, but the fact that you can't see that makes me seriously question where you are at.
Perhaps you should question it also.

Preflop raising standards have absolutely nothing to do with the range of hands I'm likely to have after raising preflop, then betting a flop against two opponents out of position. This idea is so obvious I can't believe no one is seeing it. A decent player knows it's generally silly to bet overcards on the flop against two players out of position.

There's nothing ludicrous about what I'm saying. What's ludicrous is thinking that my range of hands based upon the fact that I raised preflop remains completely static after my flop action.

I'm starting to question the intelligence of this forum. We now have people saying that a player had implied odds to chase a perfect runner-runner straight. This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this forum. And you're also saying I made a mistake on the turn for betting the best hand (evidently because I didn't protect sufficiently against an astronomically unlikely straight draw), and then on the river for going all-in with top set? You have to be kidding me.

[Fnord]

And you're also saying I made a mistake on the turn for under-betting the best hand (evidently because I didn't protect sufficiently against an astronomically likely over-card or 2 pair draw), and then on the river for not value betting top set into a likely calling station?

Fixed your post.

Why is it so difficult to look at hands as a possible ranges of holdings with weighted probabilities which don't become fixed until showdown? How do you make decisions without assigning ranges to people based on observing their particular pre and post-flop patterns (no matter how illogical they may be)? How do you look back at hands without being results oriented if you fixate on the exact holding they happened to showdown?

[dsaxton]

And you're also saying I made a mistake on the turn for under-betting the best hand (evidently because I didn't protect sufficiently against an astronomically likely over-card or 2 pair draw), and then on the river for not value betting top set into a likely calling station?

Fixed your post

Usually calling stations who are on draws don't call river bets with high cards.

A smaller bet (by whatever your standard is for "bet size propriety") also hedges against the possibility that he was slow-playing on the flop. I can keep listing all the reasons why I didn't jam the pot with a huge bet on the turn, but it's kind of pointless. I have my own way of playing which is based on my own analysis of the game, and I've been successful at every level where I've played. I really don't care if you don't like some of my plays unless you can offer some firm argument about how they're unprofitable.

[dsaxton]

I think you are missing a very important concept in big bet poker.

FWIW, I play 400NL, and I almost always continuation bet into 2 players, more than half the pot, no matter what I raised with. It would be very hard for you to convince me this is a leak, as it has been profitable over thousands of hands.

What concept am I missing?

I never said it was a leak (although it probably is), I said most players with overcards (including myself) prefer not to do it, especially when I don't have position on both players. I personally think trying to bluff out two players on the flop after raising preflop is at best a break-even policy. How can you demonstrate that this play is profitable in general, particularly against the calling stations you tend to find at $400 NL?

[Fnord]

I personally think trying to bluff out two players on the flop after raising preflop is at best a break-even policy.

It is certainly less profitable if you don't activly profile your opponents....

How can you demonstrate that this play is profitable in general, particularly against the calling stations you tend to find at $400 NL?

A simple review of hand histories hands would prove it one way or another.

It's rather fustrating having this conversation, because you try to have it both ways. First, you promote a strategy of under-betting a little to take down pots when your opponents miss. Then you suggest that a half-pot bet after a PFR should be interpreted by your oponents as almost always an over-pair. Now you're saying they're "calling stations." If they are in fact calling stations then your strategy is leaving lots of money on the table as it's no longer correct to ever bluff and wildly profitable to blast away with pot+ sized bets with luke-warm or better hands.

[dsaxton]

I personally think trying to bluff out two players on the flop after raising preflop is at best a break-even policy.

It is certainly less profitable if you don't activly profile your opponents....

How can you demonstrate that this play is profitable in general, particularly against the calling stations you tend to find at $400 NL?

A simple review of hand histories hands would prove it one way or another.

It's rather fustrating having this conversation, because you try to have it both ways. First, you promote a strategy of under-betting a little to take down pots when your opponents miss. Then you suggest that a half-pot bet after a PFR should be interpreted by your oponents as almost always an over-pair. Now you're saying they're "calling stations." If they are in fact calling stations then your strategy is leaving lots of money on the table as it's no longer correct to ever bluff and wildly profitable to blast away with pot+ sized bets with luke-warm or better hands.

No. That's not what I said. I said given the circumstances in the hand, my play probably indicates an overpair. This has nothing whatsoever to do with "underbetting." And I don't really think I underbet at all anyways. The bets I make are pretty much completely standard in the games I play in.

I hope you don't lose sleep over this hand, or my not posting reads in hand histories, but I think I'm done with this pointless discussion.

[silverfist]

Hmm... I'd put him on 77 or 88. 77 or 88 is a little low to make a call before the flop, but it happens. I can't imagine going all-in like that at the end unless I had something, probably a set. If he's a bit of a nutter, he may have 46s or even 69s. He could also have something weird like A6s, and just be bad at math.

[Greedo017]

I totally got lost halfway through this thread because you switched and started talking about your other hand.

IMO you played this hand ok Dsaxxy, though i'm probably betting a little bit more on the turn, or at least the river, just because i'd feel like i was offering my opponent a little less opportunity to bluff at it with a marginal hand that might just call a larger value bet.