400 NL vs LPer

I also see merit in betting like 50.

The shortstack makes this hand easy to play because we can't be bluffed by worse. Yay.

On May 10 2008 23:27 TimDawg wrote: which LP'er is it Loco?

"okyougosu" used to be Lammerman in starcraft.

On May 11 2008 05:32 DustySwedeDude wrote: I feel that Loco's ideas has some merit but if someone never gets it in with worse here (even including the shortstack, which should make him tighten up a bit) he's really exploitable. I don't think a good solid LPer would put you in situations where TPGK should be considered a very marginal holding in a 3-bet pot very often.

I don't think people are ever really gonna bluff raise you with the shortstack in there, and by that token I also don't think they are going to get it in with worse.

I'd shove a flushdraw here all day if I call pf. If he has any kind of A it's AQ+ most of the time I guess and that would shove so you're splitting/freerolling some of the time at least. AA, KK, AK seems like a far too tight range here.

On May 11 2008 01:42 Loco wrote: Here's what I think; I think betting the flop isn't optimal. I think if I check and he bets or checks his range is very polarized and I can play the turn and river optimally.If he bets the flop I think it's a very good hand every time since I wouldn't see him bluffing with shortstack in the hand, if he checks I think I have the best hand most of the time, unless hes slowplaying KK or possibly AA. If I bet the flop i'm folding out the hands I crush and I'm getting valuetowned by hands that crush me. Is my logic flawed? I'd really like to know why are we so optimistic about sticking all the money in here.

Can't the same be said if u bet? I feel like in either case his range is going to be very polarized making your decision fairly easy if this is your read on the villain. So then it just comes down to which play will save you more money when he has something since by your logic it's unlikely he's going to ever bet or call your bet with worse. Also, it doesn't seem like the bet sizing is too important given that the shortstack is almost always going to be going to showdown so I would much rather be in control of the size of the pot and lead out here. So in this case, just lead out small and fold to a raise, or if he calls just check it down. The problem I see with checking is that the pot is already 200 and check/fold seems awful if u 3bet with AQ pf. So if he bets say 150 then how are you supposed to fold to another bet on the turn/river?

On May 11 2008 08:15 ToT)MidiaN( wrote: Show nested quote + On May 10 2008 23:27 TimDawg wrote: which LP'er is it Loco? "okyougosu" used to be Lammerman in starcraft.

"okyougosu" is O1eja (spelling?) on pty.

OP; this is an easy bet/call. After you bet 135 you'll be getting good pot odds to call(can't be bothered to calculate atm). Against the range of AQ,KK+ you're ~2:1 dog, assuming AK 4bets pf.

get it in as fast as possible

On May 11 2008 08:15 ToT)MidiaN( wrote: Show nested quote + On May 10 2008 23:27 TimDawg wrote: which LP'er is it Loco? "okyougosu" used to be Lammerman in starcraft.

that's not him

On May 11 2008 12:47 taqtiX wrote: Show nested quote + On May 11 2008 08:15 ToT)MidiaN( wrote:   On May 10 2008 23:27 TimDawg wrote: which LP'er is it Loco? "okyougosu" used to be Lammerman in starcraft. "okyougosu" is O1eja (spelling?) on pty. OP; this is an easy bet/call. After you bet 135 you'll be getting good pot odds to call(can't be bothered to calculate atm). Against the range of AQ,KK+ you're ~2:1 dog, assuming AK 4bets pf.

Like I said, AK is very much in his calling range because my 3bet range is tighter for reraising there.

On May 11 2008 15:44 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On May 11 2008 08:15 ToT)MidiaN( wrote:   On May 10 2008 23:27 TimDawg wrote: which LP'er is it Loco? "okyougosu" used to be Lammerman in starcraft. that's not him

Ah shit. You're right, it's "DikiyPodem"

yes that's him

knew it was on of those dirty russians ! ! !! !! 1111

lol

How can you make such an easy decicions into such difficulties...

On May 11 2008 22:39 Vic3Roy wrote: How can you make such an easy decicions into such difficulties...

funny guy

I guess this is why I barely ever bother posting in the hand discussion forum anymore

full of bandwagonning faggots not willing to discuss poker with any sort of depth

k suppose you bet flop.

1. everyone folds. good result
2. soliduser folds, shorty calls. good result
3. shorty folds, soliduser calls. good result, you're extremely unlikely to be beaten and you just got value from a FD, suspicious KX, or weaker ace.
4. shorty calls, soliduser overcalls. fair result. same thing as 3 but soliduser's range is stronger and your equity is somewhat lower in the main pot.
5. shorty calls, soliduser raises. bad result.

i would rank those possibilities, by likelihood, in the following order: 2 > 1 > 3 > 4 > 5.

it should be pretty clear that the times when result (1) would have happened, checking the flop makes them worse. by pot controlling, you are giving the soliduser a few more opportunities to bluff. and even if he would never decide to bluff because you checked the flop, he will still gain some value from the free card. when result (2) would have happened, checking the flop doesn't really change much, because the soliduser won't be able to bluff you after the shorty gets allin on the turn. when result (3) would have happened, there are definitely fewer losing hands that will call the turn than the flop, since draws are less likely to call on the turn when they didn't hit. when result (4) would have happened, checking the flop won't really change much, except that the soliduser can sometimes play his hand for value against the shorty and simultaneously bluff against you, since you turned your hand face-up on the flop. when result (5) would have happened, you probably lose a lot less money by checking the flop.

so even though the least likely outcome (which is also the worst one) becomes a lot better when you check the flop, every other outcome (which are the good ones) becomes worse when you check the flop

imo

I see your point for the number of outcomes and how betting is whats the most profitable on paper but it's not like the frequency in which they would happen is all equal.

I think you are over-valuating the value of my hand in this spot with "2" and also not giving enough credit to soliduser if you think he is calling with Kxs/weaker ace here(and PF). That's the big problem imo.

Also the shorty is never ever folding even if he has 22(again on paper he can but it's just not going to happen), it's not important to me if I give him a free card(which imo isn't going to happen like EVER because he will stick in his remaining $24 asap he's just retarded for not putting it in pf) so 1/2/3 aren't happening. and it's not that important that I give a free card to soliduser either because I believe if he checks behind, he's probably drawing to 2 outs or if trapping, possibly has me drawing almost dead.

and 4 and 5 are really bad results. to be honest I can't see one hand that would call me on the flop that I beat. I said I think he folds AJ there pf to me in this spot.

if that's your analysis then i don't think you are giving NEARLY enough consideration to the fact that your 3bet preflop with AQ is implicitly HORRENDOUS if you can't get any value on a flop like this

as far as i see it, these two things cannot both simultaneously be true:

a. preflop 3bet is fine, even if it's not great
b. can't get value on this flop

either (a) or (b) is wrong. if you're this confident in your postflop analysis, then i think your preflop 3bet has to be a really big spew, and should be the most important point of this thread

On May 12 2008 01:59 Loco wrote: also not giving enough credit to soliduser if you think he is calling with Kxs/weaker ace here(and PF)

also, i don't think that i'm "not giving him enough credit" by making those assumptions. good players make thin value calls against aggressive players all the time. it's not necessarily great or terrible for him to have a super-tight range for looking you up in this situation. so i certainly don't think i'm calling him a poor player by assuming he can look you up light

Eh, 3betting expecting that the solid player folds and you get it in with the fishcake is a reasonable play. I imagine if the fish had folded preflop then he wouldn't have 3bet AQ. If that's the case then checking the flop is reasonable as well.

You really need to consider how often the original raiser folds to determine how good the 3bet is. The quality of the play goes up the more often he folds, for obvious reasons.

I think you're forgetting to look at the intent of the 3bet myth, and that was to isolate the fish.