Disney is awesome

HAND2:
+ Show Spoiler +

+ Show Spoiler +

0 votes

Lol was about 99% sure that i'd see johnny deep in there. When i read "Tim Burton" and the way the movie was made, there was simply no way to not see him.

On the first hand, make the c bet 2$ or so should do the trick.

And the thing about making your sizes different in different positions is a good general rule, but I wouldn't follow it always. like, if the blind has softer/passive guys, who calls bigger bets, no reason not to bet 2dollar on the button, since they're oblivious to position and if they decided to call, it won't matter. But vs regulars you benefit quite a lot by making it smaller, since they will fold if they planned on folding, and if they want to 3bet, they get exploitable if they make the 3b a lot bigger in propotion to the pot.

I would call the re raise and vary it depending on history/reads on the villain. On the turn, fold if he bets again I think is best line, if he was bluffing, he won't fire again oop, really strong to call 3b so. What I think at least.

I don't know how I like the whole changing raise based on position like that.. ehh. And it seems weird to be opening to button to small and having all of your pots in position be smaller on average, seems like you will win less money that way.

On February 25 2010 05:25 Night2o1 wrote: I don't know how I like the whole changing raise based on position like that.. ehh. And it seems weird to be opening to button to small and having all of your pots in position be smaller on average, seems like you will win less money that way.

Agree, but not only for this reason cos in a way it depends on you/your opponents style as you have control of the pot size so have a chance to bloat it if you have position...

However, You'll be raising alot weaker hands from the button and alot stronger hands utg (obv..) SO ppl might well see your small raises pf as weak and your big raises as strong.. which is more or less true which may not really be what you want, you want to keep as much mystery as possible, I'd just keep my raise the same from any position.. I know you're trying to be fancy and I like the thought thats gone into it to like be the most +ev possible but I think its not at all necessarily, especially since you're 4 tabling might as well not waste your time on it imo.

whyd you get banned

Im eager for the world primiere of Alice @ 5th March
Tim Burton is sick sick producer & director and Johnny Depp is probably my favourite actor

On February 25 2010 09:21 KeyleK_uk wrote: Show nested quote + On February 25 2010 05:25 Night2o1 wrote: I don't know how I like the whole changing raise based on position like that.. ehh. And it seems weird to be opening to button to small and having all of your pots in position be smaller on average, seems like you will win less money that way. Agree, but not only for this reason cos in a way it depends on you/your opponents style as you have control of the pot size so have a chance to bloat it if you have position... However, You'll be raising alot weaker hands from the button and alot stronger hands utg (obv..) SO ppl might well see your small raises pf as weak and your big raises as strong.. which is more or less true which may not really be what you want, you want to keep as much mystery as possible, I'd just keep my raise the same from any position.. I know you're trying to be fancy and I like the thought thats gone into it to like be the most +ev possible but I think its not at all necessarily, especially since you're 4 tabling might as well not waste your time on it imo.

There is no wasting of time, it takes me 0 time to alter my betsizing with ninja.

And I absolutely do not want to keep my range a mystery, I want people to think I raise tight UTG and in the small blind so that they play straightforward when I am out of position and to think/know that my range is huge on the button and cut off to play back at me when I am IP.

Its soo much easier to represent stuff and I am not really as tight utg as villains might think ( I raise 22+ QTs+ AJo+ as a default on all tables and adjust according to table)

And I get night's argument, but in that case you would be raising less UTG and more on the button, which is dumb.

I have a large card disadvantage when I raise from CO or BU and get called, and want to have as large stak/pot ratio as possible as playability is what makes playing IP profitable.
On the other hand with a strong range UTG I want to discourage action, give worse implied odds against my strong range and indecrease the pot/stack ratio so that my position is less of a disadvantage.
EDIT: and also get value, rofl I forgot that (monkey mind)

Another thing to consider is how you get 3bet, and you lose a considerable amount less in the long run when you raise just those 0.5bb less each button if your opponents frequently play back at you from blinds as it is the case from 3/6 higher when you raise ridiculous amount of buttons as I do.

This obviously applies only when you raise thrash suited hands and thrash in general preflop as I do and will more and more as I move up.
If your raising range is mostly consistent of value ranges than raising a decent standard amount from all positions is certainly a better option.

On February 25 2010 04:39 Mariuslol wrote: On the first hand, make the c bet 2$ or so should do the trick. And the thing about making your sizes different in different positions is a good general rule, but I wouldn't follow it always. like, if the blind has softer/passive guys, who calls bigger bets, no reason not to bet 2dollar on the button, since they're oblivious to position and if they decided to call, it won't matter. But vs regulars you benefit quite a lot by making it smaller, since they will fold if they planned on folding, and if they want to 3bet, they get exploitable if they make the 3b a lot bigger in propotion to the pot. I would call the re raise and vary it depending on history/reads on the villain. On the turn, fold if he bets again I think is best line, if he was bluffing, he won't fire again oop, really strong to call 3b so. What I think at least.

I was just testing what you guys think. The villain is a 20/11 over only 30 hands TAG. I raise small pre so I expect some extra calls he would't usually make with hands like 89s 78s etc. Thats why I bet as the two cards make so many gutshots and 1 pair type hands that vbet here will be profitable (+ balance blah blah)

When he raises we have to think about what he represents. Its basically 6 combos of sets (QQ is never in his range here), and AQ. for hands that beat us.

I doubt that Regs at this limit would raise KQ against a non-spewy supernova on a flop like that. Whats more, AQ should be somewhat discounted as he will be expected to 3bet it preflop at least 30% of the time lets say as he is unknown and regs call TPTK against other regs at NL50 a ton.

So Its 6 combos of sets, and a farely discounted number of AQ combos, and gutshots and random raises that will be done some of the time with my very weak line so far.

When the king comes and he bets close to pot thats like super narrowing his range.

Do we really expect a random NL50 TAG to bet close to pot with KT here a large % of the time? No sir.
Do we really expect a typical NL50 TAG to Bet a Q here this large to represent a bluff? No sir, like never.

On the other hand, the K would be a good logical bluffing card if he thinks on basic standard level. When he check raises flop with gutshots or other cards he will be almost obliged to bet the king, where it in reality removes value hands from his range unless he bets KJ and KT with this exact sizing (Again, I will discount this largely because people are horribly imbalanced when it comes to value bet sizing at this limit)

So he basically keeps representing those 6 combos of sets and given the positions and action so far I think folding the turn is worse than calling without specific reads.


On the river I dont expect a bluff like never on the other hand as there are not many scarecards left and I will be getting sweet odds to call + all sets and KQ are certainly fully in my range by now if I call call.

On February 25 2010 10:01 joLin wrote: whyd you get banned

http://www.liquidpoker.net/poker-foru..._canadians_to_buy_on_poker_sites.html

i think he checks back turn if he does bink the K just cause "oh now i have showdown value". pretty sure he has 66, 77 here or air, and there are far more combos of air.

On February 25 2010 03:42 LemOn[5thF] wrote: I also decided to standardise my preflop raise sizing to be ready for higher limits. I use the positional systems with the following raise sizing at NL50 which I want to practice next month or so so it becomes my standard and I start changing PF sizing based on table when it gets to my blood. UTG 2 HJ 1.75 CO 1.50 BU 1.25 SB 2

standarizing your betsizing without knowing why is kinda retarded, ALWAYS adjust to the table, if you play 4 tables, you should have different pf betsizing on each of them, i play nl200 on ongame, games are so soft that i dont event balance my opening sizes, sometimes i make more with monsters and i dont even care about being exploitled lol

nothing will beat the alice in wonderland of the 90s.....johnny depp's involvement makes me sigh

On February 25 2010 14:58 Sadi wrote: Show nested quote + On February 25 2010 03:42 LemOn[5thF] wrote: I also decided to standardise my preflop raise sizing to be ready for higher limits. I use the positional systems with the following raise sizing at NL50 which I want to practice next month or so so it becomes my standard and I start changing PF sizing based on table when it gets to my blood. UTG 2 HJ 1.75 CO 1.50 BU 1.25 SB 2 standarizing your betsizing without knowing why is kinda retarded, ALWAYS adjust to the table, if you play 4 tables, you should have different pf betsizing on each of them, i play nl200 on ongame, games are so soft that i dont event balance my opening sizes, sometimes i make more with monsters and i dont even care about being exploitled lol

Hello Captain obvious -.-