Intro to my blog and some hand analysis - Page 2

On November 26 2007 17:30 sOah wrote: ok I must be smoking crack because I was almost positive this post was a total level this seems to me to be completely basic analysis and in some spots very incorrectly applied reasoning and poor grasp of the situation.. either that or you're leaving out huge essential chunks of reasoning/thought processing etc.

I appreciate the criticism, but you could be a little more constructive, it's really unnecessary if you want to just bash me for explaining my thought process. You could show me where I made a mistake if that's the case. I don't claim to be the best player here, I just have had positive results over my last 35k hands and won a lot of big pots in marginal situations, so I felt like I might have something to share to lower stakes players.

Think of me whatever you want, just make sure you support whatever you try to claim with evidence and reasoning. Thanks.

On November 26 2007 17:44 MARSHALL28 wrote: Show nested quote + On November 26 2007 17:30 sOah wrote: ok I must be smoking crack because I was almost positive this post was a total level this seems to me to be completely basic analysis and in some spots very incorrectly applied reasoning and poor grasp of the situation.. either that or you're leaving out huge essential chunks of reasoning/thought processing etc. I appreciate the criticism, but you could be a little more constructive, it's really unnecessary if you want to just bash me for explaining my thought process. You could show me where I made a mistake if that's the case. I don't claim to be the best player here, I just have had positive results over my last 35k hands and won a lot of big pots in marginal situations, so I felt like I might have something to share to lower stakes players. Think of me whatever you want, just make sure you support whatever you try to claim with evidence and reasoning. Thanks.

ah so 35k is what we call consistently beating stakes now? ahahaha. "won a lot of big pots in marginal situations" - if the situations are marginal and you've won a lot of the big ones then that's running good fwiw - this isn't bashing you obv. you're also playing well and doing something right for sure, don't get me wrong.

tbh I don't think it's completely fair for me to be more constructively criticising you when there are players from this forum who profit from the way you approach the game. I'm sure if you yourself read through your own thought processes as you've written them down you'd see where they contradict themselves and where they appear illogical.

Remember, playing great poker is one thing but conveying your thought processes and logical reasoning into writing is another thing, and a lot harder than people give those who do it well credit for. Some players are even phenomal teachers and theoretical players but when it comes to grinding/playing themselves they lack the further skills required to really excel in this game, the discipline, honesty with oneself and so on, bla bla bla . It could very well be that it's an issue of writing what it is you're thinking and not the thinking itself..

Nice Read Marshall.. keep it up.

In hand number 1 I think it's good to show extreme strength and push your opponents off when you believe they have marginal hands. But this is a UTG raiser who flat called you till river who can have a set as well or AA KK. I dunno if river shove is +EV or not since I still dont know how to do the +ev calculation formula even after CTS explains it lol... maybe someone else can do the calculation?

Very nice and interesting read, keep it up.

sOah, obviously no one is just phenomenal at describing their thought process the first time they do it, it takes time. Hopefully after doing this for half a year I'll be a little bit good at it.

When I say I've won a lot of big pots in marginal situations, what I mean is, I have made a lot of light call downs that have been correct, and I've gotten my opponent to call me down all in w/ hands like just ace high.

wow!

nice blog i liked it keep posting

Submitted by : adam001

*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero
herbs23: folds
shinerrr: folds
Hero : raises $12 to $16
th9nip: folds
Marshall28: calls $12
*** FLOP ***
Marshall28: checks
Hero : bets $24
Marshall28: calls $24
*** TURN ***
Marshall28: checks
Hero : checks
*** RIVER ***
Marshall28: checks
Hero : bets $70
Marshall28: calls $70
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Hero : shows a pair of Sevens
Marshall28: mucks hand
Hero collected $220 from pot

Submitted by : adam001

POKERSTARS GAME #13495731048: HOLD'EM NO LIMIT ($2/$4) - 2007/11/27 - 02:10:35 (ET)
Table 'Periphas III' 6-max Seat #2 is the button
Seat 1: Bouge_Todd ($430.60 in chips)
Seat 2: jaywks ($441.70 in chips)
Seat 3: Braisss ($948.80 in chips)
Seat 4: ighvcedgw ($104.70 in chips)
Seat 5: Marshall28 ($464.45 in chips)
Seat 6: Hero ($443.30 in chips)
Braisss: posts small blind $2
ighvcedgw: posts big blind $4

Holecards(Odds)
Dealt to Hero
Marshall28: raises $12 to $16
Hero : calls $16
Bouge_Todd: folds
jaywks: folds
Braisss: folds
ighvcedgw: folds

Flop(Odds) (Pot : $38.00)

   
Marshall28: bets $24
Hero : calls $24

Turn(Odds) (Pot : $86.00)

   
Marshall28: checks
Hero : bets $20
Marshall28: calls $20

River (Pot : $126.00)

   
Marshall28: bets $60
Hero : raises $115 to $175
Marshall28: calls $115

Showdown
Hero : shows (three of a kind, Deuces)
Marshall28: mucks hand
Hero collected $473 from pot

Summary
Total pot $476 | Rake $3
Board  
Seat 1: Bouge_Todd folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 2: jaywks (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 3: Braisss (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 4: ighvcedgw (big blind) folded before Flop
Seat 5: Marshall28 mucked
Seat 6: Hero showed and won ($473) with three of a kind, Deuces

lol golden adam

i liked your hand analysis. soah was right, in some spots you are contradictory on streets prior to the river, but your river analysis seemed spot on imo. I like the way both hands were played for the most part, and good analysis. If I wasnt so high right now I would explain a bit more, but yeah. keep it up though