200nl tough spot vs nit - Page 3

I guess thats only one combination tough, KQcc.

And 3 combinations of 88, 3 combinations of AK (AhKc, AsKc, AcKc)

Beat: 1 combo, we win 147+128 = +275

Beaten by: 3 combo, we lose 3x128 = -384

Split w/ 3 combinations. 3x73.5= +220.5

Outcome vs this range (AK, KQcc, 88) = +111.5

Maybe he doesnt play AK, KQcc as aggressivly, but the same thing applies to 88, he might slowplay it from time to time, and add some spazz out factors too..

I wouldnt fold here.

On January 21 2010 10:27 SpasticInk wrote: well don't say "for you who don't play FR don't comment" then. why not target the speicific replies instead, the ones you felt were bad and ignorant. anyway - isnt KQs in villains range in these spots?

ye i agree, it was a bad sentence to write

my bad

If calling is a mistake then it's a potentially less worse mistake than folding could me. So call and if you lose then chalk this marginal spot up to variance

no its not ?

On January 21 2010 14:04 genjix wrote: If calling is a mistake then it's a potentially less worse mistake than folding could me. So call and if you lose then chalk this marginal spot up to variance

if calling is a mistake then ... we should fold...

if its a better choice than folding, it's obviously EV+ to call...

what kind of logic is that

On January 21 2010 17:53 SpasticInk wrote: Show nested quote + On January 21 2010 14:04 genjix wrote: If calling is a mistake then it's a potentially less worse mistake than folding could me. So call and if you lose then chalk this marginal spot up to variance if calling is a mistake then ... we should fold... if its a better choice than folding, it's obviously EV+ to call... what kind of logic is that

No I'm saying that if calling is a mistake then it's a small mistake. But that if folding is a mistake then it's a potentially huge mistake.

On January 21 2010 10:27 SpasticInk wrote: well don't say "for you who don't play FR don't comment" then. why not target the speicific replies instead, the ones you felt were bad and ignorant. anyway - isnt KQs in villains range in these spots?

HE NEVER SHOVES KQS, IT IS NOT IN HIS RANGE.

The only hands he ever shows here are 88, maybe AK, and maybe spazzing with some busted FD, maybe. He doesn't valbet KQ or KJ, ever.

lol @ the thought that he can even have KQs here ever, this is probably a flop fold

sick, why do u guys even play on FR stars?

On January 22 2010 03:29 locoo wrote: sick, why do u guys even play on FR stars?

BECAUSE WE GET FPP'S AND CAN HAVE FPP PRO AVATAR PICTURES

THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT BEAUTIFUL COLOURS

http://www.fpppro.com/fpp-pro-avatars.php

nit 4 life

if this is a fold, then is bottom set on a dryish board too? if not can sum1 explain why

fistpump snapfold

On January 22 2010 08:52 genjix wrote: if this is a fold, then is bottom set on a dryish board too? if not can sum1 explain why

this is really an impossible board to bluff with that line

if you have a large sample this is a flop fold a lot of the times, if not, you're calling river 100%.

Like if he had AK he'd call call call he wouldn't raise flop as a nit. seriously FR is this nitty.

agree with Myth.

I know this is FR and it doesn't really pertain, but I remember playing shorthanded NL like 400nl and I had the nittiest stats ever (like 17/13), but I absolutely raped games because people ALWAYS thought I had the nuts, and I would repeatedly call people who opened somewhat lighter and then bluff and they would fold every fucking time and I would have nothing, and repeatedly I had people saying that they had to be beat and their reasoning was my stats.

I guess what I am saying is that fine, play completely by stats. But if you are playing with the same people every day and never look them up you're gonna be losing money to at least some of them.

On January 22 2010 08:52 genjix wrote: if this is a fold, then is bottom set on a dryish board too? if not can sum1 explain why

On January 22 2010 08:52 genjix wrote: if this is a fold, then is bottom set on a dryish board too? if not can sum1 explain why

it can be for sure... if the board is so that they cant ever have anything worse than of course its a fold... its just a rare occurance thats all

On January 22 2010 12:15 asdf2000 wrote: I know this is FR and it doesn't really pertain, but I remember playing shorthanded NL like 400nl and I had the nittiest stats ever (like 17/13), but I absolutely raped games because people ALWAYS thought I had the nuts, and I would repeatedly call people who opened somewhat lighter and then bluff and they would fold every fucking time and I would have nothing, and repeatedly I had people saying that they had to be beat and their reasoning was my stats. I guess what I am saying is that fine, play completely by stats. But if you are playing with the same people every day and never look them up you're gonna be losing money to at least some of them.

I entirely agree. Sod 'cool', I wish I had the discipline to be this nitty and aggro postflop - however it is a reasonable generalisation that people this nitty preflop just don't bluff enough post, and you are the exception. Also, It can't have been that repeatedly if you were 17/13.

In the case of a paired flop and we hold trips with the best kicker then 13 hands beat us. With bottom set on a dry flop then 12 hands beat us. That's one hand difference. If the trips is a fold then so is the bottom set.

Disregarding suits and just having ranks:

xxy

we hold: Ax
combinations that beat us: xx, 6 yy's, 6 xy's

xyz

we hold: zz (bottom set)
combinations that beat us: 6 xx's, 6 yy's

On January 24 2010 07:30 genjix wrote: In the case of a paired flop and we hold trips with the best kicker then 13 hands beat us. With bottom set on a dry flop then 12 hands beat us. That's one hand difference. If the trips is a fold then so is the bottom set. Disregarding suits and just having ranks: xxy we hold: Ax combinations that beat us: xx, 6 yy's, 6 xy's xyz we hold: zz (bottom set) combinations that beat us: 6 xx's, 6 yy's

Dude you're totally making shit up.