Poker Forum => Strategy => Topic started by: Waz1892 on November 25, 2010, 22:06:38 PM
Title: Cash Game Hand on Betfair - I have QQ.
Post by: Waz1892 on November 25, 2010, 22:06:38 PM
Pre-flop Raise OK? Flop Bet OK on that board? Right to Check on turn? Do I do these Academy hands correctly?! ???
TEXAS_HOLDEM, NO_LIMIT, R5-99922912-261 played at "Geneve" for USD RM from 2010-11-25 16:53 until 2010-11-25 16:54
Seat 1: mrPrat0309 ($26.54 in chips) Seat 4: acesup42010 ($20.86 in chips) Seat 5: RidingHorse ($42.79 in chips) Seat 6: supersys003 ($24.74 in chips) Seat 7: Luckyyyy777 ($6.40 in chips) Seat 8: God Fish ($13.34 in chips) Seat 9: Waz1974 ($35.47 in chips) Seat 10: leo7689 ($27.02 in chips)
ANTES/BLINDS Waz1974 posts small blind ($0.10), leo7689 posts big blind ($0.20),
PRE-FLOP mrPrat0309 raises to $0.80, acesup42010 calls $0.80, RidingHorse folds, supersys003 folds, Luckyyyy777 folds, God Fish folds, Waz1974 raises to $2.20, leo7689 folds, mrPrat0309 calls $2.20, acesup42010 calls $2.20.
Title: Re: Cash Game Hand on Betfair - I have QQ.
Post by: AMRN on November 25, 2010, 23:00:35 PM
When you consider that you have 3-bet to 11x preflop, and have two callers, the table must be pretty fishy. Therefore, why check the turn? If your hand was good in the flop, nothing changed on the turn..... you were called on the flop, and it kind of stands to reason that you will get called again on the turn. Checking here is just missed value.
c-bet again on the turn - $6 is about right to keep him interested with an underpair, and sets the pot at just the right value for you to be able to ship the rest in on the river and make it a mandatory call for him.
If he has quad aces - suck it up, I reckon you are supposed to stack off in this spot.
Title: Re: Cash Game Hand on Betfair - I have QQ.
Post by: deanp27 on November 25, 2010, 23:22:40 PM
3bet more pre and keep betting
Title: Re: Cash Game Hand on Betfair - I have QQ.
Post by: GarethC on November 26, 2010, 00:28:12 AM
100% agree. Make it >$3 pre and keep betting for value on this board, they"re going to call it down with a lot of pairs.
Title: Re: Cash Game Hand on Betfair - I have QQ.
Post by: TheSnapper on November 26, 2010, 01:46:09 AM
I agree with the $3 pf 3 bet especially since we are oop, the $3 bet probably also gets called in two spots and the pot is a healthy $9.20 going to the flop.
Flop ($9.20): bet $6 - $8.50 aiming to make for a turn or river psb (or slightly less) but getting stacks in as early as is possible.
That line doesn"t change ever for me and I"m never ever folding even though I suspect it all ends horribly for you in this hand.
Title: Re: Cash Game Hand on Betfair - I have QQ.
Post by: Waz1892 on November 26, 2010, 08:58:20 AM
I did think afterwards that my Pf bet was a little shy.
I checked the turn in case he had the ace so I didn"t stack off, as anything he bets I will prob have to call anyway.
so continung the hand
RIVER [board cards: AS,AC,AD,JC,8D ] Waz1974 bets $3, mrPrat0309 raises to $6, Waz1974 calls $6.
Thoughts on my play (be gentle, I"m still learning) and what does he have now?
After the river I will share further thoughts and seek comments as I want to learn from better players. AMRN has already touched I something that I think is maybe a leak in my game - in that I should really be stacking off in this type of hand.
Title: Re: Cash Game Hand on Betfair - I have QQ.
Post by: Mikeyboy9361 on November 26, 2010, 09:12:32 AM
When you consider that you have 3-bet to 11x preflop, and have two callers, the table must be pretty fishy. Therefore, why check the turn? If your hand was good in the flop, nothing changed on the turn..... you were called on the flop, and it kind of stands to reason that you will get called again on the turn. Checking here is just missed value.
c-bet again on the turn - $6 is about right to keep him interested with an underpair, and sets the pot at just the right value for you to be able to ship the rest in on the river and make it a mandatory call for him.
If he has quad aces - suck it up, I reckon you are supposed to stack off in this spot.
Agree with this.
You"re always gonna call that raise on the river, and if he has an ace or pocket Kings then so be it.
Title: Re: Cash Game Hand on Betfair - I have QQ.
Post by: Foggy on November 26, 2010, 10:35:19 AM
I did think afterwards that my Pf bet was a little shy.
I checked the turn in case he had the ace so I didn"t stack off, as anything he bets I will prob have to call anyway.
so continung the hand
RIVER [board cards: AS,AC,AD,JC,8D ] Waz1974 bets $3, mrPrat0309 raises to $6, Waz1974 calls $6.
Thoughts on my play (be gentle, I"m still learning) and what does he have now?
After the river I will share further thoughts and seek comments as I want to learn from better players. AMRN has already touched I something that I think is maybe a leak in my game - in that I should really be stacking off in this type of hand.
Checking the turn has only given him a chance of a free card. He could hold a king in which case you have caused your own demise. In all probability you were in front pre flop, so keep betting on all streets. If he has the Ace then it"s a cooler, but in the same situation all my money is going in IMO
Title: Re: Cash Game Hand on Betfair - I have QQ.
Post by: Fatcatstu on November 26, 2010, 10:48:36 AM
As said, i bet the turn roughly 110% of the time, about 7 dollars, and then ship all in over the top of his cack arsed min raise if i am honest with you, if you lose in this spot, its just UL really, reload and go for it again.
Title: Re: Cash Game Hand on Betfair - I have QQ.
Post by: mulen on November 26, 2010, 11:14:21 AM
hi :)
You have to 3bet a bit more here in my opinion.. and please bet the turn for value all day.. its so unlikely that you are beaten and it nearly impossible that your opp will c/r bluff you here so just keep betting.. you get a lot of value from all pairs which is a big part of his range here.. and even if opp has an ace / FH here ( which is very unlikely ) he will probably just call and then check on the river too.. so if you really afraid of the ace you can check back on the river too..
Title: Re: Cash Game Hand on Betfair - I have QQ.
Post by: PantsMan on November 26, 2010, 12:56:42 PM
I agree with others that your 3 bet size is too small PF. Guess it depends why you"re 3 betting. To get more money in the pot or to get rid of players with drawing hands.
Not sure i agree with Steve (AMRN) about two callers making the table a bit fishy. The first caller is getting nearly 3 to 1 (1.40 into 4.10) and once he calls the second caller is getting nearly 4 to 1 (1.40 into 4.50). The 3 better doesn"t necessarily have to have a big hand and if the pot is 5.50 and i have to bet 1.40 to call i"m not going anwhere with any hand i called the original raise with.
Once the flop comes down i"m going nowhere with the Queens. If he"s got kings he"s re-popping pre so there"s only one card to worry about and if he"s got the ace, he"s got the ace, so be it. I"m betting every street. Definitely not checking the turn and definitely not putting in such a small bet on the river. I"m happy to get all my stack in here. If he"s got lucky, fair play to him.
Title: Re: Cash Game Hand on Betfair - I have QQ.
Post by: Waz1892 on November 26, 2010, 22:03:30 PM
Agree now with pre flop bet, but I think he"d call anyway with AJ.
I guess in summary i played the hand to scared and shouldn"t worry if he has KK or Ax - If he has that"s poker.
I guess i"m losing value by not getting it all in and winning most of the time by getting called with most hands, as the money "saved" by playing safe / scared / nitty doesn"t offset the money i would normal win when getting called dwon by weaker pairs.
Cheers for feedback
8)
Title: Re: Cash Game Hand on Betfair - I have QQ.
Post by: noble1 on December 16, 2010, 11:28:59 AM
pretty much disagree with most of the thread :) Full ring and 3bet squeeze utg1 raiser and utg2 caller, no reads!! full ring is usually full of rocks/nits, Waz"s perceived range should look strong to ALL but complete donks and nutters, agreed with the point that the 3bet p/f sizing maybe a tad small. OOP on AAA flop 2 callers in a 3bet squeezed pot, unless the opponents are complete idiots then OOP we stand to get very little value by betting 3 streets, OOP full stop just doesn"t make much cash in the long run, plus add in that Waz is in the blinds, hands up who has a tracker who has positive figures for the blinds? Stack off everytime OOP on this texture, REALLY?
have a look at this Waz, have a good long think.. if anything this guy will make u smile.. remember OOP and no reads equals lots of head scratching and bitching about how bad u are running etc etc blah blah... Nikachu talks about his theory on a leak of SSNL regs etc make - pre-flop aggression...
[youtube=425,350][/youtube]
Title: Re: Cash Game Hand on Betfair - I have QQ.
Post by: TheSnapper on December 16, 2010, 17:33:28 PM
Nice vid, really enjoyed it. His point is predicated on our equity versus the opponents likely 3b calling range. My experience at 20nl is that QQ+AK,AKs is way too tight a range to give them. You could certainly widen that range based simply on the premise that, you seldom run into optimal ranges at that level.
AdAh,AdAs,AhAs,KdKh,KdKs,KhKs,QQ-88,AhKh,AsKs,AQs,AcKd,AdKc,AhKc,AhKd,AsKc,AsKd,AsKh,AQo is more likely and we have 65% with QQ versus that range. I"ve only included half of the combo"s for AA,KK & AK since they"ll likely 4 bet those hands at least some of the time.
Title: Re: Cash Game Hand on Betfair - I have QQ.
Post by: noble1 on December 28, 2010, 14:57:07 PM
I"ve had some rare time off to think what to reply in this thread :) OOP = playing out of position is not healthy in general in cash games because simply we don"t have a lot of choices, its harder to extract value and of course we lose the ability of controlling the size of the pot. Try running a three-barrel bluff OOP lol whilst villain IP calls/flats us with the nuts, hells bells i"ve lost count of the amount of times i had to learn this the hard way lol, count the times the villain just calls flop and turn on certain textures with the nuts, afterall he has position and he has the choice to whether or not to close the action on the river, it helps also when we bet strong into him also lol. Likewise OOP on textures like this [AAA] what does our range look like to a semi-competent player when we barrel like monkeys? Our range is either nutted/strong or air, in reality we make ourselves easier to read. IMHO questions like how should we size our betting when IP or OOP should be asked, especially on board textures when there are very few combinations of nut hands. Betting has a consequence you know, it gives us info, why do so many ignore this? its like there brains turn off and they become fixated with getting paid off no matter what, for fcks sake, take a breath and think the hand through, use reads and a bit of logic and learn when to fold/give up sometimes even if you have a set+ etc :)..
Title: Re: Cash Game Hand on Betfair - I have QQ.
Post by: Marty719 on December 28, 2010, 19:13:21 PM
Fold/giving up is obv a mistake when we crush villains range. Bet bet bet is def the best for value here. The info we have is that a nl20 player flatted our 3b pre and flatted on a aaa flop. I"d love to know what ur value range is here is qq is not in it. Always remember that ppl are stations and let them act accordingly.
Ps bet bet bet may be worse in a mtt, but in cash value is key.
Title: Re: Cash Game Hand on Betfair - I have QQ.
Post by: noble1 on December 28, 2010, 20:05:11 PM
Fold/giving up is obv a mistake when we crush villains range. Bet bet bet is def the best for value here. The info we have is that a nl20 player flatter our 3b pre and flatted on a aaa flop. I"d live to know what ur value range is here is qq is not in it. Always remember that ppl are stations and let them act accordingly.
very insightful marty...
Title: Re: Cash Game Hand on Betfair - I have QQ.
Post by: Marty719 on December 28, 2010, 20:24:23 PM
No need to get too fancy in these spots. Poker is a game that is easy to over complicate.
Title: Re: Cash Game Hand on Betfair - I have QQ.
Post by: noble1 on December 29, 2010, 07:00:48 AM
No need to get too fancy in these spots. Poker is a game that is easy to over complicate.
I always thought thats it's more important that you understand why you're doing something than just to know what to do in poker :)
Quote
The info we have is that a nl20 player flatted our 3b pre and flatted on a aaa flop
Value betting is not just about betting to get called by a worse hand, its about betting to get called or raised by a worse hand, so when you say bet bet bet, then how much?
Quote
The info we have is that a nl20 player flatted our 3b pre and flatted on a aaa flop
you have more info than that!! he is utg in a full ring game, so that helps us come up with some sort of range, utg calls a 3bet and then flats the cbet with an opponent behind him utg1, hmmm does that help in any way in narrowing down possible hands that villain would do this with? Other info is avaiable, the villains stack size, ok its not locked down logic but he has a stack of 130bb"s+ which met mean that he might have some sort of idea as to what he is doing [until proven otherwise ;D] look at Luckyyyy777 and God Fish, there stack sizes suggest the opposite.. Waz gets questioned in the thread as to why did he check the turn, WHY? i"d say against some opponents on certain textures[when we have reads helps :)] that checking the turn can be good, if our opponent has a nutted hand, then some will still mostly bet out on the turn when checked to, afterall they want to get the max out of there strong hand. So rather than reply in a thread to say checking makes no sense, its missed value etc etc blah blah, then think to yourself when is it good, can it be good in other situations say against someone who has this reflex to betting whenever someone checks to him :) is the opponent over doing the floating.. I find it frustrating tbh when i see in threads the opportunity to discuss different approaches destroyed by matter of fact std forum replies.
Quote
I"d live[like] to know what ur[your] value range is here is[if] qq is not in it
tbh marty i"d have some sort of read and would adjust accordingly :), without reads and being oop tbh i dont embrace variance just for the sake of it and stack off 130bb"s no reads and put it down to coolers when i lose. I just see it as the kind of board texture where getting value oop is difficult, if i were to take the 3barrel route then i"d bet smaller milking type bets or check the flop attempting to gain position to see how utg and utg1 react.. You say poker is easy to over complicate, to that i"d say there is never a universal answer in poker situations as it is people and player types that complicate the game of poker not the game itself..
Quote
but in cash value is key
betting for value to get called or raised is important yes but its only part of the concept is it not? afterall position is important, be it being in position so that when involved in pots it enables us to make better decisions, having good table position on different player types is important because lets face it whoever coined the phrase that money flows counter clockwise is pretty much right imho. Being or having position in hands allows for creative play does it not? of course reads help also, hows that for a key to cash or any poker game.. Why stack off oop in these situations at all? the last time i checked, limping was still popular in micro stakes, just winning a fair share of limped pots helps boost any players bb/100, the amount that just check fold when they miss is unbelievable [said in a victor meldrew style] sorry just pointing out that there are other ways/alternatives to beat the micros :)
thats my moan over :)
Title: Re: Cash Game Hand on Betfair - I have QQ.
Post by: Marty719 on December 29, 2010, 10:12:54 AM
Jesus thats a big ole wall of text for this time in the morning. Noble - u r always very good at writing out your thought process, but this is quite frankley bonkers. Once pre is not 4b, qq = kk. Is your 3barrell value range in this spot really just Ax? If so, you are losing value in a whole lot of spots!!!!
No need to get too fancy in these spots. Poker is a game that is easy to over complicate.
I always thought thats it?s more important that you understand why you?re doing something than just to know what to do in poker :)
Quote
I thought it was pretty obv why we are doing it. To maximise profit. Its NL20...In villains pov, once we barrell turn, our range is polarised to QQ+, Ax and air. We can"t just say, "Hmmm, a 20nl player raise calls from utg, a good portion of his range has us beat. In reality at this level...people do not fold any of their range to 3bs, esp when they are this small!!! As for him flatting our flop range with a player behind...again, its ridic to think this means he has Ax a good % (we have discussed why he cannot have KK), when he is usually floating 77+. AAA is a board texture that as the pf 3b"r, we are going to be barrelling close to 100% of the time. The usual stations at this level will be aware of this.
You say without reads, you don;t just put it down to variance and coolers...in a vacuum...folding this is a million times worse. If we have a read that villain is a nit, who plays massively fit or fold poker and is incapable of floating semi-light then we can MAYBE check turn for pot-control. Readless, we have to assume he is similar to 99% of the player base at this level, and "adjust accordingly." At higher stakes, we can play this differently and check turn for deception, esp when we know villains caqn be capable of floating extra light, BUT at NL20...we can value own people fairly consistently. Play a few k hands of it today....triple barrell in some polarised spots, and watch how light we get called!! If you dnt go for max value w/ QQ here then your win-rate will suffer hugely and, yet again I feel the need to point out that in cash games, we do not care about survival and win-rate is key!! If we get stacks in and double up 75% of the time, and lose the other 25%, then yes, we can say the 25% is a cooler as we know if we play the hand the same way consistently, it will be long term profitable vs this player base.
As for your last point, of course position is important, and of course we should tread more cautiously oop, but that does not mean we should just give up on trying to get value. We will have to play hands oop, but when we beat our villains range, and feel he will call with worse, then there is no need to get passive. As long as we know villains range is wide enough to profitably barrell, then we should bet bet bet....and yes...sometimes he will have the top of his range, and that sucks....but it doesnt mean barrelling is the most long-term profitable play.
Title: Re: Cash Game Hand on Betfair - I have QQ.
Post by: noble1 on December 29, 2010, 10:44:45 AM
u might want to edit the above marty its been left in quotes,.. :) read what i said chap please, i said if i 3barrel without reads oop then i"ll do milking bets at this sort of buy in, the texture of the board makes a difference u know as well as reads.. You point out that villain cannot flat KK here? how on earth can we determine this :) there are no reads given, its that assumption thing again, i hate it tbh, you cannot base it on anything.. Players have different personalities and to tag a random with no reads as a station or have a thought process from the off that he is going to call 3barrels with say 55 66 77 88 99 TT or KQs is just to simplistic, its the kind of thinking that advocates spew like this and players keep on telling each other in the forums that it is a cooler and that long term it"ll pay off and so the cycle goes on and on and on, players reaffirm to each other all this dribble about how so+so percentage of so+so stake will pay it off, well guess what , i"m yet to see any proof in the pudding on these magical figures ;D.. Well i for one are yet to see someone post there stats over a large enough sample to justify barreling a texture like this OOP, have you? if so please post the link.. With all of the training sites and info out there believe it or not the std of the donkey is getting better, i"m not saying that you can"t still find them but to do so requires a bit more table selection than it did once upon a time. Until as a player who wants to learn and get better, you cannot do this putting bra"s on your head and conjuring up mythical %"s that proof its long term +ev, you have to use reads and base your decision making based on what you have seen previously and adjust from there.. Once you get good at this, in the micros especially then skill advantage plus position is a huge benefit to your winrate, not mindless button mashing pot bets justified by mythical figures..
Quote
We will have to play hands oop, but when we beat our villains range, and feel he will call with worse, then there is no need to get passive
agreed on that it seems lol , afterall u advocate having some idea of villains ranges which requires reads :)
we"ll have to agree to disagree chap me thinks :) your in the blast it, they are all donks camp, thats how u believe to improve your win rate at micros[please correct if i assume wrongly :)] I"m in the use reads and our skill advantage to better effect to achieve a high win-rate at micros camp...
Title: Re: Cash Game Hand on Betfair - I have QQ.
Post by: Marty719 on December 29, 2010, 11:17:47 AM
u keep getting min value noble ;)
U know its possible to bet bet bet without being spewy? U knoew when the average 20nl villain flats a 3b we can mostly discount KK from their range (bar a tiny % of the time)? Im fine with milking bet-sizes, but theres nothing in ne1s post to say thats not what we want. If QQ is not in your triple barrel range here, then you WILL be losing value here. I hate to be as blunt, and I know poker is a game of different scenarios and there is not often a definitive "correct" answer, but at this level, triple b"n QQ on an AAA flop will yield a large long-term profit.
Fold/giving up close to the top of our range is an important skill in NLH, but not one we should be looking for excuses to do. If we can bet and get called by worse more than called by better, then we should. I do not see how u cannot realise this?
If your 3 street value range in this spot in a vacuum is Ax only, then, in the nicest possible way...HU4rolls? :)
Title: Re: Cash Game Hand on Betfair - I have QQ.
Post by: noble1 on December 29, 2010, 12:46:50 PM
lmao marty, your argument is full of spew guesstimates, to advocate when to 3barrel any hand be it with air, tpmk or a set etc and hoping to get paid off then to truly get good at poker and maximise your winrate then you need reads, why? because skill advantage is largely about being able to hand read, when we you can accurately put an opponent on a range of hands then by betting the flop and turn it helps to narrow this even further, so by the river firing the 3rd barrel on the river then it all depends, when i decide to fire a 3rd barrel then my decision making is based on the board texture, my image, player style/tendencies are factors which are dependent to when i choose to do so, there is no set range to know when to 3barrel for myself, it depends on the factors i"ve mentioned[again+again ;D].. I"m sure u realise this marty? i hate to be blunt :) but your arguments for barreling readless do not imho lead to high winrates at any buy in ;D
usual links that i leave behind :) http://www.pkr.com/en/raise-your-game/ring-game-strategy/cashgame5-1of1/ http://balugabay.com/?p=19
Title: Re: Cash Game Hand on Betfair - I have QQ.
Post by: Marty719 on December 29, 2010, 12:57:03 PM
moral of story...in a vacuum ignore value?? If you find a WINNING cash game player who says barrelling isnt good against unknowns, then i owe u a drink. dnt fancy ur chances. we have to play readless quite a bit in poker. we do not ignore value.
I shall agree to disagree, and so will evry other decent player on here...
Title: Re: Cash Game Hand on Betfair - I have QQ.
Post by: Marty719 on December 29, 2010, 13:02:09 PM
ps - readless what is ur triple barrel value range here? how do u advocate playing the hand more profitably in this situation longterm??
Title: Re: Cash Game Hand on Betfair - I have QQ.
Post by: noble1 on December 29, 2010, 13:33:19 PM
ps - readless what is ur triple barrel value range here? how do u advocate playing the hand more profitably in this situation longterm??
i think i"ve answered that , spec-savers comes to mind :)
Title: Re: Cash Game Hand on Betfair - I have QQ.
Post by: noble1 on December 29, 2010, 13:52:42 PM
just to add marty :P Don't bet according to your hand strength, instead bet according to what your opponent is going to call or cause him to raise with worse. Thats how i see the concept of value betting :) be it small bets or large overbets the whole concept/theory behind it all depends on having a read of sorts :) A real value bet will extract the most money possible will it not, i don"t argue that point :) being a headless chicken hoping you are getting value seems daft to me :P your counter views still do not sway me sir ;D
Title: Re: Cash Game Hand on Betfair - I have QQ.
Post by: Marty719 on December 29, 2010, 14:05:18 PM
ps - readless what is ur triple barrel value range here? how do u advocate playing the hand more profitably in this situation longterm??
i think i"ve answered that , spec-savers comes to mind :)
I havent seen the answers and Ive read a few times. U say if triple barrelling u do it to milk, so is this how u would play it more profitably??? If so, we are arguing the same point. If not, please explain (without a wall of text).
I also cannot see what ur triple barrell range is without reads in this spot? U advocate fold/giving up earlier? Does that mean ur value range is just Ax?
Title: Re: Cash Game Hand on Betfair - I have QQ.
Post by: Marty719 on December 29, 2010, 14:14:44 PM
just to add marty :P Don't bet according to your hand strength, instead bet according to what your opponent is going to call or cause him to raise with worse. Thats how i see the concept of value betting :) be it small bets or large overbets the whole concept/theory behind it all depends on having a read of sorts :) A real value bet will extract the most money possible will it not, i don"t argue that point :) being a headless chicken hoping you are getting value seems daft to me :P your counter views still do not sway me sir ;D
I think myself and all other posters have said we are not betting our hand strength alone, we are betting our hand strength vs villains calling range. We feel that value is made long-term against their calling rangem and that is what the actual concept of value-betting is...
There is no doubt that bet-sizing is important, but no-one has really discussed each street bet-sizing. Obv some are more optimal than others. What I am saying is, with the correct bet sizing, triple barreling here is BY FAR the most profitable route. We are not betting like a headless chicken, we are betting against the perceived range of a base NL20 player. This is the info we have to go by. Not trying to get value without a definitive read is lol-worthy, We are also not "hoping" to get value, we play the hand in this way as we are confidfent we will get long-term value.
Noble....you really should play some NL20 today...then come back and re-address this.
I know u love ur links, so merry crimbo :P
http://www.onlinepoker.org/beat-micro-cash/
These are my fave bits if u are too busy:
Focus on playing solid hands that are unlikely to be dominated, hit the flop and then proceed to bet, bet and bet some more in order to get value for your made hands. In other words, bet when you have it and fold when you don"t.
3. Do Not Slow Play - Always Value Bet. Since most of the players at these levels like to call, there is really no reason not to bet when you have a made hand. And you don"t have to be stingy with your value bets either. You should be able to bet anywhere from 1/2 to full pot and still manage to get tons of value for your hands
It"s probably hard to believe, but this is all it takes to beat the micro stakes - just old-fashioned ABC poker. You want to focus on playing solid starting hands, fold when you miss the flop and bet relentlessly when you connect
Title: Re: Cash Game Hand on Betfair - I have QQ.
Post by: noble1 on December 29, 2010, 16:14:32 PM
not a big fan of how to beat so+so guides lol , they honk and players don"t learn how to spot situations or how to exploit regs etc etc.. Annette_15 demonstrated this when playing blind in a $4.40 180sng, no abc tripe there marty :) she used logic and reads as well as her know how with different textured flops/scare cards etc to win pots, lets face it, it doesn"t take many hands/orbits to build up a profile on weak opponents :) We keep going round and round on villains range lol lol why because there are no reads, the flop is AAA, its a 3bet pot so even if villain is super wide then because of the flop texture and action pre-flop, then even the most spazzy villains will fold QJs or 22 etc either on the flop or to the 2nd barrel on the turn to strong bet sizing, so like i said milking bets seem a good option to keep the worst of villains range in for at least 2 streets, 1/2 pot 1/2 pot then 1/4 or 1/3 on the river to get crying calls from 99 TT+ or maybe worse who knows etc etc, this say seems better than [without reads] the idea to get the whole 130bb"s in with our fingers crossed.. If the villain re-raises big or shoves on the flop,turn or river then it is an easy fold imho..
I"m still not convinced by your take on the concept of value as you explain it :) but i will add this nugget, if we had reads that villain was semi competent be it 25nl or 100nl and appeared to be a thinking reg then if our perceived range is strong then it stands to reason to value bet less and bluff more, the opposite if our perceived range is weak [but is strong] then value bet more and bluff less, this applies to frequency as well as bet sizing and 3barrel bluffs etc etc.. You kept on harping about ranges to 3barrel, like i said ""i don"t have any"" , it depends on the factors i mentioned above, but i will to the add above, when i 3barrel be it to bluff or with a genuine hand ;D then it i"ll do it with air,nutted hands and top pair/bottom 2pair when oop or ip etc , i do this because with players becoming more and more knowledgeable about 3barrels then to coin that internet kiddie phrase ""i want a depolarized range not a polarized one on the river"".. Other spots that i"d consider to 3barrel are draw heavy flop textures where villains range has lots of draw hands[requires reads to narrow this down :)] and the turn and river are blanks, then i"d bluff small to fold out his draw range, i sometimes like to triple barrel in spots when i consider my opponents hands/range are prone to being overtaken by scare cards or the occasional flushing card etc, again image and reads are important, oh and not over doing it to.. :) in a nutshell i"ll always advocate learning how to read players/actions over ABC poker, its the only way to get better :)
Title: Re: Cash Game Hand on Betfair - I have QQ.
Post by: Marty719 on December 29, 2010, 17:44:11 PM
I give up trying to tell u why ur losing value. Since we have never played and thus wud b readless...please fold qq when ur only beat by Ax when I jam on u...
Ps...tournament lines greatly differ from cash games.
Title: Re: Cash Game Hand on Betfair - I have QQ.
Post by: Swinebag on December 29, 2010, 23:20:11 PM
what would we do with AA on a QQQ board?
Title: Re: Cash Game Hand on Betfair - I have QQ.
Post by: noble1 on December 30, 2010, 02:41:08 AM
I give up trying to tell u why ur losing value. Since we have never played and thus wud b readless...please fold qq when ur only beat by Ax when I jam on u...
Ps...tournament lines greatly differ from cash games.
??? really lmao , u give no numbers/stats marty as to your mythical vacuum in 3bet pots that 20nl players will gladly stack off with 99 say to 3streets at 130bb"s deep on AAA flops, because its quite rare to see a 3 of a kind flop [415/1 ish] i think mostly unless every1 pooled there tracker bases together it"d be tough to come with a large enough sample size to state like u do that this situation readless is profitable... [so tbh i find your cheap snipes rather dull] Other things like how deep we are stack wise should be a factor don"t u think? be it cash or mtts , do u stack off in this situation 200bb"s deep? how about 300 or 400bb"s deep , whats your threshold readless oop before u think you are being maybe over spewy?
not only QQQ flops rob but say others like JJJ TTT with various pocket pairs OOP or IP, what would be acceptable to stack off with at 100bb"s 150bb"s or 200bb"s ++ , against whom etc etc are good questions to ask imho... In fact lets go beyond 3 of a kind flops and go the whole hog, i"d question all kinds of flop textures :) High pair flops Low pair flops 2 suited flops 3 suited flops 2 connected card flops 3 connected card flops All high cards Rainbow flops with one high card Rainbow flops of all rags
i"m sure marty will be back with comprehensive answers to all ;D lol lol but seriously if someone asked the right questions, then some good threads would come about in the strat forum me thinks [imho] Other threads that met be good for others to start regarding replies in this thread would be what hands are good to call with in 3bet pots at various stack depths, do hands that hit straights,sets and nut flushes have more value when deep? should u then call only or 4bet them pre, does position matter at all? image? opponent skill levels? is semi bluffing post flop ip deep stacked in 3bet pots a good idea? .. etc etc
end of post :)
Title: Re: Cash Game Hand on Betfair - I have QQ.
Post by: Marty719 on December 30, 2010, 03:07:11 AM
tl;dr :P
Title: Re: Cash Game Hand on Betfair - I have QQ.
Post by: TheSnapper on December 30, 2010, 15:38:17 PM
Title: Re: Cash Game Hand on Betfair - I have QQ.
Post by: JamieCarra on January 01, 2011, 00:11:22 AM
I lol"d
Title: Re: Cash Game Hand on Betfair - I have QQ.
Post by: noble1 on January 01, 2011, 04:24:53 AM
Quote
The definition of GP is somewhat similar to David Sklansky's Theory of Poker, which states that whenever your action is different from what you would do if you could see your opponent's hole cards, you show a loss. However, it is important to remember that poker players have imperfect information; so in learning poker we should not be trying to play "perfect" poker (Theory of Poker) but rather "optimal" poker (GP), meaning that we want to make the actions with the highest rate of return based on the information that is actually available.
As an example, say you are playing in a hypothetical game in which a friend of yours raises all in. Because you are familiar with your friend's play, you know that this means he will always have either pocket aces or exactly the deuce of clubs and three of hearts. If you are getting 1:1 on your money, you should fold to his raise even the times when he is actually holding deuce three. This is because you have no information regarding when he is holding exactly deuce three, and so must choose the action with the highest average rate of return based on the information that is actually available, which in this case is that, on average, when your opponent makes this action he holds deuce three 14% of the time.
The first part of GP is in many ways the more challenging one and is much more responsible for the depth of poker than the second point. This is because guessing the likelihood of your opponent's actions or potential actions is a non-deductive process; ultimately all your assumptions of what your opponent is likely to do, regardless of how much information you have, are simply opinions of what he is likely to do based on your past experiences with him and with other opponents.
This brings up an interesting problem for those learning poker: How can I quantify the quality of my assumptions? Since this is an intuitive, or inductive, process, you can never determine the likelihood of your opponent's actions with deductive certainty, but carefully and honestly evaluating your own decision-making processes makes sure that the available information is being processed rationally. What information is available to you? Could you get more? How? Did you have enough information to weight your opponent's actions as heavily as you did? Was all of the information you used for your decision actually pertinent to the actual situation at hand? And so on.
The second portion of GP is a deductively valid process: For any set of assumptions made regarding the likelihood of your opponent's actions, you can use mathematics to find the one line that will have the highest average rate of return based on those assumptions. This may not always be a simple thing to do, of course, but quite a bit of literature and software is available to help familiarize players with the mathematical aspects of poker; and while it may not always be practical to solve mathematical questions in entirety, many players may find that it only takes a little bit of handyman's knowhow to be able to analyze which factors have an impact in particular situations, and how changes in those factors would affect how they would want to play the hand.
And so, having discussed what good poker is brings me to my next point: What are some of the common problems with the ways that people try and learn poker today? First, it's very important to remember that in playing poker you are not trying to play against your opponent's specific two cards, since that information is not actually available; instead you want to make the series of plays that have the highest average expected rate of return based on the information that is actually available, which most of the time means that you are playing against a range of hands. This also applies to trying to quantify the likelihood of your opponent's actions: You are determining what actions are likely and the degree of likelihood, based on the information that is actually available and not the action he or she ends up making in actuality.
The second issue is not necessarily a problem in and of itself, but is something that people should be aware of, particularly when moving on to more advanced play. This is that, traditionally, poker education, be it through books, a website, or one-on-one instruction, tries to teach the student how to play a generalized, exploitative gameplan based on common assumptions of what people are likely to do. The reason that I say that this is not necessarily a problem is that the learning curve for poker is very steep as is, and it would be very difficult to approach a new player with the tools to take a more mathematical approach to finding optimal actions against their opponents on an individual basis.
It is important to remember that, while it may be an effective method for teaching beginning players, it contains some extremely large flaws. Instruction that centers on teaching the student how to exploit particular game conditions is only effective so long as those game conditions remain true. If game conditions change, the coaching the student received is no longer effective; and as is the case with many amateur players, these exploitative concepts may be misapplied to different game conditions
Title: Re: Cash Game Hand on Betfair - I have QQ.
Post by: Marty719 on January 01, 2011, 16:01:14 PM
No-one argues that we would rather have reads, but due to the mass volume of players atm, its important to be able to play profitable poker vs opponents in a readless situation. Value shouldnt be sacraficed in a cash game. We can always reload the rare occasions he has the top of his range...
Title: Re: Cash Game Hand on Betfair - I have QQ.
Post by: TheSnapper on January 01, 2011, 16:05:11 PM
The definition of Good Poker(GP) is somewhat similar to David Sklansky's Theory of Poker, which states that whenever your action is different from what you would do if you could see your opponent's hole cards, you show a loss. However, it is important to remember that poker players have imperfect information; so in learning poker we should not be trying to play "perfect" poker (Theory of Poker) but rather "optimal" poker (GP), meaning that we want to make the actions with the highest rate of return based on the information that is actually available.
As an example, say you are playing in a hypothetical game in which a friend of yours raises all in. Because you are familiar with your friend's play, you know that this means he will always have either pocket aces or exactly the deuce of clubs and three of hearts. If you are getting 1:1 on your money, you should fold to his raise even the times when he is actually holding deuce three. This is because you have no information regarding when he is holding exactly deuce three, and so must choose the action with the highest average rate of return based on the information that is actually available, which in this case is that, on average, when your opponent makes this action he holds deuce three 14% of the time.
The first part of GP is in many ways the more challenging one and is much more responsible for the depth of poker than the second point. This is because guessing the likelihood of your opponent's actions or potential actions is a non-deductive process; ultimately all your assumptions of what your opponent is likely to do, regardless of how much information you have, are simply opinions of what he is likely to do based on your past experiences with him and with other opponents.
This brings up an interesting problem for those learning poker: How can I quantify the quality of my assumptions? Since this is an intuitive, or inductive, process, you can never determine the likelihood of your opponent's actions with deductive certainty, but carefully and honestly evaluating your own decision-making processes makes sure that the available information is being processed rationally. What information is available to you? Could you get more? How? Did you have enough information to weight your opponent's actions as heavily as you did? Was all of the information you used for your decision actually pertinent to the actual situation at hand? And so on.
The second portion of GP is a deductively valid process: For any set of assumptions made regarding the likelihood of your opponent's actions, you can use mathematics to find the one line that will have the highest average rate of return based on those assumptions. This may not always be a simple thing to do, of course, but quite a bit of literature and software is available to help familiarize players with the mathematical aspects of poker; and while it may not always be practical to solve mathematical questions in entirety, many players may find that it only takes a little bit of handyman's knowhow to be able to analyze which factors have an impact in particular situations, and how changes in those factors would affect how they would want to play the hand.
And so, having discussed what good poker is brings me to my next point: What are some of the common problems with the ways that people try and learn poker today? First, it's very important to remember that in playing poker you are not trying to play against your opponent's specific two cards, since that information is not actually available; instead you want to make the series of plays that have the highest average expected rate of return based on the information that is actually available, which most of the time means that you are playing against a range of hands. This also applies to trying to quantify the likelihood of your opponent's actions: You are determining what actions are likely and the degree of likelihood, based on the information that is actually available and not the action he or she ends up making in actuality.
The second issue is not necessarily a problem in and of itself, but is something that people should be aware of, particularly when moving on to more advanced play. This is that, traditionally, poker education, be it through books, a website, or one-on-one instruction, tries to teach the student how to play a generalized, exploitative gameplan based on common assumptions of what people are likely to do. The reason that I say that this is not necessarily a problem is that the learning curve for poker is very steep as is, and it would be very difficult to approach a new player with the tools to take a more mathematical approach to finding optimal actions against their opponents on an individual basis.
It is important to remember that, while it may be an effective method for teaching beginning players, it contains some extremely large flaws. Instruction that centers on teaching the student how to exploit particular game conditions is only effective so long as those game conditions remain true. If game conditions change, the coaching the student received is no longer effective; and as is the case with many amateur players, these exploitative concepts may be misapplied to different game conditions
Backs up your pov somewhat and is a good read so thanks but, simply put, imho villain has sufficient hands we beat in his calling range to warrant BETBET.
If I"m not mistaken you agree on the calling range but prefer to bet smaller (not play it as fast) so as to not scare off the weaker end of that range. This really is a moot point.......
Smaller bets are often perceived as stronger.
Raptor betting(successive small bets) gives the villain more chances to fold hence it is a powerful bluffing technique
Turn and river cards are somewhat likely to scare villain into finding a fold.
Any Benefits of betting small are negated by the scare card potential on the turn and river
But tbh its so close I don"t really mind either line.