Poker Forum > Strategy
what do u think?
samuel_9:
--- Quote from: AMRN on June 10, 2010, 10:18:46 AM ---
--- Quote from: manchestercarl on June 10, 2010, 09:58:36 AM ---
Villain has owned Hero thoughout the hand. Given history, and Hero"s stack size, Villain is surely expecting Hero will call, so the overshove only makes sense with a hand that is beating Aces.
--- End quote ---
^This^
--- Quote from: manchestercarl on June 10, 2010, 09:58:36 AM ---
On the river Hero still only has one pair so when villain leads Hero should be calling whist he still has show-down value, so Hero"s raise is awful.
--- End quote ---
100 percent. did he have KT
...but especially ^this^!!
--- End quote ---
TheSnapper:
Does this
--- Quote from: manchestercarl on June 10, 2010, 09:58:36 AM ---
Hero"s check on the turn, puts Villain in a really tricky situation, especially if Villan was floating. Also Villain still has no real idea of Hero"s range or hand.
--- End quote ---
Contradict this
--- Quote from: manchestercarl ---
Villain has owned Hero thoughout the hand.
Having said all of this I"m still none the wiser as to Villains hand.
--- End quote ---
TBH I don"t really get the impression that hero was owned or that he played the hand poorly.
--- Quote from: manchestercarl ---
On the river Hero still only has one pair so when villain leads Hero should be calling whist he still has show-down value, so Hero"s raise is awful.
--- End quote ---
It really depends on villains range for that bet. If he"s really good and you"d expect so at 2000nl, his range will be very well balanced between nut hands, weak made hands looking to showdown cheaply and God knows whatever else given that these guys play at elite reasoning levels way beyond most of us mere mortals.
On the other hand I suspect a huge part of the profitable players edge is in eeking thin value from these type of spots. There is lots of value to be had from one pair hands in villains range, and hero is likely at the very top end of his perceived range given the turn check back.
manchestercarl:
--- Quote from: TheSnapper on June 11, 2010, 01:30:34 AM ---
Does this
--- Quote from: manchestercarl on June 10, 2010, 09:58:36 AM ---
Hero"s check on the turn, puts Villain in a really tricky situation, especially if Villan was floating. Also Villain still has no real idea of Hero"s range or hand.
--- End quote ---
Contradict this
--- Quote from: manchestercarl ---
Villain has owned Hero thoughout the hand.
Having said all of this I"m still none the wiser as to Villains hand.
--- End quote ---
TBH I don"t really get the impression that hero was owned or that he played the hand poorly.
--- Quote from: manchestercarl ---
On the river Hero still only has one pair so when villain leads Hero should be calling whist he still has show-down value, so Hero"s raise is awful.
--- End quote ---
It really depends on villains range for that bet. If he"s really good and you"d expect so at 2000nl, his range will be very well balanced between nut hands, weak made hands looking to showdown cheaply and God knows whatever else given that these guys play at elite reasoning levels way beyond most of us mere mortals.
On the other hand I suspect a huge part of the profitable players edge is in eeking thin value from these type of spots. There is lots of value to be had from one pair hands in villains range, and hero is likely at the very top end of his perceived range given the turn check back.
--- End quote ---
Snapper- I really do think Hero was owned. Villians check on the turn was perfect pot control given stack sizes and previous history.
By the river villian has played the hand so well, he has never given hero a chance to narrow down his range, and therefore what villains hand is is irrelevant, given stack sizes.
Even if Hero wins the hand by calling the All-in and being ahead, in my opinion this would be a terrible call and long term the wrong decision!
You can still win a hand whilst being owned!
..........just as..........
You can still lose a hand despite playing it perfectley and doing everything right!
TheSnapper:
I assume from this
--- Quote from: manchestercarl on June 11, 2010, 11:05:34 AM ---
Snapper- I really do think Hero was owned. Villians check on the turn was perfect pot control given stack sizes and previous history.
--- End quote ---
That this, from your original post.......
--- Quote from: manchestercarl ---
Hero"s check on the turn, puts Villain in a really tricky situation, especially if Villan was floating. Also Villain still has no real idea of Hero"s Villains range or hand.
--- End quote ---
Is a typo and should read.......
--- Quote from: manchestercarl ---
Hero"s Villains check on the turn, puts Villain Hero in a really tricky situation, especially if Villain was floating. Also Villain Hero still has no real idea of Hero"s range or hand.
--- End quote ---
Villain is oop, hero is ip as preflop raiser and has the initiative in the hand, a villain turn check is hardly owning. So not much scope for villain to pot control as hero has the last say on whether the pot inflates.
lets look at villains check for the various hands he check calls the flop with.
* Air hands he floated with. = super standard,
* Weak made one pair hands. = again super standard
* Flopped set, turned two pair (K9s fairly likely and a hand I didn"t really consider much earlier) = Planned check raise foiled by heros check back. Who owned who in this scenario?
--- Quote from: manchestercarl ---
By the river villian has played the hand so well, he has never given hero a chance to narrow down his range, and therefore what villains hand is is irrelevant, given stack sizes.
--- End quote ---
Villain made an action on every street and two actions on both the flop and river, pf call, flop check call, turn check, river weak lead reraise, each of these actions if interpretted correctly, further defined villains range.
Again though, this is 2000nl and the levels of adjusting and deception are likely beyond us mere mortals and may in fact look ridiculously bad when viewed in a vacuum.
That said, I wouldn"t be at all surprised if on the river.......
and in this order,
Hero puked and reluctantly folded.
Hero made a hero call and villain showed 99,TT,K9s to scoop several healthy bankrolls.
Hero made a hero call and villain showed complete air and berated hero for making a donkey call.
noble1:
http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=plnlpoker&Number=6157344&fpart=1&PHPSESSID=
http://uk.pokernews.com/poker-strategy-theory/poker-strategy-keeping-control-pot-holdem.htm
http://www.pocketfives.com/articles/considering-variables-against-ranges-489859/
This hand is fairly straight forward until durrr bets river and decides to raise the river , convential thinking says that if you have a marginal hand with showdown value, you might as well check the river since your opponent will never call with a worse hand than the one you're holding , i think durrr leads because he has/believes that there is little chance that he has the best hand in this spot so the only way he can win the pot is to turn his hand into a bluff plus u still get some folds sometimes from QQ JJ etc all read dependent , basically i quite like durrrs lead and the sizing because if he had a read that Ariel "FoxwoodsFiend" Schneller made a few to many thin river raises then durrr adjusted very well imho... Likewise if Ariel or whoever just calls river then it sets up future plays for durrr... [agree / disagree?]
Meh good one to look at imo , what did u guys think to Ariels bet sizing on the river [agree or disagree?] , would any1 fold river if villain had chosen a check raise river line instead?
hope u enjoyed disecting this one..
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version