Amateur Poker Association & Tour
Poker Forum => Strategy => Topic started by: Erimus on July 01, 2013, 09:39:36 AM
-
Hand from Coventry, go for it or wait for a less marginal spot
Rodders raises utg 2k2 blinds 500/1000, folds to me in big blind I have 77,
I have around 32k, I 3 bet to 5k2, Rodders re raises to 14k, my only choice is shove or fold, What do you do.
-
If you want to flip, by all means - go ahead and shove. Personally, I"m folding and will prolly sprain my wrist doing it so fast. :D
-
Very dependant on how many pints rodders has had that day.
-
I remember this hand :)
I would be peeling pre and going from there. Hand is too good to 3 bet fold and pretty optomistic to 5bet shove and be good. Best we can hope for is a flip usually. I wouldn"t expect Rodders to be going mental enough here to warrant the shove and sizing would indicate he is unlikely to fold.
Saying that I think he raised the K4o from EP a couple of hands previously?
-
Don"t like the 3-bet pre unfortunately Bri, and really don"t like the sizing. Why are we 3-betting here? It"s definitely not going to get Rodders to pass as he has to pay 3k into a 9k+ pot, and 77 just doesn"t seem strong enough for me to an UTG raise to want to 3-bet. Do we think that Rodders is stealing here often because of your image and he knows that UTG raises get through a lot in APAT games?
Gotta agree with Mark and peel pre to the original raise as not folding a pair for a chance to see three cards for what is basically a min bet. Obv set mining so taking it easy on most flops though!
As played, however, I have to pass.
-
I don"t like to 3bet here - gotta give some respect to the utg raise, even if it is Rodders. All the 3bet does is makes worse hands fold, and gives better hands (and bluffs) the opportunity to 4bet - and you can only really fold to the 4bet. Open-calling with 77 is feasible, but you"re not deep enough to set mine...... It"s an open-fold for me.
As played, easy fold. Shoving is never going to be profitable - can you really see Rodders 4bet folding UTG? So, if you shove, you probably get to showdown, and you"re hoping to be 50% at best.
-
Steve - do you fold 77 but call 88, 99, 1010 here?
-
As Mark said he had previously shown k4 as a utg raise and had to show because a short stack shoved, he had to call the shove based on pot odds.
With circa 30 bigs although it"s ok we still need to chip up to go deep, he had seen me flat with QQ in the bb earlier, I know he is now probably not raising as light because of the K4 hand, because of my image I think he folds AJ, poss AQ when he repops me the range I am putting him on is 10 10 plus AK, I wasnt going to call if he repopped me, my decision had been made before I 3 bet, think flatting is fine and another game i will flat but decided to go for the money already in the pot.
20 bigs I will take the flip hopefully, 30 bigs made the decision a bit more awkward.
Again if he flats and I do hit my miracle card, I think they call them sets, never seen one before, lol the pot is now bigger, he probably c bets most flops then it would be difficult for him to get away from it.
I tell a lie there I did hit a set with 88 in that tourney.
We have to win flips to win tourneys at some point, even tens and jacks would be difficult to call here as well, sometimes we gotta go with it, I decided not to at this point, Rodders didn"t show but I asked him if I was dominated or flipping, he said flipping, I assume AK or AQ, wp Rodders, stuck it in my eye.
-
Steve - do you fold 77 but call 88, 99, 1010 here?
The question is, are we deep enough to set mine profitably, and I don"t think we are. So the question for 77-TT is still whether or not we are ahead of the UTG range. If we 3bet TT, and Rodder"s 4bets, do we still fold? If the answer"s yes, then we"re playing our hand as a bluff. If we decide that TT might be good against Rodders" UTG range, and we flat call, and the flop comes 9 high, what do we do when Rodders leads out for an amount that commits him to the pot, or what do we do when Rodders check/raises to set us all in? So, no I don"t call with 88, 99, or TT in this spot. I hate playing a stack around 30x - it"s too shallow to speculate with, and too deep to shove. Interesting spot, and one where I acknowledge that I struggle.
-
You can definitely set mine profitably from the BB here. From other positions it is a little harder but you"re getting a 50% "discount" and closing the action.
At 500/1000/100 (? I don"t really do antes) Brian has to call 1200 into 4700. If you call here you only need to win ~4k when you do hit in the long run to break even. That"s assuming we"re just looking to set mine and we don"t win the pot in any other way.
Whilst I do prefer a call as those darned sets are sometimes so difficult to spot there are some situations where you can use your image and/or Villain tendencies to 3b as long as you"re aware of the pros and cons of each. I"ve never actually spent a great deal of time at the table with Rodders, but based on his strategy musings I don"t think he"s the correct Villain to be getting creative with here. In position it"s a very different story but from the blinds it"s extra fruity - good advertising though ;)
-
I don"t understand the 3-bet. He is unlikely to fold, so we are going to bloat the pot to play OOP with a hand that rarely flops well.
I had a similar situation on Saturday. Flatted with 77 and made my set on AJ7. He made his as well.
-
peeeeeeeel the open. I presume he has us covered?
3betting BB vs UTG against a positionally aware opponent seems a disaster.
-
peeeeeeeel the open. I presume he has us covered?
Essential information really. If you"re the effective stack then it seems like a simple call.
3betting BB vs UTG against a positionally aware opponent seems a disaster.
Very much this. What was the thinking behind the 3-bet?
-
I was hoping this one would run on a bit. To answer the above I THINK I started the hand with around 60K
The table dynamic and history between the players are important and significant here. I know Brian is a very good player who will be aware of what is happening at the table. He has seen me raise K4 and Q3 from EP. He also knows that my range for an early position range is larger than most players, also I have been active anyway raising a fair number of hands. I was also playing fairly well I think. Brian can set mine profitably here but he can also 3-bet here. It does look like a pretty decent 3-bet spot. If I call he can hit a disguised set as well.
Brian is usually a tight player but he is playing against me here, and will certainly know he may be able to get 3-bet through some of the time. I have raise/folded a couple of times, although I am at least calling a lot here as I am going to have position post flop. Brian is also aware of my game and understands that I can have total air that i might fold. Maybe a bigger 3-bet is better though?
As it is I don"t mind Brian"s 3-bet at all, I think he already got one through against me and he is very much playing me here and not his cards. As above he has seen me raise/fold. The only problem with it is that it looks just like a great spot to do that. I am actually fairly sure against a lot of players this works as Brian would be three betting a tight looking range (So Brian"s perceived range gets a lot stronger as well) but that"s not so much the case here and Brian is clearly good enough to add all this up. So it"s now a good spot to 4-bet, even with hands where I would normally only be calling.
Now I thought I 4-bet to 16K but I may not remember the hand right. I also thought Brian had about 35K at the start of the hand, again I may not be remembering this exactly though. I was obviously snapping if he shoved and expecting to be racing I actually raised smaller rather than shoving to try and look stronger (as that is the size of raise I would make with AA or KK).
I am holding AK in this hand, not sure 77 is ever in great shape against me when I am 4-betting UTG although with that many chips in the pot. I suppose I CAN have 66 sometimes, maybe, and a small percentage of air. I have usually got at least two overcards though, or an overpair.
I think the fold here is correct, more marginal than this spot normally is though with the two players involved. Love playing this kind of hand though.
-
I mis-read the OP and thought 77 was playing on the button. Yes I agree that calling from the BB to set mine is a perfectly reasonable play, and I reckon that"s exactly what I would do in this spot. Also, from the blinds, the 3bet is even less likely for me.... from the button perhaps, but not from the blinds. The size of the 3bet leaves Rodders with a mandatory call (at least) and position post flop.
Here"s another question though. As I said earlier up this thread, I hate playing 30bb stack (too small to play speculatively, and too big to shove). At what point does the stack become a legitimate shoving stack against a single raise? In this particular example, if there have been a couple of callers on the way round, it could well be a reasonable play to shove 32x...... but perhaps not against a single player. We often hear that 20bb is the perfect steal/shove stack size.... is that about right? or is it more/less?
-
30 bigs at this stage is no mans land, as Steve has said too many to shove, as said in above posts I decided to 3 bet to win the money in the pot, I am oop in the hand and if I win pre flop I get a few chips without showdown, if I get 4 bet I am sure I am beat or flipping at best, if he flats then it"s set or nothing probs unless hit an open ender then wether I fancy a gamble at that point.
if there had been 1 or 2 limpers I more than likely flat, but with 20/25 bigs I just get it all in pre.
Heard a pro this morning on the wsop commenary talk about a hand he played at an ept event 10k buy in, he just jams 66 with 40 bigs over an utg raise, he ran into AA lol, but he was obviously hoping to win the hoped for flip and win to take him to 80 plus bigs so he has more chance to win the tournament, personally think its a bit spewy but obviously don"t know dynamics of the table.
-
Easiest call pre ever.
-
Easiest call pre ever.
You"re calling Rodder"s 16k re-raise?
I"d have flatted the initial raise and hoped for the set or a draw. With that stack though, definitely not 3 bet folding, so either flat pre or jam. No?
-
Easiest call pre ever.
You"re calling Rodder"s 16k re-raise?
I"d have flatted the initial raise and hoped for the set or a draw. With that stack though, definitely not 3 bet folding, so either flat pre or jam. No?
Pretty sure George means call the initial raise not the 4bet.
-
Easiest call pre ever.
You"re calling Rodder"s 16k re-raise?
I"d have flatted the initial raise and hoped for the set or a draw. With that stack though, definitely not 3 bet folding, so either flat pre or jam. No?
Pretty sure George means call the initial raise not the 4bet.
Phew. Ok. Same page again, cheers. lol
-
If we call we don"t necessarily have to flop a set to win.
-
If we call we don"t necessarily have to flop a set to win.
Would you expect that we would check fold a lot of flops?
Care to estimate how often % we may have to check fold?
Sometimes, rarely? We will check call the flop and find ourselves in a really tough spot.
Do we really give up much opportunity by just folding pre-flop?
I am certain that we can find better resteal bluff spots.
-
Yes we do miss an opportunity if we fold pre imo. We don"t always need to have 7/1 odds anyway in mtts to set mine. (I think cash game play is different but that"s another subject).
Also my opinion on 30bb shoves to a single raise is fine, as witnessed by my opponents on more than one occasion in Coventry. This play is not simply about maths but also creating table image.
Was I on the table when this hand played? I don"t remember it.
On paper the 3bet pre is incorrect, but he fact that rodders is the opponent does play a part in the decision.
-
Agree with George here. This is NEARLY always a call of the initial bet. Depends on image/histort etc of player who raises.
-
There is a particular reason why I don't normally join in these debates and that reason is patently obvious. ;D
If I have 30bigs and he has a similar stack to me I am going to firmly put the decision back in the young Welshman's court with an instant all in. Because it is me he will call and I will shake his hand if he hits (or if he has a monster anyway). If he has a lot more chips than me, I will call and fold if I miss.
-
Aren"t there ante"s in play at this level?
-
Aren"t there ante"s in play at this level?
Yes, why? ;D
Craig, it was before you got there mate.
-
Aren"t there ante"s in play at this level?
Yes, why? ;D
...
People talking about a re-shoving stack in terms of 30 bigs. If there are antes then it should be M and I would suspect it would make it easily the right size stack for a reshove. Not that I would in this spot because I don"t think it would give enough fold equity against an utg raise; but the ante"s definitely change the maths and nobody seemed to be taking them in to account.
-
Yes we do miss an opportunity if we fold pre imo.
Would love to hear a more detailed description of the merits of this opportunity?
We don"t always need to have 7/1 odds anyway in mtts to set mine. (I think cash game play is different but that"s another subject).
This is totally incorrect.
Set mining is an implied odds equation, a basic poker fundamental. The bottom line is that we hit a set only once every ~9 times, so to breakeven, we need to win ~8 times the bet when we do hit our set!
Also my opinion on 30bb shoves to a single raise is fine, as witnessed by my opponents on more than one occasion in Coventry. This play is not simply about maths but also creating table image.
Unfortunately this one size fits all strategy ignores the many complex scenarios that factor into
correct poker decisions. All poker decisions are about maths and only maths.
Table image isn"t much use on the rail.
On paper the 3bet pre is incorrect, but he fact that rodders is the opponent does play a part in the decision.
Not sure of your point here really, let"s assume that the decision we face is whether we 3b bluff , let"s also assume that 3b bluffing is not our default play versus an unknown utg open raise.
how does "the fact that rodders is the opponent" impact on us choosing an option other than our default decision?
-
Wow! Snapper you have completely dissected my answer. Have I upset you? (with my "miss an opportunity" comment?) Or maybe you just generally disagree with my points of view on this hand?
Either way you have asked me to give a more detailed explanation and I will do my best, in my humble opinion.
It could be quite a long response lol :D
We don"t know each other but when I have ever read your posts previously on poker strategy I seem to remember that I generally agreed with your views and you know what you"re talking about, so I am surprised that you fundamentally disagree with my thoughts here.
-
Aren"t there ante"s in play at this level?
Yes, why? ;D
...
People talking about a re-shoving stack in terms of 30 bigs. If there are antes then it should be M and I would suspect it would make it easily the right size stack for a reshove. Not that I would in this spot because I don"t think it would give enough fold equity against an utg raise; but the ante"s definitely change the maths and nobody seemed to be taking them in to account.
The antes were 100 and I think we were 9 handed
pot was 4600 When Brian had to make his first action and he has circa 32K behind. By shoving he increases his stack by 15%. I would want a 20% increase before shove usually as you are unlikely to be getting exploited by raise/folding here.
If the UTG raiser has a PFR range of 66+, AT+ and KJ+ and will call a shove with AQ+ and TT+ (This would be considered loose for an APAT event and I would consider most APAT players to have a tighter range than this) then the shove gets through uncalled about 58% of the time. So 58% of the time you just win the 4600 that was in the pot.
If you get called which will happen 42% of the time then
****************************************************************************************
Text results appended to pokerstove.txt
636,977,088 games 0.000 secs 127,395,417,600 games/sec
Board:
Dead:
equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 62.794% 62.60% 00.19% 398772156 1210188.00 { TT+, AQs+, AQo+ }
Hand 1: 37.206% 37.02% 00.19% 235784556 1210188.00 { 77 }
****************************************************************************************
So that mean"s
About 26.4% of the time we lose our stack of 32K and are out
About 15.6% of the time we win the pot of 36600 chips and are massive
About 58% of the time we win 4600
=266800 + 570960 - 844800 = -7040
****************************************************************************************
So against that raising range the shove is marginally -cEV. However for this event I have given our PFR a fairly loose range. There are not a huge number of players who will be opening wider than this on a regular basis from EP. So in MOST spots you should set mine. In this spot? Maybe a shove is not so bad.
We know that UTG has a wider range than the above, or at least he seems too and he is very active from all positions.
He has already gone after our blind with K4o.
Is calling and check folding the flop (which seems to generally be out plan) going to make him want to give up and leave us alone?
If we make a standard 3-bet he is capable of seeing that it is a decent spot to do so and 4-betting light
I am certainly not telling anybody the answer"s on this one to that but this might help the thread. There are some really good responses in the thread but there is a lot more to this hand than people are looking at, it is a really good hand to analyse.
-
Maybe a shove is not so bad.
;D
-
People are really complicating this spot. It"s really not that tough imo.
We are calling 1bb out of a 30bb stack. Even if we are purely set mining, I"m happy to move on and play my 29bb stack and c/f my hand on a ton of flops even if sometimes we have the best hand.
3 bet folding is just bad. We don"t even have any blockers in our hand and despite Rodders calling this an easy spot for you to exploit by 4 betting light I really don"t see this happening. All we are doing is turning a hand with some reasonable value into a very expensive and costly bluff.
-
Call of the initial bet, let the flop play itself. Don"t think there"s much more needed here.
The only time I"d ever think about a reraise is bubble time..
-
Also just to tackle those saying let"s shove.
You"re making this a really easy decision for your opponent here as I assume you just 3 bet your strong value hands (AA-QQ, AK) so when you jam essentially you"re turning your hand face up of sorts (ie it"s prob AK or a medium pair)
-
Also just to tackle those saying let"s shove.
You"re making this a really easy decision for your opponent here as I assume you just 3 bet your strong value hands (AA-QQ, AK) so when you jam essentially you"re turning your hand face up of sorts (ie it"s prob AK or a medium pair)
All of this.
-
Also just to tackle those saying let"s shove.
You"re making this a really easy decision for your opponent here as I assume you just 3 bet your strong value hands (AA-QQ, AK) so when you jam essentially you"re turning your hand face up of sorts (ie it"s prob AK or a medium pair)
It might be only me advocating a shove, but am I not reversing that thought and making my opponent think the same way when his tournament is on the line, or am I just being silly. No real need to answer that........
-
Also just to tackle those saying let"s shove.
You"re making this a really easy decision for your opponent here as I assume you just 3 bet your strong value hands (AA-QQ, AK) so when you jam essentially you"re turning your hand face up of sorts (ie it"s prob AK or a medium pair)
It might be only me advocating a shove, but am I not reversing that thought and making my opponent think the same way when his tournament is on the line, or am I just being silly. No real need to answer that........
Hey Ger- what would you do with Aces here?
-
People are really complicating this spot. It"s really not that tough imo.
We are calling 1bb out of a 30bb stack. Even if we are purely set mining, I"m happy to move on and play my 29bb stack and c/f my hand on a ton of flops even if sometimes we have the best hand.
3 bet folding is just bad. We don"t even have any blockers in our hand and despite Rodders calling this an easy spot for you to exploit by 4 betting light I really don"t see this happening. All we are doing is turning a hand with some reasonable value into a very expensive and costly bluff.
Yeah this is a good point.
I do agree that flat calling with 77 is the best play, it is +EV and does not risk your tournament life.
Just don"t hate the 3-bet either as I can still see a case for it, and after looking at this thread can see a case for the shove which surprises me. I would make the 3-bet slightly bigger though. It gets loads of folds. I suppose it"s hard to argue against calling is still better though as even if my range is larger it is unlikely that the raise is making you more chips long term.
What do people do with TT here?
-
Wow! Snapper you have completely dissected my answer. Have I upset you? (with my "miss an opportunity" comment?) Or maybe you just generally disagree with my points of view on this hand?
Either way you have asked me to give a more detailed explanation and I will do my best, in my humble opinion.
It could be quite a long response lol :D
We don"t know each other but when I have ever read your posts previously on poker strategy I seem to remember that I generally agreed with your views and you know what you"re talking about, so I am surprised that you fundamentally disagree with my thoughts here.
(http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af253/7lb12oz/someonewasoffensive_zps0ec1a322.jpg)
Sorry you took it that way Craig, I"m an anal focker and dissecting is what I do, god love me. ;D
I"m not upset at all, I simply responded to the points you made explaining why I disagree. This is how we learn and why posting on these threads is helpful to us, we put ourselves out there so as our opinions can be challenged, if you counter my opinions you challenge both our understanding, win win.
-
Quick question.
Why 4 bet him for half his stack? If he 5 bet shoves you cant like your AK that much but you have priced yourself in? Is a shove from you not a better option? Put the choice onto Brian?
Probably a stupid question, and this comes from someone who donated half my stack to Andy Cairns in a similar situation.
-
Snapper I think the easiest way for me to respond to your questions is by quoting each one and trying to explain my way of thinking.
Would love to hear a more detailed description of the merits of this opportunity?
We are up against an opponent who is one of the favorites to win the tournament. His presence at the table is restricting how many orphan pots we pick up. Set mining in this situation even without the correct odds/implied odds is acceptable because busting this opponent brings a new meaning to implied.
We don"t always need to have 7/1 odds anyway in mtts to set mine. (I think cash game play is different but that"s another subject).
This is totally incorrect.
Set mining is an implied odds equation, a basic poker fundamental. The bottom line is that we hit a set only once every ~9 times, so to breakeven, we need to win ~8 times the bet when we do hit our set!
We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I completely disagree with the concept that maths is the be all and end all in multi-table tourneys.
We don"t differ much in our calculation % for hitting the set (1 in 8, 1 in 9 approx) but my argument is that this is set in stone for winning Cash Game strategy but in MTTs there is more to consider, the chance to bust a dangerous opponent or create a "don"t F--k with me image for instance.
Regarding your other points. I agree with you that there shouldn"t be a "one size fits all strategy". Each shoving spot should be judged on it"s own merits.
I have been giving my views in general terms.
In this specific hand we are discussing I don"t advocate reraising. Flatting pre and see a flop ftw.
Shoving here is giving the ep raiser a simple decision based on his own hand strength.
On paper the 3bet pre is incorrect, but he fact that rodders is the opponent does play a part in the decision.
Not sure of your point here really, let"s assume that the decision we face is whether we 3b bluff , let"s also assume that 3b bluffing is not our default play versus an unknown utg open raise.
how does "the fact that rodders is the opponent" impact on us choosing an option other than our default decision?
I meant that because we have previous history with this opponent we can put him on a wider preflop stealing range even in early pos.
-
Also just to tackle those saying let"s shove.
You"re making this a really easy decision for your opponent here as I assume you just 3 bet your strong value hands (AA-QQ, AK) so when you jam essentially you"re turning your hand face up of sorts (ie it"s prob AK or a medium pair)
It might be only me advocating a shove, but am I not reversing that thought and making my opponent think the same way when his tournament is on the line, or am I just being silly. No real need to answer that........
Hey Ger- what would you do with Aces here?
Funnily enough George the very same thing...
-
You"d reshove 30 bigs with aces or just re raise? Would u not be worried about not getting value making a reshove that big?
-
You"d reshove 30 bigs with aces or just re raise? Would u not be worried about not getting value making a reshove that big?
I think Rodders" maths above looks "about right" and illustrates why I wouldn"t re-shove in this exact spot - but also why it isn"t a terrible idea as it only takes a tiny amount extra fold equity to make it profitable and a lot of people bottle it when they are making a decision for their tournament life. I would definitely re-shove in some very similar hands - and in terms of this exact question - definitely including premium starting hands.
It"s always a good idea to make your opponents make a mistake. If you have got something like a mid pair then the mistake can be to fold when they "should" call - if it"s a premium starting hand then the mistake is to call when they "should" fold. If they know you could be re-shoving with AA then it makes their decision harder (always a good thing) and if they don"t know then it makes it more likely they"ll make a mistake when you do it with a premium starting hand.
The potential missing value for the occasional hand isn"t likely to be as significant as the potential to win the big (>50bb) pot.
-
....
I completely disagree with the concept that maths is the be all and end all in multi-table tourneys.
....
This is a ridiculous statement.
....
We don"t differ much in our calculation % for hitting the set (1 in 8, 1 in 9 approx) but my argument is that this is set in stone for winning Cash Game strategy but in MTTs there is more to consider, the chance to bust a dangerous opponent or create a "don"t F--k with me image for instance.
....
That"s still maths
-
The fact is that when you re shove 30 bigs your opponent cannot call very often so you"re either losing value or essentially bluffing with a hand (77) that is most likely dead when you"re called so you may as well have 82o
-
Quick question.
Why 4 bet him for half his stack? If he 5 bet shoves you cant like your AK that much but you have priced yourself in? Is a shove from you not a better option? Put the choice onto Brian?
Probably a stupid question, and this comes from someone who donated half my stack to Andy Cairns in a similar situation.
It is more habit than anything else I guess, it is what I do with my 4-betting range in this spot. I knew I was calling if he shoved and I knew I had little chance of being in good shape if that happened but it is no different than if I shoved and he called and it does balance and widen my range for when I do this with AA (which I would). So it makes future spots like this more difficult for my opponents.
I am guess it makes very little difference, I don"t think there are any 5-bet bluffs in Brian"s range here and his range for shoving here is likely to be pretty much the same as his range for calling if my 4-bet had been a shove.
I think overall this makes my 4-bet size slightly better than if I had just shoved but again it is a good discussion point and one I am pretty open to changing my mind about if somebody can give a good argument as to why 4-bet shoving is better here.
-
If we call we don"t necessarily have to flop a set to win.
Would you expect that we would check fold a lot of flops? yes quite a few but don"t think its purely "no set no bet" plus we can flop other equity such as gutshots & overpair etc that will give opportunity to play our hand strongly
Care to estimate how often % we may have to check fold? Not at the moment, at work but i"m sure someone can run it through Flopzilla or something. However it is less than 100% which is why I made my comment regarding those "purely setmining"
Sometimes, rarely? We will check call the flop and find ourselves in a really tough spot. Agreed. Don"t Really know Rodders that much and what his hand reading/propensity to barrel is like
Do we really give up much opportunity by just folding pre-flop? Not really but still prefer peeling and proceeding with caution over folding with our stack
I am certain that we can find better resteal bluff spots. Oh without a doubt, loads of better spots. I never advocated restealing as I said 3 betting was an utter disaster. FWIW shoving would be bad also
Just quick thoughts above. I merely made the post in reference to those that were saying that peeling is purely to hit a set.
-
Is having a really good read on your opponent still just Maths?
-
Is having a really good read on your opponent still just Maths?
yes, you make your actions based on probability. If you have a read on them then that increases the probability that they"ll react in a certain way to what you"re doing.
-
I agree with Zozzy.
Cash - you do the Maths, it doesn"t work out, you re-load. If your Maths is right, you win over the long-term. End of.
Tournament - especially early to mid tournie, survival is the key. I sometimes fold when the Maths is close, or marginally in favour of a call. Especially when the buy-in is big. Perhaps if you"re playing 20 $10 MTTs a day the Maths is dominant, but I only play one WSOP a year, so I need to be more careful!
-
Is having a really good read on your opponent still just Maths?
yes, you make your actions based on probability. If you have a read on them then that increases the probability that they"ll react in a certain way to what you"re doing.
If the probablity is changing because of a read then it"s not JUST maths. The information is being taken into account as part of the calculations I accept, but the information itself is not maths.
-
Is having a really good read on your opponent still just Maths?
yes, you make your actions based on probability. If you have a read on them then that increases the probability that they"ll react in a certain way to what you"re doing.
If the probablity is changing because of a read then it"s not JUST maths. The information is being taken into account as part of the calculations I accept, but the information itself is not maths.
You don"t need to enumerate a bunch of numbers for it to be maths, if it"s a factor that affects the probability then it"s part of the "sum" whether you"re using numbers or not.
-
Is having a really good read on your opponent still just Maths?
yes, you make your actions based on probability. If you have a read on them then that increases the probability that they"ll react in a certain way to what you"re doing.
If the probablity is changing because of a read then it"s not JUST maths. The information is being taken into account as part of the calculations I accept, but the information itself is not maths.
You don"t need to enumerate a bunch of numbers for it to be maths, if it"s a factor that affects the probability then it"s part of the "sum" whether you"re using numbers or not.
We are kind of arguing over semantics here guy"s. Yes, it is strictly speaking maths, it is not what most people think of as being part of the maths though, even though it is. Calling it just Maths is technically correct but not the best description for most poker players.
Pretty sure we all mean the same thing here and know what we mean :-)
Essentially a good read makes what would normally be a marginal mathematical call easier. Call it what you want, both sides are saying the same thing.
-
Cheers for all the replies Guys, after I 3 bet I wished I had only flatted after Rodders had 4 bet but we have to play with the decision took at the time, looking back, a flat pre was the obvious choice, been getting a bit aggro in my online stuff lately and this perhaps spewed over into this game, sometimes this move works, this time it didn"t, it wasn"t terminal but it wasn"t the greatest move in the world, hey oh move on every days a learning day.