Posted Thu Oct 26, 2006 1:19 pm GMT by aaronw
To start the hand, villain has $197 and I cover. This is 6max 200NL. This table has been VERY aggessgive. One of the most aggressive tables I have ever sat at. Every hand is being raised and re-raised PF. Anyway, how was this hand played overall? How was this played PF? And now that I am in this position on the flop, what do I do? To be honest, I really wasn't too sure where I was at in the hand. Much thanks in advance.
http://www.pokerhand.org/?577244
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Thu Oct 26, 2006 1:25 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
Looks fine to me, and I call every time on this flop given your description of the table.
Posted Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:35 pm GMT by UrAteUp
I would say he is either on KK or AK. I am interested to see how this hand played out. I have to agree with Sean here. Make the call every time. I probably would have raised him all in pre-flop but I tend to be very aggressive with AA.
Posted Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:49 pm GMT by aaronw
| Quote: | | I probably would have raised him all in pre-flop |
Raise all-in for ~ 100B after a 3BB raise?/quote
Posted Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:54 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| aaronw wrote: | | Quote: | | I probably would have raised him all in pre-flop |
Raise all-in for ~ 100B after a 3BB raise? |
It probably works in UAU's games. The decimal points are shifted to the left a couple places. 
Posted Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:59 pm GMT by supafrey
It's very likely you're beat. You still are supposed to call.
Posted Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:10 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| supa wrote: | | It's very likely you're beat. |
That may be overly pessimistic, although he's rarely a big favorite here.
Posted Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:13 pm GMT by UrAteUp
| supa wrote: | | It's very likely you're beat. You still are supposed to call. |
Don't think villian could be playing KK or AK or even AA?
Posted Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:37 pm GMT by aaronw
| Sean_in_NJ wrote: | | supa wrote: | | It's very likely you're beat. |
That may be overly pessimistic, although he's rarely a big favorite here. |
Although its very pessimistic its likely true. In my opinion, the only logical hand that he could be doing this with is KK. If he had KK he probably would have reraised PF. Also possibly QQ.
The other possible hands in his range (in my opinion) are:
AK (which he probably wouldn't go allin with here)
JJ- I'm beat, but would he play it this strong? Its possible as the board is scary but I dont think he would.
At the time these were the basic hands that I was thinking that he could have. Im sure he could have easily had a hand like AJ for top pair or KQ  for flush + gutshot.
Anyway, I called the bet. Turned out he had TT (which, I really didn't think of at the moment) for the open ended straight draw. The turn was a 2 and the river was an A.
I ended up winning the hand. I was just not sure if it was the correct call as I could not really put him on a hand that I could beat (besides that outside chance of KK).
Posted Thu Oct 26, 2006 8:01 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| aaronw wrote: | | Anyway, I called the bet. Turned out he had TT (which, I really didn't think of at the moment) for the open ended straight draw. The turn was a 2 and the river was an A. |
TT-KK was the range I had pretty much set myself on. Naked flush draw is unlikely since you're holding the A. QT doesn't make a lot of sense here because a) your reraise preflop shoulda gotten that out and b) probably indicates a big pair so a 3rd spade on board isn't *that* harmful to his hand, even less so if he has Q T
Two you're way ahead. One you're way behind. The last one, you're ahead but he has outs.
Posted Thu Oct 26, 2006 11:07 pm GMT by aaronw
| Sean_in_NJ wrote: | | aaronw wrote: | | Anyway, I called the bet. Turned out he had TT (which, I really didn't think of at the moment) for the open ended straight draw. The turn was a 2 and the river was an A. |
TT-KK was the range I had pretty much set myself on. Naked flush draw is unlikely since you're holding the A. QT doesn't make a lot of sense here because a) your reraise preflop shoulda gotten that out and b) probably indicates a big pair so a 3rd spade on board isn't *that* harmful to his hand, even less so if he has Q T
Two you're way ahead. One you're way behind. The last one, you're ahead but he has outs. |
TT would definately be a part of his range, but I did not put him on this possibility due to the flop action. Is he realy doing that with basically just a OESD? To be honest, this hand didn't even enter my mind (I don't know why)
Posted Thu Oct 26, 2006 11:10 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| aaronw wrote: | | Is he realy doing that with basically just a OESD? |
Fold equity.
Posted Thu Oct 26, 2006 11:43 pm GMT by aaronw
| Sean_in_NJ wrote: | | aaronw wrote: | | Is he realy doing that with basically just a OESD? |
Fold equity. |
I guess that makes sense...it just never entered my mind. I guess he could think I have a whiffed AK or something similar to that.
Posted Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:32 am GMT by UrAteUp
I think your giving villian too much credit here. That all in move by villian just looks like he is trying to scare you out of this hand. The only hands I would be affraid of here would be 99, 88 or QT. Calling that large of a raise with QT would be ultra loose in my opinion. 88 or 99 I feel might be possible, but doubtful.
Interested to know if you made the call.
Posted Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:57 am GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| That guy at Woodstock wrote: | | Uh, to get back to the, uh, the warning that I've received you may take it with how many however many grains of salt you wish, that the brown acid that is circulating around us is not specifically too good. Uh, it's suggested that you do stay away from that, course it's your own trip, so be my guest, but, uh, please be advised that there is a warning on that one ok? |
Posted Fri Oct 27, 2006 9:35 am GMT by supafrey
Notice I added a qualifier to my statement. I didn't say it's more likely than not that we're beat, just that it is very very reasonable to assume we are. Considering how many hands NEED to do this kind of move, I.E. TT, top pair with the oesd, mid or bot pair with the oesd, fd, oesfd, overpair, two pair, set, it's simply a case of mathematics. Easy call, but still should be of no surprise if we're losing.
Posted Fri Oct 27, 2006 10:04 am GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| supa wrote: | | It's very likely you're beat. |
| supa wrote: | | Notice I added a qualifier to my statement. I didn't say it's more likely than not that we're beat, just that it is very very reasonable to assume we are. |
Usually I can follow you, but not this time, mostly because I can't see the difference. Given the options of "likely we're beat" and "unlikely we're beat" I would say the first means we are more than we're not? If there's this gray area I'm not getting, then you'll need to enlighten me.
Anyway, my disagreement stems from the hand range you mention. I wouldn't expect your average player to be on half the hands you listed as possibilities. Just another case of pissing into the wind because of a lack of information.
Posted Fri Oct 27, 2006 9:29 pm GMT by suitedaces84
I think supa's idea is that:
-your hand is ahead over half the time
-your equity is less than 50%
|
|
