Posted Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:34 pm GMT by aaronw
NL$100. 6max. Unlike usual I have been paying attention to this table. The villain in this hand is really agressive. He has been raising and reraising most hands. How do you think this was played? To be honest I put him on a hand like TT or JJ. So, how was it? Anyway, after the hand was over he called me a fish and a donkey, and idiot and that I suck at poker. Blah blah blah! So, was it THAT bad of a play?
http://www.pokerhand.org/?636027
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 Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:46 pm GMT by zinn0
If you put him on something like TT or JJ, I don't think folding is an option...
Posted Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:51 pm GMT by aaronw
| zinn0 wrote: | | If you put him on something like TT or JJ, I don't think folding is an option... |
Yeah, I was thinking the exact same thing. And afterwards, he was like "you're an idiot, donkey. What did you put me on, AQ?" And I said I thought he had something like JJ or so." Then he responds by saying that it was a bad call because I knew I was behind."
Posted Mon Nov 27, 2006 11:05 pm GMT by tame_deuces
If he is really aggro I can't see how you can fold AKs without being overly weak. Even if their handrange make it mostly coinflips and way behind in a few cases, folding is bad if there is a nice chump of change in the pot.
Besides, alot of aggros tend to cool down quite abit against you if you show you are not afraid of getting your money in, which makes it easier to play them further down the road.
Posted Tue Nov 28, 2006 10:56 am GMT by shorn7
I don't know. My thoughts are go with your read, but IMO this is a play that is simply introducing varaince into your results. Effectively, you are willing to gamble $71 on a $0 EV situation where the likely result (over the long run) is you win or lose nothing. Sounds like a waste of time to me. I would much rather see you play poker with this guy (and in this hand) and call his $11 and see if you can get him to commit the rest of his $$ when you are an actual favorite (and in a + $EV spot).
But bottom line this comes down to personal preference because if your read is correct (pair lower than KK), this is basically a variance increaser and nothing more.
Posted Tue Nov 28, 2006 12:02 pm GMT by aaronw
| shorn7 wrote: | I don't know. My thoughts are go with your read, but IMO this is a play that is simply introducing varaince into your results. Effectively, you are willing to gamble $71 on a $0 EV situation where the likely result (over the long run) is you win or lose nothing. Sounds like a waste of time to me. I would much rather see you play poker with this guy (and in this hand) and call his $11 and see if you can get him to commit the rest of his $$ when you are an actual favorite (and in a + $EV spot).
But bottom line this comes down to personal preference because if your read is correct (pair lower than KK), this is basically a variance increaser and nothing more. |
So you would suggest just call his reraise and see what happens after the flop? Either way, we got it all in and he had 99 and I hit an Ace on the flop. I won! I was just checking to see if it was the correct play.
Posted Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:32 pm GMT by shorn7
| Quote: | | So you would suggest just call his reraise and see what happens after the flop? Either way, we got it all in and he had 99 and I hit an Ace on the flop. I won! I was just checking to see if it was the correct play. |
That is the thing. There is no correct play here if our read is correct. It is a true race for $71 + the blinds, so long run we expect to win/lose $0 from this hand. I would rather call his raise, see the flop and then decide. But, if you feel strongly that he doesn't have AA or KK (which you did), and you are willing to flip coins for $70 odd dollars, go for it. Just understand that long run if you did this same thing 100 times, you would effectively win nothing (and in fact, due to the higher rake, you would end up a net loser).
Posted Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:43 pm GMT by aaronw
| shorn7 wrote: | | Quote: | | So you would suggest just call his reraise and see what happens after the flop? Either way, we got it all in and he had 99 and I hit an Ace on the flop. I won! I was just checking to see if it was the correct play. |
That is the thing. There is no correct play here if our read is correct. It is a true race for $71 + the blinds, so long run we expect to win/lose $0 from this hand. I would rather call his raise, see the flop and then decide. But, if you feel strongly that he doesn't have AA or KK (which you did), and you are willing to flip coins for $70 odd dollars, go for it. Just understand that long run if you did this same thing 100 times, you would effectively win nothing (and in fact, due to the higher rake, you would end up a net loser). |
Its not like we are just putting the $70 in the pot to begin with. There was already money in there from my raise and his re-raise. Wouldn't that make a difference? Since there is money in there from my original raise and his re-raise, would that not change the odds that I am getting? Since I am getting better than an even money proposition, wouldn't that make the call +EV?
|
|
