PokerStars homepage
  • If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

anyone folding here?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • anyone folding here?

    No reads on the villain, when he shoves the river it looks like pure value but i didnt see him turning up with a boat after checking flop and turn. It looked like he was shoving a flush or an A with the way he played it, i couldnt see him shoving a flush or trip aces at the same time though because normally at zoom they will call a shove with these hands but not jam them with a few exceptions.
    Last edited by mike2198; Mon Dec 16, 2013, 11:52 PM.

  • #2
    Yeah I'm never folding there - he played the hand really strangely and I wouldn't really ever put him on a boat too often.

    Comment


    • #3
      I'm folding preflop, but I'm a nit.

      Comment


      • #4
        Please make a more detailed title next time.

        Never folding.

        Comment


        • #5
          It kind of seems like when the board's paired, and the pair on the board is AA, those AX boats seem to be more common than with other paired boards, especially if there's other broadway cards on the board, everyone else find that?

          Not sure I'd personally be able to fold a boat when there's 3-to-a-straight and 3-to-a-flush on the board versus a casual ... but am not totally sure a fold of a 22 boat would be entirely wrong in this spot either? When you think about specific hands people might play this way that would also have a boat (that would necessarily be better than 2's full), there's some people who might choose to call with AK versus an utg raise. And most people are just calling with TT in the bb.

          Maybe the question of whether to call or fold depends on whether we think someone with a straight or flush would check the turn as a slowplay, but still overbet shove the river after the board paired? I guess if a villain thought someone with a set, straight, or flush wouldn't have not bet the flop, and then bet the turn so small, then ... possibly?

          And for the villain to have trip A's, they'd have to have called with either AQ or like A9s or something ... and have ruled out boats, flushes, straights, and think their kicker is good, and that their shove'll be call by worse to think it was worth the overbet. Although the villain seemed to really like the A, and the overbet was so massive, so yeah, that's really confusing ...


          Tough spot mike!


          PS Anybody else ever find that *other* stuff suddenly becomes soooo interesting when you've got a deadline looming? Am supposed to be working on my Time Vault year-end summary - it's due in 2 1/2 hrs ... eep ...
          Last edited by TrustySam; Tue Dec 17, 2013, 04:51 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            I'm wondering if a c-bet is +EV on this board. It seems a bit of a waste to raise small pairs UTG if you're giving up on boards that hit your perceived range.
            As played, river is a puke-call for me. He can definitely show up with AT or TT, given the flop was checked through, and the turn was a scary card for two pairs and sets, but villains often slowplay flushes, and they overplay trip aces at 2NL/5NL like it's the holy nuts or something, so you'll have the best hand sometimes.
            Bracelet Winner

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by TrustySam View Post
              It kind of seems like when the board's paired, and the pair on the board is AA, those AX boats seem to be more common than with other paired boards, especially if there's other broadway cards on the board, everyone else find that?
              But here the villain presumably raises AK pre and we block a lot of A2 meaning there are less feasible better boats out there. Cant see TT checking both flop and turn either. For that reason it has to be puke call.

              Comment


              • #8
                Hi mike!

                From my perspective we are missing two important factors here. Firstly up to the river the pot isn't that big. There is only 1.05 in it. Is it worth fighting for? Secondly, the villain jams a huge overbet with 3.91. If we do the math, you need to win nearly 79% of the time for calling to be profitable.

                I agree that the villain could have trip As, a flush, a straight or complete air. However, my experience has been that huge overbets on the river are more often than not the nuts rather than a bluff. I don't think you will be ahead here often enough to make the call. I would fold. Had he made a potsized bet I would have snap called. I just don't see us having the best hand 4 out of 5 times here.

                @Arty That flop is very likely to have connected with at least one of the villains. A straight is already possible and a flush draw is there to boot. I agree that we can rep an A by c-betting, but I don't think we will get everyone to fold and it is unlikely that we are going to improve to anything we can bet with confidence. Rather than turning our hand into a bluff, I would stick to our speculative game plan and check-fold the missed flop. Had the flop been dry Axxr or Kxxr, then I would c-bet with a better chance of getting folds.

                Good stuff guys!

                Roland GTX

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Roland GTX View Post
                  However, my experience has been that huge overbets on the river are more often than not the nuts rather than a bluff.
                  Yes you're spot on - and we certainly don't have the nuts here!

                  Having read your explanation, I agree that folding is the best play here despite how disguised and strong our hand is.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Thanks for the reply spand42! I had to think twice before posting the opposite opinion of what so many members who I respect had posted. Im glad to hear my argument for folding makes sense

                    Roland

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      It looks to me like he thought you had the flush, and his bet would look to you like a huge bluff and he hoped you would call
                      3 Time Bracelet Winner


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        That's a really helpful point you made Roland about the price to call, and how often we'd need to be right for a call to be +EV umbup: Thought I'd made progress with thinking about the price to call in terms of it's size relative to the pot, but ... maybe not always if the price to call in absolute terms isn't that much? Will have to try to be more careful, especially when there's a lot going on in a hand umbup:

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Not exactly the same situation, but I love making river shoves like this at 2NL, doesnt usually work nearly as often at any higher level usually. With river shoves like this though, the times you get called make up for the times you dont in my experience, but only in these relatively small pots. I either win a small pot, that still would have been small if I make standard value bet, or I stack the guy when he cant get away from his FH/Slow played Set or flopped flush. In the the small minority of times that he flopped a straight flush I have value owned myself of course but its worth it so often. River shoves are usually the relative nuts:

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Roland GTX View Post
                            If we do the math, you need to win nearly 79% of the time for calling to be profitable.
                            Hi,

                            How exactly did you do the math here?? I somehow thought that no matter how much a villain bets (even $1M into a $0.01 for example) we never have to be right more than 50% to make the call (excluding the rake) because we will always win his bet if we are right + whatever is already in the pot. If he is bluffing he has to be right 79% of the time since he is only winning what is in the pot and never our money if we call.

                            If I am wrong and am lacking fundamental understanding of basic poker math then tell me asap please! If not, do you see how profitable calling down is?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by TommyGun369 View Post
                              If not, do you see how profitable calling down is?

                              It's like 45% or whatever ... but 45% isn't the same as 33% (a pot-sized bet), or 22%.

                              Also, the villain shoved almost a buy-in ... at 25nl stakes, that'd be $20 into a $5 pot!


                              It feels like the decision of whether to call or fold is a close one, so maybe in the long-run it's more or less 0EV

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X

                              X Cookies Information

                              We have placed cookies on your computer to improve your experience on our website. You can change your cookie settings at any time. Otherwise, we'll assume you're OK to continue.