|
Title: analyse this! Post by: Claw75 on September 12, 2008, 10:23:27 AM This hand has been going round in my head the last couple of days. I've discussed it with a few people and it seems like it's one of those that everyone would play differently. I'd welcome comments on how I played it.
Live game - blinds 50/100. All involved in hand have about 4000 chips. I have a rebuy (only one allowed) for a further 4000 chips behind. I am dealt Ahrt Jh in the cut off. Folded to me, and I raise to 400. Button (weaker player) calls as does big blind (solid player). Flop is Qh 9s 3c. BB checks, I bet 600, button folds and BB flat calls. Turn is Kh. BB checks to me again and I bet 1500. BB then moves all in over the top for an extra 2000 and I call. Thoughts please? Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Royal Flush on September 12, 2008, 11:19:38 AM Before i give any analysis i want to ask 3 questions.
Stack sizes of oppos? Why did you make it more than the pot pre flop? Why did you bet less than 1/2 pot on the flop? Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: TightEnd on September 12, 2008, 11:23:24 AM and Claire, talk us through the turn bet. Didn't want to take a free card? Solid player has called on flop, turn gives you outs but you are probably behind to a made hand of some sort (which granted you might think you can get him off)
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Claw75 on September 12, 2008, 11:24:31 AM Before i give any analysis i want to ask 3 questions. Stack sizes of oppos? Why did you make it more than the pot pre flop? Why did you bet less than 1/2 pot on the flop? we've all got 4kish. I was pretty sure the button would call whatever and I'd rather play the pot post flop with just him (albeit out of position) rather than 3 handed with the bb. I thought that would look stronger than a pot sized or slightly less bet. The board is not draw heavy so I'm not betting to look like I'm protecting a hand, rather building the pot. Does that make sense? Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: TightEnd on September 12, 2008, 11:26:35 AM the board is draw heavy though
KJ, K10, J10 type hands all interested in it Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Claw75 on September 12, 2008, 11:29:20 AM and Claire, talk us through the turn bet. Didn't want to take a free card? Solid player has called on flop, turn gives you outs but you are probably behind to a made hand of some sort (which granted you might think you can get him off) I'm hoping the turn bet will induce a fold from the BB - if not, I have outs. The pl;ay on the turn is the main reason for posting here though - having discussed it with a few people (and not telling them how I played it) it seems to be pretty split down the middle in terms of whether they would check and take the free card or fire out another bet. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Royal Flush on September 12, 2008, 11:32:03 AM I just don't like making it 400, if i am in the BB i am going to fold everything but good hands, and i am more likley to now re-raise on the button than flat.
You have AJh its towards the top of your range in the C/O don't narrow your oppo's range and inflate the pot all at the same time! If you never raise more than pot pre (obv excluding when you are short) then you won't go far wrong. To me on the flop it just looks like you made an over sized raise pre with something like AK/AJ and missed and now want to somehow take it for a small bet, i am giving you no credit for a hand on the flop. Personally i would just check the flop, you have inflated it pre to the point where a CB is going to cost over a 1/4 of your stack and probably won't get through. The turn line i really like, the K is a massive danger card to your oppo's firing again here is very good, obviously if they have JT or KQ you are getting action but you have 12 outs so all is good! However due to the previous over raise and odd CB you now leave yourself committed on the turn despite getting the absolute nuts turn card with A hi! Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: mondatoo on September 12, 2008, 12:10:30 PM I just don't like making it 400, if i am in the BB i am going to fold everything but good hands, and i am more likley to now re-raise on the button than flat. You have AJh its towards the top of your range in the C/O don't narrow your oppo's range and inflate the pot all at the same time! If you never raise more than pot pre (obv excluding when you are short) then you won't go far wrong. To me on the flop it just looks like you made an over sized raise pre with something like AK/AJ and missed and now want to somehow take it for a small bet, i am giving you no credit for a hand on the flop. Personally i would just check the flop, you have inflated it pre to the point where a CB is going to cost over a 1/4 of your stack and probably won't get through. The turn line i really like, the K is a massive danger card to your oppo's firing again here is very good, obviously if they have JT or KQ you are getting action but you have 12 outs so all is good! However due to the previous over raise and odd CB you now leave yourself committed on the turn despite getting the absolute nuts turn card with A hi! So ths is the kind of analysis you can get from flushy when you post a hand that needs any analysis ;) :goodpost: Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: EvilPie on September 12, 2008, 12:33:55 PM I just don't like making it 400, if i am in the BB i am going to fold everything but good hands, and i am more likley to now re-raise on the button than flat. Have to agree with this. The 400 looks like you're nicking the blinds from late position. 250 - 300 should achieve the same result as 400 without inflating the pot too much. You would still have got the calls but now you can bet the same 600 on the flop and it's over half the pot. This looks like a strong pot building CB with a good hand as opposed to a missed flop that you're taking a standard stab at. Once the button folds the flop you now have position so there was really no need to bet the turn and invite the all in. If he puts you on the draw he quite rightly shoves and is a decent favourite with any made hand. If he thinks you have a made hand he can shove a draw hoping to get you to fold. By betting so much here you have committed yourself and handed the initiative back to him. TBH you might as well have gone all in. What do you do if he flats here and you miss? I know he's unlikely to flat, he's either folding or shoving so you might as well get your chips in first. You have the opportunity to control the pot at all stages of this hand which is essential when you only have A hi. For me then I raise to about 275 pre. I lead out about 2/3 pot on the flop then check the turn to take the free card in position. I don't get too disappointed when I win a small pot with a nut flush because i know that if I'd missed at least I would've only lost a small pot. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: MANTIS01 on September 12, 2008, 01:19:17 PM Not sure I like the turn bet either. The solid bb either has a made hand on the flop or he has 10-J. He doesn't want you to bet if he has a Q, but that doesn't mean he will fold it. However, betting is exactly what 2 pairs, sets and 10-J wants you to do. These hands don't want you to take a free card to bust them, so why not do that instead? Your position gives you the choice, and because your fortunes have improved on the turn I would take the card as you may not have to bluff to win anymore. Getting your whole starting stack all-in by calling with A high and 1 card to come seems a bit reckless really.
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: EvilPie on September 12, 2008, 01:31:10 PM and Claire, talk us through the turn bet. Didn't want to take a free card? Solid player has called on flop, turn gives you outs but you are probably behind to a made hand of some sort (which granted you might think you can get him off) I'm hoping the turn bet will induce a fold from the BB - if not, I have outs. The pl;ay on the turn is the main reason for posting here though - having discussed it with a few people (and not telling them how I played it) it seems to be pretty split down the middle in terms of whether they would check and take the free card or fire out another bet. If you are hoping to induce a fold but would happily call a shove then you should always shove. You have more chance of getting your fold then. Your problem here is if he flats and you miss. You're then screwed. I know he shouldn't flat but if he does you could end up in a world of hurt with 6.5k in the pot, 1.5k sat in front of you and A hi. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Rookie (Rodney) on September 12, 2008, 01:34:47 PM 300 pre, check flop, but as played double barreling is fine. call jam, suckout.
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Royal Flush on September 12, 2008, 02:08:43 PM To those who check the turn what do you think your oppo has?
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: TightEnd on September 12, 2008, 02:11:38 PM To those who check the turn what do you think your oppo has? Qx... I suppose solid player would fold Qx, goes the argument for betting/shoving Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: MC on September 12, 2008, 02:21:51 PM I think you have to check the turn for the free card.
Once you've bet so much on the turn, you are committed to call. Assuming Ace is good you only need 2:1 to call, though obviously you might well need to hit the nuts. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: EvilPie on September 12, 2008, 02:40:35 PM To those who check the turn what do you think your oppo has? K10 / KJ. Looks to me like he had some kind of weak draw on the flop then hit his king. Possibly even 9h 10h. Thinking about it I don't really like the check but then again I'm not too keen on the bet either. I wouldn't feel deep enough to bet half of what I had left giving him the possibility of flatting. I probably just chuck the lot in here especially as I'm sat with a rebuy as backup. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Graham C on September 12, 2008, 02:46:07 PM To those who check the turn what do you think your oppo has? Qx... I suppose solid player would fold Qx, goes the argument for betting/shoving Got to be a good x to justify calling pre no? KQ maybe? QJ, I wouldn't expect any lower. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: TightEnd on September 12, 2008, 02:50:08 PM sure, but the call on the button by a "weak" player prices the bb in to calling wider, and then keep the pot small with his Qx
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Royal Flush on September 12, 2008, 02:56:48 PM So its a good chance he has Qx, he flats the flop thinking he probably has the best hand, either we have him beat or hold AK/AJ small PP.
Now the turn comes a K, he checks, if we fire here what is more likely we have AK/AQ AA-QQ or AJ/77? If i am oppo in this hand i give up as the only thing i can beat is a total bluff or what you have, and even then it appears most check behind so looks like you must have it! Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: MANTIS01 on September 12, 2008, 04:06:58 PM One possibility is that he has Q-x. The chips tell us he put 10% of his starting stack in pre, and when he calls on the flop he has put 1/4 of all his chips into this pot. Also the player is solid.
Calling 10% in the first place means he prob has a pair or high cards. He deffo has a playable hand and it's not some Q-rag type holding. He can easily have a set right now and would play it as is. He can easily have 10-J and again play it the same way. If he has high cards he's all over this board. I think the stacks are too shallow for him to be floating with a small pair or some random air. So out of all the hands he could have we may get a weak Q to fold (but his Q is never going to be very weak), and if that's not the case we are putting ourselves in a position where we may have to call all-in with A high on the turn, and I don't think that's a good place to be. Taking a free card here is ok imo. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Royal Flush on September 12, 2008, 04:12:01 PM One possibility is that he has Q-x. The chips tell us he put 10% of his starting stack in pre, and when he calls on the flop he has put 1/4 of all his chips into this pot. Also the player is solid. Calling 10% in the first place means he prob has a pair or high cards. He deffo has a playable hand and it's not some Q-rag type holding. He can easily have a set right now and would play it as is. He can easily have 10-J and again play it the same way. If he has high cards he's all over this board. I think the stacks are too shallow for him to be floating with a small pair or some random air. So out of all the hands he could have we may get a weak Q to fold (but his Q is never going to be very weak), and if that's not the case we are putting ourselves in a position where we may have to call all-in with A high on the turn, and I don't think that's a good place to be. Taking a free card here is ok imo. Only set he can have is 33. He flats any hand here oop for 300 more i don't really give him much credit for any kind of hand, especially if he is not check raising the flop. Think we need the 'solid' description further quantified! Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: TightEnd on September 12, 2008, 04:14:36 PM Player in the big blind is Simon Galloway.
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: MANTIS01 on September 12, 2008, 04:25:09 PM Not played with this guy. Flushy is right that a better understanding of oppo is required cos I don't think solid players call a 400 raise oop for 10% of their stack with any hand. I think 9-9 can be included in oppo's range, unless we want to give him credit for playing perfectly.
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: TheChipPrince on September 12, 2008, 04:25:24 PM Player in the big blind is Simon (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591) Galloway (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591). does he have a name on Blonde? Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: TightEnd on September 12, 2008, 04:27:30 PM Simon Galloway is his name on here
Good player, solid rep, winning player in the comps such as the one this hand is in. Not spewy in the least, but a thinking player. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Royal Flush on September 12, 2008, 04:29:31 PM Simon (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591) Galloway (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591) is his name on here Levelled so hard! Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: TightEnd on September 12, 2008, 04:30:20 PM ;scarymoment;
to be fair, Qx is probably not what Simon has in this spot! Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Royal Flush on September 12, 2008, 04:31:58 PM Player in the big blind is Simon (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591) Galloway (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591). Still don't know much about his game. I am going to shove here even more against a winning live player, they fold too much in general. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: TheChipPrince on September 12, 2008, 04:43:29 PM Simon (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591) Galloway (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591) is his name on here Simon (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591) Galloway (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591) is his name on here Levelled so hard! ;laxie; Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Simon Galloway on September 12, 2008, 05:17:32 PM Allow me...
I showed my hand on the end so some people already know the answer, but in keeping with OP my hand isn't relevant. I'm happy to reveal it once all the mystery "he had Q4" posts dry up if it makes any difference. I've already discussed with Claire how I would have played her hand, and it wasn't a results-orientated discussion. Here's some extra titbits: The opening raise was controversial/mis-declared and a row between Claire/table/dealer as to whether it was 400 or 500 to play. Had it been 500 to play, I would have folded my hand. The button comes in, and that particular button is always value and nailed on to pay off a second best hand. Claire has openly posted on here that she doesn't have much disposable income just now for poker. Last time I played with Claire she had a hard time of it, massively over-raising by mistake, walking into a couple of coolers. Seems a fair swap to play the hand OOP against :) That said, it wasn't an arrogant call, she can definitely play, as evidenced by her going on to chop it. I expect her to have a polarised range (but that's the only bit of Flushy's analysis I happen to agree with ;) ) and I don't think this is the top end of her range, by a fair margin. I'm more likely to play this against someone who has the hand range they are meant to have, I want them to have a nice enough hand to go skint with. I don't want to gamble against a mega-weak oppo because when I hit, they prob haven't got enough of a hand to pay me off. One of those situations where I fold to a weak hand but call against a strong-ish hand, and the deeper it is, the more it applies. I hit a flop. I check-call. I have the best hand on the turn without question, I crai. Claire relaises she now has to put the rest of her chips in with 1 card to come. And there aren't that many clean outs, but she hits one. Whilst it continues my dismal form in all-in coups, I was at least happy for Claire that she had a stack to do something with. I am not that benevolent to most of the Luton suck-out artists, but the chips went to a good home, sobeit. Claire, I will happily expand on the conversation we had at the break with you if you would like, there was more to it, but it's not going on general release!) but suffice it to say on the forum that if I had been in her shoes, I would have taken the free card all day long. When you have position, sometimes you should think about using it. You have a hand that desperately wants to see a river card, yet if you bet small and get crai you want to throw up. And if you bet so big that you throw up, but realise you now have to call, well, it doesn't make the call any better in my eyes. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: byronkincaid on September 12, 2008, 05:30:15 PM Quote I expect her to have a polarised range and I don't think this is the top end of her range, by a fair margin. can you explain this further please, you are saying she has a wide polarised range? Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Simon Galloway on September 12, 2008, 06:06:15 PM Quote I expect her to have a polarised range and I don't think this is the top end of her range, by a fair margin. can you explain this further please, you are saying she has a wide polarised range? I don't think she has a wide range here. Flushy has given her the full "well its the cut off bringing it in ffs" rangeand put AJ towards the top end. But Claire wasn't punishing any limpers, has already indicated that she saw me as a solid bb, the blinds are tiny and I don't think the range is as wide as assumed. Hence 'polarised range' not "wide polarised" range! That said, I have seen Claire raise and re-raise with some kinky holdings, it's not a question of whether she is capable of having a wide range, but my read was that she didn't on this occasion. And in a Peter Costa moment, I would have had Ahrt Jh as my first guess ;) whether my reasoning was valid or not, I had her hand pegged correctly, and my only grumble was that I didn't think Claire had given me due credit for having her hand in the world of hurt when the majority of the chips went in. Had she taken advantage of her position and checked behind, I wouldn't have minded the outdraw on the end because imho she would have played the turn perfectly. That said, other recognised players seem to be in favour of smashing it in, so perhaps that method has some merit, I'm just not in that camp. 't Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Claw75 on September 12, 2008, 06:17:16 PM thanks for all the replies everyone - it's been interesting. The reason I put the hand up here is that I recounted it to Matt yesterday, explaining what had happened up until it was my turn to act on the turn, and, with no prompting from me, he said he'd 'bet about 1500'. Having already discussed the hand with Simon on the night and him having explained to me why he thought the check behind would have been a better play I thought it would be helpful to throw it out there and see if there was a general concensus one way or the other. It seems not, and that this may just be a matter of style. That said, it seems pot control is something I need to work on, perhaps more pre-flop, and I've taken all the comments on board - thanks!
I wouldn't say the check raise on the turn made me want to 'throw up', incidentally, I still had outs and, perhaps more importantly, a rebuy behind. If it were a freezeout then maybe so ;D Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Royal Flush on September 12, 2008, 06:18:38 PM AJh is at the top end of a C/O range i am afraid, unless the C/O is a complete nit
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Royal Flush on September 12, 2008, 06:19:37 PM I think flatting 300 oop with JT is a shed load worse than shoving the turn
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Simon Galloway on September 12, 2008, 06:31:11 PM AJh is at the top end of a C/O range i am afraid, unless the C/O is a complete nit Why can't the cut off ever have a hand? Why do they have to conform to random internet c/o range? Or, perhaps, your c/o range? Horses for courses. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Simon Galloway on September 12, 2008, 06:34:08 PM I think flatting 300 oop with JT is a shed load worse than shoving the turn I've given plenty of reasoning why I called with JT there, it wasn't playing poker with a recipe book, hmmm, JT, turn to page 27 to see the correct play. And I also mentioned that it was on the demarcation line, I nearly did fold the hand. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: MANTIS01 on September 12, 2008, 06:46:13 PM Posted by: Royal Flush
Quote He flats any hand here oop for 300 more Quote I think flatting 300 oop with JT is a shed load worse than shoving the turn So he should be flatting any hand other than JT here? Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Royal Flush on September 12, 2008, 06:50:22 PM Why can't the cut off ever have a hand? Why do they have to conform to random internet c/o range? Or, perhaps, your c/o range? Horses for courses. The cut off can have a hand, like in this hand when she had AJ, i wasn't giving a 'random internet range' i was referring to Claire's range, last time i checked she was an aggressive player. I've given plenty of reasoning why I called with JT there, it wasn't playing poker with a recipe book, hmmm, JT, turn to page 27 to see the correct play. So you did it because it was the incorrect play? Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Simon Galloway on September 12, 2008, 06:56:52 PM Quote from: [url=http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591 Simon[/url] Galloway (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591) link=topic=36807.msg806196#msg806196 date=1221240848] I've given plenty of reasoning why I called with JT there, it wasn't playing poker with a recipe book, hmmm, JT, turn to page 27 to see the correct play. So you did it because it was the incorrect play? You've got a very thick recipe book there if under the JT section there is enough material to include all the macro influences that went into making up the call. I've given reasoning why on this occasion I didn't give Claire credit for the wide range of hands she could otherwise be playing, iow her hand range on this one isn't as wide as normal. So if I can enter a pot and take the worst of it with 300 and take the best of it for 3k+ afterwards, I can live with it. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Royal Flush on September 12, 2008, 07:04:26 PM Quote from: [url=http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591 Simon[/url] Galloway (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591) link=topic=36807.msg806196#msg806196 date=1221240848] I've given plenty of reasoning why I called with JT there, it wasn't playing poker with a recipe book, hmmm, JT, turn to page 27 to see the correct play. So you did it because it was the incorrect play? You've got a very thick recipe book there if under the JT section there is enough material to include all the macro influences that went into making up the call. I've given reasoning why on this occasion I didn't give Claire credit for the wide range of hands she could otherwise be playing, iow her hand range on this one isn't as wide as normal. So if I can enter a pot and take the worst of it with 300 and take the best of it for 3k+ afterwards, I can live with it. So the times she doesnt have NFD+GS vs your nuts how do you play it. Flop J72 for example Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Simon Galloway on September 12, 2008, 07:07:44 PM So its a good chance he has Qx, he flats the flop thinking he probably has the best hand, either we have him beat or hold AK/AJ small PP. Now the turn comes a K, he checks, if we fire here what is more likely we have AK/AQ AA-QQ or AJ/77? If i am oppo in this hand i give up as the only thing i can beat is a total bluff or what you have, and even then it appears most check behind so looks like you must have it! Is that your suggestion? Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Simon Galloway on September 12, 2008, 07:13:59 PM I didn't finish...
I don't have a pre-conceived way to play the hand. I might lead out and see how Claire reacts. I might check it over to her and depending on read, c/r or fold. I might check out and throw it straight in the muck. I might check call and see what the turn brings. OK, one of those is a lie and one of those is also highly unlikely. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Royal Flush on September 12, 2008, 07:24:10 PM This is the problem of defending you BB with hands that do very bad against a LP raise
An aggressive player is going to raise from the C/O with every single hand that has you dominated. QT KT AT QJ KJ AJ, as well as TT JJ QQ KK AA, you are defending into 1300 pot with 3600 back, if you flop top pair what the fck do you do? Even when you flop a draw you toast chips. Your not playing deep enough to call to flop a draw to play streets. Instead of telling Claw she should check behind on the turn maybe the better idea would be to look at your own play and stop spewing pre! Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: TightEnd on September 12, 2008, 07:25:34 PM Sigh. Turned out nice again. Might even see the sun tomorrow.
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: AlexMartin on September 12, 2008, 07:27:33 PM I disagree that the K on the turn is a good card to barrel. Primary draw got there and its adding BAD texture to the board. Obv barreling scare cards is good, but not here i dont think, even with your monster.
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Simon Galloway on September 12, 2008, 07:30:24 PM Simon (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591) Galloway (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591) is his name on here Not spewy in the least, but a thinking player. ;scarymoment; to be fair, Qx is probably not what Simon has in this spot! Finish him off for me Tighty. If you need any ammo, even this spew-tard doesn't like it :D I disagree that the K on the turn is a good card to barrel. Primary draw got there and its adding BAD texture to the board. Obv barreling scare cards is good, but not here i dont think, even with your monster. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Royal Flush on September 12, 2008, 07:36:11 PM to be fair, Qx is probably not what Simon has in this spot! So Simon defends JT but not QJ/QT? So if the board was J83 he check calls turn is Q same suits and claws hand is AK instead of AJ. I would be saying Jx which would be correct.... I am confused, i must learn which hands to make spewy calls with pre! Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Simon Galloway on September 12, 2008, 07:41:50 PM I am confused, i must learn which hands to make spewy calls with pre! Oh they are all pretty much spewy. The secret is to get the action right thereafter. I believe I have displayed the ability to crai with JT and fold JT on the same board in different circumstances, enough to show a profit and enough for other players like Tighty to notice it as well. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Royal Flush on September 12, 2008, 07:47:24 PM I am confused, i must learn which hands to make spewy calls with pre! Oh they are all pretty much spewy. The secret is to get the action right thereafter. I believe I have displayed the ability to crai with JT and fold JT on the same board in different circumstances, enough to show a profit and enough for other players like Tighty to notice it as well. You make profit from defending JT for 4BB OOP 40BB deep? Suppose you are good at playing the streets in 13BB pots with 36BB back..... God i love live poker! Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: MANTIS01 on September 12, 2008, 08:00:27 PM You've got a very thick recipe book there if under the JT section there is enough material to include all the macro influences that went into making up the call.
The call is ok Simon. But what happened was you looked down and saw a playable hand you wanted to defend with and called. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Graham C on September 12, 2008, 09:21:11 PM This has turned into an interesting thread with some good comments from different sides of the fence.
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Gamblor21 on September 12, 2008, 11:54:39 PM Quote from: [url=http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591 Simon[/url] Galloway (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591) link=topic=36807.msg806270#msg806270 date=1221244224] to be fair, Qx is probably not what Simon has in this spot! So Simon defends JT but not QJ/QT? So if the board was J83 he check calls turn is Q same suits and claws hand is AK instead of AJ. I would be saying Jx which would be correct.... I am confused, i must learn which hands to make spewy calls with pre! What do you make the calls with? If he thinks he can outplay Claire if they both miss is it still a bad call? I make the call, but as you know i rely on variance being in my favour. Also get yourself to the blondebash, i must owe you a drink somehow and i fancy teahing you a mixed game lesson (10p/20p max stakes, min 6 cards... We should both be in for a fortune) Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Simon Galloway on September 13, 2008, 04:10:56 AM Quote from: [url=http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591 Simon[/url] Galloway (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591) link=topic=36807.msg806281#msg806281 date=1221244910] I am confused, i must learn which hands to make spewy calls with pre! Oh they are all pretty much spewy. The secret is to get the action right thereafter. I believe I have displayed the ability to crai with JT and fold JT on the same board in different circumstances, enough to show a profit and enough for other players like Tighty to notice it as well. You make profit from defending JT for 4BB OOP 40BB deep? Suppose you are good at playing the streets in 13BB pots with 36BB back..... God i love live poker! You should reserve judgement until you have played a couple of 50 tournys in Luton. And you seem to take my call as an indication that I always make this play. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Simon Galloway on September 13, 2008, 04:25:55 AM You've got a very thick recipe book there if under the JT section there is enough material to include all the macro influences that went into making up the call. The call is ok Simon. But what happened was you looked down and saw a playable hand you wanted to defend with and called. What happened was I looked down and folded. Mentally. If the dispute of the raise size had been resolved quicker, or hadn't happened at all, I would have physically folded too. That's how marginal it was, which I have explained before, and yet people seem to think it is my standard play there. The button folding, for example, would also have led to my folding the hand, so I think I have laid out clearly how often I defend with JT as a rule. It's far from standard for me, but even now on reflection I don't mind the call at all. Halley's comet will come around again before all those variables line up again at the table. As it was, I had enough time to think about what was happening, and what it might mean. I struggle to imagine that many would consider as many variables as I did whilst the dispute unfolded for a 300 chip raise. It's a funny old world if you can be ok to gamble for all of it on the turn with ace high and a draw, but you are not allowed to gamble with a small call preflop. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: thetank on September 13, 2008, 04:28:51 AM This is the problem of defending you BB with hands that do very bad against a LP raise An aggressive player is going to raise from the C/O with every single hand that has you dominated. QT KT AT QJ KJ AJ, as well as TT JJ QQ KK AA, you are defending into 1300 pot with 3600 back, if you flop top pair what the fck do you do? Even when you flop a draw you toast chips. Your not playing deep enough to call to flop a draw to play streets. Instead of telling Claw she should check behind on the turn maybe the better idea would be to look at your own play and stop spewing pre! Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: thetank on September 13, 2008, 04:47:04 AM Quote from: Simon Galloway When you have position, sometimes you should think about using it. What's to say she didn't think about using it? Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Simon Galloway on September 14, 2008, 07:20:17 PM YBA.
I was at the table and I don't think Claire did consider using it. Or perhaps that was using it, but not in the same way, reacting to my apparent show of weakness on the turn. I'm pretty much done with the disection of this hand, but I will throw my tuppeneth in on other threads here. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: ShatnerPants on September 16, 2008, 03:31:47 AM I've been following this hand with interest, coz I read it and thought the answer was simple.
But I kept quiet coz I expected the thinking to go many levels above mine. And I was right. But now the deep stuff seems to have settled, can I ask a question. Are there times when good players take the thinking too far ? I'm thinking NLHE for beginners. By anybody. Chapter 1 page 1 Don't go busto on a draw. ( Not talking about pushing with a draw as a semi bluff. ) If the bet was pot commiting to a push back over the top, isn't it by definition a bad bet ? Not trying to be disrespectful to players sooooo much better than me. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: action man on September 16, 2008, 03:24:58 PM preflop play is so so bad by both imo, claire completely telegraphing her hand, and simon making a terrible call pre with JT, i dont care who you are playing against/reads w/e its never a call this shallow.
Since this is a live game, and players dont pass JT preflop JT is a huge part of his range when he C/C flop. So im taking a free card on the turn not expecting him to fold to the bet, and mtl shoving, after we have bet we can't fold. Just need to get THUUUUUUUUUUUR. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Simon Galloway on September 16, 2008, 03:53:20 PM Let me explain again how often I make that call.
No hang on, there's no point. Writing it 5 times doesn't work, what's the point in 6. If I turn my hand face up all night in a tourny where av chips is 10-15BB are you ever going to do anything about it? Or not? Its a bit shallow. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Simon Galloway on September 16, 2008, 04:02:43 PM I've been following this hand with interest, coz I read it and thought the answer was simple. But I kept quiet coz I expected the thinking to go many levels above mine. And I was right. But now the deep stuff seems to have settled, can I ask a question. Are there times when good players take the thinking too far ? Yes. Simple is often best. But if all you have is simple, your ceiling is limited. I'm thinking NLHE for beginners. By anybody. Chapter 1 page 1 If that is where your opponent is, then simply think 1 level higher. Thinking 6 levels higher is pointless - your thinking leads you to an answer that is based on assuming oppo is thinking on level 5. If they are on level 1, none of the assumptions you are making are valid. Don't go busto on a draw. ( Not talking about pushing with a draw as a semi bluff. ) I don't like going broke with a draw. But there are times when all my chips are at risk with a draw. If you always raise with a made hand and always check-call with a draw, you are playing in a very exploitable way. If the bet was pot commiting to a push back over the top, isn't it by definition a bad bet ? It is if you don't want to be pot committed! Players that argue its a semi-bluff don't seem to grasp that it isn't a very good spot to bluff in - you got raised after all! Then happy days, you hit your draw as your backup element. But the point is, when electing to semi-bluff you think by definition you can get them to fold, with a draw as backup. When they don't fold, it questions your read about deciding there was fold equity in the situation. There wasn't. Not trying to be disrespectful to players sooooo much better than me. I don't see anything disrespectful. People can agree and disagree all day in a disrespectful manner on poker - there isn't an optimal play in 100% of situations. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: MANTIS01 on September 16, 2008, 04:21:09 PM Posted by: action man
Quote preflop play is so so bad by both imo, claire completely telegraphing her hand, and simon making a terrible call pre with JT, i dont care who you are playing against/reads w/e its never a call this shallow. No I don't agree with this. The pre-flop play by both parties is not so so bad. Claire raises 400 when 300 is fine, that ain't so bad. The call with 10-J is ok as well because this is a shallow stacks re-buy tournament....everyone is shallow. Grinding away like this is some major event will really limit your chances to win imo. You've got to gamble a bit if you want to get into this type of tournament. The play is not philosophically excellent, but then again the structure, and the ordinary opposition, aren't conducive to world class poker tactics I would say. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: action man on September 16, 2008, 04:31:02 PM Posted by: action man Quote preflop play is so so bad by both imo, claire completely telegraphing her hand, and simon making a terrible call pre with JT, i dont care who you are playing against/reads w/e its never a call this shallow. No I don't agree with this. The pre-flop play by both parties is not so so bad. Claire raises 400 when 300 is fine, that ain't so bad. The call with 10-J is ok as well because this is a shallow stacks re-buy tournament....everyone is shallow. Grinding away like this is some major event will really limit your chances to win imo. You've got to gamble a bit if you want to get into this type of tournament. The play is not philosophically excellent, but then again the structure, and the ordinary opposition, aren't conducive to world class poker tactics I would say. have to disagree 100%. The Call pre is an ego spew call, trying to outplay someone OOP, shallow, and with a hand that is dominated by so much of claires range is not good play. Claire's 4x isnt half as bad as the call but 4x from the cutoff is very seldom AA/KK/QQ so she is telegraphing her range towards the big aces 99+ range imo. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Simon Galloway on September 16, 2008, 04:41:23 PM If you are waiting to get a 100BB stack before playing poker in a weekly Luton comp, you may be waiting a while.
Ive gone from bored to very bored now with this hand. I've offered a ton of support for why I made the play and I have received precisely SFA useful info in return, apart from 'its too shallow for that' well no shit sherlock, I play them all the time. Show me a good poker player that says they never (knowingly) step out of line and I will show you a liar. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: action man on September 16, 2008, 04:54:25 PM If you are waiting to get a 100BB stack before playing poker in a weekly Luton comp, you may be waiting a while. Ive gone from bored to very bored now with this hand. I've offered a ton of support for why I made the play and I have received precisely SFA useful info in return, apart from 'its too shallow for that' well no shit sherlock, I play them all the time. Show me a good poker player that says they never (knowingly) step out of line and I will show you a liar. your so far off the mark its untrue, but im getting bored now. We'll agree to disagree. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Simon Galloway on September 16, 2008, 05:01:44 PM You're bored? I've had 5 pages of it. I don't mind disagreeing, but how about a well structured para or 2 on why I am wrong, rather than 'you're wrong' I've put a few paragraphs together (largely unread it seems) so I'm hoping someone will do the same in return.
Come up to Luton with 'AJ is the top of c/o range' 'I'm folding every non-premium hand coz its shallow' and 'Im pushing ATC coz its shallow' and I will wave to you as you leave just before the first break. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: EvilPie on September 16, 2008, 05:04:42 PM I can't really see a problem with the call given the tournament that is being played.
JT is not the worst hand in the world and if you're going to wait for either a good hand or a reasonable one in an unopened pot with position you're likely to be waiting a long time. If this is anything like the rebuys I play in occassionally at Gala then you have to take a chance to accumulate some chips to give yourself a chance of some reasonably deep stacked play later in the tournament. Risking 300 of your effective 8000 total stack to gain a possible 4000 is worth it imo. I also can't see why the 400 raise from Claire telegraphs the hand so much. I would prefer a 275 raise but I honestly can't see how it makes such a big difference in reading her hand. Rick. How does this raise discount AA/KK/QQ from her range? Just curious to know what the raise would need to be for you to include these in your possibilities. If the raise is 250 - 300 do you see it as being a top 10 - 15% hand or maybe see it as being a weak steal attempt that you can exploit. I accept that the 400 raise looks exploitable but it also makes the reraise so much more difficult given the stack sizes as once you reraise you are more or less committed. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: action man on September 16, 2008, 05:13:38 PM You're bored? I've had 5 pages of it. I don't mind disagreeing, but how about a well structured para or 2 on why I am wrong, rather than 'you're wrong' I've put a few paragraphs together (largely unread it seems) so I'm hoping someone will do the same in return. Come up to Luton with 'AJ is the top of c/o range' 'I'm folding every non-premium hand coz its shallow' and 'Im pushing ATC coz its shallow' and I will wave to you as you leave just before the first break. im trying to earn a living 8 tabling mtt's ive not called a 4x raise with JTo yet though ;) Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: MANTIS01 on September 16, 2008, 05:19:02 PM Posted by: action man
Quote im trying to earn a living 8 tabling mtt's ive not called a 4x raise with JTo yet though Are you 8 tabling live? Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: thetank on September 16, 2008, 05:24:35 PM Quote from: [url=http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591 Simon[/url] Galloway (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591) link=topic=36807.msg809137#msg809137 date=1221579683] I've offered a ton of support for why I made the play and I have received precisely SFA useful info in return, apart from 'its too shallow for that' well no shit sherlock, I play them all the time. I thought this post from Flushy was pretty decent and explains more than just the 'too shallow for that'. This is the problem of defending you BB with hands that do very bad against a LP raise An aggressive player is going to raise from the C/O with every single hand that has you dominated. QT KT AT QJ KJ AJ, as well as TT JJ QQ KK AA, you are defending into 1300 pot with 3600 back, if you flop top pair what the fck do you do? Even when you flop a draw you toast chips. Your not playing deep enough to call to flop a draw to play streets. The call is ok if you are sure you have a big edge over opponent on future streets. If opponent played too passively and folded too much for example. Evidently Claw is not this sort of player. You might be able to get a good read on her to know when she has hit the flop, then calling is ok. JT might as well be ATC though if this is the case. actionman doesn't believe you were able to gain this edge, I'm sure he has read your reasoning, but believes it to be in error. You disagree, that's fair enough. You can't say that a case has not been put forward though. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Royal Flush on September 16, 2008, 05:27:36 PM Posted by: action man Quote im trying to earn a living 8 tabling mtt's ive not called a 4x raise with JTo yet though Are you 8 tabling live? ? Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Royal Flush on September 16, 2008, 05:29:11 PM Come up to Luton with 'AJ is the top of c/o range' 'I'm folding every non-premium hand coz its shallow' and 'Im pushing ATC coz its shallow' and I will wave to you as you leave just before the first break. FWIW i have played a few small buyin comps in Luton and a shed load in other cardrooms and i am fully aware that you don't have the luxury of being able to play lots of deep pots post flop, which is even more the reason to try and play optimal pre. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: MANTIS01 on September 16, 2008, 05:31:09 PM What would peeps do with 6-6 in this situation? Why/how could you justify getting involved?
? Live is a different kettle of fish imo. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Royal Flush on September 16, 2008, 05:43:49 PM ? Live is a different kettle of fish imo. It's 300 to call out of a 4k stack online and live, that is still too much either online or live.... Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Simon Galloway on September 16, 2008, 05:50:58 PM Quote from: [url=http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591 Simon[/url] Galloway (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591) link=topic=36807.msg809137#msg809137 date=1221579683] I've offered a ton of support for why I made the play and I have received precisely SFA useful info in return, apart from 'its too shallow for that' well no shit sherlock, I play them all the time. I thought this post from Flushy was pretty decent and explains more than just the 'too shallow for that'. This is the problem of defending you BB with hands that do very bad against a LP raise An aggressive player is going to raise from the C/O with every single hand that has you dominated. QT KT AT QJ KJ AJ, as well as TT JJ QQ KK AA, you are defending into 1300 pot with 3600 back, if you flop top pair what the fck do you do? Even when you flop a draw you toast chips. Your not playing deep enough to call to flop a draw to play streets. The call is ok if you are sure you have a big edge over opponent on future streets. If opponent played too passively and folded too much for example. Evidently Claw is not this sort of player. You might be able to get a good read on her to know when she has hit the flop, then calling is ok. JT might as well be ATC though if this is the case. actionman doesn't believe you were able to gain this edge, I'm sure he has read your reasoning, but believes it to be in error. You disagree, that's fair enough. You can't say that a case has not been put forward though. Ok a case has been put forward. But to start with Aj is the top end of the range, and next thing I am in the world of hurt to JJ+ AK+ well which is it? Does she have a wide range or not? The case put forward isnt consistent. I have played with Claire a good few times and I believe I have given her game due respect in a previous post on this thread. That said, I think Claire would admit that I have had the upper hand in most recent encounters. That's not to say that's how the long run will pan out, but atm I believe it will have crossed her mind. It might not have, but that was my view, and I couldn't really ask her during the hand to confirm, so that's what I went with. So floating is a part of this, the fact that it was JT is secondary. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: thetank on September 16, 2008, 05:59:40 PM But to start with Aj is the top end of the range, and next thing I am in the world of hurt to JJ+ AK+ well which is it? Does she have a wide range or not? The case put forward isnt consistent. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. As far as I could see the point made was this... An aggressive player is going to raise from the C/O with every single hand that has you dominated. QT KT AT QJ KJ AJ, as well as TT JJ QQ KK AA, you are defending into 1300 pot with 3600 back, if you flop top pair what the fck do you do? Even when you flop a draw you toast chips. I'm not seeing the inconsistencies you're speaking of? Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: MANTIS01 on September 16, 2008, 06:03:52 PM OK, 2 things. First, those who can't put their solid oppo on 10-J because the call is so spewy are really doing themselves a disservice. How can you play against a hand you have already discounted? I thought 10-J was possible from the start.....because it is. Being able to accept your solid oppo may have 10-J is deffo going to help you in this hand, end of. But then if you do accept your solid oppo may have 10-J it stands to reason you must include that in your own calling range in this spot. If you don't then you must categorize your oppo as spewy solid which I would say is weird. Secondly people can't openly criticise the over-raise and then blame a man for under-calling. Yes a c/o raise is going to include x range, but we not talking about a standard raise, it's a raise we think is odd. Those who think the raise is heavy are going to look down, find a playable hand, and let her have the pot anyways. That's not like the stunning poker people are making it out to be.
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Simon Galloway on September 16, 2008, 06:09:30 PM I'm not seeing the inconsistencies you're speaking of? You have AJh its towards the top of your range in the C/O don't narrow your oppo's range and inflate the pot all at the same time! If you never raise more than pot pre (obv excluding when you are short) then you won't go far wrong. AJh is at the top end of a C/O range i am afraid, unless the C/O is a complete nit Now she has AA minimum. Inconsistent. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: thetank on September 16, 2008, 06:14:52 PM OK, 2 things. First, those who can't put their solid oppo on 10-J because the call is so spewy are really doing themselves a disservice. How can you play against a hand you have already discounted? I thought 10-J was possible from the start.....because it is. Being able to accept your solid oppo may have 10-J is deffo going to help you in this hand, end of. What's to say they have attributed the attribute of 'solid' to the BB though. By the sounds of things, people are now putting the poor chap on 'makes spewy calls pre' and so would not discount JT. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: MANTIS01 on September 16, 2008, 06:16:49 PM Actually there were 3 things. People should stop being obsessed with their cards as well. I would want in on this situation and the fact 10-J is playable would make that situation more appealing. If 3 bricks hit the flop I might use my solid image to bet half the pot...and because villains are shallow they could fold very quickly.
Posted by: thetank Quote What's to say they have attributed the attribute of 'solid' to the BB though TightEnd Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: thetank on September 16, 2008, 06:18:36 PM the board is draw heavy though KJ, K10, J10 type hands all interested in it He doesn't seem to have discounted the possibility tho Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Simon Galloway on September 16, 2008, 06:23:50 PM What's to say they have attributed the attribute of 'solid' to the BB though. I would have thought the best interpretation to understand would be from OP... Exhibit A: I am dealt Ahrt Jh in the cut off. Folded to me, and I raise to 400. Button (weaker player) calls as does big blind (solid player). Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: celtic on September 16, 2008, 06:27:30 PM whole thread is a sham as the hand was reported properly.
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: thetank on September 16, 2008, 06:34:24 PM v good Exhibit A, but I'm not talking about the OP, but was in reply to a post Mantis made about the people who would discount a solid player making the call w. JT. Those players may have different definitions of the word solid and not have placed you in that category if they saw you play a hand like this.
Whole thread just looks like this to an outsider... I'm calling Claw with any two coz she's a women and so must be pants at poker. When she wins all my chips, I'll be sure to let her know what she did wrong. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Simon Galloway on September 16, 2008, 06:44:28 PM v good Exhibit A, but I'm not talking about the OP, but was in reply to a post Mantis made about the people who would discount a solid player making the call w. JT. Those players may have different definitions of the word solid and not have placed you in that category if they saw you play a hand like this. Whole thread just looks like this to an outsider... I'm calling Claw with any two coz she's a women and so must be pants at poker. When she wins all my chips, I'll be sure to let her know what she did wrong. Now thats just pure shite. (re) read the whole thread. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Royal Flush on September 16, 2008, 06:47:03 PM I'm not seeing the inconsistencies you're speaking of? You have AJh its towards the top of your range in the C/O don't narrow your oppo's range and inflate the pot all at the same time! If you never raise more than pot pre (obv excluding when you are short) then you won't go far wrong. AJh is at the top end of a C/O range i am afraid, unless the C/O is a complete nit Now she has AA minimum. Inconsistent. When did i say she only has AA? I said she raises every single hand that you are a big dog too, she also raises hands that you are 60-40 against some you will be 70-30 against and others that you are 50-50 against. AJ is deffo at the stronger end of claires range. I don't see where the inconsistency is in this. As for being a solid player, this thread has clearly proven the OP read to be wrong. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: thetank on September 16, 2008, 06:53:38 PM Quote from: [url=http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591 Simon[/url] Galloway (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591) link=topic=36807.msg809266#msg809266 date=1221587068] v good Exhibit A, but I'm not talking about the OP, but was in reply to a post Mantis made about the people who would discount a solid player making the call w. JT. Those players may have different definitions of the word solid and not have placed you in that category if they saw you play a hand like this. Whole thread just looks like this to an outsider... I'm calling Claw with any two coz she's a women and so must be pants at poker. When she wins all my chips, I'll be sure to let her know what she did wrong. Now thats just pure shite. (re) read the whole thread. Hope it's shite, but it's the impression some may get. I know you've said that you think a lot of Claw's game but I'm not altogether sure if the actions reflect that in a convincing way. May not be true, just the way it reads. As for re-reading the whole thread, I'll probably leave it ta. Still got 987 books I must read before I die and most of them are probably better than this. Has been an interesting one and I've learned a couple of things but I'll leave it at that. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Claw75 on September 16, 2008, 06:57:54 PM OK - this thread seems to have turned into a bit of a slate-simon-athon and I'm feeling a wee bit to blame by starting it. To be fair to him, he hasn't asked for his play to be analysed, he just happens to have been involved in the hand that I've posted asking for analysis of my play - perhaps it's best left now. That said, I do feel I have learnt a lot from the thread, so thanks for the comments.
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Simon Galloway on September 16, 2008, 06:59:17 PM I knew some bright spark would challenge AA minimum. You say AJ is the top end - then all of a sudden TT+ comes into the reckoning when it looks like you have previously discounted it.
Not once do you seem to have looked up from your high volume long run magic formula to consider the merit (or otherwise) of ever playing a hand differently. If you tell me you never play a hand sub-optimally (for whatever reason) then I simply don't believe you. Next time anyone decides to take a sub-optimal route in a hand, that makes them a non-solid player. Right. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: nirvana on September 16, 2008, 07:50:12 PM To be honest the only move from the BB there is to shove and take it down - will happily show people the move on Saturday
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Royal Flush on September 16, 2008, 07:54:57 PM If you tell me you never play a hand sub-optimally (for whatever reason) then I simply don't believe you. I do every day, it's called playing badly. Or are you trying to say you made a meta call pre flop with the intention of showing the hand if you got the chance to prove that you are not solid so that Claire would not raise your blind as often? Yes she can have TT+ that is also towards the top end of her range, if you really need me to explain to you what top end of a range means i will because you seem to have difficulty in grasping it. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Simon Galloway on September 16, 2008, 08:15:36 PM Quote from: [url=http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591 Simon[/url] Galloway (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591) link=topic=36807.msg809284#msg809284 date=1221587957] If you tell me you never play a hand sub-optimally (for whatever reason) then I simply don't believe you. I do every day, it's called playing badly. Or are you trying to say you made a meta call pre flop with the intention of showing the hand if you got the chance to prove that you are not solid so that Claire would not raise your blind as often? Yes she can have TT+ that is also towards the top end of her range, if you really need me to explain to you what top end of a range means i will because you seem to have difficulty in grasping it. You might have to explain it. I'm actually not being obtuse here, but to me, AJ isn't a great hand. If that's at the top of a range, its a pretty wide top if premium pairs go in there as well? Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Royal Flush on September 16, 2008, 08:36:38 PM Top End:
99+ AJ+ KQ Mid: 88-55 AT-A7 KJ-K9 Q9 J9 T9 Bottom End: Babby pairs, weak aces, mid and low suited connectors and some really random shit. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Simon Galloway on September 16, 2008, 09:15:22 PM ok, we are nearly there and can draw a line under this.
That is the grouping for all hands, now how about Claire's range. You say that AJ is at the top of her range as an agressive player in the cutoff. So that means I am looking at your mid-range grouping of hands? (I wouldn't have put AJ in the top end, cutting it off at AQ. Which makes AJ feel like it belongs at the top of the mid range.) And JT isn't a major dog to a lot of those hands, yes there is AJ, KJ etc but also T9,J9 (and small pairs that might not like the flop) to balance it out. As in the early part of the thread, there was a lot of non-standard things that happened in the course of the hand and my read was I was up against an AJ / 66 sort of hand, obv not THAT narrow, but that was roughly what I was sensing. I have said repeatedly that I would routinely fold, in fact my cards were in the air to fold when the riase size dispute broke out and I reasoned to play the hand differently. When poker sixth sense kicks in and tells me something, I generally listen. It doesn't happen very often for me but it is generally accurate. It worked, although you can argue the point that AJ v JT isn't a good outcome. Now I can go back to routinely folding JT to a CO raise. But next time sixth sense tells me to peel one off, or see a flopI will. It might not be this side of Christmas, but I will. Who doesn't? And on the subject of meta call, read through some of the Luton thread. Half seem to think I am granite and half seem to think I am loose. I'm not sure how easy it is to cultivate that image, I certainly didn't try to, but I'll go with it. All I have to do is work out which half is which. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: celtic on September 16, 2008, 10:22:27 PM if you ask me as someone who as played with both of you long enough then i would say you're both shit.
glad to be of assistance. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Claw75 on September 16, 2008, 10:38:16 PM if you ask me as someone who as played with both of you long enough then i would say you're both shit. glad to be of assistance. lol [/thread] :) Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: LuckyLloyd on September 19, 2008, 02:49:14 AM Quote from: [url=http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591 Simon[/url] Galloway (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591) link=topic=36807.msg809154#msg809154 date=1221580904] Come up to Luton with 'AJ is the top of c/o range' 'I'm folding every non-premium hand coz its shallow' and 'Im pushing ATC coz its shallow' and I will wave to you as you leave just before the first break. FWIW i have played a few small buyin comps in Luton and a shed load in other cardrooms and i am fully aware that you don't have the luxury of being able to play lots of deep pots post flop, which is even more the reason to try and play optimal pre. DING DING DING!! It never fails to amuse me when people believe that it is ok to make a bad decision on the basis that if they manage to gambol it up successfully they can then start making good decisions later on. It isn't logical! Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Simon Galloway on September 19, 2008, 09:34:58 AM Well done, you've managed to extrapolate the most illogical argument possible out of this thread under the banner of not being logical. If poker is purely a logic game, then it would be solvable. There would always be a right answer.
If you want to play 30 mtts a day, then folding JT to a c/o raise is the correct play in the long run. Short of taking an advert out in the sun, I can't convey that message more times than I have in this thread. However, when different information is available to you, that percentage chart that must be on your bedroom wall of -EV starts to change. An anology would be Blackjack. With an unknown deck, hitting 16 against a dealer ten is the correct +EV play. You still lose money hitting, but less money than not hitting. Now if new information comes to light (like you have a running count three quarters of the way through the deck) then it now becomes right to stand on that 16. To me, you are still reading off your long term -EV charts and not examining the here and the now of the situation. For Claire to be in a bad run, mis-raising on the cutoff, smooth called by George on the button, me in the big blind, THERE IS NO LONG RUN. It won't happen more than once more in my lifetime. DING. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: ShatnerPants on September 19, 2008, 09:52:34 AM But Simon, how best doth thou playeth JT UTG ?
;angel; Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Simon Galloway on September 19, 2008, 10:02:06 AM Behave.
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Gamblor21 on September 19, 2008, 10:26:28 AM But Simon, how best doth thou playeth JT UTG ? ;angel; Raise... Note to self over raise everyones big blind from now on who posted on this thread, they will only call with the goods and when they reraise just repop them again as they'll be sick and making a move... Easy! Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Simon Galloway on September 19, 2008, 11:23:56 AM Stop thinking. Just play to the chart.
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Royal Flush on September 19, 2008, 04:45:47 PM If poker is purely a logic game, then it would be solvable. There would always be a right answer. There is always a right answer. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Simon Galloway on September 19, 2008, 05:47:52 PM Now I KNOW you are taking the piss.
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Royal Flush on September 19, 2008, 06:22:39 PM Now I KNOW you are taking the piss. No, there is always an answer to any situation that produces the best long term result, it is usually quite easy to find there are times though when you get marginal situations and its becomes harder to know which it is. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Simon Galloway on September 22, 2008, 10:33:37 PM Just reading the new book by PearlJammer and co - you won't believe what he calls off 10% of his chips with in the BB against 2 players...
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Pelham Boy on September 22, 2008, 10:48:11 PM Just reading the new book by PearlJammer and co - you won't believe what he calls off 10% of his chips with in the BB against 2 players... I've got that. It's a great book imo. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: LuckyLloyd on September 22, 2008, 11:41:06 PM Quote from: [url=http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591 Simon[/url] Galloway (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591) link=topic=36807.msg811378#msg811378 date=1221813298] For Claire to be in a bad run, mis-raising on the cutoff, smooth called by George on the button, me in the big blind, THERE IS NO LONG RUN. It won't happen more than once more in my lifetime. DING. If a hand is negative EV in the long run then it is negative EV in the here and now. You are putting in 10% of your stack when you will flop no pair and no draw most of the time and be oop with little room to maneuver a better hand off the pot given the amount that will be in there in comparison to your remaining chips. In order for this to be a profitable play, you would need to get a double up at least one out of every 10 times you make this call. Any time you lose the hand and put more in after the flop that increases the amount you have to win that one time out of 10. Flushy already explained in simple terms why J10 is a bad hand in this spot when you consider her range of hands and the part of that range she is likely to stack off with postflop. It's not as simple as "if I hit a pair or a strong draw I'm going to get paid". In reality, there will be the times you hit two pair or a strong draw and get it in bad or get redogged or dogged or whatever. I remain incredulous as to how calling 10% of your stack here will ever make you money. Yeah, it will some of the times you call - but you surely are smart enough to know that good analysis focuses on the decisions made along the way to the end product - not the end product itself. It's a bad call, and it shall remain so irrespective of what specious reasoning you may wish to use (Luton poker / fast tournaments / the raiser having a bad run). But by all means continue to make this call if you please - as it is the type of call that makes live tournaments such a profitable endeavor. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: thetank on September 22, 2008, 11:47:07 PM Are we levelling Simon Galloway here?
Somebody new to systematically bump the thread every 3 or 4 days to tell him how poor his pre-flop play was. Good job Mr. Galloway doesn't seem to be the sensitive ego type. ::) Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: LuckyLloyd on September 22, 2008, 11:52:31 PM Are we levelling Simon (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591) Galloway (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591) here? Somebody new to systematically bump the thread every 3 or 4 days to tell him how poor his pre-flop play was. Good job Mr. Galloway doesn't seem to be the sensitive ego type. ::) levelling? I log in here seldomly and just responded to his direct reply to my post in this thread. Which I only saw and read a few minutes ago. I don't know who Simon Galloway is and it doesn't really matter. I am only concerned with the content of his posts - which demonstrate a flaw in reasoning common amongst live tournament players. If you don't like my posts ignore them or ban me. Shrug. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: thetank on September 22, 2008, 11:55:48 PM I have no problem with your post. Please don't kill me.
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Simon Galloway on September 23, 2008, 08:23:19 AM Well it would be boring if we saw things the same way. Sometimes your cards just don't matter. Sometimes they matter a bit. I think my Blackjack analogy still holds true. You are borrowing long run EV and mixing it up with a play in which the value of my hand isn't as critical as you want it to be. But speak to Flushy, a Multi-Drinking Discussion (hey we've found a new MDD) at BB7 and I at least managed some acknowledgement of ok poker from him. Now there's a blank canvass for the man...
I have also had so much agreement from internationally recognised players aware of this thread that I'm comfortable. Even some Blondes who have posted on this and played in Luton during/after BB7 now have a new perspective. I think I've suffered more irritation with this thread than sensitive ego denting, those that know me will know that I hand it out and take it in equal spirit. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: AlexMartin on September 23, 2008, 08:37:54 AM I have no problem with your post. Please don't kill me. best bit of thread ha. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: TheChipPrince on September 23, 2008, 09:52:23 AM Just reading the new book by PearlJammer and co - you won't believe what he calls off 10% of his chips with in the BB against 2 players... What book is this? Link? Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Simon Galloway on September 23, 2008, 11:01:07 AM Google (http://www.amazon.com/Winning-Poker-Tournaments-Hand-Time/dp/0974150274)
Go on, click on it, it's not as facetious as you think :) Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: TheChipPrince on September 23, 2008, 11:10:08 AM is it still free postage to the UK (over $25) if its not on amazon.co.uk only .com?
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: thetank on September 23, 2008, 11:40:32 AM is it still free postage to the UK (over $25) if its not on amazon.co.uk only .com? No, but just get it from amazon.co.uk instead. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Winning-Poker-Tournaments-Hand-Time/dp/0974150274/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222166418&sr=8-1 Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: thetank on September 23, 2008, 11:42:42 AM a few quid cheaper at the book depository though..
http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/WEBSITE/WWW/WEBPAGES/showbook.php?id=0974150274 They do free delivery Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: TheChipPrince on September 23, 2008, 11:55:43 AM ;thankyou;
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: MANTIS01 on September 23, 2008, 12:44:56 PM Posted by: LuckyLloyd
Quote It's not as simple as "if I hit a pair or a strong draw I'm going to get paid". In reality, there will be the times you hit two pair or a strong draw and get it in bad or get redogged or dogged or whatever. I remain incredulous as to how calling 10% of your stack here will ever make you money. I think you are right that poker is not as simple as "if I hit a pair...I'm going to get paid". In fact people who play poker with a mentality that they need to hit are pretty poor players imo. I will tell you how you are going to make money out of this situation Lloyd. The flop comes 2-3-3 and you lead out for 600 with your solid image. The original raiser is squeezed out and the weak player folds because their stacks are shallow. That is one example of how to make money and it doesn't involve hitting anything. I think it is rather foolish to pull out a chart and suggest a marginal call is plain bad because of the amount of times you will hit the board. The fact that you have a pretty good notion of what the op's range is means that you can play her range in a squeeze situation rather than your cards. Saying your cards wont hit enough to justify the call is quite a simple idea imo and it chokes your creativity. Your intentions and appreciatiation of the situation will decide if the call is profitable not just the hand strength as you seem to be indicating. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Royal Flush on September 23, 2008, 02:40:04 PM Mantis you missed the main point, its not that you will miss, it's that you will hit and be dominated.
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: MANTIS01 on September 23, 2008, 03:27:52 PM I don't tend to miss main points Flushy. Unless you are playing A-A you could be dominated every time you get into a pot, so what's new? You say "it's not that you will miss, it's that you will hit and be dominated", but please tell me which is the most likely scenario? You are going to miss much more than you will hit. In Simon's shoes I would be looking for a hand greater than one pair to be putting all my chips in anyways, so even if you hit there's nothing to say you have to go broke. Maybe missing gives you a better chance to win the pot and it's also the most likely eventuality.
But a much more important point is this. There is little point in taking the time and trouble to cultivate a tight & solid image if you are only going to play cards the rulebook says are +EV. You might as well try and acquire a loose image and get paid off to the max in your +EV situations. While the call with 10-J can be seen as an objective -EV situation the fact that you are tight and solid and haven't played a hand in an hour can tilt the balance to make that a subjective +EV situation. You and Lloyd among others have offered valid reasons why you see the call as poor. But those reasons are based purely on the hitting potential of the cards. If Simon was spewy I would agree because his ability to win the pot without hitting is prob low. Here he doesn't need to hit to win and probably wont hit, so it isn't a bad call for 300 if you are looking for ways to exploit the situation & trade-off your image rather than just hitting cards. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Royal Flush on September 23, 2008, 03:52:47 PM Ah ok he is going to check fold 1 pair and fire when the board comes 223, i get it now....
Button's range includes PP's that also like a 223 flop... Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: LuckyLloyd on September 23, 2008, 04:03:27 PM So basically Simon can call any two cards from this position because - despite being oop and dealing with relatively shallow stacks - he'll just KNOW when a bet is taking down the pot or when he needs to fold a flopped pair. Ok, got it. Women are bad at poker after all right?
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: the sicilian on September 23, 2008, 08:19:52 PM which demonstrate a flaw in reasoning common amongst live tournament players
Is there some kind of wall between the land of live and internet play ?? live players play on the internet a lot to..... youthful arrogance has a lot to answer for.. note to self YOU DONT KNOW IT ALL.... Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Royal Flush on September 23, 2008, 08:24:52 PM which demonstrate a flaw in reasoning common amongst live tournament players Is there some kind of wall between the land of live and internet play ?? live players play on the internet a lot to..... youthful arrogance has a lot to answer for.. note to self YOU DONT KNOW IT ALL.... There seems to be, mainly down the number of hands you can play live compared to online, combined with the far more insightful discussions people have online compared to live about hands. Your note to self was rather amusing, i think you meant note to me.... Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: byronkincaid on September 23, 2008, 08:38:56 PM which demonstrate a flaw in reasoning common amongst live tournament players Is there some kind of wall between the land of live and internet play ?? live players play on the internet a lot to..... youthful arrogance has a lot to answer for.. note to self YOU DONT KNOW IT ALL.... Quote The main reason for BadBeat's initial losses was that its first recruits were high-profile names from the UK's live poker circuit. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cd08df46-86ad-11dd-959e-0000779fd18c.html Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: the sicilian on September 23, 2008, 09:07:17 PM Your note to self was rather amusing, i think you meant note to me....
Depends what perspective i was talking from.... Once again you assume.. the quote .. note to self has to be said from self perspective... note to me is illogical Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: action man on September 23, 2008, 09:38:09 PM which demonstrate a flaw in reasoning common amongst live tournament players Is there some kind of wall between the land of live and internet play ?? live players play on the internet a lot to..... youthful arrogance has a lot to answer for.. note to self YOU DONT KNOW IT ALL.... yes a massive wall, experience is gained through number of hands played, not the number of years you have been playing. For example moorman will play more mtt in 6 months than some veteran like mickey wernick has ever played. Another difference is when a local live player gives his standard flawed explanations of a badly played hand no-one jumps in and says wait a minute....thats BS. In short, primarily live players progress and learn at a much slower rate. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: PocketLady on September 23, 2008, 09:45:56 PM which demonstrate a flaw in reasoning common amongst live tournament players Is there some kind of wall between the land of live and internet play ?? live players play on the internet a lot to..... youthful arrogance has a lot to answer for.. note to self YOU DONT KNOW IT ALL.... There seems to be, mainly down the number of hands you can play live compared to online, combined with the far more insightful discussions people have online compared to live about hands. Your note to self was rather amusing, i think you meant note to me.... I agree there is a big difference, but I don't think it's mainly the number of hands you play that causes this. Sure, it plays a big part, but I think the main difference is that live you don't have the ability to record all your hands with the likes of PT or use SharkScope, but you do have a lot more other information at your disposal than you would online, different information. Calling a LP 3x raise in the BB with J10 is pretty standard live. I'm not saying it's the right move, but it happens all the time in £20 and £200 tournaments alike. Claw is an aggressive but decent player, and whether Simon is dominated or not that doesn't mean he can't get her to pass and win the pot - flop dependent. If Simon had called because he looked down at J10 and thought "Oh J10, I have to call that raise" then yes he is a terrible player. But if he looked down at J10 and thought "Maybe I can outplay her on the flop" etc then why not? I'm only ever going to be trying to outplay someone who I view as being able to fold, and being a good player Claire does have a fold button. Not only that but because she is an aggressive player making a LP raise, Simon knows that she is probably not going to have a monster overpair. Although at the end of the day person with the nuts will always win the pot, live tends to be a bit less about the cards you actually hold than online. A very good live player once told me that you should always enter a pot with a purpose. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: celtic on September 23, 2008, 09:48:42 PM which demonstrate a flaw in reasoning common amongst live tournament players Is there some kind of wall between the land of live and internet play ?? live players play on the internet a lot to..... youthful arrogance has a lot to answer for.. note to self YOU DONT KNOW IT ALL.... yes a massive wall why is it a massive wall? who decides that internet players are better than live players? Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: action man on September 23, 2008, 09:49:52 PM which demonstrate a flaw in reasoning common amongst live tournament players Is there some kind of wall between the land of live and internet play ?? live players play on the internet a lot to..... youthful arrogance has a lot to answer for.. note to self YOU DONT KNOW IT ALL.... There seems to be, mainly down the number of hands you can play live compared to online, combined with the far more insightful discussions people have online compared to live about hands. Your note to self was rather amusing, i think you meant note to me.... I agree there is a big difference, but I don't think it's mainly the number of hands you play that causes this. Sure, it plays a big part, but I think the main difference is that live you don't have the ability to record all your hands with the likes of PT or use SharkScope, but you do have a lot more other information at your disposal than you would online, different information. Calling a LP 3x raise in the BB with J10 is pretty standard live. I'm not saying it's the right move, but it happens all the time in £20 and £200 tournaments alike. Claw is an aggressive but decent player, and whether Simon is dominated or not that doesn't mean he can't get her to pass and win the pot - flop dependent. If Simon had called because he looked down at J10 and thought "Oh J10, I have to call that raise" then yes he is a terrible player. But if he looked down at J10 and thought "Maybe I can outplay her on the flop" etc then why not? I'm only ever going to be trying to outplay someone who I view as being able to fold, and being a good player Claire does have a fold button. Not only that but because she is an aggressive player making a LP raise, Simon knows that she is probably not going to have a monster overpair. Although at the end of the day person with the nuts will always win the pot, live tends to be a bit less about the cards you actually hold than online. A very good live player once told me that you should always enter a pot with a purpose. to win the hand? Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: action man on September 23, 2008, 09:50:38 PM which demonstrate a flaw in reasoning common amongst live tournament players Is there some kind of wall between the land of live and internet play ?? live players play on the internet a lot to..... youthful arrogance has a lot to answer for.. note to self YOU DONT KNOW IT ALL.... yes a massive wall why is it a massive wall? who decides that internet players are better than live players? ive edited my post. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: celtic on September 23, 2008, 09:58:46 PM which demonstrate a flaw in reasoning common amongst live tournament players Is there some kind of wall between the land of live and internet play ?? live players play on the internet a lot to..... youthful arrogance has a lot to answer for.. note to self YOU DONT KNOW IT ALL.... yes a massive wall, experience is gained through number of hands played, not the number of years you have been playing. For example moorman will play more mtt in 6 months than some veteran like Mickey (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=283) Wernick (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=283) has ever played. Another difference is when a local live player gives his standard flawed explanations of a badly played hand no-one jumps in and says wait a minute....thats BS. In short, primarily live players progress and learn at a much slower rate. experience doesnt necessarily make you better tho. you can either be a good player or not, live or internet imo. Moorman is the best internet mtt'er at the mo but has a worse record live than seb at luton. How does that add up? Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: thetank on September 23, 2008, 10:00:03 PM Different skill set live surely?
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: action man on September 23, 2008, 10:00:13 PM volume
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: PocketLady on September 23, 2008, 10:02:16 PM which demonstrate a flaw in reasoning common amongst live tournament players Is there some kind of wall between the land of live and internet play ?? live players play on the internet a lot to..... youthful arrogance has a lot to answer for.. note to self YOU DONT KNOW IT ALL.... yes a massive wall, experience is gained through number of hands played, not the number of years you have been playing. For example moorman will play more mtt in 6 months than some veteran like Mickey (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=283) Wernick (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=283) has ever played. Another difference is when a local live player gives his standard flawed explanations of a badly played hand no-one jumps in and says wait a minute....thats BS. In short, primarily live players progress and learn at a much slower rate. Yes, I agree that generally the standard of live players is worse than those who play online, but it isn't just because of less hands played. When I play live I play a bit differently because there are more AND less things to take into account. I could get together 10 people who play on the internet regularly and sit them at a 1/2 live cash table and the game would still be a lot looser than a 1/2 full ring online. javascript:void(0); A very good live player once told me that you should always enter a pot with a purpose. to win the hand? Lol, yes, but thinking about how you are going to win the hand before you enter it. I might make a call against a weak/tight player with absolute bollocks because I know I can outplay them on the flop. That's much easier to do live than online, although obviously it can be done. I'm fairly certain Simon didn't call with J10 because he thought he was winning. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: celtic on September 23, 2008, 10:03:39 PM volume so moorman is only better than me because he has played lots more mtt's online than i have? Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: action man on September 23, 2008, 10:06:33 PM no moorman hasnt done as well live because hes probably only played 20 or so live comps, any regular Mtter can go 200+ without getting a win.
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: celtic on September 23, 2008, 10:11:00 PM no moorman hasnt done as well live because hes probably only played 20 or so live comps, any regular Mtter can go 200+ without getting a win. 200+? Are you sure? Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: action man on September 23, 2008, 10:22:22 PM very sure
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: celtic on September 23, 2008, 10:29:50 PM i assume you're talking about online as i have yet to meet someone who has gone 200 live mtt's without winning one. If so then i dont see how this helps your argument that online players are better.
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Claw75 on September 23, 2008, 10:30:55 PM i assume you're talking about online as i have yet to meet someone who has gone 200 live mtt's without winning one. If so then i dont see how this helps your argument that online players are better. presumably because online MTT fields are much larger than live ones.... Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: mondatoo on September 23, 2008, 10:34:29 PM which demonstrate a flaw in reasoning common amongst live tournament players Is there some kind of wall between the land of live and internet play ?? live players play on the internet a lot to..... youthful arrogance has a lot to answer for.. note to self YOU DONT KNOW IT ALL.... yes a massive wall why is it a massive wall? who decides that internet players are better than live players? IT'S FACT Seriously though volume obviously is hugely relevant anyone can have a bad run of tourneys were a big % of the time they get it in with the best hand but don't win it happens it's the game.However as is always said over a bigger span of tournaments the better players will make the most money.Thus i would suggest if moorman spent a full year playing the live circuit solely he would be doing a lot better than his current record live shows. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: action man on September 23, 2008, 10:39:32 PM which demonstrate a flaw in reasoning common amongst live tournament players Is there some kind of wall between the land of live and internet play ?? live players play on the internet a lot to..... youthful arrogance has a lot to answer for.. note to self YOU DONT KNOW IT ALL.... yes a massive wall why is it a massive wall? who decides that internet players are better than live players? IT'S FACT Seriously though volume obviously is hugely relevant anyone can have a bad run of tourneys were a big % of the time they get it in with the best hand but don't win it happens it's the game.However as is always said over a bigger span of tournaments the better players will make the most money.Thus i would suggest if moorman spent a full year playing the live circuit solely he would be doing a lot better than his current record live shows. +mf1 Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Longy on September 23, 2008, 10:40:13 PM i assume you're talking about online as i have yet to meet someone who has gone 200 live mtt's without winning one. If so then i dont see how this helps your argument that online players are better. 200 live tourneys is an awful lot,at 2 a week it would take 2 years to play that many. As Claw says field size does have a bearing, plus actionmans arguement was that players like Moorman who have been extremely succesful just hasn't played enough live for their results to mean anything. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: celtic on September 23, 2008, 10:42:35 PM i understand volume is relevant but it works both ways ray, i know moorman is better than me as a poker player FACT but action mans view suggests this is only because he plays more online than i do. i dont buy that. i dont think its that clear cut that internet players generally are better than live players.
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Longy on September 23, 2008, 10:51:57 PM i understand volume is relevant but it works both ways ray, i know moorman is better than me as a poker player FACT but action mans view suggests this is only because he plays more online than i do. i dont buy that. i dont think its that clear cut that internet players generally are better than live players. It isn't just experience, Moorman no doubt talks to other online players whether that be privately or on internet forums. To learn about good poker strategy, you have a wealth of knowledge which has been discussed to death worked on and then adapted into a better form, you only have to see how much online games have changed in the last 2-3 years to see that this is having an effect. Compare that to your local cardroom where people are still playing roughly the same, very little strategy is discussed in this atmosphere in my experience and alot of it is the same stuff that the regulars were coming out with years ago. The live scene is just experiencing alot longer learning curve than the online scene. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: celtic on September 23, 2008, 10:56:16 PM i understand volume is relevant but it works both ways ray, i know moorman is better than me as a poker player FACT but action mans view suggests this is only because he plays more online than i do. i dont buy that. i dont think its that clear cut that internet players generally are better than live players. It isn't just experience, Moorman no doubt talks to other online players whether that be privately or on internet forums. To learn about good poker strategy, you have a wealth of knowledge which has been discussed to death worked on and then adapted into a better form, you only have to see how much online games have changed in the last 2-3 years to see that this is having an effect. Compare that to your local cardroom where people are still playing roughly the same, very little strategy is discussed in this atmosphere in my experience and alot of it is the same stuff that the regulars were coming out with years ago. The live scene is just experiencing alot longer learning curve than the online scene. but live playes use all the forums etc and talk to good 'live' players. why does there have to be a difference between live players and internet players? Ur either good or you aret imo? NO? Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: mondatoo on September 23, 2008, 10:57:50 PM i understand volume is relevant but it works both ways ray, i know moorman is better than me as a poker player FACT but action mans view suggests this is only because he plays more online than i do. i dont buy that. i dont think its that clear cut that internet players generally are better than live players. Sorry if i sounded patronising vince mate wasn't ment as such.I think that it isn't the sole reason for it as he is obviously just naturally much better than you and knows not to fold QQ preflop. However, i do think not just moorman but many other multitablers in both tourney and cash online can gain a wealth of knowledge that will make them a better poker player than if they were just playing live regularly.There are 19 y/o kids out there who have already played more hands in there life than brunson ever will do this don't make them as good a player as him but it has greatly speeded up there own learning process of the game.To suggest that just playing a huge % of hands would singularly be enough to make you a great poker player is obviously bs but it can help a lot. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: mondatoo on September 23, 2008, 11:00:59 PM Celtic can i just ask without wishing to sound patronising again,Do you play much yourself online ? My experience of peoples opinions on this is generally that 99% of players that play both online and live regurlarly will suggest mostly online players are much better players,Whereas most live players don't agree with this obv as they get defensive since they don't play online.
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Longy on September 23, 2008, 11:03:01 PM i understand volume is relevant but it works both ways ray, i know moorman is better than me as a poker player FACT but action mans view suggests this is only because he plays more online than i do. i dont buy that. i dont think its that clear cut that internet players generally are better than live players. It isn't just experience, Moorman no doubt talks to other online players whether that be privately or on internet forums. To learn about good poker strategy, you have a wealth of knowledge which has been discussed to death worked on and then adapted into a better form, you only have to see how much online games have changed in the last 2-3 years to see that this is having an effect. Compare that to your local cardroom where people are still playing roughly the same, very little strategy is discussed in this atmosphere in my experience and alot of it is the same stuff that the regulars were coming out with years ago. The live scene is just experiencing alot longer learning curve than the online scene. but live playes use all the forums etc and talk to good 'live' players. why does there have to be a difference between live players and internet players? Ur either good or you aret imo? NO? Im sure it does happen but i doubt it is as often. The amount of time a winning players studies and works on their game compared to their live counterpart i would imagine is quite different. You can't underestimate the effect that software tools on the internet have advanced the game, from poker tracker, pokerstove, icm software etc. Then this info has been discussed ad nauseam at places like 2p2.How many live players would even be aware of this and what they have taught your average winning online player. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: celtic on September 23, 2008, 11:05:18 PM i understand volume is relevant but it works both ways ray, i know moorman is better than me as a poker player FACT but action mans view suggests this is only because he plays more online than i do. i dont buy that. i dont think its that clear cut that internet players generally are better than live players. Sorry if i sounded patronising vince mate wasn't ment as such.I think that it isn't the sole reason for it as he is obviously just naturally much better than you and knows not to fold QQ preflop.to compo fish However, i do think not just moorman but many other multitablers in both tourney and cash online can gain a wealth of knowledge that will make them a better poker player than if they were just playing live regularly.There are 19 y/o kids out there who have already played more hands in there life than brunson ever will do this don't make them as good a player as him but it has greatly speeded up there own learning process of the game.To suggest that just playing a huge % of hands would singularly be enough to make you a great poker player is obviously bs but it can help a lot. FYP ;) and i understand that, i just cant see how there can be a definitive answer to INTERNET players are better than live players. Poker is poker at the end of the day. and posting a one word post containing the word VOLUME cant be the definitive answer either. Its like saying if moorman played seb 10 times online he would have more chance of winning than if he played him live then he would have less chance. doesnt add up. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: celtic on September 23, 2008, 11:09:45 PM Celtic can i just ask without wishing to sound patronising again,Do you play much yourself online ? My experience of peoples opinions on this is generally that 99% of players that play both online and live regurlarly will suggest mostly online players are much better players,Whereas most live players don't agree with this obv as they get defensive since they don't play online. ive played more probably online but obv i prefer live. not being defensive about live players, ive seen some terrible players on both, i just dont get how there can be a distinction between the two. In a way its disrepectful to somene like moorman to say he's a good internet poker player. At the end of the day he's a good poker player. FACT. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: mondatoo on September 23, 2008, 11:10:53 PM i understand volume is relevant but it works both ways ray, i know moorman is better than me as a poker player FACT but action mans view suggests this is only because he plays more online than i do. i dont buy that. i dont think its that clear cut that internet players generally are better than live players. Sorry if i sounded patronising vince mate wasn't ment as such.I think that it isn't the sole reason for it as he is obviously just naturally much better than you and knows not to fold QQ preflop.to compo fish However, i do think not just moorman but many other multitablers in both tourney and cash online can gain a wealth of knowledge that will make them a better poker player than if they were just playing live regularly.There are 19 y/o kids out there who have already played more hands in there life than brunson ever will do this don't make them as good a player as him but it has greatly speeded up there own learning process of the game.To suggest that just playing a huge % of hands would singularly be enough to make you a great poker player is obviously bs but it can help a lot. FYP ;) and i understand that, i just cant see how there can be a definitive answer to INTERNET players are better than live players. Poker is poker at the end of the day. and posting a one word post containing the word VOLUME cant be the definitive answer either. Its like saying if moorman played seb 10 times online he would have more chance of winning than if he played him live then he would have less chance. doesnt add up. There isn't a definite answer though and i didn't think people were trying to suggest that.I just think that the general abiltiy all round is a lot better online than what it is live.There are obviously live players who never play online but are still great players and vice versa with online players who play a million hands at big stakes and are still useless.Also it would not be relevant whether moorman played him live or online it's the same game just online moorman would be able to play all 10 games at once lol. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Gamblor21 on September 23, 2008, 11:13:50 PM I'm loving the debate... Turning into a great thread.
Personally I don't believe because someone plays mostly live makes them a worse player than any player who mostly plays online, i feel some sort of live/online cross tourney prop bet coming on. They both have different skill sets but in essense are the same game. If your bad at the game you won't do well at either. Live players still talk/learn/improve their games, using online tools but ply their trade mainly live. Being ignarant of a good 'live' player has probably been the downfall of many 'online' player. I class myself as a 'live' player, yet i also play online alot... Not to the extent of moorman etc obviously. They would have a clear advantage online and i'd hope to have the same live. 200+ without a win is a bit of an exaggeration trigg, 'live' players would be committing suicide with a run that bad. We'll all agree on something flushy, your the best! Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: mondatoo on September 23, 2008, 11:16:46 PM Celtic can i just ask without wishing to sound patronising again,Do you play much yourself online ? My experience of peoples opinions on this is generally that 99% of players that play both online and live regurlarly will suggest mostly online players are much better players,Whereas most live players don't agree with this obv as they get defensive since they don't play online. ive played more probably online but obv i prefer live. not being defensive about live players, ive seen some terrible players on both, i just dont get how there can be a distinction between the two. In a way its disrepectful to somene like moorman to say he's a good internet poker player. At the end of the day he's a good poker player. FACT. I think most people see him as a great poker player not just a great online poker player since the fundamentals are the same but since i now get bored sitting playing 1 table live now that i'm geting used to playing 4 at once online i can't imagine how boring sick multitablers such as moorman must feel sitting playing just 1 tourney PS Hi Gamblor21 mate was fun sitting next to you at blonde bash wp on the 2nd and yeah looks like something productive may come of the thread lol Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: celtic on September 23, 2008, 11:18:47 PM Celtic can i just ask without wishing to sound patronising again,Do you play much yourself online ? My experience of peoples opinions on this is generally that 99% of players that play both online and live regurlarly will suggest mostly online players are much better players,Whereas most live players don't agree with this obv as they get defensive since they don't play online. ive played more probably online but obv i prefer live. not being defensive about live players, ive seen some terrible players on both, i just dont get how there can be a distinction between the two. In a way its disrepectful to somene like moorman to say he's a good internet poker player. At the end of the day he's a good poker player. FACT. I think most people see him as a great poker player not just a great online poker player since the fundamentals are the same but since i now get bored sitting playing 1 table live now that i'm geting used to playing 4 at once online i can't imagine how boring sick multitablers such as moorman must feel sitting playing just 1 tourney PS Hi Gamblor21 mate was fun sitting next to you at blonde bash wp on the 2nd and yeah looks like something productive may come of the thread lol geordie bias or you just cos u dont have to do it every week? ;) Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: action man on September 23, 2008, 11:19:21 PM i meant 200+ online bradley, 200 live would send a man to death or busto id imagine
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: thetank on September 23, 2008, 11:20:03 PM Also it would not be relevant whether moorman played him live or online it's the same game Not so sure this is correct. If I'm playing Derren Brown heads up for wages, I'd rather it was online. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: action man on September 23, 2008, 11:21:21 PM your kidding, don't you want to know how his does that greyhound tote scam?
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Gamblor21 on September 23, 2008, 11:21:37 PM Celtic can i just ask without wishing to sound patronising again,Do you play much yourself online ? My experience of peoples opinions on this is generally that 99% of players that play both online and live regurlarly will suggest mostly online players are much better players,Whereas most live players don't agree with this obv as they get defensive since they don't play online. ive played more probably online but obv i prefer live. not being defensive about live players, ive seen some terrible players on both, i just dont get how there can be a distinction between the two. In a way its disrepectful to somene like moorman to say he's a good internet poker player. At the end of the day he's a good poker player. FACT. I think most people see him as a great poker player not just a great online poker player since the fundamentals are the same but since i now get bored sitting playing 1 table live now that i'm geting used to playing 4 at once online i can't imagine how boring sick multitablers such as moorman must feel sitting playing just 1 tourney PS Hi Gamblor21 mate was fun sitting next to you at blonde bash wp on the 2nd and yeah looks like something productive may come of the thread lol geordie bias or you just cos u dont have to do it every week? ;) Everyone knows i'm fun to be at the table with, they like to keep me (the fish) happy. Enjoyed it mate, you were out your depth in the live arena though lol... Only kidding! Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: mondatoo on September 23, 2008, 11:23:21 PM Celtic can i just ask without wishing to sound patronising again,Do you play much yourself online ? My experience of peoples opinions on this is generally that 99% of players that play both online and live regurlarly will suggest mostly online players are much better players,Whereas most live players don't agree with this obv as they get defensive since they don't play online. ive played more probably online but obv i prefer live. not being defensive about live players, ive seen some terrible players on both, i just dont get how there can be a distinction between the two. In a way its disrepectful to somene like moorman to say he's a good internet poker player. At the end of the day he's a good poker player. FACT. I think most people see him as a great poker player not just a great online poker player since the fundamentals are the same but since i now get bored sitting playing 1 table live now that i'm geting used to playing 4 at once online i can't imagine how boring sick multitablers such as moorman must feel sitting playing just 1 tourney PS Hi Gamblor21 mate was fun sitting next to you at blonde bash wp on the 2nd and yeah looks like something productive may come of the thread lol geordie bias or you just cos u dont have to do it every week? ;) Geordie Bias ? He's from Artly-Pooool. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: celtic on September 23, 2008, 11:24:21 PM all the same innit!!!
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Gamblor21 on September 23, 2008, 11:24:35 PM i meant 200+ online bradley, 200 live would send a man to death or busto id imagine what would you equate that to live then? For example if an online superstar doesn't win one after a certain amount is he then a bad 'live' poker player? Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Gamblor21 on September 23, 2008, 11:25:50 PM all the same innit!!! Mum's a Monkey Hanger, i'm from Teesside... We're the future, we're the pride! Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: action man on September 23, 2008, 11:27:31 PM online i reckon 2,000 tournies will tell whether you are a long term winner.
take the GUKPT for example, if a player is showing a loss after 200 of these then they would be a long term loser in my eyes Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: thetank on September 23, 2008, 11:27:57 PM We've not wound up Simon Galloway for a few pages.
What d'yall think of tenjack? Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: celtic on September 23, 2008, 11:28:23 PM all the same innit!!! Mum's a Monkey Hanger, i'm from Teesside... We're the future, we're the pride! and tho it pains me to say you are two decent blokes. sigh Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: mondatoo on September 23, 2008, 11:29:01 PM all the same innit!!! NO !!!! LOL I'll let that one fly this once celtic mate but if he was a mackem we'd be falling out lol Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: action man on September 23, 2008, 11:29:20 PM fwiw id fold JT here vs helmuth and kermit the frog
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: thetank on September 23, 2008, 11:30:23 PM Insta call vs Annie Duke and Miss Piggy tho
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: celtic on September 23, 2008, 11:31:30 PM Insta call vs Annie (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=1009) Duke (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=1009) and Miss Piggy tho rotflmfao rotflmfao Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: mondatoo on September 23, 2008, 11:34:50 PM I LOL'D hard earlier when watchin day 2 of wsopme and Patrik Antonious says "you raise me from the button, i'm never folding my j7" after flopping two pair and doubling up
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: the sicilian on September 24, 2008, 12:32:54 AM LOL... Talk about stir it up ;ifm; .. god im good....
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: celtic on September 24, 2008, 12:34:13 AM LOL... Talk about stir it up ;ifm; .. god im good.... good at stirring it up online, but no so good at stirring it up live IMO :) Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: tikay on September 24, 2008, 12:42:54 AM online i reckon 2,000 tournies will tell whether you are a long term winner. take the GUKPT for example, if a player is showing a loss after 200 of these then they would be a long term loser in my eyes Given that it would take 25 years or so to play 200 GUKPT's...... [ x ] Not much gets past Rick. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: the sicilian on September 24, 2008, 12:50:20 AM Seeing as i started it i might as well stick my 50p's worth in .... Ive probably played more on line than live and have never lost money same goes live..
I actually think internet players are better but their continual arrogance is their flaw and their downfall... they see live players as a bunch of mugs who don't know what a computer is when the truth is completely opposite..live players play online..a lot...and that's what gets up my nose.. Its just disrespectful..I'm a recreational player and i have a reasonable game but i know I'm not the best by an absolute mile but Ive already ticked some poker boxes that some pros's haven't... but i still respect my opponents either live or virtual cos if you don't they will surprise u and bring you down There is also a question of sheer volume and law of averages with internet... if you're pretty reasonable play a ton a small variance can be a living but it doesn't mean you're really good... u can have all the experience in the world and still be awful..I've played with people who were awful 3 years ago and are still awful now..as long as you improve is the main thing... i know I'm better than just 4 months ago and I'm still learning because if i do something i want to do it well and 2 the best of my ability... but I have other things in my life which is healthy... Just when i listen to mainly on line players a lot of them come across bad whether they mean it or not.... to underestimate ur opposition in whatever walk of life is always a guaranteed mistake... Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: the sicilian on September 24, 2008, 12:54:27 AM LOL... Talk about stir it up ;ifm; .. god im good.... good at stirring it up online, but no so good at stirring it up live IMO :) Let my cards talk Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: LuckyLloyd on September 24, 2008, 02:16:27 AM FWIW, I am a live tournament player. While I am a big winner live, I am often a losing proposition online. Some of that can be explained away by the fact that I rarely bring my "A" game to online play for a variety of reasons. But most of it is down to the fact that online poker is just far, far tougher than the live equivalent. As far as tournaments are concerned, I would contend that $109 freezeouts on Stars are tougher than your average GUKPT event. Yes, some extremely competent people are regulars on the UK and Irish live tournament circuit. But in terms of depth, everything I have played from the €23 FO in the Jackpot to the Irish Open is of a laughable standard when compared to online.
Your average online field is going to have a much greater depth of players with a solid understanding of the mathematical fundamentals that underpin the game. There will be value of course, as even in events like the WCOOP ME there will be recreational players one tabling for a bit of entertainment. There will be players who spew too much, or players who are too TAG for their own good. But there will be far fewer situations like the one being discussed in this thread - i.e. players consistently making terrible decisions with a firm conviction that they know what they are doing. I can look back on any lengthy debate I have had on this board and identify within them the line of thought and type of decisions that make traveling to poker festivals worth my while. From a few comments in this thread I can only assume that Simon Galloway has been playing live tournaments for a couple of years or more and has a reputation as being a winner in them. Well, if I'm playing a $100+ buyin tournament online that doesn't have an extensive sat schedule into it I won't be able to find a long term winning reg at that level who will regularly call my raise from the CO with J10 to play multiway oop when the effective stacks are 40BBs deep. In live tournaments I can know that such a hand is in their calling range (even when the effective stack is half that or less) and it is from such realities that I derive my edge. That Pocketlady describes such a call as "standard play" says it all really. Whether it be in cash or tournaments, it seems to me that winning consistently at mid to high stakes online depends on being able to manipulate certain shifts in gameflow or being able to exploit an opponents tendencies and methods of attacking you to their detriment. Whereas live, often all that is required is for you to play tight and mistake free, and profit from the deluge of basic errors your opponents are making. That doesn't cut it online. Some of ye should take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect I am going to play a tournament on Friday that will likely have in it a few people who played in the first live casino tournament I played three years ago. Most of the time in live games I play, the regs are doing the same things and talking the same way at a poker table today as they were when I first encountered them months and years in the past. And long may it continue. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: the sicilian on September 24, 2008, 02:35:37 AM FWIW, I am a live tournament player. While I am a big winner live, I am often a losing proposition online. Some of that can be explained away by the fact that I rarely bring my "A" game to online play for a variety of reasons. But most of it is down to the fact that online poker is just far, far tougher than the live equivalent. As far as tournaments are concerned, I would contend that $109 freezeouts on Stars are tougher than your average GUKPT event. Yes, some extremely competent people are regulars on the UK and Irish live tournament circuit. But in terms of depth, everything I have played from the €23 FO in the Jackpot to the Irish Open is of a laughable standard when compared to online. Your average online field is going to have a much greater depth of players with a solid understanding of the mathematical fundamentals that underpin the game. There will be value of course, as even in events like the WCOOP ME there will be recreational players one tabling for a bit of entertainment. There will be players who spew too much, or players who are too TAG for their own good. But there will be far fewer situations like the one being discussed in this thread - i.e. players consistently making terrible decisions with a firm conviction that they know what they are doing. I can look back on any lengthy debate I have had on this board and identify within them the line of thought and type of decisions that make traveling to poker festivals worth my while. From a few comments in this thread I can only assume that Simon (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591) Galloway (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591) has been playing live tournaments for a couple of years or more and has a reputation as being a winner in them. Well, if I'm playing a $100+ buyin tournament online that doesn't have an extensive sat schedule into it I won't be able to find a long term winning reg at that level who will regularly call my raise from the CO with J10 to play multiway oop when the effective stacks are 40BBs deep. In live tournaments I can know that such a hand is in their calling range (even when the effective stack is half that or less) and it is from such realities that I derive my edge. That Pocketlady describes such a call as "standard play" says it all really. Whether it be in cash or tournaments, it seems to me that winning consistently at mid to high stakes online depends on being able to manipulate certain shifts in gameflow or being able to exploit an opponents tendencies and methods of attacking you to their detriment. Whereas live, often all that is required is for you to play tight and mistake free, and profit from the deluge of basic errors your opponents are making. That doesn't cut it online. Some of ye should take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect I am going to play a tournament on Friday that will likely have in it a few people who played in the first live casino tournament I played three years ago. Most of the time in live games I play, the regs are doing the same things and talking the same way at a poker table today as they were when I first encountered them months and years in the past. And long may it continue. A well thought out and resonable answer :)up .. U r right and i said much the same as i was referring to live players..usually old skool..they have always played bad and never improve which is great .. but my main point is i think some young online players overestimate themselves or underestimate their opponents due to them being mainly live players.. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: tikay on September 24, 2008, 02:42:47 AM Well, if I'm playing a $100+ buyin tournament online that doesn't have an extensive sat schedule into it I won't be able to find a long term winning reg at that level who will regularly call my raise from the CO with J10 to play multiway oop when the effective stacks are 40BBs deep.
I don't think you'll find a long-tem winning player, Online or Live, who fits that bill. To be fair, Simon Galloway said - numerous times - that this was a once in a blue moon call, for specific reasons, unlikely to be repeated in the foreseeable future - & explained why. The thread belongs in best of blonde. (though perhaps not for the reasons some may think!). Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Longy on September 24, 2008, 02:45:17 AM FWIW, I am a live tournament player. While I am a big winner live, I am often a losing proposition online. Some of that can be explained away by the fact that I rarely bring my "A" game to online play for a variety of reasons. But most of it is down to the fact that online poker is just far, far tougher than the live equivalent. As far as tournaments are concerned, I would contend that $109 freezeouts on Stars are tougher than your average GUKPT event. Yes, some extremely competent people are regulars on the UK and Irish live tournament circuit. But in terms of depth, everything I have played from the €23 FO in the Jackpot to the Irish Open is of a laughable standard when compared to online. Your average online field is going to have a much greater depth of players with a solid understanding of the mathematical fundamentals that underpin the game. There will be value of course, as even in events like the WCOOP ME there will be recreational players one tabling for a bit of entertainment. There will be players who spew too much, or players who are too TAG for their own good. But there will be far fewer situations like the one being discussed in this thread - i.e. players consistently making terrible decisions with a firm conviction that they know what they are doing. I can look back on any lengthy debate I have had on this board and identify within them the line of thought and type of decisions that make traveling to poker festivals worth my while. From a few comments in this thread I can only assume that Simon (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591) Galloway (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591) has been playing live tournaments for a couple of years or more and has a reputation as being a winner in them. Well, if I'm playing a $100+ buyin tournament online that doesn't have an extensive sat schedule into it I won't be able to find a long term winning reg at that level who will regularly call my raise from the CO with J10 to play multiway oop when the effective stacks are 40BBs deep. In live tournaments I can know that such a hand is in their calling range (even when the effective stack is half that or less) and it is from such realities that I derive my edge. That Pocketlady describes such a call as "standard play" says it all really. Whether it be in cash or tournaments, it seems to me that winning consistently at mid to high stakes online depends on being able to manipulate certain shifts in gameflow or being able to exploit an opponents tendencies and methods of attacking you to their detriment. Whereas live, often all that is required is for you to play tight and mistake free, and profit from the deluge of basic errors your opponents are making. That doesn't cut it online. Some of ye should take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect I am going to play a tournament on Friday that will likely have in it a few people who played in the first live casino tournament I played three years ago. Most of the time in live games I play, the regs are doing the same things and talking the same way at a poker table today as they were when I first encountered them months and years in the past. And long may it continue. Nice post Lloyd, I have seen that Dunning- Kruger effect page before and it is extremely relevant to poker imo. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: ShatnerPants on September 24, 2008, 03:22:47 AM Love this thread.
Something I've never quite worked out tho' In the Internet player is better than live player debate : Where are they playing ? If you had a player who was brilliant online, but had NEVER played live, and one with great results live who has never played online, surely it would matter where the HU4ROLZ took place. Taking someone out of their comfort zone is bound to put them at a disadvantage. It's like saying NLHE players are better than limit 7 card stud players. At fishing. Irrelevance to the extreme. If someone is a talented, winning player they have my respect, no matter where they earn their profit. Until a few years ago Greenstein was considered not to be as good a player as, say Ivey, because Ivey played at the biggest game available. Whereas Greenstein earned his money from very rich fish at a much lower standard of game. But one loves a gamble, with huge varience, and is undoubtedly a brilliant player. The other wins a lot of money. Who's the better player again ? And another small bugbear of mine. Why the blinkin heck do we have to call this the Dunning Kruger effect. Does that mean that none of us noticed before 1999 that the less people know, the more they think they know. It's something I noticed when I was still at school ffs. The gobbier someone is, the less likely they are to be good. It's the quiet, self deprecating guys and gals you have to be careful with. BTW where does that leave Hellmuth ? However, when I say I'm rubbish at poker, that's not because I'm so good I can afford to be humble, it's because I'm genuinely rubbish. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Simon Galloway on September 24, 2008, 09:35:09 AM [ To be fair, Simon (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591) Galloway (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591) said - numerous times - that this was a once in a blue moon call, for specific reasons, unlikely to be repeated in the foreseeable future - & explained why. Awwww, come on Tony, you are in danger of ruining this thread by reading a reply and absorbing the information within it to advance the discussion. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: AndrewT on September 24, 2008, 10:14:02 AM And another small bugbear of mine. Why the blinkin heck do we have to call this the Dunning Kruger effect. Does that mean that none of us noticed before 1999 that the less people know, the more they think they know. It's something I noticed when I was still at school ffs. The gobbier someone is, the less likely they are to be good. It's the quiet, self deprecating guys and gals you have to be careful with. Quote from: Bertrand Russell, who has been dead for nearly 40 years The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: MANTIS01 on September 24, 2008, 01:05:37 PM Well, if I'm playing a $100+ buyin tournament online that doesn't have an extensive sat schedule into it I won't be able to find a long term winning reg at that level who will regularly call my raise from the CO with J10 to play multiway oop when the effective stacks are 40BBs deep. I don't think you'll find a long-tem winning player, Online or Live, who fits that bill. To be fair, Simon (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591) Galloway (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591) said - numerous times - that this was a once in a blue moon call, for specific reasons, unlikely to be repeated in the foreseeable future - & explained why. The thread belongs in best of blonde. (though perhaps not for the reasons some may think!). The sentence in bold is essentially the difference between live and on-line play. When you play live it is much easier to appreciate the depth of situations, because you are actually there of course. In this hand the situation is made up of a number of factors as always. The c/o raises heavy and is called by a weak player. With the stacks the way they are and a solid image to exploit is it a good time to get involved? Well if the flop does come something like 2-3-3 it means you can lead out for a smallish bet knowing that your 2 oppos are too shallow to float. The original raiser is squeezed and the weak player will fold if he doesn't have a pair. So that is the situation. The fact that your hand is playable makes things more appealing because you could hit the flop quite hard. But that is the secondary consideration here imo. It is the reason why a lot of live players don't look at their cards before the action gets to them. You want to see how the situation develops first before you look at your hand and see how it's all going to fit together. Internet players are having these skills dulled because they are just playing cards and statistics in the absence of people. To say the 10-J call is a bad call because it is 10-J and has x% to win against x range is typical of this mentality. On-line your cards are the very first thing you see, and you are already deciding how to play them before the situation has actually developed. Now when some of these guys multi-table they are just popping from table to table playing their hole cards and this detaches them from how their oppos are feeling and how they can be pressured. Poker is about situations and stories but internet places all the emphasis on cards. Posted by: LuckyLloyd Quote So basically Simon can call any two cards from this position because - despite being oop and dealing with relatively shallow stacks - he'll just KNOW when a bet is taking down the pot or when he needs to fold a flopped pair. Ok, got it. Women are bad at poker after all right? Sometimes Lloyd you post good. Sometimes you post utter nonsense and look ridiculous. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Royal Flush on September 24, 2008, 01:55:45 PM Internet players are having these skills dulled because they are just playing cards and statistics in the absence of people. To say the 10-J call is a bad call because it is 10-J and has x% to win against x range is typical of this mentality. On-line your cards are the very first thing you see, and you are already deciding how to play them before the situation has actually developed. Now when some of these guys multi-table they are just popping from table to table playing their hole cards and this detaches them from how their oppos are feeling and how they can be pressured. Poker is about situations and stories but internet places all the emphasis on cards. This might explain why you lose online, i am making far more mental decisions online that i am live, i am playing the player shit loads more than i do live. For me playing live is far more about the cards than online is. Maybe you just don't realise that? Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: LuckyLloyd on September 24, 2008, 01:56:26 PM [ To be fair, Simon (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591) Galloway (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591) said - numerous times - that this was a once in a blue moon call, for specific reasons, unlikely to be repeated in the foreseeable future - & explained why. Awwww, come on Tony, you are in danger of ruining this thread by reading a reply and absorbing the information within it to advance the discussion. I'd say the exact same about these two posts tbh. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: MANTIS01 on September 24, 2008, 03:31:11 PM Posted by: Royal Flush
Quote This might explain why you lose online, i am making far more mental decisions online that i am live, i am playing the player shit loads more than i do live. For me playing live is far more about the cards than online is. Maybe you just don't realise that? Yes James. You have completely disproved my general theory about internet play by telling me what you do. I think you should be a barrister. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Royal Flush on September 24, 2008, 03:37:44 PM Posted by: Royal Flush Quote This might explain why you lose online, i am making far more mental decisions online that i am live, i am playing the player shit loads more than i do live. For me playing live is far more about the cards than online is. Maybe you just don't realise that? Yes James. You have completely disproved my general theory about internet play by telling me what you do. I think you should be a barrister. Eh? I win in both realms, i have a higher ROI live than i do online i put that firmly down to the standard of my competition, not because i can't play online properly. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: tikay on September 24, 2008, 04:08:59 PM Quote from: [url=http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591 Simon[/url] Galloway (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591) link=topic=36807.msg813549#msg813549 date=1222245309] [ To be fair, Simon (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591) Galloway (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591) said - numerous times - that this was a once in a blue moon call, for specific reasons, unlikely to be repeated in the foreseeable future - & explained why. Awwww, come on Tony, you are in danger of ruining this thread by reading a reply and absorbing the information within it to advance the discussion. I'd say the exact same about these two posts tbh. You've completely lost me there Mr LL Sir - can you elaborate on what you mean by "exact same" - exact same as what? Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: tikay on September 24, 2008, 04:14:43 PM ...but for those that enjoy irony, the reference to the Dunning-Kruger effect gets the nomination for "Most Ironic Post on blonde, 2008". On every level.
Read it (D-K) & weep. And laugh. Great stuff, & I hope this thread runs & runs. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: tikay on September 24, 2008, 04:24:42 PM This line, by LuckyLoyd, I like. Whereas live, often all that is required is for you to play tight and mistake free, and profit from the deluge of basic errors your opponents are making. Mix that with a little dancing, (those J-T "spots" are necessary once in a while) find the right buy-in level, & that'll pay the bills. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: LuckyLloyd on September 24, 2008, 04:57:25 PM Quote from: [url=http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591 Simon[/url] Galloway (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591) link=topic=36807.msg813549#msg813549 date=1222245309] [ To be fair, Simon (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591) Galloway (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591) said - numerous times - that this was a once in a blue moon call, for specific reasons, unlikely to be repeated in the foreseeable future - & explained why. Awwww, come on Tony, you are in danger of ruining this thread by reading a reply and absorbing the information within it to advance the discussion. I'd say the exact same about these two posts tbh. You've completely lost me there Mr LL Sir - can you elaborate on what you mean by "exact same" - exact same as what? In that it has been explained numerous times why the individual scenario cannot make -EV into +EV and yet ye come back and repeatedly say "I only do this the odd time" or "there is no long - term" etc, etc. I shouldn't have used the word regularly in my post at the top of the previous page. The better the reg the closer to 0% a flat call would become. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: LuckyLloyd on September 24, 2008, 05:06:27 PM ...but for those that enjoy irony, the reference to the Dunning-Kruger effect gets the nomination for "Most Ironic Post on blonde, 2008". On every level. Read it (D-K) & weep. And laugh. Great stuff, & I hope this thread runs & runs. I don't go around commenting on hands from highstakes cash or critiquing the play of the best online tournament players in the world. The hands on this board frequently concern live hands (tournament or cash); online cash < $2 / $4 or online tournaments <$100. And pose problems that can be fixed through a better understanding of basic theory. They are areas of the game that I am familiar with and am comfortable giving an opinion on. Believe me, I don't believe that I am a spectacular poker player in any way, shape or form. I win in the games I play though. However, I have often gone into town and come home without playing a hand because the only seat open was the one with three guys to it's left who destroy me on a regular basis. It's all relative and I'm fully aware of that. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: totalise on September 24, 2008, 05:23:16 PM The theory of 10-J
1) when you miss, so will your opponents so you can bet and win the pot 2) when you flop top pair, shallow, you can use your immense live skills to fold post flop 3) when you flop a monster, your opponents will have obviously flopped a good second best hand that will double you up and you can use these extra chips to go on and win the tournament at will. Stars in your eyes, Little one Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: tikay on September 24, 2008, 05:26:17 PM ...but for those that enjoy irony, the reference to the Dunning-Kruger effect gets the nomination for "Most Ironic Post on blonde, 2008". On every level. Read it (D-K) & weep. And laugh. Great stuff, & I hope this thread runs & runs. I don't go around commenting on hands from highstakes cash or critiquing the play of the best online tournament players in the world. The hands on this board frequently concern live hands (tournament or cash); online cash < $2 / $4 or online tournaments <$100. And pose problems that can be fixed through a better understanding of basic theory. They are areas of the game that I am familiar with and am comfortable giving an opinion on. Believe me, I don't believe that I am a spectacular poker player in any way, shape or form. I win in the games I play though. However, I have often gone into town and come home without playing a hand because the only seat open was the one with three guys to it's left who destroy me on a regular basis. It's all relative and I'm fully aware of that. Agree with all of that, & I always read your PHA Posts, & enjoy them immensely. I don't always agree with them, but I'm sure you are fine with that. The D-K reference reminded me so much of Mr Heller's fine book, Catch-22, that's all. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Gamblor21 on September 24, 2008, 05:28:25 PM The theory of 10-J 1) when you miss, so will your opponents so you can bet and win the pot 2) when you flop top pair, shallow, you can use your immense live skills to fold post flop 3) when you flop a monster, your opponents will have obviously flopped a good second best hand that will double you up and you can use these extra chips to go on and win the tournament at will. Stars in your eyes, Little one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm for the 'live' players who didn't understand his whitty humour. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: tikay on September 24, 2008, 05:31:38 PM Quote from: [url=http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591 Simon[/url] Galloway (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591) link=topic=36807.msg813549#msg813549 date=1222245309] [ To be fair, Simon (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591) Galloway (http://www.blondepoker.com/blondepedia/blondepedia_view_player.php?player_id=2591) said - numerous times - that this was a once in a blue moon call, for specific reasons, unlikely to be repeated in the foreseeable future - & explained why. Awwww, come on Tony, you are in danger of ruining this thread by reading a reply and absorbing the information within it to advance the discussion. I'd say the exact same about these two posts tbh. You've completely lost me there Mr LL Sir - can you elaborate on what you mean by "exact same" - exact same as what? In that it has been explained numerous times why the individual scenario cannot make -EV into +EV and yet ye come back and repeatedly say "I only do this the odd time" or "there is no long - term" etc, etc. I shouldn't have used the word regularly in my post at the top of the previous page. The better the reg the closer to 0% a flat call would become. Thanks - that was the one word which caught my eye. Removing that, I pretty much agree with you, & I think Mr Galloway would, too. I should declare an interest here - I am quite close pals with both the main protaganists in this hand, which might affect my judgement, & I was tableside watching the hand as it actually unfolded. In fact, I knew Claw's cards from the start. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: tikay on September 24, 2008, 05:33:00 PM The theory of 10-J 1) when you miss, so will your opponents so you can bet and win the pot 2) when you flop top pair, shallow, you can use your immense live skills to fold post flop 3) when you flop a monster, your opponents will have obviously flopped a good second best hand that will double you up and you can use these extra chips to go on and win the tournament at will. Stars in your eyes, Little one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm for the 'live' players who didn't understand his whitty humour. No need - even Live players would have seen that one! Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: PocketLady on September 24, 2008, 08:22:09 PM Internet players are having these skills dulled because they are just playing cards and statistics in the absence of people. To say the 10-J call is a bad call because it is 10-J and has x% to win against x range is typical of this mentality. On-line your cards are the very first thing you see, and you are already deciding how to play them before the situation has actually developed. Now when some of these guys multi-table they are just popping from table to table playing their hole cards and this detaches them from how their oppos are feeling and how they can be pressured. Poker is about situations and stories but internet places all the emphasis on cards. This might explain why you lose online, i am making far more mental decisions online that i am live, i am playing the player shit loads more than i do live. For me playing live is far more about the cards than online is. Maybe you just don't realise that? This doesn't make a whole lot of sense in my mind...Perhaps you could explain why? Live you are able to pick up far more information about the player in a much shorter space of time, so why wouldn't you be using that information to outplay them? Yes, ok, online you have the ability to track every hand and player you have ever played against, but in tournaments you don't have the ability to choose where you sit and thus who you play against, so a lot of the time you are playing against unknowns anyway. I could go to my local casino and play the £50 f/o and there would be 70 runners, I would probably know over half the field and how they play/if they can fold. Or I could go register for a $100 tournament online with 400 runners where I have stats on 30 players...I know who I'd rather be trying to outplay! Even if I was playing at a casino I had never been to before I'd be able to pick up a lot more about the players in half an hour than I would online, and surely information like that is paramount when you are attempting to play the player. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: DUNK619 on September 24, 2008, 08:24:58 PM Internet players are having these skills dulled because they are just playing cards and statistics in the absence of people. To say the 10-J call is a bad call because it is 10-J and has x% to win against x range is typical of this mentality. On-line your cards are the very first thing you see, and you are already deciding how to play them before the situation has actually developed. Now when some of these guys multi-table they are just popping from table to table playing their hole cards and this detaches them from how their oppos are feeling and how they can be pressured. Poker is about situations and stories but internet places all the emphasis on cards. This might explain why you lose online, i am making far more mental decisions online that i am live, i am playing the player shit loads more than i do live. For me playing live is far more about the cards than online is. Maybe you just don't realise that? This doesn't make a whole lot of sense in my mind...Perhaps you could explain why? Live you are able to pick up far more information about the player in a much shorter space of time, so why wouldn't you be using that information to outplay them? Yes, ok, online you have the ability to track every hand and player you have ever played against, but in tournaments you don't have the ability to choose where you sit and thus who you play against, so a lot of the time you are playing against unknowns anyway. I could go to my local casino and play the £50 f/o and there would be 70 runners, I would probably know over half the field and how they play/if they can fold. Or I could go register for a $100 tournament online with 400 runners where I have stats on 30 players...I know who I'd rather be trying to outplay! Even if I was playing at a casino I had never been to before I'd be able to pick up a lot more about the players in half an hour than I would online, and surely information like that is paramount when you are attempting to play the player. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: PocketLady on September 24, 2008, 08:30:50 PM Lol, this is very true...
[X] Online poker sucks Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Royal Flush on September 25, 2008, 09:21:31 AM Internet players are having these skills dulled because they are just playing cards and statistics in the absence of people. To say the 10-J call is a bad call because it is 10-J and has x% to win against x range is typical of this mentality. On-line your cards are the very first thing you see, and you are already deciding how to play them before the situation has actually developed. Now when some of these guys multi-table they are just popping from table to table playing their hole cards and this detaches them from how their oppos are feeling and how they can be pressured. Poker is about situations and stories but internet places all the emphasis on cards. This might explain why you lose online, i am making far more mental decisions online that i am live, i am playing the player shit loads more than i do live. For me playing live is far more about the cards than online is. Maybe you just don't realise that? This doesn't make a whole lot of sense in my mind...Perhaps you could explain why? Live you are able to pick up far more information about the player in a much shorter space of time, so why wouldn't you be using that information to outplay them? Yes, ok, online you have the ability to track every hand and player you have ever played against, but in tournaments you don't have the ability to choose where you sit and thus who you play against, so a lot of the time you are playing against unknowns anyway. I could go to my local casino and play the £50 f/o and there would be 70 runners, I would probably know over half the field and how they play/if they can fold. Or I could go register for a $100 tournament online with 400 runners where I have stats on 30 players...I know who I'd rather be trying to outplay! Even if I was playing at a casino I had never been to before I'd be able to pick up a lot more about the players in half an hour than I would online, and surely information like that is paramount when you are attempting to play the player. I only have to play with them for a couple of orbits before i can get a picture of them in my head though, i don't need months of playing with them. Yeah you do get a little extra info when you play live which helps in marginals but it doesn't make that much difference. It's also because people are harder to outplay live, they play their hands pretty straight forward where as online people are pulling moves a lot more so you can pull re-moves a lot easier. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: AlexMartin on September 25, 2008, 09:39:27 AM Internet players are having these skills dulled because they are just playing cards and statistics in the absence of people. To say the 10-J call is a bad call because it is 10-J and has x% to win against x range is typical of this mentality. On-line your cards are the very first thing you see, and you are already deciding how to play them before the situation has actually developed. Now when some of these guys multi-table they are just popping from table to table playing their hole cards and this detaches them from how their oppos are feeling and how they can be pressured. Poker is about situations and stories but internet places all the emphasis on cards. This might explain why you lose online, i am making far more mental decisions online that i am live, i am playing the player shit loads more than i do live. For me playing live is far more about the cards than online is. Maybe you just don't realise that? This doesn't make a whole lot of sense in my mind...Perhaps you could explain why? Live you are able to pick up far more information about the player in a much shorter space of time, so why wouldn't you be using that information to outplay them? Yes, ok, online you have the ability to track every hand and player you have ever played against, but in tournaments you don't have the ability to choose where you sit and thus who you play against, so a lot of the time you are playing against unknowns anyway. I could go to my local casino and play the £50 f/o and there would be 70 runners, I would probably know over half the field and how they play/if they can fold. Or I could go register for a $100 tournament online with 400 runners where I have stats on 30 players...I know who I'd rather be trying to outplay! Even if I was playing at a casino I had never been to before I'd be able to pick up a lot more about the players in half an hour than I would online, and surely information like that is paramount when you are attempting to play the player. I only have to play with them for a couple of orbits before i can get a picture of them in my head though, i don't need months of playing with them. Yeah you do get a little extra info when you play live which helps in marginals but it doesn't make that much difference. It's also because people are harder to outplay live, they play their hands pretty straight forward where as online people are pulling moves a lot more so you can pull re-moves a lot easier. huh? Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Royal Flush on September 25, 2008, 09:42:06 AM Internet players are having these skills dulled because they are just playing cards and statistics in the absence of people. To say the 10-J call is a bad call because it is 10-J and has x% to win against x range is typical of this mentality. On-line your cards are the very first thing you see, and you are already deciding how to play them before the situation has actually developed. Now when some of these guys multi-table they are just popping from table to table playing their hole cards and this detaches them from how their oppos are feeling and how they can be pressured. Poker is about situations and stories but internet places all the emphasis on cards. This might explain why you lose online, i am making far more mental decisions online that i am live, i am playing the player shit loads more than i do live. For me playing live is far more about the cards than online is. Maybe you just don't realise that? This doesn't make a whole lot of sense in my mind...Perhaps you could explain why? Live you are able to pick up far more information about the player in a much shorter space of time, so why wouldn't you be using that information to outplay them? Yes, ok, online you have the ability to track every hand and player you have ever played against, but in tournaments you don't have the ability to choose where you sit and thus who you play against, so a lot of the time you are playing against unknowns anyway. I could go to my local casino and play the £50 f/o and there would be 70 runners, I would probably know over half the field and how they play/if they can fold. Or I could go register for a $100 tournament online with 400 runners where I have stats on 30 players...I know who I'd rather be trying to outplay! Even if I was playing at a casino I had never been to before I'd be able to pick up a lot more about the players in half an hour than I would online, and surely information like that is paramount when you are attempting to play the player. I only have to play with them for a couple of orbits before i can get a picture of them in my head though, i don't need months of playing with them. Yeah you do get a little extra info when you play live which helps in marginals but it doesn't make that much difference. It's also because people are harder to outplay live, they play their hands pretty straight forward where as online people are pulling moves a lot more so you can pull re-moves a lot easier. huh? Sorry what i meant was there are less opportunities, they have the hand more often than they do online. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: thetank on September 25, 2008, 09:47:59 AM What of live players laying down their hands too much even when they do have it.
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Royal Flush on September 25, 2008, 09:51:27 AM What of live players laying down their hands too much even when they do have it. Yeah that's the only advantage, still though i would rather barrel into a player who probably doesn't have it than into one who probably does but might pass... That from your man who got 125k in on a QQ2 board @2kBB with 96.... Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: MANTIS01 on September 25, 2008, 03:07:06 PM Nah, I still don't get what your saying James. I said that I think internet players don't appreciate individual situations as well as live players. You say that you appreciate situations on-line very well. But what does that prove? You are someone who rates yourself as having an edge over the field. So how you think can't be indicative of the thought process of the average internet player.....who wont appreciate situations as well as you.
Anyways, moving on Posted by: LuckyLloyd Quote In that it has been explained numerous times why the individual scenario cannot make -EV into +EV and yet ye come back and repeatedly say "I only do this the odd time" or "there is no long - term" etc, etc. This interests me. I don't agree with it but I do appreciate it is how a lot of good players think. I think it kinda adds something to what I'm saying about the lack of appreciation of individual situations. Example: I'm playing at Walsall Grosvenor on Tues night. There are 13 left and we are playing down to a final table of 9. I am playing off a tight image and have not entered a pot in like three rounds but am well chipped. UTG is a good regular player and is also well chipped. He has been chatting to another regular about how he hasn't made a final table in over a month and it's pissing him off. He raises UTG on my bb. As the action is coming round to me I am thinking if the ss in the sb folds I will call. The sb folds and I call. I haven't looked at my hand. The flops comes three bricks and I bet half the pot. UTG gives a good performance before folding A-K face up. I look down and see J-2. Now I would say that A-K vs J-2 is pretty much a -EV situation for the J-2. So what? I was sure that UTG's determination to get to the final meant he was never going to tangle with me unless he had a big hand. This makes the situation +EV for me. I don't know how people can say that this individual scenario is not +EV for me because I'm holding J-2 and that is -EV in the long run. The thing is that in live play the information you receive is more abundant and much clearer than on-line. This guy, while chatting to his mate, was telling me how he was feeling. Whilst poker players are generally habitual the fact remains true that people are people. If you are lacking confidence you will play differently, if you are bored or emotional or drunk or pissed off you will play differently. The state of mind people are in is quite easy to pick up on when playing live but very hard to do on-line. There was a thread I read on Blonde recently asking people if they thought poker was a science or an art. A very good question I thought. LuckyLloyd's strat is science and it is supported by many. The problem I have with this is that poker is played by people. If it was played by bots then the science method would be unbeatable. But as it is the game is played by people, and people are much more difficult to strat against because they have emotions that can change their play. I have become much more scientific in my strat since I have been using Blonde but I don't want to approach poker with a rigid mentality that those 2 cards are -EV vs x range because then you lose the art. I try and play at least one hand without looking at my cards when I play live to keep in mind that cards are not the be all and end all of the game. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: EvilPie on September 26, 2008, 12:41:09 PM This discussion seems to have developed in to analysing the difference between live and online play so I will add my opinion.
I play both live and online and find online mtts much harder. If you play a straight game, only raise with premiums and always fold your weak aces you will do reasonably well live imo. Do this online and you are unlikely to have any real success. I believe that long term it is correct to make funky plays such as reraising a 3 better all in with a weak ace. They will usually fold and on the occassions when they don't you will win 30% anyway. What it comes down to is that in live play there isn't really a long term. You can play 4 tournaments in a week and it will take 6 weeks to match what the likes of Flushy / Moorman play on a Sunday. Play for a year and you have matched what they will do in a little over a week. There just isn't the sheer volume live for long term prospects to work out. In live play you make 1 mistake and you're out whether it was correct long term or not. You can make the same move online knowing that if it goes wrong you can start up another tournament and proceed with your long term aims. So the J10 hand. Play this online and you are likely to face a raise when you bet the flop with nothing and you are therefore wasting chips by calling. Play it live and you are far more likely to have a chance to play at it on the flop without any resistance. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: PocketLady on September 26, 2008, 01:58:10 PM What it comes down to is that in live play there isn't really a long term. You can play 4 tournaments in a week and it will take 6 weeks to match what the likes of Flushy / Moorman play on a Sunday. Play for a year and you have matched what they will do in a little over a week. There just isn't the sheer volume live for long term prospects to work out. I disagree with this. Online the game is now so hard that ROIs have fallen for most winning players and thus volume is a means of keeping a decent income even though their ROI isn't as good as it used to be. Live there hasn't been this massive increase in the general standard of play. Although live players have always had more problems with variance (ie downswings lasting a lot longer) because they are not seeing as many hands, as Flushy has already said his live ROI is better than his online ROI, and I'd imagine this to be the case for most players who play both. What you are basically saying there is that live players are not going to be able to make a living from just playing live, which is wrong quite frankly. If you are saying that they are not going to be able to make a living from MTTs alone then yes, it is very difficult, but live cash games are the best you can get. But even then there are very very few online players who are winners from playing MTTs alone. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: ShatnerPants on September 26, 2008, 02:13:51 PM What it comes down to is that in live play there isn't really a long term. You can play 4 tournaments in a week and it will take 6 weeks to match what the likes of Flushy / Moorman play on a Sunday. Play for a year and you have matched what they will do in a little over a week. There just isn't the sheer volume live for long term prospects to work out. I disagree with this. Online the game is now so hard that ROIs have fallen for most winning players and thus volume is a means of keeping a decent income even though their ROI isn't as good as it used to be. Live there hasn't been this massive increase in the general standard of play. Although live players have always had more problems with variance (ie downswings lasting a lot longer) because they are not seeing as many hands, as Flushy has already said his live ROI is better than his online ROI, and I'd imagine this to be the case for most players who play both. What you are basically saying there is that live players are not going to be able to make a living from just playing live, which is wrong quite frankly. If you are saying that they are not going to be able to make a living from MTTs alone then yes, it is very difficult, but live cash games are the best you can get. I kind of interpretted it as saying on line you can rely on the long run as being your friend. As long as you play the +EV move it doesn't matter if it works out or not, you'll see enough hands so that eventually it will sort itself out, and you'll be quids in. Playing live though, you can't rely on the long term sorting you out. You can't just play the technically correct move assuming that eventually you'll even out variance. So every opportunity can be looked on as 'unique' because of this. So occasionally making a move that statistically is -EV in a live game is not necessarily bad, because the ever changing variables can make it this one time a +EV move. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: PocketLady on September 26, 2008, 02:44:03 PM From what I could gather I thought EvilPie was saying that it's better to just be playing ABC live, and making moves online because the standard of play is so good that you have to make these moves to win. Where as live if you call with J10 then it's ok because you won't be up against someone who is going to try and outplay you with A high on the flop. Although I don't agree with some of it, I agree with the last part, and because I know that Claw can fold.
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: EvilPie on September 26, 2008, 02:50:04 PM What it comes down to is that in live play there isn't really a long term. You can play 4 tournaments in a week and it will take 6 weeks to match what the likes of Flushy / Moorman play on a Sunday. Play for a year and you have matched what they will do in a little over a week. There just isn't the sheer volume live for long term prospects to work out. I disagree with this. Online the game is now so hard that ROIs have fallen for most winning players and thus volume is a means of keeping a decent income even though their ROI isn't as good as it used to be. Live there hasn't been this massive increase in the general standard of play. Although live players have always had more problems with variance (ie downswings lasting a lot longer) because they are not seeing as many hands, as Flushy has already said his live ROI is better than his online ROI, and I'd imagine this to be the case for most players who play both. What you are basically saying there is that live players are not going to be able to make a living from just playing live, which is wrong quite frankly. If you are saying that they are not going to be able to make a living from MTTs alone then yes, it is very difficult, but live cash games are the best you can get. I kind of interpretted it as saying on line you can rely on the long run as being your friend. As long as you play the +EV move it doesn't matter if it works out or not, you'll see enough hands so that eventually it will sort itself out, and you'll be quids in. Playing live though, you can't rely on the long term sorting you out. You can't just play the technically correct move assuming that eventually you'll even out variance. So every opportunity can be looked on as 'unique' because of this. So occasionally making a move that statistically is -EV in a live game is not necessarily bad, because the ever changing variables can make it this one time a +EV move. This Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: EvilPie on September 26, 2008, 03:04:54 PM From what I could gather I thought EvilPie was saying that it's better to just be playing ABC live, and making moves online because the standard of play is so good that you have to make these moves to win. Where as live if you call with J10 then it's ok because you won't be up against someone who is going to try and outplay you with A high on the flop. I didn't mean to generalise it quite so much but I can see how you would interpret it this way. I also didn't mean to suggest that online players are better or worse, just different. They have to be different because they are playing in a different environment. They have learnt that they can make moves against a button steal because in the long term it will work out. In live games you have to be more careful as you are more likely to run in to something genuine and if you do you're out and on your way home. Flushy has said that his live ROI is better than his online and I can definitely believe this. I'd be interested to know if this is just for mtts or if it includes cash. If cash is involved then it's a whole different ballgame because the differences between live and online diminish to almost nothing if you are playing cash. The fact that you can reload at any time means that there is very little difference between the two. In cash it simply comes down to who is the better player. There are no differences between live and online other than seeing the reaction on peoples faces. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: PocketLady on September 26, 2008, 03:14:57 PM From what I could gather I thought EvilPie was saying that it's better to just be playing ABC live, and making moves online because the standard of play is so good that you have to make these moves to win. Where as live if you call with J10 then it's ok because you won't be up against someone who is going to try and outplay you with A high on the flop. I didn't mean to generalise it quite so much but I can see how you would interpret it this way. I also didn't mean to suggest that online players are better or worse, just different. They have to be different because they are playing in a different environment. They have learnt that they can make moves against a button steal because in the long term it will work out. In live games you have to be more careful as you are more likely to run in to something genuine and if you do you're out and on your way home. Flushy has said that his live ROI is better than his online and I can definitely believe this. I'd be interested to know if this is just for mtts or if it includes cash. If cash is involved then it's a whole different ballgame because the differences between live and online diminish to almost nothing if you are playing cash. The fact that you can reload at any time means that there is very little difference between the two. In cash it simply comes down to who is the better player. There are no differences between live and online other than seeing the reaction on peoples faces. Ok, I can see where you are coming from with your other post now but I have to say I couldn't disagree more about the cash games. Live cash games are sooo unlike online cash games it's unreal. Standard raise live is like 5/6BBs+ for a start, the whole world wants to see a flop most of the time, and although this is somewhat down to the fact that some of the players are worse, it is also down to this "different environment". If you are a winning player your ROI is going to be far far higher at live cash than online. But like you say, it is a whole different ball game to MTTs. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: david3103 on September 26, 2008, 04:28:45 PM Ok, I can see where you are coming from with your other post now but I have to say I couldn't disagree more about the cash games. Live cash games are sooo unlike online cash games it's unreal. Standard raise live is like 5/6BBs+ for a start, the whole world wants to see a flop most of the time, and although this is somewhat down to the fact that some of the players are worse, it is also down to this "different environment". If you are a winning player your ROI is going to be far far higher at live cash than online. But like you say, it is a whole different ball game to MTTs. you've obviously never played 10p/20p HE at your local Rileys...... 'just like playing online but with the tactile joys of cards and chips to rattle' Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: PocketLady on September 26, 2008, 04:42:16 PM Ok, I can see where you are coming from with your other post now but I have to say I couldn't disagree more about the cash games. Live cash games are sooo unlike online cash games it's unreal. Standard raise live is like 5/6BBs+ for a start, the whole world wants to see a flop most of the time, and although this is somewhat down to the fact that some of the players are worse, it is also down to this "different environment". If you are a winning player your ROI is going to be far far higher at live cash than online. But like you say, it is a whole different ball game to MTTs. you've obviously never played 10p/20p HE at your local Rileys...... 'just like playing online but with the tactile joys of cards and chips to rattle' I'm talking about when you get to the stakes online where the software adds a very unorthodox "fold" button to the screen ;) Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: david3103 on September 26, 2008, 05:25:05 PM Ok, I can see where you are coming from with your other post now but I have to say I couldn't disagree more about the cash games. Live cash games are sooo unlike online cash games it's unreal. Standard raise live is like 5/6BBs+ for a start, the whole world wants to see a flop most of the time, and although this is somewhat down to the fact that some of the players are worse, it is also down to this "different environment". If you are a winning player your ROI is going to be far far higher at live cash than online. But like you say, it is a whole different ball game to MTTs. you've obviously never played 10p/20p HE at your local Rileys...... 'just like playing online but with the tactile joys of cards and chips to rattle' I'm talking about when you get to the stakes online where the software adds a very unorthodox "fold" button to the screen ;) I can only imagine what an unorthodox fold button would look like.... Finding myself at such stakes would be like watching the Cobblers go 2-0 up at Sunderland and would probably have the same sad 'rivered' ending :( Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: PocketLady on September 26, 2008, 06:25:44 PM Lol, yep the Cobblers suck atm, even I have to agree with that. Must be due to variance... ;D
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: ThatsSoMinusEV on September 29, 2008, 01:46:34 AM dry flop. he's c/c'ing either a weak made hand or big hand(Q9/99/33), possibly air to see if you check the turn and bet the river. But seeing as he c/r'sd the turn unlikely he has air in this spot.
Turn you check back. If he has a weak made hand like T9/98 he'll fold but you have a ton of equity against his range anways, and if he does have a monster your opening yourself up for getting priced outta your draw. Based on river i think he has a strong hand and were drawing to 10outs. (9 for flush - pairing the board + (4tens - 10h)). So we're nt priced in. Cbet flop - prob check flop to turn some more outs - check back turn - fold river Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: George2Loose on October 17, 2011, 08:46:24 PM Awesome thread. Wp Louis
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Claw75 on October 17, 2011, 09:30:12 PM Awesome thread. Wp Louis ha! it was a good thread in the end. Not sure Simon 'Simon Galloway' Galloway will be impressed with the bumpage though..... Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: GreekStein on October 17, 2011, 09:52:57 PM Just read the whole thread. gg Simon lol.
Totalise and Lucky Lloyd no longer post but were both excellent contributors to PHA. It's funny how much better almost everyone is who posted in this thread now than they were back then, apart from Mantis, who still posts the same PHA drivel bs now as back then, though luckily it's less frequent. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: nirvana on October 17, 2011, 10:07:01 PM At least I hope we can all agree that the people who have honed their mad skillz on the internet are a country mile better than 'live' players. FACT. Doesn't mean they will be winners live of course.
Simon trying to justify the call for meta reasons is so earnest & lol looking back. Much better to go with the live players friend 'I wuz priced in' as you then don't need to provide any further insight. I asked an amazing player the other day, young Adam, why would someone call with K8 off and he showed great insight for a young mass volume internet whizz. 'Boredom' And this is the point where comparisons between live, sub say £500 buy in tourns, and internet are impossible. A good percentage of the average live field may only come out to play once a month or so and are just playing with pocket money so winning/losing aint that important. It's gonna be fkn boring sitting around waiting for premiums if you only play now and then so yr gonna gamble and play more hands. Trying to put us on a range in these circumstances is kinda pointless. At least we all probably know this now and a hand like this wouldn't prompt 15 pages today. Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: MANTIS01 on October 18, 2011, 03:29:01 AM Yo, love this thread. First page Mantis says villain has us beat and his most likely holding is 10-J. Result, villain has us beat holding 10-J. Ba ba BOOM. I'm sorry I don't post more frequently on this board anymore seeing as any PHA thread struggles to make 2 or 3 pages these days let alone the 16-page drivel bs blockbusters with 5k+ hits like this one.
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Royal Flush on October 20, 2011, 12:27:34 PM Just glad Moorman is doing a bit better live now...
Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: MC on October 20, 2011, 03:33:57 PM Lol, love how defensive Simon was about his clearly tez play.
I bet you he realises it's tez now :) Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: Simon Galloway on October 20, 2011, 09:12:12 PM Lol, love how defensive Simon was about his clearly tez play. I may have been a bit touchy... I bet you he realises it's tez now :) Might be a good bet, but I'd prolly still call :) Title: Re: analyse this! Post by: youthnkzR on October 23, 2011, 11:27:33 AM its not a horribly played hand but its not great imo...
you should have probably: 1. bet smaller pre 2. C/B a higher % then half of pot 3. either check / jam the turn (as was said before if he flats - not that he should - and u miss... ur fucked!) :D |