There's no good reason to pot control in Hand 1.

[It just send such the wrong impression this type of stuff.]

You're absolutely right Tikay.

I just wish a) the software would be banned (would certainly benefit the best pros if you banned any type of software) or (more realistically) b) people stopped talking about it.

It sounds so much worse than it is, sky do a very good job catering to the aide of rec players IMO.

It just send such the wrong impression this type of stuff.

Yes.

I feel sort of embarrassed to be part of the poker world at times when I see all this stuff. Fortunately, it does not affect me personally, as I play small-ball, within my means, & with my own money, not stakers money. 

Cartels, organised groups, seating scripts, surely poker was not designed to go down that road?   

I imagine these have always existed.

Poker has reached its present state through evolution rather than design.

[other regs]

The formation of these groups isn't to send the fish skint quicker, the fish go skint at the same speed. Without the groups they still always play a reg, its just whether that reg is strong enough against other regs or not. The recs are losing to both groups of regs. It makes sure that the players that have worked the hardest on their game get to make the most money, rather than having letting the bumhunters sneak in via this registration program and get the chance to play games against weaker players that the good, established regs have fought their way up through the stakes to get access to.

Why would the fish go skint at the same speed versus better players?

I think you're line is fine (though checking the flop is probably more common here).

Leading the river doesn't make much sense to me (though if you think he's rarely bluffing and won't always be betting overpairs then it could be justifiable).

To decide whether to raise the river, you've got to make a judgement about what he's going to call with. If you beat more than half (maybe a little more to be on the safe side) then raise.

I think I quite like the Ch/R Turn line as we want at least one dd hand to go with the TT that I think definitely wants to Ch/R Turn. I probably slightly prefer QJdd, but then KJ is happier to call a 3b.

I know a consensus on Pre seems to have emerged, but I just wanted to add a couple of things.
We're not going to be 4b wide for value (AA,KK,AKs?) so we can't 4b bluff many hands here, weak Axs are better for this?
People will have different MP opening ranges but KJs is v likely to be in the top half of this.
If we have 44 and 33 then our range won't be well blended? Do people think the added polarity (we'll have more nutted hands and, therefore, bluffs) this adds compensates for the weakness of our bluffcatchers (we'll block less, get outdrawn more, and improve less on most textures.

As for the ratios, Alex is right in what he says, but I think here the numbers will show a roughly 1:1 ratio, which I think is what Rexas was suggesting.

When he check raised the turn, i'm putting him on atleast 2 pair, if not a set.

If he has a draw after checking the turn, most times he'd just call.

It's quite unusual at 20nl for players to check raise strong hands when they have the betting lead as opposed to just betting themselves for value.

Maybe he thought I was quite aggro and betting most times when checked to.

I quite like his line to try and get max value from his hand.

I was talking about your opinion of his range when he checked the Turn, as you were asking whether there was any point betting the Turn, not what you think he has when he raises your bet on the Turn.

Your analysis above is fine once he does Ch/R though.

Don't worry about GTO, just try to play each hand well.

Which I think you have, in both cases, and won plenty of bb's (don't know the result of the first one though).
Making your decision to post them both and argue (badly) against your own lines utterly bizarre!

Even if he does raise, do we ever hate getting it in? Play mostly comps, so no doubt different to cash, so forgive me having no idea haha

Think he'd need to be folding lots of made hands and/or calling with worse draws, which seems unlikely, to want to raise.

Definitely not folding though. He'd have had to have seen our cards for us to want to Fold.

[don't know if there is much point betting the turn.]

I know what implied odds are bud;)

We are getting about 3/1 on a call, and need about 4/1 to call.

After my play on the flop (just calling) don't know if there is much point betting the turn.

Well, it depends on what you think he has (his range)?

He could have a weak pair that was donking the Flop to fold out overcards, is now scared and will fold by the River at least?

He could have a weaker draw (spades, 46, A4, A2; and less likely, hearts or JT), from which you can extract value.

But, obviously, if you think he is likely to be trapping you then just Check.

[‘quislings’]

Saw this good article on the Referendum, and just wanted to share the quote below.

http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/buying_time_after_the_scottish_referendum

The readiness with which the language of ‘traitors’ and ‘quislings’ circulated and was used by the fringes of the ‘Yes’ campaign against their opponents should have been a sobering warning sign for the decent majority of the independence movement, but amid the hurly burly of the campaign seems to have been simply brushed off as all part of a rich tradition of high spirited and robust political exchange. For the avoidance of doubt, it is not, and should have been loudly and clearly repudiated if the ‘Yes’ campaign wanted to be heard by the widest possible audience.

[Decided I'm not gonna look at my balance until the end of the month]

Realised I wasn't gogo enough to be playing as loose as I was so I've tightened up all my ranges and seems to be working a bit more. Also paying way more attention at the tables and making a lot of notes on everyone. People seem to have really weak rages in a lot of spots and I just wasn't exploiting people at all before really. Decided I'm not gonna look at my balance until the end of the month either, should look much healthier when it is + rakeback and points as well.

Would be impressed by that kind of willpower!

Ladbrokes are offering odds on who is PM at the Queen's Speech (ie formed next government) - is that what you're after?

Yep, thanks, I actually spotted that (and added an edit) after I made the post.

Didn't mean to sidetrack the thread, it just seemed strange to me after I looked at the odds following one of arbboy's posts.
Especially given there is a strong desire within Labour to go for the '35% strategy', as TightEnd points out, which seems to me to make a hung parliament more likely.

For having no chance quite incredibly they are odds on still to get the most seats! Quite incredible how low this country is sinking.  Where are the old fashioned style leaders with balls. I would rather have hezza in charge of the Tories than Cameron. Milliband is just a joke. It's not hard to see why ukip are gaining followers but it's mainly because the big two parties are showing no leadership.

arbboy (or anyone else), can you explain to me why I can only find odds from PaddyPower for 'Prime Minister after the General Election'?
I can see loads of markets being offered, but only the one firm on, surely by far, the most important question to be decided by the Election.

No axe to grind, just interested in the answer.

I assume every other firm thinks the current leaders will still be in charge for the next election so a bet on the election is the same as a bet you are asking for.  That would be the most logical explanation imo.

Isn't it because it covers hung parliament scenarios?

It's hung parliament scenarios I was talking about.
A hung parliament is regarded as fairly likely and this could lead to the largest party on seats not providing the PM (which is how most people would judge 'winning' the GE), but firms don't seem to have priced this up.
Is it just because it's too complicated, or prone to insider information etc?

Is that equation better than an EV equation? I feel like we may have different interpretations of GTO. You seem to have Janda's understanding of it where everything is based on the odds of the pots and how this affects your range. My understanding of GTO comes from the posts that were on Deucescracked about a year ago mainly from Improva and Blah234 however they both left and stopped coaching on the website and also stopped posting so there is very limited information about it that is available. http://www.deucescracked.com/search?klass=forums&time_ago=365&search=improva

Can't say that I find Improva's stuff (only had a q look) easy to understand, maybe you can explain it to me?

But anyway, I'm reasonably confident the differences are in the margins and/or partly attacking a strawman.

I wasn't trying to tell you how to play the hand, I was just trying to alert you to what I felt was a contradiction in your thinking/method. I don't think anyone is advocating a line which they think has a lower EV than a different line.

He can have AA and and the remaining combos of KK and QQ too, I'm folding without a reason to think that he's gunna get out of line with exactly hands like AJ, AT Asx

KK and QQ definitely, but that's only 2 combos. AsAx and AsKx seem to make sense, but I suppose I really was stretching to think of bluffs that play fairly 'naturally' this way.

I guess I should close this thread out

Discussed each street at pretty reasonable length with a few people and couldn't reach a proper consensus, thought it was a fun hand and wanted to see what everyone else thought.

Poker's fun innit

I agree and I enjoyed thinking about this hand. I don't play too many 4b Pots (even though I am willing to call) but they are bigger than normal so important to get better. I imagine 4b Flatting ranges are varied though, which limits fluent discussion.

I dislike villain's play, I think I would definitely want to clear out AJ and AT, but again that depends on our actual and perceived range.

I agree with you (Rexas) about the As, but given the actual hand it might be better to concentrate on blocking Value than not blocking the bluffs. This is a hand that left me a little confused!

For having no chance quite incredibly they are odds on still to get the most seats! Quite incredible how low this country is sinking.  Where are the old fashioned style leaders with balls. I would rather have hezza in charge of the Tories than Cameron. Milliband is just a joke. It's not hard to see why ukip are gaining followers but it's mainly because the big two parties are showing no leadership.

arbboy (or anyone else), can you explain to me why I can only find odds from PaddyPower for 'Prime Minister after the General Election'?
I can see loads of markets being offered, but only the one firm on, surely by far, the most important question to be decided by the Election.

No axe to grind, just interested in the answer.

Edit: Ladbrokes have a 'Prime Minister at 2015 Queens Speech too'.