analyse this!

[MANTIS01]

Posted by: LuckyLloyd

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.

[Royal Flush]

Mantis you missed the main point, its not that you will miss, it's that you will hit and be dominated.

[MANTIS01]

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.

[Royal Flush]

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...

[LuckyLloyd]

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?

[the sicilian]

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....

[Royal Flush]

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....

[byronkincaid]

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....

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

[the sicilian]

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

[action man]

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.

[PocketLady]

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.  

[celtic]

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?

[action man]

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?

[action man]

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.

[celtic]

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.

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?