Broadway M/E - Monster Stacks

[Blatch]

Am I over valuing protecting a great stack at this early stage of the comp?

1)If we re-raise the flop, are we really thinking about getting away? We have an awful player who has just lost a big pot; can we really be certain that we are passing the losing hand if she moves all-in?

i think so. surely the only hand she could conceivable 4-bet with that we're ahead of is A4, other than that we have 4 outs.

and why do you not include A4 in her range stu?

i agree that QT and JT with a club are hands that fit into her range though. but do the overbets not suggest to you that she may be trying to protect her hand (be it a weak ace or baby flush)?

im here talking about the hand with tom and we're thinking that the 3-bet on the flop allows you to get away from a flush or set, although its possible that we'll mistakenly pass to a 4-bet from A4. if she flats the 3-bet then a pair and a club seems the most likely candidate, meaning that we can check-fold a club or jam/lead on a blank (cant remember the exact stacks). 3-betting her seems to define her hand so well that it makes up for having to check-pass in a big pot on the turn.

really interesting hand though blatch!

 I kind of agree. I just think, if you wanted to know directions in the street, you wouldn't stop and ask a blind person. I think asking your opponent to define their hand is fine against an ABC player or a calling station, but this lady is much more dangerous. She is also a betting station, and has just lost a big pot. How can we ask her to define her hand when she hasn't got the slightest clue about hand values herself?

I agree that, if she re-re-raises us, we are losing more often than winning, and should pass. However, I think that we are going to pass the winning hand often enough that it makes it very dangerous to re-raise in order to pass here. We might even have to put 10 4 suited in her range, and can be really be sure she is not going to move in with an  type hand, or maybe even  ?

I think pot control is the best line as we come out alive alot more often. If the club comes on the turn or river, we can escape with chips, but we still probably get full value if it doesn't. By re-raising the flop, we have to jam the turn, and look for our bike if she has a flush draw which hits on the river.

you're definitely starting to win me over.

the big question for me is how do blind people make their way to a £1000 ME?

not that im saying she's not terrible. just questioning why she's in the comp

Lets not start on the standard of play overall, lets just say I saw worse in the comp

[Blatch]

Am I over valuing protecting a great stack at this early stage of the comp?

1)If we re-raise the flop, are we really thinking about getting away? We have an awful player who has just lost a big pot; can we really be certain that we are passing the losing hand if she moves all-in?

i think so. surely the only hand she could conceivable 4-bet with that we're ahead of is A4, other than that we have 4 outs.

and why do you not include A4 in her range stu?

i agree that QT and JT with a club are hands that fit into her range though. but do the overbets not suggest to you that she may be trying to protect her hand (be it a weak ace or baby flush)?

im here talking about the hand with tom and we're thinking that the 3-bet on the flop allows you to get away from a flush or set, although its possible that we'll mistakenly pass to a 4-bet from A4. if she flats the 3-bet then a pair and a club seems the most likely candidate, meaning that we can check-fold a club or jam/lead on a blank (cant remember the exact stacks). 3-betting her seems to define her hand so well that it makes up for having to check-pass in a big pot on the turn.

really interesting hand though blatch!

 I kind of agree. I just think, if you wanted to know directions in the street, you wouldn't stop and ask a blind person. I think asking your opponent to define their hand is fine against an ABC player or a calling station, but this lady is much more dangerous. She is also a betting station, and has just lost a big pot. How can we ask her to define her hand when she hasn't got the slightest clue about hand values herself?

I agree that, if she re-re-raises us, we are losing more often than winning, and should pass. However, I think that we are going to pass the winning hand often enough that it makes it very dangerous to re-raise in order to pass here. We might even have to put 10 4 suited in her range, and can be really be sure she is not going to move in with an  type hand, or maybe even  ?

I think pot control is the best line as we come out alive alot more often. If the club comes on the turn or river, we can escape with chips, but we still probably get full value if it doesn't. By re-raising the flop, we have to jam the turn, and look for our bike if she has a flush draw which hits on the river.

Thanks for your input Stu - do you really think she would limp UTG with  and then lead on an incredibly scary board?  I know she is a bad player but surely not even a bad player does this?

I honestly though I was still miles infront on the turn but being as easy as the chips were as well as someone elses at the table I didnt want to shove and have her call and me sweating a 25% shot for the outdraw.  I thought she would call the river anyway if I lead and with a very good stack anyway and her and another chipped up bad player at the table I didnt want to put myself at risk to the draw that I believe she would call all in with.

[easypickings]

[/quote]

Thanks for your input Stu - do you really think she would limp UTG with  and then lead on an incredibly scary board?  I know she is a bad player but surely not even a bad player does this?


[/quote]

I think the key is that she might do. She most likely would check-call, but with  and a ton of other hands there is a chance that she might make this big donk lead. The hardest type of player to read is the one that doesn't know what they are doing themselves. For this reason, I think it's really dangerous to make a play that credits her with any kind of logic, or to try to give her a narrow range at any stage.

That's why I think the best plan is to not try to read her hand precisely, but play for a line that gets us value from that fact she is going to call super-light, and allows us to escape if the club comes.

I really like the play of not re-raising the turn all-in, as  a) she is going to call off the rest on a lot of safe rivers anyway, b) you can have almost zero worry that she will turn an inferior hand into a bluff and c) 20k is alot to stay alive with if the club does come on the river.

I like leading a bit more, as it allows you to control the size of the pot, so that you can make sure she is priced in on the river, and it prevents her from checking behind a drawing hand.

[Blatch]

ok thanks for the input, pleased the thread has sort of taken of and some very good points made.

I flatted the turn mainly for pot control and with the hope to lead out if I felt I was still good.

River came  , I threw up a little in my mouth and had a quick think about what to do as I had to re evaluate the whole hand as I starting to lean towards her having an ace with  .

Can anyone find a bet here? If so how much?

[MANTIS01]

but do the overbets not suggest to you that she may be trying to protect her hand (be it a weak ace or baby flush)?
dousche said this and I tend to see things this way...we can include the 4-4 as well. If villain doesn't have a big club the doesn't have to be a bad card for us? She's gonna have to be holding one of a couple of cards to call the river imo. If we don't get married to the idea of how strong our hand used to be we may see a very good spot to bluff. She's just called a river lead to be shown the bad news and so your FE is excellent imo. River jam would be a very convincing story the way hero's played it imo. Much easier said than done mind.

[George2Loose]

but do the overbets not suggest to you that she may be trying to protect her hand (be it a weak ace or baby flush)?
dousche said this and I tend to see things this way...we can include the 4-4 as well. If villain doesn't have a big club the doesn't have to be a bad card for us? She's gonna have to be holding one of a couple of cards to call the river imo. If we don't get married to the idea of how strong our hand used to be we may see a very good spot to bluff. She's just called a river lead to be shown the bad news and so your FE is excellent imo. River jam would be a very convincing story the way hero's played it imo. Much easier said than done mind.

Isn't the problem with this plan that the villian is BAD and would call with a weak club?

[MANTIS01]

but do the overbets not suggest to you that she may be trying to protect her hand (be it a weak ace or baby flush)?
dousche said this and I tend to see things this way...we can include the 4-4 as well. If villain doesn't have a big club the doesn't have to be a bad card for us? She's gonna have to be holding one of a couple of cards to call the river imo. If we don't get married to the idea of how strong our hand used to be we may see a very good spot to bluff. She's just called a river lead to be shown the bad news and so your FE is excellent imo. River jam would be a very convincing story the way hero's played it imo. Much easier said than done mind.

Isn't the problem with this plan that the villian is BAD and would call with a weak club?

Does she have a club at all considering her bets? There's a lot of chips in the middle. Enough to consider she doesn't.

[George2Loose]

but do the overbets not suggest to you that she may be trying to protect her hand (be it a weak ace or baby flush)?
dousche said this and I tend to see things this way...we can include the 4-4 as well. If villain doesn't have a big club the doesn't have to be a bad card for us? She's gonna have to be holding one of a couple of cards to call the river imo. If we don't get married to the idea of how strong our hand used to be we may see a very good spot to bluff. She's just called a river lead to be shown the bad news and so your FE is excellent imo. River jam would be a very convincing story the way hero's played it imo. Much easier said than done mind.

Isn't the problem with this plan that the villian is BAD and would call with a weak club?

Does she have a club at all considering her bets? There's a lot of chips in the middle. Enough to consider she doesn't.

So we were calling flop and turn not to control pot size but to bluff river when club comes cos we're beat? Or to obv get her stack if she overplays any rag ace?

[easypickings]

I think the idea of a massive move of turning two pair into a bluff is arguable against a solid player, but is suicidal against her. The range of hands that can beat us but can't call a bet is so narrow, and I think the comment after her call against Kieran tells us that she may even call with confidence here. We need to have two things fall in our favour for this move to work- firstly that our read is right that she does not have a high club, and secondly that an awful player can pass the top two pair or better.

What are we trying to bluff that can beat us? A baby flush that saw a bad river card? I think she is even going to have a tough time folding a set of fours here. It's a difficult thing to put your trust in any player to fold a big hand, but I think it's incredibly risky to put any faith in her judgement and discipline.

[Dubai]

I must be bad at poker because i think she played the hand first hand fine, the river is obviously marginal. To me the young kid has played it worse. Limp calling oop with KQ is just lol.

[Dubai]

As for the hand itself i would have bet the flop.

Also raise more pre, or dont raise at all oop.

As played, check call, crai non club turn looks pretty standard to me. Dont think requires too much thought

[Dewi_cool]

i always thought she gad 44 but im chit so there (stuart was right)

[AlexMartin]

River wiiiii, now we can win the pot w/o showdown. I shove here all day long. pending live "tells" ftw obv.

If shes really shit and cant read her, blocker bet the river, although its so ridic exploitable to anyone with a brain she wont abuse it.

[easypickings]

I must be bad at poker because i think she played the hand first hand fine, the river is obviously marginal. To me the young kid has played it worse. Limp calling oop with KQ is just lol.

I think if he has seen that she is really bad, limp calling deep stacked seems fine. Dubai, what can she beat on the river?

His play on the river depends completely on his thinking. If it is thin value bet despite the third spade coming, it's pretty awesome. It feels like it was intended as a bluff that got lucky, in which case it's pretty bad. Any ideas Neil?

[Blatch]

I must be bad at poker because i think she played the hand first hand fine, the river is obviously marginal. To me the young kid has played it worse. Limp calling oop with KQ is just lol.

I think if he has seen that she is really bad, limp calling deep stacked seems fine. Dubai, what can she beat on the river?

His play on the river depends completely on his thinking. If it is thin value bet despite the third spade coming, it's pretty awesome. It feels like it was intended as a bluff that got lucky, in which case it's pretty bad. Any ideas Neil?

I had literally just got to the table when Kier got involved with her.  I honestly believe that he was trying to represent the flush against her and got lucky.  When he shoved and she called he stood up and looked as if he was getting ready to walk.