DtD 50/50

[Free_Rollin]

Lol, didn't the hand just go exactly as you wanted?

You only decided you should have peeled, when he showed intentions of 4 betting. Results orientated thinking there.

Played it fine imo.

[Free_Rollin]

OOP, HU, vs a complete unknown, holding 8 high, in a raised pot, means abs nothing is going in your favour in this spot. People who want to peel here overrate themelves imo.   

You're an absolute dousche.

And you are a child.

Lol, is this a compliment? Compared to all the old jokes Cos gets.....

[MANTIS01]

Lol, didn't the hand just go exactly as you wanted?

You only decided you should have peeled, when he showed intentions of 4 betting. Results orientated thinking there.

Played it fine imo.

He got lots of chips in when he was an underdog to win the hand, was v lucky to flop the world, and got no chips in when he was favourite to win the hand. Did he play it fine?

[Free_Rollin]

Lol, didn't the hand just go exactly as you wanted?

You only decided you should have peeled, when he showed intentions of 4 betting. Results orientated thinking there.

Played it fine imo.

He got lots of chips in when he was an underdog to win the hand, was v lucky to flop the world, and got no chips in when he was favourite to win the hand. Did he play it fine?

Well in that case, we should all perhaps wait for kings and aces then? In fact, even if we have kings we could be a massive underdog, so we should perhaps fold them too?

He didn't get loads of chips in the pot as a underdog, to create a big pot. He got them in, to try and pick up the pot there and then. If he fails, then he is still able to represent a huge deal on the flop, regardless of if we hit or not.

Yes, he was v lucky to flop the world, and unfortunately he wasn't able to get any more chips from the villain. However, there are probably a lot of overpairs in the villain's range, where he may just jam to a c-bet. In that case, we can snap.

To put the hand like you just put it, means we should never play with hands like 78 suited, JQ suited etc, because we are more than likely to be underdogs.

[GreekStein]

Lol, didn't the hand just go exactly as you wanted?

You only decided you should have peeled, when he showed intentions of 4 betting. Results orientated thinking there.

Played it fine imo.

He got lots of chips in when he was an underdog to win the hand, was v lucky to flop the world, and got no chips in when he was favourite to win the hand. Did he play it fine?

How is he an underdog though? Once he's 3-bet and gets called he's a favourite to win the hand. The other guy pretty much HAS to flop an ace or queen to continue. All other scenarios hero prob wins pot.

P.s posted your graphs yet?

[MANTIS01]

Lol, didn't the hand just go exactly as you wanted?

You only decided you should have peeled, when he showed intentions of 4 betting. Results orientated thinking there.

Played it fine imo.

He got lots of chips in when he was an underdog to win the hand, was v lucky to flop the world, and got no chips in when he was favourite to win the hand. Did he play it fine?

Well in that case, we should all perhaps wait for kings and aces then? In fact, even if we have kings we could be a massive underdog, so we should perhaps fold them too?

He didn't get loads of chips in the pot as a underdog, to create a big pot. He got them in, to try and pick up the pot there and then. If he fails, then he is still able to represent a huge deal on the flop, regardless of if we hit or not.

Yes, he was v lucky to flop the world, and unfortunately he wasn't able to get any more chips from the villain. However, there are probably a lot of overpairs in the villain's range, where he may just jam to a c-bet. In that case, we can snap.

To put the hand like you just put it, means we should never play with hands like 78 suited, JQ suited etc, because we are more than likely to be underdogs.

If you genuinely do think there are a lot of overpairs in villain's range why would you 3-bet pre to try and pick up the pot? How could you hope to take the pot down with your bluff pre if you think villain has a good pair? Then you lead out when you flop the effective nuts and say yeah cos the flop has come low he could deffo have this over pair, the over pair you tried to bluff off the pot pre. Anyway if villain has an overpair he will bet this flop when you check. He will also bet with his unpaired hands rather than fold them when you check.

[MANTIS01]

Lol, didn't the hand just go exactly as you wanted?

You only decided you should have peeled, when he showed intentions of 4 betting. Results orientated thinking there.

Played it fine imo.

He got lots of chips in when he was an underdog to win the hand, was v lucky to flop the world, and got no chips in when he was favourite to win the hand. Did he play it fine?

How is he an underdog though? Once he's 3-bet and gets called he's a favourite to win the hand. The other guy pretty much HAS to flop an ace or queen to continue. All other scenarios hero prob wins pot.

P.s posted your graphs yet?

How does hero know that during the hand? He knows he's an underdog to villain's range, and that's all he knows. It's kinda easy to know you can bluff successfully when you know villain's hand.

[Free_Rollin]

Lol, didn't the hand just go exactly as you wanted?

You only decided you should have peeled, when he showed intentions of 4 betting. Results orientated thinking there.

Played it fine imo.

He got lots of chips in when he was an underdog to win the hand, was v lucky to flop the world, and got no chips in when he was favourite to win the hand. Did he play it fine?

Well in that case, we should all perhaps wait for kings and aces then? In fact, even if we have kings we could be a massive underdog, so we should perhaps fold them too?

He didn't get loads of chips in the pot as a underdog, to create a big pot. He got them in, to try and pick up the pot there and then. If he fails, then he is still able to represent a huge deal on the flop, regardless of if we hit or not.

Yes, he was v lucky to flop the world, and unfortunately he wasn't able to get any more chips from the villain. However, there are probably a lot of overpairs in the villain's range, where he may just jam to a c-bet. In that case, we can snap.

To put the hand like you just put it, means we should never play with hands like 78 suited, JQ suited etc, because we are more than likely to be underdogs.

If you genuinely do think there are a lot of overpairs in villain's range why would you 3-bet pre to try and pick up the pot? How could you hope to take the pot down with your bluff pre if you think villain has a good pair? Then you lead out when you flop the effective nuts and say yeah cos the flop has come low he could deffo have this over pair, the over pair you tried to bluff off the pot pre. Anyway if villain has an overpair he will bet this flop when you check. He will also bet with his unpaired hands rather than fold them when you check.

Mantis, come on man. You can't try and criticise our first action, after using information gained from after we have acted. (Lol sounds more complicated then it is) I will however try and illustrate my point below, and hopefully you can understand why your response was kind of trivial.

When the villain opens the pot, I don't automatically put him on an overpair to the cards we are holding.

When we have 3 bet, and the villain starts contemplating between a 4 bet and a call, then yes, I start including overpairs in his range as a likely hand.

I can't put him on an overpair simply from his open, although it is obviously in his range, along with plenty of other rubbish/genuine hands.

So, to say that we shouldn't 3 bet if we think there are a lot overpairs in the villain's range is silly. There are also plenty of hands in the villain's opening range which may fold to our 3 bet, and give us an opportunity to pick up the pot.

Anyway if villain has an overpair he will bet this flop when you check. He will also bet with his unpaired hands rather than fold them when you check.

As for the above, yes I agree the villain is likely to bet this flop when I check. However, I prefer leading here instead of checking, since I'd try and get the money in now, as there will be a lot of turn cards that may kill our action, if the villain decides to check back the flop/play it tricky.

[GreekStein]

Lol, didn't the hand just go exactly as you wanted?

You only decided you should have peeled, when he showed intentions of 4 betting. Results orientated thinking there.

Played it fine imo.

He got lots of chips in when he was an underdog to win the hand, was v lucky to flop the world, and got no chips in when he was favourite to win the hand. Did he play it fine?

How is he an underdog though? Once he's 3-bet and gets called he's a favourite to win the hand. The other guy pretty much HAS to flop an ace or queen to continue. All other scenarios hero prob wins pot.

P.s posted your graphs yet?

How does hero know that during the hand? He knows he's an underdog to villain's range, and that's all he knows. It's kinda easy to know you can bluff successfully when you know villain's hand.

His hand is likely to play very well against any range as the hand flops well.

He's a favourite to win the hand once he's 3-bet as villain is only defending/4-betting with the very top of his range. AQ is prob a fold pre.

It's also kinda easy to know maybe a 3-bet isn't the best move when we know villain has Ace-Queen and is going to defend.

[paulhouk03]

Lol, didn't the hand just go exactly as you wanted?

You only decided you should have peeled, when he showed intentions of 4 betting. Results orientated thinking there.

Played it fine imo.

He got lots of chips in when he was an underdog to win the hand, was v lucky to flop the world, and got no chips in when he was favourite to win the hand. Did he play it fine?

Well in that case, we should all perhaps wait for kings and aces then? In fact, even if we have kings we could be a massive underdog, so we should perhaps fold them too?

He didn't get loads of chips in the pot as a underdog, to create a big pot. He got them in, to try and pick up the pot there and then. If he fails, then he is still able to represent a huge deal on the flop, regardless of if we hit or not.

Yes, he was v lucky to flop the world, and unfortunately he wasn't able to get any more chips from the villain. However, there are probably a lot of overpairs in the villain's range, where he may just jam to a c-bet. In that case, we can snap.

To put the hand like you just put it, means we should never play with hands like 78 suited, JQ suited etc, because we are more than likely to be underdogs.

If you genuinely do think there are a lot of overpairs in villain's range why would you 3-bet pre to try and pick up the pot? How could you hope to take the pot down with your bluff pre if you think villain has a good pair? Then you lead out when you flop the effective nuts and say yeah cos the flop has come low he could deffo have this over pair, the over pair you tried to bluff off the pot pre. Anyway if villain has an overpair he will bet this flop when you check. He will also bet with his unpaired hands rather than fold them when you check.

we still have 8 high here?
I know we have a huge hand potentialy. We dont all run like blatch and hit our 1000000 outs
but at this point we have 8 high.

I would lead out 100% of the time and snap a shove.

i doubt his not pair hands will bet when u check to him on this board either
he could think he has showdown value or he thinks his hand is good and can pot control when checked to.
people didnt play very tricky in this comp

[MANTIS01]

Lol, didn't the hand just go exactly as you wanted?

You only decided you should have peeled, when he showed intentions of 4 betting. Results orientated thinking there.

Played it fine imo.

He got lots of chips in when he was an underdog to win the hand, was v lucky to flop the world, and got no chips in when he was favourite to win the hand. Did he play it fine?

Well in that case, we should all perhaps wait for kings and aces then? In fact, even if we have kings we could be a massive underdog, so we should perhaps fold them too?

He didn't get loads of chips in the pot as a underdog, to create a big pot. He got them in, to try and pick up the pot there and then. If he fails, then he is still able to represent a huge deal on the flop, regardless of if we hit or not.

Yes, he was v lucky to flop the world, and unfortunately he wasn't able to get any more chips from the villain. However, there are probably a lot of overpairs in the villain's range, where he may just jam to a c-bet. In that case, we can snap.

To put the hand like you just put it, means we should never play with hands like 78 suited, JQ suited etc, because we are more than likely to be underdogs.

If you genuinely do think there are a lot of overpairs in villain's range why would you 3-bet pre to try and pick up the pot? How could you hope to take the pot down with your bluff pre if you think villain has a good pair? Then you lead out when you flop the effective nuts and say yeah cos the flop has come low he could deffo have this over pair, the over pair you tried to bluff off the pot pre. Anyway if villain has an overpair he will bet this flop when you check. He will also bet with his unpaired hands rather than fold them when you check.

Mantis, come on man. You can't try and criticise our first action, after using information gained from after we have acted. (Lol sounds more complicated then it is) I will however try and illustrate my point below, and hopefully you can understand why your response was kind of trivial.

When the villain opens the pot, I don't automatically put him on an overpair to the cards we are holding.

When we have 3 bet, and the villain starts contemplating between a 4 bet and a call, then yes, I start including overpairs in his range as a likely hand.

I can't put him on an overpair simply from his open, although it is obviously in his range, along with plenty of other rubbish/genuine hands.

So, to say that we shouldn't 3 bet if we think there are a lot overpairs in the villain's range is silly. There are also plenty of hands in the villain's opening range which may fold to our 3 bet, and give us an opportunity to pick up the pot.

Anyway if villain has an overpair he will bet this flop when you check. He will also bet with his unpaired hands rather than fold them when you check.

As for the above, yes I agree the villain is likely to bet this flop when I check. However, I prefer leading here instead of checking, since I'd try and get the money in now, as there will be a lot of turn cards that may kill our action, if the villain decides to check back the flop/play it tricky.

Dude, my criticism of our first action is due to all the factors I mentioned in my first post. To amplify that first post...you say villain has plenty of rubbish hands in his range and this is why a 3bet is good. Can you explain how you know that? You say villain will fold a lot of his range to our 3bet? How do you know he will? You say cos villain picks up a stack of chips he is contemplating 4betting and this tightens his range. But often when players pick up a stack of chips threateningly it can signify weakness. Can you tell me how you know villain picking up chips is a sign of strength?

Basically you are just guessing at stuff. Hence my post criticising the line...3bet cos villain is weak, oh wait, lead cos villain is strong. It's ok to guess at stuff but I don't think it makes a convincing argument to say 3betting a complete unknown oop with a weak hand, no image, less chips, and an intention to bluff is the best of lines for this hand in a poker tournament.

[George2Loose]

I would call cos they're suited

[pokerfan]

I would call cos they're suited

Some sense at last.

[GreekStein]

Wow. I've not been around long so before this thread I thought mantis was ok at poker. Oops.

LOL he's terrabad.

[pleno1]

What does Mantis actually mean? I know that Karl Marenhoulz (sorry for spelling) gets called Mantis from the hitsquad, this isn't his acct no? I know there was some banter with lots of different KarlM's and stuff.