KK awkward spot

[EvilPie]

My reasoning for thinking that you were not bluffing was that you showed your hand. A decent player may turn this in to a bluff. He'd never show it though.

If you're showing a bluff you're showing the old deucey seven or similar.

The following line:

only showed the hand after Derbylad agreed to show his

helps to explain why.

I'd guess there was some of the old 'if I fold will you show?' type thing going on?

Well played.

[pleno1]

hm, nah I don't think so Tikay, nor am I offended, its actually a really interesting debate imo.

Take for example the local game at my casino. There are thousands of people in Gibraltar working in the Gaming industry. Most of them probably quite interested in poker or deal with it on a weekly if not daily basis. They have a drink or are bored and fancy a game of poker. They get paid decent and sit down at 100nl, they are generally super super exploitable, this is the younger crowd I am talking about.

There is then the older guys who like to gamble/play poker/uneducated (don;t read blonde) and are 95% of the time terrible.

Often in sessions if you believe somebody is capable you miss out on so much value (not wanting to 3b/fold a value hand etc)

Disrespecting your opponents can rarely be a good thing.

[/quote]

I don't disrespect them as humans, I just look for a weak spot to be able to make money from them.

One thing I hate is when a fish does something really bad and all the good players look at each other, its like the nut worst thing you should do. Being a fish is great, having everybody thinking you are a fish is probably the nut spot for you. Its like I decide to play 5knl on PokerStars and all the regs look at my sn on PTR and see I'm down 2k over 20k hands or something irrelevant and immediately take lines vs me that they shouldn't I can exploit them so so so much (jamming rivers with blockers when they expect me to be super passive etc)

If I am wrongly disrespecting you then you should be very very happy about it.

To someone who regularly sits in 100nl, I doubt if they are terrible compared to the rest of the table. That is the key stat, surely?
[/quote]

Well thats kinda the point of the argument, I think on a table of 10 players on a 100nl table, more than 50% of the time 8 players will be very exploitable and/or bad. Online at 100nl its a much much smaller %.

[pleno1]

Also I know about 5 people (possibly more) who beat 200 and 500nl live but struggle to beat 10nl online (i.e breakeven over 100k hands)

Also fwiw Tikay, the post I made in your blog yesterday was in no way shape or form cheeky or disrespectful, I was genuinely interested.

[Jrvs]

Thanks for the responses. I will do my best to post more, it's defiantly something I want to do and get involved more around here. I have been around for a while usually just lurking though and not really feeling it was for me to get involved in certain conversations, which are swayed with the fact that most people know each other pretty well around here I guess.

It seems I may have started up something with my comments on stereotyping etc, and there is some good points made here I think. I was mainly attributing to the fact that some of the replies originally in response to the hand immediately assumed that I had to be a terrible player (if I am or not is totally irrelevant), and it seemed that this opinion was set in stone. I was just trying to get across that I thought this was totally wrong and if this was the mindset that you went in with to every player at 100nl then it is putting yourself at a big disadvantage.

That being said, I think the points that Alex made and SuuPRlim too are very valid and I totally agree with the sentance about how a large amount can be assumed rather quickly, aslong as you are willing to change your mind, and I think thats what I was trying to get across. It just felt like some of the respsonses here immediately were 100% certain of their opinion and were not for changing.

I think I also side with tikay slighty on pleno1's comment (and no disrespect to pleno). I don't think every 100nl player should be thrown in to a group like that. There could be a hundred reasons for them sitting at that level when they are more than capable of beating 1/2 2/5 even 5/10 etc. I know I certainly had my own reasons for sitting at 100nl this weekend and not higher. It's an interesting debate, because I think it's faily obvious the majority of players at 100nl you come across will be just as we all expect and be terrible, I just think that not giving yourself an open mind or allowing for the fact that someone may be decent no matter what their nationality, age, dress sense or any other factor may be is a huge mistake.

[tikay]

Also I know about 5 people (possibly more) who beat 200 and 500nl live but struggle to beat 10nl online (i.e breakeven over 100k hands)

Also fwiw Tikay, the post I made in your blog yesterday was in no way shape or form cheeky or disrespectful, I was genuinely interested.

Eh? I never thought for a moment, or suggested or implied, it was! WhyEVER would you make a comment like trhat?

[Jrvs]

My reasoning for thinking that you were not bluffing was that you showed your hand. A decent player may turn this in to a bluff. He'd never show it though.

If you're showing a bluff you're showing the old deucey seven or similar.

The following line:

only showed the hand after Derbylad agreed to show his

helps to explain why.

I'd guess there was some of the old 'if I fold will you show?' type thing going on?

Well played.

Thanks, yeah this is pretty much it. Obviously showing the hand there and showing the ability to turn a made hand into a bluff wouldn't be something I normally would want to do. The only reasons I did so was because of the above and what I mentioned about how it was late on in the session, pretty much a couple of hands left with me unlikely to be playing against Derbylad or the rest of the table again or atleast for some considerable time and I thought it was an interesting hand that could bring up some good discussion.

[tikay]

Pleno.

I'm not going to go beyond this final comment, you must think as you see fit, & me too. The matter is very simple, & one of us need to think a little wider.

It boils down to your final comment, which, personally, makes no sense to me.

You said.....

".....I think on a table of 10 players on a 100nl table, more than 50% of the time 8 players will be very exploitable and/or bad. Online at 100nl its a much much smaller %....."

I wholly disagree. As a general rule, 100nl is mostly populated by 100nl players. To them, the opposition is not terrible, it's pretty good, roughly level with their own ability. In most cases, if they were competent enough to play higher, or rolled for higher games, they would not sit in 100nl games. So when a 100nl player sits at a 100nl table, the opposition is NOT "terrible" at all.

When a 500nl player sitts as a 100nl table, yes, to him/her, 100nl players are "terrible".

When a 50nl player sits at a 100nl table, the players are awesomely & scarily good.

So, when we say "we can assume all players at a 100nl table are terrible", that is not true. It is a matter of "good" or "terrible" compared to what? To you? Yeah, because you are much better than them, if you wish. To 50nl players, no, not at all.

It is abundantly clear - to me, anyway - that "JRVS" is not "terrible" at all.  But I would be surprised & disappointed if he snap assumed all 100nl players were terrible. I think that wouyld be an extraordinary thing to assume.

And what if they ARE terrible - does that mean we can auto assume we can beat them? No, it does not. Who was, technically, far & away the best player on the Final Table of this months DTD Deepie, & where did he finish? Same question - 2 players this time - in last month's renewal?
 
Let's move on, we are not going to agree here. Ever.

Next up, all French players are crap. 

[pleno1]

When a 50nl player sits at a 100nl table, the players are awesomely & scarily good.

I really don't agree with this. The difference between NL50 and NL100 live is absolutely miniscule, if anything NL50 has been more "reggy" with young guys practicing bankroll m, management , but yeh never ever has a NL100 live game been considerably tougher than an NL50 game.

The only reason NL200/500 is perhaps softer is because you can't make an assumption straight away that you can at NL50/100 and say that the players are bad.

Example,

First 10 hands, no reads. Random guy opens the hijac, we are on the buttonand decide to 3bet KQ for value, we pretty much would never 3bet KQ for direct value straight away in a game that we considered tough. We do this because 1) we expect him to peel us so wide including dominated Kings and Queens 2) we expect him to play very face up post flop and 3) we want to play against a supposed fish HU in position rather than a multiway pot 4) we only ever expect him to 4bet us pre-flop with a really good hand that we can fold meaning we can break the important rule that internet kids bang on about "don't 3bet for information/value and then fold" the reason we can do this is because of point 1.

If the guy was under 30, wearing a hoody or dr dre headphones then we would treat this a little differently and perhaps just call and wait to see other signs of him being a fish/exploitable before adjusting.

Also I know about 5 people (possibly more) who beat 200 and 500nl live but struggle to beat 10nl online (i.e breakeven over 100k hands)

Also fwiw Tikay, the post I made in your blog yesterday was in no way shape or form cheeky or disrespectful, I was genuinely interested.

Eh? I never thought for a moment, or suggested or implied, it was! WhyEVER would you make a comment like trhat?

Was just scared that you might think I was being arrogant/clever, just wanted to confirm it wasn't the case and that I don't think EVERYBODY over 30 is a fish Alot what comes across on the internet is often wrong and unfortunately sometimes you have to spell out your intentions or people misinterpret them.

[Derbylad]

Only just got back to this "Jrvs" did agree to show after as he stated i am a thinking player, and as it was getting late. I did have in my mindset that i'd stated previously i'd just broke even hence why i'd done everything in the book to induce reads including the old count the all in. The purpose of the post was to see if the decision was correct based on hand history and unfair to undermine the player involved.

[SuuPRlim]

I find 25/50 in vegas way way softer than 5/10.

Another point is (and Pleno kind of said this tbf) diagnosing someone as terrible is near on useless. The whole point is to find out WHAT they do badly and then use your knowledge of the game to develop a strategy to exploit it. Saying "his guy's terrible so I'm going to X and crush him" is pretty arrogant, just basically saying that he doesn't have a chance because you're better but the sick thing about card games is that the worst player in the world has a punchers chance vs the best player on any given day.

You don't have to respect their game bet DEFO respect the fact they are capable of beating you.

@Derbylad - imo the fold is perfetly fine without being certain your oppo is capable of turning QT/J9 etc into a bluff here, with a play that is complex like that you will be way safer assuming any player at any stake ISNT capable until you find out that they are (purely because out of every player in the world playing 50/1 - 100/200 over half won't be capable of that play). The mistake in the hand is your turn bet-sizing, which is too small.

[Derbylad]

The mistake in the hand is your turn bet-sizing, which is too small.

Agreed, definitely working on unexploitable betting

[SuuPRlim]

doesn't necessarily have to be "unexploitable" just don't chose a sizing that will make people MORE likely to bluff if you're going to bet and then fold. you wanna chose a sizing that is difficult to bluff vs if you're aren't going to call a raise

[kinboshi]

Seriously though, you're always going to be able to pull out names that go against the stereotype, but for every "Giblin" that you throw at me, I'll have 10 to throw right back at you!

I would like to see anyone on this forum attempt to pick the 'Giblin' up, never mind throw him at anyone!!

(PS  Happy birthday Neil)

[cambridgealex]

Seriously though, you're always going to be able to pull out names that go against the stereotype, but for every "Giblin" that you throw at me, I'll have 10 to throw right back at you!

I would like to see anyone on this forum attempt to pick the 'Giblin' up, never mind throw him at anyone!!

(PS  Happy birthday Neil)

true

[EvilPie]

Birthday boy ITT!!!!!!!