KK awkward spot

[Jrvs]

I was said villian in this hand...

Sigh fold for sure, much better spots out there but turn bet is too small IMO and exploitable against good players although this guy clearly isn't one!

he could be. turning qx into a bluff here is quite nice, he reps sets, straights and 9T very nicely and has barely any airballs in his range. I wouldn't expect a 50/1 guy to turn a Q into a bluff so I'd be laying down KK here.

Having said that, the betsize leaves yourself wide open to this sort of move.

Firstly thanks Alex for being the only person so far who gives me a chance of any credit whatsoever, and not immediately stereotyping me as a terrible player and someone who couldn't possibly thinking at this level. (Not saying I am a good player and obviously that is to each persons own opinions, although I am now slighty interested in Derbylad's impression of me from the short time we played together?).

Also I do want to throw in that I think it is imaybe a little irresponsible to stereotype or quickly make assumptions about somemone who isn't a known or recognisable face just because they are playing 0.5/1 or because of small factors such as shown a hand once etc, especially if this is being done at the table when an unknown sits down everytime and not just whilst discussing a hand on here.

To the hand itself, Derbylad told me he was going to post it here and there was quite a bit of discussion between myself and him afterwards about it, with pretty much the conclusion of what has been said here already. I obviously knew I was bluffing and only showed the hand after Derbylad agreed to show his for the reason of I actually was quite interested on thoughts on the play. I wouldn't normally show unless I felt it was a really good situation to do so, and showed it for the sole factor of the reason mentioned because I had gathered Derbylad was a thinking player and this was pretty late on during the night, with me knowing that I am unlikely to be playing against Derbylad or any of the table anytime again soon.

Pre we are effectively 300bb+ deep, that being said I probably wouldn't quite a high percentage of the time flick in the call oop with the type of hand I have, and I was pretty sure someone cold called the 3 bet pre before it came back round to me, but looking back at flop bet sizing and Derbylads explaination of the hand I may now be mistaken. Anyway I thought the extra player was there and obivously because of how deep we are my calling range there does become alot wider than at 100bb.

Flop is fairly standard so I'll skip to the turn, when Derbylad bets the turn, from the little of what I've seen of his play, and from what I gather he probably thinks of me so far from my hands that have been shown, my hand is never good here. When he bets only 35 though, I felt it opens up everything for me, from the image I had I was pretty sure I am never expected to be bluffing here, or to have a hand I could be bluffing with. The small bet screams AA,KK, maybe AQ to me and it's making it really cheap for me to find out without having to commit myself. I think a turn raise here means the hands mentioned are never good with the image I have and I thought Derbylads impression of me was that there would be no bluffs in my range at this point.  Also I feel it's worth mentioning a big factor in the raise was a conversation we had a little while earlier, where Derbylad mentioned that he had finally got back to even after slowly girinding all evening, this was getting really late on at night and I didn't feel he'd want to stick it all in here with hands mentioned above where he is behind a decent amount of the time, I thought the small turn bet reflected this as well.

[pleno1]

Hey Jrvs,

Nice post, hope you stick about on Blonde.

[cambridgealex]

To be honest, I am a firm believer that stereotyping players as soon as they sit down is an extremely useful tool for live poker and the better you are at it, the more successful you will be.

Frankly, I would be guilty of the same assumptions as Derbylad. Most players who play 50/1 aren't profressional players, and although there are some good recreational players out there, most are not and are inexperienced - so that's always my starting point.

The stereotypes that go along with the old, asian, chinese, spanish, scandinavian etc are honestly remarkably accurate. Young players are the most unreliable though. We are a mixed bag. There are obviously some very smart young players out there, there are also some terrible ones. They can play tight (well and badly) and aggro (again, well and badly). So I wouldn't be able to make too many snap judgements on any young guy sitting at a 50/1 table other than the assumption that they're probably not very good (again, that's just playing the numbers game, there are many a 50/1 game at DTD that I think is tougher than a 1/2 or 2/5).

How much you buy in for is quite a key factor. Good players tend to sit with the max, no good players sit with 30bbs.

How you're dressed - Hoodie, headphones and a coffee - there for the grind perhaps. Shirt, tie and a pint? Probably not...

How you play you're first hand is massively important too. Did he post? Did he limp? How much did he open to? Does he look confident at this table? Does he play the hand well? Even if it doesn't go to showdown you can get lots of info from the first hand. Is his betsizing good? Did he make a bad cbet into 5 players on JT9dd and then snap give up when called?

Sample size is key here, there's a difference between somebody limping utg their first hand (which basically gives them the auto-fish stamp on their forehead) and somebody betting three streets in their first hand (DOESN'T automatically make them a maniac, what if they had Aces?) You shouldn't draw too many assumptions based on things like betting three streets, but you can draw a pretty reliable assumption when somebody limp/raises you or something!

I think you can learn 80% of what you need to know about an opponent before they finish playing their first hand. BUT! Be prepared to change your mind! Assumptions are great, but change them as soon as you have stronger evidence!

[tikay]

Yes, a very fine Post by JRVS. It's always good to hear the other side of these stories!

FWIW, I'm afraid "stereotyping" has become endemic amongst many. It's fine to stereotype up to a point, but you do see some really comical examples. Not all French, Spanish, German, American, Australian (I could go on...) players are "lolbad", not all old players are hopeless (except me, obv), there are plenty of decent "elders", and not all geese are swans.

Again, excellent, & balanced, Post.

Post more! 

[tikay]

To be honest, I am a firm believer that stereotyping players as soon as they sit down is an extremely useful tool for live poker and the better you are at it, the more successful you will be.

Frankly, I would be guilty of the same assumptions as Derbylad. Most players who play 50/1 aren't profressional players, and although there are some good recreational players out there, most are not and are inexperienced - so that's always my starting point.

The stereotypes that go along with the old, asian, chinese, spanish, scandinavian etc are honestly remarkably accurate. Young players are the most unreliable though. We are a mixed bag. There are obviously some very smart young players out there, there are also some terrible ones. They can play tight (well and badly) and aggro (again, well and badly). So I wouldn't be able to make too many snap judgements on any young guy sitting at a 50/1 table other than the assumption that they're probably not very good (again, that's just playing the numbers game, there are many a 50/1 game at DTD that I think is tougher than a 1/2 or 2/5).

How much you buy in for is quite a key factor. Good players tend to sit with the max, no good players sit with 30bbs.

How you're dressed - Hoodie, headphones and a coffee - there for the grind perhaps. Shirt, tie and a pint? Probably not...

How you play you're first hand is massively important too. Did he post? Did he limp? How much did he open to? Does he look confident at this table? Does he play the hand well? Even if it doesn't go to showdown you can get lots of info from the first hand. Is his betsizing good? Did he make a bad cbet into 5 players on JT9dd and then snap give up when called?

Sample size is key here, there's a difference between somebody limping utg their first hand (which basically gives them the auto-fish stamp on their forehead) and somebody betting three streets in their first hand (DOESN'T automatically make them a maniac, what if they had Aces?) You shouldn't draw too many assumptions based on things like betting three streets, but you can draw a pretty reliable assumption when somebody limp/raises you or something!

I think you can learn 80% of what you need to know about an opponent before they finish playing their first hand. BUT! Be prepared to change your mind! Assumptions are great, but change them as soon as you have stronger evidence!

Alex, the part I enboldened, that is NOT stereotyping, that is making a judgement based on how they go about their play. A different thing entirely, I would say.

You also say you can sterotype many types (by ethnic origin) but not young players? How so? How are youngsters any different to everyone else?

We, or I, may be confusing "stereotyping" with visual clues, reads, & judgements, perhaps we are into semantics here, & I'm sorry if so.

I agree absolutely & totally with your final para though. It's exactly the same in many things, golf springs to mind. Watch a guy tee off on the 1st tee, & you immediately know, within a few shots, his handicap. Not sure you can assess his handicap by his nationality, though.

[cambridgealex]

Hi Tikay,

The whole post wasn't just about stereotyping. The bit you bolded was in response to him saying something along the lines of "you shouldn't make assumptions because of small factors such as shown a hand once etc" I was just saying that you can make excellent assumptions based on very little information.

Young players are different (to me) because they are more of a mixed bag. You get hilariously spewy young guys who just wanna be durrr. You get extremely talented young guys who ARE durrr! You get nits like Paul Jenkinson who are solid as a rock winning players and young guys who play so tight passive they're far too weak. There is too much 'spread' in the distribution to make too many assumptions.

Whilst there is the occasional 70 year old lagtard spew merchant (there's this guy we see at every single poker event around europe who is totally mental and hilarious!), most play very conservative and tight. That is a fair enough assumption I think, Tikay and I'm trying to be diplomatic and not offend, I know it's a touchy subject for lots.

I did stress that you must be willing to change your mind when given more information. But without any further information, that's a good place to start.

[tikay]

Hi Tikay,

The whole post wasn't just about stereotyping. The bit you bolded was in response to him saying something along the lines of "you shouldn't make assumptions because of small factors such as shown a hand once etc" I was just saying that you can make excellent assumptions based on very little information.

Young players are different (to me) because they are more of a mixed bag. You get hilariously spewy young guys who just wanna be durrr. You get extremely talented young guys who ARE durrr! You get nits like Paul Jenkinson who are solid as a rock winning players and young guys who play so tight passive they're far too weak. There is too much 'spread' in the distribution to make too many assumptions.

Whilst there is the occasional 70 year old lagtard spew merchant (there's this guy we see at every single poker event around europe who is totally mental and hilarious!), most play very conservative and tight. That is a fair enough assumption I think, Tikay and I'm trying to be diplomatic and not offend, I know it's a touchy subject for lots.

I did stress that you must be willing to change your mind when given more information. But without any further information, that's a good place to start.

Fair comment as to the enboldened piece, Alex. And most of the rest, too. Being dipolomatic, & trying not to offend.

May I ask, would you consider, say, Mr Giblin, or Ali Mallu, to be "young"? Or Fraser Bellamy, or Matt Russell...... 

Touchy subject? Not touchy, as such, but I do smile quietly & inwardly when I see, for example, "all French players are useless" type stuff. I mean, did you ever hear such irrational nonsense from the mouths of grown ups?

[cambridgealex]

Hi Tikay,

The whole post wasn't just about stereotyping. The bit you bolded was in response to him saying something along the lines of "you shouldn't make assumptions because of small factors such as shown a hand once etc" I was just saying that you can make excellent assumptions based on very little information.

Young players are different (to me) because they are more of a mixed bag. You get hilariously spewy young guys who just wanna be durrr. You get extremely talented young guys who ARE durrr! You get nits like Paul Jenkinson who are solid as a rock winning players and young guys who play so tight passive they're far too weak. There is too much 'spread' in the distribution to make too many assumptions.

Whilst there is the occasional 70 year old lagtard spew merchant (there's this guy we see at every single poker event around europe who is totally mental and hilarious!), most play very conservative and tight. That is a fair enough assumption I think, Tikay and I'm trying to be diplomatic and not offend, I know it's a touchy subject for lots.

I did stress that you must be willing to change your mind when given more information. But without any further information, that's a good place to start.

Fair comment as to the enboldened piece, Alex. And most of the rest, too. Being dipolomatic, & trying not to offend.

May I ask, would you consider, say, Mr Giblin, or Ali Mallu, to be "young"? Or Fraser Bellamy, or Matt Russell...... 

Touchy subject? Not touchy, as such, but I do smile quietly & inwardly when I see, for example, "all French players are useless" type stuff. I mean, did you ever hear such irrational nonsense from the mouths of grown ups?

I think we disagree on this one Tikay.

There's no way anyone could consider Mr Giblin to be young.

[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!

[pleno1]

You should think every single player on a 100nl live game is absolutely terrible unless proven otherwise imo.

[cambridgealex]

You should think every single player on a 100nl live game is absolutely terrible unless proven otherwise imo.

although the general standard at dtd in those games is far better than any 50/1 live game i've ever come across

[pleno1]

Ok I will rephrase.

I generally think everybody over 30 in a 100nl game is a huge spot and anybody under 30 I view as being extremely exploitable and I watch them a lot and see where their major leak is.

[SuuPRlim]

Every action and event on a poker table is just an opportunity for you to make better decisions.

If you play a hand with someone in their first orbit, you're going to HAVE to go on the generic stereo-types Alex spoke of, they could be WAY out but they have more of a chance of being slightly right than slightly wrong and in the absence of any other info this is your only option, lots of guesswork.

If by the time you've played 50 hands with him and you're still working from the same default assumptions then you're not paying enough attention.

JVRS - great post, great logic behind the hand also, very WP an nice that it worked out! Welcome to blonde, keep posting

[George2Loose]

Often wonder how people judge me when they play me for the first time. Looks 60 but wears a hoodie

[tikay]

Often wonder how people judge me when they play me for the first time. Looks 60 but wears a hoodie

Apparently they judge you by the size of game you play. If you play Live 100nl, you are obviously terrible.....

I really struggle - big time - with Pleno's comment, though I don't plan to get into a major debate about it. I do think (please don't be offended) that it is stunningly arrogant though. As a rule in life, I would assume the absolute complete opposite to pleno - i.e., assume they are competent until shown otherwise. Disrespecting your opponents can rarely be a good thing.

100nl players MAY be terrible compared to him, & I'm quite sure they are, but they are awesomely good compared to 50nl players. And pretty tez compared to 200nl players. Surely everyone can see that it is all relative?

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?