Hand vs RED-DOG at SPT max

[outragous76]

But assuming deep, I have not problem checking turn here vs any even remotely tight villain. Realising your equity in live poker is massively under rated. People don't fold early in mtts. Only hand we beat is qj, so bet turn, bet river works so infrequently that I'm happy to just get there when I have a hand with a tonne of equity against villains on the tighter side this early.  

Sorry to keep following the same pattern as usual, but I disagree with lots of what you say here Guy.

1. 'But assuming deep'... it is actually a much easier bet when deep than if stacks were rather shallower. Shallower stacks allow villain to c/r his mid-strength value hands as well as his nutted hands, since he is risking less the few times he runs into a nutted part of our range. With deep stacks like here, villain can c/r but we still have plenty of chips left to play on the river which benefits our hand greatly.

2. 'vs an even remotely tight villain'... we have more fold equity vs a tight villain than against a loose one.

3. 'People don't fold early in mtts'... Huge generalisation. Usually true I accept, but Tom is not a generic loose cally wally.

4. 'Only hand we beat is qj' .... we do beat some air that he cbet on the flop. But this is not the relevant point. We can make him fold some of his weaker made hands on the turn.

5. 'so bet turn, bet river works so infrequently'... we do not necessarily have to bet the river just because we bet the turn.

I don't really have time to respond mate, but im afraid in practice your theory doesn't stand up in live poker

1. When deep, there is no chance villain folds a decent King here (KT+), (lets assume they are just calling turn and not c/r) unless we go wild on the river, and there is no point going wild in this tourney this early.  Playing ABC formulaic stuff, and getting paid is by far the best way to go, especially (and this isn't aimed at Tom) against recs in general.

2. You don't have fold equity, they have a pair. Ironically they are going to be more inclined to fold in an inflated pot when the scare card comes (the D, the J is gonna be really clean here)

3. It really isn't a generalisation

4. The problem with your range comment is that "some" villains will be checking 66-99 on that board so Im not sure I agree

5. betting turn and giving up on river is not a line I prefer in live poker for reasons stated above about folding tendencies

edit: I would add that so many villains go into c/c mode when OOP in these spots with an absolute tonne of their range, even ridiculously weak parts of it.

[Honeybadger]

I don't really have time to respond mate, but im afraid in practice your theory doesn't stand up in live poker

1. When deep, there is no chance villain folds a decent King here (KT+), (lets assume they are just calling turn and not c/r) unless we go wild on the river, and there is no point going wild in this tourney this early.  Playing ABC formulaic stuff, and getting paid is by far the best way to go, especially (and this isn't aimed at Tom) against recs in general.

2. You don't have fold equity, they have a pair. Ironically they are going to be more inclined to fold in an inflated pot when the scare card comes (the D, the J is gonna be really clean here)

3. It really isn't a generalisation

4. The problem with your range comment is that "some" villains will be checking 66-99 on that board so Im not sure I agree

5. betting turn and giving up on river is not a line I prefer in live poker for reasons stated above about folding tendencies

Oh Guy... I play a TON of live poker. I know how it works.

1. We are not really trying to get villain to fold a King. He may do of course (never say there is "no chance"), but we are actually trying to get him to fold the parts of his range that are weaker than top pair. And the times he c/c with TP then we have pretty damn good equity (if our Ace is an out then we have 15 outs) so it is not the absolute end of the world.

2. See above point. Villain does not always "have a pair". And even when villain does have a pair it is often going to be less than top pair - and he is going to fold it a decent % of the time. You really think Tom is always check-calling the turn with, say, JT or 99 here? And if he does then we have 17-18 outs vs those hands, so it not utterly terrible.

Also, you can't have it both ways. If "they are going to be more inclined to fold the river in an inflated pot when a scare card comes" then we have profitable bluffing opportunities on any 9, J or Q (and Ace but we hit the Ace so now beat many TP hands). On the other hand, if "you don't have fold equity, they have a pair" then we have implied odds the times we get 'unlucky' to find him with a hand that he does not fold on the turn.

3. Look up the word generalisation in the dictionary. It might be a (mainly) true generalisation. But it is definitely a generalisation.

4. If villain is not usually cbetting 99-66 (or air) on this flop then I agree we have less fold equity on the turn. But it is unrealistic to say we don't have any fold equity.

5. Why? This makes no sense at all, and is just dogmatic painting-by-numbers thinking. If the turn bet is profitable because our fold equity+pot equity+implied odds = profitable bet, then we can bet the turn profitably even if we never, ever bluff the river. Not necessarily saying it would be bad to bluff the river if villain c/c turn, just saying that a turn bet can still be profitable even when you have no intention of ever bluffing the river.

[outragous76]

Stu

Not got time to type loads today/tomorrow, so no doubt others will take over.

I can only put it this way (and it could of course he a "hero" thing), I've played both ways, and my results have got exponentially better playing my revised way.

I also think that there is merit to both sides of this argument, so to say that you totally disagree with what I say is pretty unfair, as it infers that only your way is right, and you without doubt held in greater regard than I am in PHA, but to flat out say its "my way" or "my way" is not good for PHA IMO

[Honeybadger]

I also think that there is merit to both sides of this argument, so to say that you totally disagree with what I say is pretty unfair, as it infers that only your way is right

Guy I did not say I totally disagreed with you. In fact I agreed that checking back was a reasonable alternative, and in fact gave some strengths of this line to support it!

I just picked up on one later paragraph that you wrote because it seemed to me to contain several complete misunderstandings/inaccuracies (which I highlighted in points 1-5).

You know me now pal, and thus know that I don't just critique others' posts for the sake of it. Everything I type on Blonde PHA is intended to be helpful.

[outragous76]

I also think that there is merit to both sides of this argument, so to say that you totally disagree with what I say is pretty unfair, as it infers that only your way is right

Guy I did not say I totally disagreed with you. In fact I agreed that checking back was a reasonable alternative, and in fact gave some strengths of this line to support it!

I just picked up on one later paragraph that you wrote because it seemed to me to contain several complete misunderstandings/inaccuracies (which I highlighted in points 1-5).

You know me now pal, and thus know that I don't just critique others' posts for the sake of it. Everything I type on Blonde PHA is intended to be helpful.

Of course its helpful, and you know I think a lot of your stuff (see my sig if in doubt), but I just think small ball with non made hands rather than hoping villain will fold or trying to make him fold in the first few levels of a live MTT, may be theoretically better, but just isn't THAT much better (if at all) in practice. And for the chips you lose when called (2 streets), along with image issues (and lots of things not discussed ITT) you are far better playing small ball and getting paid, this early.

[Ironside]

You not think bet calling turn smells like akdd or kqdd yeah tt or 44 are also possible as is qjdd but I dont think many hands bet call turn and bluff bets river unless scare card comes

[Honeybadger]

I just think small ball with non made hands rather than hoping villain will fold or trying to make him fold in the first few levels of a live MTT, may be theoretically better, but just isn't THAT much better (if at all) in practice. And for the chips you lose when called (2 streets), along with image issues (and lots of things not discussed ITT) you are far better playing small ball and getting paid, this early.

I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with any of this. I was literally just picking up on a few inaccuracies/logical mistakes in one paragraph that you wrote. Pedantic on my part perhaps.

[Honeybadger]

You not think bet calling turn smells like akdd or kqdd yeah tt or 44 are also possible as is qjdd but I dont think many hands bet call turn and bluff bets river unless scare card comes

Well hero's range to bet/call turn is going to include some draws, some mid-strength made hands, and some very strong made hands.

No idea what villain will perceive hero's range to be of course, only Tom would know that.

But we are getting the direct odds to call against a set, and much better than this vs less than a set, plus we have implied odds to a greater or lesser extent. So it is an easy call IMO.

[FUN4FRASER]

Ill try a simplified version

When Tom raises the turn we have 3 options  Fold , Call , Raise /Jam

Ive not got the stack sizes but seems we are priced in to at least call the turn to hit our Flush or gutshot.

Against other players I definitely like the turn jam with river outs but with Tom I would just call ,obv if we hit our flush and the board pairs  at the same time then thats a whole new problem.

Not advanced poker but thats my play.

[GreekStein]

call

[AlexMartin]

call

i assume we cover yeah? and this+1.

also, fold pre!

[rfgqqabc]

But assuming deep, I have not problem checking turn here vs any even remotely tight villain. Realising your equity in live poker is massively under rated. People don't fold early in mtts. Only hand we beat is qj, so bet turn, bet river works so infrequently that I'm happy to just get there when I have a hand with a tonne of equity against villains on the tighter side this early.  

Sorry to keep following the same pattern as usual, but I disagree with lots of what you say here Guy.

1. 'But assuming deep'... it is actually a much easier bet when deep than if stacks were rather shallower. Shallower stacks allow villain to c/r his mid-strength value hands as well as his nutted hands, since he is risking less the few times he runs into a nutted part of our range. With deep stacks like here, villain can c/r but we still have plenty of chips left to play on the river which benefits our hand greatly.

2. 'vs an even remotely tight villain'... we have more fold equity vs a tight villain than against a loose one.

3. 'People don't fold early in mtts'... Huge generalisation. Usually true I accept, but Tom is not a generic loose cally wally.

4. 'Only hand we beat is qj' .... we do beat some air that he cbet on the flop. But this is not the relevant point. We can make him fold some of his weaker made hands on the turn.

5. 'so bet turn, bet river works so infrequently'... we do not necessarily have to bet the river just because we bet the turn.

I don't really have time to respond mate, but im afraid in practice your theory doesn't stand up in live poker

1. When deep, there is no chance villain folds a decent King here (KT+), (lets assume they are just calling turn and not c/r) unless we go wild on the river, and there is no point going wild in this tourney this early.  Playing ABC formulaic stuff, and getting paid is by far the best way to go, especially (and this isn't aimed at Tom) against recs in general.

I would argue that I expect Tom to rarely have many strong kings in his range here, although there were not many flopped draws then when Tomsom calls we expect him to have some sort of hand, there are few floats or drawing hands on this board, and furthermore Tomsom has very few nutted hands, as it is unlikely he has tens/KK here imo. We don't need to fold out a King to show a profit, we want to make him fold hands like Q9s, 66, A5s etc.

2. You don't have fold equity, they have a pair. Ironically they are going to be more inclined to fold in an inflated pot when the scare card comes (the D, the J is gonna be really clean here)
We don't know he has a pair. All Red Dog has done is raise preflop and bet the flop. He can have a variety of hands here, including many that have given up and are check/folding.

3. It really isn't a generalisation

People don't fold early in mtts is without a doubt a generalisation. Whether or not it is true or not has no bearing on if the statement is a generalisation. It clearly is.

4. The problem with your range comment is that "some" villains will be checking 66-99 on that board so Im not sure I agree

Some will, however we can definitely generalise that the majority of people who raise preflop will be the flop a significant percentage of the time. This is extremely standard and typical of virtually all players who have some strategic knowledge and I'd definitely expect Red Dog to be in this camp.

5. betting turn and giving up on river is not a line I prefer in live poker for reasons stated above about folding tendencies

We can have a profitable turn without any river action. I believe that is the case here despite on this occasion we have been raised.

edit: I would add that so many villains go into c/c mode when OOP in these spots with an absolute tonne of their range, even ridiculously weak parts of it.

Many villains would, however I will completely generalise here and say I expect Red Dog to play fairly tight and solid. I don't think he is the type to c/c here with ridiculously weak parts of his range. Fwiw I have never played with him, but this seems like a decent read.

You seem to be talking about a spot that isn't really like the one posted. We are not playing some random recreational player who is rofling about and loving the game. We are playing Mr. Red Dog.

Call turn and bink the nuts. I really really really really dislike jamming.

[GreekStein]

call

i assume we cover yeah? and this+1.

also, fold pre!

lol @fold pre

[AlexMartin]

call

i assume we cover yeah? and this+1.

also, fold pre!

lol @fold pre

 

[KarmaDope]

call

i assume we cover yeah? and this+1.

also, fold pre!

lol @fold pre

 

Never folding this pre in a 6-max comp on the BTN to a CO raise.