kind of nitty

rofl

he obviously wanted everyone to see

btw interesting lead, do you really have Jx in your range, because you seem to rep more like 99type hands

On May 11 2013 10:28 LemOn[5thF] wrote: btw interesting lead, do you really have Jx in your range, because you seem to rep more like 99type hands

Anything other then lead in a limped pot will make postflop akward, the fact is most of the time no1 flops anything on paired boards and we win the pot a lot. there are a lot of cases where if you check someone can bet some random QTo, 89o garbage and we end up losing ~50% of the time. It's very easy to manipulate weaker players with bet sizing via leading

Oh it's limped lol thought he minraised pre for some reason, makes a lot of sense ty.

If he has 68s why wouldn't it be possible for him to have, e.g J9s there? -.-

anyone can have anything, statistically most of the time people dont hit JJ3cc very hard, making a small semi -bluff here is a good play

If nobody has anything, doesn't position overrule agression? And wasn't it 7 years ago when the suggestion of not chasing flushdraws on paired boards was made? TT are you pro leading here? Seems very odd for me to digest this as you advocate abc poker.

On May 11 2013 13:28 cariadon wrote: If nobody has anything, doesn't position overrule agression? And wasn't it 7 years ago when the suggestion of not chasing flushdraws on paired boards was made? TT are you pro leading here? Seems very odd for me to digest this as you advocate abc poker.

??? leading here is about the most abc thing in the world. "chasing" flush draws generally refers to calling bets afaik.

position doesn't overrule aggression if people just play their cards on boards where nobody hits...

On May 11 2013 13:28 cariadon wrote: If nobody has anything, doesn't position overrule agression? And wasn't it 7 years ago when the suggestion of not chasing flushdraws on paired boards was made? TT are you pro leading here? Seems very odd for me to digest this as you advocate abc poker.

we are not chasing a flush draw, we are semi -bluffing against wide and weak ranges

or, building a pot 150bb deep out of position with 8 high in a 3way limped pot on a paired board with outs to god knows #th nuts.

On May 11 2013 13:54 bigredhoss wrote: Show nested quote + On May 11 2013 13:28 cariadon wrote: If nobody has anything, doesn't position overrule agression? And wasn't it 7 years ago when the suggestion of not chasing flushdraws on paired boards was made? TT are you pro leading here? Seems very odd for me to digest this as you advocate abc poker. ??? leading here is about the most abc thing in the world. "chasing" flush draws generally refers to calling bets afaik. position doesn't overrule aggression if people just play their cards on boards where nobody hits...

I think you misunderstood what i was trying to imply. The bluffing part of semibluffing is obvious. However when we make our tiny flush, there are not many hands to get good value from and there is the risk of holding the inferior made hand. Nothing makes sense to me on this board postflop with given action and stacksizes. All i can come up with is shitty scenarios. What is the plan if we agreed that leading flop was correct? Throwing more money into the wind unimproved as happened here? I'm lost.

On May 11 2013 15:44 cariadon wrote: Show nested quote + On May 11 2013 13:54 bigredhoss wrote:   On May 11 2013 13:28 cariadon wrote: If nobody has anything, doesn't position overrule agression? And wasn't it 7 years ago when the suggestion of not chasing flushdraws on paired boards was made? TT are you pro leading here? Seems very odd for me to digest this as you advocate abc poker. ??? leading here is about the most abc thing in the world. "chasing" flush draws generally refers to calling bets afaik. position doesn't overrule aggression if people just play their cards on boards where nobody hits... I think you misunderstood what i was trying to imply. The bluffing part of semibluffing is obvious. However when we make our tiny flush, there are not many hands to get good value from and there is the risk of holding the inferior made hand. Nothing makes sense to me on this board postflop with given action and stacksizes. All i can come up with is shitty scenarios. What is the plan if we agreed that leading flop was correct? Throwing more money into the wind unimproved as happened here? I'm lost.

betting small on turn like hero did seems fine to me since it gives us a decent price to draw.

as far as building a pot with small flush draw, i guess it would be nice if we were drawing to the immortal nuts, but there's still tons of value in betting river when we hit. i don't get your point about the stacksizes - if we make a normal-sized vbet on river there's still about 130bb's behind, it's not like we're going to face a tough decision about stacking off anywhere.

Why would i want to give myself a good price at a chance to draw (we are oop and if the bet gets raised folding seems like the best option) to make a hand i will most likely not get value with anyway. A lot of improbable things have to go my way in order to see a positive outcome.

Pricing ourselves in to draw was exactly what i had in mind when i hinted at making small flushes on paired boards. It appears as a shitty idea.

As played action on turn:
#1 he didn't fold flop and nothing changed on the board, why would he fold to a small turnbet? His range is narrower than on flop plus he has already called once. The only thing i see him folding is a random float.
#2 we bet the turn small leaving us vulnerable to all kinds of sorcery, especially this deep. The strongest hands i can conceive getting value from are weak two pairs and a J with a shitty kicker and the later requires some very odd play from villain.

If we are so quick to lay down our hand to any resistance why are we building this pot and lighting money on fire?

I am still not convinced leading here is the best course of action.

On May 11 2013 18:05 cariadon wrote: Why would i want to give myself a good price at a chance to draw (we are oop and if the bet gets raised folding seems like the best option) to make a hand i will most likely not get value with anyway. A lot of improbable things have to go my way in order to see a positive outcome. Pricing ourselves in to draw was exactly what i had in mind when i hinted at making small flushes on paired boards. It appears as a shitty idea. As played action on turn: #1 he didn't fold flop and nothing changed on the board, why would he fold to a small turnbet? His range is narrower than on flop plus he has already called once. The only thing i see him folding is a random float. #2 we bet the turn small leaving us vulnerable to all kinds of sorcery, especially this deep. The strongest hands i can conceive getting value from are weak two pairs and a J with a shitty kicker and the later requires some very odd play from villain. If we are so quick to lay down our hand to any resistance why are we building this pot and lighting money on fire? I am still not convinced leading here is the best course of action.

leading turn allows us to set the price, instead of being forced to check-fold to a $5.5 bet or something. for the same reason you say he's not likely to fold much on turn besides flop floats, he's also unlikely to fold much on most rivers. therefore the combination of setting a cheaper price + the implied odds of getting paid off vs his overall range make leading turn +ev.

i think you're underestimating how much we profit from simply betting club rivers.