What are you repping?

On March 22 2014 03:37 Trav94 wrote: What are you repping?

sets, (JQs ?)
This is good especially if villain can have some bluffs like T9s or AK

yeah basically, idk if its good to turn my hand into a bluff here thats why i posted

On March 22 2014 05:34 LemOn[5thF] wrote: Show nested quote + On March 22 2014 03:37 Trav94 wrote: What are you repping? sets, (JQs ?) This is good especially if villain can have some bluffs like T9s or AK

why would that make it good? this is good if he can have weak queens or AJ that he folds, or if he can call with worse than kj.

On March 22 2014 08:18 Liquid`Drone wrote: Show nested quote + On March 22 2014 05:34 LemOn[5thF] wrote:   On March 22 2014 03:37 Trav94 wrote: What are you repping? sets, (JQs ?) This is good especially if villain can have some bluffs like T9s or AK why would that make it good? this is good if he can have weak queens or AJ that he folds, or if he can call with worse than kj.

In terms of EV if call <0 vs his betting range it doesn't matter what he's folding even if we beat some part of the folding range. Especially at micros it's good to have some parts of his range always forced to autofold regardless of how light he calls.

ken what i mean pal?

this is like fps imho.

well sure it's an advantage if the guy folds as much as possible, it's just that him having more bluffs in his range is an argument for calling not raising. him having more slightly good hands that you that he folds or more slightly worse hands than yours that he calls would be an argument for raising.

you know what i mean though, say he bluffs 24.9% of the time here and rest of his hands beat us - even tho we know that EV of a call is still <0 so we have to fold.

The raise needs to work around 53% of the time, having some FE% guaranteed is always good as it just decreases the chunk of his value range he hast to fold - just to mention it as in this hand it probably applies and we shouldn't be afraid to turn the hand into a bluff - if we ever have a bluffing range here, this is one of the hands we should start with. And I really doubt calling is +ev in fullring ever

I think I know what you mean, but if I do, it means I think you're evaluating poker results wrongly. you're not supposed to be looking at hands from a "did I win money in this hand", you're supposed to be looking at "did I do optimally in this hand". If the guy has a lot of bluffs in his range, it might make it so that raising is +ev because he folds often. But his non-bluff range is what matters when you're determining whether to raise or to call; if he either has a straight or a bluff here, then raising is retarded, even if he bluffs 80% of the time and instant folds all those giving you a nice +ev from the raise. You want to minimize losses just as much as you want to maximize wins.

i think the river raise greatly depends on villain's tendencies. if you dunno them, it's pretty much a shot in the dark which may or may not be successful.

because your play makes little sense, some villains could fold as strong as low 2pair, whereas others will call with weakish hands like middle pair. in a vacuum it seems fine, but very exploitable if you make it a habit. it's a tough play to balance.

its rly simple Drone, you try to find the highest ev action
Ofc he needs to be folding value hands and if he didn't ev call is always >ev raise all my point was that he needs to fold less of them if he also has bluffs.


Also Fira I don't see how raising this hand is exploitable at all? if we agree that we can't call this hand should be the start of our bluffing range as it blocks JJ (KK but we expect fold from that some %) you won't be out of line if you use these three combos as I assume we have QQ JJ 44 (QJs) combos and unexploitable bluffing frequency is around 30% on the river

Don't like this line at all, either we call or fold, raise seems stupid. The only reason I can think of to raise is if you know how the guy plays, and you can tell that he has a shittier J, or that he can call with worse, which I don't think is likely at all.


I just use the hud in these cases, go through stats, af, wtsd, opening range, try to guess what he can have. Also, does he seem bluffy, just call, is he super nitty, why raise and waste money here?

On March 22 2014 08:18 Liquid`Drone wrote: Show nested quote + On March 22 2014 05:34 LemOn[5thF] wrote:   On March 22 2014 03:37 Trav94 wrote: What are you repping? sets, (JQs ?) This is good especially if villain can have some bluffs like T9s or AK why would that make it good? this is good if he can have weak queens or AJ that he folds, or if he can call with worse than kj.

yea lemon, drone is right. stick to basics, stop FPSing so hard

he didn't contradict me at all actually
bluffing vs a range that has air and not just made hands is better how's that not super simple oO

On March 22 2014 16:26 Mariuslol wrote: Don't like this line at all, either we call or fold, raise seems stupid. The only reason I can think of to raise is if you know how the guy plays, and you can tell that he has a shittier J, or that he can call with worse, which I don't think is likely at all. I just use the hud in these cases, go through stats, af, wtsd, opening range, try to guess what he can have. Also, does he seem bluffy, just call, is he super nitty, why raise and waste money here?

I assume calling seems really bad vs anyone so it's between raise or fold really

-that's what I mean in terms of our range if we ever want to bluff in this spot ruling out raising this hand just cause it's a made hand and we beat *some* (but not enough to call) portion of his betting range and in the end end up folding folding it but then raising stuff like KThh when this hand has better blockers would be pretty bad innit

bluffing as opposed to folding is better if his range includes bluffs
bluffing as opposed to calling is worse if his range includes bluffs.

On March 22 2014 17:53 Liquid`Drone wrote: bluffing as opposed to folding is better if his range includes bluffs bluffing as opposed to calling is worse if his range includes bluffs.

Congrats you proved that calling > folding

On March 22 2014 17:17 LemOn[5thF] wrote: Show nested quote + On March 22 2014 16:26 Mariuslol wrote: Don't like this line at all, either we call or fold, raise seems stupid. The only reason I can think of to raise is if you know how the guy plays, and you can tell that he has a shittier J, or that he can call with worse, which I don't think is likely at all. I just use the hud in these cases, go through stats, af, wtsd, opening range, try to guess what he can have. Also, does he seem bluffy, just call, is he super nitty, why raise and waste money here? I assume calling seems really bad vs anyone so it's between raise or fold really -that's what I mean in terms of our range if we ever want to bluff in this spot ruling out raising this hand just cause it's a made hand and we beat *some* (but not enough to call) portion of his betting range and in the end end up folding folding it but then raising stuff like KThh when this hand has better blockers would be pretty bad innit

calling is not necessarily bad...

and why is raising so good? you are trying to get him off a small range of hands AJ-AA (he never folds QJ his only realistic 2pair) that he may not even be folding

This is opponent dependent, read dependent, and flow dependent, like most situations in poker. This raise may be brilliant or retarded or mediocre depending on our opponents range and his perceptions of us.

Most players don't bluffraise rivers often, so this can look credible. On the other hand, this is SSNL, where people love to bluff catch and not give credit..

At the very least, if you get called and lose, you will be guaranteed action in the future.

On March 22 2014 17:53 Liquid`Drone wrote: bluffing as opposed to folding is better if his range includes bluffs bluffing as opposed to calling is worse if his range includes bluffs.

If he folds a lot of the hands he value bets that beat us but also has bluffs in his range then raising is better as opposed to calling even though his range includes bluffs.

Say someone vbets very light on the river, has 100 value combos all of which beat us and 24 bluff combos we are getting 25% pot odds =>we can't profitably call. EV call <0

say a raise needs to work 50% of the time

against a raise he folds 24 bluff combos and 39 value combos he bet on the river, calls with 61 combos. The EV of the raise >0

So clearly in that case we should raise even tho 39% of the hands we expect him to fold we already beat, the ev of the raise is higher and call is unprofitable


Seems really straightforward to me if statement #2 were true you'd never turn anything into a bluff even though he folds 100% value bets to a raise and bluffs say 1/200 times and always prefer calling

On March 23 2014 03:14 traxamillion wrote: Show nested quote + On March 22 2014 17:17 LemOn[5thF] wrote:   On March 22 2014 16:26 Mariuslol wrote: Don't like this line at all, either we call or fold, raise seems stupid. The only reason I can think of to raise is if you know how the guy plays, and you can tell that he has a shittier J, or that he can call with worse, which I don't think is likely at all. I just use the hud in these cases, go through stats, af, wtsd, opening range, try to guess what he can have. Also, does he seem bluffy, just call, is he super nitty, why raise and waste money here? I assume calling seems really bad vs anyone so it's between raise or fold really -that's what I mean in terms of our range if we ever want to bluff in this spot ruling out raising this hand just cause it's a made hand and we beat *some* (but not enough to call) portion of his betting range and in the end end up folding folding it but then raising stuff like KThh when this hand has better blockers would be pretty bad innit calling is not necessarily bad...

I dunno I assume - with these positions it'll be hard to expect someone to have 25% bluff combos
That's what makes me think having a few bluff combos might be good on the river as long as he's a decent reg that won't lolsnapcall AJ KQ AQ here, raising's most likely bad vs unknown (and fish).