call

i don't see any options other than call, and it's a happy call

On July 03 2014 20:12 fira wrote: i don't see any options other than call, and it's a happy call

I raised to 25 and he folded

My question is, wtf does he do this with?

idk, it seems like a fishy play overall, to minraise on a drawy board OOP

if he was noticeably newbish i'd put him on set or 2pairs "trying to get value"

if reg then... i don't even know. just seems like a terrible play that decent players don't make

On July 03 2014 21:34 fira wrote: idk, it seems like a fishy play overall, to minraise on a drawy board OOP if he was noticeably newbish i'd put him on set or 2pairs "trying to get value" if reg then... i don't even know. just seems like a terrible play that decent players don't make

he is a reg. I get the impression he wants us to call and he has a draw that doesn't want to get raised, like KQ. Maybe I'm wrong though.

i think he put you on a draw for the flop

Standard to flat pre here?

--- Nuked ---

--- Nuked ---

On July 04 2014 07:19 Rapoza wrote: Show nested quote + On July 03 2014 20:58 GoTuNk wrote:   On July 03 2014 20:12 fira wrote: i don't see any options other than call, and it's a happy call I raised to 25 and he folded My question is, wtf does he do this with? 66~99

ty, this makes a lot of sense, the "raise for free showdown" non sense. I think the most important is the obvious sizing tell, if he had a set he would make it 16-18.

pre and flop def seem like lighting money on fire to me, but I guess if you call this wide pre and nobody squeezes or calls behind you it'd be semi obligatory to float and pray that he stops barreling on low cards or flush turns.
Raising turn could be a mistake but calling never is. I have no idea wtf being nitty has to do with this, what is your value shoving range here anyway? If you have no idea what villain is doing and you have a ton of outs(disguised too) and position wtf would you ever ship over the small raise? You could even bluff the spades if nothing else works out for you. Sure it turns out he had something weak that he folded but how certain were you before he folded? I've seen fish take this line with sets or perceived nuts plenty of times.
my 2c

Can't really raise turn for free showdown oop so not sure why he would attempt that. I also think the pre call is w/e it's fine and having done that calling the flop > folding. Over half the turn cards are good for us

do you understand how wide a range containing stuff like 89s from utg+1 is? Hero isn't on the button, which would make this depending on the blinds' stats.
When you flat stuff like this villain will be 2-3 barreling draws that dominate your own so often and if they're any close to being decent with their turn play (or imbalanced in the sense that they barrel too much)you are fucked.
Obviously if you flat this wide pre you are also really exploitable to anyone who might notice (and to anyone who doesn't even notice but will squeeze anyway)
Even if the other guys call pre instead of raising, we are at a constant positional disadvantage without the initiative multiway.
I mean I am stating the super obvious here but you guys seem to think otherwise, so enlighten me

On July 04 2014 15:32 lebowski wrote: do you understand how wide a range containing stuff like 89s from utg+1 is?

Not very wide, you basically can go to about 7.7% calling range like dis QQ-66, AQs-ATs, KJs+, QJs, JTs, T9s, 98s, AQo+

basically there's a 4% equity gap vs utg range wbetween e.g. KTs and 89s and it can be argued that 89s is preferable because of board coverage and because hands like KTs QTs flop dominated top pairs more often, and you have enough Kx Qx in the first place I assume?

It definitely is not exploitable - that range is straight from Janda's book, whether hands like 87s 98s are better to go to call range as opposed to QTs KTs J9s A9s KQo (thats a 3bet hand tho ) is unclear really and without a huge database against regs you won't prove either
If you can realize enough % equity by all means all can be flatted but then you are exploitable as you said.

as to flop
if you ignore the equity he realizes on next streets vs our range with his e.g. 2 overs, 1 over etc. you need to defend 62% of your range. Less if he's nitty, more if he's too loose

take dis
QQ-66, AQs-ATs, KJs+, QJs, JTs, T9s, 98s, 87s, AQo+
=100combos on flop

QQ-JJ, 99-66, AdKh, AdKs, AdKc, AhKd, AsKd, AcKd, AdQd, AsQs, KdQd, KsQs, AdJd, AsJs, KdJd, KsJs, QdJd, QsJs, AhTh, AsTs, AcTc, JhTh, JsTs, JcTc, ThTs, ThTc, TsTc, Th9h, Ts9s, Tc9c
aka any AK with a spade, Tx and 2overs+backdoors fds+all pairs
=64combos we continue with, seems enough already
+AsQx and we call too much on flop pretty much really no need to call hands like these on flop.


This hand does have good backdoor potential tho, 10backdoor diamond outs+4straight draw outs out of which 1 straight flush, 8 gutter draws. I dunno I'm too floaty IP as well people cbet give up too much but if you play someone good I can see that folding this hand should be desirable on flop

interesting read, to prefer 89s over K10s seems to me absurd, although clearly instinctively ( I prefer better pair+ draw value though I agree there's merit in board coverage). In zoom people squeeze a lot, they also 3bet random hands vs ep very often and this play seems to me -ev overall.
I've seen eg sauce playing far tighter with his flats from utg+1, even at very low limits where he is expected to crash his competition postflop.
It would be interesting if GoTunk filtered the hands in his database to utg+1 flatted 89s 910s to see if he is in the green over a big sample. If it works, don't fix it obv

On July 04 2014 16:01 LemOn[5thF] wrote: Show nested quote + On July 04 2014 15:32 lebowski wrote: do you understand how wide a range containing stuff like 89s from utg+1 is? Not very wide, you basically can go to about 7.7% calling range like dis QQ-66, AQs-ATs, KJs+, QJs, JTs, T9s, 98s, AQo+ basically there's a 4% equity gap vs utg range wbetween e.g. KTs and 89s and it can be argued that 89s is preferable because of board coverage and because hands like KTs QTs flop dominated top pairs more often, and you have enough Kx Qx in the first place I assume? It definitely is not exploitable - that range is straight from Janda's book, whether hands like 87s 98s are better to go to call range as opposed to QTs KTs J9s A9s KQo (thats a 3bet hand tho ) is unclear really and without a huge database against regs you won't prove either If you can realize enough % equity by all means all can be flatted but then you are exploitable as you said.

who in the cunting shit is Janda, i see you mention him so often and ive never seen his name anywhere else

If I was utg+1 I would much rather flat an UTG open with 89s rather than K10s. K10 is always fold there; dominated way too much and can never call 3bets whereas with 89s You can some % and be balanced if deep enoug

--- Nuked ---

On July 04 2014 20:02 Rapoza wrote: Show nested quote + On July 04 2014 14:08 lebowski wrote: Raising turn could be a mistake but calling never is. Given the way you played your last 20 hands I assume you are a winning player so i'll just say this... glad to know NL50 is still juice. (no offense)

Given the way you worded your last comment I take turn to assume you are most probably not a likeable person. Make a proper insult at least, why do you have to put the "no offense" douchebaggery in the mix
If you really wanted to comment on the quality of my last 20 hands you could start by getting more specific, but no, you just wanted to offend me "no offense" style

On July 04 2014 18:38 traxamillion wrote: If I was utg+1 I would much rather flat an UTG open with 89s rather than K10s. K10 is always fold there; dominated way too much and can never call 3bets whereas with 89s You can some % and be balanced if deep enoug

You might be right on KTs>89s utg+1 but I still think they are both better folded

On July 04 2014 18:27 bigredhoss wrote: Show nested quote + On July 04 2014 16:01 LemOn[5thF] wrote:   On July 04 2014 15:32 lebowski wrote: do you understand how wide a range containing stuff like 89s from utg+1 is? Not very wide, you basically can go to about 7.7% calling range like dis QQ-66, AQs-ATs, KJs+, QJs, JTs, T9s, 98s, AQo+ basically there's a 4% equity gap vs utg range wbetween e.g. KTs and 89s and it can be argued that 89s is preferable because of board coverage and because hands like KTs QTs flop dominated top pairs more often, and you have enough Kx Qx in the first place I assume? It definitely is not exploitable - that range is straight from Janda's book, whether hands like 87s 98s are better to go to call range as opposed to QTs KTs J9s A9s KQo (thats a 3bet hand tho ) is unclear really and without a huge database against regs you won't prove either If you can realize enough % equity by all means all can be flatted but then you are exploitable as you said. who in the cunting shit is Janda, i see you mention him so often and ive never seen his name anywhere else

he wrote dis

Still prolly best thing there is on the subject?

im telling you, he put you on a flush draw on the flop. it's not so much about what he has, but what he thinks you have.