Floating

[x] floating itt. Villain actually had a plan to bet spade rivers, as a bluff because he believed villain's range was weak. Floating does not mean you continue with little to no equity. Here villain had some outs, and just so happened to hit his outs.

Whether the decision to float or not was prudent, given his stack size, I probably wouldn't. After villains bet on the river, he has like $0.53c behind. So in most cases on any river that he does bet, we don't stand to have much fold equity (presumably). On the rivers, he does check, then maybe, however, as evident by the way he played this hand (results. use for future hands), he isn't likely to check the river, even with his marginal hands (QQ obv).

Regarding whether the turn call was +EV or not, I'm not going to do the math right now because I'm in class, and also not 100% sure how to go about it at this time. But given typical 2nl villains, I doubt he is folding often to a shove, especially if he bets the river, so bluff raising spade rivers, probably isn't going to be as profitable as you think.

My reference to the TAGG/LAGG statement was in an attempt to say how useless using those description tags are. They do not describe villain's tendencies or leaks, and therefore does not determine how you should adjust to exploit him. And also the fact that villain's typically try to make +EV plays. Why does aggressive plays like c/raising, or bluff raising flops, double/triple barreling, even if +EV, need to be used to describe a player? If the play was the most +EV, then it was correct, and therefore should be done. Why does a player that takes those plays, need to be classified as anything other than a good player? Why does folding KK on a QJ7tt board to someone raising your cbet classify me as a TAG, if the fold was correct against villain's range?

And another note, don't play anything with a bigger gap than 2 (unless it's a button open). You can never flop a strong draw (no OESD), and your gutter isn't going to be the gutter to the nuts. This means you're playing a hand that you're trying to play with good implied odds that has huge reverse implied odds, which is sooooo counter-intuitive.

False. And this just goes to show how bad general statements are in poker. Are you really folding ATs in the CO because it has more than 2 gaps? Obviously not (I hope). I knew this wasn't what you meant, but how could I be sure (lol general stateaments).

But I'm still not playing KT. Ha.

Then you are intentionally passing on clear +EV plays. And if this is the case, then I really should stop wasting my time responds to your threads. I have shown that against a percieving limping range KT has more equity than T6. And also stated that that's mere pot equity, and that KT will see far more favorable flops to bluff with, as well as allow villain to have more worse hands from which you can extra value from. But that reasoning has obviously failed to impress you.

Why would you knowingly take a 0EV play, when you could easily take a +EV line? It makes no sense.

Floating

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Threaded View

Posting Permissions

10-05-2009 12:51 PM #11
Stacks View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message View Blog Entries Join Date Jan 2008 Posts 4,015 Location Im opedipus bitch, the original balla.	[x] floating itt. Villain actually had a plan to bet spade rivers, as a bluff because he believed villain's range was weak. Floating does not mean you continue with little to no equity. Here villain had some outs, and just so happened to hit his outs. Whether the decision to float or not was prudent, given his stack size, I probably wouldn't. After villains bet on the river, he has like $0.53c behind. So in most cases on any river that he does bet, we don't stand to have much fold equity (presumably). On the rivers, he does check, then maybe, however, as evident by the way he played this hand (results. use for future hands), he isn't likely to check the river, even with his marginal hands (QQ obv). Regarding whether the turn call was +EV or not, I'm not going to do the math right now because I'm in class, and also not 100% sure how to go about it at this time. But given typical 2nl villains, I doubt he is folding often to a shove, especially if he bets the river, so bluff raising spade rivers, probably isn't going to be as profitable as you think. My reference to the TAGG/LAGG statement was in an attempt to say how useless using those description tags are. They do not describe villain's tendencies or leaks, and therefore does not determine how you should adjust to exploit him. And also the fact that villain's typically try to make +EV plays. Why does aggressive plays like c/raising, or bluff raising flops, double/triple barreling, even if +EV, need to be used to describe a player? If the play was the most +EV, then it was correct, and therefore should be done. Why does a player that takes those plays, need to be classified as anything other than a good player? Why does folding KK on a QJ7tt board to someone raising your cbet classify me as a TAG, if the fold was correct against villain's range? And another note, don't play anything with a bigger gap than 2 (unless it's a button open). You can never flop a strong draw (no OESD), and your gutter isn't going to be the gutter to the nuts. This means you're playing a hand that you're trying to play with good implied odds that has huge reverse implied odds, which is sooooo counter-intuitive. False. And this just goes to show how bad general statements are in poker. Are you really folding ATs in the CO because it has more than 2 gaps? Obviously not (I hope). I knew this wasn't what you meant, but how could I be sure (lol general stateaments). But I'm still not playing KT. Ha. Then you are intentionally passing on clear +EV plays. And if this is the case, then I really should stop wasting my time responds to your threads. I have shown that against a percieving limping range KT has more equity than T6. And also stated that that's mere pot equity, and that KT will see far more favorable flops to bluff with, as well as allow villain to have more worse hands from which you can extra value from. But that reasoning has obviously failed to impress you. Why would you knowingly take a 0EV play, when you could easily take a +EV line? It makes no sense.