crazy nth level thinking vs lukie

im not sure how much the average small stakes grinder can get from this, but try putting both of us on hands.

ive seen lukie make some spewy plays the past couple days (which is a big deal because usually he is so nitty). however, he knows this and i think he is trying to play better.

ive been playing back at him alot the past few days, but today i was pretty straightforward. im not sure if he knows this.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $10 BB (2 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

saw flop|saw showdown

BB ($2014)
Hero ($1961)

Preflop: Hero is Button with x, x
Hero raises to $30, BB calls $20.

Flop: ($60) Thttp://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...iles/spade.gif, 9http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...iles/heart.gif, 8http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...es/diamond.gif (2 players)
BB checks, Hero bets $50, BB calls $50.

Turn: ($160) 6http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...iles/spade.gif (2 players)
BB checks, Hero checks.

River: ($160) 9http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...miles/club.gif (2 players)
BB checks, Hero bets $133, BB raises to $266, Hero raises to $1881, BB folds.

Final Pot: $2307

Headsup don't you raise almost any two from the button?

I think you look like you have 98 or T9, possibly a 96.

Lukie probably has a hand with a 7 in it.

from my POV, what about pushing a 7 or a purebluff on river to get him to fold a straight?

I'd think you're full of it. I dont see many hands that you'd push on the river that you'd also check behind on the turn with.

If you had two pair/set/straight I'd expect you to bet again on the turn.

If I had to put you on a hand it'd be two spades with a J.

gabe flopped a set. He checks the turn because lukie might not call any more w/out a striaght on this board, and if he boats up when Lukie hits a flush or straight, then he will stack him.

He hit his board, and didn't stack him, hence lukie must have had nothing better than TPWK.

Apparently the standard reads aren't right since we are supposedly dealing with some super advanced poker thinking here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zenbitz

gabe flopped a set. He checks the turn because lukie might not call any more w/out a striaght on this board, and if he boats up when Lukie hits a flush or straight, then he will stack him.

---

Giving a free card on a board that draw heavy is pretty bad if you have a set.

If he is drawing to a straight and hits, gabe doesn't fill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaNutsInYoEye

Giving a free card on a board that draw heavy is pretty bad if you have a set.

---

If you bet, he usually folds unless he has a straight in which case he will often raise and you have to put in more money with the worst hand or get blown off a legitimate draw. In a sense it's a reverse implied odds situation. You can also induce a loose river call or a bluff after showing weakness on the turn. I think checking behind on the turn with a set is a fine play.

I stand by my thinking that Gabe has a full house. He definitely could've checked two pair behind on that turn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaNutsInYoEye

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zenbitz

gabe flopped a set. He checks the turn because lukie might not call any more w/out a striaght on this board, and if he boats up when Lukie hits a flush or straight, then he will stack him.

---

Giving a free card on a board that draw heavy is pretty bad if you have a set.

---

One man's "pretty bad" is another's "crazy N-th level thinking"...

Quote:

---

If he is drawing to a straight and hits, gabe doesn't fill.

---

Hmm... maybe TOO crazy n-th level thinking...

It makes way too much sense that gabe has a full house so I think
he probably has some under pp or missed straight draw.

Guys, this is crazy n-th level thinking, so clearly he doesn't have a full house. He already told us the type of hand he probably had in one of the first replies.

looks to me like you both might have air

pretty hard to call you push without J7 or better

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dsaxton

Guys, this is crazy n-th level thinking, so clearly he doesn't have a full house. He already told us the type of hand he probably had in one of the first replies.

---

No, that is just what you are SUPPOSED to think he has... hence, full house. <grin>

The fact Gabe is capable of bluffing here puts Lukie to a tough decision. Although this looks a lot like air from Lukie. Fail that Lukie has a weak straight or under-full and min-raised the river for pot control.

Thinking further, would Gabe make this play with 7x? Perhaps to induce a heroic call, build mistrust and/or get Luke to fold a split?

do those saying lukie might have air, i doubt he would minraise with it, especially out of position. theres a chance but i think most players (not just lukie) would make a real raise size as a bluff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

do those saying lukie might have air, i doubt he would minraise with it, especially out of position. theres a chance but i think most players (not just lukie) would make a real raise size as a bluff

---

which is why it's a good bluff... since we re dealing "nth level thinking"

I think lukie has a 7, or possibly 9x.

approx. 1700 to win 700 from gabe's perspective when he thinks I'm never bluffing... doesn't seem like a good spot to bluff.

I think gabe filled up on the river here most of the time. I don't think he's betting air here on the river initially after checking back the turn because I probably snap call too much in these spots and he knows it.

It would be very sick if he was value betting a 9 then bluffed when I raised. lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

It would be very sick if he was value betting a 9 then bluffed when I raised. lol.

---

thanks!

So in other words:

Lukie: 7x
gabe: 9x

right?

i dont know; he folded and wont tell

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

i dont know; he folded and wont tell

---

lol. is this entire thread an attempt to get lukie to show his cards?

Thats some pretty crazy nth-level thinking!

gabe posts Lukiepwnage for metagame purposes.

regardless of his cards, this hand shows off some higher level thinking that should interest some of you

So you don't think lukie actually had a 7 at all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

regardless of his cards, this hand shows off some higher level thinking that should interest some of you

---

I think the play would have been better if it wasn't Lukie, however, this hand shows a good hand balancing strategy.

I think Gabe had 4 9's and so did Lukie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

i dont know; he folded and wont tell

---

interestingly enough, I don't even know what gabe had.

both of you just fess up to what you had.

q9, pretty sure lukie had a 7

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bode-ist

both of you just fess up to what you had.

---

I told gabe a while ago.. A7

once gabe threebets, lukie makes a huge EV mistake on this river no matter what doesn't he (assuming gayb is playing a balanced strategy)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

once gabe threebets, lukie makes a huge EV mistake on this river no matter what doesn't he (assuming gayb is playing a balanced strategy)?

---

This can't be right. I think you mean that I am put to a very tough decision and it's very hard to get it right, especially given that I know (even before this hand) he is capable of bluffing here. 'bluffing' a hand with a lot of showdown here, like Q9, from his end makes it even more complicated.

The game is so dynamic which is what makes it so hard.

FWIW, my plan was to induce this shove by min-raising and then call it. After running my timer down and thinking about it, I convinced myself otherwise. I still think it was a good fold.

I figured he'd call with hands like Q9 and most other stuff he was trying to get thin value from, fold the garbage, and occasionally bluff shove. I felt his range of bluff shoving would probably be wider then usual at 200bb deep, given how strangely I played the hand on all streets.

I think Renton just meant that with balanced strategy, and with a substantial amount of money in the pot, villan's call is always -EV, it's just a matter of which decision is less -EV.

I'm not sure this is the case with this decision. Just because someone has balanced strategy doesn't mean he's always putting opp in -EV situations does it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

gayb

---

the drunk "bahamas" gabe would fight you for saying this

i dont know how to respond to that. will someone plz tell me is joking? it would be too funny if he was trying to bring me down..

lol

<------------------- not in the esteemed FTR gabehater club.

fortunately i think the gabehater club has been disbanded now that ive chilled with doggz and lamb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

I think Renton just meant that with balanced strategy, and with a substantial amount of money in the pot, villan's call is always -EV, it's just a matter of which decision is less -EV.

I'm not sure this is the case with this decision. Just because someone has balanced strategy doesn't mean he's always putting opp in -EV situations does it?

---

folding is and always is neutral EV. Whether a call is +EV or -EV (or 0EV theoretically) depends on gayb's range.

We need a random girl to flash her boobs at us now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

i dont know how to respond to that. will someone plz tell me is joking? it would be too funny if he was trying to bring me down..

---

i was just kidding. I also voted "no" in the latest "do you hate gabe" survey. it just seemed like 2-3 times in teh bahamas thread you were ready to throw down.

yea i knew you were kidding, i should have quoted renton

BUT FUCK THAT SHIT LETS FIGHT

*FLASHES BOOBS*

whoops my bad

also, talking more about EV, gabe isn't this a pretty high risk / low reward bluff? Im not precisely working the math, but you have to make him fold at least like 80% of the time don't u?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

Quote:

---

folding is and always is neutral EV. Whether a call is +EV or -EV (or 0EV theoretically) depends on gayb's range.

---

how can this be true, theres 550 in the pot to be won.

---

Really?
If you fold you don't win anything 100% of the time. 100% * 0 = 0eV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swiggidy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

Quote:

---

folding is and always is neutral EV. Whether a call is +EV or -EV (or 0EV theoretically) depends on gayb's range.

---

how can this be true, theres 550 in the pot to be won.

---

Really?
If you fold you don't win anything 100% of the time. 100% * 0 = 0eV

---

whoops my bad

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

also, talking more about EV, gabe isn't this a pretty high risk / low reward bluff? Im not precisely working the math, but you have to make him fold at least like 80% of the time don't u?

---

instinct told me that he folds enough to make it good

renton continues to show why he's a world-class player

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

also, talking more about EV, gabe isn't this a pretty high risk / low reward bluff? Im not precisely working the math, but you have to make him fold at least like 80% of the time don't u?

---

instinct told me that he folds enough to make it good

---

is there any merit in a smaller raise that doesn't risk your entire stack, obviously if he shoves back then you'll be getting great pot odds but know 100% that your hand isn't good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gayb

BUT FUCK

---

nh gayb

owow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

also, talking more about EV, gabe isn't this a pretty high risk / low reward bluff? Im not precisely working the math, but you have to make him fold at least like 80% of the time don't u?

---

If it's a pure bluff, Lukie has to fold just over 75% of the time for this to be profitable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dsaxton

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

also, talking more about EV, gabe isn't this a pretty high risk / low reward bluff? Im not precisely working the math, but you have to make him fold at least like 80% of the time don't u?

---

If it's a pure bluff, Lukie has to fold just over 75% of the time for this to be profitable.

---

Another reason why Lukie probably has to fold.

Isn't there also this principle that you have to be able to bluff in pretty much every situation (vs regulars/people paying attention) if you want to get paid in that situation too.

About betting less to bluff.. I remember this hand (50NL HU) I was playing with 2 friends. By the river we had a busted FD so my friend says "ok, shove", but me and the other guy were like "too risky man.. let's bet 2/3 pot". So we did, villain shoved over it, we folded and he showed air. That was pretty educational for me.. not only were we giving him a better price to look us up, we were also putting ourselves at risk to get rebluffed..