Look at this...

[dsaxton]

Possibly the dumbest beat I've ever taken.

PokerStars Game #2799346952: Hold'em No Limit ($2/$4) - 2005/10/14 - 00:40:32 (ET)
Table 'Corduba' Seat #9 is the button
Seat 1: Goldenfaith ($361 in chips)
Seat 2: RexaRoo ($654.20 in chips)
Seat 3: oonyceguyoo ($452 in chips)
Seat 4: allin4funson ($475.15 in chips)
Seat 5: palson777 ($110.45 in chips)
Seat 6: dsaxton ($477.15 in chips)
Seat 7: Rotterdaum ($489 in chips)
Seat 8: MMatzo ($94 in chips)
Seat 9: Padouin ($398.10 in chips)
Goldenfaith: posts small blind $2
RexaRoo: posts big blind $4
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to dsaxton [Qd Qh]
oonyceguyoo: folds
allin4funson: calls $4
palson777: folds
dsaxton: raises $12 to $16
Rotterdaum: folds
MMatzo: folds
Padouin: calls $16
Goldenfaith: folds
RexaRoo: folds
allin4funson: calls $12
*** FLOP *** [4h 3s 8h]
allin4funson: checks
dsaxton: bets $24
Padouin: calls $24
allin4funson: folds
*** TURN *** [4h 3s 8h] [Ts]
dsaxton: bets $36
Padouin: calls $36
*** RIVER *** [4h 3s 8h Ts] [Qs]
dsaxton: checks
Padouin: bets $154
dsaxton: raises $247.15 to $401.15 and is all-in
Padouin: calls $168.10 and is all-in
*** SHOW DOWN ***
dsaxton: shows [Qd Qh] (three of a kind, Queens)
Padouin: shows [Jh 9d] (a straight, Eight to Queen)
Padouin collected $815.20 from pot
dsaxton said, "wtf?"
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $818.20 | Rake $3
Board [4h 3s 8h Ts Qs]
Seat 1: Goldenfaith (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 2: RexaRoo (big blind) folded before Flop
Seat 3: oonyceguyoo folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 4: allin4funson folded on the Flop
Seat 5: palson777 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: dsaxton showed [Qd Qh] and lost with three of a kind, Queens
Seat 7: Rotterdaum folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 8: MMatzo folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 9: Padouin (button) showed [Jh 9d] and won ($815.20) with a straight, Eight to Queen

[jmontis]

I see stuff like this playing limit, the fish get nervous and just hit call, call, and make that 2% draw or whatever.

It's not as common in NL unless you're up against some real guppies

[dsaxton]

I see stuff like this playing limit, the fish get nervous and just hit call, call, and make that 2% draw or whatever.

It's not as common in NL unless you're up against some real guppies

You usually have odds to chase pairs in limit, and oftentimes turning or rivering top pair will be enough to win a sizable pot. You can usually even get people to keep committing chips with middle pairs after you hit. This is just obnoxious.

[Fnord]

{moved because there is some GREAT poker content here and OP doesn't get it }

I see stuff like this playing limit, the fish get nervous and just hit call, call, and make that 2% draw or whatever.

It's not as common in NL unless you're up against some real guppies

You usually have odds to chase pairs in limit, and oftentimes turning or rivering top pair will be enough to win a sizable pot. You can usually even get people to keep committing chips with middle pairs after you hit. This is just obnoxious.

If you think your opponent played this so horribly, then you suck at poker math. I will agree that he did play it bad, but your under-bets and failure to get a read before you got into a hand with him cost you a lot of $$$ here.

I didn't pay much attention to how big my bet was. I just rolled the ball on my mouse a bit and clicked "bet," but I don't think it matters a whole lot. I don't see why every bet has to be pot-sized. It's not like I mind him calling with a marginal hand.

To be quite frank, I wonder if your posts are repesentitive of your play and thought process. I also wonder how well you run in that game and for how long.

[dsaxton]

{moved because there is some GREAT poker content here and OP doesn't get it }

I see stuff like this playing limit, the fish get nervous and just hit call, call, and make that 2% draw or whatever.

It's not as common in NL unless you're up against some real guppies

You usually have odds to chase pairs in limit, and oftentimes turning or rivering top pair will be enough to win a sizable pot. You can usually even get people to keep committing chips with middle pairs after you hit. This is just obnoxious.

If you think your opponent played this so horribly, then you suck at poker math. I will agree that he did play it bad.

I didn't pay much attention to how big my bet was. I just rolled the ball on my mouse a bit and clicked "bet," but I don't think it matters a whole lot. I don't see why every bet has to be pot-sized. It's not like I mind him calling with a marginal hand.

To be quite frank, I wonder if your posts are repesentitive of your play and thought process. I also wonder how well you run in that game and for how long.

I'm not sure how I suck at math because I think it's retarded to call my flop bet with J-9 offsuit against a likely overpair. What is the "math" that justifies his call?

And what is the great poker content? It's a runner-runner bad beat.

Do you think it's actually difficult to succeed in the $2/$4 NL games? It's not. I'm not sure why you'd think I wouldn't be able to. I only post a very small fraction of the hands I play, no one on this forum really has a complete picture of how I play.

I have no idea why you're suddenly trying to pick a fight with me. It's funny that you've already pasted one dumb thing I said in two different posts, both completely unrelated to what I said.

[Fnord]

I'm not sure how I suck at math because I think it's retarded to call my flop bet with J-9 offsuit against a likely overpair. What is the "math" that justifies his call?

You raised to 4x after a single limper then under-bet the flop. I see no reason to put you on an over-pair. I don't dispute that both calls are bad, but I think you're over-estimating how bad they are and being horribly results-oriented here.

Then he picks up a GREAT draw on the turn and you under-bet again and pay-off on the river with a silly check/raise instead of just value betting into a what looks to be a really lame calling station.

I have no idea why you're suddenly trying to pick a fight with me. It's funny that you've already pasted one dumb thing I said in two different posts, both completely unrelated to what I said in that post.

Lots of posts without reads at a stake where you should know better.

[Pingviini]

Betting less than half the pot on the flop is bad IMO. I would bet closer to $35. There arent any scary straight draws but a flush draw and some people at these stakes like to chase their AK, you are not getting them pot odds but still..

On turn you bet about 1/3 pot. Too small again imo, I can understand the ideology behind these bets but in a deep stack poker you should consider implied odds and not pot odds. Like calling half the pot isnt good enough pot odds wise with a nut flush draw but implied odds are good enough. As we all know.

I am really interested in hearing what did you think the guy has on the river.. If you think he has KK/AA you could also value bet there. If you think he is on a missed flush draw then I like your CR. Any reads on the guy before.

Fnord is being a bit harsh but he has a point here. I have seen some good hands from you dsaxton but I think you should consider the bet sizes a bit more. Might save you from these beats.

Fnord, I am sure that you as a limit player understand poker math better than me but please explain the math behind the flop call. It was truly horrible in my opinion, just plain horrible I would never call the bet if I were him. Turn call is obvious.

[dsaxton]

I'm not sure how I suck at math because I think it's retarded to call my flop bet with J-9 offsuit against a likely overpair. What is the "math" that justifies his call?

You raised to 4x after a single limper then under-bet the flop. I see no reason to put you on an over-pair. I don't dispute that both calls are bad, but I think you're over-estimating how bad they are and being horribly results-oriented here.

Then he picks up a GREAT draw on the turn and you under-bet again and pay-off on the river with a silly check/raise instead of just value betting into a what looks to be a really lame calling station.

I have no idea why you're suddenly trying to pick a fight with me. It's funny that you've already pasted one dumb thing I said in two different posts, both completely unrelated to what I said in that post.

Lots of posts without reads at a stake where you should know better.

The bets I made are pretty much perfectly standard in no limit cash games. Most decent players don't subscribe to the "bet the pot every street" philosophy that overcommits you to any hand where you have top pair or an overpair.

You aren't disputing that his calls are bad, so what are you disputing?

And it's not a "silly" check-raise. It's a check-raise against a player who was clearly on a draw on the flop and turn. It's a check-raise which makes a lot more sense than a value bet.

I play 5-8 tables where 80% of the players are terrible (evidently you think $2/$4 NL is full of sharks or something). It's not even worthwhile to gain highly specific reads on these players. And for having "no reads" I usually do a pretty good job predicting what the other guys cards are. Just because I don't post reads doesn't mean I don't have them.

[Fnord]

Fnord, I am sure that you as a limit player understand poker math better than me but please explain the math behind the flop call. It was truly horrible in my opinion, just plain horrible I would never call the bet if I were him. Turn call is obvious.

Floating around in position against a player making weak bets is not a horrible play. There still are lots of hands he could catch, or he could pick up the pot on a later street with some aggression.

[dsaxton]

Fnord is being a bit harsh but he has a point here. I have seen some good hands from you dsaxton but I think you should consider the bet sizes a bit more. Might save you from these beats.

"Underbetting" is not the reason for my bad beats. I'm talking flopping full houses and losing to a higher full house on the turn. Flopping straights and losing to runner-runner full houses and other stuff. Flopping an underset (which is more bad luck than a bad beat). Jamming the pot with pot-sized bets when you have only one pair is a great way to bury yourself when you happen to run into a hand which beats one pair.

And making so-called "underbets" is what allows me to buy pots cheaply, since I make the same bets with strong hands. Do you suggest you make a pot-sized bet every time you make a continuation bet, and risk losing much more than is necessary? Or do you try to buy the pot for less when you don't have a real hand, even though you'd be creating an obvious betting pattern which could be used to identify weakness?

[dsaxton]

To be quite frank, I wonder if your posts are repesentitive of your play and thought process. I also wonder how well you run in that game and for how long.

It's nice to hear all your encouragement for those who actually venture outside of small stakes.

[Fnord]

To be quite frank, I wonder if your posts are repesentitive of your play and thought process. I also wonder how well you run in that game and for how long.

It's nice to hear all your encouragement for those who actually venture outside of small stakes.

I'm glad I can count on those who have moved up to provide solid analysis and insight to those of us who would like to play bigger.

[Pingviini]

"Underbetting" is not the reason for my bad beats. I'm talking flopping full houses and losing to a higher full house on the turn. Flopping straights and losing to runner-runner full houses and other stuff. Flopping an underset (which is more bad luck than a bad beat). Jamming the pot with pot-sized bets when you have only one pair is a great way to bury yourself when you happen to run into a hand which beats one pair.

And making so-called "underbets" is what allows me to buy pots cheaply, since I make the same bets with strong hands. Do you suggest you make a pot-sized bet every time you make a continuation bet, and risk losing much more than is necessary? Or do you try to buy the pot for less when you don't have a real hand, even though you'd be creating an obvious betting pattern which could be used to identify weakness?

I didnt mean you should be betting the pot "all the time", I dont like to do that either. I do like to value bet and take those unwanted pots with half the pot bets. BUT I dont also like the idea of betting 1/3 when there are obvious straight AND flush draws on the board although you are HU here. IMO you give him implied odds to call. If he can get about 160 for that 36 he called he should call, and he sure did! instead of committing myself to the pot I tend to make my opponents think twice before calling on a draw.

[Fnord]

He makes a fair point, but then goes on to suggest that his opponents shouldn't make loose calls against him (always putting him on the over-pair) when he builds a strategy around making lots of continuation bets.

[dsaxton]

He makes a fair point, but then goes on to suggest that his opponents shouldn't make loose calls against him when he builds a strategy around making lots of continuation bets and always put him on an over-pair.

Um, I don't always make continuation bets. This scenario was specifically one in which a flop bet can be expected not to be a continuation bet with unimproved overcards. Calling with J-9 is completely absurd, I don't care about whatever fantastical argument about "implied odds" you can dream up. He made absurd calls which I want him to make, and it resulted in a bad beat. Next hand.

[Pingviini]

Fnord, what stakes NLHE do you play?

Normally making half the pot continuation bets if definitely worth it when against 1-2 opponents, you only have to take the pot down every third time to break even. I still cant see the point of calling with just two medium high overs, I would rather raise than call here to take the pot down against two overs.

You can always argue that villain was just looking for weakness on later streets and intended to take the pot down there but since we have no reads of his level of aggression it is hard to tell.

Seeing these kinds of opponents at these stakes gives me creeps. If I see my opponents calling with that kinda crap it sure makes my life harder cause then I will have to keep on firing second barrels, if and when I dont have reads good enough this will keep me running into monsters from time to time wasting money.

[Pingviini]

Dsaxton, I agree with you on the flop bet but do you still think that your turn bet was ok?

[Fnord]

Fnord, what stakes NLHE do you play?

I've played as high as the $200NL. Every now and then I'll fire up a $50 or $100 game for fun. There are a lot of holes in my game that have prevented me from going any higher. However, Dsaxton is screwing up some fundamental stuff here. Either he's wrong or I'm mistaken. Either way, I'm pressing the point.

Seeing these kinds of opponents at these stakes gives me creeps. If I see my opponents calling with that kinda crap it sure makes my life harder cause then I will have to keep on firing second barrels, if and when I dont have reads good enough this will keep me running into monsters from time to time wasting money.

Play deep stacked NLHE with Micheal1123 sometime. Doesn't flinch under a continuation bet, will call your ass down if he thinks he's good and put in you difficult spots all day.

So why are you NL guys posting so darn many hands without reads? As I see it, with deep money and big bets on later streets, you just can't play even routine hands as mindlessly as 80% of LHE hands.

[dsaxton]

Dsaxton, I agree with you on the flop bet but do you still think that your turn bet was ok?

I could've bet a little more, but it's not really a matter of life and death. A more standard amount would be about twice my flop bet, which only would've been $12 more than what I bet. The theory being to allow calls from marginal hands and not to overcommit myself to the hand.

By making pot-sized bets when the pot becomes large, you almost bar the possibility of getting paid off by weaker hands on the turn and river.

[dsaxton]

However, Dsaxton is screwing up some fundamental stuff here.

Like what?

[Fnord]

Like what?

Protecting your stack.
Adjusting your play based on reads.
Indentifing opponents that play lots of hands and make stupid calls, then over-betting your hands and playing for stacks with big pairs against them.
Making bets that give draws incorrect (implied) odds to call so fold/call decisions are lose/lose for your opponent. Then not caring much what they do.
Determining the merits of a play based on the range of holdings they could have on every street, instead of fixating on the hand they happened to showdown.

[dsaxton]

Like what?

Protecting your stack.
Adjusting your play based on reads.
Indentifing opponents that play lots of hands and make stupid calls, then over-betting your hands and playing for stacks with big pairs against them.
Making bets that give draws incorrect (implied) odds to call so fold/call decisions are lose/lose for your opponent. Then not caring much what they do.
Determining the merits of a play based on the range of holdings they could have on every street, instead of fixating on the hand they happened to showdown.

I protect my stack, I adjust my play depending on the player, I identify calling stations and play accordingly against them, and I gauge the correctness of my decision based about my assessment of the players hand and how he plays. What else?

[Fnord]

I protect my stack, I adjust my play depending on the player, I identify calling stations and play accordingly against them, and I gauge the correctness of my decision based about my assessment of the players hand and how he plays. What else?

Your posts do not reflect this.

[dsaxton]

I protect my stack, I adjust my play depending on the player, I identify calling stations and play accordingly against them, and I gauge the correctness of my decision based about my assessment of the players hand and how he plays. What else?

Your posts do not reflect this.

How is that?

I apologize if I don't put enough "This guy plays like this," in my posts.

[Fnord]

Your posts do not reflect this.

How is that?

I apologize if I don't put enough "This guy plays like this," in my posts.

We now have reached an understanding. The more I've come back to study 100BB+ NLHE, the more I've come to realize that this is probably more imporant than just about anything else. Certainly more important than pre-flop hole cards and probably as important as position.

[dsaxton]

Your posts do not reflect this.

How is that?

I apologize if I don't put enough "This guy plays like this," in my posts.

We now have reached an understanding. The more I've come back to study 100BB+ NLHE, the more I've come to realize that this is probably more imporant than just about anything else. Certainly more important than pre-flop hole cards and probably as important as position.

I never said it isn't.

And I really don't care about the assumptions you make about my play just because I don't include specific reads in my posts much of the time.

[Fnord]

And I really don't care about the assumptions you make about my play just because I don't include specific reads in my posts much of the time.

Why would you post interesting hands without providing enough information for others to give good feedback? If you did so, why would you bother giving the feedback from such posts much merit?

[homeboy604]

yah thats a rough beat. bad on him for chasing like that, but there were two problems with that hand. not enough bet on the flop. A little more and hes likely folding.
the river.....he just calles the whole way then punches the river? there are 3 spades on board and a straight possibility.
its tough to lay down that q on the end tho...if it hadnt come it would be an easier fold.

[dsaxton]

yah thats a rough beat. bad on him for chasing like that, but there were two problems with that hand. not enough bet on the flop. A little more and hes likely folding.
the river.....he just calles the whole way then punches the river? there are 3 spades on board and a straight possibility.
its tough to lay down that q on the end tho...if it hadnt come it would be an easier fold.

1.) I don't want him folding.
2.) I've learned that's it's generally smart to proceed cautiously with an overpair when you're flat-called on a raggy, uncoordinated flop by a player who only called a preflop raise.
3.) It came running spades / running straight cards, why would I be worried about a flush or a straight?

[arkana]

1.) I don't want him folding.
2.) I've learned that's it's generally smart to proceed cautiously with an overpair when you're flat-called on a raggy, uncoordinated flop by a player who only called a preflop raise.
3.) It came running spades / running straight cards, why would I be worried about a flush or a straight?

You played the first two streets correctly and misplayed the other two. Your opponent did the opposite. Fortunately for him the bets increase almost almost exponentially towards the later streets.

Preflop and flop is fine (out of position with a flush draw on the board i think your flop bet should have been closer to pot though), but you messed up the turn and the river.

The weak bet on the turn will cause you to be played back at by aggressive opponents and gives them the option to draw cheaply should they wish to do so. Your opponent could have the hearts draw or the spades draw now. Just because the spade flush draw appeared on the turn doesn't mean the opponent can't have it. From your other posts it looks like you raise with lots of hands, therefore it won't be too unlikely for an opponent with AK of spades to call your flop bet because they lose respect for your continuation bets. Be aware of what your table image is. I don't know what hands led up to this, but if you were winning a lot of hands without showdown and\or showing down hands like 67s when you raised preflop you should expect people to make calls against you that they wouldn't make against a guy who has folded the last two orbits. You have to pot that turn in my opinion, there are just too many draws.

On the river its a call or a fold IMO.

[bencathers]

The river is a call or fold as well imo.

Anyway, I can see the guy's feelings on the hand. He simply didn't put you on an overpair (what is your image at this point - from what I've seen of your posts, you are rather laggy, raising with hands like 6-7 and so fourth) and he either put you down on the junk cards or high cards.

If he has no read on you, he probably put you on high cards and felt if a jack or 9 (since he had overcards on the flop) hit, he was going to win the pot (he was wrong, but he was probably thinking a j or a 9 would of won it)... on the turn he picked up a nice draw and saw his outs open up a bit (he didn't know there were only two queens left)... and saw it as more of a chance (it's fishy, but it happens... maybe he also felt he could bluff you on the river if a low card hit).

I bet anyone that if a 9 or a J hit on the river, he would of made the same bet he made there, truly thinking he had the best hand... I think almost as a counter to what fnord was mentioning, I think in this analysis, we should of had a discussion on what this guy's read was on you, and base his play on his read... because if he read that you were either on high cards, Ax or a laggy image, his play makes much more sense.... especially since your betting seemed a little scared (to him, we all know you were betting like that because you wanted to keep him in the hand)

And I bet if an ace fell on the flop or turn, he may of been doubting his J or 9 paring up would of won the hand... but your betting would of probably slowed down with an ace

[dsaxton]

Preflop and flop is fine (out of position with a flush draw on the board i think your flop bet should have been closer to pot though), but you messed up the turn and the river.

The weak bet on the turn will cause you to be played back at by aggressive opponents and gives them the option to draw cheaply should they wish to do so.

On the river its a call or a fold IMO.

See point number two about my turn play. Personally, I don't like to lose a huge chunk of my stack with one pair.

Players at this level are not aggressive in general. They're passive.

On the river, you're suggesting I check-call or check-fold with top set because I'm afraid of a runner straight or flush? This is completely ludicrous and is pure hindsight based on the results of the hand, not on the information available to me during play. I'm sure he'd thank me for this play if he had a hand like 8-8.

I'm sort of amazed at the kind of crazy stuff I'm hearing from the members of this forum. Chasing a runner-runner on the basis of implied odds, having "odds" to call a flop bet with J-9 offsuit with no pair and no draw because you'll win 20% of the time by the river against a weighted average of random raising hands, check-folding top set because you're afraid of your opponent being on a runner-runner straight or flush. Are you guys on drugs?

[dsaxton]

The river is a call or fold as well imo.

Anyway, I can see the guy's feelings on the hand. He simply didn't put you on an overpair (what is your image at this point - from what I've seen of your posts, you are rather laggy, raising with hands like 6-7 and so fourth) and he either put you down on the junk cards or high cards.

If he has no read on you, he probably put you on high cards and felt if a jack or 9 (since he had overcards on the flop) hit, he was going to win the pot (he was wrong, but he was probably thinking a j or a 9 would of won it)... on the turn he picked up a nice draw and saw his outs open up a bit (he didn't know there were only two queens left)... and saw it as more of a chance (it's fishy, but it happens... maybe he also felt he could bluff you on the river if a low card hit).

I bet anyone that if a 9 or a J hit on the river, he would of made the same bet he made there, truly thinking he had the best hand... I think almost as a counter to what fnord was mentioning, I think in this analysis, we should of had a discussion on what this guy's read was on you, and base his play on his read... because if he read that you were either on high cards, Ax or a laggy image, his play makes much more sense.... especially since your betting seemed a little scared (to him, we all know you were betting like that because you wanted to keep him in the hand)

And I bet if an ace fell on the flop or turn, he may of been doubting his J or 9 paring up would of won the hand... but your betting would of probably slowed down with an ace

You're defending him calling my flop bet with jack high to chase a six out pair draw, even with another player in the hand, with absolutely no potential for extracting additional value from a worse hand if he hits? This is madness. Do you also advocate chasing insight straight draws? The two are almost statistically identical, except a pair hardly has any value on the turn or river. He could even already be drawing dead to a runner-runner against at least one of his opponents.

If he puts me on junk or overcards (neither of which are very likely after I continue on the flop against two opponents out of position), then he should raise, not call. Calling with jack high makes no sense whatsoever. This feels like the twilight zone or something. Has this forum lost its collective mind?

[arkana]

See point number two about my turn play. Personally, I don't like to lose a huge chunk of my stack with one pair.

Players at this level are not aggressive in general. They're passive.

On the river, you're suggesting I check-call or check-fold with top set because I'm afraid of a runner straight or flush? This is completely ludicrous and is pure hindsight based on the results of the hand, not on the information available to me during play. I'm sure he'd thank me for this play if he had a hand like 8-8.

I'm sort of amazed at the kind of crazy stuff I'm hearing from the members of this forum. Chasing a runner-runner on the basis of implied odds, having "odds" to call a flop bet with J-9 offsuit with no pair and no draw because you'll win 20% of the time by the river against a weighted average of random raising hands, check-folding top set because you're afraid of your opponent being on a runner-runner straight or flush. Are you guys on drugs?

Dude I know you got some harsh replies and I know your opponents flop call was horrible, but giving your opponent ~ 4:1 on the turn is a mistake and I think raising the river gets no extra value from the hands that you have beat. Given an aggro table image your opponent might call the flop with a wide range of hands, which doesn't make it unlikely that he could pick up a nice draw on the turn with his overcards. If you aren't going to protect against these draws then don't pay them off.

The bets I made are pretty much perfectly standard in no limit cash games. Most decent players don't subscribe to the "bet the pot every street" philosophy that overcommits you to any hand where you have top pair or an overpair

Not true. Pot control yes, worthless bets no.

[dsaxton]

Dude I know you got some harsh replies and I know your opponents flop call was horrible, but giving your opponent ~ 4:1 on the turn is a mistake and I think raising the river gets no extra value from the hands that you have beat. Given an aggro table image your opponent might call the flop with a wide range of hands, which doesn't make it unlikely that he could pick up a nice draw on the turn with his overcards. If you aren't going to protect against these draws then don't pay them off.


Not true. Pot control yes, worthless bets no.

To protect against what draw? Once you play poker for a while, you learn to put players on hands. He called my bet on a flop of 3, 4, 8. What are his possible holdings at this point? I considered 3-3, 4-4, 8-8 all distinct possibilities, as well as A-8, 10-10, J-J or 5-6. The first three have my hand dominated, while I dominate the second three. He'll fold a hand like A-8 to almost any sort of a bet on the turn (not that I really mind him calling), while J-J is still dominated on the turn and 10-10 just outdrew me (although it's less likely that he's holding 10-10 now). The only drawing hand I'm concerned with is 5-6, and given the wide range of his possible holdings (most of which are made hands given the nature of the flop), 5-6 is statistically unlikely. In situations where you're likely either way ahead or way behind, there is no reason to make massive bets to "protect the pot," and in fact it's bad poker. This is the reasoning behind not making a huge pot-sized bet on the turn, even though textbook robot poker says you're always supposed to.

Explain to me how my bet is "worthless."

[bencathers]

You're defending him calling my flop bet with jack high to chase a six out pair draw, even with another player in the hand, with absolutely no potential for extracting additional value from a worse hand if he hits? This is madness. Do you also advocate chasing insight straight draws? The two are almost statistically identical, except a pair hardly has any value on the turn or river. He could even already be drawing dead to a runner-runner against at least one of his opponents.

If he puts me on junk or overcards (neither of which are very likely after I continue on the flop against two opponents out of position), then he should raise, not call. Calling with jack high makes no sense whatsoever. This feels like the twilight zone or something. Has this forum lost its collective mind?

I'm not saying his play is good, it is very, very fishy... what I'm trying to present is why HE made this play. Sometimes, in order to beat the fish, you have to understand their thinking. He's honestly believing if he hits a J or a 9 on the turn or river (based on the flop) that HE can beat you. Was that the right assumption? NO and its a terrible play by him. But, this was HIS mindset and he was able to hit the ridiculous runner runner straight.

Sometimes when this happens, you have to understand their mindset. It's the same as people who call down with jack high.

These types of hands are why this guy keeps playing, because he'll keep doing this and thinking it happens again and again. You are a ridiculously solid player and over the long run you completely own him... but all of this was his mindset... and it was wrong, dead wrong, but sometimes poker rewards incompetence

[arkana]

dsaxton there is a flush draw on the flop, so he could still be drawing to that. Your turn bet is worthless because you are giving him odds to draw. The range of hands you put him on is questionable IMO, why cant he have two hearts, two overcards or a pair + a flushdraw etc? Because you made a half pot bet on the flop?

[dsaxton]

dsaxton there is a flush draw on the flop, so he could still be drawing to that. Your turn bet is worthless because you are giving him odds to draw. The range of hands you put him on is questionable IMO, why cant he have two hearts, two overcards or a pair + a flushdraw etc? Because you made a half pot bet on the flop?

I just saw that. So I probably should have bet more. Regardless, even if he has odds to draw, I still win money if he calls since I'm the favorite. It's never "worthless" to bet with the best hand.

[Silly String]

I just saw that. So I probably should have bet more. Regardless, even if he has odds to draw, I still win money if he calls since I'm the favorite. It's never "worthless" to bet with the best hand.

That just proves Fnord's point about your understanding of pot odds and implied odds.

[dsaxton]

I just saw that. So I probably should have bet more. Regardless, even if he has odds to draw, I still win money if he calls since I'm the favorite. It's never "worthless" to bet with the best hand.

That just proves Fnord's point about your understanding of pot odds and implied odds.

LOL. I challenge you to show how my post shows a lack of understand of pot odds or implied odds. I bet you can't do it.

I understand basic math and probability theory. I understood it very well before I even started playing poker. I have a post where I explain why you only expect to win money betting with the best hand, assuming your hand will always go to a showdown, but I don't feel like finding it. It's pretty much basic algebra.

I think it's time for me to quit posting on this sad forum if this is how everyone decides to treat regulars.

Does anybody else have any random criticisms to make? If not, I wish everybody luck.

[arkana]

Dont take it personally, we all make mistakes (i still make loads) and in my opinion a lot of the posts were overly harsh. Fnord is just a cold analytical bastard (he worked for microsoft, nuff said) and the rest of us just want to take a shot at a guy playing higher stakes than us. BUT you know you didn't play the hand as well as you could and you can learn from it and after all that is the reason why all of us are here.

[Kiriath]

heres my 2 cents.

I see ur points on the weak flop bets, and in pratice it works quite well when u mix it between good hands and just continuation bets.

but if I were u I woulda bet more like 3/4 the pot on the turn, too many draws. and the weak hands that called u on the flop will most likely still call u on the turn if u make this bet.

about the river, well bad luck. I would prolly do the check reraise as well, or bet then rereraise. You just have to pay him here since u got so many other hands beat ( lower sets, two pair etc).

basically, this is what it boils down to: When u make weak bets on the early streets u get alot of weak hands to pay u off, but once in a while ppl will runner runner u, if u cant take that, dont make those weak bets. I cant deal with the emoitional stress this kinda play gives me atm, so I bet stronger, but if ur up for the occational bad beat, sure go ahead and invite em in.

in the end its up to u.