Duttywinee
15 points
UTG: shevliak: $6553.54
CO: fish2013: $7874.65
BN: mexican222: $4433.90
SB: ac1dd: $8760.78
fish2013 wins and shows two pair, Jacks and Fives.
fish2013 wins $14276.90
Rake is $3.00
Oct. 20, 2014 | 9:39 p.m.
I'd say i have good points, and some bad points. Mainly being my 3bet pots vs good thinking regs who defend properly and other than that river decisions.
The second thing i find frustrating is maintaining confidence in my ability to beat the stakes. I've only just started to get enough confidence to tackle 25nl at volume and even then it feels like the money means more than the game. I am winning player for 2 years now and i believe if i fine tuned my leaks through coaching i could become an absolute grind machine. That's the long term goal anyways. If anyone would like to propose themselves to tutor me.
I lost my database over a year ago and this is what i have left:
Here it is:
Oct. 3, 2014 | 2:59 p.m.
In short: i led into 4 other players with the 2nd nut straight aiming to get calls off worse hands which would look something like, 9x & kx, QJ, QT, JT, 89, and AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT.
The hand sample i had was useless having less than or equal to <13 results on the players.
I believe that UTG and HJ could possibly have AK in their range but primarily believe that if AK was present in this scenario it would be 3-bet more often than not. Furthermore, if they did possess AK in their range, then they would almost certainly have all the sets in there range.
Lets take a look at the action:
Hero (SB): $15.14 (151.4 bb)
BB: $7.87 (78.7 bb)
UTG: $15.58 (155.8 bb)
MP: $26.91 (269.1 bb)
CO: $3.18 (31.8 bb)
BTN: $4.21 (42.1 bb)
Preflop: Hero is SB with 9d Kd
UTG raises to $0.30, MP calls $0.30, CO calls $0.30, BTN folds, Hero calls $0.25, BB calls $0.20
Flop: ($1.50) Tc Qs Jd (5 players)
Hero bets $1, 2 folds, MP calls $1, CO raises to $2.10, Hero calls $1.10, MP raises to $3.20, CO calls $0.78, Hero raises to $14.84 and is all-in, MP calls $11.64
Turn: ($34.06) Qh (3 players, 1 is all-in)
River: ($34.06) Js (3 players, 1 is all-in)
When the HJ calls i have reasonable confidence that he has a medium strength to strong strength hand as this kind of flop smashes his flat calling range in every way when he calls, all poor equity hands fold.
When the small stack (suspected fish raises) my eyes are like dinner plates. i choose to flat call my hand to keep the MP in with his range. When he raises me back, i think it defines his range a little further. I think he would flat call his pair plus draws and Overpairs. I believe he would raise his sets, 2prs and straights. as a result i shove and am obviously drawing to a chopped blocker pot.
Thoughts?
JUST A COOLER?
Oct. 2, 2014 | 10:06 a.m.
i completally understand your point but it isn't relevant to mine. to accept someone's play as profitable i need proof that it is statistically sound over a decent sample size.
April 25, 2014 | 4:01 p.m.
Are you a winning player? I find it hard to believe.
At what rate are you beating these stakes?
April 24, 2014 | 8:31 p.m.
I think your fine to stab since i feel he makes a mistake check calling turn unless he plans to lead rivers.
"We are crushed against his boats, crush his give ups, and are moderately ahead of his FDs."
April 22, 2014 | 7:06 p.m.
no comment but i bet 5 dollars he's got a set
April 19, 2014 | 7:25 p.m.
I think you have to be Deep to call TT for set mining value
April 19, 2014 | 4:58 p.m.
just to provide minimal evidence to my hypothesis,this is visible off the first 2 hands i clicked:
lazio1200: folds
cipple444: raises $10 to $15
Go0se.core!: raises $30 to $45
Muladkhara: calls $45
Zero 1100101: folds
soydelmillo: folds
cipple444: calls $30
*** FLOP *** [Js 5h As]
cipple444: checks
Go0se.core!: checks
Muladkhara: bets $77.50
cipple444: calls $77.50
Go0se.core!: folds
*** TURN *** [Js 5h As] [6s]
cipple444: checks
Muladkhara: bets $212.50
cipple444: calls $212.50
*** RIVER *** [Js 5h As 6s] [3d]
cipple444: checks
Muladkhara: bets $792.15 and is all-in
cipple444: calls $792.15
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Muladkhara: shows [7h 7s] (a pair of Sevens)
cipple444: shows [4s 5s] (a flush, Ace high)
__________________________
Hevydevy27: raises $0.60 to $0.85
evofit78: folds
pokeritouko: calls $0.85
imjimmylee: calls $0.85
Darkcreo: folds
baoureri777: folds
*** FLOP *** [Ad 8d 2d]
Hevydevy27: bets $1.50
pokeritouko: calls $1.50
imjimmylee: calls $1.50
*** TURN *** [Ad 8d 2d] [8s]
Hevydevy27: bets $4
pokeritouko: calls $4
imjimmylee: raises $9.53 to $13.53
Hevydevy27: folds
pokeritouko: calls $9.53
*** RIVER *** [Ad 8d 2d 8s] [2s]
pokeritouko: checks
imjimmylee: bets $20
pokeritouko said, "lol this is sick"
pokeritouko: raises $16.33 to $36.33 and is all-in
imjimmylee: calls $16.33
*** SHOW DOWN ***
pokeritouko: shows [8c 8h] (four of a kind, Eights)
imjimmylee: shows [3d Kd] (a flush, Ace high)
April 19, 2014 | 4:54 p.m.
i think the big point with poker is adjusting to stakes, so a good strategy at 1knl is not the maximally exploitative strategy as at 25nl. take some time to view zoom poker at 25nl, 50nl, 100nl, 200nl, 500nl, and 1000nl. you'll notice key differences constantly throughout. 25nl being people CALL alot more than 4bet, the 3bet sizing is horribly small and they don't bluff with correct frequency to make enemy calling breakeven. furthermore, they minimally go to showdown with bluffs in 3bet pots. it's very commonly, value vs value.
then skip yourself to 1knl, and you'll very often see value is balanced with bluffs a lot more!!!! so one guy has call call called with the nuts, and the other has a bluff.
April 19, 2014 | 4:47 p.m.
Sulksy proposed a 3bet range of AK, AQs, JJ+, 45,64 type hands at one time, call everything else that has a +ev realisation of equity. but saying that i saw him 3bet KJsuited in the big blind vs Alex millar last week who was UTG [kanu7, Ireadyrsoul]. so i guess the pro's are keeping their strategy secretively quiet.
April 19, 2014 | 4:42 p.m.
If MP is 20% open;
CO 3-bets 18 value + 10 air;
QQ+, A5s-A4s, 7d6d, 7h6h,
TT equity vs CO equity PF is 36.89%. assuming that EP folds.
You stack off incorrectly on low run outs vs Overpairs, on broad-way run-outs you hate life, and furthermore you get little or no value from enemies air range.
then add in all the other factors: EP can 4bet bluff and with TT you hate life because it becomes hugely marginal.
Then factor in EP calling and now any overcard to a T is potentially in both of these players ranges. and low runouts you get value owned.
April 19, 2014 | 4:33 p.m.
what are your justifications for 4betting TT/calling3bet IP?
April 19, 2014 | 4:21 p.m.
You played well and commentary was good but i didn't learn anything. I'd prefer to skip through enemies hands under the assumption they would play sub optimally or to criticise why they are sub optimal.
Thanks, rob.
April 14, 2014 | 10:55 a.m.
Tpirahna does use a hud comprehensively and look at that man's limit results. bing bang bosh.. 2milly in the gas tank. check his blog out.
That guy from doompoker also is a hud addict and his graph is linear as fuark.
both think statistical data are a crucial element to the game.
April 14, 2014 | 9:23 a.m.
Quick analysis:
If we construct our value range backwards, what range would we be betting turn and river with.
sets: 99,55,22, AA.
Equity affecting action: Does aggressor check any sets on flop or turn thus removing combinations from triple barrelling range.
Two pairs: A2s, A5s, A9s, A9o.
Equity affecting action: Does aggressor check 2-pr on flop or turn with thus removing combinations from triple barrelling range.
One pair: Ak, AQ, AJ, AT.
Concern: Can aggressor bet top pair, large kicker for value versus enemy in small blind whom has called two streets so far?
Suspected small blind range which has called two streets:
A9s, 99 if he doesn't 3bet with greater value range, A5s if he flats, A3s, A2s, A6s, A7s, A8s, if he flats and defends /w gutshot, AQo, AQs, AJs, AJo, ATo; if he doesn't 3bet preflop or fold. JJ, TT, T9, 98, k9, if he calls 3 streets.
-From this it is clear that we have to make a massive amount of assumptions we most likely vary depending on player behaviour.
______________________________________________________________
Case one
Assumption 1: Opponent has maximum range of suspected hands.
[JJ-99,55,ATs-A5s,A3s-A2s,K9s,T9s,98s,AQo-ATo]
Assumption 2: We bet only 2prs and sets OTF,OTT,OTR.
Hero Equity: 92.67%.
Assumption 1.1. Opponent has 'more reasonable range'.
[99,55,A9s,A5s,A2s,AQo-ATo]
Assumption 2.1. We bet only 2prs and sets OTF, OTT, OTR.
Hero equity: 85.70%.
Assumption 1.2. Opponent PF [3bets small pairs as a bluff [removal of 55], 3bets 99 for value [ removal of 99], 3bets AQo for value [removal of AQo], does not call A2s PF vs CO. Villain only has left, A5s, A9s, AJo, ATo.
[A9s,A5s,AJo-ATo]
Assumption 2.2. We only bet 2prs and sets OTF, OTT, OTR.
Hero equity: 96.13%.
_______________________________________________________________
Case two
Assumption 1. Opponent has minimum range of strongest suspected hands.
[A9s,A5s,AJo-ATo]
Assumption 2. Hero has all Top pair /w big kicker, 2prs and sets.
Hero equity: 82.21%.
Assumption 1.1: Opponent has minimum realistic range of strongest suspected hands.
[A9s,A5s,AJo-ATo]
Assumption 2.1: Hero has all top pair /w big kicker, 2prs, sets and broadway hearts and some suited connector, king h hearts.
[AA,99,55,22,A9s+,A5s,A2s,KhQh,KhJh,QhJh,KhTh,QhTh,JhTh,Ah8h,Kh8h,Th8h,Ah7h,9h7h,Ah6h,Ah4h,Ah3h,AJo+,A9o]
Hero equity: 69.42%.
Extending 2.1 .1: with any reasonable improved heart draw.
[KhQh,KhJh,QhJh,KhTh,QhTh,JhTh,Ah8h,Kh8h,Qh8h,Jh8h,Th8h,Ah7h,Th7h,9h7h,8h7h,Ah6h,9h6h,8h6h,7h6h,Ah4h,Ah3h]
Hero equity: 61.43%
Extending 2.1 .2 + gutshot 87s, 67s
Hero equity: 55.71%.
If we now give the opponent AQo, as a hand he does not 3bet PF.
Hero equity: 53.31%.
If we extend one last time and give opponent 55 PF.
Hero equity finally tilts, 48.22%
April 13, 2014 | 10:02 p.m.
This further leads me to thinking what are the consequences on certain pairing scenarios of the board if we do intend to bet turn with the intention to check some rivers. A pairing of either the 5 or the 9 does hit villains turn 2-pair slow-playing range and as such even though it feels like a solid value bet with a 'board beating kicker' due to reason of an opponent calling a worse kicker-ed Ace, it could be incorrect to do so.
I think this requires empirical analysis /w decision trees!!!
April 13, 2014 | 9:09 p.m.
Rules won't change the culture.
April 13, 2014 | 4:07 p.m.
PokerStars Hand #114721935817: Hold'em No Limit ($200/$400 USD) - 2014/04/13 16:44:53 WET [2014/04/13 11:44:53 ET]
Table 'Menelaus IV' 6-max Seat #1 is the button
Seat 1: Lottenice ($60876.85 in chips)
Seat 2: Trueteller ($52091.25 in chips)
Seat 3: Aron0621 ($47672.50 in chips)
Seat 4: 26071985 ($61390 in chips)
Seat 5: forhayley ($46775 in chips)
Seat 6: Ike Haxton ($27921 in chips)
Trueteller: posts small blind $200
Aron0621: posts big blind $400
*** HOLE CARDS ***
26071985: raises $500 to $900
forhayley: calls $900
Ike Haxton: folds
Lottenice: folds
Trueteller: folds
Aron0621: calls $500
*** FLOP *** [Qs 8c Kh]
Aron0621: checks
26071985: bets $1600
forhayley: calls $1600
Aron0621: folds
*** TURN *** [Qs 8c Kh] [7c]
26071985: checks
forhayley: bets $4388.40
26071985: raises $8611.60 to $13000
forhayley: calls $8611.60
*** RIVER *** [Qs 8c Kh 7c] [6h]
26071985: checks
forhayley: bets $16400
26071985: raises $29490 to $45890 and is all-in
forhayley: calls $14875 and is all-in
Uncalled bet ($14615) returned to 26071985
*** SHOW DOWN ***
26071985: shows [Ks Kc] (three of a kind, Kings)
forhayley: shows [Qc Qh] (three of a kind, Queens)
26071985 collected $94645 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $94650 | Rake $5
Board [Qs 8c Kh 7c 6h]
Seat 1: Lottenice (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 2: Trueteller (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 3: Aron0621 (big blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 4: 26071985 showed [Ks Kc] and won ($94645) with three of a kind, Kings
Seat 5: forhayley showed [Qc Qh] and lost with three of a kind, Queens
Seat 6: Ike Haxton folded before Flop (didn't bet)
April 13, 2014 | 3:49 p.m.
i'd v-bet any 2pr or better, use gutshots or busted hearts as a maximal range for bluff range
i expect for villain to call AJ+ on this flop as part of his defence and as such would consequently call a turn and a river bet.
April 13, 2014 | 1:16 p.m.
i would most likely call flop fold turn.
call flop bet turn if checked to, if called check river.
April 13, 2014 | 1:09 p.m.
Run an empirical analysis making varied assumptions.
April 13, 2014 | 1:08 p.m.
limp call, min raise is a set everytime. it's 3 way, he's going to be honest. he won't balance /w flush draws.
April 13, 2014 | 1:05 p.m.
Now that you mention it, 4betting is nice but i feel it's almost wasted value. KK,AA 5bets all in. JJ-TT doesn't 3bet PF unless he's mental.
and AK, AQ is a speculative 3bet in the first place, however, if opponent does act in such a way, it can be asserted that they will call vs a 4bet, playing fit or fold post flop. i much prefer flatting QQ preflop and letting them barrel off weak hands on any board that doesnt have an A,K.
April 13, 2014 | 1:02 p.m.
Standard. we only get beat by JJ,99, QT, backdoor AJclubs, barrel away sire
April 13, 2014 | 12:58 p.m.
If we give our opponent a standard IP flat list of:
QQ-66, AJs+, KJs+, QJs, JTs, AQo+
7c7d on this flop versus opponents suspected range is 78.70%.
Hands that could potentially raise are any gutshot [AK,AQ,88,99], OESD [KQs], sets [JJ,TT], two pair[JTs] and overpair [QQ].
Assumption 1.0: opponent raises all gutshots as a bluff, overpairs, two pair, and sets for value, flat or folds everything else.
77 flop equity: 74.93%
77 Turn equity when opponent barrels all flop bluffs: 80%.
Assumption 1.1: opponent raises all gutshots as a bluff, overpairs, and sets for value, flat or folds everything else.
77 flop equity: 74.93%
77 Turn equity when opponents barrels half of all flop bluffs: 71.92%
^[QQ, JhJs, JhJc, JsJc, TdTh, TdTc, ThTc, AQs+, JhTh, JcTc, AhKd, AsKd, AsKh, AcKd, AcKh, AcKs]
Assumption 2.0. opponent raises only suited broadway gutshots with backdoor FD as a bluff, and sets, 2pr for value, flat or folds everything else.
77 flop equity: 49.21%
^[JhJs, JhJc, JsJc, TdTh, TdTc, ThTc, AdKd, AhKh, AsKs, AdQd, AhQh, AsQs, JhTh, JcTc]
77 Turn equity when opponent barrels all flop bluffs: 49.03%
Assumption 2.1. opponent raises only suited broadway gutshots with backdoor FD as a bluff, and sets, 2pr for value, flat or folds everything else.
77 flop equity: 49.21%
77 turn equity when opponent gives up all unimproved bluff equity on turn: 35%.
^[JhJs, JhJc, JsJc, TdTh, TdTc, ThTc, AsKs, AsQs, JhTh, JcTc]
Conclusion. Equity varies dramatically depending on the bluff tendencies of opponent.
Feel free to draw your own conclusions as you have the history with the player.
April 13, 2014 | 12:48 p.m.
1) Arguments can be true if they follow a consistent methodology; there is no such a thing as an "accidental validity".
2) Any argument proposed by a man can be rejected as invalid if he/she does not follow or understand a consistent methodology.
3) Scientific arguments require universality.
4) Any scientific argument proposed by a scientist can be rejected if the scientist does not understand or follow the requirement of universality.
5) A scientist who constantly acts in contradiction to his stated scientific theories shows that he does not understand or follow the requirement of universality.
6) Since the scientist does not follow or understand the requirement of universality, none of his arguments or conclusions can be valid, since the concept of validity only applies to the methodology, not the conclusion.
7) Such a person can no longer be called a scientist, since he has shown by his actions he does not understand or follow the requirements of his scientific arguments.
What can be learnt by everyone from the application of this argument to NLH?
Consequently what are the adjustments to to the 7 points to create a version tailored to creating arguments in poker?
Can this help us in creating arguments in this forum?
April 13, 2014 | 11:37 a.m.
yeah, i think the turn texture giving you an OESD-flush draw has a deceptive effect proved just now.
April 13, 2014 | 11:28 a.m.
1). Arguments can be true if they follow a consistent methodology; there is no such a thing as an "accidental validity".
2) Any argument proposed by a man can be rejected as invalid if he/she does not follow or understand a consistent methodology.
3) Scientific arguments require universality.
4) Any scientific argument proposed by a scientist can be rejected if the scientist does not understand or follow the requirement of universality.
5) A scientist who constantly acts in contradiction to his stated scientific theories shows that he does not understand or follow the requirement of universality.
6) Since the scientist does not follow or understand the requirement of universality, none of his arguments or conclusions can be valid, since the concept of validity only applies to the methodology, not the conclusion.
7) Such a person can no longer be called a scientist, since he has shown by his actions he does not understand or follow the requirements of his scientific arguments.
really valid points! cheers sweet16.
Oct. 3, 2014 | 2:51 p.m.