PokerTrikz.com Poker Forum  

Go Back   PokerTrikz.com Poker Forum > Off Topic > Poker Brags and Beats

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 09-15-2009, 08:05 PM
given1982's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,954
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbansprawler View Post
I would like to hear trikkur's and especially given's opinion on this "sick read."
It's hard to give an opinion on a read without ever having sat with villain.

I think the river is super sexy.

The flop is pretty marginal given how strong OP thinks villain's range is here. But I probably wouldn't fold an overpair to a 1/2 pot bet in a min3bet pot either.

The turn is read-dependent--if villain's weak bet could be him slowplaying AA, then it's bad. If OP has a strong read that it's weakness, then it's good as long as villain has a fold button.

Either way, when the river A spikes, there's only 1 combo that villain can call with.

Making donkeys fold kimgs FTW.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 09-15-2009, 08:08 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,021
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by given1982 View Post
It's hard to give an opinion on a read without ever having sat with villain.

I think the river is super sexy.
YES YES YES I LOVE YOU GIVEN!! (and my read about you was totally off!)

Quote:
Making donkeys fold kimgs FTW.
Yeah, but would he have folded queems or jocks?

More seriously...I've never felt as good (playing poker) as after this hand, when he though for something like 5-10 seconds, wrote that and folded. Best moment in my poker career so far.


PS. I think my "I don't care about your opinions" might seem a little weird after this post, you caught my bluff there! ...But this is probably the first time given ever agrees with me on a big bluff or bluffcatcher



Quote:
Originally Posted by urbansprawler View Post
Wow...you do this versus a random?
wat
__________________
srsly guise

Last edited by chinz; 09-15-2009 at 08:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 09-15-2009, 08:33 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 999
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chinz View Post

wat
Nice stealth edit.

Also LOL at the comparison between this spew and DaEvils' 4bet bluff shove.

I also really, really think given is levelling here.

Quote:
PS. I think my "I don't care about your opinions" might seem a little weird after this post, you caught my bluff there! ...But this is probably the first time given ever agrees with me on a big bluff or bluffcatcher
Not sure why he had to do it even once...

Honestly, this hand was playing so fucking terribly...

If you call flop you are saying "Most of his range is not TT-KK" and when you raise turn you're saying "Nah you know what his range is really TT-KK".

WTF

Agreeing with Luckystraights when I say I would've called river with KK, or QQ/JJ for that matter.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 09-15-2009, 08:39 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 999
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chinz View Post
Yes. I could have certainly folded straight to the cbet with my read. On the other hand, I tought he's so straightforward that he'd give up with his bluffs always, so I don't think it's awful to call one street.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chinz View Post
(Yes, I don't believe he's min3betting with anything else than QQ+ and AK)
[?] QQ+/AK = bluffs


equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 41.120% 41.12% 00.00% 13841 0.00 { ThTs }
Hand 1: 58.880% 58.88% 00.00% 19819 0.00 { QQ+, AKs, AKo }



Good move sir.

I hope you are aware that there are more combos of AK than QQ+.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 09-15-2009, 08:50 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 999
Default

This is going to be my last reply to this thread as I want to keep a friendly image on PokerTrikz. I don't want a flame war. But you are a scumbag. How low do you have to go to edit your posts? You posted in response to me or lucky "Do you really think villain could call with KK vs random?" Then when I posted my response, you went back and made a massive amount of edits to put in your "reads". You fabricated paragraphs to make yourself look good. We are here to learn, not to bicker. You deserve absolutely no respect from anyone here for editing your posts to cover up the nonsense you wrote before. You did a pretty bad job editing it too.

Fuck you

Last edited by urbansprawler; 09-15-2009 at 08:57 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 09-15-2009, 10:12 PM
given1982's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,954
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbansprawler View Post
I also really, really think given is levelling here.
I'm not. I laid out my reasoning; what part of it do you think is a level? It's hard to argue against the only guy with the read on a really read-based play. It makes a pretty useless strategy thread, which is why it wasn't posted that way. I contributed to the strategy-in-bbv derail because it was already too far gone and you asked me to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbansprawler View Post
If you call flop you are saying "Most of his range is not TT-KK" and when you raise turn you're saying "Nah you know what his range is really TT-KK".

WTF
You don't reevaluate ranges based on the actions on each street?

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbansprawler View Post
Agreeing with Luckystraights when I say I would've called river with KK, or QQ/JJ for that matter.
Why is what you would call with relevant to what the donkey villain in the OP would call with?
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 09-15-2009, 10:26 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 999
Default

I'll try to answer those separately.

1) He did not have any "reads." He edited them in after I called him out on it.

2) I certainly don't take cards I didn't think were in their range on the flop and then put it in the the turn. If {y} is part of {z} then a member of {y} has to be a member of {z}.

Basically, if {y} = Double barrel range, {x} = flop betting range, and {z} = range based on all previous actions, TT-KK cannot be not part of {y} but not {x}

DUCY?

I backed up my argument with stove as well.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 09-16-2009, 04:30 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 755
Default

Jesus. Someone's having a bad day.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 09-16-2009, 04:47 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,021
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbansprawler View Post
1) He did not have any "reads." He edited them in after I called him out on it.
What? Yes, I've edited the latest post, so I had no idea on what you was commenting, but I didn't add any of those reads later on.

I've included them in the post #3 originally, just as in post #6, which you had read earlier on. Didn't you even comment on them?

I really don't understand why you hate this so much, when villain's hand is really face up. And I can 100% quarantee that none of the NL100 regs would ever call here witk KK (and I could call a cbet with A high against regs) ...this guy was a loose-passive fish, so that's why it was a small concern for me.

Quote:
2) I certainly don't take cards I didn't think were in their range on the flop and then put it in the the turn. If {y} is part of {z} then a member of {y} has to be a member of {z}.
Quote:
equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 41.120% 41.12% 00.00% 13841 0.00 { ThTs }
Hand 1: 58.880% 58.88% 00.00% 19819 0.00 { QQ+, AKs, AKo }

Good move sir.

I hope you are aware that there are more combos of AK than QQ+.
So, my "he bets weak on scarecards" read doesn't really change his range at all on the turn? He's scared of that ace with AK or AQ? He could play AA like that, because he's thinking "omg, now I'm never getting value" but as I said in my #3 post and given said in his first reply, the second A on the river is actually a good card if my read was right.

I'm honestly starting to think that you're leveling here. Now you do accept that my preflop read was right, but that betsizing read is still wrong and it doesn't lean his range more towards QQ-KK than AK?

And even combinatorics wise, which seems to be the way you're approaching this, actually there's more combinations of QQ-KK here than AK, when there's 2 Ace blockers. There's 12 combinations (6 of both) of QQ and KK, and just 8 combinations of AK (9 if you add AA). So even if he's range is QQ+ and AK, and he would play every hand of that range exactly like this (and fold KK and QQ 90% of the time), this would still be a +EV bluff.

edit: oops, wrong numbers for first...

Quote:
You posted in response to me or lucky "Do you really think villain could call with KK vs random?"
I think I asked something like that originally, but I did edit that line, because my question was stupid/irrelevant. But it still does make sense, I haven't made any big bluffs against him, or even at that table, so he shouldn't have any reads that could help him here. And btw, I edited it before even reading your reply. My "wat" was just wondering how can you think I made this against a random guy, when I have posted my reads in earlier posts and said I wouldn't ever do this stupid desperation bluffs.

And if you're say you would call this with KK, without some sick reads/history (which he shouldn't have on me, at least anything that'd help him here afaik), you're just valuetowning yourself all the time. No one would ever bluff here against a TAG regular (and I'd assume you are).


---

And for your conspiracy theories (this is edited as well btw!), all times are GMT+2:

05:55 PM last edit on #3
10:52 PM your post #5
01:15 AM last edit on #6
01:29 AM your post #7
02:07 AM last edit on post #9

So, the only message I have edited after your posts is #9... and I only go over my thought process again there, there's not any "new reads" you mentioned... or am I missing something?
__________________
srsly guise

Last edited by chinz; 09-16-2009 at 05:54 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 09-16-2009, 05:41 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,021
Default

I think my previous post is a mess enough already, so I'll put this in a new post.

I actually asked US to reply to this thread one more time, this is my PM to him:
Quote:
When you start accusing me of editing messages and adding reads to look good, "hit n' running" the thread is a pretty douche thing to do IMO. And I had the exact same reads in posts #3 and #6, which you had read before, which makes that accusation ever more lame.

I'd really like you to give at least a final reply instead of just disappearing when you make accusations like that.

PS. You're combinatorics are way off. AK = less likely when speaking in combinatorics.
I've admitted, that I asked would Lucky call with KK vs. a random, but every other part of his post is just plain BS and urbansprawler knows it too.


---

BTW I didn't think we'd actually get this much interesting discussion of this hand. I think it's actually good that we've gone throught this hand and my thought process in depth, it certainly can't hurt...
__________________
srsly guise

Last edited by chinz; 09-16-2009 at 05:47 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I can read souls ShoveOrFold Poker Brags and Beats 7 02-04-2011 08:46 AM
Hand reading FeckMyBankroll Micro Stakes 5 08-17-2009 10:44 AM
Brag: reading soulds chinz Poker Brags and Beats 0 05-11-2009 05:44 PM
Video on reading players. wbry Video Requests 0 05-05-2009 01:25 PM
A little extra reading material quadfive General Poker Chat 3 12-20-2008 02:55 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
PokerTrikz.com 2007-2012

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31