Check It: DADI |

 




Poker 201 by Jordan
Monday, May 14, 2007

If you've finished Poker 101 by Jordan, hosted over at the Waffle House, you've already learned that the only relevant thing to hand analysis is (a) the cards held by the players, and (b) the incessant rant of a petulant child. Congratulations! You've all passed Poker 101, so it is with great excitement that I invite you to Poker 201, where you will learn that poker is more than just the cards and the rants, and actually includes betting, chipstacks, and odds.

As you can recall, at Poker 101, we discussed a hand where I played 88 against Woffle's AQh, and while he flopped an Ace, I "bluffed" until I rivered an 8 to bust him. With that information alone, you could probably write a long rant about terrible play, but here at Poker 201, we believe that the most important part of hand analysis is looking at all aspects of a hand to determine how one can improve the results if faced with the same situation. Let's revisit the hand and look at the decisions made throughout and the many aspects of the game that we chose to ignore in the more basic Poker 101 class.

Let's start with everything that happened before the hole cards were dealt. The table was a good one, with a fun selection of players, including everyone's favorite trainwreck, Woffle. At this point in the tournament, through stellar play, Woffle was down to 2585 in chips. I was up to 3860. At the very moment, without any cards, this information does not seem terribly relevant. Lord knows we don't touch on it at Poker 101, mostly because we don't want to confuse the novice players with complicated issues like errors in past hands can lead to disadvantageous situations in future hands.

Once the cards are dealt, I receive 88 two seats from the button. Asbentmindedly, I raised pot, from 40 to 140. I only get one caller, the Woffle, with AQh. So far, I don't think anyone misplayed the hand.

The flop is Ac7d6d. Woffles, conscious of the fact that he hit top pair second kicker, decides to check, so he can refocus on attempting to fellate himself. Either this was a slowplay, or he thought he was behind. With a 300 pot, it seems logical for a player with 88 to raise pot. There is only one overcard on the board, and while the Ace is scary, Woffle's check or slowplay signals weakness. Betting pot does a few things. It potentially protects my hand against suckouts from straight or flush draws, potentially gets a weak Ace or a higher pocket pair to fold fearing that I hit the Ace with a good kicker (remember, I raised preflop), and gives me more info about what my tilty little opponent has. Should I have checked? Potentially. But then I'd be giving up control of the hand. If we are dancing, I'm leading and Woffle is wearing a chiffon gown.

Woffle chooses to call. This is his second mistake. Even if he was willing to check the flop, once I bet, he has to raise or fold. Calling gives him no information, and for all he knows, I have AK or even 89d. But, he checks and gives up control of the hand. Let's assume he is slowplaying, because if not, then he is just throwing money away without thinking the hand through.

The turn is a 9h. This is a great card for me, in a sense. I would prefer the 5h, but the 9 gives me some nice draws along with 3rd pair. I can't put Woffle on the 9 because it wouldn't make sense with the rest of the hand. I may be able to put him on a weak Ace, but a flush draw is also a good possibility. He may be slowplaying me with a monster, like 66 or 77, but why would he be so passive. At the very least, if he has the Ace or a set of 7s or 6s, I have an additional 8 outs for the straight, a total of 10 outs when added two the two 8s still in the deck. If he has the flush draw, I'm ahead anyway. If he has a 7 or 6 and thinks I'm a donkey, then that works as well.

So, what does the big bad Ace Queen do when the turn brings a scary straight card? He checks. Why? Either he is slowplaying a board with a flush and straight draw, or he is scared of me. I'll let Woffles decide. Whatever the case, this tells me that he is either slowplaying or scared. At this point, we have both put 440 into the pot. He is down to 2145, and I am down to 3420. I decide to bet pot, 900, because I want to win the hand outright. The bet is almost 1/2 of Woffle's stack, so from my vantage point, its placing enough pressure. Pushing will look weaker and might get a call from a weak Ace. However, (get your cameras ready) I may have messed up. Truthfully, I'm not sure. My bet amount is enough that Woffles only has two options, fold or push. I basically priced myself in to a call if he pushes. That said, I'm not 100% sure this isn't the best play. As I said, an all-in would probably appear like a bluff steal and would be called easier from a player like Woffle (or so I thought, when I had him read as a player who thought through the entirety of a hand). A check leaves me vulnerable to a flush draw, something I really saw as a possibility, given his check-call behavior. At least by betting, I may get winning hands to fold (weak Aces) and get drawing hands to fold before they draw out on me. This is where I think I may have misplayed the hand, but what comes next is purely academic...for Poker 201 thinkers.

I raise pot, 900, and Woffle finally succeeds in fellating himself, looks up at the screen, wipes off his chin, and pushes all-in. At least that is my assumption. His time practically ran out before he acted (although the night of, he berated me for taking time for the call). I did call after some consideration, and Woffle flips over his top pair, second kicker. I river an 8, and Woffle type-shouts that I'm a donkey who hit a 2-outter.

This is the advanced portion of the class, and I've instructed Woffles particularly to take notes, because his revisionist history just doesn't fly here. I had 10 outs, first off. Not 2. Whenever Woffles posts that the other guy 2 outs or 1 out, its safe to say that he means 1 or 2 outs out of many. Since I hit my set, I had two outs, 8 and 8. Perhaps if the river was a Ten, I'd only have four outs, the four tens, and if the river was a 5, I'd only have the four 5s as outs. But alas, it doesn't work that way. I had 10 outs TOTAL. That's the only amount that matters.

For you Poker 101 folks, you may be thinking, 10 outs is not a lot. Well, you are right. In fact, I had only a 22.73% chance of winning the hand once I called the all-in. But it is crucial to review the information available at the time of the decision AND the pot odds involved.

The informtaion I had was that Woffle was check-calling the entire way and now was pushing. That led me to believe that he was likely not on a flush draw, although I still considered it a remote possibility. He likely had an Ace and maybe even two-pair, A9. That would match his weak check-call strategy. But that would also put me at a disadvantage. Surely, calling his all-in when I think I am probably behind (let's go with 70% sure I'm behind, or even 80%) is a stupid call. But the plain answer is, no. The pot was 3945 after his push, and I had to call 1245. The pot odds, therefore, was more than 3:1. This alone is not fantastic. It would require me getting about 32% odds on my hand. But then I noticed stack sizes. If I call, I have almost 1300 left. Now, 1300 is not a gold mine, but we are at 20/40 stakes, and if I lose, I have confidence that I have the time to win back my money. At the time, I didn't have specific odds. All I could see was 1200 to win almost 4000, and this, along with the amount of chips I'd have left, was enough to encourage me to call. After all, worst case scenario, I have 10 outs. Best case, he is flush drawing and I'm at least 65% to win.

As you may know by now, my call led to a rivered 8, translated to Wofflese as a 2-outter (out of 10 outs possible). Whatever the case, I can reflect back at the hand and see that I made a few questionable moves. That last call was not as priced-in as I originally thought, but I was correct about the fact that I had Woffles covered (in the table chat, he claimed I had him covered by 20, so take what Woffles' word for what its worth). The 900 pot bet was also sort of questionable, but I'm at a loss as to how to react better there. A check would've worked in hindsight. I hit my river or I get out of the hand. I suppose that was my major flaw, firing the second bullet. That, folks, is the core of Poker 201, learning from your mistakes.

Now its time for some after-class extra-help. Woffles needs it desperately. Instead of claiming that I sucked out on you with a 2 outter, Woffles, why don't you analyze the hand and figure out how YOU caused yourself to go busto. First, the flop call is okay. You want to see a flop for cheap. But once you hit your top pair with a straight and flush draw out there, you have to bet out to find out where you are. Instead, you check-call. If you bet or check-raise, you win the hand, plain and simple. On the turn, you check again, knowing that the straight may've came in and the flush draw is still out there. If you really think you are ahead, you have to cut it off now. If you bet the turn, I fold. Instead, you "trap" me and then push, giving me many reasons to call.

Granted, I took your chips all the way to 35th place, but that's about 9 spots higher than the 44th spot I put you in. Also, I didn't spend 20 minutes trash talking after I busted. I'll give a preview to Poker 301, Ettiquette. When I ultimately busted, I was all-in with 99 preflop against K9. The flop was KKx. After the hand, I said, "nh", "gl" and "i'm out!" I wasn't pissed at the guy who called me with K9. I accepted that I can't control other players. You can only control yourself. In that instance, the part I needed to fix happened before the hand, when I lost other hands to make me shorter stacked than the K9 hand. But really, the other part was that I wanted to watch Heroes and I had already won by tilting Woffles.

Because of Woffle's revisionist history (what was that he said about the Holocaust not happening?) I'll keep the original hand history below. I don't want you to think that we are all self-deluding douschebags.

Until next time, class is out!

Full Tilt Poker Game #2426947320: Mondays at the Hoy (17511696), Table 1 - 20/40 - No Limit Hold'em - 22:17:30 ET - 2007/05/14
Seat 1: BuddyDank (3,040)
Seat 2: IslandBum1 (2,625)
Seat 3: HighOnPoker (3,860)
Seat 4: smokkee (6,165)
Seat 5: Mattazuma (2,620)
Seat 7: sellthekids (3,105)
Seat 8: SirFWALGMan (2,585)
Seat 9: NewinNov (2,670)
sellthekids posts the small blind of 20
SirFWALGMan posts the big blind of 40
The button is in seat #5
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to HighOnPoker [8s 8c]
NewinNov folds
BuddyDank folds
IslandBum1 folds
HighOnPoker raises to 140
smokkee folds
Mattazuma folds
sellthekids folds
SirFWALGMan calls 100
*** FLOP *** [Ac 7d 6d]
SirFWALGMan checks
HighOnPoker bets 300
SirFWALGMan calls 300
smokkee: but, when her bday does come around, it lasts like two freakin weeks
*** TURN *** [Ac 7d 6d] [9h]
SirFWALGMan checks
HighOnPoker bets 900
SirFWALGMan has 15 seconds left to act
SirFWALGMan raises to 2,145, and is all in
HighOnPoker has 15 seconds left to act
HighOnPoker calls 1,245
SirFWALGMan shows [Qh Ah]
HighOnPoker shows [8s 8c]
*** RIVER *** [Ac 7d 6d 9h] [8d]
SirFWALGMan shows a pair of Aces
HighOnPoker shows three of a kind, Eights
HighOnPoker wins the pot (5,190) with three of a kind, Eights
HighOnPoker: booya
SirFWALGMan stands up
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 5,190 | Rake 0
Board: [Ac 7d 6d 9h 8d]
Seat 1: BuddyDank didn't bet (folded)
Seat 2: IslandBum1 didn't bet (folded)
Seat 3: HighOnPoker showed [8s 8c] and won (5,190) with three of a kind, Eights
Seat 4: smokkee didn't bet (folded)
Seat 5: Mattazuma (button) didn't bet (folded)
Seat 7: sellthekids (small blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 8: SirFWALGMan (big blind) showed [Qh Ah] and lost with a pair of Aces
Seat 9: NewinNov didn't bet (folded)

posted by Jordan @ 10:20 PM,

31 Comments:

At 10:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're a sick dude.

Having my kids tomorrow, look forward to purloining some internet to check in this week....

 
At 12:51 AM, Blogger Fuel55 said...

Make any call if there is an outside chance of a Waffles rant!

 
At 1:34 AM, Blogger MHG said...

Tilt-inducing post if I ever saw one! I bet Waffles doesn't fall for it.

J:1, Waffles:1

 
At 8:09 AM, Blogger Pokerwolf said...

ZING!

This is like going after Hoy with KJ. Well done!

 
At 10:29 AM, Blogger DuggleBogey said...

I'm pretty sure the comic I did on May 4 was just for your benefit, this post ABSOLUTELY inspired tomorrow's comic.

Stay tuned...

 
At 10:47 AM, Blogger TraumaPoker said...

Can we possibly look into the fact that you overplayed 88 and the only reason you were close to being committed to making the call was because you overplayed 88? Is it possible SIRF extended you the rope and you made a nice little knot and got yourself in a spot where calling was now reasonable, when if you had controlled the pot you would have been much better off? Is this the spot your want to play for about 75% of your stack? Early in the tournament with 88? Granted you would win a smaller pot if you controlled the pot size but the flip side is you wouldn’t have 1200 when you missed your ten outs. Also I would be interested to know the stack sizes of your last hand 99 vs. K9? You get on SIRF about not getting things straight but what was the real story behind the 99 vs. KK?

 
At 10:53 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry bro, no disrespect but I disagree with your analysis.

What he did was trap you. He checked the flop letting you C-bet and giving you zero information on what he might have had. You bit.

He checked again on a scary board because he knew you would bet again and he could push and get you to commit your chips to a call.

Plan worked perfectly up to that point. You bit and committed all your chips at 23%.

Hey you had 10 outs and hit, congrats you get a rant as he can't handle bad beats too well.

I play the hand exactly the same way as he did against you because quite frankly, he thought much deeper, and he trapped you. Justify it how you want, you got outplayed but won on the river.

A lot of players would be well suited to learn check-calls, traps, slow-plays, and getting comfortable playing scary boards are a very important part of winning huge pots and are majorly +EV over time.

I wish I could get all my chips in on the turn as a 77% favorite every hand.

 
At 10:57 AM, Blogger Jordan said...

Trauma, you misunderstand. I am self-critical about my hand. I explain the analysis. I just think that Woffle's post-bust rant and now his post is completely out of line. If he considered HIS play instead of mine, he could avoid situations where he is sucked out. I explained how I could have played the hand differently, but aside from checking the Turn, tell me where you think I messed up. I am ok with criticism, but I also think that you have to be self-critical before you start pointing fingers at everyone else. Woffle's rant seems to suggest that I called a huge all-in with two outs and hit the river. I am suggesting that there was much more to the hand, and we both made errors.

After Woffle's busted, I did donk around a bit. I was high and having fun chatting with the table. I overplayed two hands and after about 40 more hands, I was down to 1k when I pushed with 99 and was called by two players. I've recognized my mistakes. And I had fun.

So, once again, what error did I make? I'm okay with learning and improving my play. Aside from the errors I pointed out, what did I miss?

 
At 10:59 AM, Blogger Jordan said...

Miami, I hear ya. Let me ask, though. Forget about his play. Was my play terribly wrong? How would you have played it differently? Would you have folded preflop? Checked the flop? Checked the turn? Where was my error.

Once again, though, my point is that Woffles can point fingers as much as he wants, but if he wants to improve himself, he has to look at his game, and he could've won the pot at various points without exposing himself. I am willing to be self-critical, but I won't be called out on hitting a 2-outter.

And, Miami, there is one error in your comment. I was not calling for all of my chips. That is a crucial point, wouldn't you agree?

 
At 11:02 AM, Blogger Jordan said...

I will also extend this olive branch to my critiques, if he was, in fact, trying to slowplay top pair, second kicker on that board, his plan worked. But was it the best plan?

 
At 11:40 AM, Blogger SirFWALGMan said...

First off I never said you hit a two outer.. I wrote you had a 20% chance to win the hand in my post and do not see anywhere I misled anyone about the hand at all.

Here is how I play the hand and Trauma is 100% right.. I lead out on the flop with a 50-75% c-bet with AK or 88. Instead of letting a better hand trap me.

Now I catch my draw on the turn. I do not go ape shit wild and put out another huge bet. Instead I again make a reasonable bet. So now if my opponent decides enough slow playing I have lost a few chips but have not committed over 2/3 my stack with the worst hand.

Instead of being an over aggressive retard that keeps getting trapped by people I play the hand more reasonably and become the hunter instead of the prey. You will always be bambi to my lion king until you learn to not trap yourself.

Your bets SCREAMED weak hand to me.. because I know you and know your style.. so I played to you and put myself in great position. If you think you played any part of that hand right your just totally wrong.

I honored you with a rant. You should be appreciative. lol. You know I love you and am trying to look out for you.

 
At 11:44 AM, Blogger Jack Dashed said...

Speaking strictly as a novice, the analysis here is well considered and I tend to agree with it. I saw the other post first and came here to read the retort.

If I held AQ and the flop offered straight and flush draws I think I would have reraised any incoming bet with the intention of neutralising any threat to what is, after all, not even nearly an unbeatable holding.

Slow-playing top pair can prove expensive sometimes.

 
At 12:18 PM, Blogger Jordan said...

Woffle, I'm glad you offered some serious analysis. You DID say I hit a 2-outter after the hand in the table chat, and that is part of why I posted the hand history in the first place. In hindsight, I don't hate your play as much as originally thought. Even after the cards were shown, I did not read you as slowplaying as much as playing weak, calling poker. If you had me read as an under-pair to the Ace, then your play is not that bad. I think we both played this hand poorly, and I should have bet smaller on the turn, but I was trying to push you out of the hand, with knowledge that I had outs in case you pushed back. Similarly, you should have raised with all of those scare cards out there, instead of slowplaying top pair, second kicker. This is tournament poker, and there are times you want to take down a pot instead of letting the other player see extra cards, even when you think you are ahead. That isn't all the time, but with two diamonds out there on the flop, this IS one of those times.

Thanks for the rant, though. I did feel honored.

 
At 1:10 PM, Blogger SirFWALGMan said...

J-

I trusted my read and I was right. If your going to always play scared poker because a draw is possible then ok but that is not how I play.
If you are on a draw then am I not better off giving you one less card to catch it with?

My only real critique with your play is you -- and I have seen you do this often -- tend to overplay extremely weak holdings and get yourself trapped. You did it here. You did it against that QT nut hand to donk of 3K about 15 hands later.. Were you chasing the ass end of the straight? and I am sure you did it in other places to go out 9 spots later.

I do not see myself playing that hand any differently. One other thing to people who do not think getting someone to commit most of their stack with <20% on the flop and 20% on the turn.. If you push your flopped hand every time your never going to get enough value from your hands.. Sure sometimes the guy who overplayed his hand gets lucky but that is poker. If I win like I will most of the time I guarantee it gives me a HUGE chance to go deep.

- M

 
At 1:27 PM, Blogger TraumaPoker said...

I got no problem with the C-bet you made but that turn card is 100% made for a check. By checking behind the turn you now send him the sign that you are weak and you open up the door for him to bluff at the pot with a broken flush draw that you call on the river. You also give yourself a chance to catch up if you are behind and it’s a well hidden hand, with your raise preflop it would be hard to put you on an 8 if a 5 or 10 fell, if the 8 fell maybe he can check fold because there are a couple more cards you can have now that beat him but either way it keeps the pot small. It’s up to you how much you want to call on the river if it bricks out and he fires, that becomes player dependent on how often you think SIRF would bet out a missed flush on the river and if the price is right at that point to call.

 
At 1:30 PM, Blogger bayne_s said...

Of course by "HUGE chance to go deep" Waffles means "blow up after being big stack"

 
At 1:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting hand...

I like Waffles check on the flop, but after a continuation bet he should have raised.

On the other hand, when Waffles calls a preflop raise and then check calls the flop, that's a good indication he has something, so Jordan should have checked behind on the turn.

 
At 1:51 PM, Blogger lj said...

wow. glad nobody's ranting on my play just yet! silly question -- how did you get your hand history to post?

 
At 2:14 PM, Blogger Jordan said...

LJ, its the ole copy and paste. I went to the History button on FT, highlighted the text and voila!

As for everyone else, I agree for the most part. I made errors, especially the turn bet. My point, which I think you all understand now, was that we both misplayed the hand, but there are two ways to look at it. You can get pissed and spew a rant, or you can take responsibility and review the hand to find out where you can improve. The analysis that the commentors provide is extremely useful as a learning tool. On that note, I have a question that arised from one of the comments, I think Trauma's.

He suggests that I check the turn and hope that he bets out on the river with a busted flush draw. I can't agree to that. If I check the turn, I have to check-fold the river, UNLESS I hit my straight (with a non-flush card) or set. Now, I hit my set here, but if the river was an offsuit 2, I have to fear that he has the Ace, and I have to go into fold mode. Otherwise, if I don't think he has the Ace, why wouldn't I bet out at the turn. Once I check the turn, I'm going into lockdown IF I check because I think he is ahead. The one thing I can see is checking if I think he is 50/50 between the Ace and a flush draw, and then calling his rivered jam ONLY if the flush doesn't hit. Catch my drift? Anyway, I do think checking on the turn is acceptable, as is a smaller bet that would let me fold to his re-raise all-in. In fact, I think the small bet is the best option.

 
At 2:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd like to pop in late and give my two cents on the matter if that's ok.

The smallish raise to open the pot with 88 is fine, but I think AQo should re-raise preflop because it sounds like Jordan is viewed as a loose player with calling tendencies, so re-raise pre-flop to take control of the betting post-flop with what is most likely the better hand. Or just take down a small pot uncontested, which would be just fine with me if I held AQo.

Since that didn't happen, I'll give my opinion on flop play:

1. C-bet was too big. Betting the pot is saying you don't want to be called, and only a hand that is ahead of you is going to call because any type of draw with Woffle's chip stack probably just moves in on the flop to get two chances if he's called.

2. Flat calling the c-bet was probably not the right thing to do. Since the initial raiser is a loose player who would open with a wide range, this type of flop may have hit him in a number of ways. I think raising the flop to protect your hand is the right move.

From there, it's pretty standard. Woffle felt he was still ahead on the turn so he moved in, which was essentially a min-raise that didn't had no fold equity (unless Jordan is betting with air) since Jordan only had to call 1,245 more into a pot of close to 4,000.

Yeah, it's a bad beat, but this is also why good tournament players like Rizen, JohnnyBax, Sheets, and ApeStyles say it's almost never correct to slowplay - especially if you're just doing it with one pair on a scary board. You got yourself handcuffed with the awkward chip stacks on the turn and it essentially bit you both in the ass in different ways -- Woffles didn't have enough behind to cause a fold and got sucked out on, and Jordan was priced in to call off a lot of chips as a large underdog.

This is the game we love. Interesting hand, fellas.

 
At 3:23 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

If you put him on an ace, then your call was a slight dog to the pot odds.

Having chips "left over" when it means having 1/2 of the starting stack shouldn't factor in. Only a fairly deep stack should that tactic.

 
At 3:27 PM, Blogger DuggleBogey said...

"I trusted my read and I was right. If your going to always play scared poker because a draw is possible then ok but that is not how I play."

Then stop goddamn bitching about getting drawn out in every goddamn tournament.

Do the fucking math.

 
At 4:10 PM, Blogger smokkee said...

that was the BEST time i've had at a virtual table in a long while.

i think u both know where u made your mistakes.

 
At 4:18 PM, Blogger Hammer Player a.k.a Hoyazo said...

You both played this hand pretty dam bad IMO like you've said above. The slowplay with AQ was ridiculous -- actually a fine move on the flop because if you ever become one of those auto-cbettor guys, good players will eat you for lunch. But Waffles' slowplay again on the turn was terrible poker with a hand as bad as TPSK, and as easy as it is to say after the fact that he "knew" you didn't have an Ace, at the time he of course could not know anything of the sort, and slow-playing TPSK through two streets against a guy who not only raised preflop but then led out on the flop and the turn is pure suicide. Bad, bad play there and I imagine the real reason Waffles is so pissed about this hand. Believe me I've been there about a zillion times so I would know, but part of slow-playing is knowing you could get sucked out on, and when you've only got top pair second kicker that you're slowplaying, against a guy who has shown strength on every single street, you deserve to lose. And that's not even mentioning the oesd that was on the board by the river. Waffles' raise at the end is a desperate move by a guy who by that time knew he'd completely effed up the hand. Waffles shoulda lost to AK the way he soft-played his AQ, but in the end he fell to the rivered set. Totally the fault of the slowplay and nothing else.

You similarly I think showed the same over-aggro stance from the flop on that I think Waffles showed at the river. Obviously the preflop open-raise with 88 is a great one -- I think someone may have complained about that above, but they simply have no clue whatsoever, period. I'm even down with your c-bet on the flop. It came Ace-high, you represented an Ace preflop so you are fully justified in going for the bet there.

But when Waffles called your potbet on the Ace-high flop -- a bet size I find to be perfectly acceptable and standard-looking, btw -- I think you ought to be assuming he is on an Ace there, and I would never have bet out again on the turn. Similarly, once he calls that turn bet, I think you have have have to shut down. You should clearly know your 8s are beat there. It's the call of your preflop raise that ices it for me in this spot. You basically know he's on an Ace at this point, and a decent one at that given the way Waffles plays the game.

In the end, I gotta give the nod to Waffles on playing this hand worse than you did, and therefore I find you to be fully justified in hitting the suckout on the end to take it down. Waffles obviously wanted to get stacked with the way he played his AQ. Just terrible.

 
At 4:29 PM, Blogger Jordan said...

Hoy hit it on the nose. I revert to my fallback position, which is that at least I have the balls to admit my mistake. That, and I wouldn't have had an opportunity to luckbox against Woffles if he played his hand correctly. But this is definitely When Donkeys Collide!

 
At 6:11 PM, Blogger Heavy Critters said...

"Then stop goddamn bitching about getting drawn out in every goddamn tournament.

Do the fucking math."

LOL Duggles.

 
At 6:43 PM, Blogger Matt Silverthorn said...

"If we are dancing, I'm leading and Woffle is wearing a chiffon gown."

I'm nominating this sentence for Blogger Analogy of the Year.

 
At 1:21 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

I think a check-raise was warranted, but beyond that I never slowplay a pair with a Q kicker. IF that means I don't get enough value for a hand than so be it.

 
At 2:19 PM, Blogger SirFWALGMan said...

Hoy I pushed in for ALL my chips on the turn.. did not call. I knew Jordon had an underpair, and I had him down to a 4:1 shot for a chance to double up. The only comment I think makes any sense at all in this thread is the one by CzechRazor.. and I actually have some issues with that too. Like I said if your want to donate 3/4 your chips to me on a draw then feel free to keep losing like you have been.

 
At 4:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm guessing you disagree with my decision to flop raise, correct?

Well, you've played against him and I haven't, so maybe you were making a read based call.

I think as far as technical play goes, that the flop raise may be the correct play over the flat call when you consider the betting on future streets. If you check the turn and he checks behind and then a diamond falls on the river, what are you doing?

 
At 5:08 PM, Blogger Jordan said...

Czech, don't expect Woffles to change his mind. You are correct, though. The right play with the complexion of the board is to check-raise the flop bet, or bet out on the turn. Woffles went passive and now he claims he had me read as an underpair. That's easy to say after the fact. Regardless of my actual hand, my RANGE, assuming I am loose, would also have to include AK, A9, A7, A6 (all hands that beat Woffle) and a flush draw. Even if he reads me as most likely holding an underpair, I still think he should bet and take the pot wants it reaches 600 (i.e., after my flop bet). But, whatever. He can slowplay me all day long if he wants. He just can't bitch if I end up catching cards due to his slowplay.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home