Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

shove or check

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    shove or check

    Game # 2363287841 - Texas Hold'em No Limit 15/30 - Table "€5+0.50/500VIP(€5) Super Turbo Sit & Go 11293103 1"

    Players(max 6):
    cristizi (1,250.00 in seat 1)
    LELESA (1,620.00 in seat 2)
    Andreiko86 (1,300.00 in seat 3)
    ilcondor82 (815.00 in seat 4)
    Behroooz (1,220.00 in seat 5)
    hero (1,295.00 in seat 6)

    Dealer: ilcondor82
    Small Blind: Behroooz (15.00)
    Big Blind: hero (30.00)

    hero was dealt: 7s - 8s

    cristizi Call (30.00)
    LELESA Call (30.00)
    Andreiko86 Fold
    ilcondor82 Call (30.00)
    Behroooz Fold
    hero Check

    Flop 8c - 3d - 7d

    hero Bet (67.00)
    cristizi Call (67.00)
    LELESA Call (67.00)
    ilcondor82 Call (67.00)

    Turn 8c - 3d - 7d - 9h

    hero Bet (403.00)
    cristizi Call (403.00)
    LELESA Fold
    ilcondor82 Fold

    River 8c - 3d - 7d - 9h - 7c

    hero????
    whats the best way to get value here
    thoughs on all streets please
    no info on villain

    #2
    bet,
    if you check he may well check behind, but if you bet he may call with one pair hands, sets or even straights,
    at this level he may even think that you are "at it" and shipp to get you off the pot

    main thing is to bet 50-60% of the pot, can't rely on him to make a move



    "Remember the time he ate my goldfish? And you lied and said I never had goldfish. Then why did I have the bowl, Bart? Why did I have the bowl?"

    Comment


      #3
      Check, It's hard for him to have a pair here. He's likely to have a busted draw.

      Comment


        #4
        More on flop, less on turn, and I shove river myself. While it is possible for him to have a busted draw, we also require him to shove it, which he doesn't always. Only missed draw he has is diamonds anyway, there are still a lot of SDs which have spiked something or other. Also have some 8s we might get value from, and a slowplayed OP which might check back.
        Foldaramus et foldarabimus

        Comment


          #5
          Agree totally with tommygunne

          Comment


            #6
            You show a huge amount of strength by shoving, and a lot of range can't possibly put any money in you shove

            Comment


              #7
              I think he checks back too often. I believe his calling range is both wider and weaker than his betting range

              Comment


                #8
                He limped utg, called a small bet on the flop and then a larger one of the turn. There are very few hands he can have that actually contain a pair, I think his most likely hand is random overcards with a ten, or a flush draw. The only down side to checking I see is that an overpair, or 9T might check. However, sometimes the player will bet (stupidly) with a hand with showdown value. . I really don't see the point in stopping the guy from bluffing us when a huge portion of his range can't even consider calling. Even if he has a random pair there is no guarantee he will call an all in.

                The main reason I think betting is bad is that at no stage has the player made any aggressive move, there is no reason to think he has anything strong. I doubt he flat calls the flop bet with an overpair or an eight.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Hectorjelly View Post
                  He limped utg, called a small bet on the flop and then a larger one of the turn. There are very few hands he can have that actually contain a pair, I think his most likely hand is random overcards with a ten, or a flush draw. The only down side to checking I see is that an overpair, or 9T might check. However, sometimes the player will bet (stupidly) with a hand with showdown value. . I really don't see the point in stopping the guy from bluffing us when a huge portion of his range can't even consider calling. Even if he has a random pair there is no guarantee he will call an all in.

                  The main reason I think betting is bad is that at no stage has the player made any aggressive move, there is no reason to think he has anything strong. I doubt he flat calls the flop bet with an overpair or an eight.
                  Your whole line of thinking here is so immensely retarded it beggars belief, it really does. You actually say betting here is bad, that is just ridic!

                  Comment


                    #10
                    He calls a bet for more than the pot on the turn. That is a spot where most players, fish included will just fold bare flush draws, I figure him to have a pair of some sort, possibly with a draw

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Bet like 1/3pot on the river is the best line as it accomplish two things. If he has a small piece you get called most of the time since he cant pass up the price, but if he bricked or feels his small pair may be no good your bet may induce a bluff-raise instead. Wouldn't check here.

                      EDIT: Just reread and noticed this wasn't a cash game. Shove with stacks.

                      FWIW there is a 'Tournament Poker' forum for posting tournament hands..
                      Last edited by Winning!; 10-09-11, 23:04.
                      "c'est en faisant n'importe quoi qu'on devient n'importe qui"

                      Comment


                        #12
                        i bet 240 every street and pray he bluff shoves the river

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Arazi View Post
                          Your whole line of thinking here is so immensely retarded it beggars belief, it really does. You actually say betting here is bad, that is just ridic!
                          I think checking is better than betting and gave my reasons why. It's actually a complicated question because there are important variables which we are all just guessing, but are crucial. For example some players will never or rarely bluff, so there's no point in checking to them.

                          Rather than making a crass and offensive statement with no evidence or logic to back it up, why don't you take a deep breath and inform us as to why you think betting is better.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by Hectorjelly View Post
                            It's actually a complicated question because there are important variables which we are all just guessing, but are crucial. For example some players will never or rarely bluff, so there's no point in checking to them.
                            This

                            There is an awful lot of fish playing $5 sng's, i was grinding them a while back and in a spot like this some fish will even unintentionally turn their overpair or two pair in to bluff , coupled with the large amount of draw combo's they will turn in to bluff. I disagree that even fish will lay down a draw on the turn here especially if they have a gutter SD with it. Obv we'd all agree that if overpairs and two pair hands made up the best part of villians range a shove would be best but you cant say checking here is retarded or close to bad without info IMO.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Hectorjelly View Post
                              I think checking is better than betting and gave my reasons why. It's actually a complicated question because there are important variables which we are all just guessing, but are crucial. For example some players will never or rarely bluff, so there's no point in checking to them.

                              Rather than making a crass and offensive statement with no evidence or logic to back it up, why don't you take a deep breath and inform us as to why you think betting is better.
                              It was actually not meant to be crass or offensive, to be quite honest I actually wondered to myself if you might have been intoxicated when you wrote your replies and might see things clearer when you came around (thats not meant to be offensive either, its actually what went thru my head).
                              I read your reasoning and given that you put yourself forward as a poker coach thats why I said that your logic is so retarded that it beggars belief. You didnt say checking was better than betting, you said that betting was bad. You also said that the villian showed no strength in the hand yet he has called >pot sized bet on the turn and so far has commited roughly 40% of his stack to the pot.
                              Seriously I really think that you need to step back and take a real look at where you are with your poker and your logical thinking, I used to enjoy reading your replies 2/3 yrs ago on Boards.ie but of late I cant understand how I could have been so wrong about you.

                              Comment


                                #16
                                Originally posted by Kenny View Post
                                This

                                There is an awful lot of fish playing $5 sng's, i was grinding them a while back and in a spot like this some fish will even unintentionally turn their overpair or two pair in to bluff , coupled with the large amount of draw combo's they will turn in to bluff. I disagree that even fish will lay down a draw on the turn here especially if they have a gutter SD with it. Obv we'd all agree that if overpairs and two pair hands made up the best part of villians range a shove would be best but you cant say checking here is retarded or close to bad without info IMO.
                                I never said anything about checking being good/bad or indifferent, I was commenting on the posters logic.

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  Originally posted by Arazi View Post
                                  It was actually not meant to be crass or offensive, to be quite honest I actually wondered to myself if you might have been intoxicated when you wrote your replies and might see things clearer when you came around (thats not meant to be offensive either, its actually what went thru my head).
                                  Well it was crass & offensive, as was the post I'm quoting here.

                                  Originally posted by Arazi View Post
                                  I read your reasoning and given that you put yourself forward as a poker coach thats why I said that your logic is so retarded that it beggars belief. You didnt say checking was better than betting, you said that betting was bad. You also said that the villian showed no strength in the hand yet he has called >pot sized bet on the turn and so far has commited roughly 40% of his stack to the pot.
                                  Seriously I really think that you need to step back and take a real look at where you are with your poker and your logical thinking, I used to enjoy reading your replies 2/3 yrs ago on Boards.ie but of late I cant understand how I could have been so wrong about you.
                                  First of all I never said that the villain has shown no strength, I said at no stage has he made an aggressive move. On such a board it makes it less likely he is slowplaying something good. It's not definitive proof, but it a sign. A random guy playing a $5 stt calling a pot bet on the turn doesn't show that much strength to me, I play higher than that and I often see players call with flush draws in similar situations.

                                  Second, I don't understand your tone. At its heart this is a simple question, what % of his range is busted draws vs what % are hands that may call a push (but won't push themselves when checked to). If the ratio is skewed heavily towards busted draws then checking is by far the superior play. I assume none of us play €5 Turbo sng's on whatever site is playing, so we're all just guessing as to his opponents tendencies.

                                  I don't understand why you can't simply disagree and give your reasoning. I don't see what it has to do with my putting myself forward as a poker coach (which I'm not). I've been wrong before, and one of the reasons we post here is to hear other peoples opinions. Myself Tommy Gunne and cardshark202 have all disagreed in this thread, but we managed to do it civilly. I don't think any less of them (!) and I'm sure its the same for them.

                                  On the other hand you have done nothing but be weirdly rude, added nothing but mistakes and insults to the thread. Perhaps you could take a step back and think about how to be productive member of the forum?

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    Reread this thread and really agree with every thing I said, I'm sorry but I think your logic lacks in intellect (this is the definition of retarded) I'm sorry if that word caused you offense but I believe I used it in it's proper setting so whatever.

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      Originally posted by Arazi View Post
                                      I'm sorry but I think your logic lacks in intellect (this is the definition of retarded) I'm sorry if that word caused you offense but I believe I used it in it's proper setting so whatever.
                                      If this is not a level its very ironic

                                      Comment


                                        #20
                                        Originally posted by Arazi View Post
                                        Reread this thread and really agree with every thing I said, I'm sorry but I think your logic lacks in intellect (this is the definition of retarded) I'm sorry if that word caused you offense but I believe I used it in it's proper setting so whatever.
                                        lol

                                        Comment


                                          #21
                                          Originally posted by Arazi View Post
                                          Reread this thread and really agree with every thing I said, I'm sorry but I think your logic lacks in intellect (this is the definition of retarded) I'm sorry if that word caused you offense but I believe I used it in it's proper setting so whatever.
                                          Wow. Just...wow.

                                          You do know that lacking in intellect is not the definition of retarded right? Retarded means underdeveloped in a general sense or being possessed of an intellectual or emotional disability, although the latter definition is not considered politically correct or in fact accurate anymore. In a colloquial manner the word could perhaps be used as an offensive term meaning something which displays a lack of intelligence or understanding but you clearly say you didn't mean to be offensive so we can assume you didn't mean it that way. Funnily your use of the word retarded in this context is actually retarded itself by that definition which, if nothing else, is rather pleasing from an ironic point of view.

                                          Also, logic cannot lack in intellect. Logic can be deficient due to a lack of intellect on the part of the person using it but logic is not possessive of an intellect which can, in and of itself, be lacking.

                                          Oh, and "everything" has been used as a single compound pronoun since roughly the 14th century rather than two separate words as you use it.

                                          Just to clarify; you didn't use "retarded" in its proper setting, you have managed to be consistently unhelpful and rude in this thread and, finally, when you go around questioning really smart people's intellects you had better be sure there are no glaringly stupid errors in your posts.
                                          Last edited by Kayroo; 12-09-11, 23:45.
                                          You are technically correct...the best kind of correct
                                          World Record Holder for Long Distance Soul Reads: May 7th 2011

                                          Comment


                                            #22

                                            Comment


                                              #23
                                              Kayroo, I'm sure there are English grammar mistakes in nearly all of my posts, however this is a poker strategy area of the forum so most people overlook those in posters. I'd believe that my strategy and intellect should be superior to most but by participating in the forum I do pick up on some really good ideas (there was one by akqj10 as recent as yesterday).
                                              In this thread I read what I see as a continued spew of drivel by HJ which IMO was so bad it couldn't be overlook. His line of thinking showed a lack of intelligence and this whole reading of the situation was IMO retarded beyond belief. He wasn't just putting forward an alternative way to play the river but instead was saying that the way the previous posters had suggested was bad.
                                              Therefore I don't think I've been unhelpful in the thread. If I've been continually rude it's due to HJ wanting clarification on why I said what I said, only for that I'd only have been rude once.

                                              Comment


                                                #24
                                                Arazi,
                                                Kayroo was just pointing out, that your comment about using retarded in the "correct setting", was itself, ironically retarded.

                                                But you are right, this is the poker theory section. So instead of tossing out insults why don't you back up your comments with some poker theory. So far you've just said that HJ's post was retarded, and that his logic was bad. Yet, you haven't provided a single decent reason why it's bad.

                                                I personally don't agree that checking is better, I rather shove. But, I think HJ has explained that he thinks the player has enough busted draws in his range so that he bets when checked to more often than he calls a shove. So which part of that theory is retarded?

                                                Comment


                                                  #25
                                                  The part where he said that Betting is Bad.

                                                  Comment


                                                    #26
                                                    Originally posted by Arazi View Post
                                                    Kayroo, I'm sure there are English grammar mistakes in nearly all of my posts, however this is a poker strategy area of the forum so most people overlook those in posters. I'd believe that my strategy and intellect should be superior to most but by participating in the forum I do pick up on some really good ideas (there was one by akqj10 as recent as yesterday).
                                                    In this thread I read what I see as a continued spew of drivel by HJ which IMO was so bad it couldn't be overlook. His line of thinking showed a lack of intelligence and this whole reading of the situation was IMO retarded beyond belief. He wasn't just putting forward an alternative way to play the river but instead was saying that the way the previous posters had suggested was bad.
                                                    Therefore I don't think I've been unhelpful in the thread. If I've been continually rude it's due to HJ wanting clarification on why I said what I said, only for that I'd only have been rude once.
                                                    This is where you are going wrong imo.

                                                    Comment


                                                      #27
                                                      Originally posted by Arazi View Post
                                                      I'd believe that my strategy and intellect should be superior to most
                                                      INB4HU4ROLLZ
                                                      "c'est en faisant n'importe quoi qu'on devient n'importe qui"

                                                      Comment


                                                        #28
                                                        Originally posted by CHD View Post
                                                        This is where you are going wrong imo.
                                                        He's probably telling the truth there actually. He's just not explaining it well

                                                        Comment


                                                          #29
                                                          Originally posted by Arazi View Post
                                                          however this is a poker strategy area of the forum so most people overlook those in posters.
                                                          I agree, however what I cannot overlook is your approach to this thread. Let's go back to Junior Cert maths for a second to demonstrate why HJ and others think you're out of order.

                                                          First of all none of your posts posits a single thought on the hand the OP puts forward. Not one. You say that HJ's thinking is bad without explaining why you think that. In Junior Cert maths we learn that giving the answer isn't good enough Arazi, you have to show us your method. Show us your method Arazi.

                                                          I'll stop at that because, actually, I think that's the nub of the point. There cannot really be a definite answer to the question the OP asks because there just isn't enough information here. We are essentially guessing on a number of vital pieces of info to determine the appropriate course of action. HJ and Cardshark have argued for 2 opposing strategies and given reasons for it. You've said nothing worth reading in this thread. Not a single word.
                                                          You are technically correct...the best kind of correct
                                                          World Record Holder for Long Distance Soul Reads: May 7th 2011

                                                          Comment


                                                            #30
                                                            not only have you not said a single word worth reading, you've also come across as a right arrogant tosser. "I'd believe that my strategy and intellect should be superioer to most".......seriously pull your head out of your own arse for one minute because if anyone is sounding retarded here it's most definitely YOU.

                                                            Comment


                                                              #31
                                                              I agree with HJ here. Checking is probably best. Give the villain a chance to bluff.

                                                              Comment

                                                              Working...
                                                              X