So what happens when you call down and they show AK? No tilt? I remember one time I was in a situation like this (and I posted about it) a couple years ago where I folded TT on an 8524 board because I made some ridiculous assumptions about a player I had basically no history with...

...and she had 33 (and the turn raiser had 99).

I can see tilting a bit from folding the best hand because of a misread....but if you start tilting because you missed a single bet in a pot you won, you have some serious tilt problems.

If that's in reference to what I just said then I don't get it.

Except I don't have "no idea". This is what people do with AA-KK, especially anyone tight who has a deep stack.

Remember, as well, if his range is full of garbage he is folding most of it on an AK9 flop.

I've said my piece. Your criteria for betting poker hands should be math and ranges, not avoiding looking like a slang word for female genitalia.

You implied that the guy would be tilting if he made the mistake of just calling down with 99 vs AK on the AK9 flop.

Nobody's telling you to fold. I'm telling you to call down. That's the tilt insurance. Assuming she actually has a wide range, there's one hand she has (AK) in the AK9 situation, that you miss a fair number of bets against. Literally all the other hands she has miss very little value from a calldown. Indeed, you are even inducing bluffs that she might fold to a raise.

The real insurance against tilt is math. If you go on monkey tilt every time you miss a couple of value bets, that's a leak.

And your reply implied that calling all the way down with 99 on AK9 would be missing a single bet instead of, say, 4-5 bets.

I wasn't implying he should be on tilt. I was asking a question. Really I'm just trolling someone for saying "what's the point of putting someone on an exact range and then not utilizing that information?" and then following that up by saying he would call down with 99. Based on what he just said, he should be folding the flop. Obviously you shouldn't fold, but it's quite alright to toss in a raise with 99 on AK9 even if you think AA/KK are highly possible hands for villain. Afterall, it is like a 6-way pot - we aren't playing heads up here.

TDK, what do you put villain's range on? Raising 99 is going to fold out a lot of stuff. You may not get to the river even against QQ, JJ, or TT. You certainly won't against 88-. Gutshots might call a flop bet and fold the turn. Other stuff, suited connectors, etc., are dumping it on the flop.

You have identified only one hand, AK, that will give us SOME value (not a ton, as even there the villain will figure out sooner or later that we have a set, and of course villain has 4 outs to beat us as well). That's it. Meanwhile, if OP is right that the actual range is AA only or AA-KK, how many bets do you propose putting into the pot to figure that out?

Bear in mind, your answer to that question affects how much value you get from AK. If you are calling down from a 3 bet you are also calling down from a 3 bet with AK and aren't getting as much value as you think you are. If you are putting in another raise, well, prepare to get re-raised again and value-own yourself even more against AA and KK.

You actually have no idea what they have. That the crux of the issue. 45 minutes and they have never limp re raised in this sessions

It's 6 handed on the flop. You are raising for protection and value. If gutshots fold that amazing for your hand.

You have 5 percent equity. You are burning money. Lots of money if people raise you back. I don't raise 5 percent equity draws, but then, what do I know, I'm just applying math to this situation.

And you say that we don't know the player has AA-KK, but you are leaving out 2 key pieces of information-- (1) OP's read, which said he did, and (2) the limp re-raise, which is VERY often exactly AA-KK when done by a nitty tight player who doesn't raise much. Which means the most logical read is that the player does have AA-KK. You call down, and if it turns out to be wrong, you take a note.

You called me a "pussy" earlier in the thread for saying you shouldn't raise. That's so telling. You want to raise this despite the math, because you think only wimps call down sets. That's your ego talking. Now, what you need to do is sublimate your ego (which leads you to make bad poker decisions) and look solely, dispassionately at math. You will find that math, in fact, does make it correct to sometimes call down sets without raising them, even though you think only "pussies" do that.

First of all, we shouldn't be giving OP's proposed range any credit. We have less than an hour long sample size and have no idea what kind of player OP is (at least I don't). What he offers as the range is pretty irrelevant to anything IMO.

So what do I put the range on? Who knows. Maybe they are always nutted? Maybe they are back raising with a good multiway hand like a suited broadway. Maybe they have a small pair. Maybe they are having a total spazz moment?

Since the pot is multiway and since I really know nothing about this opponent I'm going to raise my set on the flop. If they reraise, I'll probably cap it. If they STILL lead out on the turn, I can start to accept that my hand might not be good.

It's limit hold em. I'm properly bankrolled. Why am I trying to save bets on the flop in a multiway pot fearing a worst case scenario?

Just to recap, lawdude, aka "math guy," says to call bets on the flop, turn, AND river when he thinks he's against a bigger set 99.97% of the time... to "avoid tilt."

Math guy says that.

Pretty sure it's not to avoid tilt, it's to avoid a disaster from a possible misread. Folding the best hand would be a disaster. Missing a few bets with the best hand would not be a disaster.

Yep. This is limit hold 'em. So we can purchase cheap enough insurance against our soul reads being wrong or us tilting after getting bluffed out of a big pot.

No limit players, believe it or not, actually have to fold some obvious set-over-sets. Think of how tough that is!

But the fact that in limit hold 'em you sometimes make a mathematically unjustified calldown because your hand is too strong to fold in a big pot doesn't mean you compound the error by putting in raises.

I really find it strange that you think it is at all controversial that a small stakes deep stacked player's limp-re-raise is AA-KK. I mean, I can literally identify 40 players who have that exact range among the Southern California regulars. This is super-duper-standard.

And all your "maybes" are why we call down. They aren't a justification to put in raises when we are likely way behind (and when we are not, we may not get calls anyway).

I believe his actual words were "tilt insurance." He said that. Not me.

All I'm saying is let's stop with all this math nonsense while in the same breath saying that you should call THREE times against a hand that you think is a bigger set 99.97% of the time. There is no potential disaster to be had - if you believe your read you can fold 100% of the time on the flop and it will basically never hurt you in the long run. We are 99.97% sure we are beat!

I mean, I'm not... but apparently you guys are.

Also, not sure why I'm arguing with someone that keeps acting like this 6-7 way pot is heads up.

I never said it was controversial. It could be accurate. But we are going off of < one hour of observation and stereotypes. That's not enough for me to play a set cautiously on the flop in a multiway pot...

...even if the limp-reraiser is "deep stacked." Gasp!

Tilt insurance, lol. On the off chance that you are looking for a reply from someone who plays limit poker well, which I doubt, you should fix your tilt issues by learning how to play poker rather than invest heavily in so-called, "tilt insurance". I am so glad I am here to help you, yada yada. All too familiar (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...9&postcount=57), also says, "tilt insurance" somewhat similar question.

Bet the flop though, and call down, either that or patent your hole-cam that allows everyone to read hands this accurately. People do LRR unexpectedly.

No-limit is an entirely different story. Set-over-set laydowns happen. But, not in FLH very often. I think I've folded set-over-set once in FLH in my life, and I was right.

This is the wrong approach. At a professional level, you adjust your math according to your reads as best as possible, and decide. If you do the math after weighing their range, and decide your hand is too good to fold, and not good enough to raise, then that's the course of action that you take. If it's a big pot, and ace-high might win 1/20 times, and the pot is laying 21.5-to-1, it's a mathematically justified call based on your hand-reading abilities. Now, you can cost yourself by not accurately reading hands, or by improperly estimating your hand reading abilities, but this is entirely different than making "mathematically unjustified" decisions. The only time it makes sense to make what seems as "mathematically unjustified" is "advertising", which essentially is using a decision as a ploy, and using the false information you give-out against your opponent later. And, this is still mathematically justifiable, btw. You just have to map-out a larger game.

I mean, you can tilt call now rather than not tilt decision later, you can even do tilt layaway, but why not face the tilt issues head-on?

Soak in a statistics lecture or two from YouTube, imho. You are not using statistics well, which is going to be long-term bad.

"Tilt insurance" is the common sense term for calldowns in limit hold 'em where we basically know we are beat, because we are so far up in our range and/or the pot is so big that an erroneous fold is both a possibility and would be incredibly costly.

This is limit 101. And the important thing is, even if it isn't mathematically justified, making a small mathematical error in calling down too much doesn't justify lighting money on fire with raises that value-own yourself.

How is calling down when you are 99.97% sure you are crushed a "small" error? And it's not just one error, it's the same error, THREE times.

I think someone smart said it earlier in the thread: "what is the point of putting your opponent on a specific range if you aren't going to utilize that information?"

If that's your current situation, then that's true, but you do realize you can also just not make either mathematical error. Given a game where I decide to lose 10, or lose 1, then yes, I choose to lose 1. But, there's also other choices in the game that you are neglecting. All things being equal, this is a powerful argument to take a walk from the game, and approach it with fresh eyes. This would be the equivalent of choosing 0.

cliffs: You do have free will; you know. You don't have to tilt. You are not glued to your seat, etc.