aejones

ya supa easy to fold full houses from a rail perspective

i liked this especially considering the meandering crap trail that was his advice. On hand 1 he said it was ok to call or raise pre. bet or check flop. call or fold turn. so horrible. do people actually pay for this?

the best though was when he gave an exact range for a "good" player on hand 2 but doesnt know what a bad player would show up with. is this the way poker works? if so i only want to play against "good" readable players and i am very happy being a bad unreadable player.

QFT, responses have been all over the place whether hand 1 is an easy fold or a call (AE said he'd snap), all from great players. OP was definitely in a sick spot facing 2 river shoves, sounds like Limon plays pretty well to me since OP and by extension many posters in this thread don't really know what to do in these hands even by committee.

No, the best was "We limp 55 here every time because when our opponents have KQ and the flop comes K or Q and a 5, we're usually getting a lot of money. With Q9, we can raise because our opponents are limping all types of worse hands and just aren't limping hands like KQ" before the Russian dude or whatever correctly stated the real reason raising 55 was inferior to raising Q9s.

And lol at the notion that abe plays horrible for his line in hand 1; it's live poker and rarely if ever are you getting exploited, I would do the exact same thing with AKcc a lot of the time when 66 is just as much apart of Abe's range as it is the BTN raiser's. At the same time, taking that line with a set every rare once in awhile isn't terrible either; the only thing terrible is constricting yourself to the same line 100% of the time in every situation. It's live poker, there are thousands of different reasons one would check the flop even with the stone cold nuts simply off of live tells and the goofy dynamic that is often present.

The rest of the advice was absolutely on point though, as raising the turn in hand 2 is usually not optimal without serious history and table dynamics, raising river in hand 2 is really bad against this villain and not betting the turn is criminal. Calling the 3bet shove is obv awful.

he said hed snap before the borat dude told him "sauce" said fold then he said hed fold turn.

nevermind, im covered

i dont see how my paly is horrible given that the OP recognized the "gutless" bet and raised to pick it up on a bluff or to "protect his equity"(? hope im using that term correctly just learned it from lego poker founder). then i (mr.terrible) recognize everything OP recognized, sniffed out his exact play and put him in a position WHERE HE SHOULD NEVER CALL. Hes crushed by my range, he even more crushed by a "standard" turn 3 betting hand in live poker and even though i know hes a calling station (see hand 2) i still thought hed have to lay down almost every made hand in his range here leaving only big draws which i can beat or fold out on river.

except you rep nothing.

lol at saying a "standard" turn 3 betting hand. there isn't really a "standard" turn 3 betting hand after checking two streets OOP in a 4 way really draw-heavy flop. not saying you can't do this occasionally with a big hand, but to call anything here "standard" is so paradoxical that it's moronic if you can't see it.

i'd honestly only lay this down if i respected the player enough not to bluff in the most obvious bluff spot ever, but if you keep posting about "standard" ranges on isolated streets rather than on the line as a whole, you might lose all that cred and these plays will stop working altogether against anyone with half a brain...

whup, the only reason players don't know what to do is because limon is a respected poster and people assume he plays well, so they were figuring he might be getting into a leveling war with hand 1. that's why bobbo posted easy fold (and whoever else) - normally when "good" players make these plays in stupid spots, they have it because it's too stupid not to have it, so that's what he assumed. now i'm not hating on limon, he might have realized this and tried to level OP, so it could have been what he was trying to do. all i'm saying is that against total droolers, these would be the easiest decisions ever.

hand 2 is the most stupidly easy fold ever since our river raising range reps nuts or air, and limon almost never... ok never has pure air, so it would be the dumbest most non-sensical bluff spot OR thin value raise spot ever, ergo he has the nuts.

you're thinking too much here (i hope you take that as a compliment). there is a standard hand that people make 100BB 3 bets w/ post flop in live games...its called the nuts. it doesnt really matter how they got there, it doesnt matter what they are repping, they just have it. If you got surveillance tape of all the turn 100BB 3 bets in the commerce 5-10+ over a months time 90%+ would be hands that the 3 bettor considered the stone nitties. and many of the hands would be played so strangely as to defy all logic.

now, that said, i am anything but standard, however, for the reason you gave amongst others it is still a clear fold.

well i knew exactly what limon had in both hands and it didn't even seem that interesting.

and based on his line in hand 1 its easy to understand why aaron said he prolly played really terribly.

the ol i rep nothing but gonna shove anyways then make some inane table chat hoping that will overshadow the fact that my hand makes absolutely no sense line is pretty strong.

when i saw these hands posted i wondered who would give the horrible advice of calling in hand 1 then spout off when the results were posted...how could i not have known...

yea, it seems like limon played both hands pretty well to me, considering i would have made too wrong decisions and practice, and thought both decisions were very difficult even when not at the table....

I said easy fold for both because I have read Limon's posts over the past 6 years, so despite never playing with him (or maybe we have played?), I would think his bluff function in both these spots is dramatically less then the price we are given. And he's never value pushing worse than our relative hand in both spots, so it's really moot that "we have a full house" or whatever.

FWIW, his bluff in hand 2 would 100% work on me (I'd fold the turn), but I also would not have raised the turn w/ Q9 despite seeing a "gutless" bet. That said, I could imagine having air trying to move on the "gutless" bet, so in that case, his move in a vacuum is actually nifty.

What's wrong with just call/call on hand 1. Q9 is not a monster there. I'm not looking to fold it either. Take a card off, man.

um bobbo not sure if you read my post wrong or got confused or im confused or what but i said the 55 was the easy fold, not the Q9. whatever, doesn't really matter.

lol @ horrible advice.

was super obv to me you were FOS in the first hand, and i said hand 2 was a super easy fold, both were 100% correct, and not cuz oh this is the lucky one time exception where you have nothing in hand 1 and nuts in hand 2, its cuz hand one is such an obv live "impulse bluff" where you have given up on pot then all of a sudden are like "oh wait he prolly isn't that strong i should take this pot away now even tho my hand makes no sense as played".

so why don't you please enlighten us as to why the call in hand 1 is so horrible other then just the "oh i'm limon and i play so awesome everyone should fold when i bluff".

FWIW, the decisions leading up to the river were probably more controversial/worthy of discussion. the limp pf w/ both is perfectly fine. So is raising. Doesn't really matter since there isn't a large ev edge either way. To argue about that is purely quibbling. That said, I'd bet the flop when checked to w/ Q9 a lot. And, to hammer home this, the turn raise is really silly unless you have such a sick read he picked up clubs or wants to draw to KT or something nutty since you "know the dude likes to do this".

For hand 2, your turn check is just bad as well. Why are you checking here? You have a set. His hand looks a lot like a big spade (probably w/ a pair) or a big ace that is trying to OOP PC. I'd assume you always have the best hand. You want money going in. For the river, this has been said a million times, but you just got B3B in this spot where the only 2 reasonable bluffing hands are QxQs and KxKs. Meaning, flushes that are VBing that turn themselves into a bluff. Most people (99%) are not capable of this play, which means, well, they're not bluffing. Even when they are capable of it, that's 6 combos, further reduced since I don't think people always those hands that way. (A lot of people just autobet the flop leaning back on their nut equity or w/e) Compared to JJ/AJ/whatever. So you're good like 1 in 10. Maybe.

Edit:



Read your post right, was responding in general, not just to you.

also, this internet beef is getting silly.
i've never met you and while i disagree with your ethical outlook on poker, i think its gotten redundant for us to keep acting like 4yr olds online, so in the interest of civility i think we could both benefit from dropping the super hostile subtext to our exchanges.

no prob.

I wouldn't say that your play is horrible but your own play isn't necessarily any harder to read into than the first gutless bet and the raise that it induced. It's pretty clear by the time that action comes back to you that there's a pretty good chance that no one has much which makes it a good spot to bluff, except that this is balanced out pretty well by the fact that your line is entirely unconvincing and most good players avoid running bluffs where their line doesn't represent anything. From there it's just a leveling exercise which doesn't leave a whole lot for the peanut gallery to comment on.

In a vacuum, obviously it's going to be hugely -EV to go around calling off 250bb with 1 pair against good players, but as far as specific spots go, this is one of the more reasonable spots to consider it since the pot was heavily bloated already without anyone's ranges apparently having improved by a corresponding degree.

I think raising the river (and folding to the shove) is fine in OPs spot in hand 2. I believe AEJones said he wouldn't raise the river, but he also said he thinks OP's flop c/c range is (or should be) stuff like KK, QQ with a spade or AK, AQ, AJ with or without a spade. Limon really shouldn't have too many boats with his line.

Hand 1 really is opponent dependent to how OP and Limon view each other. It doesn't really matter if Limon reps nothing vs some live villains, as they will simply see the turn action of bet, raise, cold3bet as being extremely strong and disregard previous streets and the fact that Limon raised pre, etc. This sounds ridiculous, but it is live poker.

clearly a great response

[ ] spring83 knows what hes talking about

It's not at all fine against a competent villain's range of K/Q high flushes (one of which is never calling and the other is rarely if ever calling) and AJ / JJ. It should also be mentioned that limon's bet is huge in comparison to the average live poker river bet and thus his range is slightly more polarized than in an online setting (unless he assumes OP is a good player).

And the argument "well then we should always be bluff raising!" is incorrect given that half his range is obv never folding.

Limon's play in hand 1 wasn't horrible- he's repping a tarp obv, and the image he has built up over the years (at least amongst 2p2er's) gives him a ton of fe regardless of his line. However, his play may have been too thin/bordering on spewy in that he was oop, his reads had to be spot on for 2 players (turns out they were) AND he needed both players to not play back at him/fold (this is a lot tougher now than it used to be a few years ago). There's also a good chance the results (OP's hero call) are somewhat factoring in to people's opinions...

The 2 biggest issues in these hands imo (and I don't think it's close) were OP checking back flop in hand 1 and turn in hand 2. These checks are what made the hands tough/interesting. Also, as played, OP's raise on the turn in hand 1 is a lot less bad than those of you who play in way tougher games might imagine/it might even have been good.