Beeker hand from LC/NC Thread

[bozlax]

Originally Posted by antneye

I am donking if I am villain, and there is no way I am bluffing.

Just for the sake of argument, what if you're BB holding KJ? (Disregard preflop.)

[antneye]

Originally Posted by bozlax

Just for the sake of argument, what if you're BB holding KJ? (Disregard preflop.)

honestly? I am likely starting by checking. I just don't see much value in betting three way when CO is clearly drawing at something and a 4 flush hits. Especially when the K completes a flopped straight draw also.

[A_Schupick]

Everyone who says call, what are we expecting him ot have? We are only getting ~8:1

[bozlax]

Originally Posted by A_Schupick

Everyone who says call, what are we expecting him ot have? We are only getting ~8:1

I'm EXPECTING him to have the flush, but I've seen this line from nano-stakes donks often enough without the flush that I'll call with two-pair or better as long as I'm getting in the neighborhood of 7:1.

ant, ok, now tell me what a bad .10/.20 player is going to do when he catches two-pair on a river that also puts 4 to a flush on the board.

[Montrealcorp]

Originally Posted by bozlax

I'm EXPECTING him to have the flush, but I've seen this line from nano-stakes donks often enough without the flush that I'll call with two-pair or better as long as I'm getting in the neighborhood of 7:1.

ant, ok, now tell me what a bad .10/.20 player is going to do when he catches two-pair on a river that also puts 4 to a flush on the board.

+1
Totally standard call

[antneye]

Originally Posted by bozlax

ant, ok, now tell me what a bad .10/.20 player is going to do when he catches two-pair on a river that also puts 4 to a flush on the board.

I don't know for sure...haven't played these stakes in ages....he will probably check if he is in the middle, and bet (maybe check) it if he is last to act which is why I am checking and then evaluating the action.

if I start by checking:
bet/call is a fold coming back to me
check/bet is likely a call for me.
bet/raise we don't even need to discuss.

I think betting into 3 with 2 pr in this spot is turning your hand into a bluff, and it's a bad bluff at that. I don't think anything worse calls, and I doubt anything better folds.

Hence the reason I started out by saying he should fold his set....circular logic ftw.

meh: maybe I am underestimating how light people will showdown.....but I don't think that translates to underestimating the strength of someone who is donking this river...unless, as always, there is a strong read to go with it.

[Montrealcorp]

I play at those stakes and a villain 2 pair eithout heart often here and even with weaker

[Cranberry Tea]

Am I the only one who hates the pf open-limp? It's 2012 IIRC; the days when multiple people would reliably limp behind have passed on into song and legend.

I also fold river, but I'm MUBSY and my showdown% is probably way too low.

[beeker]

Originally Posted by Cranberry Tea

Am I the only one who hates the pf open-limp? It's 2012 IIRC; the days when multiple people would reliably limp behind have passed on into song and legend.

Mostly I agree with you. 44 UTG would be a fold for me most of the time. This table seemed to break that pattern - as did another table (start-up table at .25/.50) last night.

Can't explain it - just try to adjust to it when it happens.

[A_Schupick]

O, I thought that we had established earlier that the limp was bad. Regardless, this isn't just against one opponent, this is against two. We need to beat both of them, and we are not ahead of both ranges, perhaps one, but not both.

[bellatrix]

If it's a FR table and the table really has been loose, passive, I don't see a problem with a limp preflop. However, the fact that there weren't any specific reads on the players makes me want to question the assertion that the table has been loose, passive (ie, how do you know without reads?).

[beeker]

Originally Posted by bellatrix

makes me want to question the assertion that the table has been loose, passive (ie, how do you know without reads?).

Maybe this is just me being naive.

I treat reads on players with extreme skepticism until I have at least 100 hands on them. And that's only for VPIP and PR values. Anything more than that I'd want a lot more hands.

When I've been at a table for 15-20 hands (as in this case) and I've seen several hands go unraised pf and with 4+ players to the flop, I view this as a loose/passive table, even without specific reads on players. That's because in the normal case, I'm seeing 3 players to the flop with 1-2 raises along the way.

Maybe I'm making table judgments too early.

And when initial statement was made about specific reads, I took it to refer to how players handle later streets re: bluffing. That is, in the absence of a specific indication that these players never bluff, call the bet.

[DougL]

I think Bellatrix is suggesting that you work on your note taking.

[beeker]

Originally Posted by DougL

I think Bellatrix is suggesting that you work on your note taking.

Ouch. That hit home.

I've been focussing on straightening out my pre-flop, in response to a suggestion by Trex. It's actually been quite helpful.

After that my plan was to focus on player reads (both preflop and postflop) and note-taking. I just haven't got there yet.

[A_Schupick]

Then you can't limp pre. If you don't have reads, then just don't limp pre. period.