(THE MONEY IS SWEDISH SEK NOT $, THE STAKES EQUALS TO 100NL)


fish is 75/25 but only 16 hands on him.

I think this is std, the question is about what i can do OTT but i think just calling is probably the best, maybe shoving is better but i dont think folding is good.

jam turn
not many $$ behind so he's calling all his draws

Jamming is bad.

+1

nh

Sent from my VS870 4G using 2+2 Forums

std

Which draws would he ever play like that ott...? Like no draws at all. The question is whether he has worse for value or not like JJ.

Haha don't overthink this spot. Your play is standard.

Ok, what if:
1. River bricks, we still call?
2. River completes FD, we still call?
3. He checks river when it completes FD, we shove?

if you just call turn , you can't really fold any river for that size

Obv you can't told anywhere but I really don't get why shoving the turn can be bad. Villain could even be messing about with KQ and may call to hit, but give up if he misses. If he has anything he won't fold. I mean, I'd prob call and call the river but there can't be much in it.

Common 2+2 fallacy


Are we looking at the same hand?

Hand was played fine

wat

Yes, we are talking about some 75/25 fish here. They do all sorts of weird things that make no sense, that's why they are fish.

Looking at a hand strictly from the price you are receiving to make a call while ignoring everything else is a mistake.

The hand is a call on the river but not because of the price he is getting. Villain could 2x overbet pot on the river and it's still a call where it can be a trivial fold if the river brought the 5h and a trivial call with the Kd

So "you cant fold any river after calling that turn for that size" is incorrect and utter nonsense

Just cus he is a fish doesnt mean he has ATC lol. Also 16 hand sample, he is most likely not even close to 75/25

One would think you would not have to point this out but judging by the replies in this thread, it probably should be pointed out as it seems most don't get it

Have you ever bothered to analyse the chance that normalish player ends up as 75/25 over 16 hands? No? I'm guessing not as if you did the you would realise that 16 hands is statistically significant for basic VIP stats.

But yes, of course he probably isn't 75/25 - he could be 58/15, 65/30, 90/10 etc. The point is that he is playing a lot of hands and it is very unlikely that he isn't a fish. You would think that this wouldn't need to be pointed out but some people don't get it evidently.

LOL, Statistically significant, no. Do we know he's a fish, Probably. Do we know what kind of fish he is? No. We don't know if he runs 30/10 or 95/45 assuming a 75/25 is 58/15, 65/30 or 90/10 is lol.

Do we know if he's aggressive or passive post flop? Nope, not a freaking clue. To label all fish the same is dumb, just like labeling all regs the same is dumb.

Pick a random 16 hand sample from your database. I have no idea what your stats are but lets pick a random number of 24/19.

I guarantee you if you pick some random 16 hands samples you will run at 14/10 and 36/29 depending on card distribution, which is a 50% difference. so 16 hands is relatively insignificant, all we know is he is probably a fish

Nope, all in case it needs to be pointed out again, all fish are not the same, shoveling it in just becasue OMG he's a fish is a mistake.

It is four handed play (with another non-autotopper besides villain) so this is very very unlikely to be true for a standard α. If you yourself have done the statistical analysis (or have found articles/reports from others), feel free to post them because I (with a solid statistic/research methods background) honestly don't see how this would be even remotely close to being statistically significant.

Someone gets it. I never bothered to point out 4 handed play because:

I honestly have no idea what point you are trying to make. I didn't say that all fish play the same, or omg shove as he's a fish, or that he was precisely playing according the the example VIP stats I gave (seriously, wtf at assuming that). I said that it it very likely that he is a fish and plays a lot of hands. So, he most likely does unusually dumb stuff. If you actually bothered to read what others post before going off on some pointless ramble, you would see that I said I'd call/call but that shoving is close.

Well, part of my post grad degree was in prob theory and my job is involves a lot of stats but lets not compare e-penis sizes or pretend that this is the sort of thing that is more complicated than it really is.

Eg you could look at the 75%. Suppose that the true rate is 35%...what is the chance that you get >=75% after 16 hands? Not tiny for sure, but smaller than many people think. Then look at the percentage of hands played without raising. If this was really 10% then that's 1.6 on average over 16 hands. He actually did it 8 times. This is a would be very unlikely event. All I'm saying is that the one piece of info we have is the 75/25 stat, and even over 16 hands that provides a high level of credibility that he is a fish who plays a lot of hands. I'm not assuming anything specific about post flop play from that, other than it's most likely not great and there will be an element of random spew factor.

My point is:

To assume villain will do this with something as lose as KQ in which you referenced in an earlier post is ******ed, since the sample size provided is statistically insignificant (which you seem to think it is, but it can clearly be illustrated that its not) and to assume he's that hes some crazy whale that will play overcards like this because of 16 hands in a 4 handed game is incorrect.

The only option we have here is to call turn, jamming is not even close, DUCY?

It's 4 handed play. If the true rate is 35%, that would make him a reg in 4 handed play most likely, hence the sample size is insignificant. The only reason he's a fish is because of stack size.

Urghhh..talk about missing the point. That gif is what it's like reading your posts.

Not sure why I'm bothering, but if we assume a simple binomial dist then the chance of playing >=75% of hands when the true rate is 35% is about 0.1%. If the true rate is 50% then the prob becomes 4%.

Why don't you explain that line to me about it being easy to clearly explain why the sample size is insignificant? And why the stack size is somehow a better read?