lol at all the folds.

which could explain why you are still in micro-stakes...yes, this call is high variance, but it is a CALL.

Pokey posted this same hand in SSNL where all of the posters have much more experience at this level. Here is the thread. http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...ad.php?t=86645

Checking the turn is beyond bad.

Its funny when you have such a condescending tone towards uNL players when I saw at least a few people in that thread saying a fold is fine including orange. Another guy said its a call because "f him" which to me isnt exactly selling me on anything. Oh and one more thing, if you read the thread which you linked then you would notice something also that everyone there seems to say that is this hand isnt really meaningful to win rate at all seeing as how rare we see it. So saying that because some of us wouldnt make this call is the reason we are at uNL is ridiculous.

No, its not.

I agree, there can definitely be a case made for checking the turn.

I still think betting is better but I wouldn't describe checking as terrible.

if you can explain why im "still" at micro stakes (after beating 100nl, 200nl, 400nl, and limited 600nl) from my posts then please enlighten me -- im curious as to what you'll come up with

as far as the specific hand goes, orange posted that pokey needs to have more than just PT stats this deep, and that a fold can be considered. someone else posted that this hand is so close to marginal ev that pokey shouldnt even be concerned about it. if you feel that given only the OP information you can come up with a reason why this is a "lol" call then do so. but dont sit back in ur chair and wave ur finger w/o giving ur own explanation.

Wow, this thread has generated more interest than I would have guessed. I'm glad I could bring it to you folks. Let me throw out a few more items that may shape the discussion one way or the other.

1. At the time I had about 180 hands on villain, but only about 80 of those hands were witnessed -- the rest were datamined.

2. Here are the two largest hands that villain has played OOP at the table up to this point. The first was between villain and another TAG (gnomeontilt, in case you know him), and the second was between villain and me:

Full Tilt Poker, $0.50/$1 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 6 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
CO: $97
BTN: $121.75
SB: $100.60
BB: $100
UTG (VILLAIN): $192.75
Hero (MP): $220.60
Pre-Flop: Q 3 dealt to Hero (MP)
UTG raises to $3.50, 2 folds, BTN raises to $15, 2 folds, UTG calls $11.50
Flop: ($31.50) A K 4 (2 Players)
UTG checks, BTN checks
Turn: ($31.50) T (2 Players)
UTG bets $10, BTN calls $10
River: ($51.50) A (2 Players)
UTG bets $26, BTN raises to $96.75 and is All-In, UTG calls $70.75
Results: $245 Pot ($3 Rake)
BTN showed A K (a full house, Aces full of Kings) and WON $121 (-$0.75 NET)
UTG showed A K (a full house, Aces full of Kings) and WON $121 (-$0.75 NET)

Three-bet pot, villain raise/calls with AK, slowplays the flop, leads the turn, bet/calls all-in with the boat.

Full Tilt Poker, $0.50/$1 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 6 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
BTN: $100
SB: $116
BB: $100.10
UTG: $100
MP (VILLAIN): $248.50
Hero (CO): $222.10
Pre-Flop: A J dealt to Hero (CO)
UTG folds, MP raises to $3.50, Hero raises to $12, 3 folds, MP calls $8.50
Flop: ($25.50) 2 J 8 (2 Players)
MP checks, Hero bets $15, MP calls $15
Turn: ($55.50) 3 (2 Players)
MP checks, Hero bets $30, MP calls $30
River: ($115.50) 9 (2 Players)
MP checks, Hero checks
Results: $115.50 Pot ($3 Rake)
MP showed 2 6 (a flush, Nine high) and WON $112.50 (+$55.50 NET)
Hero showed A J (a pair of Jacks) and LOST (-$57 NET)

Villain bet/calls 62s pre, check-calls bottom pair no kicker on the flop, check-calls BPNK+FD on the turn, and I check behind on the river when his flush hits. Villain probably learned something about me from this hand, but what exactly he learned is uncertain. Did he learn that he needs to value-bet when he rivers me or did he learn that he can bluff me off hands when scare cards hit the river?

3. Everybody wants me to have some detailed, dead-center read on villain. I don't. I mean, the guy has only made it to showdown five times since I've been watching, so it's not like I can exactly peer into his soul. He bets, he raises, he checks, he calls, he folds, he limps: he does poker stuff. He's obviously looser and more aggressive than most players, but you don't need him to showdown 62s to know that -- the 55/30/2.3 pretty much covers it. When very few hands go to showdown it's extremely difficult to get a solid read on your opponents. Add in the fact that we can often grossly misinterpret our opponent's actions: was that value betting, blocking, stealing, or just "I have chips so I bet" betting? Is he angry, frustrated, bored, excited, distracted, or normal? Did he just lose a big pot on a table I'm not watching? Did his basketball team just lose at the buzzer? Did his girlfriend just tell him she's pissed that he's not paying attention to her? Did his mom just tell him to take out the damned trash? All of these things can change a person's table behavior drastically, and when it happens you'll have no way of knowing. I remember epdaws saying that he used to share his account with his wife, and people would make the most effed up horribly bad moves against one of them based on experiences with the other one -- good read, wrong time. Now, I'm not saying that reads are not important, because I think they're amazingly important. However, I AM saying that after only 80 hands played with this opponent I'm now playing in a basically unique situation, and basing my action on what he did in a 40 BB pot when he was in position just isn't going to tell me much about what's going on in this hand.

4. WHAT you think I should do doesn't really matter -- WHY you think I should do it is the whole point of the discussion, and the only part of this thread that will improve anybody's game at the tables.

5. I think a very strong argument can be made in either direction on the river, so don't feel bad about coming to the "wrong" conclusion because so-and-so great-poster disagreed with your decision. Usually, it's the hands that generate the most discussion that are the closest to EV-neutral. I think this is one of those hands, which is why I brought it to you, hoping to generate that good discussion (which is exactly what happened). Remember -- it's not about coming to the right or wrong decision, it's about thinking about the problem to sharpen your poker instincts and skills.

I hate these spots.

tbh I am not sure it really matters what we do. I think this river decision is marginal either way.

arguments for calling:

zomg he's a moran and why I am sitting here - THIS is what I have been waiting for.
zomg we havs a Overpair!!!!!
We are probably ahead a little over 25% of the time (but not much) so those be tasty pot odds.
We want to see his cards to get a solid read for playing deepstacked pots against him in the future.
He could well be VBing AJ some of the time and be terrible enough top think thats good.

arguments for folding:
**** - he just went and sucked out on us
a 133bb stack has more leverage in future hands vs this guy than 100bb
If he has any clue at all (his stats suggest otherwise) he should know he cannot bluff us off a hand here and therefore he must be Valuebetting - and if he is VBing we really only beat QQ.
If we call and lose he might get up and leave the table.

I think looking at this slowly away from the table I'd advocate folding actually - at the table I call but don't like it much - screw him I want a 500bb stack at his expense thanks.

With more knowledge about recent table history and how often I have seen him bluff and a bunch of other stuff I could be swayed in either direction - It comes down to how often do I believe he is mistakenly VBing worse or flat out bluffing - and if I think it's enough times for a call to be +EV then I call. There is not enough info in the OP to make it clear cut one way or the other I think. His stats suggest he is bluffing a fair bit - but his line suggests 2pair+ on the river - that board is a GREAT spot to bluff if you were the villain - if I think villain is capable of noticing that and playing accordingly it swings it into an easy call.

If this pot will tilt me if I lose I lean towards folding - or call and then calling it quits for the session whatever happens.

If this hand is very recent to the OP hand I am calling this guy down now no question - yeah so you're telling me you went and rivered a flush again - show me, I don't believe you, you are a slow player by nature and I don't believe you are good enough to change your spots in a short stretch of time (if you are then more power to you - I got played) the AK boat hands tends to point to you VBing smallish on the river with a flush/straight here - tho I spose that it could be a 2pair hand that's scared of the flush and thinks I'll fold without one.

If this hand was a longer time ago and isn't so fresh in his memory then it doesn't help so much I think.

IMO this entire situation is so close to 0EV that it quite literally makes no difference whatsoever what you do. You can call off your entire stack, or check the turn and fold the river, and it honestly makes no difference to your winrate. The only difference is variance, and it can be +EV to play pot control on the turn if losing 200bb in this spot is going to tilt you later.

I dont think that you can really say with any certainty which line is better, and I personally would probably check the turn and try and kill the pot, because that's how I roll. Do I think that's the best line? I don't know, and I wouldn't hate on anyone who disagreed with me. But I think to say that any decision in this hand is "clearly wrong" is incorrect.

i initially thought this was a meh spot probably a fold, but difficult to say without knowing how often he randomly bluffs river (which could be a huge % or could be tiny).

having seen those example hands, i definately think this is a fold. we know he plays strong hands like this (checking to the aggressor) and we have seen OP check behind river when villain rivered his monster, so it makes sense for villain to not risk that this time by shovelling for value.

the second hand does suggest that villain has a wide range after calling the turn though (as chomp said), so i don't mind putting him on weak draws, which does mean there is some air in his range, but not enough (and we still don't know how he plays it) to fold.

lol at checking turn. that would be a complete disaster.

wow, i was posting on this thread a ton last night, then went to a party when it got to about 8 pages. i am completely surprised that people were using ridiculous equations to find the break even % of this call. it is much simpler to just divide the amount you have to call by the sum of the amount you have to call and the amount in the pot. say you are getting 3:1 pot odds, then you have to win 1 in 4 times for it to be profitable, and that BEP is 25%.

as for the hand, i argued for a fold for like an hour yesterday, and i still think that is the right play despite my nasty hangover. most donkeys will c/c the flop and turn, then push when they hit on the river if they are drawing and hit or if they have been slowplaying. i believe that the villain's c/c on both streets eliminated a TON of hands from his range. he either was drawing/chasing and hit, or he has been slowplaying.

Possibility of a blocking bet from a scared AJ or something to try to get to showdown a bit cheaper? I'd expect a slightly smaller river donk though.

I really thought this was going to be the point of the thread, but I guess there is some other lesson to learn. To me, you go with your gut on this, you just can't know and the numbers aren't going to tell you. As someone who loves Pokeys posts, I just don't get this.

I call because if he wins I still have position on a hugely stacked, overconfident villain who now thinks I make bad calls...so I can get my money back if the bastard doesnt leave the table. But if I'm having a crappy day and am down a few buyins, I may fold, shut down the tables and make a white russian. Depends.

after seeing that second hand u posted i think it is even more of a fold. he tried for a c/r last time and u fooled him by checking behind. this time he is messing around. there is no way he bluffs here enough to make this a call. his aggr. just isnt that high anyways. u guys seriously think he he bluffs here more then 25% of the time??? no way. people just dont bluff the river enough imo. i seriously think calling tha river is reasonably -EV.

i thought it was a fold before and this exact reasoning makes me more confident in a fold. a nonthinking villain is HIGHLY effected by recent events and recent results for the wrong reasons. he missed value on his flush the last time so is afraid of you checking behind again so he bets instead.

i think a lot of the people saying callcallcallcall are overemphasizing his maniac image. yes he is the reason we are at the table but we dont want to hand him more money when he is making it obvious he hit.

results?

fwiw i really cant see him valuetowning himself with any viable hand in his range...all these pokerstove calculations involve hands that we're ahead of. he hast hese like never unless his cat or something got on his keyboard, hit the numbers 133 and enter by accident.

OK, time for me to give my thoughts.

1. Let me reiterate that the decision is close. There probably isn't a "right" or "wrong" answer here.

2. All my bets in the hand were designed to get me all-in by the river. The extra-large preflop three-bet ($12 would have been more normal), the large flop bet ($20 would have been more normal), and the large turn bet (checking behind would have been acceptable) all set me up for getting all the chips in the center by showdown. While I didn't like HOW the money got into the middle, it was what I was shooting for in the first place.

3. After the turn bet, folding the river would have been a metagame mistake. Think of it this way: I'm really announcing that I've got TPTK or better with my play in this hand. If I'm willing to throw away hands as strong as overpairs here then villain can bully me off just about anything. If I fold overpairs in this situation villain can LITERALLY call preflop/flop/turn with any two cards, push the river, and get paid off frequently enough to make the play +EV. Worse yet, a fold encourages villain to play in a tricky style against me in the future, and tricky aggressive opponents are VERY hard to play against.

4. Let's say villain was on a draw on the turn. Which draw? Did villain have AK? KQ? Q9? 98? 75? 53? ? With a board like this there are a jillion different draws that villain could have, which makes calling on a bluff-draw much more potent than usual. Aside from a monster or a superdraw, villain makes a mistake calling the turn bet IF I NEVER FOLD THE RIVER. The only way that calling the turn bet on the draw is a +EV play is if I'm going to fold to a "scare card." Why? Because every freakin' card is a scare card. Villain could hit trips, a straight, or a flush if the river is:

Any 2 (completes the straight for 53)
Any 3 (completes the straight for 75)
Any 4 (pair turns to trips)
Any 5 (completes the straight for 87)
Any 6 (pair turns to trips)
Any 7 (completes the straight for 98)
Any 8 (completes the straight for Q9, 97, or 75)
Any 9 (completes the straight for 87 or KQ)
Any T (pair turns to trips)
Any J (pair turns to trips)
Any Q (completes the straight for 98 and AK)
Any A (overpair, two pair, or completes the straight for KQ)

So unless the K falls on the river I'm potentially screwed. Of course, worrying about every card in the deck is seeing monsters under the bed....Assuming villain is behind (and the check/call, check/call line could certainly imply that) he's probably drawing to eight or nine outs; if I simply commit to calling any river bet I make money in the long run by playing in a way that cannot be exploited by any action on the part of my opponent. Yes, I fall prey to slowplayed monsters, but this villain doesn't act like a chronic slowplayer: sure, he checked the flop with AK in the sample hand, but he immediately led the turn. He doesn't seem the type to wait until the river and then open-push with a powerhouse hand. Betting hard preflop, on the flop, and on the turn only to fold to what LOOKS like a scare card (when virtually any card in the deck could be a scare card) is a great way to go broke in the long run. Always calling here can't be far from right, but always folding here can bankrupt you if your opponent realizes you fold the non-nuts to big river bets.

5. Have you ever heard of "tilt odds"? It's a fun little concept, and while you can EASILY overestimate its importance, it does pad the books a bit here. The idea is this: an opponent who loses a very big pot will often go on tilt, especially if he played badly. Now, if we can be sure that WE won't go on tilt for losing the big hand, we set up a very profitable next 30 hands or so by calling here -- if we win, we'll not only have a ridiculously large stack but we'll also have an opponent with 130 BBs directly on our right and steaming out his ears. That's a recipe for making even MORE money if we get lucky some time in the next few orbits. I've often seen bad players lose one big pot and promptly steam off an extra 3-4 buyins while angry. This seems like exactly the sort of opponent who would do that, and my position and potentially huge stack would make this the ideal situation to try and take advantage of it.

6. After rereading PNL, I'm really coming around on the PSR concept. After the preflop action the PSR in this hand was just about 7; against a super-loose opponent, that seems perfect for an overpair. So I decided I was committed PREFLOP. The flop, turn, and river action were just the inevitable result of that preflop decision. If my opponent makes the same decision in future hands I continue to make money from the decisions in the long run.

7. People are saying "wait for a better opportunity." Sure, once in awhile you've got 77 when your opponent has AA and you get all-in on an A77 flop, but if we wait for that we'll lose 80,000 BBs to the blinds in the meantime. Perfect situations don't come up often; we'll rarely have the nuts and when we do we'll rarely be able to manipulate our opponent into putting all his chips in the middle. The question is not whether this is the perfect opportunity to win money; the question is whether this is an opportunity to win money. I thought it was a +EV call, so I plugged my nose and put my last $133 in the middle. I didn't consider this a fist-pump call or an auto-call or an easy call; I just considered it a necessary call based on my plan for the hand. If he backdoored me, he backdoored me, but he wasn't getting the proper odds to go looking for it. If he bluffed me I made a ton of money and villain won't be bluffing me as often in the future (and will probably be steaming off an additional pile of money). If he value-bet me to death he probably thinks I'm an idiot donk table sheriff and will simultaneously fold lighter against me postflop and bluff me less often, both of which add to my winrate if I adjust my play accordingly.

As to what happened in this particular hand, it was this:

UltimateBet $0.25/$0.50 No Limit Hold'em - 6 players
The Official 2+2 Hand Converter Powered By DeucesCracked.com

UTG: $24.75
MP: $28.70
CO: $50.00
Hero (BTN): $71.45
SB: $40.75
BB: $50.00

Pre Flop: Hero is BTN with K K
3 folds, Hero raises to $1.75, SB calls $1.50, 1 fold

Flop: ($4.00) 8 7 Q (2 players)
SB bets $0.50, Hero raises to $5, SB calls $4.50

Turn: ($14.00) T (2 players)
SB bets $0.50, Hero raises to $10, SB calls $9.50

River: ($34.00) 2 (2 players)
SB bets $24 all in, Hero calls $24

i think u r putting too much weight in the metagame and being exploited aspect of this hand. u only need to worry about being exploited by some one who is capable of exploiting something. i honestly dont think this villian is capable of adjusting like that.

and if u do fold here and he continues to do this then u can adjust accordingly. up to now it doesnt appear that he has been abusing people on the river so why do u now all of a sudden think that villian is doing this? i really think u r over estimating villian here and looking to much into this.

i honestly think villian hit a big hand sometime and wasnt going to make the same mistake that he made against u when he slow played that flush

holy ****, this thread alone made me think so much different about poker than I did just 5 minutes ago. You Pokey are the best.

I called just because of this thread..because Pokey wouldn't tell us the answer so I had to pay $24 to find out

pokey, you just put me on tilt with that spoiler. alsdjkfhaklsdjhfsdf

also, on a more serious note, i think point 3 assumes that villain is a thinking player. i doubt villain would be intelligent enough to float two streets and shove river with atc if you fold an overpair here. first of all, villain is prob not even thinking about your hand. second of all, besides tilt, nonthinking maniac villains rarely absorb information and adjust accordingly. you are definitely giving him too much credit. i like your thorough explanation but i think im still forced to disagree. i think calling here is a mistake and handing chips to someone you want to take chips from.

I still disagree. I think you are missing some important points:

1) It takes a very good player to bluff in this situation even after you've shown you can be pushed off your hand. The stats would show that this is not a good player

2) Calling an AI is much different that pushing AI yourself. You've said your plan was to play for stacks PF however that was when you had control over the hand. On this river, facing the villain's push you no longer have control.

I am definitely not saying to wait for a better spot with regards to the strength of your hand. I am saying wait for a better spot where you think you have a better chance to be in front.

I 110% believe it to be a completely different situation if villain checks this river and you shove.