Not that the villain with 43s in the OP has position (I think a lot of people think villain is closing the action!)

Villain is calling an under the gun raise next to act. Lol.

Good ole villain.

You did say it was 5 handed. So not This is being in the CO calling a HJ raise, as opposed to UTG vs UTG +1. I'm not a fan of the call, but the two situations aren't remotely the same. If he thinks he has a folding tell on the btn, he could make a case of thinking about position.

If I had to guess, this hand is full of people over adjusting to the 5 handed table. The 77 is probably doing some of the same.

No. The 77 has zero clue about anything. She’s an all-timer.

You’re right though - it’s cutoff vs hijack which makes cold calling pre even sillier.

My read on the 43s hand is preflop is pretty poor, you could make an argument that all your backdoor outs being clean makes the flop call near standard, the turn is easy, and he's winning on the river. I think that you can work the assumptions far enough that the flop call is slightly bad. I agree with whoever said that the guy who played 43s preflop isn't ever folding that flop if he's at all aware of backdoor outs... or ever.

If you're playing a speculative hand, it shouldn't be blocked on the bottom end. I think the wizards who might play such a hand for their own reasons would 3 bet.

I think the call is wrong. However, let's say he looked left and thought he picked up a button folding tell. He thinks you play solid hands, so you fold a lot. If he thinks that the button is terrible or foldy, maybe he justified calling by playing either HU or 3 ways vs two special players. Still don't love the thinking, but he could have actual reasons. Sure, you picked up a big hand and btn didn't fold. He still got to draw cheap. A couple of reads could take the play from "terrible at poker" to slightly over ambitious.

What if we’ve been at the same table as these guys for a long time and you’re the only one to 3 bet preflop the entire time?

I ask because this non existent 3 betting frequency clearly loses ev; I’m wondering if it’s enough to make cold calling some hands profitable. I’m thinking about suited connectors that are right near the bottom of our 3 betting range, not 43s.

His 3-bet frequency is pretty high. Makes the call weirder imo. He used button tells to justify his call on the flop so he was prob looking left pre also and if he picked up on anything it was prob a playing tell. Could explain why he didn’t 3-bet... but doesn’t have the discipline to fold suited connectors preflop.

TDK, I'm pretty sure if your crusher friend wanted unlimited action, he could cold call 43dd on ACR and have a five deep waitlist of Eastern Euros in no time.

I'll chime in with a few miscellaneous thoughts...

- flop call is clearly correct in my mind, it is not close

- when games are soft (and usually smaller stakes), people with large leaks can do enough things right that they can still win. The problem is they often have a low ceiling on what they can do in poker because the leaks they have, and sometimes even the exploitative things they do that make them crush in their current game are atrocious against better competition but they can't "unlearn" these things very easily.

TDK: you seem like a nice guy, I read your blog and find it entertaining. At the same time, you have a habit of stating things with absolute confidence that are totally wrong. This is both a good and a bad character trait in a poker player. The good is that confidence is important, and it will allow you to "trust yourself" which is huge. The bad is that if you are wrong about the things you think you will do poorly and not know why.

If I go back and read any of the things you wrote about mix games you played at the Rio for example I remember some really poor ideas that you thought were standard. Or your NL bust out from the main that you thought was fine and later ran on Snowie and realized was quite bad. I hope you realize I don't say this to be mean spirited, but to encourage you to try to be confident about things when you are playing, but assume you know nothing away from the table and keep working.

Lol

Always appreciate any input you have for me, DD. I think the Main bust out and work on Snowie is indicative that I’m willing to admit I’m wrong and work on things off the table.

But it was funny.

so put it up again with the name blotted out

To be frank, I was the one that reported the post. It had someone's name who I don't think is famous, and referenced DeathDonkey's name (who is probably famous enough to warrant a public figure exemption so that part doesn't seem bad).

It's 15 seconds in MS Paint to cut out the real name. Or 15 seconds to argue he's famous (I am more than happy to admit fault if that name was this year's WSOP ME winner or some other poker player who is obviously famous to everyone but me).

Edit: I also apologize if that was your name. I know I know it's probably on your blog or whatever but I don't follow it so if that's your name just take the 15 seconds to post "___ is me."

If it was that funny, surely it's worth 15 seconds to do it right.

It’s not so important that I’m going to go through the micromanagement process to post it. I’m sure my friend, whose name and face I’ve blasted all over my blog, appreciates your efforts.

Implied odds-reverse implied odds ratio is different.

While getting overflushed or overstraighted is a possibility with 43 suited, you are only really worried about 2 card overflushes and overstraights-- if someone makes a better 1 card straight or flush you can pretty easily find the fold button. And 2 card overflushes and overstraights are actually fairly rare. Similarly, you are going to unload most of your one pair hands with 43 except possibly to catch an occasional bluff on the river closing the action if you get there.

In contrast, someone having top pair-5 kicker beat in a 7 way pot is reasonably common.

Are you naively unaware that publicly posting about your name, face, location, and amounts of cash you have with you is a really bad idea?

Tell your friend to create an account and post here that he doesn't mind, and I'll stop reporting things with his real name.

I'll even make it easy for him, just copy and paste this line, "I'm aware that my name and picture are being posted and I don't mind. Go **** yourself callipygian."

How often is "reasonably common"? Can you throw a percentage at it, even if it's just a spitballed number?

Now I'm really curious about what the picture was. Could we latecomers at least get a description of it?

It was a screenshot of a text conversation. Something like if he could retitle the thread it would be "DeathDonkey defends Villain."

The only real problem was that the screenshot included someone's real name up top.

Villain checking in. Not sure why TDK isn't capable of cropping a screenshot in this digital age. Regardless, I hereby approve the posting of that pic even though I had no intent for that conversation to be made public.

However, as readers of batcavepoker might already know, most of my decisions are fueled by a desire to inflict pain and bewilderment upon The Dark Knight. As such, this particular decision was made with some hesitance after watching him struggle at the hands of reasonable forum moderation.

I won't bother weighing in on the hand itself XD

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

It was a screenshot of him messaging me:

If I had a blog...

My most recent post would be titled:

“[DD] Rushes To Defend Joker - Puts DK In His Place”

Welcome to the forum. Perhaps the greatest first post of all time. Based on the reasoning you presented above, expert play on your part. Nh, sir.

Screenshotted. Printed. Now hanging on my wall. ty ty.

There IS something to be said for inflicting pain and bewilderment. It's got to be worth at least 1/2 a SB.