Ok, but the first buyin was short. We're only down 165BB's.

I'm just not seeing how a whole table full of people are suddenly going to start thinking "Let's beat up on this guy 'cuz he's losing". There' a big difference between someone who's losing because they fall into too many bad spots, and someone who's losing because their premium hands aren't connecting with the board.

When people make adjustments toward looseness, it's generally when someone is playing like a maniac and they're eager to get in there and win a big pot against a wild player.

Furthermore, if it folds to us on the button.....we really don't care if our image is all that bad. We actually want the blinds to be calling us wide here.

This is the secret sauce to playing K3s. You raise a suited hand, with card removal benefits, and some top-pair potential. That way you can connect with a fair number of flops so that your future bluffs are backed by equity.

It's GOOD if your opponents call wide, because it means they will make more folding mistakes post-flop.

If you make a half-pot c-bet after the flop, your villain has to call 67% of the time to prevent you from making an auto-profit with any two cards.

Loose players can almost NEVER find 67% of their range that connects significantly with any given flop. And the wider they call pre-flop, the worse this problem gets for them.

This is an ultra-sweet spot for us to make money. I'm not passing it up because I'm worried about someone at 1/2 adjusting to my recent downswing of 165BB's.

And calling us wider is the *wrong* adjustment anyway. If V really thought we were on losers-tilt and thought we were chasing losses, then he'd raise us pre-flop, not call.

"...Loose players can almost NEVER find 67% of their range that connects significantly with any given flop. And the wider they call pre-flop, the worse this problem gets for them.

This is an ultra-sweet spot for us to make money. I'm not passing it up because I'm worried about someone at 1/2 adjusting to my recent downswing of 165BB's..."

True this.

I do think this is a profitable raise OTB with K3s for the reasons Owl went into. This player I imagine is defending much looser than most opponents, but is probably managing to find close to 67% continues on the flop with more floats and bluff raises than most players. However, he is probably putting in too much money with some spews as well. So we can end up printing money by calling those in the right spots. I'm not saying calling down with bottom pair is always going to be making money, but it was in this case.

As I said, I ended up calling. He tells me I'm good and mucks his hand. He was understandably annoyed and a little tilted going into the next few hands. Good chance he had a lot of equity against us, but I wouldn't have been surprised to see a hand as bad as 9T offsuit or 97 offsuit. I really think he check raises flop too often there.

Thanks for comments and analysis. Does anyone know how to use the spoilers box for hiding results when I post them? Much appreciated

This is all that needs to be said about this hand.

OP, when you are down a BI, this is the time to reevaluate your strategy - not go loosey goosey.

Tighten up and don't go chasing your lost BI.

Ugh, I think enough people have gone into why a suited K is a fine and profitable open, not even near the bottom of a solid button opening range.

Nobody is "chasing" a BI by opening this hand, I was up a significant amount over the last two weeks and was not phased by being down only 330$. In fact I finished the session up a buy in, and this hand had a fair amount to do with that. As fair as hands that I open with on the button go, K3s will be among the ones I open automatically.

Being down 1 BI does not mean it's time to re-evaluate your strategy...

This is poker we are talking about, variance is a thing. You can play a perfect strategy and be down several BI's.


If I were consistently going down BI's I might think I needed to fix some serious leaks. However, my last several sessions indicate otherwise. Of course I have plenty of leaks and parts of my strategy that could use revision, but being down 1 BI during that session is not evidence of that.

Depends how you got there IMHO.

While typing your post press the "Sp" button. That will create two "SPOIL" tags in your post. Put the text, images, etc that you want hidden in between the tags.

I still don't get what you're advocating here.

You seem to be saying that V's will look us up lighter, and be more stubborn against us because they perceive that we might be tilting.

Do I have that right?

If so....why is that bad for us?

If there were two limpers and the blinds, and our image might compel calls from all of them...then yeah, K3s sucks in that spot. But it's folded to us on the button, we know for sure we aren't gonna have to play this hand more than 3way.

We know that getting a discount against a BTN raise, they will call more liberally. Is that bad? Should we fold this hand with a good image? V's are gonna call light because of those circumstances that have nothing to do with our image. Do we want light calls or not?

If we want light calls...then a losing image probably helps us a little

I believe we do want light calls, because we want lots of folds post-flop. Plan A for this hand doesn't involve a showdown.

We have position, and initiative, in a 3-way pot where our opponents have terrible ranges. That's a great situation for us.

How is it worse for us if our villains have slightly more terrible ranges?

Exactly right. And it is bad for us if we are trying to push through a hand like K3ss.

That's it.....that's your answer??

"it's bad"

No explanation?

Q: How is it worse for us?
A: 'cuz shorn said so

WTF??

Last post in this thread as I am starting to see Garick and others points on you....it is bad to be called light if we have a losing image AND we continue to open weak holdings and try push through top weak pairs.

still no explanation!!!!

just "it's bad"

Show your work bud

I'm starting to see a pattern too.....

it goes like this....

2+2er : Just play TAG and bet/fold for value
ME: Yeah but here's why that makes less money than other alternatives, here's the math supporting it, here are the logical assumptions I'm using that you're free to challenge with facts, math, and your own logical assumptions that I'm free to challenge with facts and math.
2+2er: Nah, **** all that....the way we do it here is to play EXACTLY the same as the fish, but then talk about it in a way that makes us feel superior.

I actually don't disagree with you ITT but can you point to a spot in this forum where you have actually presented any maths at all to support the positions you take. You keep saying you are using it in all of your posts and I have not yet seen a single spot that you have broken down mathematically with equities, pot odds, etc.

Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong threads?

There were two recent threads in particular that debated the merits of flatting a raise with T9s and 89s from out of the blinds in a multi-way pot. Full of math.

I'm not gonna go find the links. I did that once already in the multi-way pots thread.

Enjoy

Here's the cliff notes though...

We got through all of the excruciating math and found NO PROFIT! You'd think that would have elicited alot of comments like "Well shyt....I guess I found a leak in my game. I'm happy now that I'm able to get better"

Instead, there was just alot of Doyle-disciples chanting "but we're closing the action, and we're so friggen good, we can beat the math"

You did exactly zero math calculations or presentations in the 89 thread. Not once did you say here are the ranges we are playing against, here is my range here (or even just here is my hand) and my range does XX vs that range.

If you are going to call out people please follow your own advice and provide actual real math. there is one Propoker Tool chart in that thread and you did not post it.

The goal in poker is to make +EV wagers over and over and over. That's it

So? Honestly they've both run together in my head. The math is substantially the same in both, and I'm talking to the same people. So your accusation here is pretty flimsy

What about in the other thread, with the exact same situation

I have. Even in this thread.

Maybe I just grasp SPR better than most. But that really saves alot of math. So when we say "SPR is 4", there are alot of stack size and implied odds math calculations baked in there.

I've also talked about post-flop folding frequencies in this thread, and given examples of the concept using numbers.

You can feel free to ask me to present the math behind any line that I advocate on this forum from now until the end of time. I will oblige. But if my math was bad/missing, someone could just come along and say "Actually, here's the real math" and then we'd have an answer.

Not even close

Concede that I should havw said maximize EV over and over and over. My error


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course it does, but nobody said “look your down one BI because you played this hand poorly, you should play these spots differently”

He said “look, whenever your down 1 BI, it’s time to go back to the drawing board”

No need to re work your whole strategy if it has been working for you over a significant sample. Being honest with yourself and considering whether you did play a spot poorly, or if unique table dynamics warrant a change to your strategy is important. Recognizing that you ran bad in a few hands and not starting to doubt your entire approach to the game is also important..