No need to show them. He is asking if he can fold KK on Q52r flop bet. So if you fold that you fold at least 97% of your range on a flop bet. I mean you are only calling top set and maybe middle set and fold everything else. Now everyone can see what a unique nit you are doesn't matter you show them or not.

I disagree with a lot of what GG says, but I agree 100% with this. If your only 2 choices were to fold to every single raise with an overpair or TP....or... continue after every single raise with an overpair or TP, the choice of folding every time would be higher EV.

You're vastly overestimating how often someone is going to be able to figure that out. Could have been a whiffed AK we were cbetting. Or perhaps a weaker JJ-. Some of our other cbets that end up taking down the pot they have no idea whether we woulda called a raise or not. And on top of all that, even if they somehow figured that out about us (highly unlikely) they're still in a multiway pot; it's not as if they're simply playing against bet/foldy us, they've still got the rest of the world to deal with too.

GcluelessNLnoobG

Yeah, I just find it amazing how you can fold KK on this occasion on the flop. I can find a fold on turn maybe but the flop is just what I was looking for. Anyways games must play very differently I guess you're right.

My point was that if you fold on that spot, I would guess chances are you call a flop reraise bet once every 30 sessions and that is clear.

No, because if I'm betting into the world I often have a very strong hand that I'm not going to fold. Again, it's going to take an even very observant person a very long time to figure that out given that a lot of hands aren't shown down.

It's admittedly table dependent. If you have lots of players at your table overplaying Qx here by raising the flop, or a lotta people raising middle pair (for whatever reason), or a lotta people raising their draws (even with people behind them to act), etc. then your table simply plays different than mine. Although it is opponent dependent too, which is why I don't think checking the flop here is horrible if we're uncomfortable folding to a flop raise against certain opponents.

GcluelessNLnoobG

So you are telling me that players at your tables only raise with trips+ ?

Yes, in multway pots a raise is typically two pair+ or a mega draw. You can't really afford to get that out-of-line in multiway pots due to the chance of someone actually having the hand you're attempting to rep.

GimoG

Cool then, it must feel good to be at your tables !

I'm certainly not asking if I should fold to every player on every raised pot when I have the top of my range. I've called check shoves with pocket kings on similar boards against different players numerous times.

My curiosity is getting feedback on folding in specific situations when a table dynamic or player type leads you to believe they're almost never raising light. In this game, given the multi-way action and my flop c-bet this player is almost never raising light. I'd expect smooth calls out of AQ and from flush draws, so there's literally no hands I can beat once raised. Unless shown differently, I don't think it's ridiculous to fold in this instance. As other posters have said I don't have to show my hand, so there's little chance of getting exploited.

To give you another example of how some players play at this table. I had another situation $250 effective with a different nitty villain that raised to $20 UTG. I had AA in the cutoff and 3! to $60. He smooth called. His range is 10s+ at this point. Board comes K73 rainbow I c-bet $60 and he calls and on an 8 turn he open ships the remaining $120. I paid him off in this situation, but I was almost 100% certain he had three kings. I get that seems ridiculous, but he's c/c with AK and I've actually never seen this player open AK (always limps and then plays fast on favorable flops).

My curiosity is when do you trust your reads? I'd like to stop paying people off given I think I have an understanding of what's happening on a situational basis. Goes back to what I said about getting into my thinking mind. Some players I would snap call and just say "nice hand," but there are some villains that are just never light given dynamics.

I've played probably 200+ hours with each of these players, so I think I have a reasonable idea of what they're doing.

Anyway, just trying to learn and understand if you're just supposed to stick it in there independent of reads. Seems that the consensus is you can fold on the flop or the turn, and not to pay the bet off given the situation.

A greater truth about my game has never been spoken. I can't tell you how many "fish" or "donkeys" I've paid off because of this attitude. There are some players I hate losing to because they're so terrible and then I just end up losing money to them. Who's the joke on?

For instance, a villain playing 80% of hands with open raises of $20 in a 1/3 game open ripping $200 into a $270 pot on the river on a 7259J rainbow board and paying them off with KK. Once again, I've never seen this player take this line with pure air. He's trying to get massive value and worried I would check after betting flop and turn. I got incredibly pissed about that hand, because who the **** plays 9-2 against an UTG raise..... Anyway, the moral of the story is I shouldn't get mad. Or, "tap the glass" as some of my poker friends call it. Maybe it's OK to just lose money in this spot as well, but realistically, these leaks are causing me to be a modestly losing player when I think I can be a winning player if I learn to find the fold button when facing large bets provided I don't have a monster.

So the bottom line is, I am going to make some adjustments based on my reads and try to stop stacking off with one pair hands. The games I play and players generally aren't tricky enough to the point where I need to balance in order to stay unexploitable.

I will start this by admitting that I'm not the most competent player around here to give you the answers you are looking for as I so much relate to your dilemas and I have found myself asking me the same questions over and over. Nevertheless I will give it a try but do not count much on me on this. I as you, am looking forward to other players answering this.

Having said that, I found some of the answers to these questions through a chapter of the Super Sytem by Doyle (I know a lot believe its outdated but I find this particular aproach of him to suit my style of play just fine).
Doyle's advice on your questions would be to be aggressive postflop with top of your range and not overthink cause you will end up outthinking yourself. Be very selective on the hands you choose to open depending on position and table dynamics but once you are in let everyone know that they will have to work for their meal.

Now Doyle would cbet 90% of the hands he opens.. any draws, any top pairs, any overpairs, any trips, any two pairs even gutshots. Once someone raised him he would shove all trips, all open ended straight draws, all flush draws etc.. His reasoning is that this builds a very aggresive image which he wants for himself but also has the potential to win the pot right there as the pressure is too much for his opponents to handle but if he is called he still has outs to win the hand with his draws as an underdog. All the small pots he picked up when he shoved and got folds would add up and eventually when he got called he was freerolling against villain as an underdog but with at least a 30% chance of winning.

Now if Doyle would shove so wide I as not a player of his caliber choose to shove 1/4 of that to any reraise on my cbets. I will also cbet 70% of my opening hands when heads up and I will be very agressive post flop.

There are spots where I have this read you are saying that I am beat but still I push because I am not trying to put my opponent on a specific hand instead I put him on a range of hands. If I end up overthinking I might just allow my opponent to outplay me and I do not want to do that. So if I have bottom set and everything is leading me to believe that I'm beat to top set, still I push as there is a chance I am outthinking myself and also there is the chance V is trying to outplay me but also because his range can never be just one particular hand. On rare occasions I can escape but it has to be sooo obvious that I might be a ****** not seeing it.

Now that I said all that time to admit that it has been hundreds of hands when I had the read and my insticts were telling me to fold but my Aces or my kings and my trips look so good for me to fold and I end up paying V and then think of the hand for the rest of the day and probably not take sleep during the night thinking how I should not have shiped it.

So to make a long story short, there are spots when you might have the read and your instics are warning you but you just cant avoid your fate. And IMO the KK hand you described is one of those.

I also find myself guilty, I admit.

Ive been beating on this horse numerous times on this forum, and dont think i have the energy to do it again.

For now, i will say that more people should listen to what GG is saying.

Yes, it is exepctions, no its not applicable to all 1/3 NL tables, and no what he is saying doesent mean you should always fold KK on the Q high board to a raise/check-raise.

It means that you should be aware of the tendencies 95 percent of the 1/3 playerpool have: and that is choosing check-call lines with medium top pair hands and drawing hands, and when they choose aggressive raise lines they have a hand that can beat 1 pair an astonishing percentage of the time.

You can disagree all you want, say its bad play,you can say that our opponents play their hands extremely faceup (yes they do Sherlock), and that they are predictable. Most low limit players pr 2017 are extremely MUBSY, they are scared money, they are severely underolled and they are simply _not_ looking to get into stackoff territory unless they have close to the nutz. This is the reality by my experience and what i have seen during thousands of hours in these type of games in many different countries.

I was afraid my analysis came across as too negative. It wasn't meant to be.
I'm by no means some kind of poker guru with all the answers , just a small stakes player like everyone else.
That you took the criticism so positively shows good promise.
We all have gone through our growing pains.
In order to know your opponents, you first must know yourself.
For me, when I sit at a poker table, the first thing I do is try to figure out what kind of players my opponents are.
But, I don't bother with this, what to me useless is, at least at the low stakes, silly TAG, LAG nonsense.
Is this guy experienced. Inexperienced.
Will he bet his draws. Bet only when he has it.
Is he capable of bluffing, especially the river when his hand misses.
Is he someone who will risk his whole stack on TP , overpair. If yes, I know it's worth it for me to set mine. Makes it profitable for me to call a big pre flop raise with a small pair. If he's experienced and not so easily trapped, I may fold my pocket 3's to a big pre flop raise.
There, I gave away a ton of info. GL

Nice but do not deviate much from your game because you may be surprised by deceptive players that looked to be to straight forward to you.

Judging by the way you write you look to be an old gun with plenty of experience, enough to know how to get rid of your trips to a shove. And thats my favourite player of the table right there

[QUOTE]
[QUOTE]J This has turned into an awesome TR.
Strumps, You are an oddity, admit it. You start of by by saying"I will admit that I'm not the most competent player around here" and then try to pretend otherwise.
First, if you're basing your play on Bronson's book, well, that's why you're struggling.
It is one of the first poker books I read, but it's true, it's no longer relevant. Or, it hardly is. It's not totally worthless, don't get me wrong. Some aspects of it are still applicable for sure.
If you want to learn more on in which spots one should commit to a pot, read Ed Miller's Professional No Limit holde'm Vol. 1 and especially the part about SPR. That should help you.
I'll go over a hand I played some time ago and then I'll make a more detailed point about Super System.

I sat at my usual Casino at 1/2 and was sandwiched in between a slightly older, but dressed like a biker, gentlemen to my right and, a slightly older lady to my left. I soon observe a hand between the two. Limp, bet 5 on the flop. Call. Bet 5 on the turn. Call. they were both betting these ridiculous amounts on middle pair. It was a chopped pot and they both started giggling at each other and saying how about how they've been battling with each other and I observed the others at the table looking stoically on.
Oh boy. I shut my phone off just in case I was by some freak coincidence to get a phone call of a loved one being in a coma in Hospital or something like that. Two pub poker, 20 bucks tournament players with a bunch of passive , soft pushovers. Wild horses couldn't drag me from this table.
Soon I get K J of hearts in the BB and raise to 15 after a few limps. OK, sklansky would not approve but it was suited!
Lady friend and one other gentlemen call 15 after initially limping.
Flop: K K 9, 2 clubs. I bet. There's 2 clubs and i was raiser. If they limp and then call 15, no worries, they'll call 25.
Gentleman folds, lady friend raises!
Long story short, we get it all in and she flips over K 7 of spades.
But it was suited it!
Did you think i was going to fold My trips to her Strump?
It's all player dependent. Every decision you make at the poker table is always player dependent and situation dependent. You never go to the poker table with a predetermined strategy. Never.
Why is Super system obsolete.
People call a lot more than they used to. You can't push people around like before.
Most importantly, and this is something that I shouldn't have to tell you but a lot pf people get wrong, Brunson was talking about high stakes, not 1/2.
Why do you think they split up the nl holdem categories. Each stake plays different. You can't play 10/20 nl the same way you play 1/2 nl. Two different games.

Hi nepeeme I am not willing to admit that I'm an oddity and the reason is I think you misunderstood my intention as I by no means was trying to pretendend anything, it would be pointles. I am here to talk my real thoughts so that I can learn new things by more experinced player reactions on my thoughts. Trust me I am very humble here on 2+2(not always). I know there is plenty of good players around and I also know that I can learn a lot from all.
I will try to adjust the way I write a bit so that I dont appear to be a know it all kind of guy because I am not.

This is interesting, I have read a lot of books on poker and I still read but honestly none of them hit me like the super system did. Having said that I do not claim to base my game on it but some of the fundamental ideas for sure helped my game a lot and changed the way I play poker. I know it was meant to be for the highest stakes and also deep but there are some aspects of it that as you said are still applicable. The theory of poker, the little green book, harington on cash games, let there be range also helped me a lot but none of them as much as SS did. I know that poker has evolved so much specially this last decade but in my opinion not to the point that you should throw out of the window everything you learned from experience through the years and super system is the experience of one of the best put in words for everyone to read. Not everything is thrown at you is necessarily good but if you are smart (I am ) you take whats good and leave whats not.



As soon as I am done posting this I'll try to get that online though SPR is not a new concept to me. Thank you


No. I was just trying to get a reaction from you, teasing you a little(no bad intentions there) when I said you would fold your set. On the other hand you really thought I am the kind of guy to stack off on TPTK while reading my previous posts didn't you ?

Every decision is always player dependent and situation dependet. This is IMO the best poker advice really. Personally I am very lucky to be able to adjust rapidly and I know that it is my best skill. I also never have a predetermined strategy instead I have a number to choose from while at the table and change them as soon as everyone else is adjusting to me. What never changes is my intention to get the money I am also lucky to be in a country where players do not study poker they are only relying on their experience. I also reinforce their claims that experience is your best weapon while at the poker table without a second thought.
An expression goes show me your friends and I will show you who you are. In order to stay sharp I read a lot and Im lately subscribed to a training site.

Did I talk too much about myself ?
I'm sorry. I'm liking this thread too (a bit out of topic though)

I actually said you would fold your trips not set. Please don't wonder do I know the difference between the two
Just downloaded professional holdem. I hope it will be a good read.

Quote:
I guess I owe you an apology. I find myself often apologizing and that can't be a good thing. A leak I have to fix.
you certainly seem to be a lot better player than I gave you credit for.
your initial read was right. If you see a slightly overweight, middle aged guy with white hair at the tables, come on over and say hi!
But, I'm by no means a crusher. I've left the tables many a times a loser.
So, having gotten that out of the way, I feel that that example hand merits a more detailed description. It's a great example hand.

I actually didn't get it all in on the flop. Rather, after I was re-raised, I was taken a back a little.
I decided to just call in order to give myself some time to think.
What was she repping?
She wasn't on a draw because her player type almost always just calls, hoping to make her hand on the cheap and then only shows strength.
AA is out of the question so that leaves AK. Unlikely, even she would have raised with that hand herself.
KQ, very likely. I can picture her limping and then calling a raise with that hand. Pocket 9's even more likely.
But, she could also have tons of weaker Kx hands that I beat.
So, I took the passive rout on the Turn and checked, waiting to see what our lady friend would do. She bet big.
As I looked at my stack, I easily saw that I would be with so little left behind, my only options were folding or going all in.
Well, Folding was out of the question against this player type and I , of course, I couldn't just call. I beat to much of her range. The great thing about this player type is, they show you when they have a strong hand but at the same time, sometimes vastly overvalue their hand.
Well, this is what I was hoping for, wasn't it?
Sometimes you just have to close your eyes and pray for the best.
We go all in and after we flipped our hands over and after I starting raking in the chips, you could visibly see the shock in her face. She claimed she thought I had Aces.
Really? I know that a player type like her would never expect someone to raise my hand like that from that position( but it was suited!
). But if she put me on Aces, did she never consider AK?
What if I did have aces and not KJ, would I have been able to find a fold?
Probably.
Does that make me exploitable? Maybe.
But, although I will often be bluffed into folding the best hand, I will also many times save a ton of money by folding to a hand that beats me.
When the villain has a strong hand and I deny them equity by not paying them off, am I not exploiting them?

Don't worry. I also had to apologise today for a very childish post of mine and hope that my apologies will be accepted. I also owe apologies big time to a guy who put a ton of work on a thread and I like a child go on to say that it's all useles and not applicable.
Anyway you are friendly and very humble that much is clear, I appreciate that.

I liked the hand though honestly I think it payed itself
With the reads you had on friend V AA would have to be an easy fold after she bet big the turn. Would that make you exploitable ? Hell no !

Hey one more thing.. Being a crusher shouldnt be important. Being a winning player while working on your game to get better should.

Thanks for the kind words.
Of course. Hand was not meant to highlight my great play but rather to give an example of when we should and shouldn't fold in certain situations. After all, subject is about our friend not being able to make the proper folds and getting stacked too often.

I guess I need to take a creative writing class. Can you still teach an old dog new tricks?

If you play this game long enough, you get a feel for what's going on even against good players.

Sure, they'll fool you some of the time, but if you get fooled too often, maybe it's a sign to quit the game.

In poker, just like life, we let our ego and emotions, sometimes get in our way.

I think I've exhausted my end of this conversation. Interested to see what others have to add.

I'd say good fold.. Exploitative..