I didn't play 3.6K hours HU against this villain.

Gwe'ddefinitelybothbelosersifwehaddoneso,imoG

My whole 2+2 account has simply been a long term con whose sole purpose is to generate traffic for my YouTube music channel.

GI'veactuallyneverplayedasinglehandofpoker,butI'mt hinkingofgivingitatryG

It's $1/3, people spazz. He may not even realize he's turning a hand into a bluff.

you're getting 3.1-1 on your call, so you only have to be good one out of four times (need 25% equity). Against sets and all the T8 combos, you have 27.5% equity. Call.

If you factor in just one 65 combo, your equity goes up to 30%. You're gonna see T8 a lot but if you were planning to fold you should have folded turn. But even you're not that big a nit...

But I'm thinking I should be... that's the point.

Who was it the wrote recently "they just have it"? Isn't that part of the difference between crushers and mediocres? To just know that they always have it, nothing else really makes sense (as much as we try to convince ourselves otherwise), and to make the ridiculously exploitable fold (that hardly anyone is capable of exploiting)?

Gornot,IguessG

We are too high up in our range to fold. This isn't folding top pair, we are folding top set.

You know the guy better than we, so if he never has sets or spazz or whatever, you can fold. It's hard to imagine he can't have lower sets here a fair amount. I mean, if he's as good a hand reader as you say he is, he knows you don't have T8 so all he's worried about is higher sets.

GG, if your read on your Vs is correct, you should be switching to LP pre and LAG post and stealing a ton of pots. I'd be repping sets OTT non-stop if my table would consistently be folding overpairs to turn check-raises. My guess (just a guess) is that they aren't as good as you think and that would be lighting money on fire, but if it would, then you are folding and/or under-extracting way too often with value hands.

snap call river with 99 - even thinking about folding is beyond absurd to me lol

I've thought about this too. The problem is, we just went 7way to the flop. Doesn't best hand typically win 7ways? Isn't there too good a chance that one of the seven actually made a hand they are incapable of folding? And while there are definitely some people with a fold button in the hand, there are often one or two without one. It seems to me I'd have to swim to the turn/river quite a lot just to figure out if the pot is capable of being stolen (who is still in the pot, who is being the aggressor, did any of the draws come in, can I credibly rep something against the correct people at this point, etc.), which will be quite expensive if the answer is often "not this time".

Gjustspitballin'G

So everyone here in Villain's shoes who flops their 66/22 checks the flop, sees a weakish 1/2 PSB, 3 (THREE!) calls, and then you... overflat and then check the turn?

Or when you peel the flop loosely closing the action with one pear and make a weak two pearz, you go nuts for stacks against two nits (including the nit who just led into 3 opponents on the turn)?

So this is how every one here plays the hand?

Or you don't (of course, right?), but our Villain does because... he doesn't post on this forum?

GcluelesshandreadingnoobG

Regardless of the actual results of the hand, this is the real take away for everyone.

We must force our selves to give our villian tendencies and actions that are based on our actual experiences with them, or with similar seeming populations when they are unknows.

We should not give them skills/abilities/moves/whatever just because we might act that way in a certain situation.


People do dumb things all the time.
While I might be right or wrong in this situation, we shouldn't give our opponents super special playing ability. Esp at 1/3.

How am I giving the Villain here super special playing ability?

Isn't the lines I had above for various parts of his range totally standard for any non-moran who has played more than 100 hours of poker in a casino? Let alone this guy?

GnotsurewhatI'mmissing?G

Come on GG. People are trying to help you with their opinions and reflections- and you just keep giving resistance that seems kind of meaningless. We understand perfectly your point of view, because you probably ran into the nutz and lost your stack in this hand. You are trying to create a reality where you could avoided that to happen with top set.

What people are trying to say from the other side of the fence (me included in an earlier response to you), is that 1-3 villains does dumb things all the time: dumb in our eyes as 2+2ers that is. Through our glasses.

Like showing up with 2 pair in this hand. Like spazzing from time to time. Like showing up with 77 because villain coudnt fold the flop for your lol small bet. And so on and so on.

What we are trying to say is that you arent playing against robots or top world class pros that you can give 100 percent credit all the ****ing time.

You are trying to find reasons to _never_ get stacked or _never_ lose a big pot with the second nutz, wich is not possible if youre gonna play winning poker. You cant have the mortal nutz everytime youre getting your stack at risk.

I could easily pass this off as a "cooler". Heck, that's what I've always done. Hurp durp, 1/3 NL kiddie stakes, spazz factor, villain doesn't post on 2+2, yada yada yada. I just think that is far too lazy now.

Gil, 77 makes a *lot* of sense. But, imo, it's the only hand I beat that does.

ETA: Gil, didn't I recall you posting a brag about making a sick fold in LV and getting a lotta flack for it? The flack might have been for the barg in the first place, but iirc you folded because no hands you beat made sense against that villain.

GfishpayingoffwhenIknowI'mbeat,freemoney,comeandge titG

97, 96, 77, 66, 76, 22, 98, 78

Not sure if you missed above, and I'm probably repeating myself:

97/96/76 absolutely don't overvalue their hand against me and the other nit. Not this guy. He's in check/call mode and possibly donk river mode, and he's not looking to play for stacks. Fact: If I see someone go broke with lol two pair in a multiway pot in this game, I label them the table mark. He's not the table mark.

66/22 don't raise the flop with a weak bet and 3 callers (including an idiot) and risk the turn checking thru? And while this might be getting closer to giving him superstar status, he *has* to be having second thoughts on his 22 by the turn (not necessarily saying he doesn't go broke with it, but he's at the very least considering that he's not ahead vs the people he got to the turn with).

98/87 (pair + OESD) attempt to get two nits out of the pot when when my hand might as well be face up on the table? I just donked a 962r flop and then donked into 3 players (including 2 solid ones) on the turn. Besides, he's not really bluffy (and this is the one thing I do agree with others in this thread; he's not a super duper superstar making sick moves all the time, I'm not really intimidated in that regard by him).

77 makes a bunch of sense. Weakish but lol $ cheap flop peel, and now he's moved ahead of 66/22 which me or the other nit can easily have. If he runs into 99, whatever, cooler. This hand absolutely makes sense.

Or do you disagree?

GcluelessrangenoobG

So much for low stress amirite!?

Typically people who hang out in here are the ones who are looking past the fact that we have top set for only 100bbs. Pretty sure I know what the general response would be to a general thread.

Was looking to get my assed kicked for my poor play, and sorta surprised I'm not, to be honest.

I'm already a super lazy poker player who makes too many mistakes. Chalking things up to coolers is the easy way out.

GtryingnottotaketheeasywayoutG

I have learned the hard way that there is always a 10% spazz/bluff/FPS factor in their ranges. I just see weird things at showdown so often, even from players I had pegged as decent, that I always include a few WTF combos in any V's range. Given description, I would discount 66 and 22, but not eliminate them.

As for all the combos of 9x that are 2-pair or pair+draw, sure he doesn't play them this way all the time, but not never either. I'd prob go 1/4 of the 2p combos and 12 of the semi-bluffs. But yes, I'd often try to get a nit off an overpair with equity to fall back on if he calls.

If you played this hand poorly, then so does (very likely) everyone that took the time to read it. I just don't think we can avoid this one.

call and make a note

There's a pretty clear logical fallacy in here

You want to believe V calls flop with a gutshot but also never piles money in with a set

I also think you are being absurdly paranoid assuming v puts you on a set bcause you called a raise. Even with your image.

While I hate using general advice, "they always have it" and "lol set 100bb obv call" arent mutually exclusive. "It" could be top 2. Llsnl players overvalue strong hands.

Everything has been covered extensively but this is most important imo.

Also lol at folding the toppest of sets in a 2 card game. It's boring enough as it is.

How many times do I have to make the same note before I do something different?

GcluelessnotetakingnoobG


How is this a fallacy?

He's getting 5:1 closing the action to chase the ~nuttish gutshot for a lol $10 against an idiot and two players who might have a monster (apart from being OOP, I think this could almost be considered "standard"). How is this equivalent to piling in ~30x the amount of money with two pear / bottom set?

Gdoesn'tseethefallacyG


I think the spazz factor + maybe unexpectedly plays a % of the time + misread hand + etc., added to the fact it's probably somewhat ~close anyways, is the best argument for not folding.

Gnotabadargumentformyplay,imoG

I'm no bar by which to judge, but I'd go broke here as with many others in this spot.

Also, if you are considering folding the very top of your range, do you leave your self open to exploitation by a thinking V in future similar spots?

If you can never have a straight here, and V knows both this AND that you can fold the top of your range, do you risk them turning 2 pair or a missed pair plus SD into bluffs in similar spots?

Gg, how would you play this hand differently next time?