You really think a loose/passive player who almost never raises is raising KJ from UTG+1? And, you think this player is betting flop and turn w/ 99-JJ and AQ and then will call a big bet on the river against a TAG who hasn't gotten out of line? Never going to happen. I doubt he'll even call $75 - $90, but there is a better chance of it. (Plus, if he raises, we save $90+ and can have a nice dinner or go to a strip club.)

You really think the only two player types at 1/2 are TAG and calling station? I'm done. Can't discuss with someone who doesn't know basics.

while i agreee with IDWH because i dont think betting 1/4 pot is appropriate...

do you even think before you throw stuff into an equity calculator?

of course were huge favorites against a range that includes 2 busted FDs and 4 sets of PPs (JJ-88) that are never calling a huge river bet.

hell JJ-88 from a passive V would never even play those hands this way, so i wouldnt include them because they are almost never in the range, but i'll acquiesce some and accept that maybe 6 out of 24 combos of JJ-88 might play this hand this way

Even passive players can raise sometimes. And I only put KJ suited in his range, not KJo. And yeah, 1/2 players LOOOOOOOVE KJ suited.

In the northeast you'll hear that hand nicknamed "Seabrook Nuts", I won't go into the back story, but it's basically a clever way of saying how common it is for bad players to overvalue KJ.

And fine, there are more than two players types at 1/2. TAG/Station/and BADLAG. Congrats on shaming my post for it's inaccuracy. Against the BADLAG you should bet here too, but smaller to induce a raise. The line would be bet/call, not bet/fold, and STILL not check/call. And a guy described as "passive" can never be a badLAG, or even goodLAG. So why bring it up? Oh yeah, cause you're a troll.

And yes, even a passive player would fire twice with JJ after we check twice. His turn bet may be a "blocker" hoping we'll check the river. Maybe he thinks if he checks the turn, he'll have a tough decision on the river. That's what I would be thinking if I had JJ here. A guy out of the blinds, checking and calling all the way with two hearts on board......It's not crazy to think a guy would fire two barrells with tens here. that's what TAG grinders do.

<sigh>

just keep making stuff up to fit into your scenario where a LP is going to fire 2nd and 3rd pair into a V who is calling... because now he's a TAG grinder!


i play in the NE also, never heard of "seabrook nuts", but whatever, i'm sure it's more of a Boston thing

ok, thanks for your acquiesence. We're really only debating about 18 combos. Cause the 3 combos of 8's flopped a set, and are definitely in the range.

So if you give me 6 of 18, we're still >50% favorite, with money in the pot. That's a betting situation...all day long.

But I think we can count more than 6. See my last post. I don't think this is an uncommon line for villain to have 99-JJ. When we check/check/check he's almost forced to bet because if he stops, he has to worry about what it means if we bet. Right now we look weak/drawing. Unless he's stupid, he should bet.

It's not made up. Just cause a guy is a little loose pre-flop doesn't mean that the default TAG archetype doesn't take over once the board is out. And that says bet good hands for value/fold to uncommon resistance. Even a passive player will play this way....passive or not, he has to play his good hands sometimes.

I would think that the bet-pot on the flop 1/2-pot on the turn looks like a weak hand....something a bad passive player would do with his de-valuing Jacks.

It's someone of a moot argument though. You can cherry pick card combos in and out of the range. We're giant favorites here, unless you believe that he checks the turn with any hand worse than two pair....and I don't.

you assume that a loose passive who limps a lot is raising 88 from UTG+1 in a FR game

i would say a loose passive who limps a lot is limping 88 and 99 from most up front positions because he would rather limp/call it (which he's accustomed to doing) than raise/fold it

Ok, so we'll take 88, out. That's great for us. Now we're back over 60%

59% if I leave just 6 combos of pocket pairs.

What are you trying to prove?

could it be possible that someone is actually attempting to help someone get better at something without actually having to prove anything?

You have to go way north, and way east. In New Hampshire, there are charity tournament rooms in a few places. Massive calling stations, outrageous rake, tournament structure that would make you puke. Just the fishiest of fish ponds, and no real way to beat the fish cause the rake and blinds are so stupid.

Players here will call pre-flop all-ins with almost any broadway hand, and the one that gets overvalued far too much is good old KJ

If you play in MA/CT/RI, you'll hear it mentioned somewhat often as the player pool has now disbursed throughout new england.

Splitting hairs about my hand ranges isn't helping anybody. None of it matters because whatever range you want to give, we're ahead by a lot. That's what's important.

At the table, you can't whip out equilab and start crunching numbers. You need some intuition. So being able to recognize that we're way ahead is pretty much the only worthwhile hand-reading exercise here. We're way ahead, now what do you want to do about it?

I say bet 120. It's +EV, it looks like bluffed hearts, it should get called by hands that would otherwise check the river.

If he has 2 pair+ (which we've shown is a minority of the time) he's gonna raise whether we bet 60, 80 or 150. There's no "blocking" to be done here.

it's not splitting hairs. ITT and in Java's thread about the bully and calling down w/ AJhigh, your ranges were fairly well off. that leads to incorrect assumptions.

whether or not the new range ITT has similar results your original range is inconsequential. this time it was, in Java's thread, your incorrect range gave you massively different results.

it's equivalent to telling a math teacher your answer to a problem but didnt show any work. that doesnt prove you know how to do it, it just proves you either a) got lucky or b) cheated off the smart kid sitting next to you

believe it or not, i'm attempting to help you understand range analysis better.

So now you think he'll bet the river with worse?

Isn't a big bet on the river resistance? Now that he's gone from loose/passive to TAG, you expect him to call the big river bet with worse?

I'm so confused by your posts, again.

No kid, it's the other way around. I'm helping you

In java's thread about the bully, the ranges were fine. You inserted a bunch of assumptions about villain's range that require him to play in a way that makes sense. The results (him holding T4o) flies in the face of all of that.

you also couldn't grasp the mathematical reality that a heavier range of air eroded our equity. But you'll learn.

In THIS thread, we're talking about a very narrow range. We're either way ahead, way behind. From there it's a trivial exercise. With money in the pot, we have to be ahead a pretty low percent of the time for a bet to be +EV. Here it's OBVIOUS, even without a calculator, that we beat at least half and probably more of his range.

You can show me all the tricks on the computer program, but in real life, this play takes instincts, intuition, and the competitive edge to go for maximum value.

If you prefer to play not to lose, just say so. It's a fine way to play, and I endorse it sometimes. But here, with a superior hand against an inferior player....gotta get paid!

Everyone seems to be ignoring the Turn here. The Q is an interesting card and I may open up some discussion here.

AP ... Hero 'just didn't like it' so he didn't raise. This implies that it was a no brainer to check. I think we can look at all the options here and not really determine the best way to act for value.

Checking ... It allows PF raiser/c-bettor to continue to control the pot and also allows a V to bet the largest portion of his range ... if he chooses to bet. How much value do we lose here if V checks back and then folds to a River bet? I think with this type of 'loose' V we can't always rely on him to continue on the Turn.

Betting ... The Q is a nice card to bet at IMO since we could 'just' have a flush draw that includes the Q OR we could go the 'blocker' route and lead out 'weakly' (as V actually did) and rely on a V who probably plays a lot of hands to 'see' the board and think we are just building a pot for the flush (and now maybe straight) draws. I think we would need to pick and choose the cards we bet at here that make the most sense while trying to protect what very likely is the best hand. We are probably not betting a random 4 or 7 here, but I think we can bet Q/J/T/9 without giving too much away ... AND perhaps getting some value from JJ/TT that may have checked back. The obvious downfall here is being raised with 'just' one pair and bloating the pot.

Check-Raising ... I think the Q is definitely a card that can hit V range and also improves the board. Most importantly I think we need to consider the (loose) V here as well .. can we really count on V betting 'for us' on the River? Hero indicates that V hasn't open-raised too much so he doesn't have a feel for that V range of holdings. A smallish c/r here can be seen as building the pot for Hero draw as well.

I have to go so this isnt as deep as I would like, but I think the Q is a perfect card for Hero to consider all 3 options (never c/f except to shove maybe?).

If we really consider what V tendencies are on the River before we act on the Turn, this will allow us to make the best decision. I like the c/r approach here when OOP against a loose V since it forces V to give us some value in order to see the River ... or get out and we don't have to deal with quite a few Rivers that can 'force' us to c/c or c/f and avoids V getting a suck-out on his terms. Against a tighter V I may tend to c/c both Turn and River to get to showdown ... loose V need to be 'valued' as often as possible and their actions will tell us if they hit or missed. I'm not going to rely on being able to c/c the River for my 3 street of value. GL

Comments in green....like the color of your jealousy

So interesting that you get personal only with me. You really can't handle the big boys. Such a shame. I am sorry for you.

I don't like betting the turn as it folds out worse 1-pair hands. We want AQ to think it spiked the best hand. Also, once we take over the betting, 3rd pair hands (99-JJ) will likely fold. yes they may check the turn and fold the river, but we lose nothing. We gain if he bluffs with those hands.

I definitely don't like check/raising. Everything that beats us calls, and everything we beat folds. Check/raising is something you do to induce folds from better hands

You're the only one trolling my posts

This is wishful thinking.

you are confusing trolling with questioning and debating your logic.

we have 15 post of content and 30 posts of beating a dead horse...

OP can we get results?

she's advocating "the way to beat these guys" (her words) is to bet 1/4 of the pot for VALUE against a range of worse hands.

She's advocating a blocking bet in a situation where check/fold isn't even in the discussion.

Java please tell us, what exactly are you "blocking" from happening? What you're advocating is donk-betting. And that got it's name for a reason.

It's either intentionally bad strategy, or she's on tilt with a target on me.

I'm advocating betting $75 - $90 hoping he'll call with worse and if he has better, he'll raise and I can get away. I'm blocking him from betting more than I would be willing to call, although I'm not check/calling. I don't think he'll call more than 1/2 pot bet. Stop putting words in my mouth -- I never said 1/4 and I never said value.

Check/calling is in the discussion. It's the one person who agreed with you, which is probably why you didn't jump all over them for it.