5-10 at the Venetian, call or fold turn?
06-17-2011
, 09:24 PM
Quote:
Here's a great example of protecting your equity that you were apart of...7 months before that aejones kid!
fds. I imagine all his posts being read by will ferrell as george bush. then they make sense.http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/4b3...h-will-ferrell
06-17-2011
, 10:36 PM
Quote:
No, I don't view it like that at all. That would be akin to saying bluffing is of lower priority than value betting vs a nit. It's not that either hold a greater or less priority in the grand scheme of things, rather each spot needs to be evaluated/reevaluated for what is best, backed by sound reasoning and execution.
The idea of protecting your equity is just a function of applying the fundamental theorem of poker (as limon said). Now, what constitutes when to protect ones equity (recognizing situations where it best applies using all the variables at hand), and how (with what proper bet sizing), and why (reasoning why that concept/technique should be applied in that given spot) is where the skill lies and what separates the people who are playing scared, "looking to just take the pot down", "making the hand play easier" and those who are fighting for every edge, merging their ranges, and adjusting to their competition for maximum exploitation.
The idea of pot control often times gets misapplied in the sense that people dig themselves a whole or even just set up a situation where pot control could be an asset but it is either too late or out of their hands completely. The true ability to pot control lies with the one in position. OOP you are at the mercy of those behind you and though you may limit the number of bets that go into the pot on that given street, you certainly don't limit the amount of each bet.
It is also common practice that many wish to pot control a hand on the flop or even turn as they witness the hand growing too big for their comfort level. What they disregard or overlook is the fact that often times pot controlling should be a factor/motive/priority that begins preflop and sets the tone to how you would like the hand to play out. It is (almost) always easier to ramp a pot up than it is to settle one down. What results is that many realize too late what they would like their objective to be and are unable to achieve it because of prior action within the hand (either pricing themselves out of a hand or paying too much to play one).
With you being a SLAG I wouldn't go so far as to say pot control is more important to you. I'd phrase it as your motives for pot controlling (and how you go about it) may differ slightly from others who are not as wild/active, and the spots in which you apply this concept may be in contrast to that of a more tamed player.
As I alluded to in my critique of your hand, I felt like you were taking advantage of every edge you had preflop and then once you bloated the pot you felt you needed to apply pot control where it was just too late to do so, either because it wasn't pragmatic or even possible given your position, opponents, and effective stacks remaining. Maybe deep down you weren't looking to pot control but were looking to induce. If this was the case I question the strength of your hand in order to use that technique and if it wasn't I question your judgment on the ability to actually keep this pot small once preflop had taken place...
The idea of protecting your equity is just a function of applying the fundamental theorem of poker (as limon said). Now, what constitutes when to protect ones equity (recognizing situations where it best applies using all the variables at hand), and how (with what proper bet sizing), and why (reasoning why that concept/technique should be applied in that given spot) is where the skill lies and what separates the people who are playing scared, "looking to just take the pot down", "making the hand play easier" and those who are fighting for every edge, merging their ranges, and adjusting to their competition for maximum exploitation.
The idea of pot control often times gets misapplied in the sense that people dig themselves a whole or even just set up a situation where pot control could be an asset but it is either too late or out of their hands completely. The true ability to pot control lies with the one in position. OOP you are at the mercy of those behind you and though you may limit the number of bets that go into the pot on that given street, you certainly don't limit the amount of each bet.
It is also common practice that many wish to pot control a hand on the flop or even turn as they witness the hand growing too big for their comfort level. What they disregard or overlook is the fact that often times pot controlling should be a factor/motive/priority that begins preflop and sets the tone to how you would like the hand to play out. It is (almost) always easier to ramp a pot up than it is to settle one down. What results is that many realize too late what they would like their objective to be and are unable to achieve it because of prior action within the hand (either pricing themselves out of a hand or paying too much to play one).
With you being a SLAG I wouldn't go so far as to say pot control is more important to you. I'd phrase it as your motives for pot controlling (and how you go about it) may differ slightly from others who are not as wild/active, and the spots in which you apply this concept may be in contrast to that of a more tamed player.
As I alluded to in my critique of your hand, I felt like you were taking advantage of every edge you had preflop and then once you bloated the pot you felt you needed to apply pot control where it was just too late to do so, either because it wasn't pragmatic or even possible given your position, opponents, and effective stacks remaining. Maybe deep down you weren't looking to pot control but were looking to induce. If this was the case I question the strength of your hand in order to use that technique and if it wasn't I question your judgment on the ability to actually keep this pot small once preflop had taken place...
Conversely, I don't think I can bet/call flop because I'm pretty much flipping against all draws with two streets to go and I'm not being bluffed/spazzed on quite enough yet having shown no weakness.
Question: Given the above (if it seems logical), is it reasonable to think that checking flop, in addition to being the obv value play imo (by inducing bluffs and light payoffs on later streets), is also a decent equity protection play in that I don't have to fold once I do it?
---
Lastly, while I don't think SLAGs get bluffed/semi-bluffed a ton more in general than TAGs, I def believe they get bluff/semi-bluffraised way more often as their bets carry so much less weight. No lie, I led 180 into 300 the other day as pfr into 2 people on 6
6
3 and the first villain who I had been punishing a lot but is usually very nitty, spaz-shipped 2k with QT. It would have really sucked had I been protecting my equity with like 88 or something. IMO.
06-18-2011
, 02:35 PM
Quote:
Obv when stacks are really deep and villains are really good (rare) I gameplan pre somewhat and tend to stick to it for the most part. However, when I'm playing my A-game and stacks are moderate and villains are non-threatening, I really like to adjust street to street and make each decision independently. I.E. I don't say to myself "I want to play a big pot with ATo, let's go!" I say pre, "Well (welp), I have the best hand right now, stacks are manageable, I want to get this internet kid out of my way and punish the spot, let's 10x it." They both call, flop comes, I reevaluate.
Is this bad/a leak?
Is this bad/a leak?
we just need to make sure that audibles do not make us unbalanced. if you 10x from the blinds with xx a bunch, villains should have some reasonable expectation they are going to get barreled, at least twice, and big. otherwise, they will feel compelled to call always and get sticky postflop, and i'm pretty sure we don't want that.that being said, what jloc was saying (and i was thinking) was more about motive. like you got a sticky fish to do exactly what you wanted, which was put in a bunch of stack with dominated range, then you hit a dryish board with a PAIR, and you decided to get tricky instead of getting that stack. i can understand an audible if board came 679ss or you caught some live tell, but can't see why you wouldn't stick to the plan here.