+1 to the above.

DragonAsh, in sorry, but your comment regarding older players sounds silly. Maybe where you play they are all like what you describe, but speaking as a player who is pushing 50, there are no other players I like to have at my table than young, Internet players. They can't handle getting 3-bet light from the likes of me. Or me getting value with my medium strength hands by checking to them and letting them barrel in ridiculous spots.

Come to Vegas. I'll show you plenty of aggressive, thinking players over 40. Thankfully, there are plenty of young hoodie-wearing Internet kids to bamboozle.

No, this is where we disagree.

Fish have no idea what they are doing and blindly call with the worst of it.

Donks have an idea of what they are doing but completely ignore any and all logic because they simply cannot fold when they know they are beat.

Of course we never know with 100% certainty we are beat unless V shows us his hand. But we know with 95% certainty that we are most likely beat and rather than go with the 95% certainty donks "hope" for that 5% chance.

We aren't talking about a $50 call into a $80 pot. We are talking about a gigantic enormous insane freaking overbet of $450 into a $200ish pot.

This is another point where I disagree somewhat.

Sugar coating bad play will not help us grow. When I was first on this site I made some pretty horrific plays and posts (actually I still do ) and the only way I saw the light was because some 2+2ers were pretty blunt in their responses to my plays and posts.

And I needed it.

One of the things that enables us donks to be donks is the self delusion that comes with being a donk. ANd I know because I was a huge donk.

I know I come off as a condescending prick but I honestly feel its required in this situation.

This isn't a "little" mistake or a "misunderstanding", this is a super obvious monster by villain.

Recreational players almost virtually never ever ever make this bet in this situation without a monster. And there is too much "Well, villain can have AA or KK" bull**** in this thread.

Anyways, I am trying to help.

Wow I didn't expect you to be an older player.

Yeah erick seidel is an exact. Definition of an older player who plays like the internet guys.

But youb guys are kidding yourselves if you want online savy players at your table.

You're preaching to the choir. I'm closer to 50 than 40 btw.

+1

Internet players that actually can be patient and adjust to live play will destroy you.

Lucky for us though, these types of players are in the minority.

And double lucky for those of us who are also winning internet players

I am going to admit, I had no idea that these were the official definitions for these terms.

However, I still don't think you can label hero as "unable to fold when he knows he is beat". Once again, hero's hand is severely underrepped and I am certain this bolstered his optimism in making the call. Should it have? No. But hero is a work in progress and he'll get there.

because people never make huge overbets without the nuts? Of course they do (last session I calld a $385 jam into a $125 pot and it was a good call for that situation), but it's this specific circumstance where experienced players will tell you this is never a bluff.

I don't think I sugar coated anything. But I object to name calling in general, especially as a response to someone looking for help. Tell them what they did wrong in the hand. Tell them the principal and help them learn. But applying labels to them based on the observation of one hand (I would say one mistake, but I think there were several mistakes in the hand) is not helpful.

Actually, it is. The reason is that it is a situation that doesn't come up all that often. If you learn from it the first time it comes up, you're golden. An expensive lessons, but there are a lot more standard situations that come up all the time that if you play badly will end up costing you a lot more (for example, calling 3bets OOP with suited connectors 100BB deep).

And as for "super obvious", it isn't that super obvious to someone with a lack of experience. It isn't the overbet, the villain, or the line of the hand- its the combination of all three that makes it obvious to people who have seen it before.

Just like l/r = KK+ live- I still struggle with this because it's just not something I experienced much at all playing hundreds of thousands of hands online. I just lack experience against this type of play, but I think I'm finally learning that I can't jam AK into a l/r profitably, even though it's my gut reaction. Is that play a leak for me? Yes. Does it make me a donk? I don't think so.

. Because if you don't take bet sizing and villan's play style into account, that's exactly what this looks like. I'm not surprised at all that people would make that read.

Well, my opinion is that OP will get more out of an explanation as to what factors make this a super obvious fold to you than you labeling him a donk and focusing on the mistakes in his play style you are extrapolating from one hand.

You can go right in believing that he knew he was beat and called anyway, but that is not rational and almost no one really does that. The important thing is to isolate how he talked himself into a call and explain why that thinking doesn't hold up. Then he can recognize the poor thought processes in the future and avoid them. If he walks away from this thread having learned "don't call overbets because it's always the nuts", this thread will have made him a worse poker player.

^ Fair enough

Group hug?

CALLLING everyday everday

^^^^^ Huge contribution

Pilotender, I'm happy to reopen the J9o debate if you really think it necessary. Personally, I don't, as I've made my case regarding the preflop equity of this hand against a JJ+/AQ+ range, certain player types and 200BB+ effective stack sizes. J9o is a one-gapper (quite different to 82o I think you would admit); furthermore it runs better than KQo or QJo against this nuttish range and doesn't have significant RIO. I DO NOT advocate playing this hand in most circumstances (e.g. in multiway pots with <100BB effective stacks). In some circumstances it is a reasonable play, albeit a speculative one. The manner in which you are representing my logic above is just not fair and ultimately counterproductive.

I really hate this shove with 88 because he should only be called by better. However, I am then reminded how terrible 1/2 players are and it's quite likely that many bad players will pay him off with a 9 or even an overpair. It's certainly not a line I would take vs a good player.

Also, I don't like ruling out 9-8 from his range simply because he raised preflop. If you think he's bad enough to shove this river with worse than a boat then he's bad enough to raise with 9-8 or 9-7 preflop. The only TAGs at 1/2 are pros/semi-pros and I question how many of them really play optimal TAG poker. I've played as high as 5/10 and even some of the pros there have significant leaks which would prevent me from labeling them as either TAGs or LAGs.

This is one of those hands where you have to give the villain credit, and if he has complete air then tell him nice hand sir because he has earned that pot. Even most bad players realize that it's likely you have a 9 after you call the turn. This is really an insta-fold vs most villains. This villain would have to be terribad and aggressive for you to even consider a call here. You don't have a whole lot of information on this villain, but if he plays anywhere close to a TAG then he is far from terribad.

*grunch*

PF raise plus overbet flop looks to me like an overpair, but maybe not the best overpair (overbets flop to protect against overcards coming). I put V on KK-TT, without any read that V will raise in UTG+2 with suited connectors or lower pocket pairs.


I call b/c it's so hard to put V on 77 or 22 or A9 -- and 88 seems almost impossible.

Fold. Don't play hands like that too much or your going to get in bad spots like this.

zqz - how often do you see V's bet 400 more with KK or AA here on a board where the top pair from the flop just tripped up? I see it almost never.

Wow. This read kindof kicked my head (for which thanks), but it also made me feel stupid / embarrassed (for which no-thanks to some of the more colorful writers above ).

I'm pretty sure that I reached my grunch conclusion way too fast. I took too much for granted in OP's villain description, and that led me to rule out a bunch of hands that (as has correctly been stated again and again) we need to rule back in once V. overbets the river so big.

The other thing I missed was the magnitude of the shove. These are the sorts of things I hope it's easier to miss when reading a thread than when sitting at the table.

My takeaways here:

1 - When villain diverges from his apparent line, it's probably in reaction to most recent street. Figure out what that street did for a wide range of holdings, not just for the hands your analysis to that point had identified.

(I was actually happy with myself for thinking to mention 88 in my grunch, even though I said it was "almost impossible" for villain to have it.)

2 - Give all villains the opportunity to make the biggest possible mistake when I have a monster. I think this point has shown up in many threads recently, but I have not had much chance to implement it in my games. After all, we don't hit monster hands all that often.


3 - Grunching on a thread that has lots of content can be an awesome way to incentivize reading the whole thing and a good way to get feedback right away on one's ideas. Embarrassed as I felt for a moment with my grunch, I'm glad I did it.

surprised this thread still has life. In my defense, I did originally state that we're only beat by A9 and 88

I don't have the exp. I haven't seen it. I thought it was possible, based on stereotypes of live players that I've picked up from these forums.

But I'm super happy to have learned from older hands that this size overbet-shove means something other than what I'd imagined.

I'm a poster in the weird spot of having to learn MOSTLY from this reading, b/c I get to play so rarely at a casino. (This is why I was a lurker, off and on, for like 5 years between my 3rd and 4th posts.)

It's less likely these hands get raised preflop, but they shouldn't be discounted. Also, the phrase overbet keeps getting tossed around as far as the flop. It's $27 into $25, not $140 into $12, it's basically a pot sized bet, it's not incredibly different than leading for $20.

I get young Internet smart-@5535 (YISAs) at my table all the time, and they are most welcome. They come in wearing what I call The Uniform: hoodie, those thingies stuck in their ears, sunglasses. They prattle on and on about "equity", "ranges", etc. They are by far the biggest fish I've ever seen, and it's been months since I saw one whose buy-in didn't just melt away.

Maybe these YISAs are as good as they claim playing on-line. However, on-line is a helluvalot different from live. They have a leak you can drive a semi through: they're insufferably arrogant. They are incapable of learning and adjusting to live play. They underestimate their opposition (they're all "old nits").

I figure if I ever meet one of these "savvy Internet players" I don't want at my table s/he won't be wearing The Uniform, won't be distracting themselves with those ear thingies, won't be restricting their ability to observe by wearing a hoodie, won't be doing anything to make us realize what s/he is.

I am a young internet smart ass. I win at live poker, in fact I win much moreso than I did at online. Nice to meet you.

Extra, extra, read all about it. Kyuubimon says online players are the biggest donks of all who are incapable of adjusting to live play, and then has the gall to call them arrogant.

Kyuubimon, let's be honest here. You've only played a couple of online players who happened to talk too much and were not that good. I promise you, that I know of and could easily find many, many online players that would wipe the floor with you and your best live player friends.

For now, since it's all we have to work with, let's take the example of Tom Dwan coming onto GSN's High Stakes Poker. I'd say he adjusted quite well, wouldn't you say? And by that I mean, he took those live donkeys, and made an enormous profit in every single week in which he was featured.

You really lose credibility when you fire off a Tom-Dwan-on-HSP example as proof of onliners doing well live. That has nothing to do with the types of games, players, and stakes we here in this forum experience. You can make your point, but firing off a silly comment about some televised pro cash game (incidentally, one where the overall level of play is often horrifyingly bad to begin with) doesn't help.

FWIW, thus far (low sample size) I am crushing live 1/2 and I only played online before. However, I am in my mid 30s, don't wear a hoodie, sunglasses, or iPod at the table, and make lots of conversation. I don't really think that matters, though, and I've certainly played against the guys you describe and find most to be decent enough. I DO think I can exploit them a little by knowing their style of play without much observation, whereas it takes them a bit to realize I have experience playing in aggressive games. I think most at the casino I frequent have figured it out by now, but they tend to stay out of my way. I also play a little more on the LAG side than they do- my suspicion is most of those in my particular pool were 50NL or lower grinders, and many grinded FR not 6MAX.

I wouldn't assume that those in uniform can't adjust, though. To assume anyone who dresses like that has such a leak may get you in trouble. I assume those guys can play until they show me otherwise, but I have found it fairly easy to adjust my game depending on my opponent. I bluff the online guys more and value bet the average loose passives more. This far I haven't run into anyone I think is better than I am, but I start every session figuring this game will be the one.

LOL - the above, from the guy that said this:

The irony burns.