Spike,

If you are offended by my comment regarding your limited experience at live 2/5 NL in an area that is well-known to have relatively nitty games compared to the rest of the country, then so be it. I am just telling the truth here. I was not looking down on your limited volume at 2/5 NL, nor was I looking down at your local games for being nitty.

Whether you like it or not, you are clearly biased by your limited sample size at live 2/5 NL in your local games. If you had played more volume at live 2/5 NL and/or played more in other areas of the country, you would understand why your assumptions in this thread regarding the likelihood of light 4bets at live 2/5 NL are off.

Jesus ATsai. Get a life. This is sad to watch.

I'm sorry let me be more clear. This was me ending the conversation.

winner

don't fold. Seems close between call and jam, I think jamming is a bit better essentially to not allow him to free roll with his bluffs. Don't think even a guy with a cold 4b bluff range is gonna have the heart to barrel off which makes calling less attractive.

Skimmed and +1 to the poker things ATsai said as well

Re:results oriented - when V shows up with essentially a 40% 4b range in this spot, you need to re examine your initial assumptions that it's AA/KK 99% of the time (see bayes theorem)

Taking a shown bluff into account and reexamining your original assumptions about the hand is not being "results oriented." At least not in a negative way. It's simply trying to learn from every situation we're presented with and become a little bit better player going forward.

What's commonly referred to as results-oriented thinking is "Ah I knew I should've called with my nines. I would've flopped a set!"

Incorporating free information about our opponent's range that he shares with us after the fact and figuring out what it means is a useful exercise. It doesn't necessarily mean you should make a different play in a similar situation in the future, but to brush it off completely is a willful refusal to learn.

the people who are jamming are stereotyping the player's range based on his race and only on his race which to me is extremely fishy.

So there must be 6 types of players to them (in their black and white world): Black, young white, asian, old white, hispanic and indian.

There is more to ranging a 4bet in 2/5 than this I can assure you. especially when you are wagering 200 bb's based on these pre-assumptions.

I think his age too (and ATsai suggested an Asian on Asian violence dynamic of course).

If OP said villain was an OMC lookkng guy or a MAWG would I'd be ok to tighten his range?

I actually think this is rather close. I'm gonna offer my $0.02 also that the California games I've seen on LATB and the hand histories I hear on CLP from commerce suggest to me that ranges are just wider and played a little more aggressively on balance than some other parts of the country.

Edit:/ this actually was discussed at length by Ed Miller when Bart interviewed him. They talked about Vegas vs LA "culture" in the games.

But we are talking about a cold 4bet over multiple players, not a cat and mouse metagame heads up.

I wanted to jam and I mentioned nothing about race in my post. Although, honestly, I should have. Stereotypes at the poker table are useful tools that can help give us a starting point for which to range a villain. And we will of course adjust our perception of him based on what we see of his play.

I don't know why you assume race must be the only factor we're basing all our decisions on. If you think it's something that should be totally discounted, knock yourself out.

To me, the biggest factor in this hand is the recent table dynamics and hero's image. But yes, young asian v. young asian is something that should be taken into account.

lol ok

FWIW, I don't this hand history was played in California. Sounds like it was played on the East Coast.

Happy to let this one go, this time.

I fold. I might be being results oriented though.

That was more an observation of your exchange with Spike regarding the nittier culture in his area. It just seems that you west coast guys coming from what seems to be a looser culture are more willing to consider a wider range in a lot of spots where as some of us might have to "reach" to consider the extents of someone's range.

Yeah, you are probably right. I have had several students from the Midwest who ended up having to make big adjustments to their preflop games when they moved to the West Coast or East Coast because they weren't used to preflop 3bet/4bet/5bet aggression. In other words, they used to hero-fold good hands like QQ incorrectly because they weren't used to their new player pools.

I think most people would be best served by learning to profile their individual opponents better in the context of game flow. I see far too much 2plus2 groupthink on these forums where people just make huge generalized statements about certain situations without paying attention to player reads/game flow.

For example, many of the posters advocating a fold with QQ in this thread basically said "LLSNL 2plus2 conventional wisdom says that a 4bet is automatically 95%+ probabilty of KK+, so fold your QQ." And they completely ignored all the info provided regarding Villain image/history, Hero image/history, game flow/dynamic, and handreading/sizing patterns of the table leading up to that hand. Regardless of whether they are right on 4bets being 95%+ probability of being KK+ in general, it is always important to consider the specific details that are unique to the HH itself when ranging Villains correctly.

Regurgitating generalizations is not doing anyone any favors. Taking the time to read and consider all the information (reads, image, game flow, sizing patterns, etc.) is how you really analyze hands.

this hand was played in the northeast. don't want to get too specific about which casino, im not trying to get cold 4bet everyday

OP its a marginal spot but will be slightly +EV if we shove. lets say he has no bluffs. given dynamics and sizing kk aa is heavily discounted. this looks alot more like jj ak maybe tt.

I'm flatting and getting it in on low uncoordinated flop textures. I'd expect V to squeeze TT, JJ, AK. 5-betting just folds out that range, imo. Even a small 5-bet, like 485.

EDIT: having read the thread, it seems important to remember that at LLSNL, if you're running over the table, a sort of weird herd mentality generally emerges and culminates in someone taking a stand for the oppressed by running some kind of aggro counter-strike. I still would have thought it'd be with a hand that has better equity.

We have to sit through countless threads on this forum that describe villains with the most pointless of characteristics, "Black guy, just got back from dinner, said he had steak.", "Younger Hispanic guy, friendly with the dealers, has a Cowboys hat." Yet, when there's actually a useful demographic, asians being one of the most reliable race-playstyle correlations, it gets dismissed.

Sigh. It's not being dismissed. It's being mitigated. I can't believe that anyone would watch an Asian play like a nit for however long he has but when he all of a sudden cold 4 bets we say, "aha! Those crazy Asians!"

The level of results oriented conceit that has surfaced in this thread is a poster child for why results shouldn't ever be posted.

I'd normally say snap fold, but his bet sizing seems a little too big, Like he's out of position and 4 betting a button raise, with perhaps a premium but weak hand like TT/JJ or AK/AQ. If he had AA/KK he may well be 3 betting a little closer to 3x your raise, not 4x.

The problem with this whole situation is, this is not a "cards" and math question in respects to poker, but more of a meta game and evaluation of his poker strategy issue.

I have no real problem with Folding, calling or raising.

There are definitely social reads that hold value. A man in a suit vs a man in a wife beater, how a person talks like dialect or a man vs a woman add to the likely hood of playing a certain style. These are just life skill reads, and dress, culture and race reflect those reads. Of course nothing in life is 100%, but if 50% is the median you can use the other social reads to get to 53% likely hood of someone doing something. Every edge is value.

I didn't post an opinion on the hand before or after results were posted, so not sure how my thinking is results oriented. I do think your ranges are in general too tight though. A few days ago there was a thread about a guy getting shoved on, on an AQJ board by a table bully. You said A10 in my range assessment was optimistic and the guy showed up with J10. I thought about posting something similar to what Atsai did, "So much for A10 not being in his range.", but I figured I'd et a response along the lines of "results oriented". If people are consistently making accurate predictions and yours are too tight, perhaps it's not results oriented?

You posted in the thread. It's safe to assume that your comment was related to the hand in question. Perhaps my ranges are too narrow. A sample size of two isn't what I'd call definitive. Not to mention there's a lot of threads where maybe I was right on. Who knows. The point is to come in and say something about your analysis being confirmed after the results have been posted IS results oriented. The fact that you refrained where ATsai did not only says that you have a maturity level greater than a 15 year old boy. But maybe I'm wrong about that too? Maybe the guy was spazzing out and my range is right 95% of the time. Are you telling me his normal range there is T7o? In the end we're all guessing and that's what makes it fun. Doubly difficult is that we're going off of someone else's view and memory. I'd say ranging individual opponents is the least applicable aspect of a site like this. There's just so many variable to account for and that's frankly impossible in this setting. The best we can do is make generalities and adjust as we go.