yeah i thought there would be peanut butter but you cannot even afford the cheapest, most calorically dense of foods due to your degenerate spending. why did you really leave the US to live worse than my dog in Thailand? did you get a public indecency charge at the local library and flee?

I've muzzled you and put a paper bag over your face. But you keep coming back for 4th, 5th, 6th helpings

Thats pretty funny she picked a girl with a big ugly nose as a fake pic

What's your BRM strategy for moving up? Looks like rakeback alone will sustain your living expenses.

Nose looks fine to me. You might be a closet **** - which would be totally fine don't get me wrong - I encourage it - anal sex reduces overpopulation - but would def explain you nitpicking about dat bitches nose.

In all seriousness all those **** articles that suggest 20 BI bankrolls - do not listen to that. You need minimum 50 - I do 100 to help with mindset.

For moving up? Basically when my coach says I'm ready and I make a lot of BI's at the previous stake. It's possible I win 100 more BI's and don't move up because he says I'm not ready.

I guess I still suck at poker so he's a bit cautious. But I would like to take some 200NL shots now. But he's the boss.

oh look there's the same guy projecting his insecurities again

My friend, I know. I am the dude who is currenly in Thailand aswell, for longer than you actually. It is roughly 1/4 of $200 tho, which was your opening budget.

Anyways, I can tell by your attitude that you're not gonna amount to anything worthwhile in poker, so I wish you good luck and let's leave it at that.

I think any normal person would find it funny that my character and future success is being judged by a **** for brains that does not even know how to read a simple graph - and at the same time is so in denial about their stupidity that they go one step further and accuse the OP of fraud.

So as other's have pointed out, maybe you should learn to read a graph before posting more? Literally everything you say can be dismissed because of that.

Also, we are not friends

Also the thread is 33 pages long and a couple months in - my budget has increased. It's only been mentioned a dozen times. But I get it. You don't know how to read. You've proven that.

Dude, you'd come across as such a boss if you just replied something like "Thanks man, good luck to you too"

Depends on how I feel at the time. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. That time I felt like explaining to him how his IQ is lower than the personification of his own **** stains.

villain is 56 16



villain had huge riv bet stats over short sample and was running 56 24



villain is 36/26




villain is 26/23 over about 16 hands



This TT hand created massive controversy in my mid stakes skype group chat - we debated this spot on and off for 2 hours lmfao - I'm pretty sure I solved it though. My friend disagrees with me. He's also wrong because I solved it.

Assume villain is just a typical weak reg

Smaller C-bet is obvious - I don't understand how river C/c could possibly be the highest EV line? Surely we're ahead far more often than we're behind here and we don't want it going check check?

Villain is more likely a fish than a weak reg if he's cc 22 there. I think river x/c is probably OK, but betting has to be a much higher EV play, especially with how passive he is. He's more likely to hero call something than turn something into a bluff. Probably checking flop at a high percentage, too, since we have the board locked down. Not worried about protecting against a rare combo of 98s villain has and a turn 7.

Definitely an interesting hand, since you don't see an MP open, CO 3b, and BTN CC that often.

1st KK fold is terrible.

I just ran a CREV model of this spot and 55 vpip has 38 flush combo's, 6.6 set combo's and 5 st8 combo's. I'm def giving this whale some QT combo's.

It's an A hi board and a flush board which fish bluff less often when looking at pop data

It's also an overjam where fish bluff less often

So you have 3 factors where fish bluff less often - A hi, flush texture, overbet riv

I thought about giving them 2 pair combo's but they didn't raise pre so I discounted AK - and fish won't typically overjam here with A4o - they will bet big but not overjam - So it really would have to be a massive airball riv jam to make it + EV -

I could get on board with accepting it's a mistake but "terrible" is probably an overstatement after one would model it.

Mainly I think a whale might jam AJ sometimes - but I don't see them jamming with worse that this usually

Sure we don't want it going check/check. That would suck. But think about their calling range. What combo's do you see calling on the river? Don't make the mistake of widening their range after seeing the results. I said assume they are a weak reg bc that's what their stats suggested - 26/18 type or w/e - and those stats wouldn't tell you it's a weak reg but I just consider everyone in my pool to be a weak reg.

So list their calling combo's and then list which of those combo's that call are either going to or not going to jam riv themselves if x'ed to - then list the remaining combo's they might have that snap fold if we jam.

Then you'll get closer to the answer.

More likely a fish? But you only say that because you saw results lol

What stats did I post for you to assume they are "passive"?

More likely to hero call what combo's? Which combo's do you see a reg calling with here?

You just got done saying they are passive and would hero call rather than bluff jam and now you suggest x'ing flop is best. Those 2 statements are contradictory imo - if they bluff less and hero call riv jams it means you think they are a station which means cbetting flop is obviously better

Cbetting vs 98s is not a protection bet lol - that's a value bet - a "protection bet" is a cbet that forces villain to fold out combo's to deny them equity - if they are not folding that combo (98s) it's not a protection bet - it's a value bet. Bc if they aren't folding then you aren't protecting against anything

How often do you see a reg flat a 3b after an MP open and CO 3b? I would say close to 0% of the time.

You didn't post any stats on this villain.

It's a super rare spot where most villains don't have a flatting range. I would assume it's weighted towards some pocket pairs and some stronger broadways.



No, checking flop is good because you have the board locked down and it gives them a chance to improve to something that they can call on later streets. This is pretty standard on these types of boards where you block top pair types of hands. Betting huge here just folds out too many hands and is frankly a punt. Your bet sizing is pretty suspect throughout the whole hand. You really can't have bluffs with this sizing because villain is priced in to call almost everything on the river when you have an $86 pot and villain only has to call $59.

I think you are getting caught in the semantics. Classifying any bet as pure value or protection is really just the same thing. You realize that villain doesn't have to fold to still deny them equity by betting, right?

Some of this stuff is pretty basic poker theory.

Micro Donk, no offense but pretty much everything you just wrote is just a line after line of irrational statements. Similar to your off the cuff comment about the Q86r flop MP vs CO cold call. So I'm not going to "argue" anything about what you just wrote - but when you end your post with "this is pretty basic poker theory" then you really are just shooting yourself in the foot.

I encourage you to realize the level you are currently at.

If BTN flips their cards over and shows 98s there is no universe where your cbet would be a "protection" bet unless you cbet a size where you know they will fold - like an all in. But that's exactly what fish do when they 4x jam turns after the board get's scary to "fold out flush draws" etc

When I asked you why you assumed they were passive by asking you which stats I provided for you to come to this conclusion - you tossed out a red herring by stating I didn't post stats. With that being technically true - I did say to assume it's a weak reg because that's the only data I had to go by. A weak reg is not 55/15 or 10/2 or 90/60. And furthermore - if you are going to say I didn't post stats then it's even more confusing why you randomly made a statement about villain's passivity.

When you say villains don't typically have a flatting range here, that is just totally not true. What you should say is their flatting range is going to be *insert flatting range here* - you suggested pp's and strong broadways. Seems fine. But why did you say villains don't have a flatting range here? The guy obviously flatted so villains obviously have flatting ranges.

"You really can't have bluffs with this sizing" - sure, but my read was they were a **** reg who just cc'ed a small 3bet - I just wanted to get value from 99 before more high cards hit. No **** reg is going to fold 99 to that flop sizing. But more to the point, I think after further analyzing the spot - **** regs have a fairly wider range pre then just the AQ/66-99 I gave him.

But you aren't going to be able to get away with arguing he is too passive to bluff riv and will hero call (with combo's you never mentioned) - while at the same time suggesting x'ing flop is higher EV bc it allows his range to "catch up" (without stating what his range is)

Let me prove what you just wrote is 100% falacious.

Board is AAKQr and you have AA and you cbet. Please explain to me how this is as equal as a "protection" bet as it is "value bet"

I will ship you 10% of my profit per month until I die if you can prove cbetting AA there is a "protection" bet just as equal as it being a "value bet".

poker will never die

moving to 200 anytime soon?

I have a feeling it will be soon. I'm up over 30 BI's now in 50k hands.

You know what, it's 3am here and I haven't exercised yet. Let's do that now.

LET'S GO!

Quote:

villain had K3s which taught me I can't predict accurate ranges over such **** sample sizes bc the 26/23 turned out to be a 40/18 type later at the table

Yes, when you have the stone nuts, there's no reason to deny equity. You realize you are just proving my point, right? TT on T62 rainbow is essentially the nuts with little odds to get out drawn. At some point, you have to get the money in, but in a 3bet pot with an additional cold caller, it is easy to get the money in on the river. We aren't interested in denying equity with this hand, and we aren't going to extract value from a lot of the villain's range, since it is so weak on this board, so why are we betting? That's the point I was trying to make, but you're so interested in being the king of the keyboard, you won't stop to objectively think about what I am saying.

Hands in the middling part of your range are where the lines get blurred between value and bluffs, which is why these terms aren't that effective. Janda wrote about this in his second book.



The second image isn't quite the exact same scenario, but when the villain's range is made up of a bunch of trash, and we block a lot of his top pair type of hands, there's no reason to bet a bigger sizing.

So to sum it up, I like checking the flop at a high frequency. Betting is fine, too, but I want to bet a smaller sizing to keep his range interested in a call.


Good luck man. I am genuinely rooting for you to succeed.

But you just wrote this: "Classifying any bet as pure value or protection is really just the same thing."

After proving what you wrote was completely untrue then you toss out another red herring about "there not being any reason to deny equity" in the quad Aces example.

I actually didn't even read the rest of your post. I'll engage more with you here if you just admit you are grasping at straws and going through mental acrobats to support multiple irrational and baseless positions.

"Really just the same thing..."

Quad aces is a value bet. PURELY a value bet. You stated value bets and protection bets are the same thing. I proved you wrong. At least admit you made an error in your writing and retract that portion of your argument.