balls of steel baby!!!

and the knowledge that his opponent might out think himself if he shoves, when in reality, it was just an all in to a checked river in a juicy pot.

i think it's great the way DIH thinks through this situation and argues his point, but i do however think the above statement is true.

great thread.

I believe he has a 9. Given the information, you said he likes to stay around with second pair if he thinks you are bluffing. Also given the information you gave, you said he likes to bluff by shoving the turn/river. Maybe he wants you to think he is bluffing so he can get paid off?

I wouldn't believe it when he said he didn't have a king beat, maybe trying to throw that image at you so he gets paid off in the long run.

I probably shouldn’t even chime in here as I’m certainly not on the level of many of the great players posting here.

That said – this is the internet and much as everyone has an *******, every ******* has a voice. This is mine.

Fold.

I believe this to be a fold as

a) If you were 2barreling clubs – there’s no reason for Krantz to shove to get you off a busted draw when you check
b) The draw missed, and he knows that a shove looks bluffy, particularly given A.
c) History would suggest that he would shove draws and medium hands on this turn, making his river shoving range look incredibly polarized
d) Given these facts, you’re not calling any size bet with your air, and your never folding a King to a shove.
e) He shoves knowing the above at the same time giving you great odds to call.

This thread really reminds me of an old Mahatma thread where several people were like – you’re at the top of your range here – you HAVE to call – he so craaaaaazy. However, another contingent of people came back with ‘Using hand strength to determine when you should call his c/c, donk pot, overbet shove line is exactly why he ends up owning fools.’

Maybe I’m way off here, but it seems like a close parallel.

Also – great vids. =)

what if krantz himself was on a busted FD?

wow for a hand with big names and big name posters replying this is an awful thread.

Well, in the PA hand he shoved way deeper w/ K9. So can we really assume he won't do that here?

As for luego's comment about not playing if DIH has to revert to GTO strategy...if he could truly play GTO, then Krantz would have no reason to play either, right? And also, I didn't think playing GTO means u have no edge, but that nobody can possibly be above neutral against you. If u could truly play anywhere near a GTO strategy (a la hawrilenko), wouldn't u profit tons by against an opponent who is making a reasonable amount of mistakes (as most all opponents likely are)? I haven't kept up w/ the GTO discussion on two plus two, but this is the impression I get based on MOP.


As for the hand, it doesn't matter what u do, since it's close, and close decisions don't matter that much in poker .

Poker is frustrating- so hard to really know what is best in spots like this- even after reading most all the responses, i have no clue- there are always really good players who give seemingly good arguments for each option...sigh

yo, nick. interesting stuff. i tried to follow the maths but it made my head hurt . Is this 33% figure generally accurate, or just in this case for some reason? Why is 50%+ usually considered to be the correct figure (I've never heard someone use 33%)?

There's alot of assumptions behind it. The 33% figure is correct if you think calling a bet on the river if you check is neutral EV, he's not checking back better hand if you check, he's not folding better if you bet and he's not bluffraising/raising with worse (impossible in this hand because we're shoving). In this case all those assumptions are pretty fair, but generally you need to be ahead more than 33% when called to bet the river "for value".

The 50% figure is correct if you're IP (and your river bet is a shove). If he can check/raise you need some extra overlay (unless his bluffing frequency is 0%).

This seems a lot more likely than people have given it credit for.

The stack sizes work well for smooth calling 2 streets with a draw, especially given the fact that even when he misses he can apparently bluff shove a lot of rivers when its checked to him.

And I dont know much about Krantz's game, but from what others have said about his tendency to make thin value shoves, that should make check/calling the optimal play right?

all the background info you have given is useless and i have no idea how its supposed to lead to a decision besides your 'feel'. the responses to the thread confirm this.

heads up is mostly about feel.

people can have ****ing anything and stuff like "oh he never bets KJ on the river" is just silly as first you are saying "wow, he shoves KX 99% of the time on the turn but never KJ on the river"???

wtf...

you didn't have KQ did you?

For the record, I pretty much repudiate most of anything I said in this thread.

I've talked it over with some people and admit that I was wrong about pretty much everything in this hand and misplayed it as much as humanly possible on the river. It's a shove, and if I check then it's a call.

That being said, this was surprisingly the most constructive twoplustwo thread I've probably made in a long time as far as actually getting me to rethink a hand and reconceptualize it completely. I don't know how much it'll help other people, but as long as this thread has run its course, I'd like to thank everyone who offerred their responses and arguments.

And, yes, I did have KQ, I did fold, and I did have the best hand.

i just thought it was weird that you told jay you had a "big king" and then posted your actual cards here

The thing everyone might not be understanding is that Krantz has a range that is calling the river and worse than KQ and that same range won't bet river if checked to.

It has to be pretty close though, right?

I imagine he would be shoving a lot bricked fd's and the air he double floated with, in addition to the lesser strength made hands he's shoving for value when checked to.

I don't understand what you mean by this. Some of his range bets if checked to, some doesn't.

He means krantz is gonna be calling off his stack with more of his range that loses to KQ than he is gonna be shoving and losing with when checked to.

I think Krantz has pocket 3's

I understand this, it seems to be the consensus of the thread. But he said "the thing that everyone might not be understanding". They might not be understanding... that they are wrong?

Whatever, I'm probably just being difficult. I just thought there was more to it that I didn't get, or at least I was hoping that would be the case.

actually, we had the same hand

ahahha thats awesome... i guess u played it better.

its almost like position is awesome huh?

edit: that is w/o commentating on dogishead's actual line.

Position is a key ingredient to success in the game of NL hold'em.

it was easy call

as for the ppl commenting on my comment about GTO play: i know, along with everyone else on this forum, what GTO play entails. i know it is 100% unbeatable if u employ it flawlessly. but u arent. u just arent capable of it so the whole point is moot. ur edge hopefully comes from other things, like exploiting krantz tendencies, using history etc to ur advantage better than he is, or being more "on point" ATM than he is.

any monkey can figure out what the top of ur range is on this river and call or fold accordingly but that doesnt mean its strictly superior to every other play. we have been over this so many times. would this discussion even be this long if OPs only question was "am i at the top of my range here or am i not?"?