Hi dav

Attempting to steal through one low card and then calling a raise because your hand isn't quite bad enough to fold doesn't quite amount to getting "out of line"...

If that's getting out of line, I get "out of line" an awful lot...

well ya, it was a steal imo
or he made it look like a steal which is all the levels the others are talking about

My original thoughts were that villain was a tough opponent who will fold the worst of his hands on 4th but might be convinced to put in a couple of bets if hero checks. (This is probably me romanticizing larger stakes) If he's a donkey calling station then I think SG is probably betting any 4 card 8 on 4th.

this answer varies on

what the limits were ( blinds/antes )

how many players were at the table

dead cards

assuming the table is full the range will be wider than if its shorthanded where its a little more condensed especially when p wolfe is on your left. this is due to the odds you get to profitably steal blinds and antes. since hes such a station its generally not in your best interest to comp/call too wide since your hand has no showdown value which youll need here. full table a really wide range should be comp/folding imo v this player, a semi bluff comp/calling. its POSSIBLE he has a strong hand on third but way way less likely, and even tho i think it would be kinda a sweet ( but unnecessary v this player ) line with a monster for a special occasion, 4th stamps not strong. i think his hand is somewhere right around the worse side of j7 odds wise.

joes guess is good and the equivalent of k7 so thats right there...a definite possibility.

I think you're short-changing a lot of the other posters. There are a lot of reasonable reads here, which was my point. Your read was (almost) dead on as well -- I had 86 in the hole -- tho I'd probably play it differently vs. you. In many spots vs. many opponents, I'd simply lead 4th, but checking here was a much more reasonable play.

No, I'm not. Its easy for many to get confused and try to scramble for reasons when the play is so transparent.

Go back to gazing in the mirror lovingly, stroking your locks.

its hard to come up with an accurate assessment of the play when you have little to no info on either player but only are aware that sgspecial is a thinking player.

rush was just questioning the thinking players' play and we were trying to give responses based on several possibities which may or not be true.

The more salient point is that virtually all the reads indicate villain ought to fold to a bet on Five. That he didn't is way more important in this hand than SG's hole cards.

Villain would have to put SG on two pair or cards T+ in the hole to be enjoying life here, and if SG succeeded in seeding that thought in villain's mind then he scored big.

If villain has only a brain stem and can't make any reads at all, then SG missed a bet on Four and probably would continue to get action regardless.

Their scrambling is called "making a read" and generating confusion is called "playing the player" and "projecting an image". Some people would even suggest that c/c'ing here with either a pair or a 4-card 8 should be your standard play in order to balance your range and maintain deception. I don't really have a "standard" play -- it all depends on "you" (my opponent). But be careful when looking thru the seemingly transparent glass, because I also have a c/r in my bag of tricks and it can make your chips go *poof*.

Joe vs. SG HU4ROLLZ???

No, they are not. They see a respected poster misplay a hand and they are trying to come up with reasons why. I'm not the one short-changing them, DUCY?

SG and I arent 20 year old BBVtards. There are much better spots for the both of us, obv.

twas a joke there champ

EDIT: post #666, rarrrrrrrrrrrrrr

+1. Besides, I don't like HU.
Unfortunately, OP only posted thru 5th st. so they didn't get to see the street that I misplayed. They did get to see a red pro make a pretty awful mistake, and I think I remember some fundmental theorem saying that his opponent will profit from that. You are free to semibluff opponents who aren't folding all you want, just don't expect to gain as much EV.

Neither are we. And while no one as lowly as myself can possibly know anything you don't, the thing being so transparent and all, SG is stealing here a significant portion of the time. But then, I am not you wonderful you, so probably my experience playing with him, observing his play and watching his videos is ultimately, well, meaningless. sigh I just don't think I deserve to be able to read the incredible wisdom that will drop from your keyboard in future - so -

- buh-bye.

I think the set of responses in this thread is a good mix of opinions which touch on both range-balancing and exploiting a weakness in a particular situation.

The discussion that generates is more educational than "he paired the 8 ldo" b/c that's just not always true, even if that would tend to be a good read.

What are you talking about? The BBVtard comment was a comic retort for the HU4ROLZ comment, not for you or anyone in this thread.

All I am trying to say is that everyone should be betting 4th here, and not betting is horribly out of balance and transparent.

The BBVTard response was undoubtedly regarding someone's claim that SG and Joe should play HU4ROLLZ

The limit was $30-60

The game was full or pretty close to it


When I was typing the post, I was trying to copy all of the cards/streets, but I took so darn long to do it, that by the time I went back to it, the game had already broken up, which is the main reason why I left out 6th. And, although I don't remember the exact cards that Hero/Villain caught on 6th, I do know that they both caught "good." (I think PW caught an A and SG caught a 3 perhaps)?

SG, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you bet on 6th and he called, but I'm positive that you c/c the river.

I agree that with you Joe. I think its pretty transparent - either started with a steal hand and/or paired 4th. However, I will say that if your opponent doesn't realize this and wouldn't fold to a bet anyways then I can see checking 4th (probably with the intention of folding to a bet), especially if they are willing to check it right back. Then if you catch better than they do on 5th you can feel very good about having a better 4card hand than you opponent and get value from them on the big bet streets, w/o putting any bets in bad.

If balancing your range is your biggest concern, then yes. Brian Townsend said he thinks it's pointless to balance your betting against an inexperienced, unobservant or stubborn player. You should play your hands for value until a given villain proves to you that he's paying attention and adjusting.

In this case, you're playing a guy who won't fold, you have a crappy hand and a board that's only a pip or two better than his, and you can't shorten his odds because extra bets went in on Third. Not betting Fourth out of respect for balancing doesn't seem terrible.

If villain's constitution allowed him to fold
If the pot was smaller
If hero's hand was better
If hero's hand was hopeless
If hero's image was iron-clad nit

Then maybe it would be a mandatory bet. But not betting here with a pair of eights when we're certain to get called by a hand with a live draw doesn't seem like it's necessarily a mistake.

eh this is getting kinda out of control and we all need to chill a little. <3 <3

This was the crux of what I was getting at, but you've said it much clearer.