Karl for mod imo. Also plz coach me

this logic is flawed imo...esp if there is an assumption in the 2nd sentence that we are always WA/WB...the range of "worse" hands that villain can have here prob range in terms of their equity from ~10-12% (smaller PPs) to 20-30% (some overcards with BD draws/BDFD+GS combos.) additionally the assumption that villain never calls with worse is only valid if we assume he is good at poker...even if he is good, there's really no diff in him calling with 88 (worse) or TT (better), in that both hands will prob call a cbet then try to get to SD or fold to futher action unimproved. imo the assumption that 'no better hands fold' is prob close to accurate, but the assumption that no worse hands call is a stretch at best...the (worse hands fold) assumption also discounts/fails to quantify the value we get from folding out hands with 20-30% equity.

I agree with a lot of this and this response is one of the reasons I would defend the OP's initial post as this kind of response does a couple of things; firstly it challenges the assumption that no worse hand calls and secondly queries whether or not getting worse hands to fold is fine when our opponent has position on us and our best hand is vulnerable.

There are a ton of threads in this forum and I know I am responsible for a number of them that can be categorized as standard / basic / low content. Specifying this thread as Karl has done is unwarranted imo, and posts like erc007's above suggests that even basic threads can elicit an intelligent response.

Karl...please STFU...if you don't want to post in the thread just don't open it...

Willy is a pretty solid poster and takes a lot of time and effort to help others and deserves more respect than you seem to be giving

i won't stfu tho. that won't happen ever. unless you shoot me

hi karl

Karl

meh, so he hates me, gotta respect the kid...I wasn't going to post in such a trivial thread but he's right, posts like this are going to make us worse players

Karl, if you think you learned it in "a few days," then I think you're a great learner.

This stuff is basic, but it's also nuanced, and it's too easy to act like robots in these spots, betting without really understanding why. Sure, I also learned about c-betting "in a few days," but no, I'm willing to admit that I didn't fully understand the nuanced "why" and "in exactly what spots" for quite some time, and not without learning and experience. If you polled SSMTT about this spot, and asked each active poster what they do and why, you will get a lot of right answers for "what" but very few excellent answers for "why."

That's why I created this thread. Threads like this add to the quality of this forum and enhance the skill of its players -- they do not by any means detract from those things.

When we understand the fundamental concepts in such a simple spot, we become much better players. Understanding why you c-bet 99 like 100% of the time on this board and far less, if ever, with KK, is important and useful to people here.

When people understand that, they can start to think on their own and make good real-time decisions. That means being able to make an unusual play say 1% of the time because you really understand it. This is a building block for strong play, and I think it's helpful to a lot of SSMTT.

When I post in a thread, I do my best to give the "why" -- we're not helping anyone by saying "do this, nice hand" or whatever. We're not helping people think for themselves and improve their game. Those posts don't enhance the quality of this forum.

When I explain "why," I also put myself out there -- people can attack me not just for "giving the wrong answer," but for having the wrong fundamental logic. So I take a risk and open myself to detractors, and I think that's great. That's how we'll learn. You're welcome to go through any of my posts and try to tear my logic apart.

But your over the top aggressive response to this thread is unwelcome, and only detracts from the forum.

It's just silly to attack me for making a basic post that breaks down a basic spot that many people think they know on its face when most of us don't really understand "why" it's right, or what considerations make it right. In contrast to posts like this, your posts are rarely helpful. Clicking on your "latest posts" shows your recent contributions:

"yeah this is an easy call. nh"

"im not a fan of pre and i think the river should be a very easy valuebet"

"i'd shove both, 2nd is supersnap."

"even with the weird 3bet size by the SB I doubt I would ever fold here."

"lol wat

also i'd def make it std 3x pre there too. "

These certainly don't enhance the forum. Do you want to be a champion on this forum and be influential and give back? Or do you just screw around and get your kicks when you can, and get in people's face as you have in this thread? Your "lol wat" post was for an interesting strategy post that Zedveron started that generated a ton of good responses (not including yours, ldo). Zed is a great player, he takes the time to help people out and improve their games, and he's probably the hardest working guy around here, and you show him no respect.

I get it, there's ego in poker, it's cool to be a jerk. You have a few big scores and that's great. I'm not challenging your talent or your work ethic. I think you deserve good things that come to you.

But ssnyc is right about the forum. If you don't have anything to contribute, don't open the thread. And if you open the thread and don't have anything useful to say, then don't post. And if you post, don't do it in a way that makes this forum a less safe place for the people who are learning the game.

I certainly agree with you on some things; I don't want a soft forum where we discuss, and even disagree on, super basic points. But I do want a safe learning environment. Obviously, sometimes some posters will post ridiculous things, and that can be a bit tiring. But I'm happy to put up with it... ssnyc is a good mod, and I trust him to filter out the real noise and keep the rest.

We're here to learn because we all have strong work ethics and a humble belief that we have a lot to learn. Your posts in this tread damage the environment, making it harder to learn and less safe, especially for newer posters. And obviously, they also show a lack of humility. And I think we can do without that noise.

Dude, you are remotely serious?

LOL such drama ITT

are you serious in asking if he is serious...of course he is serious but are you serious that you want to take that statement seriously?

karls an expert on c-betting can someone send him a pm about br management?

playing 5K HU SNGs on a 20K roll is fine IMO

sewious guys? sewious?

also, mod to please be renaming thread:

"willyoman discusses basic c-bet spot, karl has mental breakdown, early in stars $22, $20k"

I've only been back on this forum for a couple of weeks but I think we can all agree that ripping Willy is a bad idea. He usually posts well-thought-out, helpful advice that also includes such things as capital letters and proper punctuation. He is one of the few posters who gives you a full explanation every time he posts instead of just typing "raise more pre, c/f flop" and his poker knowledge is spot on.

If you want to rip on people, go read my posts from last night and berate me for my "creative" play.

C bets fine as long as you shut down if called.

yes im sorry the way i said it. it was douchy and whatever. the only thing i want is to try to get this forum better and i still feel this is a spot where it isn't really that much of a need to discuss. but the way i wrote it was wrong. but i still feel this forum should be way better then it is right now and it's not even that tough to accomplish that, if everybody tries to do a little own work about common/easy spots, or to have a thread where you post really easy spots. i think there was one in HSMTT about that and i really feel like there might be spots where you need some help but i doubt that it needs to be discussed in a separate thread. just a ''Common Spot Thread'' or whatever would be pretty good i think

also, why should i make long responses in some threads like the one where both spots are easy shoves? i doubt you have to write long responses in order to get your point accross. both spots are no brainers, it's tough to try to write long responses when it isn't needed at all. some spots are really interesting and there are spots that are worth writing a lot about, but some just aren't.

That's a good idea dude. I don't fully agree with the actions you're suggesting, but I really appreciate this post from you.

It's so easy to write procative and even nasty things over e-mail/message boards/IMs that aren't indicative of the kind of people we are in real life. We've all sent ****ed up spur-of-the-moment pissed-off e-mails or messages and regretted it when we didn't stop ourselves from hitting send.

I really respect you coming back to say sorry. I think that's hard to do, and I think it says a lot about your character when you're able to reflect, decide you made a mistake, and you're willing to admit it.

I'm also sorry if my later posts ITT turned to an attack on you and your contributions; again, electronic communications are dangerous. Obviously, good to be super careful with them in poker and probably even more so in real life.

Yeah, I totally agree with you on this point. It was a dumb thing for me to say.

Hope my apology above captures that.