By the way, welcome to my ignore list.

folding is terrible here

and you all should realize just because you would never raise KK here doesnt mean villain wouldnt either

here is a vid of pretty much the same hands http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e80m0_lCnLk

Huge hand!

Damn.

Pretty irrelevant, do you know villains hand in the OP?

That video absolutely proves that the microstakers here are better poker players than Patrik Antonius. Unlike him, they would have put Ivey on exactly JJ and folded the flop.

Is there any meta-game between us and the villain in this hand?

Do we have reads as solid on our villain as PA's read on PI?

And most importantly, are we playing props with the villain which allows us to isolate his range to either JJ or a bluff? (read PA's thought process during this hand if you don't know what I'm talking about.)

lolzzzzz

Please man stop! just stop!
lolzzz

now that is irrelevant im showing a example from a high stakes game from two well known pros you can take it how ever you want it's just a perfect example of pretty much the same out come

You can throw out all the fancy buzzwords you want. This is an exercise in pot odds and probabilites, not meta-game and prop bets. The simple fact is we're getting 3:1 to play trip Aces with outs to the likely nuts and you can't fold that. Maybe we get away from it on a later street, I don't know, but there's no way to get away from it on the flop. Even if you're a super ninja hand reader and can put him on exactly 77, you still have enough pot equity to call the flop bet.

I cannot see how everyone is operating under the assumption we are behind. Do none of these facts cast enough doubt for a call?

1. Our range after '3betting' is not as strong as usual. Importantly, villain will not read it as being so as only donks flat minraises from mp, we either raise or fold - Our range is as wide as our standard opening range

2. Our wider range, added to the fact we are deep means it is correct for villain to flatcall wider - far wider than has been suggested itt

3. The donk lead is weak, villain and ourselves realise this. We are folding no part of our range to it therefore in villains eyes we still have a wide range

4. Villain can 3bet here believing he can fold out a large portion of our range and knowing donk will v v often fold too - instant, easy profit

5. Villain has an af of 9.4. His stats suggest strongly he is capable of this kind of move which works easily and often at 10nl where scary boards frighten weak-tight players


I am not folding any part of my range to this villain on the flop (all this assumes our image is not that of a complete nit)

is this reasoning at least sound or am I way off?

Your reasoning is quite sound. This is exactly what I was trying to point out in my "example" earlier in the thread. You were just a lot clearer here I think.

And on top of everything you just said, we're getting 3:1. I hate to keep repeating that, but mo one seems to think it has any bearing.

i honestly did not realise how bad the micro stakes forum is in terms of strategy advice.
i mean, seriously, some of the stuff in this thread is actually ridiculous.

besides the insult what advice do you have on the hand? or is that a ridiculous question?

look on page 2

I see what u mean.......


Sooooooo basically he can't have 77 pf but has to have that or AK when he rr flop, tho really he shouldn't have AK either?

But given the ,ahem, huge amount of reads and info given in OP you just know sb is NEVER bluffing coz like, you just know


You make no logical reason for giving villain a range including only the nuts other than vaguely implying he's a donk. Please tell me what part of your strategy advice was any better than any other post in itt?

And indeed, what you intended to achieve by posting pointless insults aimed at people who are, I guess in general going by your number of posts and pompous attitude, a lot less experienced than you?

he shouldnt have AK/ 77, no. i didnt say he cant. based on people itt saying flatting AK there is good, i guess i have to re-adjust my range and include it. but then he is never bluffing here. like seriously never. so calling flop is ******ed.

i guess the "insult" was primarily aimed at bartlett since i didnt realise until looking back that about 50% of posts in this thread are by him.

fwiw, this is absolutely nothing at all like the ivey/ PA hand either i dont know wtf that link is supposed to mean in terms of advice to the hand in question

wiw, this is absolutely nothing at all like the ivey/ PA hand either

really? they have some similarities?

I have put forward my reasoning as to why i think he can be, based on villains stats and the scenario. Villain even doesn't have to be that competent to bluff here

Do you care to provide some reasoning for your own thoughts, or perhaps refute my rationale?

that was explain on page 2 and i agree villain has the nuts most of the time in spots like this i don't see a bluff

I can't believe I'm still posting in this thread but whatever.

The only similarity between the Ivey/PA hand and this one is the hand held by PA and the board texture.

It is not a 3bet pot
Only 2 players are showing interest in the hand on the flop
They are a billion bbs deep
It's Ivey and PA not some random NL10 donks (no offense OP).

for villain to be bluffing, he either has to have air, or be turning a made hand into a bluff. what air is there in his range?? the best possibility is that he is raising JJ for "info", and i dont think your standard 10nl nitreg is going to be doing that, and certainly not with the frequency that he is just check-raising for value.

the AF factor that you used in your original post higher up is somewhat overrated - this sample is only over 70 hands and therefore stats cant really be used to determine his tendancies. especially in situations like this whereby far more likely conclusions can be deduced purely through using logic

the similarity starts and ends with the fact that the button was dealt ATo

FWIW, I never said sb was bluffing. As I was trying to point out, he could have something like KK and think he has the best hand. If any of you seriously believe you can narrow his range to exactly 15 hands based on this action, I want to know which episode of High Stakes Poker I can watch you on.

And I can't begin to tell you how much sleep I lose when I'm insulted by unknown, faceless, ignorant donkeys on the intarweb.

jack's post is a great example of how you can outlevel yourself at uNL