200NL: Stations Confuse Me - Small Stakes Full Ring Games

Two Plus Two Forums Archived Forums Strategy Small Stakes Full Ring

200NL: Stations Confuse Me

...

07-21-2008 , 05:53 AM

K.O.S.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 20,798

Sorry, no HH.

EP limper, MP (~$65) pops to $9, BTN (~$135...24/8/1.75) calls, I'm in the SB and look down at A

. I want to get it in vs. MP, so I make a bigger-than-normal raise to $41 expecting him to shove. Instead, he quickly folds after the limper folds. The BTN uses his entire timebank and calls (!) the extra $32.

Flop: 3

I'm first to act, there's about $95 in the pot, and the BTN has ~PSB left. Hero...???

07-21-2008 , 05:58 AM

EricDarland

journeyman

Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 392

Shove or bet 52, whichever looks stronger and call it off. We have plenty of equity vs medium pairs and he might find a fold somehow.

07-21-2008 , 04:01 PM

Johnny Everypot

old hand

Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,297

Shove is only option imo

07-21-2008 , 04:53 PM

BJLTNYK

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 14,406

Well you're never folding so shoving and bet/calling is essentially the same...just villain dependant if you think one will actually draw a fold compared to the other.

07-21-2008 , 05:02 PM

PolarLion

centurion

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 111

with that big pot shove but am not too excited

07-21-2008 , 05:13 PM

K.O.S.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 20,798

K, glad to see I wasn't ******ed for shoving. It seemed like the only option when I did it, but I started second-guessing myself after the hand (not results oriented).

07-21-2008 , 05:36 PM

Shaffer

veteran

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 2,556

Shove as a bluff. This is, I find, normally a villain that is set mining with zero concept of set mining odds. I get folds in these ******ed spots all the time (sometimes they're set mining without knowing it, like, they have JJ but wuss out to the final all in).

07-21-2008 , 06:29 PM

AllTheCheese

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 11,898

I almost always shove in these spots but I feel like I'm missing value. Can we c/c to induce from KQ/AJ? This board might be a bad example, so what about on a 8 6 2 board?

07-21-2008 , 07:05 PM

The Eureka Kid

veteran

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 2,056

Quote:

Originally Posted by AllTheCheese

I almost always shove in these spots but I feel like I'm missing value. Can we c/c to induce from KQ/AJ? This board might be a bad example, so what about on a 8 6 2 board?

I think there is more equity to be gained from making him fold his small pair or AK here though

07-21-2008 , 07:07 PM

#10

AllTheCheese

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 11,898

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Eureka Kid

I think there is more equity to be gained from making him fold his small pair or AK here though

I was operating under the assumption that he never folds a pair on this board. If he does, I mean, what board was he hoping for?

07-21-2008 , 07:23 PM

#11

Shaffer

veteran

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 2,556

Quote:

Originally Posted by AllTheCheese

I was operating under the assumption that he never folds a pair on this board. If he does, I mean, what board was he hoping for?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Macroscopic nuclear models attempt to describe such attributes as the nuclear size, shape and surface diffuseness. Rather than calculating individual levels, macroscopic models predict nuclear radii, degree of deformation and diffuseness parameter. A simple approximation for the nuclear radius is that it is proportional to the cube root of the nuclear mass.

R \propto A^{1/3}

This implies that all nuclei are spherical and their radius is directly proportional to the cube root of their volume (volume of a sphere = 4 / 3πR3). Nuclei can also exist in a deformed shape and thus a degree of deformation ,β2, can be included to take this into account. The fact that the nucleus may not be entirely incompressible is also considered by the diffuseness parameter δ. An example of a macroscopic model is the droplet model of Myers and Schmidt.

Some quite successful attempts have been made to combine the microscopic and macroscopic models together. These so called mic-mac models begin with a nuclear potential, solve the Schrödinger equation and proceed to predict macroscopic nuclear parameters.

Read this in full. The reaction you give to it is probably about the same reaction that most bad poker players will give when you try to explain to them the concept of "set mining odds."

07-22-2008 , 01:05 AM

#12

PolarLion

centurion

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 111

i think most regulars feels 1:4 to hit is set is about right against me

...