Hand review feedback

MistaCrowleyMistaCrowley Red Chipper Posts: 26 ✭✭
edited October 2018 in Live Poker Hands
Game takes place in a place with 100 max bets. Hero has 570bb. Villain has 340bb. Villain has been playing for over 24 hours hero has been there 6 watching villain. Table is a loose action 1-3 table with constant straddles from UTG. Hero has :3s :3c on the button 6 limpers then CO(villain) raises to 18 (which he does frequently). 5 callers. Have observed villain weak raise strong hands under the justification that he wants more money in the pot and complain that they get run down. Have seen him raise like this with everything from AA to 6-3

Flop comes :2d :3h :7d
SB raises 12. Mid position goes 25 calls to hero. Hero goes 80$. Folds except sb co and hero.
Turn :Js
Check to hero. Hero bets $100.
Sb calls
Co raises to 200$
Hero looks at co and says wtf, you have pocket jacks. And there is a small wince from his cold stare that seems like a rat. How would you proceed.

Comments

  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 1,919 -
    1. I wouldn't have said that unless I'd just folded.
    2. Probably call turn call river.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,583 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Not sure why you wouldn't raise to $100 to begin with on the flop. But in a game where villain has over $1,000 and the most he can bet at me on the river is $100, I'm not folding.
  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 1,921 ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 2018
    Max bet take almost all FE away on later street - pot odds are way too good to fold. So a C-R here could just be a way to build the pot with an overpair, 22, 2P, nut FD and combo draw - as V could expect H to turn c-bet after a rather turn brick.

    What so ever, I'm never ever folding 33 here. Pot odds are 100/555 (if I haven't miscounted) aka 18%. Without checking it, you have for sure more than the needed 18% equity against a maniac like V.
    You could even think to 3bet turn or raise the (expected) river bet. (And stab if V checks river.)
  • MistaCrowleyMistaCrowley Red Chipper Posts: 26 ✭✭
    edited October 2018
    Thanks for the feedback everyone. I came to the same conclusion as all of you in the hand that I couldnt drop my set for 100$. The math just didnt work out for me to fold.

    For people who are interested in the outcome:

    River was 7 Villain bets 100 Hero calls, villain shows JJ :(

    One of the big reasons I post this is because I feel like my game is flawed. I feel like the biggest leak in my game right now is calling with monster hands when I feel confident I'm behind. I would be far more profitable if I didnt call down sets and full houses when I think I'm beat, as well as K high flushes when the other player has A high flush. Its been the theme of my play in the last week or so that I keep feeling like I'm bleeding cash with monster hands that end up notched.
    It sucks a lot to be right and wrong at the same exact time.
  • moishetreatsmoishetreats Red Chipper Posts: 1,819 ✭✭✭✭
    One of the big reasons I post this is because I feel like my game is flawed. I feel like the biggest leak in my game right now is calling with monster hands when I feel confident I'm behind. I would be far more profitable if I didnt call down sets and full houses when I think I'm beat, as well as K high flushes when the other player has A high flush. Its been the theme of my play in the last week or so that I keep feeling like I'm bleeding cash with monster hands that end up notched.
    It sucks a lot to be right and wrong at the same exact time.

    I'd re-frame this thinking. Rather than it being binary -- right/wrong, V has it/V doesn't have it -- think of it like any other poker decision: standard play or deviant play.

    Here, the "standard" play is clear: call. The relevant question is: Do you have a compelling enough reason to deviate from the standard play (which is an overwhelmingly strong play) to do so? If you do (i.e., you just somehow know that V has it), then deviate from your standard play. If you're guessing/worried/seeing monsters under the bed, then you have the standard play to insure that you don't make egregious mistakes too often.
  • MistaCrowleyMistaCrowley Red Chipper Posts: 26 ✭✭
    I'd re-frame this thinking. Rather than it being binary -- right/wrong, V has it/V doesn't have it -- think of it like any other poker decision: standard play or deviant play.

    Here, the "standard" play is clear: call. The relevant question is: Do you have a compelling enough reason to deviate from the standard play (which is an overwhelmingly strong play) to do so? If you do (i.e., you just somehow know that V has it), then deviate from your standard play. If you're guessing/worried/seeing monsters under the bed, then you have the standard play to insure that you don't make egregious mistakes too often.

    I like this new idea on re framing thought and I feel like I can build on it. Thank you for sharing!

  • Paul_KPaul_K DFWRed Chipper Posts: 297 ✭✭✭
    It's good that you knew the J hit him. But he has too many Jx for you to consider folding. This max bet thing has to be exasperating.

    Why not just max raise the flop?
  • MistaCrowleyMistaCrowley Red Chipper Posts: 26 ✭✭
    Paul_K wrote: »

    Why not just max raise the flop?

    Value

  • Paul_KPaul_K DFWRed Chipper Posts: 297 ✭✭✭
    Paul_K wrote: »

    Why not just max raise the flop?

    Value

    That's what I mean. Doesn't sound like your V is the elastic type. Also, 80 would seem to contain fewer bluffs than the max bet.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,883 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Right, the 100 allows you more bluffs, the 80 a wider value range. Construct accordingly.

    I think that is an especially interesting point in a spread limit game, where we lose our ability to polarize very quickly and is the issue at the heart of that game type.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,583 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I'd re-frame this thinking. Rather than it being binary -- right/wrong, V has it/V doesn't have it -- think of it like any other poker decision:

    Yes, it's simply probabilities. You can't really believe he has JJ 100% of the time here. So it goes something like: let's see, villain has JJ 60%, is bluffing 10%, has some other hand he likes 30%. Based on pot odds, that can be enough to call.

    In this case, you're getting something like 5:1 twice in a row so you only have to be right 1 time out of 5 or 6 to call here.

  • moishetreatsmoishetreats Red Chipper Posts: 1,819 ✭✭✭✭
    jeffnc wrote: »
    I'd re-frame this thinking. Rather than it being binary -- right/wrong, V has it/V doesn't have it -- think of it like any other poker decision:

    Yes, it's simply probabilities. You can't really believe he has JJ 100% of the time here. So it goes something like: let's see, villain has JJ 60%, is bluffing 10%, has some other hand he likes 30%. Based on pot odds, that can be enough to call.

    In this case, you're getting something like 5:1 twice in a row so you only have to be right 1 time out of 5 or 6 to call here.

    Agreed to some degree. You could use probabilities (i.e., I'm 60%, 80%, 95% sure that V has JJ here...). But, then you're jumping into nit-picking coin-flips and crazy math (60% likely of X, 20% of Y, 10% of Z, that leaves 10% of randoms, but I just can find enough randoms, so I need to re-assign half of that 10%, where does it go, what is 60% of the pot compared to how much of the 20% will I win...). Doable. For some, those calculations are quick and second-nature. For others, they are overwhelming.

    If numbers work for you, then great. I am so confident that V has JJ here that I'll assign a 90% probability to it. Then the numbers direct your move.

    If numbers don't work for you, then the idea that I put forth of standard vs. deviant play gets to the same place. The standard play (based on the pot odds to call) is clear. If you gut is screaming at you that V has JJ (i.e., if you are 90% confident about it but numbers don't work for you in this way), then you can fold.

    Same end place, different paths. My gut at the moment tells me that OP falls into the latter category rather than the math category. Hence my suggestion of a re-frame.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file