Standard or too weak? NL$100FR.

[Aces Rule]

[kennyg]

Not suggesting that anyone is a donk or an idiot or briachek's love goat... just offering my not-so humble opinion:

Since I'm one of the "best 5/10 online NL Hold'em players in the world" I figured you'd want my view.

QQ is beat here the majority of the time. The pot is not sufficent enough to make calling this bet (against a solid player) proftiable in the long run. Unhumble rant over.







and oh.... shobute is a donkpirate! lollerskates.
/thread

[Rhound50]

[DoctorHandles]

[Aces Rule]

You realize that you are insulting one of the most profitable $100 NL players around right?

No I did not and in the future I'll remember to take his insults to me without complaint or playback that might be construde as less than respectful!

I am trying not to make this personal but when you insult people that are well liked and well respected around here in your first 20 posts you make that kind of hard.

OK - I get it. I can and will be insulted by anyone with more than 20 posts, is liked and respected but I should just take it and not play back! I understand - my bad!

I dont know how to say you are wrong but you are. You keep saying how strong can a 3x raise be. The X value is completly meaningless, this guy called a reraise from a tight player and made a reraise that committed more than half his stack on a pretty mild flop, from his raise I think the chance of him folding is very small and the chance of him making this play with hands you can beat is small. There is always a donk factor in poker, this guy could be making a move with AK or think he 88 is the best hand but more often than not you are beat here which is what a bunch of players with more experiance than you are saying.[/quote]

Well, I'm sure glad you don't want to make this personal since I have fewer than 20 posts and can't defend myself with play-back of the same tone!

Anyway, you said "You keep saying how strong can a 3x raise be. The X value is completly meaningless," which not correct as far as what I said or being meaninless! I said 3x is pretty dam standard! and anyone who thinks getting re-raised 3x their raise is meaningless? well - I don't want to get personal either, ya know?
Maybe I missed it or should have somehow have known that Alex was a tight player that the villian should also have known for some reason. I think my mistake - probably where I am so wrong - is in reading the original post for just what it said and failing to read in other information the rest of the posters took for granted! Maybe by the time I have 100 posts I too will be granted this wonderful power to read what isn't there!

Then you claim " more often than not you are beat here" Well, that's certain has been the majority opinion. I am glad the majority can be so confident with this assumption given the information at hand but the facts are this assumption is not so conclusive. Only 3 hands beat our hero - AA, KK or Quad Tens. I might have included trip/quad 7s but following the majorities logic, our villian is simply not going to have called such a tight player as our hero with A-7 or 7-7. That leaves AKs/o, A-Qs/o, A-Js/o, K-Qs, QQ, JJ and TT as all possible and likely pre-flop raise hands from UTG that QQ has beaten or tied. There are a few more but this is a tight-tight game. There are 6 ways go get AA, KK and TT so a possibility if 18 hands in total. There are 16 ways to get any two overcards such as AK for a total of 64 overcard hand and 18 total pp that are beat or tied for a grand total of 82. That would be 82-18 hands QQ has beaten or tied or 4.5-1 on the flop! Your assumption that QQ is more often beaten than not just doesn't hold up mathamatically! Of course there was one beat I failed to include and the one chossen by our hero - he could fold on assumption that he was beat!

In the end I play this hand differently from the majority - it doesn't make my read wrong or theirs right. It simply another take on the hand played out differently! I'm not a newbie at NL ring and do very well at both $50 and $100 NL and I am not offering opinions soley on gut feelings or reads. I have significant background knowledge behind me and have read extensively. Don't assume just b/c I'm new to this forum I can be discounted as a donk full of wrong-headed opinions. I attempted to backup everything I said - can the majority say the same thing? Several "well liked and respected" in the majority chose to question my reading skills and qualifications with cute meaningless quips that if I were more sensitive might have found insulting.l! Only Runner-Runner said welcome to the forum and thank you for that! I'll attempt to be more subserviant in the future if I decide to stay.

[Aces Rule]

[DoctorHandles]

[Subzero_Wins]

[Calaziar]

Mark Seif quotes TJ Cloutier often on PTP telecasts, "Third raise preflop, you're looking at AA or KK'. Doyle may have been the first to say it, I'll have to reread that section of SS one day soon.

In this hand, if UTG reraises that is the third raise pf. If you are UTG and you have AA or KK are you happy with $15 pot here? If so you reraise pf and hope you get called but expect a fold and take your $15. You should do this if you feel you are up against a much better player. It is a principle of NL poker that the better your opponent is the sooner you want to get your money in when you are ahead.

If you know/feel you are the better player maybe you decide to trade a little edge for volume, get deceptive and just call. One of the advantages of playing small ball is for every street you remain ahead you increase your EV. Since you are never worse pf than tied with AA it can be very enticing to occasionally make this play, especially HU. There are other trade offs as well, when you do get beat you can often (though not always) save money over the early AI, for example. If you play often with the same people they will note your 'strange' play and you may win a pot or two down the road with a bluff after just calling a RR on the flop.

I think if I've got the QQ in this hand I certainly better at least consider the possibility my opponent has AA or KK. I know that often when I get a decent hand that means its impossible my opponent has a better hand. I'll find all the good reasons he'll 'make a play at me' with lesser hands while ignoring something simple like his reraise/bet actually means more strength than my hand.

I know that someone who has never folded a 'winner' probably doen't lay down nearly enough losers . I know I get dealt a lot more losers than winners.

I just want to note I've had my signature since I joined a month or two ago and it isn't meant to be a criticism of any person. It's coincidental the poster on the end of all the 'advice' and some flack just happens to call himself 'Aces'.....Welcome, btw.....sincerely...

[Aces Rule]

[AlexMR]

WT is better than CS. Wts dont lose huge pots.Calling stations do. I am not really worried about being bluffed a lot. I used to, but I am not anymore. I realized that when you worry about that you find yourself calling with weak hands an losing big pots.

As for the his logical holding,well, I am positive HE had me beat. He is a good player. I have played with him after that hand and he is surely a steady winner. I think he also knew that the only way to get a dime from me was flat calling and then pushing a safe flop like this one, or if I had KK.

Anyway, Aces, if you just moved to NL$100 you will find out yourself that on this knd of action, against a GOOD player (say the best two players in any given table of these stakes) you will lose a lt of money with QQ if you push it.

[black_knight6]

[Aces Rule]

[Zmej]

[excession]