Zoom: JTs Triple-Barrell Bluff

Originally posted by la55i

Let's math..
If villain flats TT-22,ATs-A2s,K5s+,Q7s+,J7s+,T8s+,98s,87s,76s,54s,AJo-A2o,K9o+,Q9o+,J9o+,T9o ( 422 combos) Let's use that as a guideline.
He will call flop with Ax,Kx,8x,5x,99,TT,draws,QJ: TT-88,55,ATs-A2s,K5s+,QJs,Q8s,J8s,T8s+,98s,87s,76s,54s,QsTs,JsTs,Qs9s,Js9s,Qs7s,Js7s,AJo-A2o,K9o+,QJo (314 combos)

This is reasonable flop calling range for blind battles, or do you think otherwise?

You call out of position with that range preflop to defend a BU steal? 32%? Really? That makes your fold to steal about 64 after adding your 4% resteal range. If this is true I think you have a massive leak in blind play and need to fold a huge trash section of that range.

In any case according to Equilab the range you listed is 426 combinations, but I guess you are blocking the hero's JT.

On a K 8 5 board id expect a call from the 8x, 5x, Kx and all other PP parts of his range, plus flush draws, and some, but not all, aces. I'm not sure how you worked QJ into a calling range here but it would be funny to see someone post them calling QJ OTF as the BB and watch people climb all over him for not folding.

So I've folded him down to about 290 combos by the turn. On the turn barrel, I'm folding all the PP that haven't improved yet, all the kings except the best couple, and all the 5s and 8s, except K8 and A8 / A5. That leaves about 180, according to my equilab count, and is based on a fairly loose Ax calling range on the flop.

Some of this difference is explained by you folding 77, 66, 44, 33 and 22 on the flop. I wouldn't. I'd float them. But I'd fold more rubbish aces, but you put them all in as calls.

My blind defence range here would be tighter and more aggressive, and most villains generally are. Less than two thirds of the defence range you have nominated (at 37%). Note that we are not playing BB vs SB, which is incredibly different and lets you passive with position and basically play a heads up range of whatever you want.

With my range I'd fold about half of it OTF, and about 70% of the remainder again OTT. A turn barrel here on that ace would be spectacularly effective against a villain of my own personal profile at not far off double its required FE.

Originally posted by la55i
So what he will call a second barrel with.. Any Ax he had, higher KXo and KXs, QXs and JXs with flush draw, 88,55, 76 maybe. This is 233 combos (88,55,ATs-A2s,KTs+,K8s,76s,QsJs,QsTs,JsTs,Qs9s,Js9s,Qs8s,Js8s,Qs7s,Js7s,AJo-A2o,KTo+) so he will be folding 81 combos = 25% of his range. With heros betsize villain would have to fold around 45%. We have to take away any Kx,draw and a part of his Ax hands.. That is not going to happen. If we bet half pot, I can see villain maybe folding that 33% but it is very much villain dependent. That is why I would not doublebarrel here. Our hand has very little chance to improve and villain most likely has a piece of that board and maybe is not going to fold often enough.

My calculations can be wrong.. Can you please tell me what do you think about this and present me your own ranges and calculations? That way our discussion can continue. You wanted ranges and numbers, there you got it. You can prove that I'm wrong here and then I'll admit that I made a mistake. But please spare me from your insults and stupid comments.

You want no insults, best to start by not calling people stupid.

Well, all this does not explain the shove on river as a good play...

I oughta get some more popcorn for this show

great spot to bluff, villain should be calling mostly 2 pair+, horrible runnout for villain.

Originally posted by la55i
Well, we were talking about ranges and I just told what I think villains range is. Then you asked if I think villain will call 8d9d. It is pretty clear he does not likely do that and it is only one hand in a range of several hundred combos. Your comment wasn't helpful and imo it was really stupid. Can you honestly say that your intention was not to piss me off? And I didn't start swearing at someone else.. I just asked wtf did I just read. Do you think in this spot 2x overbetting is ok? Can we do 2x overbets as standard in these spots? And if villain calls our 2x overbet can we really shove the river when 2 draws complete and we have middle pair? I think my reaction was not so aggressive or offensive.. Sorry if you felt that way. There is still a difference between saying your question was stupid (because it was meant to irritate me) and calling someone poker loser

We were talking about the board hitting the villain's range. You mentioned 8x hands. I asked "would you be calling here with 98?".

This came out of a misunderstanding I think that you are talking about the *turn* board hitting the villain's called-on-the-flop range. Really by then it has to; he called the flop. Saying so is then just effectively saying "he called the flop, he must have some part of this board". Well of course he does.

When you said "this board hits the villain's range" naturally I presume you were talking about the flop, because talking about the turn action by that point saying "the board hits his (post flop call, OTT) range" didn't add anything, unless you meant to say the villain often calls a lot of Ax hands and could have our ace. That is true, if the villain often calls a lot of Ax hands (pre and post). That is a read you have to look at on a villain by villain basis and personally I wouldn't agree that it is standard (or use it against an unknown).

Your range thoughts and my range thoughts are naturally polar opposite; I play a massively strong blue line game with a horrible (losing) red line, and you play a massively strong (winning) red line game with a far poorer blue line. Without a doubt this causes us to butt heads; BUT I will tell you right now which game is more profitable in the micros, and its blue as the sky at midday on a sunny day.

You and I have had issues from the start as you often hit threads with definitive, no room for movement, "doing XYZ is standard" replies. The very first one I took major issue with was wrong - according to Pokerstrategy's own basic strategy guides, no less - and we have bumped heads ever since.

Too many of the posts on this forum are all too flippant, too decisive (You should always fold here! This is always a flat call! You don't have streets of value!) and sometimes go against any reasonable analysis, or even the websites own strategy guides. You guys seem to know what you know and are happily telling every poor learner who posts on this forum asking what to do in spots what you know. I'm now convinced that between you and Nitrol however, mostly you don't know. Else you'd do.

These forums used to be fantastic when there was a hand judge to clean up any mess the rest of us made. Read through any random selection of ten threads on this forum and you will find a couple where the consensus is flat out wrong, another one where the wrong decision lost a spirited discussion, and ten where Nitrol posted a fairly pointless cookie cutter reply, with four of those replies flat out wrong for ignoring anything the OP wrote.

You guys don't even play. I mean, you post your weekly updates and play up to two thousand hands a week. You could play that in 90 minutes. Nitrol would be silver if he wasn't on a +2 boost for his forum posting, and said he plays NL20. We know he plays on a tracked room, or he would +2 to gold. That means his hand volume is in the toilet as well. And this is where all the advice for our learners is coming from!

You said earlier in this thread that I shouldn't be allowed to post here. You are probably completely correct with the forum in its current format. Without a real hand judge to police the nonsense, and with active incentives encouraging and rewarding mass nonsense, there is nonsense everywhere. I get upset about this because these posts you guys reply to all day instead of actually playing any poker are written by real people who want real advice on what to do in a spot, not another +1 postcount answer from Nitrol, who didn't read what they said, and then post of you agreeing with him (but at least going beyond his usual "fold preflop standard" in response to a guy directly asking if he should turn his hand into a bluff OTR).

Even worse is the deluge of posts in the "seeming clever" vein talking about concepts that are irrelevant, or that the OP wont understand, or that the poster clearly doesn't understand. These are everywhere on this forum. I guess people want to feel clever. It's disheartening.

These guys deserve better than they are getting. They deserve advice from players, not railbirds, and they sure as hell deserve better advice than I can give, as the a long term, blue liner, capped in micros player that I am. However I believe that when those better players sometimes do come, and post contrary advice to the wisdom of our established forum superstars, they end up at war with a phalanx of posters who in some cases clearly spend at least five times, if not ten times, if not more times, as much time posting in this forum than they do actually playing poker. Then Sven comes along and gives the worst of the lot 50 bucks for their time each month. Why would anyone better bother?

You are completely right. I shouldn't even be reading this forum at the moment. It is a complete waste of time and is actually doing my head in.

Originally posted by la55i
And what is with that you say I'm trying to be smart? If you get that impression, it is only because I'm smart. I'm not trying to be something I'm not.

That quote provides a far better exclamation point on this thread than anything I could have written.

Originally posted by nitrol
Well, all this does not explain the shove on river as a good play...

Never said it was, at any point. You'd know that if you actually read the posts you respond to.

Okay man...

Actually my resteal is closer to 10%.
Yes, our playing styles might be a bit different. I agree that skyrocketing blue line might be better and I'm working on improving it and not compromising too much of my red line in the process.
I know my volume sucks. Unfortunately I can't graduate from law school by playing poker.
Yes, we use often those "you should always fold here" etc.. phrases. That doesn't make them incorrect. Usually the spot is clear and without reads/info it is the recommended move. You can write a wall of text and analyse the spot and then come into the same conclusion. These "general rules" such as baluga theorem help us do correct decisions faster in-game. You are clearly mad because of that but can you say our advice is incorrect very often?

You want no insults, best to start by not calling people stupid.

Again, can you honestly say that you didn't try to irritate me with your post?
I said that 8x will call on the flop (at least I tried to say that). For example A8,K8,88,98 (42 combos)
Then you ask if I would call 8d9d which is only one hand of those? What was the point.. I don't get it.
If you really tried to ask me a question which was meant to help get our discussion forward and not to irritate me, then I'm sorry I misinterpreted it and called your question stupid.

Go read the thread where Nitrol and yourself have told a guy to call 10% of his stack out of position with suited connectors, and tell me again if your advice is incorrect very often.

No, not to irritate you. Perhaps my own irritation shone through. My understanding was you were talking about 8x hands potentially continuing with your talk of the board "hitting his range well". I asked "so you are saying you would call there, as the villain, with 89?".

Clearly not now, but at the time, that was what I thought you were trying to say.

jaissica, I never said that my advise is always right. We discuss hands and try to improve our game too.
Now you mess mein your quarrel with la55i and I do not like that!

Do not open this door as I am not that patient...please...

You have my unreserved and public apology for calling you a losing player Lassi. I thought you had taken a lot more in bonuses from this forum than you have.

I'm going to add when it comes to teaching, if you tell a person the answer, they'll come and ask you again next time. BUT if you teach them how to figure the answer out and why the answer is what it is, they'll hopefully learn and you won't have to answer the next time.

As a future lawyer perhaps giving only the answer is good practice though Got to keep the billable time high.

Well, this deserves applause.

Yea no problem. We can forget this one. I try to give more in-depth answers in the future