Please Don't Fold Against my Nuts

Not sure what the plan was in this hand, but I would raise at least the turn to 10bb multi way to buitld a decent pot. Now you keep everyone in and weird enough he's still calling when 1 of the worst cards for you gets there. It's always tough to get value with 4 of the same suite on this board with in mind he can only have a T♥: or lower in his hand.

Cheers,
SDK1987

Originally posted by SDK1987
Not sure what the plan was in this hand, but I would raise at least the turn to 10bb multi way to buitld a decent pot. Now you keep everyone in and weird enough he's still calling when 1 of the worst cards for you gets there. It's always tough to get value with 4 of the same suite on this board with in mind he can only have a T♥: or lower in his hand.

Cheers,
SDK1987

The plan was to get as much money as I could without scaring off inferior hands causing my opponents to fold. If I raised the Turn to 10 BB, I am practically sure everybody would have folded and I would have earned 5.4 BB on this hand. I don't understand when you said one of the worse cards for me gets there. The fourth heart was what I wanted to encourage a lower flush to call a bet. Also, by only betting about 13 BB at the River, I do not scare a weaker flush away. By allowing a card which would help my opponent to arrive at the River, I earned 24 BB in this hand versus the 5.4 BB I would have earned if my opponents folded a 10 BB Turn. Their bets are so low, that is most probable that they would have folded. Not betting strong when you have a Monster hand is best when you are just going to cause unwanted folds.

if they don't have anything, they don't have anything. you don't know if they are going to fold or not

Flop and turn is raise for me
I dont mind if they fold, next tíme I will bluff them

Originally posted by pokerplayernumber1
Flop and turn is raise for me
I dont mind if they fold, next tíme I will bluff them

Now, that is interesting. It shows a different playing style. I hate if they fold, but I am not a bluffer. I might bluff the Flop, but never the Turn or River. But, in general somebody who likes to bluff does not mind folds.

Originally posted by Tomaloc
if they don't have anything, they don't have anything. you don't know if they are going to fold or not

They did not have anything on the Turn. But, the River was a great card for me. The fourth heart made their lesser flush. By waiting until the River to bet, I waited until my opponent had something. I DO KNOW that they would have folded because I asked. And they said that they would fold. My min raise from 1 BB to 2 BB was asking my opponents if they had something. They would have re-raise my weak min raise to 2 BB if they had something. Watch the board and the bet amounts and you sometimes can read your opponent.

Flop check/call.
Turn check/raise like a man, not like a donk. 2bb raise for information is non-sense.
River is either a really small (1/4) bet or an monster overbet (150%-200%). Middle sizes don't make any sense because your don't have a single mid-strength hand.

"But, the River was a great card for me. The fourth heart made their lesser flush."
It is the exact opposite of this. River card is in fact the worst card that could come for you because it blocks the only flush that can call a decent river bet.

Originally posted by zetozinho
Flop check/call.
Turn check/raise like a man, not like a donk. 2bb raise for information is non-sense.
River is either a really small (1/4) bet or an monster overbet (150%-200%). Middle sizes don't make any sense because your don't have a single mid-strength hand.

"But, the River was a great card for me. The fourth heart made their lesser flush."
It is the exact opposite of this. River card is in fact the worst card that could come for you because it blocks the only flush that can call a decent river bet.

My goodness, “…like a man, not like a donk…”! When I first started posting here, I noticed a great animosity towards my different, WINNING, style. I have won over 1,500 big blinds at $.05/$.10 and now continue to win at $.10/$.25. My bb/100 is quite impressive. Now, this insulting (“…like a man…”) criticism when I demonstrate one of my successful techniques. Zet – Open Up Your Mind. Try to notice that my technique allowed me to earn 24 BB from an opponent who had a weaker flush. It was brilliant that I waited until the River to allow my opponent’s hand to improve. The River heart was perfect because it completed my opponent’s weaker flush. A large River bet would cause him to fold. My River bet size was perfect. There are different methods of winning in poker, not just your limited approach.

srichards, but isn't you focusing in a very particular situation with a very particular outcome?

If you play the same hand, in the same exact way, vs villains sligthly differents or with holdings sligthly differents, would the line that you choose really produce the average best return, in the long run?

Maybe you are maximizing your value against villains that are clueless and losing value vs the average joe.

Originally posted by pguest
srichards, but isn't you focusing in a very particular situation with a very particular outcome?

If you play the same hand, in the same exact way, vs villains sligthly differents or with holdings sligthly differents, would the line that you choose really produce the average best return, in the long run?

Maybe you are maximizing your value against villains that are clueless and losing value vs the average joe.

I agree. That is the beauty of Poker and the benefit of this forum. I take this line frequently with success. Is my line the best overall? I suspect that it is best. However, I recognize that there are other approaches which I should consider which may or may not be better. Also, in the same scenario I sometimes take a different approach. Thus, I seek agreement, criticism, and/or suggestions from other players. I love criticism. I just do not believe my manhood should be questioned. Also, I don't think that Villain played like a clueless fish. It was appropriate for him to call 13 BB with a weaker flush. My bet size was to lure a Call from a competent player.

Sorry. I wrote "fish" because some of the lines that you took would hardly work against me (a mediocre semi rec player), like this one or the limp/3bet with QQ+ and AK+. So I assumed they wouldn't work vs better players than myself (almost any reg).

Of course they could be effective vs ignition player pool or worst players, but I can't tell for sure.

"It was appropriate for him to call 13 BB with a weaker flush. My bet size was to lure a Call from a competent player."

Besides T♥:9♥:, which is the nuts (straight-flush), which weak flushes should indeed call a 13bb bet (in this case raise the river)?
A♥: or Q♥: flushes would, and that's it. But the Q♥: is the river itself and you hold he A♥:.
Unless you play KJ like this in a limped pot or some random set (which I've seen people doing), a competent player will know that his flush is beaten. It is not even a super incredible fold with the T♥: flush.
Added to the fact that it is a mwp, I would assume with certainty that you have close to 0 bluffs here and fold.

Either he is a fish and it is "appropriate for him to call 13 BB with a weaker flush", giving credibility to his status, or he's a competent player. Both can't be.

Originally posted by zetozinho
"It was appropriate for him to call 13 BB with a weaker flush. My bet size was to lure a Call from a competent player."

Besides T♥:9♥:, which is the nuts (straight-flush), which weak flushes should indeed call a 13bb bet (in this case raise the river)?
A♥: or Q♥: flushes would, and that's it. But the Q♥: is the river itself and you hold he A♥:.
Unless you play KJ like this in a limped pot or some random set (which I've seen people doing), a competent player will know that his flush is beaten. It is not even a super incredible fold with the T♥: flush.
Added to the fact that it is a mwp, I would assume with certainty that you have close to 0 bluffs here and fold.

Either he is a fish and it is "appropriate for him to call 13 BB with a weaker flush", giving credibility to his status, or he's a competent player. Both can't be.

Your comments are interesting. I don' agree with your opinion but love hearing what other’s think. ANY River heart which makes a flush is good for a competent Villain to call a modest 13 BB bet. A Villain should fold a larger bet. I simply request that you do not insult me with statements like "...like a man..."

Originally posted by pguest
Sorry. I wrote "fish" because some of the lines that you took would hardly work against me (a mediocre semi rec player), like this one or the limp/3bet with QQ+ and AK+. So I assumed they wouldn't work vs better players than myself (almost any reg).

Of course they could be effective vs ignition player pool or worst players, but I can't tell for sure.

Is there any public metric which measures the talent of ignition players' vs other site players? As of now, I have no internet documented reason to believe that Ignition players are worse. My limp/3bet strategy does not work all of the time. Sometimes players properly call with robust hands. Sometimes, they call with silly hands. Sometimes, they fold. Perhaps, your opinion of the talent of your opponents is too high. My internet research indicates that only 5% of online poker players have a positive bb/100. As far as this Villain, I would have also called a modest 13 BB if I had a weak flush. Slight correction. I call AK 3 bets. But, I don't 3bet AK. Actually, AK is the only hand that I always raise. I only limp/3bet QQ+.

Hahaha. In this particular aspect, I think I'm my own metric.

I find the player pool there, for fullring, a lot softer than on other sites.

On the other hand, action is so slow (every hand take a way longer than on other sites) that sometimes I almost fall asleep waiting for a playable hand.
Besides that, we can't rely much on stats or notes there, 'cause the anonymity makes them useless at the begining of every new session.

I must agree with the others and say that this hand is not played optimally in my opinion. I would have tried to get the money in a lot faster.

I have checked some of your hands and I think your tendency is to slowplay/lure villains in the pot. You also said that you don't like bluffing so much. Unfortunately I think that could be losing you a lot of money. When we estimate how profitable this move was, we can not just look at the result of this one hand. I guess now villain had a weaker flush? Instead, we should be considering the profitability of our move against villain's whole range.

For example, what if you played this a lot more aggressive OTF and OTT and villain had a decent Kx, or a set, or 2 pair? It is possible that the stacks would have gone in already on earlier streets because he tries to protect his good hand against a flush/straight draw and also thinks he still has outs. Now that you let him see a cheap river card, he knows he is behind and will fold everything else than a weaker flush.

Also, when you claim that your strategy is winning and you have a decent winrate, it would be nice to know how big sample size we are talking about.

About player pool softness, I have not personally played on Ignition but I have tried various different networks and can say that there are big differences. Just based on what I have heard, I believe that Ignition is on the softer side.

Originally posted by pguest
Hahaha. In this particular aspect, I think I'm my own metric.

I find the player pool there, for fullring, a lot softer than on other sites.

On the other hand, action is so slow (every hand take a way longer than on other sites) that sometimes I almost fall asleep waiting for a playable hand.
Besides that, we can't rely much on stats or notes there, 'cause the anonymity makes them useless at the begining of every new session.

I would love to know your bb/100 at Ignition vs. other sites for full ring. This would be an indication of the relative talent of each site. I am surprised that the action is slow. I thought that since chat is not allowed that the action was faster. Can you also include the number of hands at the various sites? As an American, I simply don't have the ability to play at other sites to have an opinion.

Originally posted by la55i
I must agree with the others and say that this hand is not played optimally in my opinion. I would have tried to get the money in a lot faster.

I have checked some of your hands and I think your tendency is to slowplay/lure villains in the pot. You also said that you don't like bluffing so much. Unfortunately I think that could be losing you a lot of money. When we estimate how profitable this move was, we can not just look at the result of this one hand. I guess now villain had a weaker flush? Instead, we should be considering the profitability of our move against villain's whole range.

For example, what if you played this a lot more aggressive OTF and OTT and villain had a decent Kx, or a set, or 2 pair? It is possible that the stacks would have gone in already on earlier streets because he tries to protect his good hand against a flush/straight draw and also thinks he still has outs. Now that you let him see a cheap river card, he knows he is behind and will fold everything else than a weaker flush.

Also, when you claim that your strategy is winning and you have a decent winrate, it would be nice to know how big sample size we are talking about.

About player pool softness, I have not personally played on Ignition but I have tried various different networks and can say that there are big differences. Just based on what I have heard, I believe that Ignition is on the softer side.

You are so right. Frequently, I slow play and trap with my monster hands. I Check/Call or Donk bet with above average/ average hands. I only sometimes bluff the Flop. I never bluff the Turn or River. Instead of trying to get my opponents to fold when I want. I try to get them to bet and call when I want. I love this forum because I must be well grounded in more traditional approaches. For instance, I am very pleased to read the dissenting opinions in this hand. According to an internet article, I believe that a 5 BB/100 to 10 BB/100 win rate is very good. According to that metric, I am doing very well. However, it has only been 25,000 hands since I abandoned standard poker strategy to my unorthodox style. Thus, I must be prepared to change to more traditional approach if my win rate decreases. However, LOL – as long as my bb/100 is strong, I will continue to DO EVERYTHING WRONG such as limping preflop, hardly ever bluffing, slow playing, and trapping.

Bluffing is a key part of the game. You indeed should try to get villains to call when you have a good hand, but a lot of money also comes from the situations where you make your villain fold. There are hands that are semi-bluffs. You have a decent chance to improve on the next streets so you bet to increase the pot in case you hit your out, but you really don't mind if villain folds. Then there are cases where villain simply is going to give you the money very often. For example, when they check twice in a row, they are often weak and you are able to push them out of the hand.

5-10bb/100 is good. But what I would consider good depends a lot on the player pool, game type and stakes. For example, I would say that 5bb/100 is fine on NL25 Zoom at PokerStars, but I would expect a lot higher (like that 10bb/100) winrate if it is NL25 regular tables at some softer player pool.
When you look at your overall winrate, a big problem here is the sample size. I would say you need minimum 100k hands before we can consider the winrate to be somewhat accurate. When I started playing NL16 Zoom at Stars my winrate was 11bb/100 after the first 20k hands. At around 60k hands it was only a bit over 4bb/100.

Btw, if your player pool is softer and the players are weak calling stations, your strategy is probably ok. If they call too much, it makes sense to bluff a bit less. However, that would also mean that you must play hands like this a lot more aggressively because they will call anyway.

Lastly, I want to say that even though you are doing ok so far, it doesn't mean you couldn't do even better