Effing variance
I played the most bizarre hand the other day. I had never seen anything like it before. It was a casino $2/$5 game.
First let me describe the villan. He is a regular. He plays in the game far more than I do and most would consider me a reg. He is a fine player. He is probably too ABC, but that means he plays a a game that is a bit too tight to be optimally profitable, but regularly crushes the casuals in the game.
Overall a perfectly fine, profitable player, just not very flexible or creative.
What makes it tough is that if you talk to him about strategy, he doesn't correctly understand why he should make the plays he makes. He will be right 90% of the time with the obvious stuff, then get another 7 or 8% right while using the wrong logic. He is playing with 97% accuracy, but not knowing why. Furthermore, when he gets into strange situations and you discuss the hand later, he will tell you his logic and it won't make any sense, but he will compound it by playing weirdly for the next few hands trying to show why he thinks he is right.
Basically a pretty good ABC player who crushes the game, but occasionally flakes. To confuse it, his flakes are often the right move, but for the wrong reasons. It has occurred to me many times that he might actually be trolling me in these weird discussions, but I don't think so.
Anyway, on to the hand. We were sitting next to each other at a $2/$5 game that was pretty juicy ($1000 max buy in). We each had about $4000 in front of us because it was so juicy. It had gotten short handed though and I was thinking of packing it up. He had played a hand against another player in a strange manner. When we were quietly discussing the hand among ourselves after the fact his logic didn't add up and I was pushing back against him a bit and I think I started to irritate him
So we are playing 5 handed. He is in the big blind, I am UTG. I get dealt KcQc. I open for $25 ( pretty much the standard opening raise in the game). In this game, preflop was generally mild and most of the +EV came post flop. One other player calls and then it gets around to the villain in the BB. I see him kind of smirk, then think for a second and finally reraise to $65.
I almost immediately fold, but then I think about our discussion and I realized he was in one of his weird phases trying to justify prior logic. So after some thought, I decide to call, my plan is to not get too crazy, but to take advantage of any strange play by him. I could easily see a flop where I flop a straight and him a set and I stack him.
I don't plan on getting deep without a monster, but I can see a few hands where that happens so I call expecting to lose the $65, but on a rare occasion win $4000. The 3rd player folds.
There is $65+$65+$25 or about $155 in the pot. The flop comes Ks, Qh, Js. I have top two. It is the best/worst flop I can ask for. I have a really good hand, but we are deepstacked and it is reasonable to think he can have a better hand.
He bets $100. I raise to $300 hoping he either folds or I get a check on the turn.
He instantly shoves. He says he is all in. Instantly.
I am 99% sure I am going to fold, but I take my time to think it through. I am pretty sure I am folding simply because my plan was not to get to deep with my hand unless I had an absolute monster but I want to think it through.
The more I think about it, the more I am sure that I am good. I don't think he shoves anything but a flush draw. I try and put him on a range and make it mathematical, but it is tough given our history and his weird phase. I cannot imagine he is over shoving a set simply because he has to fear a straight by me and would want to get paid by worse. I think a large weighting of his range is AsQs or Qs10s. He also might have Axs.
I also consider that he might not realize how deep we both are. When he gets crazy, he gets crazy.
I am all over the map with my thinking, but at the end of the day, I remember my plan of not to get to deep. I finally decide that I want to see his reaction, so I tell him that i have a monster and I show him that I have top two.
He immediately turns over his hand and shows AsQs. He has middle pair, nut flush and a straight draw (plus a royal flush draw).
We are literally about 50/50 flipping. He is ever so slightly ahead, but the amount already in the pot more than makes up for it.
I explain that I haven't folded yet, and he says he knows and that I can call if I want to.
I go back and forth for a few seconds wondering if I want to have my whole night be based on a coin flip, but at the end of the day, the EV is the EV and I cannot really turn down a ever so slightly positive EV play that is 100% guaranteed. Literally there is no hidden information.
So I shrug and call.
Of course I lose. He rivers the 3s.
My proudest moment was that I handled it totally as a pro. I didn't steam even the slightest. I congratulated him on his win, I counted out the amount of his chips from my stack (I had him covered) and rebought. I was even willing to discuss the hand with him afterwards.
As we were talking, he explained that when I showed my hand, he wanted me to fold so he instantly showed his hand to show how strong he was so that I would fold.
I explained that I was going to fold until I actually saw what his hand was. He kept saying that he showed to encourage me to fold.
He was wrong in showing, but he got the right result.
This thread has followed the classic BBV pattern so far. OP posts a beat, his play gets criticized, and OP proceeds to defend himself with long strategy posts. This is fine, but if you're genuinely interested in discussing the hand and getting better, I suggest you post the hand here (without results, of course).
FWIW, I think raising flop is a mistake.
Knowing what we now know about OP, if you read his original post again, you will see the villian is actually a genius and doesnt tap the tank against OP the fish.
Brilliant
''I have a really good hand, but we are deepstacked and it is reasonable to think he can have a better hand. ''
these oldschool live-player thought processes are hilarious to me.
The TDLR version is that my preflop call of the three bet was knowing I had a strong hand but was likely behind in terms of ranges and definitely facing huge reverse odds. It was only made because I had position, we were hugely deepstacked (and I was using that as a lottery ticket, I was more than willing to fold a hand that looked strong but was facing aggresion), and I there was a significant chance he was flaking and would pay off a lottery ticket.
The flop was great/horrible for me.
Top two th
everything about this is kind of amazing. It's like a wormhole has opened into the 90s or something - it's just so... oldschool, i guess. Do a lot of players think like this?
Looking at the hand it seems like you let your hopes overcome your brain. Versus a straight ABC player your hand does poorly vs his 3-bet range and your call is based on a I think he is doing something stupid not playing ABC. Your raise on the flop however is based on believing he is playing ABC in that you feel certain you can decide what you should do based on his response; no worries about overplays or bluffs here. On the big raise yes you are +ev to call IF the game ends now but how much -ev is there in going down to a starting stack vs a weak table. The fundamental mistake is you forgot wolves eat sheep not other wolves, if you believe he plays 97% correct a raise against your UTG raise should be a huge red flag.
When you read OP's posts you think this was a thread bumped from 2008, but then you see it was posted in 2024 and your head explodes. OP I would think deeper on why you or anyone else does things at the poker table - you're probably a small 2/5 winner but if you want to move to higher stakes/make more money you need to improve your thought process.
''I have a really good hand, but we are deepstacked and it is reasonable to think he can have a better hand. ''
these oldschool live-player thought processes are hilarious to me.
Interesting that you think old school thought processes do not apply here. Fundamentals of poker are the same as they were 20 years ago. Pot odds, implied odds, and player tendencies still matter.
It should also be noted that no one at this table is playing anything closely resembling GTO so anyone doing so themselves is costing themselves money.
Poker theory is still the same.
Looking at the hand it seems like you let your hopes overcome your brain. Versus a straight ABC player your hand does poorly vs his 3-bet range and your call is based on a I think he is doing something stupid not playing ABC. Your raise on the flop however is based on believing he is playing ABC in that you feel certain you can decide what you should do based on his response; no worries about overplays or bluffs here. On the big raise yes you are +ev to call IF the game ends now but how much -ev
Once this player re-raises preflop I 100% know I am behind and possibly/probably dominated. I would have no real argument with anyone who folds preflop. My call is based on the simple fact that we are both ridiculously deepstacked and he is flaking.
I was literally hoping to hit a miracle and stack him or use position and possibly outplay him, but I was not planning on investing a whole lot of money on this hand postflop unless that miracle came.
I hit the best/worst flop possible. Top 2. Even given that, I was fully prepared to fold and not put another dime into the pot until he showed that it was EV to call. I was fully prepared to fold to a postflop reraise even knowing nut flush draws were are large part of his range.
Basically my call preflop was with the attitude of hitting a lottery ticket or getting out. I did sort of hit, and would have gotten off extremely cheap except he stupidly showed.
As for the -EV of calling and dropping to a starting stack against other players, it should be noted that the EV you are giving up after he shows is a huge chunk of a starting stack. It would be the equivalent to an unheard of hourly rate. Once he shows, anyone would have to call. It is basic math. The only way to fold is if you are Phil Ivey playing against a table of 10 year old millionaires. Folding gives up far too much EV for secondary reasons to matter.
I am not going back and looking at the numbers but it is at least +$200 to call. How do you turn that down?
TDLR, played a speculative hand preflop, got an unfortunate flop, played it well (cheaply) until opponent stupidly shows his hand thinking it would help you fold despite it being at the very bottom of his range, so profitably flipped for stacks and lost.
That is literally the definition of poker variance.
When you read OP's posts you think this was a thread bumped from 2008, but then you see it was posted in 2024 and your head explodes. OP I would think deeper on why you or anyone else does things at the poker table - you're probably a small 2/5 winner but if you want to move to higher stakes/make more money you need to improve your thought process.
Where was the thinking process wrong?
I read his hand perfectly but was willing to fold cheaply (knowing that relying on my read of him being at the bottom of his range is tough to play for this much money) until he literally showed he was on the bottom of his range.
What part of my process was wrong? Educate me. What is to improve on?
The more I think about this hand the more I am fascinated.
When I originally posted it I didn't think much about it as a strategy thread. It was more of a "look at this fool showing his hand forcing me to flip for stacks" type of thread.
But the strategy of playing the hand has dominated the thread.
There are those who think a preflop fold when three bet is smart. I don't disagree with this take. I think it gives up a lot of speculative EV, but I understand it. Speculative EV is a very grey area that is totally based on reads which do not translate well to a written forum.
Then there seem to be many whose only criticism is that it is old school thinking, yet cannot say what is wrong with the thinking.
They don't have a problem playing KQ preflop for a 3 bet, but have a problem with my postflop thought process that would result in losing less money. They cannot say why it is wrong other than it is "old school".
While I greatly respect "new school " thinking. I really do. However, I think that the fundamental aspect of poker (playing your opponent and putting him on a weighted range) is lost.
Don't get me wrong, I have taken much of the criticism to heart. I have really thought a lot about this hand from a strategy aspect after the feedback. I have tried to think how i could have played it better. Given the vague, crappy level of the feedback, it is really hard to see where any mistake was made.
The best answer I have seen is folding preflop, which is vastly different than most are suggesting. Basically I think Mason's implied suggestion of folding preflop is better than anything else here.
Please show me where I am wrong?
It is strange, I can think of a couple of situations where I think the way I played it was wrong, but I don't think thise situations have been mentioned.
I also wonder if people do not realize that modern theory (basically GTO) is based off of the fundamentals of poker theory. Understanding GTO without understanding those fundamentals is a totally missing g the point.
You are at the early stages of a Dunning-kruger graph
All your reasoning about your flop raise proves it. "Put him to the test" very ****ing funny, so I actually thank you for the laugh
If this thread is a troll then...
OP's trolling game 100% better than his educating fish game which is in turn 100% better than his poker game.
If this thread is serious then...
OP's trolling game 100% worse than his poker game which is in turn 100% worse than his educating fish game.
You are at the early stages of a Dunning-kruger graph
All your reasoning about your flop raise proves it. "Put him to the test" very ****ing funny, so I actually thank you for the laugh
More nonsense feedback that provides absolutely nothing. Laughable feedback. Dunning - Krueger is so 2000's (and is faulty research to boot). Do better and privide real feedback or get laughed at as a weak internet warrior.
I provide a path forward that plays a strong but vulnerable hand in a way that will lose the least amount of money. Period. It is only until villan shows his hand and he is literally at the very bottom of his range that makes a call wildly profitable that I lose a lot of money.
I have played around a lot with this hand in pio-solver using very different ranges (for both myself and the villain) and playing different branches of the decision tree different ways both pre-flop and post flop.
There is literally no way through the action that loses less money than my plan unless it involves either folding pre-flop (which I can understand, but not necessarily completely respect) or giving up 100% guaranteed EV by folding after he shows his hand. Otherwise a flop raise saves money. This
One thing I have discovered in this thread is that there are many posters who think they know enough to talk down to others but don't have a clue why. They throw out dated references like Dunning-kruger without understanding anything.
Here is a question specifically for you. WHY is a flop raise bad? I understand it bloats the pot, but you are also in position, so if he just calls, you have an easy check back on most turns to undo the bloat and get to the river cheaply. Furthermore, if he just calls you might get a better read on him, or if he reraises you get information. Basically, a flop raise makes him react on a very wet crazy flop where he can be uncomfortable (out of position) as well. There are hands in his range where he isn't comfortable (AA, AK, KJ or a weaker draw). He probably doesn't fold these hands, but it allows you to invest less on the turn. He is forced to provide more information about how comfortable he is about his hand. Just saying it bloats the pot misses a bunch of nuance.
Please elaborate.
Saying you think there are some basic logic errors without saying what they are is useless.
Lots of "you are wrong but I cannot publically say why" on this thread. That is terrible.
This is BBV. Post the hand in LNLHC if you want to discuss strategy.
Please elaborate.
Saying you think there are some basic logic errors without saying what they are is useless.
Lots of "you are wrong but I cannot publically say why" on this thread. That is terrible.
It's more about your thought process which continually contradicts itself. If you can't figure that out after reading your initial post back a few times I'm not sure there's any helping you.....
Calling the shove is printing, what’s the problem?
Flop raise is horrible this deep. You want to pay 300 for a free card but you can just pay 100 then 200 and get to the river without exposing yourself to this.
