PAHWM - Mis-reg donks huge then gives up a tell.
1/3, $100-$500 BI, 9 handed. Rake is 10% up to $5, plus $2 for promo drops. Parx Philly, Friday afternoon/evening. High
I honestly didn't think this hand would generate so much discussion. Some of the responses surprise me. When I've seen big donks from EP opponents in multi-way pots, it's almost always been a big hand. But now I'm wondering if I've seen enough showdowns to assume it's always a big hand. A lot of times, people just fold to the big donk. It seems insane to do it as a bluff withou
i will leave the should you continue or not conversation alone because i don't want to continually bash my head against a wall. but the way you continue here is fairly analogous to 3b pots facing a raise when you cbet. OP without a suit blocker just gii and with a suit generally call. there are exceptions and AA in particular sometimes plays differently but its a good enough heuristic where you end up with pairs in both lines
i think it would (significantly) help your rate of improvement if you think about your range instead of particular combo in a spot. ie what hands am i calling / folding / raising to this bet. but i can also accept my input in unsolicited
If we assume on the flop that he's either jamming all turns or never check-folding if I jam turn, then I'd think we only need 21% equity to call, when we're effectively getting 3.75 to 1 implied odds.
These are very optimistic assumptions. If we just consider his overbet, we are paying 37% of the pot, and our expressed odds are 32% against V's exact holding, and that's assuming that we get to see both cards. We have both IOs and reverse IOs here, as improving to 2p doesn't always work out for us (if it also gives V a boat, or a flush, for example), yet we won't be able to fold it. So no, even with those assumptions, we need better than 21% equity to call flop. Heck, if he's jamming all turns, we have only about 8 outs (about a 16% chance) to catch OTT, and half of those get us stacked because they improve V more than us.
its not that dissent isn't tolerated, it's just you guys don't really have anything to add beyond your feelings. while that's great, you don't really have any evidence / reason for anything you guys are saying. so it sort of becomes a circle where i post math or whatever, and you just keep telling me you don't believe it. there isn't really much room for discussion beyond that
You post solver analysis and insist on going with it when there are very strong tells that you are way behind. Then you act superior because of your use of software, and don't listen to what anyone else says.
These are very optimistic assumptions. If we just consider his overbet, we are paying 37% of the pot, and our expressed odds are 32% against V's exact holding, and that's assuming that we get to see both cards. We have both IOs and reverse IOs here, as improving to 2p doesn't always work out for us (if it also gives V a boat, or a flush, for example), yet we won't be able to f
I was thinking I probably wasn't folding on brick turns, so I was giving myself 32% on the flop vs 2P combos, which was what I was weighting him towards.
it...it's just you guys don't really have anything to add beyond your feelings. while that's great, you don't really have any evidence / reason for anything you guys are saying. so it sort of becomes a circle where i post math or whatever, and you just keep telling me you don't believe it. there isn't really much room for discussion beyond that i guess.
So when you're in a live game without access to a computer, what do you do? Serious Q.
Though often wrong, my posts here are how I would play the hand if I was there, without a computer.
You post solver analysis and insist on going with it when there are very strong tells that you are way behind. Then you act superior because of your use of software, and don't listen to what anyone else says.
im not really sure what to tell you
it has nothing to do with being superior. im open to listening to what you guys have to say if you have a reason for it beyond "i think this right so it must be right". if you think the path to tangible improvement is to take the consensus wisdom of 5 recreational 1/2 players over software, idk what to tell you. i hope that works out for you, but its not really good enough for me.
So when you're in a live game without access to a computer, what do you do? Serious Q.
Though often wrong, my posts here are how I would play the hand if I was there, without a computer.
wym? my first post was what i would do and then i solved the hand after. i would flat the flop and gii on non A turn.
the point of studying / theory / using software is to get better at poker (and subsequently theory). i dont really understand how you can do that if you never actually look at what the correct answer is and just trust that your opinion is truth. as you get better you make better decisions in game, i r not sure what to say beyond that
i generally think the forum / discourse here is incredibly masturbatory and unproductive, but its helped me to meet a handful of people i talk to re poker regularly (not on here) and its also forced me to solve a bunch of hands and learn / justify positions.
If you notice, the "correct answer" from the software would have you gii bad here. If you rely on software assuming you are playing a bot when you are playing a fish who is giving off huge tells, you will usually get the wrong answer. In this case the consensus was probably right and you were wrong.
It is perfectly obvious to everyone without running a computer sim that you generally want to gii with KK on QJ4 2-flush. However, the bet size and speech tells and the player type make it clear that villain almost always is way ahead of KK on the flop. You have an amateur or really bad pro telegraphing his hand, and you want to ignore that and go by software. It is unlikely that he is balancing it by putting on this big act, etc. with hands that are not close to the nuts. Solvers assume everyone is playing close to perfectly and unexploitably, which is not correct here.
There was an episode of "Star Trek" where a computer system was running the Enterprise. It got them totally surrounded by enemies. Captain Kirk then takes over and uses tricks to get them out of the mess.
Using software analysis is fine, but it is a total misuse to say it gives the correct answer here. You are the one who isn't willing to learn from others here.
Alright guys, take it easy. It's fine to disagree, but this is getting close to personal. Step it down a notch.
Responding to various points being made...
Yes, V is a jerk. He was good for the game because he went on tilt, and very good for me specifically because he wanted revenge. But he poisoned the atmosphere in what would have been an even better game otherwise.
In a hand not long after this, he exposed one of his cards when he thought everyone folded to his bet, then accused his opponent of hiding his cards, and I spoke up to say that wasn't the case and he should pay attention to the action. Near the end of the night he was giving commentary on a big pot I'd just lost, and I basically told him to STFU.
Re, GTO here - I'd think if we node-locked the solver to give V a reasonable range, the solver might over-fold. The question should be what range we give V.
I thought I played this hand pretty poorly by calling flop, and was surprised the solver played the hand exactly the same way I did. I didn't think the turn warranted much discussion, but there again, I was surprised at the diversity of views.
I can't honestly say there was no entitlement tilt or desire to put a beat on him that influenced my decision. I can honestly say that I was weighting his range heavily towards QJ and AQdd, and saw the potential future EV of sucking out on QJ.
It would surprise me if there are many players taking V's line without a strong hand. But this thread has me wondering if the range might also include more combos we're ahead of, and if we shouldn't be too quick to fold.
I for one appreciate Sub's input. In looking back at this session, the big pots I won and lost resulted from a mix of punt-catching and value-towning. But I notice the punts don't stand out in my memory as being punts. I just saw them as unavoidable coolers, which may point to a potential leak.
I don't agree with going with solver analysis and dismissing tells as a "soul read". You need to combine all the information, not try to play like a computer. Here there were multiple tells, the speech play, the nature of the speech, and the overbet into the preflop 3-bettor. It is obvious a big deviation from GTO, and standard play before there was GTO, to fold KK here, but it is the correct play based on all the information.
I’ve been in the middle of it too, but I really hate friction. I think all opinions are useful and it seems kinda immature to think there’s only one answer to any decision we discuss on here
My worst worry is that some of the better minds will abandon this forum and what a loss for all of us. Being incredibly animated about folding KK is not overly productive - it’s just an opinion.
I think that we are all here to learn and respect each other’s various views. The problem comes with those that think they’re here to teach and cling to their narrative, becoming defensive if anyone disagrees.
Maybe that was me at first, but I learned to do better. I was told to ignore insults and it has worked for me, but one of my favorite posters, doesn’t show up anymore, likely because of a similar spat that I observed.
It’s kinda like at the table. It takes awhile to discover the best players, but you don’t ignore everyone else. We make our own decisions about the best posters here, but we don’t disrespect everyone else.
No matter what you may think, everyone has good ideas sometimes. Please don’t anyone leave and maybe we can draw more people into the conversations instead of running people off. Maybe some will come back
Doc and I had a spat, but I kinda think we’re on good terms now. I don’t agree with him all the time and he doesn’t agree with me, but man do we ever love poker.
It’s not one decision that matters, it’s the continuous discussions where we all help each other, pick up a thing here or there, and become better players.
I used to go to coaching clinics, not looking to revamp my defensive scheme, but to pickup a thing or two that fit what we were doing. This is a great place to find a thing or two to help your game in poker.
All my enemies (teams we played) were there too. We were always friendly. We all wanted to beat the hell out of each other, but it was never personal. After all, it’s just a game.
Yeah, submersible is a good poster, but is a little judgemental that everyone is an idiot who doesn't follow solver lines. I didn't mean to offend anyone.
FWIW, I would probably have folded the flop and would want to fold a lot more after the speech ... the main thing that would make me think about not folding it is if he was surprised by the size of the bet. If I saw the turn I would have shoved, but not if it was a brick (yes, I always play this well when the answer is revealed).
The main thing that would make me maybe think about doing something different on the flop is that OP didn't remember all of the details.
The first math/solver thing I'd say is when you put b140 in on the flop for solver (into 3 people) look at wtf range is it using, and then try to work out how close that range is to reality. Then next thing I'd do is drop the least likely combos. from that range and then see what the AI solver says to do vs. that.
I realize a bunch of that is guess work, although you are probably better at guessing than us mediocre regs 😉
From my point of view the flop seems pretty easy ... this is a board the PFR is going to bet a lot, esp. at 1-3, even 4 ways ... so either this guy is randomly 1.4x donk betting pot with a lot of hands and it will be super obvious given the number of hands he's in, or there's a reason he wants to put money in now. QJ is the giant neon flashing light of a hand, where he blocks AQ/KQ/etc so doesn't think you'll bet as much and he doesn't want it to check through. I think AdQd/55 much less likely as he won't be scared about most turns if it checks through. Maybe KdTd/Td9d, and even more maybe something like Qd8d where it could be good and he's fine getting it in but again he doesn't want it to check through.
Again, yes it's always possible he's got random AQo and thinks it's good, or like Ad7d and wants your AK to fold ... but those kinds of deviations show up quickly, and even faster than that if people are playing a lot of hands. So if we haven't seen him randomly donk huge then it's much more likely he's done it this time because he wants to do it now with the specific hand he has.
Using weighted ranges to seem cooler:
ProPokerTools Odds Oracle Results (2.3 P...
Holdem, Generic syntax
Board - QcJd5d
PLAYER_1 KKd
PLAYER_2 QJ@100,KdTd@80,Td9d@60,(55,AdQd)@35,Qd8d@20
600000 trials (randomized)
All-in Equity
[table=head]|Equity %|Wins Hi %|Ties Hi %|Wins Hi Count|Ties Hi Count|
KKd|32.7130%|32.7130%|0.0000%|196278|0|
QJ@100,KdTd@80,Td9d@...|67.2870%|67.2870%|0.0000%|403722|0|
[/table]
As for sub, I know you probably don't want to reply to this thread anymore but even though it's 5 years old I'd suggest listening to: https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2021/08/ep... ... You can start at 38:20 if you don't care about anything else, but that's roughly how I feel here.
The solver input is indispensable if you want to play at higher levels with better players. The issue for most of us at lower levels is 1) developing a solid theoretical foundation and 2) knowing when/where to play exploitatively without being so idiosyncratic in your approach that you abandon it altogether and play "street poker".
I really appreciate all of the theory from Submersible and others who give the solver input. I also appreciate the "exploitative" and Fundamental Theorem-based inputs of others. I don't see any reason why these approaches cannot be synthesized.
So perhaps a logical synthesis for this Forum would be to structure the problems as follows: 1) What is the correct theoretical approach to the problem at hand? 2) Do I have a strong enough "read" to deviate from it? and 3) Are there metagame reasons to deviate from it? E.g. inability to handle the Variance implied by the theoretical approach; sociological issues (home game etc); 4) is the Villain smart/aware enough to induce me to "level" myself into an improper/exploitable deviation from theory.
I think this synthesis would provide a robust analytical framework for the LL forum and dissipate some of the unnecessary tension between the two approaches.
These are very optimistic assumptions. If we just consider his overbet, we are paying 37% of the pot, and our expressed odds are 32% against V's exact holding, and that's assuming that we get to see both cards. We have both IOs and reverse IOs here, as improving to 2p doesn't always work out for us (if it also gives V a boat, or a flush, for example), yet we won't be able to f
I was thinking I probably wasn't folding on brick turns, so I was giving myself 32% on the flop vs 2P combos, which was what I was weighting him towards.
If he's shoving all turns and we're calling all turns, calling flop is a disaster. It is equivalent to calling a flop shove. (DUCY?) And we'd be paying 45% of the pot with our 32% equity.
I really appreciate all of the theory from Submersible and others who give the solver input. I also appreciate the "exploitative" and Fundamental Theorem-based inputs of others. I don't see any reason why these approaches cannot be synthesized.1) What is the correct theoretical approach to the problem at hand? 2) Do I have a strong enough "read" to deviate from it?3) Are there
Great post!
If he's shoving all turns and we're calling all turns, calling flop is a disaster. It is equivalent to calling a flop shove. (DUCY?) And we'd be paying 45% of the pot with our 32% equity.
That's why I wanted to shove flop. We now know it was behind, but the shove gets us 2 streets to improve if needed.
In the missing posts, I argued that Vs actions were most likely QJ because anything better would hate to chase away the action.
I mean, if we'd shoved flop we would have a non-zero amount of FE, but very few V's have an overbet donk/fold range, so I don't think there's much.
the point of studying / theory / using software is to get better at poker (and subsequently theory). i dont really understand how you can do that if you never actually look at what the correct answer
You have great faith in your solver. It's not a religious position I share because it's not there when I need help making a decision.
It produces a response, but it's only a response, a probability, not the "correct answer".
The point of the discussing these hands is not to know what the solver will do, but to learn to make better in game decisions without the solver. There's nuance to each hand, Hero, and Villain which others have tried to share.
If you think the solver was correct vs all Vs, it comes across like OMC who always commits his stack post flop because he was dealt AA. He only sees his own hand.
i generally think the forum / discourse here is incredibly masturbatory and unproductive,.
Perhaps that's a result of your frustration that others won't accept your faith as the true way.
For me, I find some threads very educational and appreciate the thought processes of many here, even when they are proven wrong, like often happens to me.
That's why I wanted to shove flop. We now know it was behind, but the shove gets us 2 streets to improve if needed.
Honestly not sure if you are trying to burst subs. blood vessels.
I can understand elmcityboy's response that he thinks the donk range is most behind, so might as well shove now and if we are wrong then the Kd helps us get there a bit more often.
I can understand subs. point that solver just calls flop with Kd and calls/shoves almost all turns, again because we should be ahead of the range.
I can understand the point that we should fold flop, or maybe make a "slightly" losing flop call vs. a live range of mostly QJ.
I cannot understand the idea that because we have a lot worse equity vs. that range on brick turns means we should pile way more money in behind on the flop. Also would be v. difficult to convince me that V ever folds QJ to a shove on the flop (and he didn't fold to it on the turn when he's now behind AA/KK).
You could shove flop if you think he has draws and aq or something often. Weird to lead that large with set.
Sorry to be mean to sub, but he was like you guys are idiots. Solver says it is never a fold. But the whole point of thread is whether to deviate from gto bssed on sizing and verbal tells
I’m realizing that I want input from the solver guys way more than the rest of you. I study population trends and solver analysis though I don’t use the solver myself. I feel like it’s not worth my time, because it would take a lot of time to learn to use the solver.
Sure, it irks me a little when they say this is the answer, because there’s a lot of guesswork in assigning ranges. But Nash equilibrium is real and I like knowing what solver’s come up with.
Like Spanish Moon
I think solver analysis and exploitative analysis can coexist - and I don’t think we need arguments from the two schools of thought, but discussion on how each approach our specific hand examples.
The main thing is this forum needs to be a little more friendly. Nobody is a dumb ass here, that’s our opposition. Less ego and more effort in understanding each other’s point of view.
If this was chess, it would be cut and dry what’s right or wrong, but this is poker and nobody has all the answers. If you have all the answers, it’s probably not worth your time here. And I have to admit that if you’re one of those guys, I probably won’t value much of anything you say.
It’s just a shame that when someone that I identify as a smart player gets pissed with the immaturity and doesn’t come back. When you run someone off, it hurts the rest of us.
idk im fine with everyones posts i just dont want to keep going in a circle so i stopped responding
