Am I just a complete station or does my line of thinking here make sense?

CaptainNemo

cardshark202 wrote:

Its really dependant on how often exactly you had been squeezing your straddle though. If Peter could be 100% certain you were gonna squeeze again then it increases the chances of him sandbagging a big hand, but it may also increase the chance of him making a move with a weaker one.

It definitely wasn't 100% or even close. Maybe 60-70% tops. It would have seemed like a lot I'm sure but I can remember plenty of times I just checked it.

opr

BigCityBanker wrote:

What exact range is that? I would have expected we were in this bracket.

You never really are going to get near this with A10 unless he is pushing all sorts of rubbish.

You have to remember that within a players range for making this move is lots of hands that are marginal fav against us and hands that have us crushed but very few that we crush so our equity is never going to be great as even if he is making a move with complete rubbish like 7,4 hes not a big enough dog against A10 to counter this.

Opr

Hectorjelly

I think you played it well, and if you are unable to get all in with AT for 100bbs from time to time you arent a thinking player

BigCityBanker

Hectorjelly wrote:

I think you played it well, and if you are unable to get all in with AT for 100bbs from time to time you arent a thinking player

lol your such a fish. And so are Reggie and BuChan. :rolleyes:

Even after Lloyd has told us that it is awful play you guys still want to get your stack in there.

Hectorjelly

cardshark202 wrote:

The reason I don't think this can ever be terrible is because his range is weighted towards medium strength hands a lot I would say as opposed to very strong ones. Throw in the odd time Peter makes the move with a weak hand and it can't be much of a mistake to get it in here. Its really dependant on how often exactly you had been squeezing your straddle though. If Peter could be 100% certain you were gonna squeeze again then it increases the chances of him sandbagging a big hand, but it may also increase the chance of him making a move with a weaker one.

yeah exactly, he knows we are doing light so he is very likely to be light himself, also he probably isnt going to run the risk of playing AA 7 handed or whatever (also why would he repot it); so his range is very heavily weighted towards medium strength hands, just like 88.

I think folding here would be quite bad and all of the people who are saying stuff about AT are just repeating poker rules they live by without actually engaging their brain

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

BigCityBanker

LuckyLloyd wrote:

I disagree, because I don't think his range is as you guys are making it out.

well why dont you?

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

Hectorjelly

LuckyLloyd wrote:

lolz. I would think that never being capable of raising a straddle up to play an inflated pot OOP with A10; and never being willing to call off another 175 BBs or so with A10 pre would be extremely strong traits for a good player.

The problem with most of the comments so far are that they don't follow the action. Yes of course under normal circumstances you dont want to be putting in too much preflop with AT, but this is exceptional. Peter has cold called in the SB, and then rerepotted after we have raised. This is the exact action people take with medium strength hands when they sense weakness, and what to isolate the shortstack or win it preflop.

And I hate to be results orientated, but peter had exactly the hand his line suggested. Sure its possible he might turn up with AA, but its very unlikely. Similarly he could turn up with A2s.

BuChan

LuckyLloyd wrote:

I disagree, because I don't think his range is as you guys are making it out. But whatever.

at this point i've spent more time with peter than with my own mother! i think i have a decent idea of his range here.

Van Dice

Hectorjelly wrote:

I think you played it well, and if you are unable to get all in with AT for 100bbs from time to time you arent a thinking player

I disagree completely. Not from the point of view that it's never correct to get all in with AT, but that it's almost never necessary. To class people unwilling to get AIPF with AT for 100BBs as non-thinking players is ridiculous imo

AKQJ10

i wish when i pay him off i had ace ten, probably have outs that way. id call here and have been fairly confident of seeing 22-66 like eamon said. the only better ace you'll see is AJ. Id say his range is 99-22, AJ i dont think id include AQ as i dont ever see him limping with it

opr

Hectorjelly wrote:

yeah exactly, he knows we are doing light so he is very likely to be light himself, also he probably isnt going to run the risk of playing AA 7 handed or whatever (also why would he repot it); so his range is very heavily weighted towards medium strength hands, just like 88.

HJ its not often i say this but i think that is twaddle (That word just came to mind is it even a real word hmmmm) ........ what was i saying....

Yes he may know we are light and may be light himself but most of his "light" hands beat us. Hes marginal favouite with most of his range , huge favouite with some of it , very rarely crushed and a small dog with some of it.

Hectorjelly wrote:

I think folding here would be quite bad and all of the people who are saying stuff about AT are just repeating poker rules they live by without actually engaging their brain

I think that saying folding here is quite bad while being quite derogatory towards people in this thread is kinda out of order.

Maybe Meta-game , the player etc plays a part in this hand but if asked to comment on a hand when i don't know the players involved etc i tend not to take these into consideration.

People who play with Peter more can make a more informed decision on the table dynamics at the time, Peter's range here etc etc

But not knowing this and taking it as an equity VS range question folding here is not a mistake.

Opr

opr

Hectorjelly wrote:

The problem with most of the comments so far are that they don't follow the action. Yes of course under normal circumstances you dont want to be putting in too much preflop with AT, but this is exceptional. Peter has cold called in the SB, and then rerepotted after we have raised. This is the exact action people take with medium strength hands when they sense weakness, and what to isolate the shortstack or win it preflop.

And I hate to be results orientated, but peter had exactly the hand his line suggested. Sure its possible he might turn up with AA, but its very unlikely. Similarly he could turn up with A2s.

I know plenty of players that if they seen someone had potted a straddle a number of time in a row like the OP would almost always limp with Big hands to repot it. Even more so if they think the guy is likely to call the repot light like A10

Opr

cardshark202

I remember playing about a year and a half ago in the fitz and getting it all in for 100BBs preflop with AK as you do. Everyone was stunned how I could go all in with no pair lol.

Gholimoli

i think as HJ said you played it well.
i agree with a post Cardshark made in the last page.
for me this would be an easy call.
i think what Peter had in this had was actually at the very top of his range and this is importnat.
he almost never has a better A(maybe AJ sometimes).
he almost never has a higher pair than TT.

i would make the move Peter made with a huge range given the action and the history and Peter would have the same range here as well.

unlike others i also think a weaker A is in his range ,why would it not be?
no one has shown any sign that they have a real hand as they had few chances to reraise if they did.
captain Nemo has also done this lots of time so his range is any two cards so any A here is good enough for Peter to do this.

if Peter was UTG+1 or had alot of other players to act behind him preflop then that would change things but the fact that his was happy to see a multi way pot from the SB to be means he is not strong.

for what it's worth i would call there with AT any day all day and it would not take me long to do it.

CaptainNemo

Gholimoli wrote:

for what it's worth i would call there with AT any day all day and it would not take me long to do it.

It didn't take me long to think it through and come to an assessment that I should call, and it seemed quite clear to me in my head. That's why I wanted opinions, because if I was very wrong about a decision like that then there would be something worryingly wrong with my thinking about the game.

The crucial question seems to be Peter's range here and opinions differ but at least the fact that there's an argument going on indicates that I might not be completely deranged.

Gholimoli

CaptainNemo wrote:

It didn't take me long to think it through and come to an assessment that I should call, and it seemed quite clear to me in my head. That's why I wanted opinions, because if I was very wrong about a decision like that then there would be something worryingly wrong with my thinking about the game.

The crucial question seems to be Peter's range here and opinions differ but at least the fact that there's an argument going on indicates that I might not be completely deranged.

Peter's range to me is something that he was happy to take a multiway flop with but is also happy to get all in pre-flop against your range or one other player(basically against one opponent) given his FE and what is already in the pot.
to me thats 22-99(with 88 and 99 being the very top of it) +A2-AJ .

Hectorjelly

Van Dice wrote:

I disagree completely. Not from the point of view that it's never correct to get all in with AT, but that it's almost never necessary. To class people unwilling to get AIPF with AT for 100BBs as non-thinking players is ridiculous imo

if someone says they would never get all in with AT under any circumstances, then they aren't a thinking player. They aren't thinking, they are just playing (or theorising) by rote.

opr

If thats his range then yeah call all day long but i would like to add that even with this kind of "dream" range you only have about 48% equity.

Opr

Hectorjelly

opr wrote:

HJ its not often i say this but i think that is twaddle (That word just came to mind is it even a real word hmmmm) ........ what was i saying....

Yes he may know we are light and may be light himself but most of his "light" hands beat us. Hes marginal favouite with most of his range , huge favouite with some of it , very rarely crushed and a small dog with some of it.




I think that saying folding here is quite bad while being quite derogatory towards people in this thread is kinda out of order.

Maybe Meta-game , the player etc plays a part in this hand but if asked to comment on a hand when i don't know the players involved etc i tend not to take these into consideration.

People who play with Peter more can make a more informed decision on the table dynamics at the time, Peter's range here etc etc

But not knowing this and taking it as an equity VS range question folding here is not a mistake.

Opr

Many of the posts at the start of the thread were bad posts with bad thinking. I dont think its wrong of me to point this out. Sorry if I didn't distinguish fully between you and the others, but you happen to be on the wrong side of the argument!

I respect your opinion, I disagree totally with your range for peter though, but saying stuff like "Yes he may know we are light and may be light himself but most of his "light" hands beat us. Hes marginal favouite with most of his range , huge favouite with some of it , very rarely crushed and a small dog with some of it." is just silly. Of course thats true if your ranges are correct.

sumoward

opr wrote:

HJ its not often i say this but i think that is twaddle (That word just came to mind is it even a real word hmmmm) ........ what was i saying....

Opr

An important question inthis thread has been lost here.

twaddle is indeed a word.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary its origins are old,

"silly talk," 1782, probably from twattle (1556), of obscure origin.


Now back to your poker chat of which i know nowt

semibluff

for me the deciding factor in calling would be that Peter re-potted it. surely he wouldnt do this with QQ+ AK

and how often would he do this with JJ or AQ?

this has been pointed out by one other poster, but not by the original poster. it would be this that would lead me to believe he was not "sandbagging" and now allow my range for Peter to be more closely defined, and hence a call.

sikes

I think a good definition of sand-bagging in required to get to the bottom of this.

A sexual act in which 2 people are having intercouse on a beach and the male ejaculates inside the woman, thus getting her pregnant; after which he throws sand in her face and runs away, laughing hysterically, hereby leaving the woman blind, and knocked up. Can be found most often during spring break.

"I sand bagged this hardcore slut down in Cancun!!"

semibluff

so much for what happens in cancun stays in cancun - lol



by the way for anyone interested organizing a cutprice trip there this march, pm if interested

opr

Hectorjelly wrote:

Many of the posts at the start of the thread were bad posts with bad thinking. I dont think its wrong of me to point this out. Sorry if I didn't distinguish fully between you and the others, but you happen to be on the wrong side of the argument!

I respect your opinion, I disagree totally with your range for peter though, but saying stuff like "Yes he may know we are light and may be light himself but most of his "light" hands beat us. Hes marginal favouite with most of his range , huge favouite with some of it , very rarely crushed and a small dog with some of it." is just silly. Of course thats true if your ranges are correct.

I couldn't care less about me but i just felt the bad thinking wasn't confined to people on the fold side of the coin.

My generic range was based alot on what i read at the start of this thread but its seems Peters range for making this move is alot wider. If this is true given what happened preflop my range is "twaddle"

Opr

HalfBaked

I think Alan (Cpt Nemo) had a fair idea of my holding, as I did his. And as HJ said it was the sort of hand that I was happy to take a multiway pot oop with originally.

To be honest I rarely show up here with a hand that he is in great shape against and he's rarely better than 50/50 in this spot. I would have considered making this play with hands up to JJ / AQ (raising QQ+ AK+) as most raises were being called (the average stack was 300bb+) and the disadvantage of playing these hands oop (against multiple players) makes it likely that I would flat call with them.

As Alan had been raising about 70%+ of his straddles I had decided that if he decided to check this one I was happy to play a smaller pot oop with 88. If he raised and had a number of callers (as he did) I was happy to re-pot it to take the hand down pre flop / race if he decided to call considering the amount in the pot already. I knew that no one else at the table could flat call twice with a hand that had me in trouble.

In my opinion the deciding factor was the stack size of Alan. If he had more it's a definite fold imho, as to take on my range here is a losing play in the long run with money left to go in post flop.

To surmise he's a station.:p

Edit - I think you should have left out the result, would have made the decisions more interesting.

pok3rplaya

I like your play except make it 45 preflop to increace the chances of this position arising and shove now. Havent read the rewst of the thread.

EDIT: as long as stacks are between 800 and 1100. I didn't see them mentioned.

pok3rplaya

oh ok I just saw the stacks. Instafold

HalfBaked

The average stack was 300bb, I had about 400+bb. Alan had taken a couple of hits and was down to about 120bb. I don't think his call was bad, but in the long run I do think it's a losing one. The chance of me slow playing a bigger hand is unlikely but cannot be discounted due to the high frequency of his live straddle raises.

If we look at how his hand compares to the range I would / might this way I think it's a fold im my opinion. Especially when you consider that I do not expect the shortstack to fold once he has called the straddle raise. People might think that my range here seems tight, but it's not really. I don't think trying to make people fold out hands I'm not ahead early on a Saturday morning in the Jackpot is a long term winner.

equity win tie pots won pots tied

Alan: 29.185% 25.14% 04.04% 4740948121 762163189.83 { AcTd }
Me: 45.403% 42.76% 02.65% 8062425085 498834012.33 { JJ-22, AQs-AJs, AQo-ATo }
Donk: 25.412% 22.95% 02.46% 4328259309 463462306.83 { 99-88, 66-22, AJs-A2s, KTs+, QJs, 87s, AJo-A2o }

cardshark202

why cant donk have 77?

HalfBaked

cardshark202 wrote:

why cant donk have 77?

Cause I said so! Somehow managed to omit it.

AKQJ10

would you really have limped with with 1010, JJ and AQ? if so why?

HalfBaked

AKQJ10 wrote:

would you really have limped with with 1010, JJ and AQ? if so why?

I'm not saying I necessarily would (and it is unlikely), but they must be included in the range. With such a loose table (and it was!) these hands can be difficult to play oop against multiple callers.

careca

The fact that HalfBaked was the SB would be my deciding factor here. If he was UTG/UTG+1 and limped/reraised I would fold fairly quick as I would then imagine his range would crush me. Because he limped/reraised from the SB, you would have to 'lighten' his range.

This was probably all said, I just couldnt' be arsed reading the whole thing

Hectorjelly

HalfBaked wrote:

I don't think his call was bad, but in the long run I do think it's a losing one.

I dont think thats an accurate range. Its not likely that you have a bigger ace, and I really dont think you are pushing AJo with a frequency of 100%, and A9o with a frequency of 0.

30 before straddle
30 straddle raise
60 callers
30 Peter calls raise then repots it (which really committs him for 200 more)
So the pot is 150 + 200

He has to call 200 into a pot that is going to be 550 big ignoring shortie

He needs 36% equity to call this. Against your range, (which is weighted wrongly IMO) he has 39.4%

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 39.413% 34.46% 04.95% 623095500 89566206.00 { ATo }
Hand 1: 60.587% 55.63% 04.95% 1005965112 89566206.00 { JJ-22, AQs-AJs, AQo-ATo }


So at his moment of decision, where he doesnt know what the shortie is going to do, and against a reansably tight range which we don't agree with, its a call.

Against the rough range that I would expect a good aggressive player to have in your position, you have about 46% equity, so folding would actually be quite bad.

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

2,116,407,744 games 0.005 secs 423,281,548,800 games/sec

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 46.423% 40.44% 05.99% 855808296 126700548.00 { ATo }
Hand 1: 53.577% 47.59% 05.99% 1007198352 126700548.00 { 99-22, AQs-A7s, KQs, AQo-A9o }

I'm not sure exactly how the numbers change when the shortie gets involved, I think we should probably play a bit tighter, but the fact that there is a sizable side pot if he calls, and he may well fold means it cant be worth more than a few percent.

Van Dice

I really cannot see how raising ATo into 6 limpers, and planning on calling shoves from SB/shortstacks/(others?) can be remotely close to +EV. If we aren't limp/reraised, we are OOP with a hand that plays terribly. If we are limp/reraised we are happy to get 120BBs in with a hand that has pot equity not close to 50%?

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

CaptainNemo

Van Dice wrote:

I really cannot see how raising ATo into 6 limpers, and planning on calling shoves from SB/shortstacks/(others?) can be remotely close to +EV. If we aren't limp/reraised, we are OOP with a hand that plays terribly. If we are limp/reraised we are happy to get 120BBs in with a hand that has pot equity not close to 50%?

I think my initial raise was probably a lot worse (in the sense of -EV) than my call of Peter's shove.

CaptainNemo

HalfBaked wrote:

To surmise he's a station.:p

Guilty!

HalfBaked wrote:

Edit - I think you should have left out the result, would have made the decisions more interesting.

Yeah I wish I had but I've still found it pretty interesting. I thought I would get universally slated.

Gholimoli

LuckyLloyd wrote:

Darragh, I'm surprised that you expect a "good aggressive player" to be showing up with KQs or A7s - A9s and A9o after the shortie shoves.

with the expection of KQ ,why are you surprised here ?
it's perfectly fine for Peter to have a A2+AJ here.

jbravado

Halfbaked never has a2-a9 here.Never.

cardshark202

Lloyd the dead money in the pot will easily make up for the equity dog he would possibly vs the shorty. I think Peter's move is quite good, and captain nemo's call is good too imo

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

RoundTower

I like folding.

Given the OP (he nearly always reraises out of the straddle) it is a high reward/low risk play for Peter to limp a big hand there, potentially trapping a lot of dead money. Also he can't necessarily expect the shortstack callers to go away, so he has to have some kind of a hand. I don't think you are getting enough dead money to make up for the times he has big pairs and AK/AQ.

Note that I don't know anything about Peter but what I have gleaned from this thread.

mrflash

The hands that I don't want to see here are: AJ, AQ, AK, and TT+. I'm very sure that with any of those hands the SB would have raised rather than simply completing.
I'm therefore putting him either on a weaker ace, or perhaps KQ, or most likely a smaller pair. I think that HE thinks I'm raising without much of a hand, and he's reraising to isolate me and/or make me fold.

This line of thought seems to be in some dispute. And if you are wrong about his range 80% of the time which its seems to be from other posts, then you are going to lose a lot of cash making calls like this. So how can you have a +ev if you are behind 8 out of 10 times?

connie147

I have'nt posted on this thread since day1, and I've just read all 5 pages.The different views all have merit, but I'm staying in the same camp. Why wouldn't a good player limp in the SB here with a big hand when he knows the straddler is likely to reraise for him(as he has been doing most times so far). Isnt there a huge reward awaiting when(if) straddler makes it 30 and a few callers before it gets back to sb? I wouldn't be at all surprised to see 10/10 + and AQ/AK in the sb,s hand here. All the call camp are saying sb would HAVE to raise with these hands.I'm saying not neccessarily so given the table dynamics and the tendancies of the straddler. Am I still reading it wrong?

fuzzbox

I think that limping AJ+ in the sb is a wise play in this sort of game.
I further think that lamping those hands Vs an aggro straddler dude is also a wise play.

I think AT is a fold here, because he shows up with mid-pairs/dominating Aces virtually all the time. However TT/JJ have you in trouble along with AJ/AQ/AK.

CaptainNemo

mrflash wrote:

if you are wrong about his range 80% of the time which its seems to be from other posts, then you are going to lose a lot of cash making calls like this. So how can you have a +ev if you are behind 8 out of 10 times?

Well, I can't. But I don't think I'm wrong about his range 80% of the time, obviously.

The whole issue of "You are going to lose money making calls like this" seems a bit irrelevant to me since this exact situation will so rarely recur. This was a particular night, with a particular flavour of play and particular players, and this specific hand played out in a particular way. I am interested in what people would have done in this specific situation therefore, and not in what may or may not be the "theoretically" correct thing to do were this exact situation to recur, say, 100 times.

However, having said that, I think if it DID play out again in exactly this way, I would fold it. On the night, it didn't occur to me that Peter might have limped a very strong hand precisely in order to trap me. If I'd thought of this possibility then it would probably have swung me to a fold. At the time, I all but eliminated the premium hands from his range because I assumed he would have raised with them rather than allow a lot of limpers into the pot cheaply. It's clear from the posts in this thread that although a call may not be a terrible play here, limping a big hand would have been an EXCELLENT play here by Peter, and therefore something that should have occurred to me when I was thinking.