Public service announcement: You do NOT call a huge turn overshove with any pair.

Not posting this in the HH analysis section because there's no question -- I already know what went on and what I did wrong. I guess I'm posting this as a form of self-flagellation to make sure I never do it again in the future, and remind newer players why it's god-****ing awful to ignore Baluga's theorem.

Table and Position Review
Game #71368440-38: Riviera IX - No Limit ($0.02/$0.04) Holdem - 0.02/0.04

Seat #0: Aretino (SB), $6.23
Seat #1: Tapouttazz99 (BB), $3.60
Seat #2: Phoenix112, $4.00
Seat #3: Dontufold5, $4.27
Seat #4: FoldToTheMoneyDotCom, $2.03
Seat #5: Lutador (D), $4.89

*** Blinds ***
Aretino posts the small blind of 0.02
Tapouttazz99 posts the big blind of 0.04

*** Pre-Flop ***
Aretino got hole cards [Kc][As]
Phoenix112 folds
Dontufold5 folds
FoldToTheMoneyDotCom folds
Lutador folds
Aretino raises with 0.12
Tapouttazz99 calls 0.08

*** Flop *** Pot: 0
[Ah][6s][8s]
Aretino bets 0.12
Tapouttazz99 calls 0.12

*** Turn *** Pot: 0
[Ah][6s][8s] [Jc]
Aretino bets 0.24
Tapouttazz99 goes all-in with 3.36
Aretino calls 3.12
Aretino shows [Kc][As]
Tapouttazz99 shows [8c][Ac]

*** River *** Pot: 6
[Ah][6s][8s] [Jc] [5c]
Tapouttazz99 wins 6.80

Table and Position Review
Game #71368440-41: Riviera IX - No Limit ($0.02/$0.04) Holdem - 0.02/0.04

Seat #0: Aretino, $4.00
Seat #1: Tapouttazz99, $6.78
Seat #2: Phoenix112 (D), $4.00
Seat #3: Dontufold5 (SB), $4.23
Seat #4: FoldToTheMoneyDotCom (BB), $2.09
Seat #5: Lutador, $4.89

*** Blinds ***
Dontufold5 posts the small blind of 0.02
FoldToTheMoneyDotCom posts the big blind of 0.04

*** Pre-Flop ***
Aretino got hole cards [Ah][As]
Lutador folds
Aretino raises with 0.12
Tapouttazz99 folds
Phoenix112 calls 0.12
Dontufold5 folds
FoldToTheMoneyDotCom folds

*** Flop *** Pot: 0
[Js][2h][5d]
Aretino bets 0.20
Phoenix112 calls 0.20

*** Turn *** Pot: 0
[Js][2h][5d] [6h]
Aretino bets 0.52
Phoenix112 raises with 1.56
Aretino raises with 2.60
Phoenix112 goes all-in with 2.12
Aretino goes all-in with 1.08
Aretino shows [Ah][As]
Phoenix112 shows [5h][5s]

*** River *** Pot: 6
[Js][2h][5d] [6h] [3h]
Phoenix112 wins 7.62

Basically, after playing awesome and running like god for 678 hands prior, I lost $7.60 on two iterations of the same stupid mistake, almost in a row. Kids, don't let it happen to you.

That hand with A A i think you were playing tilted .the A K call was really bad.
If you are not capable of laying big hands then you have a huge leak.unless hes an agrodonk playing 50/40 with aggression of 10+ im not even considering calling there.
Paul Otto "Internet" in his video once said : strong bets from fish is always strong. After i heard that i started folding big hands more in these kinda situations and that really improved my winrate. GL

Speedexas said:

That hand with A A i think you were playing tilted .the A K call was really bad.
If you are not capable of laying big hands then you have a huge leak.unless hes an agrodonk playing 50/40 with aggression of 10+ im not even considering calling there.
Paul Otto "Internet" in his video once said : strong bets from fish is always strong. After i heard that i started folding big hands more in these kinda situations and that really improved my winrate. GL

Click to expand...

+1.
But after all this is basic poker. Of course most ppl ingore Baluga's theorem untill they feel it on their skin. I am one of those ppl. After mistake, and mistake again evenutaly someone learns something. I was like a dog that learned how to sit after a lot of repeted mistakes. This is leak that makes a tag loose most of his money.

I'm more of a lag but yeah.

In the AK hand though... He's gross over betting the pot. It looks as if he doesn't want a call in that spot... IMO... The AK hand is not all that bad... He could have flopped a flush draw. He looks like he's full of shit... But that's just the spewy side of me trying to justify a call

You are ovethinking it. Turn shoves are most often nutty hands that don't want to allow a free card.

LD1977 said:

You are ovethinking it. Turn shoves are most often nutty hands that don't want to allow a free card.

Click to expand...

I like this answer . Either cause they dont want to see another card or feel that you are willing to put it in right here and are looking for max value.

Jblocher1 said:

In the AK hand though... He's gross over betting the pot. It looks as if he doesn't want a call in that spot... IMO... The AK hand is not all that bad... He could have flopped a flush draw. He looks like he's full of shit...

Click to expand...

Dont level this . Its NL4 . Not NL100+
After 1year and about 1mil+ hands played i can honestly say that 90% of the time they have the nuts here.

Yep, trivial folds.

Speedexas said:

Dont level this . Its NL4 . Not NL100+
After 1year and about 1mil+ hands played i can honestly say that 90% of the time they have the nuts here.

Click to expand...

I suppose so. I haven't played 4NL in a while. Chances are the guy just sucks and has a great hand most of the time

so.... what's this baluga theorem you speak of? should i just google or is there some better read for this?

If villain's raising the turn, he's not doing it with a pair.

Same problem I seem to be struggling with. A pair of Aces is just a pair......

I think people don't fundamentally understand the logic here (no offense, I know Aleksei understands it but is apparently undisciplined sometimes).

FLOP raises are frequently done with draws since draws have decent equity on the flop.

On the turn, draws have pretty bad equity so a raise is either some kind of semibluff with a draw (uncommon in micro stakes) or a good made hand that is protecting itself and/or thinks you are committed.

That hand is worse than a good pair only if we are talking about a total fish, and even then it is well below 50% chance (you will see loads of exotic 2 pair hands).

I guess when (if ) I go higher then the real games will start and bluff raises on the turn will be more common.

Yeah basically a turn raise is polarized to the nuts and air. Flop raises are too in fact, but less so.

Thing is that I KNEW this already. Something just came over me and I just called on instinct, because it takes SOOOO long to get a super-good hand and actually ****ing get action on it (90% of the time I cbet and the other guy just folds), that I just wanted stacks in and failed to consider anything else.

It might not have helped that I'd called several shoves and the other guys turned up air or even worse value hands before, but that was all with super-shorties sitting on like $1.50 stacks or whatever.

Speedexas said:

That hand with A A i think you were playing tilted .the A K call was really bad.
If you are not capable of laying big hands then you have a huge leak.unless hes an agrodonk playing 50/40 with aggression of 10+ im not even considering calling there.
Paul Otto "Internet" in his video once said : strong bets from fish is always strong. After i heard that i started folding big hands more in these kinda situations and that really improved my winrate. GL

Click to expand...

That's some damn good advice an so true. Wish I'd came up with that quote. Gotta youtube this guy otto now.

AK hand is pretty bad...

AA hand isn't all that bad. What would V do if he had or type hands or maybe even an aggro with ???

So I think AA hand is more villain dependant. Against nitty or competent villains we can fold. Against your typical aggro spewtards we shouldn't feel bad about getting it in. So depends on what your stats/HUD says

if this were in a vacuum though, I think the AA hand is almost 50/50 vs random unknown. Ugly truth is, there are just too many retards out there that overvalue TPGK or can shove if they pick up a Back Door draw here or even think their QQ/KK is the nuts... Yeah, i know we'd expect QQ/KK to 3-bet pre but there are plenty of fish out there that could slow play it putting Hero on AK and then stacking off as long as no Ace or King hits the board...

just sayin... to me, the AA hand isn't terribad, depends on villain stats...

I think villain was a fish but will have to recheck stats.

Villain was a 10/3 uber-nit over 36 hands.

So... yeah I'm retarded. :banghead:

One of my leaks is getting a bit kiddy with big hands especially when you have been card dead. The AA's hand is one of those spots I hate with all low unconnected cards leaving only a set for our nitty friend, unlikely a flush draw so we know its a set, but so often I find a call shouting out "I know you have a set" and then congratulating myself on my amazing negreanu like hand reading abilities and then hand over the chips.

Aleksei said:

Villain was a 10/3 uber-nit over 36 hands.

So... yeah I'm retarded. :banghead:

Click to expand...

36 hands is nothing. At least 200 hands IMO. Then you will see what type of player he really is.

Speedexas said:

36 hands is nothing. At least 200 hands IMO. Then you will see what type of player he really is.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree here. when he's only played 10/3 in 36 hands, the chances are that those stats are not going to be changing much in the next 200 hands . HE is a NIT. for sure.