was i a "retard" for making this play?

[nateofdeath]

alex037 said, "retard"
alex037 said, "wtf u callin preflop"
nateofdeath said, "i wanted to gamble, don't hate me"

personally i thought it was very justified. it was a heads up match. the guy was playing very tight, could almost set my watch by his play. I had won about 75% of the hands by betting either pre or post flop. I had almost eliminated him once before, and lost a few pots to him, but always slowly blinded my way back. anyway, this hand, when he reraised me pre flop, i figured he definatly had a hand, and for only another 360 more, i figured if i hit a flop, i'd be more likely to get action. Had i missed the flop, i could get away from it, and easily won it back. i would have gotten away from it on the flop had he bet more, as my draw was terrible, but again, 300 more into a pot at about 1500, for what i felt was a really good shot at winning this thing if i hit. Not necessarily the best strategy, but heads up is a funny game, and i stand by my play. The funny thing is, I read the hand perfectly, and it played out exactly how i wanted it to (except for the fact that I was hoping for spades), yet I'm a retard.

-n

pokerstars Game #3877979024: Tournament #19262522, Hold'em No Limit - Match
Round II, Level II (30/60) - 2006/02/05 - 23:30:20 (ET)
Table '19262522 1' One on One Seat #1 is the button
Seat 1: nateofdeath (2980 in chips)
Seat 2: alex037 (3020 in chips)
nateofdeath: posts small blind 30
alex037: posts big blind 60
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to nateofdeath [2s Js]
nateofdeath: raises 180 to 240
alex037: raises 360 to 600
nateofdeath: calls 360
*** FLOP *** [7d 8c Tc]
alex037: bets 300
nateofdeath: calls 300
*** TURN *** [7d 8c Tc] [9d]
alex037: bets 300
nateofdeath: calls 300
*** RIVER *** [7d 8c Tc 9d] [Td]
alex037: bets 300
nateofdeath: raises 1200 to 1500
alex037: calls 1200
*** SHOW DOWN ***
nateofdeath: shows [2s Js] (a straight, Seven to Jack)
alex037: shows [Qs Qd] (two pair, Queens and Tens)
nateofdeath collected 5400 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 5400 | Rake 0
Board [7d 8c Tc 9d Td]
Seat 1: nateofdeath (button) (small blind) showed [2s Js] and won (5400) with a
straight, Seven to Jack
Seat 2: alex037 (big blind) showed [Qs Qd] and lost with two pair, Queens and
Tens

 

[t1riel]

"Retard" is not a nice word. I think it wasn't wise to call the re-raise. I can understand the raise considering you were in great position. Once you hit the straight draw on the flop, it's hard to walk away from it. I'm glad you won the hand and you're agressiveness paid off!

 

[twizzybop]

It was a gut shot straight on the flop.. 4 cards to come. The opponent basically gave Nate correct odds to call for the gutshot straight with the weak bet on the flop.

 

[chipslap u]

The names ppl call

No you were not retarded for playing that hand. You're opponent pretty much made it attractive to begin with. PPl over value pockets sometimes but if he didn't want you drawing against him he should have bet the flop all in, and made the price to chase rediculous. He enticed action and got it and it burned him. He was counting on a hook on the river after that 9 hit the turn anyway. His lack of focus and reaction was a reflection of his ability. Heads up you gotta expect just about anything and try and make it hard to chase. He failed to do this and he also failed to evaluate the board. if you made any mistake at all it was calling the reraise preflop. But as it were heads up you were really only a 2-1 or 3-1 dog at worst and the pot value was close to worth a flop. After the flop his weakness in his game cost him the hand. You played it well good job. As is usually the case when some poobutt is calling you names after a hand it's because they played it poorly and you put the stamp on em...see ya round

 

[nateofdeath]

my appoligies for phrasing this thread the way I did. I was only quoting my oppenent. still probably not the best choice of words. didn't mean to offend anyone.

-n

 

[Styrofoam]

If anyone was acting stupid, it was your opponent for bettng into a board that is almost GUARANTEED a straight.

 

[Kj Sexton]

Well Nate, either way you got their chips! So I'm sure you're not "mentally handicap"....Your enemy on the other hand.....

 

[Four Dogs]

It was a gut shot straight on the flop.. 4 cards to come. The opponent basically gave Nate correct odds to call for the gutshot straight with the weak bet on the flop.

No twizzy, he gave him approx 4:1 odds to call. With the gut he was chasing 11:1 on the turn. In order for the implied odds to make this profitable in the long term he would need to make up the difference which in this case would be 7:1, so about 2100 chips. This is just about what he had left. How confident were you nate that you could extract this much more if you scored on the turn? I wouldn't call you retarded, but I don't have much confidence in the long term profitability of this play.

Now, for the part that really riles me.

alex037 said, "retard"
alex037 said, "wtf u callin preflop"
nateofdeath said, "i wanted to gamble, don't hate me"

Someone calls you a retard and you ask him not to hate you? Nate, have some self respect. You owe this chump NO apologies! It's you're hand to play however you feel like.

 

[twizzybop]

That is why I said basically.. and it was 5:1.. 1200 in chips.. guy puts 300 on a bet making it 1500.. nate needs 300 more to make it 5:1

 

[Four Dogs]

Basically? Twizzy. He was 11:1 to hit! ???

 

[twizzybop]

Why I said basically.. it was a low bet based apon the pre-flop betting.
Yet however the 300 bet I think was more of a feeler bet to see where he was standing. There was no re-raise on the flop by Nate. So what would you have put Nate on because he called for incorrect odds for the gut shot straight?

Then he throws out another feeler bet on the turn against Nate because he called for incorrect odds on the flop to see where he stood. Nate has been a calling station so far.

Yet he called Nate's re-raise.. even though Nate has the straight. The opponent had to be suspectable of the 10's out there for possible trips.
Yet opponent called because he went with the %'s that Nate missed the flop completely and was trying to steal based apon the calls.

 

[shwingzilla]

Why I said basically.. it was a low bet based apon the pre-flop betting.
Yet however the 300 bet I think was more of a feeler bet to see where he was standing. There was no re-raise on the flop by Nate. So what would you have put Nate on because he called for incorrect odds for the gut shot straight?

Then he throws out another feeler bet on the turn against Nate because he called for incorrect odds on the flop to see where he stood. Nate has been a calling station so far.

Yet he called Nate's re-raise.. even though Nate has the straight. The opponent had to be suspectable of the 10's out there for possible trips.
Yet opponent called because he went with the %'s that Nate missed the flop completely and was trying to steal based apon the calls.

This makes his play bad, but it doesn't make Nate's play any better.

 

[chipslap u]

Doh, I just reread what I posted before. I must have been drinking. After reevaluating the situation, and actually reading the origional post and those following, I know I was. You made a bad call on the preflop raise we all agree there, you gambled after the flop, you scored on the turn, but I think the main point of this was you were offended he called you retarded. You made a bad play early in the hand he made a worse one later. These are the things that happen in the wonderful world of poker, he was right to be upset, but he was wrong to be a jagoff and hurl insults like that when he was just as guilty of making a foolish play. Great news.........His mistake was bigger and I saved a few bucks on my car insurance by not paying my bill from Geico.

 

[Styrofoam]

the above post is correct. Bad preflop call, a risky gamble on the flop that paid off. Its almost like a hand of mine that went like this:

I'm to the right of hte button and dealt 7♣2cUTG calls folds around to MP+3 raises 4x BB (.10/.20NL) and I call. UTG calls.

Flop comes 4♣J♣2♦

Utg Bets .5 MP+3 raises to $2.00. I calculated my odds (i had more chips than either player) that if i moved all in i would be a ~52% to win the hand by the river. i have 9 clubs, 2 twos, and 2 sevens to what IMO improves my hand to the best hand against what i put the big guy on...AA. So i make my move all in. Hero moves all in for ~$15.

utg calls and mp+3 calls. the cards are flipped over, and i was against utg with Q♦Q♥ and MP+3 K♠K♥

Turn comes 2♠ river comes 3♦ I win a HUGE pot.

I played it wrong on the flop though.. and even the all in was a risky gamble.....but what matters in the end is that it paid off, and you know better.


by the way...the 2c in the [] will put 3c for some reason...just to let someone know lol

 

[ChuckTs]

constructive criticism here, but:
you called UTG with 72 suited?
what were you trying to accomplish?
in a low-limit ring game like that, did you not expect it to get raised behind you?
and if so, which i hope you weren't, why were you playing a 72 for a raised pot/
again im not trying to be rude, i actually know what it is you were trying to do

 

[Styrofoam]

actually, my gf was over and i said "i'm gonna win this with 72" and called.

 

[Styrofoam]

btw, *I* wasn't UTG, i was to the right of the button, so in late position.

 

[ChuckTs]

oh my apologies...read it wrong

 

[nateofdeath]

As far as i'm concerned, this hand is just an example of there being more to this game then just mathmatics. playing that hand and that draw was terrible, and i wouldn't do it in any other circumstances. In this situation, however, it was heads up and i knew my opponent. he was only playing premium hands. he was checking everything, and folding every time i bet. this is good in the sense that i can take blinds off him, but bad in the sense that I can't get him to put all of his chips into the pot unless he has a good hand. So in the hand i listed in my original post, I raised the J2 of spades, figuring he'd fold. where he reraised, i put him on a pair, or AK at the worst. after dozens of hands, i just didn't think that this would be the moment where he decided to try his first bluff. However even if he was bluffing, i had possition, and knew i'd have a reasonable shot at stealing the pot if he didn't have or make a hand. The bottom line is, the exact percentages of odds and value have nothing to do with this hand. My starting hand was bad, and my draw was even worse. playing it by the percentages, i shouldn't have played that hand the way that i did, but what i was banking on was not my draw, but the predictability of my opponent, who i knew was only playing good hands and good draws and i'd be able to bluff him off of anything else. So any losses i suffered would be easily regained, and any wins would be substantial. i know that looking at a strategy like this, it may seem bad, but heads up is a funny game, and you have to play your oppenent and exploit whatever openings they might offer you, however small and well guarded they may be. As i said, in any other circumstances, i'd agree that my play was bad, but here i believe that it is an effective strategy, and i stand by my play.

and i wasn't offended by the name calling. I can totall understand why he'd be upset about his queens getting cracked by my jack deuce. I responded the way i did, because i felt bad for him. as far as i'm concerned he was essentially forncing me to play hands like that against him.

-n

 

[twizzybop]

He was forcing you to? I didn't know he went to your house, put a gun to your head and said "You had better call me or else".

No you hoped and wished that a bluff would take down the pot. You went against the %'s and won plain and simple.

 

[Jesus Lederer]

While i agree with your point nate, i must say that i still don´t understand your moves according to your reading.
It´s true that heads up the game is a psychological game. If you have a strong read on your opponent then you have a big advantage, but what i saw in the hand was a big contradiction between your read on him and the move you did.
You said that he was very tight and that you had won 75% of the hands by betting either pre or postflop. That means that if he played a hand it was going to be a really good one and most likely he was going to play it aggressively. According to that read, it was pretty obvious that he had a really good hand when he reraised you. So why call the reraise? I don´t like the reasons you gave for your preflop call: You said that you could easily bluff at him postflop, and you also said that if you hit the flop (at least two pair) you could extract him lots chips because it would be hard for him to laydown a monster. That 2 reasons are incompatible. How could you bluff at him if you said he probably weren´t going to laydown his hand?
I would have folded preflop (after he´s reraise, because your initial raise is good).
Now in relation to your call postflop, i don´t like it. You were chasing a gutshot straight using 4 straight community cards, which in my opininon decreases the chances that you would get his whole stack if you hit it. So you´re implied odds weren´t enough.
As i said i agree that the psychological part of the game is by far more important than the mathmatical one, but when we talk about calls in hope to hit a hand, then we must apply what we know about odds.
My suggestion is that if you have a good read on him, use it well. You could have folded preflop based on your read and kept stealing pots to punish his extreme tighness.

Ah, and in relation to the comments, i prefer to stay quiet. If someone can´t manage his emotions when he´s talking, he definitely don´t deserve a reply.