Top set on coordinated flop

[Viktor Von Doom]

I only quoted the first line because that was the only statement I was concerned about. While I would essentially agree with assessment of $25NL (though maybe give it a hair more credit), I disagree that there is too much analysis in this thread. While not always relevant at $25NL, structured hand analysis and poker thinking is something you learn at lower levels and refine as you move up. You don't wait until trying $200NL to start analyzing, instead you learn the analysis early on (even in $2NL if you like) and you then learn to modify it as you go up. Also, while it largely isn't so complex, it is not unnecessary. There's something to be said about being observant, knowing your opponent, and knowing when deeper thought is required.

Hm - true enough. Though I'd advise people to tread lightly and not try to apply everything they read at $25 NL tables. There's a fine line between analyzing in the early stages of poker and knowing when that analysis is relevant to the game you're in so proceed with caution.

More simply put - it's like those people who read all the Sklansky books and then complain that they went bust in $10 NL because nothing worked.

 

[ChuckTs]

You can analyze any stakes to any ends, it's just the means by which you do it that is important. I mean look at SSHE - that book was written by pros who normally play in the nosebleed stakes that decided to find a viable strategy for the slummy limits and it's one of the most referred-to books out there for small stakes FL holdem.

While I do agree that we shouldn't be applying advanced strategy at 25nl, I think the depth that we analyzed this hand to was fine.

On the post you made that JD quoted, I think that we're seeing more than just hands that beat us and bluffs. If villain is bad enough there will still be two pair and Ax hands that he thinks are best. Remember that a ch-r on the river does mean great strength in the opponent's eyes, and that could mean a lot of things depending on what type of player he is. If he's a huge fish he might have been calling down with AK and have rivered two pair, could have AT, or K9...etc etc.

vs a relatively unknown 25nl player I think we have to pay him off here.

 

[SubT33]

Yeah, perfect example is my brother-in-law. I taught him how to play a few months back. I try and tell him not to be a calling station, but he just wants to be a sheriff all the time. After the first few times, I realized he's too foolish to be bluffed off a hand, so I just wait till I catch and then he pays me off. Sometimes good poker strategy only works on those who know there's strategy involved.

 

[tendulkar007]

WVHillBilly,

good hand. although u lost, it definitely is going to save me some money in the future when a similar situation comes up.

i was thinking "shove it. sets r rare. get paid off" all the way.

 

[Tygran]

Definitely interesting discussion and no i don't think this is over-analyzed in the slightest.

I've asked this question a few times and no one has really directly replied to it so I'll try once more and give up if no one replies. How important is the fact that he has not raised before the river? In your opinion what does this most likely mean? I based a fair amount of my argument on this.

 

[ChuckTs]

Definitely interesting discussion and no i don't think this is over-analyzed in the slightest.

I've asked this question a few times and no one has really directly replied to it so I'll try once more and give up if no one replies. How important is the fact that he has not raised before the river? In your opinion what does this most likely mean? I based a fair amount of my argument on this.

In general it would be very important. What usually happens in hands where no one's got a monster is that pf there is some aggression, as is there on the flop (c-bets etc), then usually the turn gets checked down or the pf raiser gives up at that point and the caller bets to take it down.

When that order is reversed, it usually means a monster. An example would be someone playing a small pair that's hit a set - as opposed to lots of aggression preflop, they're usually calling pf, slowplaying their set (assuming their bad or that the situation calls for it), then they wake up on the turn or river. Not that this is an ideal strategy - pretty much au contraire - but it's something that should usually set off all sorts of alarm bells for us since it's usually a monster.

Here however I think there are a lot of hands that don't have you beat that still wake up on the river including all the Ax two-pairs, or slowplayed two pairs from earlier streets (K9 etc).

 

[WVHillbilly]

This thread's still alive?

Again, I think my river bet here is bad. We're setting ourselves up for 1 of 3 things: being bluffed off our hand (if we fold the best hand), losing an all-in (if we call and our opponent has us beat), or doubling up. Only the last case if good for us.

Tygran, I agree the our villain check-calling (not reraising till the river) should have set off alarm bells. Just one more reason for checking behind on the river.

Also our opponent played this badly, IMO. He should have check-raised all-in on the turn. On the turn I think I would have had to call because even if I strongly suspected the straight, I would have had outs to the full house and I would have had to pay to see the river.