TPTK against villain on a rush [25nl 6max]

F Paulsson

F Paulsson

euro love
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Total posts
5,799
Awards
1
Chips
1
You seem to be putting him on hand ranges based solely off what he might play PF. He has raised the flop and made a turn bet, I think this is information we should consider here. Yes he could be bluffing I agree, but I dont know why we think he bluffs a lot, playing a lot of hands does not mean he bluffs a lot, and playing aggressively once is also not a great reason to assume its a bluff.

So yes, we are ahead of his PF range but he is representing a much stronger range here. I just dont like the situation based only on what we have.
What range would you give him on the turn?
 
SavagePenguin

SavagePenguin

Put the win in penguin
Bronze Level
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Total posts
7,594
Awards
1
Chips
3

I thought the shove was better because
A) A call means we're going all-in on the river no matter what. If we're beat it doesn't matter when we get it all in.
B) On the off chance that it is a bluff and/or a weird (heart flush) draw and we call, he gets to see the last card and gets to have a change of heart when we put our last $7.45 in. He has position on us. People make weird folds, and I want that $7.45 in before he can see the river and wise up.

I still think we're beat though, and should fold. There's a lot he an "any two cards" player can beat us with here.
(Edit: Man... Now that I read that it sounds really passive)

I guess a lot of it depends on his aggression on those other hands. He's pretty aggressive here, but I don't know if it's his typical aggression, aggression because Emperor was weak on the turn, or aggression because Jah wants to get paid off for his weird two pair/set/worse-Jack/whatever.

Note: ChuckT's, you're substantially better than me though, so you're probably right.
 
Last edited:
ChuckTs

ChuckTs

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Total posts
13,642
Chips
0
You seem to be putting him on hand ranges based solely off what he might play PF. He has raised the flop and made a turn bet, I think this is information we should consider here. Yes he could be bluffing I agree, but I dont know why we think he bluffs a lot, playing a lot of hands does not mean he bluffs a lot, and playing aggressively once is also not a great reason to assume its a bluff.

So yes, we are ahead of his PF range but he is representing a much stronger range here. I just dont like the situation based only on what we have.

A lag is playing a hell of a lot more hands preflop than the %14.5 I used in the above example.

I've already narrowed it down to his range on the turn - Jx down to JT, overpairs (again, unlikely), 2x, sets and full houses, and bluffs. What's wrong with that range?
 
ChuckTs

ChuckTs

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Total posts
13,642
Chips
0
I thought the shove was better because
A) A call means we're going all-in on the river no matter what. If we're beat it doesn't matter when we get it all in.
B) If it is a bluff and/or a weird (heart flush) draw and we call, he gets to see the last card and gets to have a change of heard when we put our last $7.45 in. He has position on us. People make weird folds, and I want that $7.45 in before he can see the river and wise up.

A) true.
B) ok, so you want to make sure we get our money in lest he check behind us, fair enough.

What does the 'people make weird folds' have to do with check-calling down though? If we ch-r or donk the turn, we give him a chance to make one of those folds...

Also not sure what you mean by 'wise up'?

I still think we're beat though, and should fold. There's a lot he can beat us with here.

ok wait, so do you think we're ahead or behind his range?

If we think we're behind then what's the point of pushing the turn?

It sounds to me like you're just scared of not knowing where you're at in the hand which can lead to pretty big disasters in wa/wb spots like these. The cost of acquiring more info (when we've got plenty as it is btw) is huge - you lose a lot of value by not letting worse hands valuetown themselves.
 
widowmaker89

widowmaker89

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Total posts
514
Chips
0
I would say that range is correct, I just dont equally weigh the categories. He is representing a very strong hand here, and although this is passive he is showing huge strength and playing for stacks isnt really what I am hoping for with TPTK unless its a maniac, which im not as convinced as everyone else.
 
Tygran

Tygran

Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 4, 2007
Total posts
1,757
Chips
0
Geez.. need a facepalm pic stat.


No way I'm letting this one go and if he has a better hand so be it. We crush the majority of his likely hands.


I do think random 2's (A2, K2s) are in his range but I expect we are going to most commonly see a weaker jack (J9-JQ most likely..JK is often raised pre here), a mid pair (44-TT), any hand with 2 hearts or any straight draw (A4, A5, 45, 46) or just a straight up bluff with well..nothing.

Call/Shove is debatable and I could see it going either way but no way in hell you fold this one.
 
T

ts69even3

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Total posts
83
Chips
0
With all the replies already I think everything has been covered, I really like you letting the maniac dig his own grave, but on the turn I dont think you can just call, its fold or all in, unless u are that confident ur hand will hold up and are willing to risk him catching his crazy hand on the river, then call, push on river... its part of the risk factor

everyone else's replies are so much more indpeth, why do i Bother lol...

so what was the end result of hand?
 
Emperor IX

Emperor IX

Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Joined
May 28, 2007
Total posts
2,974
Chips
0
Geez.. need a facepalm pic stat.


No way I'm letting this one go and if he has a better hand so be it. We crush the majority of his likely hands.


I do think random 2's (A2, K2s) are in his range but I expect we are going to most commonly see a weaker jack (J9-JQ most likely..JK is often raised pre here), a mid pair (44-TT), any hand with 2 hearts or any straight draw (A4, A5, 45, 46) or just a straight up bluff with well..nothing.

Call/Shove is debatable and I could see it going either way but no way in hell you fold this one.

I never thought about folding it. This hand has sparked some great discussion as expected :)

Results will be posted after the rest of the discussions are ironed out
 
SavagePenguin

SavagePenguin

Put the win in penguin
Bronze Level
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Total posts
7,594
Awards
1
Chips
3
Also not sure what you mean by 'wise up'?
By wise up I meant that he might have an epiphany that he's been throwing chips into a useless pot the entire time once he sees us lead out on the river.
I realize now that that makes little sense.

ok wait, so do you think we're ahead or behind his range?
I think we're way ahead of what he could open with. But I don't know if we're ahead of what he would bet $7.50 into a $9.25 pot with. Not with a second 2 out there, when he plays stuff like 3/7 (as mentioned in the first post).
Re-reading that, I sound like a pessimist.

If we think we're behind then what's the point of pushing the turn?
I didn't think we were ahead. I advocated folding. But I mentioned that if we did decide to play, we should shove rather than call. Then I was merely arguing the advantage of shoving rather than just calling.

It sounds to me like you're just scared of not knowing where you're at in the hand which can lead to pretty big disasters in wa/wb spots like these. The cost of acquiring more info (when we've got plenty as it is btw) is huge - you lose a lot of value by not letting worse hands valuetown themselves.
Probably true. I'm reluctant to get all-in with TPTK. You've touched my my tendency to fold when I'm ahead of their range before. That's the biggest thing I'm trying to work on with my game right now.

I think I'm learning more from this thread than the poster. :)
 
Last edited:
D

Dr_Dick

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Total posts
180
Chips
0
I would say that range is correct, I just dont equally weigh the categories. He is representing a very strong hand here, and although this is passive he is showing huge strength and playing for stacks isnt really what I am hoping for with TPTK unless its a maniac, which im not as convinced as everyone else.

Widowmaker,

Don't say everyone, I am not convinced either. However, I am convinced we are looking at a results oriented post. When Emperor finally announces the end results, undoubtedly his read was correct and him slow playing TPTK ends up with him taking a good piece of villains stack if not doubling up.

What has taken place is Emperor has announced villain played a hand with 73 and villain has played alot of hands in a short amount of time. The villain has now been given "maniac" status allowing his hand range to include any two cards. This allows the math to be run using cool computer programs that definitively proves based on maniac status TPTK is a monster and Emperor has made a brilliant play.

Let me pull back just a bit. The above sounds like I am saying Emperor made a bad play. I'm not saying that...I'm giving Emperor credit for having an incredible read and slow playing TPTK the one time out of 50 it may be possible. I have absolutely no use for the computer program in this situation. Against a huge range of hands I can make pocket 2's statistically look like a monster post flop.

I do think the post has sparked some great discussion, specifically regarding the fundamentals of poker. TPTK out of position fundamentally is not slow played. Aggression is a key component of poker, but in this hand we have now surrendered the initiative and have become a calling station (at least that is the advice of some). Then there is also the idea that our hero can pick a better spot. If the villain is a true maniac and willing to risk his stack on a pure bluff, then why is it such a crime to fold here and take villains money 3 hands later? The ONLY possible justification is this razor sharp read Emperor has on villain.
 
SavagePenguin

SavagePenguin

Put the win in penguin
Bronze Level
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Total posts
7,594
Awards
1
Chips
3
Then there is also the idea that our hero can pick a better spot.

ChuckTs' not going to like that. He has the (mathematically correct, and *probably* practically correct) belief that in ring games you should always get as much in as possible when you have an advantage. Sure it has more ups and down, but you win more in the long run. There's really no argument against that math (unless you're doing it with an advantage smaller than the rake %).

I think that some of the "wait for a better spot" reasoning does have a place in rings, as the migratory habits of questionable players often has them leaving the table after big a big win or a big loss. So if can fold and wait to playing for stacks when you feel you have a bigger advantage. And folding will often paint you as weak in their eyes, so they're more apt to get involved with you in the future.
Of course, waiting means that you're giving other people a chance to break him before you.

ChuckTs's probably right. I wouldn't mind a thread specific to "waiting for a better spot in ring games" though. Sounds like interesting discussion. I don't know how to even lay out the question though.
 
F Paulsson

F Paulsson

euro love
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Total posts
5,799
Awards
1
Chips
1
I do think the post has sparked some great discussion, specifically regarding the fundamentals of poker. TPTK out of position fundamentally is not slow played. Aggression is a key component of poker, but in this hand we have now surrendered the initiative and have become a calling station (at least that is the advice of some). Then there is also the idea that our hero can pick a better spot. If the villain is a true maniac and willing to risk his stack on a pure bluff, then why is it such a crime to fold here and take villains money 3 hands later? The ONLY possible justification is this razor sharp read Emperor has on villain.
I disagree vehemently with you about what constitutes the "fundamentals" of poker. Terms like "aggression," "calling station" and "initiative" are not fundamentals; they're nifty, high-level descriptions of plays based in the actual fundamentals: equity and expected value.

This may sound like a semantical argument, but it really isn't. Surrendering initiative and playing passively is fundamentally correct if it yields the highest expected value. All other things are moot, and will only confuse the situation. It's highly common that people suggest the most aggressive play, because they've been taught that aggressive is the best style. They talk about TAGs here and LAGs there, but all that it comes down to is making the decision that wins the most money in the long run.

Saying that we're surrendering initiative, giving up aggression and just calling down is not a fundamental look at the hand; it's a catch-phrase simplification of a highly complex game.
 
Emperor IX

Emperor IX

Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Joined
May 28, 2007
Total posts
2,974
Chips
0
Widowmaker,

Don't say everyone, I am not convinced either. However, I am convinced we are looking at a results oriented post. When Emperor finally announces the end results, undoubtedly his read was correct and him slow playing TPTK ends up with him taking a good piece of villains stack if not doubling up.

Results oriented? I'm the only one who knows the results so I don't see how anyone else's views can be considered "results oriented". And I KNOW you're not accusing ME of being RO because I've posted many hands that I've won and lost. Most of the time when I post a hand I've won, I do it because I want to confirm that it's not spewy and hopefully spark some good discussion, and when I post a hand I've lost it's to see if I was being spewy or if I had even made a wrong decision, once again sparking good discussion.

My reasoning for posting this hand is if I won, then see above, and if I lost, then see above.

I don't see anything wrong with tagging someone as a maniac. He's been playing a lot of hands and was on a card rush for a bit and it seems to have gotten to his head. He's been aggressive the whole way. If that's not a maniac then I don't know what is.
 
D

Dr_Dick

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Total posts
180
Chips
0
F Paulson,

You can disagree, but you don't have to vehemently disagree :)

I think if we polled 1000 people to list the top five fundamentals of poker I don't think equity or expected value would be listed. True fundamentals would be things like knowing two pair beats one pair and three of a kind beats two pair, etc. Maybe knowing that you can bet, check, fold, raise, that would be fundamental.

Regardless of the semantics you already eluded to, if you truly believe calling and then check/calling the river is the best way to get expected value out of this hand I disagree, but not vehemently. You are either ahead or behind in the hand and based on the hand ranges we put maniac on we are comfortably ahead. Based on this we need to get as much money into the pot as possible so a shove would be appropriate for the largest EV.

Emperor,

I have already stated you have a good read so taking TPTK and slow playing it as if it were a fullhouse is fine. But, based on the posts I am making a read that in the end you won the hand. Maybe my read is incorrect, but just like you had a good read on the villain, I think it is pretty obvious you win the hand. I believe most of the posters have you winning the hand and therefore they couch their posts to reinforce the play.

In other words, had you not reinforced that villain is such a maniac that you feel comfortable smooth calling his flop raise and you feel comfortable enough checking the turn and letting the maniac bet into you, I doubt most posters would be taking the line they have. They are attributing this huge hand range to the villain which then makes it mathematically correct for you to stay in the hand.

Maybe using the term results oriented was not exactly correct, maybe I am just being cautious that some of the input may be less than accurate based on what is being read into villains play.
 
ChuckTs

ChuckTs

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Total posts
13,642
Chips
0
F Paulson,

You can disagree, but you don't have to vehemently disagree :)

I think if we polled 1000 people to list the top five fundamentals of poker I don't think equity or expected value would be listed. True fundamentals would be things like knowing two pair beats one pair and three of a kind beats two pair, etc. Maybe knowing that you can bet, check, fold, raise, that would be fundamental.

Regardless of the semantics you already eluded to, if you truly believe calling and then check/calling the river is the best way to get expected value out of this hand I disagree, but not vehemently. You are either ahead or behind in the hand and based on the hand ranges we put maniac on we are comfortably ahead. Based on this we need to get as much money into the pot as possible so a shove would be appropriate for the largest EV.

umm this post does nothing but support FP's side of the argument by way of showing how wrong yours is. "knowing that two pair beats one pair" isn't one of the fundamentals of poker. It's a rule of poker.


EV doesn't equate to "winning hand, I bet". What if our opponent's range consisted only of bluffs here, none of which would call a turn shove - would shoving then be the highest EV play?
 
D

Dr_Dick

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Total posts
180
Chips
0
Lol, I am in a poker chat room having to define the term "Fundamental".

Google "involving basic facts or principles", "serving as an essential component", "a cardinal rule", "underlying principles".

I said KNOWING the rules is fundamental, not that the rules themselves are fundamental.

I understand EV does not mean "winning hand, I bet", I did not state that...I said based on the hand range (which we know is not all bluffs), I think Emperor should get his money in the pot.
 
S

soonerdel

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Total posts
195
Chips
0
i cant wait to see how this hand played out
 
F Paulsson

F Paulsson

euro love
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Total posts
5,799
Awards
1
Chips
1
Apparently a majority of britons thought Sherlock Holmes wasn't just a fictional character, but that he actually existed.

... Democracy is a lousy way of determining fact.

And the reason I vehemently disagree, as opposed to just slightly so, is because of the implications of thinking of "aggression," "tightness" and whatnot as fundamental. If it were a fundamental principle of poker to be aggressive, it seems to suggest that being passive could never be right. You don't ever abandon a fundamental principle; but since we know that there are for sure situations in poker - and likely more common than many people think - where being passive is by far the winning play, it's easy to demonstrate that these tactics that you hold for fundamental principles are... Tactics.

And the implication of the mistake? It's, for instance, to think that playing aggressive is always right; a false conclusion based on the idea that aggression is a fundamental principle.

As for which hands beat which ones: Trips don't beat two pair in razz. But equity and expected value are still there in all their glory.
 
D

Dr_Dick

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Total posts
180
Chips
0
FP,

I vehemently submit :) that you have taken my statements out of context!

When I use terms like "aggression" and "initiative" as being fundamental it must be taken in the context of the thread...when you only have TPTK, it is fundamental to maintain the initiative and be aggressive. To slow play TPTK like a monster is usually a bad play, giving opponents opportunities to draw out or to put you to a decision because you failed to maintain the initiative.

This is for TPTK, not for when you flopped quads as you are trying to imply that I have suggested by stating, "And the implication of the mistake? It's, for instance, to think that playing aggressive is always right; a false conclusion based on the idea that aggression is a fundamental principle."

I have never stated that playing aggressive is always correct. Aggression is a fundamental aspect of poker and/is normally applied to situations with TPTK. Passing, dribbling, and kicking the ball are all fundamentals of soccer, but you don't have to apply them all at the same time, it would look kinda goofy :)

So..IN CONTEXT, the Emperor and what is being suggested goes against the fundamental way TPTK is normally played. The ONLY justification as stated previously is that he has such a razor sharp read on this guy as being a maniac that it allows Chuck to run his computer program that tells us based on this astronomical hand range that slow playing TPTK is appropriate.

And I am in full support of the conclusion, giving Emperor the full kudos deserved for having such a read.
 
D

Dr_Dick

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Total posts
180
Chips
0
I guess Emperor is too busy discussing/playing Grand Theft Auto IV to post the results :)
 
ChuckTs

ChuckTs

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Total posts
13,642
Chips
0
So..IN CONTEXT, the Emperor and what is being suggested goes against the fundamental way TPTK is normally played. The ONLY justification as stated previously is that he has such a razor sharp read on this guy as being a maniac that it allows Chuck to run his computer program that tells us based on this astronomical hand range that slow playing TPTK is appropriate.

Well it doesn't really go against how TPTK would be played even against an unknown with this board texture. In order to get away from the hand we've got to assume he's basically assume he's got ONLY sets.

Does this not mean anything to you? Or is this just another 'fancy' computer simulation that you'll just ignore because you think that his range is somehow weighted so much towards sets that it doesn't matter?

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 97.273% 97.27% 00.00% 214 0.00 { JJ, 33-22 }
Hand 1: 02.727% 02.73% 00.00% 6 0.00 { AsJs }

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 49.793% 47.93% 01.86% 232 9.00 { JJ, 33-22, KJo }
Hand 1: 50.207% 48.35% 01.86% 234 9.00 { AsJs }

Now tell me what "razor sharp" read you have that makes you think he wouldn't play KJo, or QJo, or JTo, or a bluff this way?

And lol at "astronomical range". I plugged in the top %20 of hands, and a few of those were omitted from the hand groups in the combolator, ie his range is actually tighter here. Even against an unknown this would probably be a stack.
 
D

Dr_Dick

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Total posts
180
Chips
0
Lol...I can play that game too...how about running it this way, I didn't really want to keep in JJ but you did so why not...wow this computer thing is pretty neato. Given he is a "maniac" I bet I can put him on K2s if I really want to as well, maybe J2s or J3s. Hmmm, why are my numbers coming out so much different than yours???

I guess what it all boils down to is not so much the computer, but the range we put our villain on based on the "read" Emperor has that makes him so comfortable that he can slow play TPTK. Given we think our villain is pretty loose, I think it unreasonable to limit him to JJ, 33-22...fact is if he is loose preflop and he is raising post flop and betting the turn, I'm willing to throw a couple of other combinations in the mix.

Board: Jh 3s 2h 2d
Dead:
equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 30.296% 29.22% 01.08% 720 26.50 { AsJs }
Hand 1: 69.704% 68.63% 01.08% 1691 26.50 { KK-JJ, 33-22, A2s, KJs, QJs, J3s-J2s, 42s, 32s, A2o, KJo, QJo, 42o, 32o }
 
Last edited:
blankoblanco

blankoblanco

plays poker on hard mode
Silver Level
Joined
May 16, 2006
Total posts
6,129
Chips
0
oh, as for the results: emp pushed and the other guy folded. he told me on AIM a couple days after this thread was created. i know i'm not the OP but i think it's been long enough =P
 
D

Dr_Dick

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Total posts
180
Chips
0
Thanks for the update Combu...glad Emperor had a good read. I guess we can rerun the computer program and include 85o so we can get the statistics to back up his play :)
 
Top