No Limit Hold 'Em Poker Discussion

[LEWIS540]

Well its obvious you won't answer anything.

I used to a post on an excellent poker chat site and the rule was "Analysis" not "Statements" and you be kicked out of any thread if you refused to give stuff to analyze and instead just kept repeating 'you're wrong' or 'i'm right' without posting anything to compare or discuss. You just devolve into shitfest statements.

Again I am not talking about what a person HITS on the flop or after. You can pretend both those hands held up and the guys calling both missed and it changes NOTHING.

The point you refuse to address even when I ask it 10 times is ' WOULD YOU PLAY THOSE HANDS DIFFERENT PREFLOP IN A WAY THAT WOULD NOT TELL A GOOD PLAYER YOU HAD THAT BIG HAND RANGE, AND IF SO TELL US WHAT YOU WOULD DO DIFFERENT?'

But i give up as I can tell you will never try to answer that as you do not like the answer you would have to give.

Two guys above did provide analysis and the first i was able to counter and show he was giving an example of COOLERS and why that does not count. The other offered an example of someone playing bad and pot committing himself pre flop by calling the big hand preflop with the wrong pot odds.

So no one yet has offered up an example for analysis that holds up despite the fact it is so easy to walk thru a hand in a few minutes. Telling.

Anyway I will move on to others who don't just want to make statements and are into poker analysis and debate.

God you're an idiot.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Went and canned it up at the casino last weekend.

My strategy of only playing the flop fucked me over this time. Bled out. Two good rivers could have netted me a chunk. Ohwell next time.

Ha. Not sure what you mean by "canned it up' exactly tied to the strategy of 'only playing the flop', does that mean you were aggressively seeing every flop no matter how bad the odds were of calling?

I've had times when I play completely non-standard just for the hell of it, so as long as you kept your losses to a minimum, iI wouldn't sweat it.

 

[SamSchmidt]

Ha. Not sure what you mean by "canned it up' exactly tied to the strategy of 'only playing the flop', does that mean you were aggressively seeing every flop no matter how bad the odds were of calling?

I've had times when I play completely non-standard just for the hell of it, so as long as you kept your losses to a minimum, iI wouldn't sweat it.

I just meant i played shitty.

I like to change up my play style, act differently on good hands and bluffs. Especially since alot of the guys at my casino are regulars.

Stoic with sunglasses just doesn't cut it anymore

 

[LEWIS540]

Can someone please explain to me what is happening here?

AA seems to be winning $2million pots, but surely that is impossible?

 

[SaiWa]

Normal scenario with AA. lol. Yes it is normal that your opponent flops perfect.

I would not have played it like Matusow for sure! Might have still gone bust, but most people will know that is not a great flop for AA.

No one is saying AA doesn't lose big pots sometimes. You can post a 1000 instances of AA losing. I can post 1000 instances of AA winning. Means jack shit.

You take a million random samples of AA v a preflop call..........AA will be making a shit ton of money over the sample.

Again, you are wrong.......but if you believe what you are saying fold AA and KK in future because they literally never win big pots.

Don't respond with the same nonsense again please. It's boring and I feel stupider for reading it.

His point wasn't whether you generally make money with AA or not. Anyone would take AA preflop over anything else no questions asked.

His point was that generally speaking AA plays a particular way so you generally the response nets certain reactions though. You bet, raise, 3-bet, 4-bet, 5-bet... You generally close the action with AA. Every once in a while you may call to trap for very specific situations but otherwise you raise until it cannot be raised with AA.

This means with bigger pots pre-flop (multi-raises and/or re-raises) you get action from top holdings (other AA, KK, QQ, AK, and maybe others depending on how crazy loose they are) or medium sized pots (1-2 re-raises at most with decent cards) or small pots (just calls a bet or so with just about anything).

When he's saying AA is going to win a small pot or lose a big one is probably statically correct because if you take all the hands where you have AA against average to shit cards (anything from winning pre-flop and just collecting the blinds to beating these cards down to the wire - small pot) then you probably have a solid high win percentage compared to losing these small pots at the end. Now if you look at only the big pots you've won or lost while you were holding AA then you're looking at multi-players pots and face-offs against all the top cards (KK, QQ, AQ, and maybe JJ) combined along with low pre-flop bets that escalated to the end (meaning the villain had something and followed you to the river). The aggregated odds of winning those is much lower since it's stacked against a lot of combinations.

Think of all the big pots where you had Aces.. You probably didn't win many of them - but still won some. But if you look at all the little pots (which you won't remember) then you won a bunch of them (because you're generally facing off against trash that didn't call you or called without raising or called with the barest of minimums).

 

[LEWIS540]

His point wasn't whether you generally make money with AA or not. Anyone would take AA preflop over anything else no questions asked.

His point was that generally speaking AA plays a particular way so you generally the response nets certain reactions though. You bet, raise, 3-bet, 4-bet, 5-bet... You generally close the action with AA. Every once in a while you may call to trap for very specific situations but otherwise you raise until it cannot be raised with AA.

This means with bigger pots pre-flop (multi-raises and/or re-raises) you get action from top holdings (other AA, KK, QQ, AK, and maybe others depending on how crazy loose they are) or medium sized pots (1-2 re-raises at most with decent cards) or small pots (just calls a bet or so with just about anything).

When he's saying AA is going to win a small pot or lose a big one is probably statically correct because if you take all the hands where you have AA against average to shit cards (anything from winning pre-flop and just collecting the blinds to beating these cards down to the wire - small pot) then you probably have a solid high win percentage compared to losing these small pots at the end. Now if you look at only the big pots you've won or lost while you were holding AA then you're looking at multi-players pots and face-offs against all the top cards (KK, QQ, AQ, and maybe JJ) combined along with low pre-flop bets that escalated to the end (meaning the villain had something and followed you to the river). The aggregated odds of winning those is much lower since it's stacked against a lot of combinations.

Think of all the big pots where you had Aces.. You probably didn't win many of them - but still won some. But if you look at all the little pots (which you won't remember) then you won a bunch of them (because you're generally facing off against trash that didn't call you or called without raising or called with the barest of minimums).

I was being sarcastic but yeah, this is just not true.

I've won more big pots with AA than I have lost with AA.
I've won more medium pots with AA than I have lost with AA.
I've won more small pots with AA than I have lost with AA.


The guy literally said he does not like getting AA and KK.

 

[MikeMcMann]

His point wasn't whether you generally make money with AA or not. Anyone would take AA preflop over anything else no questions asked.

His point was that generally speaking AA plays a particular way so you generally the response nets certain reactions though. You bet, raise, 3-bet, 4-bet, 5-bet... You generally close the action with AA. Every once in a while you may call to trap for very specific situations but otherwise you raise until it cannot be raised with AA.

This means with bigger pots pre-flop (multi-raises and/or re-raises) you get action from top holdings (other AA, KK, QQ, AK, and maybe others depending on how crazy loose they are) or medium sized pots (1-2 re-raises at most with decent cards) or small pots (just calls a bet or so with just about anything).

When he's saying AA is going to win a small pot or lose a big one is probably statically correct because if you take all the hands where you have AA against average to shit cards (anything from winning pre-flop and just collecting the blinds to beating these cards down to the wire - small pot) then you probably have a solid high win percentage compared to losing these small pots at the end. Now if you look at only the big pots you've won or lost while you were holding AA then you're looking at multi-players pots and face-offs against all the top cards (KK, QQ, AQ, and maybe JJ) combined along with low pre-flop bets that escalated to the end (meaning the villain had something and followed you to the river). The aggregated odds of winning those is much lower since it's stacked against a lot of combinations.

Think of all the big pots where you had Aces.. You probably didn't win many of them - but still won some. But if you look at all the little pots (which you won't remember) then you won a bunch of them (because you're generally facing off against trash that didn't call you or called without raising or called with the barest of minimums).

I assume this conversation is about me, as I only see your reply as I put the troll on ignore.

He refused to answer a question so we could debate points. I am all for that in poker discussions knowing there is rarely a perfect answer.

You have largely summed up my position correctly if that was what you were trying to do.

The key to my discussion is that AA (big hands) played OPTIMALLY, will typically be pegged in that range if bet properly (bet, 3 bet) by good players and the ones who call will be calling to suck out or fold.

Who disputes that, if anyone? Bluffs do not change that calculus, and a cagey player who mixes it up is still trying to rep 'Big hand' for that same reason and either he has it or he does not, which again does not impact what i said.

AA is ultimately 1 pair and rarely improves. How big a pot do you even want to be in at River showdown unless you get it in pre flop or at flop at best, in which case if you are called you are usually losing or face a massive draw who knows what you got.

so most of the money you WANT in with AA is preflop. If you make a big bet on the flop and get called or raised you should be nervous even on the most harmless board that your opponent called with pair and hit a set. if they are calling or raising you on the Turn you should really start doubting your AA. and if they are shoving on the River, your pair is really challenged.

So where does the frequent massive pots for AA come from? Preflop raises?

not saying it never happens. We all know it can. but against good players I maintain its typically very hard to extract a big pot and get them to put in big money across flop, turn river, if they cannot even beat one pair and you raised properly with AA preflop.


i provided two videos of which anything that happens post preflop raise is irrelevant. The guys with AA could have won both pots and it would not change my point. They played them properly pre flop and in doing so the opponents basically knew exactly what they were up against. Any of us who got those same AA against those or any other players would have played them the same in that spot if we played them properly and thus signaled to our opponents what we had. If our hands held up, we still signaled to our opponents what we had and therefore were not going to get paid a lot by our opponents in their losses most times.

Please someone analyse that and break down what exactly you disagree with and I will be happy to engage and discuss, but simply making statements like 'you are wrong' with no analysis for poker talk is pointless. Its trolling that quickly destroys discourse because my only reply becomes 'no you are wrong, and stupid', cut, paste, repeat.

 

[SaiWa]

I was being sarcastic but yeah, this is just not true.

I've won more big pots with AA than I have lost with AA.
I've won more medium pots with AA than I have lost with AA.
I've won more small pots with AA than I have lost with AA.


The guy literally said he does not like getting AA and KK.

I don't know. I didn't read everything he posted but that was never the impression I got.
yeah maybe you've won more big pots with AA than you've lost with AA. but maybe u are just lucky. Or maybe you don't remember all the big pots you've lost with AA. it really doesn't matter to others.

and i do not think he said that he does not like getting AA or KK over anything else. He's saying if you look at all the pots you've won with AA, it's either big pots or tiny pots and not much in the middle. It's feast or famine but you lose more often with the big pots. I can buy that logic. What he's saying is that when he gets AA, if the table opponents have shit cards then he's winning a tiny pot and if they have something then he will most likely lose a big pot. It's not farfetched.. i'd have to run the math but it makes sense because he's comparing all the AA hands against winning all the premium hands and multi pot hands. the odds of winning those should be lower than 50% hence on average a player should have lost more than won (per hand).

 

[Fugazy]

I was being sarcastic but yeah, this is just not true.

I've won more big pots with AA than I have lost with AA.
I've won more medium pots with AA than I have lost with AA.
I've won more small pots with AA than I have lost with AA.


The guy literally said he does not like getting AA and KK.

My memory may be rusty, but I think top pair alone will be the winning hand about 70% of the time.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Agree or disagree with the following statements?

1. - AA (big hands) played properly pre flop as it was in both videos will not be bet so big that it forces everyone to fold pre flop thus minimizing value
2. - AA played properly pre flop will not be bet so small that it gets multiple callers thus making it likely to be beat on subsequent streets
3 - in both videos the guys with big hands played them properly

4. - in most instances each of you, as would I, play them pretty much exactly as they did
5. - they got the desired outcome in both instances with one caller
6. - that one caller almost certainly put them on that 'big handr'

7. - it does not matter what the others guys have or if they missed or hit on the flop. That is not the point. The point is they know the opponent has a 'big hand' and are unlikely to pay them much on subsequent streets but are likely to extract a big pot if they suck out.


Where is anywhere in that sequence above where anyone who knows poker a point you would disagree? Where if anywhere in the above could you change anything (pre flop play or the read?) in a way that might provide different outcomes?



(sure bluffs play in as does mixing it up, but that is not MOST times, and we are talking about 'most times')

I look forward to anyone providing analysis and showing where, if anywhere they see any thing different than i posted in those 7 points.

 

[LEWIS540]

I don't know. I didn't read everything he posted but that was never the impression I got.
yeah maybe you've won more big pots with AA than you've lost with AA. but maybe u are just lucky. Or maybe you don't remember all the big pots you've lost with AA. it really doesn't matter to others.

and i do not think he said that he does not like getting AA or KK over anything else. He's saying if you look at all the pots you've won with AA, it's either big pots or tiny pots and not much in the middle. It's feast or famine but you lose more often with the big pots. I can buy that logic. What he's saying is that when he gets AA, if the table opponents have shit cards then he's winning a tiny pot and if they have something then he will most likely lose a big pot. It's not farfetched.. i'd have to run the math but it makes sense because he's comparing all the AA hands against winning all the premium hands and multi pot hands. the odds of winning those should be lower than 50% hence on average a player should have lost more than won (per hand).

Nah, will be the same for anyone who has played 100,000 hands +.

And the opposite is true.... we definitely tend to remember the big hands we lose more than the big hands we’ve won.

 

[Takes Two To Tango]

I don't know about you guys but I like watching final table Poker tournaments on Youtube where they reveal every ones cards. I actually learn a lot from watching it. You can see the patterns that are happening.

You see players fold hands I probably wouldn't fold before. But now it's open my mind. And people doing crazy bluff bets that I probably wouldn't do also, but may try making those attempts depending on the timing. It's very insightful stuff.

 

[LEWIS540]

Playing 2/4 everyone has at least 500

Cut off raises to 15
Button calls
I all in BB with 22.

Flop 227

I check. Cut off bets 35. Button folds. I call.

Turn J.

Check check

River a 6.

I put a little over bet in of 125. Cut off tanks for 2 minutes then open folds KK.


What. The. Fuck. Surely my turn to crack a big pair eh @MikeMcMann

Guy is solid but nothing close to a nit. If anything he normally plays big pairs very strong. Must have given off a tell, but even then KK is a crazy fold, imo.

 

[Fugazy]

Playing 2/4 everyone has at least 500

Cut off raises to 15
Button calls
I all in BB with 22.

Flop 227

I check. Cut off bets 35. Button folds. I call.

Turn J.

Check check

River a 6.

I put a little over bet in of 125. Cut off tanks for 2 minutes then open folds KK.


What. The. Fuck. Surely my turn to crack a big pair eh @MikeMcMann

Guy is solid but nothing close to a nit. If anything he normally plays big pairs very strong. Must have given off a tell, but even then KK is a crazy fold, imo.

Wow that is a good fold.

I would have had a hard time folding, but I can see him putting you on JJ and making a boat. That would have been my guess, I wouldn't have seen the 2-2 as an option.

 

[LEWIS540]

Wow that is a good fold.

I would have had a hard time folding, but I can see him putting you on JJ and making a boat. That would have been my guess, I wouldn't have seen the 2-2 as an option.

Only hands he could possibly put me on are 77, 22, an unlikely JJ or near impossible AA. Either way, despite being right, I have to think KK is a bad fold here, especially after checking the turn, for presumably pot control.

Same guy called a 5 bet all in with AQ suited pre flop about 20 minutes later......and turned a flush against QQ.

 

[Fugazy]

Only hands he could possibly put me on are 77, 22, an unlikely JJ or near impossible AA. Either way, despite being right, I have to think KK is a bad fold here, especially after checking the turn, for presumably pot control.

Same guy called a 5 bet all in with AQ suited pre flop about 20 minutes later......and turned a flush against QQ.

Where I play, people have no idea what to do with JJ, so they play it in the oddest ways. Lots of limpers or calling small raises pre and being super cautious.

 

[Where you at Georges?]

I've played some on Facebook but i stopped. Not realistic as the odds of getting a flush or two pair ect are atleast doubled

 

[LEWIS540]

Where I play, people have no idea what to do with JJ, so they play it in the oddest ways. Lots of limpers or calling small raises pre and being super cautious.

I think if I had JJ in that situation, personally I'd put a decent size raise in pre about 80% of the time, then puke when the 5 bet comes.

 

[Ken Fresno]

Playing 2/4 everyone has at least 500

Cut off raises to 15
Button calls
I all in BB with 22.

Flop 227

I check. Cut off bets 35. Button folds. I call.

Turn J.

Check check

River a 6.

I put a little over bet in of 125. Cut off tanks for 2 minutes then open folds KK.


What. The. Fuck. Surely my turn to crack a big pair eh @MikeMcMann

Guy is solid but nothing close to a nit. If anything he normally plays big pairs very strong. Must have given off a tell, but even then KK is a crazy fold, imo.

Wow that is a good fold.

I would have had a hard time folding, but I can see him putting you on JJ and making a boat. That would have been my guess, I wouldn't have seen the 2-2 as an option.

That's a good fold, but probly not the best spot to polarize urself with that bet.

Also, at smaller stakes there's a couple of subtle tip-offs to made hands. Overbetting, betting exactly half or full pot, betting rounded numbers like 100, 150, 200 vs 110, 155, 180. And obviously triple barreling. So the overbet to 125 looks really strong. Even 130 is better imo.

But I mean, are u overbetting for value with a 7? Or 88,99?

You either called the flop to bluff later with complete air.... and got lost at the 2/4 tables?

Or u have trips or better.

imo, the play there was to bet like u have a 7 or 88/99, and ur either "blocking" the bet from a bigger pair, or trying to get A hi to call light. So like $50-$75. I would probly go with $76 to put the idea of 76 in his head, cuz its a perfect amount and a perfect hand for me to have there. And i like to do shit like that and see what happens. In this spot, the curiosity could be peaked enough to call "just to see".

 

[LEWIS540]

That's a good fold, but probly not the best spot to polarize urself with that bet.

Also, at smaller stakes there's a couple of subtle tip-offs to made hands. Overbetting, betting exactly half or full pot, betting rounded numbers like 100, 150, 200 vs 110, 155, 180. And obviously triple barreling. So the overbet to 125 looks really strong. Even 130 is better imo.

But I mean, are u overbetting for value with a 7? Or 88,99?

You either called the flop to bluff later with complete air.... and got lost at the 2/4 tables?

Or u have trips or better.

imo, the play there was to bet like u have a 7 or 88/99, and ur either "blocking" the bet from a bigger pair, or trying to get A hi to call light. So like $50-$75. I would probly go with $76 to put the idea of 76 in his head, cuz its a perfect amount and a perfect hand for me to have there. And i like to do shit like that and see what happens. In this spot, the curiosity could be peaked enough to call "just to see".

I'm confident 90% of players would call 90% of the time with KK. I would. Literally beats 90% of my range, imo.

The over-bet was like 1.1 pot, so basically just a pot bet.

Personally, I almost always bet 75%+ pot on the river if I'm bluffing or looking for value.