Silly Hand

[guesswest]

Yes, true those are the odds of flopping a flush vs the odds of having made a flush on a flushed board. Think it's about 25-1 factoring the flushed board, from memory so I'm not 100% sure. Point was only that it's an unlikely holding, and I still didn't take for granted that he wasn't holding it, the purpose of the flop bet was to get that information. I'd take 65% regardless, but that simulation as you say is from the flop, I'd certainly have gotten away from the hand had a heart dropped on the turn, so the real PE is much greater factoring the money in for 4th vs 5th street.

[sweetdenny]

Sorry for thinking u bet 30 into 30 pot i misread your post and thought the BB saw the flop as well. As you say now you bet 30 into a 22 pot overbetting it this again just confirms the fact that you didnt have a heart in your hand. You say you dont mind him knowing this so i would have to say you have a flaw in your game under no circumstances should you let an opponent know what you have whilst playing them. So from the flop onward your opponent is now thinking his flush would probably be good and on the turn you confirm it so he is now thinking if he hits he will definatley win it. I agree you want the call knowing he is chasing as you are favourite however i do not know where you get the 7 to 1 favourite to win from. I calculate it as 9 hearts can be drawn from the remaining 45 which comes out at 5 to 1 and he can draw this twice. He is then drawing on a 5 to 1 shot getting 2.5 from the pot which is not a huge bad gamble as you state. I still think though that he may have called the j4 by mistake he may have been playing 2 sites at same time or any number of reasons. Do not get me wrong i think his play was wrong and your play was correct however i can interpret his play as not as bad as initially assumed. Also you say you wish these calls as in the long run it has a positive ev but it is highly unlikely you will get to play him often enough or long enough for the maths to come into play. Ive played enough online play to relise that more often than not they will hit their draws there is just to many chasers on the net now that it is just to risky to play the odds any more.

[dickens1298]

Originally Posted by sweetdenny

Sorry for thinking u bet 30 into 30 pot i misread your post and thought the BB saw the flop as well. As you say now you bet 30 into a 22 pot overbetting it this again just confirms the fact that you didnt have a heart in your hand. You say you dont mind him knowing this so i would have to say you have a flaw in your game under no circumstances should you let an opponent know what you have whilst playing them. So from the flop onward your opponent is now thinking his flush would probably be good and on the turn you confirm it so he is now thinking if he hits he will definatley win it. I agree you want the call knowing he is chasing as you are favourite however i do not know where you get the 7 to 1 favourite to win from. I calculate it as 9 hearts can be drawn from the remaining 45 which comes out at 5 to 1 and he can draw this twice. He is then drawing on a 5 to 1 shot getting 2.5 from the pot which is not a huge bad gamble as you state. I still think though that he may have called the j4 by mistake he may have been playing 2 sites at same time or any number of reasons. Do not get me wrong i think his play was wrong and your play was correct however i can interpret his play as not as bad as initially assumed. Also you say you wish these calls as in the long run it has a positive ev but it is highly unlikely you will get to play him often enough or long enough for the maths to come into play. Ive played enough online play to relise that more often than not they will hit their draws there is just to many chasers on the net now that it is just to risky to play the odds any more.

My 7 to 1 "guess-timate" was based on the probability of not only another player potentially possessing a heart (and thereby limited the number of available hearts to less than 9), but also inclusive of the chance of the poster actually landing a full boat from his two pair.

[dickens1298]

Since so much of poker is predicated on game theory - and ultimately being able to think several moves ahead - I'd still likely either check (and then potentially fold, dependent upon the size of the bet into me), or bet all-in at the flop.

The concern is not what the SB player did, but rather on what he could potentially have done. Personally, if I were the SB player, I would have reraised all-in at the flop. Not because the poster had mentioned that he would have folded under those circumstances, but rather because most players would fold if they weren't holding a heart, and the all-in bet wouldn't be a pure bluff, since there were still a number of outs, with two cards with which to draw a heart. The bet would also place pressure away from the SB player and onto the poster. The problem is that the all-in bet is a very real possibility, and can occur from a somewhat decent player making a demi-bluff and playing the board and the other players to a rank amateur who's just hoping to get lucky on the turn and the river.

Now back to me playing the poster's position....

With that potential demi-bluff facing me, and me without a heart to draw a flush to as I face a hearts flush on the felt, I would have to figure that my two pair is far from unbeatable. I'd figure that there's a very good chance that my raise would be check-raised to all-in, and that my $30 wager MIGHT be a tell that I don't have the flush (I think most of us would likely slowplay a flush). With a check, you could create the impression of a trap. With an all-in bet, you would be applying pressure to the SB player.

As another poster mentioned, the 7-1 odds are only truly applicable if you knew his holding. You allude to the fact that you "knew" he hadn't drawn a flush, but since your information is (obviously) imperfect, there's a distinct chance you'd be wrong. And since you knew that you'd fold if he went all in at the flop (by representing a flush), he would easily have picked off $40 from you if he was canny enough to make that wager.

[guesswest]

Yes 7-1 isn't right, have been cogniscent of it in this thread for the last few posts but didn't bring it up, it was kinda immaterial and I thought it would just complicate things unnecessarily - is just under 5-1 (44 cards not 45) as sweet says but is still more than big enough that it represents huge PE, so it doesn't really matter. Key is that me hitting a boat is irrelevant, since the A10h are already out and don't reduce his drawing cards, both myself and dickens missed that originally.

I don't agree that it's a bad thing him thinking I don't have a heart here. Remember, him chasing a flush draw is hugely advantageous to me, and he's much more likely to chase one if he thinks it's going to be good. Why wouldn't you want to give information to another player about your hand if that information was going to make them more likely to do what you want? I want him to chase, so if I can give him information that persuades him to do so, all the better. Not that I'm convinced that this bet does that anyway, it could easily be a semibluff on a draw myself, etc. I'd probably in fact make a similar sized bet had I flopped a flush here, against this particular player. Always slowplaying big hands and fastplaying small hands is very readable. But anyways, if he reads it as a shutout bet because I don't have a heart, great. I also get what sweet is saying about implicit collusion, but it doesn't really apply here as I'm in a heads up pot, and even if it wasn't heads up, PE is still the same it just has more variance. Simply, the bets I made represented nothing close to pot odds, and 1/2 pot odds (though they were actually more like 1/3 anyway) are miles away from callable. IMO using bet size to create PE against a drawing hand when you're confident in your read is always the right play, the only exception is when a grey area is created at the river that can screw you up, but that's not applicable here as I was all-in at the turn.

The funny thing to me in this whole thread, is if this particular player was reading it, I have a suspicion he'd be looking at it like it was written in a foreign language - I don't honestly think he considered pot odds, what I had, what he was drawing to, any of it, at all.

And RE: dickens, I didn't say I'd fold if he went all-in, I said I'd fold if he doubled me. But yes, point taken, I was prepared to pay $30 to ask a question, in view of the rewards for being able to eliminate certain hands, and it turned out to be a profitable play to do so. My play was for sure tailored to my specific opponent, one I'd been watching for a while, it's not the same play I'd make against any random individual.

It's quite likely I won't play this particular player again it's true, but I will find myself against players just as poor, and way better, and even worse etc. I'll probably eventually play this exact same hand again. Taking PE is always profitable in the long term, that an entrenched fact, and again, the result of this hand was a good one.

[dickens1298]

Originally Posted by guesswest

Yes 7-1 isn't right, have been cogniscent of it in this thread for the last few posts but didn't bring it up, it was kinda immaterial and I thought it would just complicate things unnecessarily - is just under 5-1 (44 cards not 45) as sweet says but is still more than big enough that it represents huge PE, so it doesn't really matter. Key is that me hitting a boat is irrelevant, since the A10h are already out and don't reduce his drawing cards, both myself and dickens missed that originally.

I don't agree that it's a bad thing him thinking I don't have a heart here. Remember, him chasing a flush draw is hugely advantageous to me, and he's much more likely to chase one if he thinks it's going to be good. Why wouldn't you want to give information to another player about your hand if that information was going to make them more likely to do what you want? I want him to chase, so if I can give him information that persuades him to do so, all the better. Not that I'm convinced that this bet does that anyway, it could easily be a semibluff on a draw myself, etc. I'd probably in fact make a similar sized bet had I flopped a flush here, against this particular player. Always slowplaying big hands and fastplaying small hands is very readable. But anyways, if he reads it as a shutout bet because I don't have a heart, great. I also get what sweet is saying about implicit collusion, but it doesn't really apply here as I'm in a heads up pot, and even if it wasn't heads up, PE is still the same it just has more variance. Simply, the bets I made represented nothing close to pot odds, and 1/2 pot odds (though they were actually more like 1/3 anyway) are miles away from callable. IMO using bet size to create PE against a drawing hand when you're confident in your read is always the right play, the only exception is when a grey area is created at the river that can screw you up, but that's not applicable here as I was all-in at the turn.

The funny thing to me in this whole thread, is if this particular player was reading it, I have a suspicion he'd be looking at it like it was written in a foreign language - I don't honestly think he considered pot odds, what I had, what he was drawing to, any of it, at all.

And RE: dickens, I didn't say I'd fold if he went all-in, I said I'd fold if he doubled me. But yes, point taken, I was prepared to pay $30 to ask a question, in view of the rewards for being able to eliminate certain hands, and it turned out to be a profitable play to do so. My play was for sure tailored to my specific opponent, one I'd been watching for a while, it's not the same play I'd make against any random individual.

It's quite likely I won't play this particular player again it's true, but I will find myself against players just as poor, and way better, and even worse etc. I'll probably eventually play this exact same hand again. Taking PE is always profitable in the long term, that an entrenched fact, and again, the result of this hand was a good one.

Yes, taking PE is always profitable in the long term, but you had no idea that you had the edge, since he could have easily flopped a flush - especially with a flush flop on the board. With him holding a potential flush, you were betting into a negative expectation situation, since your only hope of winning the hand was to draw to a full boat.

[tantalos]

Originally Posted by guesswest

Was in a $1/$2 NL Holdem game yesterday. Everyone folds to me in late position and I raise $10 with A10 offsuit. The SB calls, BB folds. Flop comes A107, all hearts

I've been into online Hold'em for over a year (not too long, I guess) but one lesson I've well learned is that in 9 out of 10 times, when I flop 2-pair (holding 2 different hole cards and not one pair), I am going to lose the hand.

I was playing at a 10-seat ring table the other day, and a guy won a heads-up good pot after hitting a straight on the river. The other guy showed us his hole cards (he had flopped a 2-pair) , whining about his bad luck. I told him that rarely had I win a pot,after flopping 2-pair, and advised him to remember this note of mine, each time he flopped 2-pair.

In the next 1.5 hour of playing, a 2-pair flop came up to almost each of us on the table . Every single time the guy who flopped 2-pair was beaten , and everyone on the table was amazed with my earlier comment regarding flopping 2-pair.

I'm not claiming to be the master of online poker, actually I think I'm below average. Furthermore, I'm not claiming that flopping a 2-pair will ALWAYS be beaten - of course not.

However, all of us here in this forum have been long enough into Online Holdem and know that the way cards are dealt are in NO WAY random - I think that they're dealt in a way to make the game more exciting (even if this includes losing from a guy holding 'silly' hands).

Noone has made any comment on one previous message in this thread : "Heads up tourney I get dealt K K first hand. We both start with 1500 in chips. Player against me raises from 30 chips to 120! I re-raise to 300 in chips! He goes all in! I think for a minute could he possibly have pocket Aces??? No way!! I call he turns over 2 4!!! YES!!! He is so done!!! flop comes 2 4 4!!!!". This is one more proof (among thousands we all have, I am sure) that "Random" often loses its meaning at Online Holdem. This specific story stinks - I mean, what are the odds of someone RAISING 2-4 and flopping a full house?

Again, Im not claiming to know everything, neither am I complaining. I enjoy playing Online Holdem, I've made some money and I will go on playing - but when I read this post regarding the 2-pair flop, this whole concept I described you above came into my mind. I've had these thoughts regarding online poker
for quite a while now, and I thought about sharing them with you .

Let me know what you think

[Daffy]

I think it's human nature to remember our "bad beats" vividly...while our "wins" (unless unusually large) are forgotten.

The orginal story here is titled correctly..."a silly hand".

SB had no business calling $190 with the 4h...but he did...and he won.

He won the battle...but I assure you he is losing the war because he is a very bad player.

You don't have to play very long to run into bad players who make runner-runner once...then bust out...it's like hitting a long shot at the track and chasing long shots forever...you are bound to lose.

the dUck

[Skydog]

Originally Posted by guesswest

Yes 7-1 isn't right, have been cogniscent of it in this thread for the last few posts but didn't bring it up, it was kinda immaterial and I thought it would just complicate things unnecessarily - is just under 5-1 (44 cards not 45) as sweet says but is still more than big enough that it represents huge PE, so it doesn't really matter. Key is that me hitting a boat is irrelevant, since the A10h are already out and don't reduce his drawing cards, both myself and dickens missed that originally.

I don't agree that it's a bad thing him thinking I don't have a heart here. Remember, him chasing a flush draw is hugely advantageous to me, and he's much more likely to chase one if he thinks it's going to be good. Why wouldn't you want to give information to another player about your hand if that information was going to make them more likely to do what you want? I want him to chase, so if I can give him information that persuades him to do so, all the better. Not that I'm convinced that this bet does that anyway, it could easily be a semibluff on a draw myself, etc. I'd probably in fact make a similar sized bet had I flopped a flush here, against this particular player. Always slowplaying big hands and fastplaying small hands is very readable. But anyways, if he reads it as a shutout bet because I don't have a heart, great. I also get what sweet is saying about implicit collusion, but it doesn't really apply here as I'm in a heads up pot, and even if it wasn't heads up, PE is still the same it just has more variance. Simply, the bets I made represented nothing close to pot odds, and 1/2 pot odds (though they were actually more like 1/3 anyway) are miles away from callable. IMO using bet size to create PE against a drawing hand when you're confident in your read is always the right play, the only exception is when a grey area is created at the river that can screw you up, but that's not applicable here as I was all-in at the turn.

The funny thing to me in this whole thread, is if this particular player was reading it, I have a suspicion he'd be looking at it like it was written in a foreign language - I don't honestly think he considered pot odds, what I had, what he was drawing to, any of it, at all.

And RE: dickens, I didn't say I'd fold if he went all-in, I said I'd fold if he doubled me. But yes, point taken, I was prepared to pay $30 to ask a question, in view of the rewards for being able to eliminate certain hands, and it turned out to be a profitable play to do so. My play was for sure tailored to my specific opponent, one I'd been watching for a while, it's not the same play I'd make against any random individual.

It's quite likely I won't play this particular player again it's true, but I will find myself against players just as poor, and way better, and even worse etc. I'll probably eventually play this exact same hand again. Taking PE is always profitable in the long term, that an entrenched fact, and again, the result of this hand was a good one.

Why are you continuing to argue your point here? Reading the nonsense replies to your original post you must know you are wasting your time. Most of the replies you've gotten are laughable in their misunderstandings of the game. You would do better posting in a forum where people know poker (like twoplustwo or cardrunners, etc.)?

LOL - just noticed the date of these posts! I came across this post with a search engine...

[guesswest]

Originally Posted by Skydog

LOL - just noticed the date of these posts! I came across this post with a search engine...

The funny thing is I haven't posted on CM in years and I stop by randomly to see that a thread I started is active