A really bizzare hand.....

lazlo

Holdem No Limit $2/$4

Seat 1 : lazlo has $473.12
Seat 2 : videkks has $131.75
Seat 3 : Roosky has $268.38
Seat 4 : blinblan16 has $195.25
Seat 5 : editor84 has $197
Seat 6 : layers1972 has $300
videkks has the button.
Roosky posts small blind.
blinblan16 posted big blind.
layers1972 posted big blind.
lazlo posts big blind and dead small blind.
Dealing Hole Cards.
Seat 1 : lazlo- has 4s Qh
editor84 folded.
layers1972 checked.
lazlo raised $16
videkks folded.
Roosky folded.
blinblan16 folded.
layers1972 called $16
Dealing flop.

3d 4h 9d

layers1972 checked.
lazlo bet $42
layers1972 called $42

Dealing turn.

3d 4h 9d Kh

layers1972 bet $32
lazlo called $32 and raised $377.12 and is All-in
layers1972 called $206 and is All-in

lazlo has 4s Qh
layers1972 has 7h 3h

River.

3d 4h 9d Kh Jc

lazlo has Pair: 4s
layers1972 has Pair: 3s

lazlo wins $605 with Pair: 4s


Now thats a bizarre hand! I was confident that I had the best hand whe hte flop landed, the player was relatively new to the table--I had bee super aggressive for the past 45 mins or so and was well up from my $200 buy-in. The only hands I truly feared in this spot were AA and maybe 99. I sincerely believe I would have encountered a reraise on the flop if he had anything else-other players at the table may have slowplayed smaller hands against me given my freewheeling style of play over the past hour--but his player hadnt been around for that, so I felt confident that my all-in would push him off...once he called my heart sank I truly felt that my hand had been caught in the cookie jar---but to see a 7,3 chasing a flush -- what joy. But a true indication of how loose these tables are...(as am I)

***it was actually this guys first hand.

ChipLdr

I love those ppl who will never ever fold a flush draw no matter how bad the odds. He got attached to the hand and the Kh must of seemed like a sign that he should risk his entire buyin in the hope of another Heart 7 or 3 hitting. Did he reload?

Hope you added him to your buddy list

whatsupdoc?

What site?

fuzzbox

ChipLdr wrote:

I love those ppl who will never ever fold a flush draw no matter how bad the odds. He got attached to the hand and the Kh must of seemed like a sign that he should risk his entire buyin in the hope of another Heart 7 or 3 hitting. Did he reload?

Hope you added him to your buddy list

Its more likely that he added you !!!

And he had odds to call the turn.

cardshark202

If I was villian I would have c/r'd all in on the turn.

lazlo

how could he check raise the turn? He made a paltry stab at the pot and I set him all-in, he certainly did not have the odds to chase 9 outs-I know in actuality he had 14, but even chasing 14 outs for that amount on the turn of one card is unthinkable.

Hectorjelly

lazlo wrote:

how could he check raise the turn? He made a paltry stab at the pot and I set him all-in, he certainly did not have the odds to chase 9 outs-I know in actuality he had 14, but even chasing 14 outs for that amount on the turn of one card is unthinkable.

if by unthinkable you mean reasnable then yes your correct. He will win about 30% of the time and he put in 1/3 of the pot, so he made a small mistake.

cardshark meant that your opponent would of been better chk raising you all in rather than leading then calling all in

lazlo

he would only be a 30% shot if he had a flush draw on the flop............ he got a flush draw on the turn--

there was 129 in the pot-he bets 32, making it 161. I reraise him all-in--he has 206 left. total pot total then is 367. He is paying 206 to win 367 on a draw that is in his mind a nine-outer as I could very well already have two pair or a set so he is really banking on the flush first and foremost, which is an 18% shot at the point he calls that bet.... the very best odds he can hope for if he KNEW what I had is 29%, neither are reasonable calls, especially as his most positive expectation is based on the supposition that I have a pair of 4s. And this was the first stunt of this nature I'd pulled on the table, its true that I'd been aggressive with all kinds of hands but never once did I slam allin in a situation like this... and thats if he'd been watching the damn table--this was his first hand and he called off all of his chips with apx expectation of about 23% getting around 7/4 on his money... I dunno maybe he thought his 3s were good anyway! lol

lazlo

Hectorjelly wrote:

if by unthinkable you mean reasnable then yes your correct. He will win about 30% of the time and he put in 1/3 of the pot, so he made a small mistake.

cardshark meant that your opponent would of been better chk raising you all in rather than leading then calling all in

sorry hector didnt read the last part of your post--i really dont think thats an advisable play for him his position. He didnt want that hand to hit a river if possible and if it was to hit the river after the turn card he wanted to get the odd for his draws--he only caught his flush draw on the turn. he probably called the flop bet suspecting that I had big cards like AK, AQ thinking that he could make a play at me if a trash card rolled off on fourth street. When the King hit on the turn its possible that he thought I hit my King and thus made a small bet hoping that I'd flat call (me anticpating him to bet at me agian on river perhaps)
If I just called that bet I would call giving him excellent odds to draw at the backdoor flush to crack a hand like AK-he probably just thought "screw it" when I set him all in and threw himself to the mercy of the lady luck.

fuzzbox

lazlo wrote:

he would only be a 30% shot if he had a flush draw on the flop............ he got a flush draw on the turn--

there was 129 in the pot-he bets 32, making it 161. I reraise him all-in--he has 206 left. total pot total then is 367. He is paying 206 to win 367 on a draw that is in his mind a nine-outer as I could very well already have two pair or a set so he is really banking on the flush first and foremost, which is an 18% shot at the point he calls that bet.... the very best odds he can hope for if he KNEW what I had is 29%, neither are reasonable calls, especially as his most positive expectation is based on the supposition that I have a pair of 4s. And this was the first stunt of this nature I'd pulled on the table, its true that I'd been aggressive with all kinds of hands but never once did I slam allin in a situation like this... and thats if he'd been watching the damn table--this was his first hand and he called off all of his chips with apx expectation of about 23% getting around 7/4 on his money... I dunno maybe he thought his 3s were good anyway! lol

Maybe he already knew that you were a total lunatic?

The fact that he played badly, does not detract from the reality, that you did.

lazlo

fuzzbox wrote:

Maybe he already knew that you were a total lunatic?

The fact that he played badly, does not detract from the reality, that you did.

I take it that your criteria for good play isnt a players overall profit based on long term strategy, but rather a comparative analysis of hand selection and the betting pattern and how far that deviates from conventional poker wisdom based on a very small sample of hand histories? Different strokes for different folks my friend-I play reckless poker from time to time, but there is always a strong motive for what I do. Personally I find hands such as these entertaining. I could regale you with tales of my slowplayed sets, check-raised draws, or re-draws. Or how at a tough table I waited over an hour before playing a hand of any significance....
I have fun from 1/2 to 3/6 the tables can be run over with bloody minded aggression, occassionally I strike a swing where I'll schlep 500 in 20 mins...but that doesnt matter because lunacy pays off as long as there is reasonable motivation behind it.

Marq

bad beat sticky. Narf!

Waylander

Betting $300 on a pair of fours against a player you have no read on as it is his first hand at the table is bad play in any mans language Lazlo. I can see no reasonable motivation in the way you played that hand.

Ste05

cardshark202 wrote:

If I was villian I would have c/r'd all in on the turn.

If I was the villain I'd have folded pre-flop

lazlo

Marq wrote:

bad beat sticky. Narf!

it wasnt a bad beat.

Iago

Villian doesn't think you have two pair on that board, maybe a set, but unlikely given your betting pattern. There's a much higher chance that you're holding TPTK on that board than anything else, so his call on the turn really isn't that bad.

Personally his turn bet would have worried me in your shoes, he's not betting to steal the pot there with a $32 bet, he wants to get to the river. Could be a blocking move, but I think more often than not he has the K or a set himself and you've just thrown your stack away. His preflop call with that holding could be questioned maybe, but sometimes you have to speculate to accumulate.

Do you think you win a significant enough amount of money to cover the cost of your preflop and flop bets over 100 examples of this hand?

If he had bet $120 on the turn would you have pushed or folded?

lazlo

as I've said 999/AA were hands I feared, however there was sufficient money in the pot on the turn for him to bet hard with either of these hands, in case I was on a draw - I read the 32 as a weak attempt to get his hand to the river with the right odds-if he had pushed ard at me I would have had to give him credit for a hand like a set or AA.

In addition it not a question of how the hand plays 100 times over-firstly because I wont see a flop that often and secondly I don't play Q4 off every time I get it. I do steal lots of blinds and weak preflop pot building bets with this aggressive raising though. And if you get called you're normally able to narrow your oppenents hand down to a small group of possible holdings.

The flop is where the fun begins and if whether I flop something decent or not I'll make a play - I'm already commited and I'm getting better at squirrelling out weakness and pushing people off pots. Ive actively made myself a loose aggressive player - I used to be super tight. Initially I lost quite a lot with this style but I've stuk with it and its paying off--extensive experience in the toughest situations is improving my play dramatically. I cant adopt this style of play so readily at tough table like 5/10--however the fact is playing this way has made my overall decision making better.

fuzzbox

lazlo wrote:

I take it that your criteria for good play isnt a players overall profit based on long term strategy, but rather a comparative analysis of hand selection and the betting pattern and how far that deviates from conventional poker wisdom based on a very small sample of hand histories?

Sorry ... what?

ntlbell

fuzzbox wrote:

Sorry ... what?

Sometimes I wonder why you bother Fuzz.

fuzzbox

ntlbell wrote:

Sometimes I wonder why you bother Fuzz.

Its an illness

ecksor

In addition it not a question of how the hand plays 100 times over-firstly because I wont see a flop that often and secondly I don't play Q4 off every time I get it.

So your criteria for judging whether or not a particular decision is correct or not is ... ?

lazlo

ecksor wrote:

So your criteria for judging whether or not a particular decision is correct or not is ... ?

I don't have a criteria-I know what the conventional criteria is-but I just try and sense whats happening and see if I can ferret out a way of winning the pot/scooping blinds or even realigning by play for the game altogether.

Norwich Fan Rob

someones gonna go busto me thinks

ntlbell

Norwich Fan Rob wrote:

someones gonna go busto me thinks

Depends if he reads the right books or not, mystic meg on "5th sense on 5th st" and "I see beyond the river" are two classic's.

A crystal ball might slow the rot.

ecksor

I don't have a criteria-I know what the conventional criteria is-but I just try and sense whats happening and see if I can ferret out a way of winning the pot/scooping blinds or even realigning by play for the game altogether.

This is completely illogical approach to the game, which is not to say it's a losing system, since intuition will sometimes beat a game of poker. However, intuition doesn't lend itself well to rational analysis or discussion and therefore this thread is pointless.

Hectorjelly

lazlo wrote:

he would only be a 30% shot if he had a flush draw on the flop............ he got a flush draw on the turn--

there was 129 in the pot-he bets 32, making it 161. I reraise him all-in--he has 206 left. total pot total then is 367. He is paying 206 to win 367 on a draw that is in his mind a nine-outer as I could very well already have two pair or a set so he is really banking on the flush first and foremost, which is an 18% shot at the point he calls that bet.... the very best odds he can hope for if he KNEW what I had is 29%, neither are reasonable calls, especially as his most positive expectation is based on the supposition that I have a pair of 4s. And this was the first stunt of this nature I'd pulled on the table, its true that I'd been aggressive with all kinds of hands but never once did I slam allin in a situation like this... and thats if he'd been watching the damn table--this was his first hand and he called off all of his chips with apx expectation of about 23% getting around 7/4 on his money... I dunno maybe he thought his 3s were good anyway! lol

Nothing to do with the play of the hand, but your maths is messed up here. The pot ended at 600, not 367, and since he had to contribute 200 he needs to win 33% of the time.

lazlo

Norwich Fan Rob wrote:

someones gonna go busto me thinks

I bust massive amounts from time to time like I said. I deal with it my game has much bigger swings thanmost peoples-but almost all of my heavy losses have occurred as a result of being absolutely shattered, playing after being awake for 24hrs or playing when I'm emotionally affected by a row with my gf.

So my normal brand of play outside of these conditions is effective-and I am registering healthy profit despite my ridiculously undisciplined cash crapping whilst being completely exhausted.

And relying on your unconsicous isnt Mystic MEg material--ask a golfer, archer pool player or chess player if he is looking into a crytal ball before making his play. Most of them when they play their best are completely zoned out and the game is an extension of them.

lazlo

Hectorjelly wrote:

Nothing to do with the play of the hand, but your maths is messed up here. The pot ended at 600, not 367, and since he had to contribute 200 he needs to win 33% of the time.

no it was only around 600 AFTER he stuck in his remaininng 206....the actual figures there are spot on.

lazlo

ecksor wrote:

This is completely illogical approach to the game, which is not to say it's a losing system, since intuition will sometimes beat a game of poker. However, intuition doesn't lend itself well to rational analysis or discussion and therefore this thread is pointless.

and its not intuition either, analysis is applied but it is secondary to the determining the flow of a hand/game. The first priority you have in any hand is to get a strong read on your opponent. The players with the best reads make for the best poker players-full stop--any monkey can calculate odds in his head in a flash.

Hectorjelly

lazlo wrote:

no it was only around 600 AFTER he stuck in his remaininng 206....the actual figures there are spot on.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

fuzzbox

lazlo wrote:

no it was only around 600 AFTER he stuck in his remaininng 206....the actual figures there are spot on.

Right - so he had to call approx 200 to win 400 ... thus he got approx 2:1.
He had 14 outs. He does not make a big mistake by calling.

You, however, make a big mistake by shoving.

ntlbell

lazlo wrote:

And relying on your unconsicous isnt Mystic MEg material--ask a golfer, archer pool player or chess player if he is looking into a crytal ball before making his play. Most of them when they play their best are completely zoned out and the game is an extension of them.

Well that's me put in my box.

smurph

lazlo wrote:

and its not intuition either, analysis is applied but it is secondary to the determining the flow of a hand/game. The first priority you have in any hand is to get a strong read on your opponent. The players with the best reads make for the best poker players-full stop--any monkey can calculate odds in his head in a flash.

Did he not just come to the table, so eh eh no reads on him.????

ecksor

If they are not logical reads or intuitive reads then they are ... ?

EDIT: Just read smurph's post, guessing reads they are then!

Honestly, I hate to pick on you, people are entitled to play the game however they want, it just strikes me as completely useless to post up a hand for discussion and then not be willing to rationally discuss it.

And relying on your unconsicous isnt Mystic MEg material--ask a golfer, archer pool player or chess player if he is looking into a crytal ball before making his play. Most of them when they play their best are completely zoned out and the game is an extension of them.

Many world class performers in many activities will talk about being in the zone when everything happens without effort or too much conscious thought and I'm sure poker is no different. However, the world class pianist or 10s 100m runner works heavily upon their technique while not performing.

Hectorjelly

lazlo wrote:

any monkey can calculate odds in his head in a flash.

You have repeatadly made elementary mistakes in your posts about the odds, so I wouldnt be so hasty to call other people monkeys

ntlbell

smurph wrote:

Did he not just come to the table, so eh eh no reads on him.????

This is were you apply the 6th sense, are you not reading it at all!!;)

lazlo

Hectorjelly wrote:

You have repeatadly made elementary mistakes in your posts about the odds, so I wouldnt be so hasty to call other people monkeys

I didnt call ayone a monkey---there is no error in the odds in this post--he had 238 in his stack when the turn landed--he bets 32. I set him all in---there is 129 already in the pot---he stands to gain 367 by calling 206. He does not stand to gain 600 hectorjelly. So my 238, his 238 and the 129 all add up to an even 605. But that final sum isnt what the odds are based upon-and once again I didnt call anyone a monkey I just said that it was straightfrward process...

lazlo

ecksor wrote:

If they are not logical reads or intuitive reads then they are ... ?

EDIT: Just read smurph's post, guessing reads they are then!

Honestly, I hate to pick on you, people are entitled to play the game however they want, it just strikes me as completely useless to post up a hand for discussion and then not be willing to rationally discuss it.



Many world class performers in many activities will talk about being in the zone when everything happens without effort or too much conscious thought and I'm sure poker is no different. However, the world class pianist or 10s 100m runner works heavily upon their technique while not performing.

as do I---I read extensively about the game and discuss it on a number of forums as well as stringently revising my own session--that is the bedrock of technique, how you fuse that knowledge to your own personality and feel for the game is what determines an effective a NL player.

ecksor

But you reject the idea of analysing the play of the hand over the long run! Why exactly did you post this thread?

NickyOD

lazlo wrote:

any monkey can calculate odds in his head in a flash.

I like monkeys. They're funny.

Hectorjelly

lazlo wrote:

I didnt call ayone a monkey---there is no error in the odds in this post--he had 238 in his stack when the turn landed--he bets 32. I set him all in---there is 129 already in the pot---he stands to gain 367 by calling 206. He does not stand to gain 600 hectorjelly. So my 238, his 238 and the 129 all add up to an even 605. But that final sum isnt what the odds are based upon-and once again I didnt call anyone a monkey I just said that it was straightfrward process...

Did you read what fuzzbox wrote? Did you read what I wrote? You keep getting it wrong. The odds can be worked out on either what he stands to win, or the final pot. If you do it by the final pot, which is my preference, then you just divide by the amount he had to contribute. In this case he had to put in 200 and the pot ended as 600. This is 1/3 so he needs to win the pot 33% of the time.

Or you can do it the other way and say he had to put in 200 to win the 400 already in there, so he was getting 2:1. Getting 2:1 you need to win the pot 1/3 of the time.

lazlo

ntlbell wrote:

This is were you apply the 6th sense, are you not reading it at all!!;)

That didnt matter-when he bet 32 on the turn it smacked of REAL weakness, there was no way he'd bet that little considering his smallish stack and the size of the pot, even 999 demands a heavy bet-I was pretty sure that he(not knowing me either and me having a pretty firm fix on this bet being a stab) would fold anything less than a pair of Kings here.

lazlo

Hectorjelly wrote:

Did you read what fuzzbox wrote? Did you read what I wrote? You keep getting it wrong. The odds can be worked out on either what he stands to win, or the final pot. If you do it by the final pot, which is my preference, then you just divide by the amount he had to contribute. In this case he had to put in 200 and the pot ended as 600. This is 1/3 so he needs to win the pot 33% of the time.

Or you can do it the other way and say he had to put in 200 to win the 400 already in there, so he was getting 2:1. Getting 2:1 you need to win the pot 1/3 of the time.

He's getting a little less than 2/1---I believe I said earlier that he was getting 7/4---Idont know what we're arguing about at this point. because it works out the same--except his expectation for making his hand was much lower in his head--18% to hit a flush as a save about 28% to make 2 pair or trips or a flush---none of them are worth the call..esp when the flush may be his only save

ecksor

How do you know what was in his head?

lazlo wrote:

I was pretty sure that he(not knowing me either and me having a pretty firm fix on this bet being a stab) would fold anything less than a pair of Kings here.

Waylander

lazlo wrote:

That didnt matter-when he bet 32 on the turn it smacked of REAL weakness, there was no way he'd bet that little considering his smallish stack and the size of the pot, even 999 demands a heavy bet-I was pretty sure that he(not knowing me either and me having a pretty firm fix on this bet being a stab) would fold anything less than a pair of Kings here.

You were wrong. He called with much less then a pair of Kings. keep relying on that intuition!

Iago

lazlo wrote:

He's getting a little less than 2/1---I believe I said earlier that he was getting 7/4---Idont know what we're arguing about at this point. because it works out the same--except his expectation for making his hand was much lower in his head--18% to hit a flush as a save about 28% to make 2 pair or trips or a flush---none of them are worth the call..esp when the flush may be his only save

you're basing your analysis on the result, rather on the fact that more often than not in this spot you'll be way behind going to the river.

His turn bet will be a hand that's ahead of you far more often than a hand that's behind you, just because you won this time doesn't mean you played the hand well.

MrPillowTalk

Im all for aggresive play but you butchered this one, I'll show you the line you should have taken on the hand:

Pre flop - "I have Q4 off, I fold"

Post flop - once you have gotten to the flop which you should never have been in you should be thinking "Oh dear what a brain fart theat pre flop raise was now I am caught and have to go away" instead of "woohoo I have no reads on villain and have second pair with little redraw chances, lets play for stacks baby!"

lazlo

ecksor wrote:

How do you know what was in his head?

I didnt know exactly what was in his head my experience of most players at 2/4---they throw away marginal hands, they like all of their decisions to be easy....in addition it was his first hand--who wants to go broke on their first hand especially if its a hand like KJ or A9? Most of these players toss such hands in the muckwhen being hammered at in such a fashion. Move up a level or two and a pocket pair of 8s might just see your caper and call your bluff.

Now I'm not saying there wasn't a chance of him calling a marginal pair--I'm just saying that my play was based upon the trend of most 2/4 NL players I've seen and I thought the odds were that he would lay his hand down.

I was simply applying the style of play I've found effective at a given level, information gained in the hand was wedded to the style to make the play thats all.

lazlo

Iago wrote:

you're basing your analysis on the result, rather on the fact that more often than not in this spot you'll be way behind going to the river.

His turn bet will be a hand that's ahead of you far more often than a hand that's behind you, just because you won this time doesn't mean you played the hand well.

I'm aware his turn bet is probably of a hand stronger than mine-the point is I was fairly certin that he'd fold the damn hand to an allin.

And Mr PillowTlk is wasnt in the blinds-I was in late pos. one off the button and I had posted dead blinds so I had position on him, theres not a hope of me trying to execute that play if I didnt have position on him.

Ste05

lazlo wrote:

That didnt matter-when he bet 32 on the turn it smacked of REAL weakness, there was no way he'd bet that little considering his smallish stack and the size of the pot.

Without a read of any description, could you not equally say that this was a bet that smacked of him begging to be called. I'm kinda in ecksor's camp here, about the relevance of the thread for discussion, to post a hand on a forum for discussion, based on instinct is pretty meaningless, apart from a BB/Brag post,

I also agree with lazlo, as I'm sure most here do, that a person's game can and should be modified from standard ABC Poker, mine certainly has, but because this hand was against an unknown there is possibly some merit in discussing it, but TBH, HJ, Fuzz etc. are correct, to make these plays against an unknown (first hander) opponent is just reckless TBH. He could have had ANYTHING... make these plays all day long, against known opponents but against an unknown he could play any 2 in any way, we just don't know..

EDIT: Just saw Lazlo's reply above about basing it on the Standard 2/4 player. So no need to reply, but I personally wouldn't like to play for my stack based on what generally a weak lead on the turn means, but then I'm a piece of granite

MrPillowTalk

layers dead blind put me off post edited to reflect this.