Roll out the barrel

fuzzbox · 13-07-2006 8:49am #1

So I decide that I havent been firing enough 2nd barrels .... so ...

Hand 1 -
Party 3/6 - 6-max
I have 1k
Villain who I have notes on has 700. He is 25/18 and v.aggro on the button. He is also a floater.

Preflop
Folded to villain on the button who makes it 21, loose moron in the blinds calls, I make it 70 with 33, only button calls.

Flop (165)
9h 8d 4h
I bet 125, villain calls

Turn (415)
2s
I bet 500 (setting villain in)

Hand 2 -
loose moron from hand above is villain
History -
Hand 1 - villain from hand above raises, loosey calls, flop Q32r, loosey check/villain pot/loosey calls, turn 9o, loosey check/villain pot/loosey call, river 9, check/check .... loosey wins with 43o Vs villains 64s. Sweet.

Hand 2 - 3-handed, I open raise with J9o from button, loosey calls in BB, flop 962r, check/I pot/he minraise/I call, turn Q, he bet small/I call, river 3, he bet small/I call ... he shows A8o and MHIG

Stacks -
Loosey has 550, I have 1200

Preflop
one limper, then villain makes it 32 on the button, loosey calls in SB, I make it 125 in the BB with KsJs, loosey is the only caller.

Flop (300ish)
332r,
he checks, and I just move him in for 450.

Comments?

Gholimoli · 13-07-2006 9:08am

Hand 1:
Can villain fold TP any kicker or TT here .based on his other hands I doubt he would fold anything from JJ+ here .also can he fold any pair at all.
What I mean is he a total more on like your other dude that calls bets with 34 to show down?
If he is then I don’t like it,if you know he can lay hands down then its fine .

Hand 2:
I don’t like at all.he will call you with A high often enough.
He is your typical unpredictable maniac who doesn’t likes to be taken off a hand.
That flop doesn’t look like it hit you and if he has 2 brain cells in his brain he will know that there is no hand that you could possibly play that way but a bluff.
He has called a raise and then again a reraise so A high is very likely and I do see him calling you with just that.

fuzzbox · 13-07-2006 9:29am

Gholi
I would play hand 2 the same if I had a big pair. Why do you think I would only bluff this way?

Hand 1 - I think villain is most often floating, perhaps with a medium pair. I think he can fold it to a 2nd barrel fairly often. His most likely hand is a medium pair.

Gholimoli · 13-07-2006 9:41am

fuzzbox wrote:

Gholi
I would play hand 2 the same if I had a big pair. Why do you think I would only bluff this way?

Hand 1 - I think villain is most often floating, perhaps with a medium pair. I think he can fold it to a 2nd barrel fairly often. His most likely hand is a medium pair.

Hand 2:
That’s a very good flop for a big pair for example AA,KK,QQ I don’t see why you would want to make 450 bet in to 300 pot with a big pair?
The higher the pair the less chance of an over pair .
Would you really bet this way if you have AA,KK for example?
If you would I think there is too much value being missed .

fuzzbox · 13-07-2006 10:04am

Gholimoli wrote:

Hand 2:
That’s a very good flop for a big pair for example AA,KK,QQ I don’t see why you would want to make 450 bet in to 300 pot with a big pair?
The higher the pair the less chance of an over pair .
Would you really bet this way if you have AA,KK for example?
If you would I think there is too much value being missed .

Why do you think there is value being missed?

Betting 200 is pretty much the same as betting 450 here. The pot is 300 and he only has 420 or whatever, left. Am I gonna go 200, then 220? Do you think he is more likely to call with 88 this way?

I think he either calls it all off with whatever he has, or he folds.

Besides - in this instance, I would like him to fold 66/77/88/etc, so if he will fold them to my shove, then thats the best play.

I dont get you - either this play is good because he folds often (like you said), or its bad because he calls with Ax and 88/77 ... in which case the play is good with AA/KK.

How can there be a problem with both? Its one or the other.

Gholimoli · 13-07-2006 10:17am

fuzzbox wrote:

Why do you think there is value being missed?

Betting 200 is pretty much the same as betting 450 here. The pot is 300 and he only has 420 or whatever, left. Am I gonna go 200, then 220? Do you think he is more likely to call with 88 this way?

I think he either calls it all off with whatever he has, or he folds.

Besides - in this instance, I would like him to fold 66/77/88/etc, so if he will fold them to my shove, then thats the best play.

I dont get you - either this play is good because he folds often (like you said), or its bad because he calls with Ax and 88/77 ... in which case the play is good with AA/KK.

How can there be a problem with both? Its one or the other.

We are talking two different scenarios here Fuzz and we want two different outcomes your saying you play them both the same way which dosent make much sense :

1.when you actually have the goods:
in this case you want him to call and not fold. betting 450 in to a 300 pot is not good when you have two more street of betting and can break down the remaining 450 he has over the two street.
Of course a 200 and a 250 bet is better than a 450 bet in this case.

2.the actual scenario here where you have nothing and you want him to fold.
In this case the 450 bet puts maximum pressure on him which often results in most people folding based on how the hand has been played so far.
As you said here you want him to fold the 88,77 and the A high hands but in scenario one you don’t want him to fold these hands that’s why they shouldn’t be played the same way.
Now against this particular opponent that has shown a willingness to call almost with anything and does not like to be pushed off a hand then I think pushing when you have it could actually work because chances are that he will call you and that’s exactly why its not good when you don’t have it.
Either way the two scenarios should be played the same way against this opponent and in general.

fuzzbox · 13-07-2006 10:22am

Gholi.
I realise that there are two scenarios.

My point to you was .....

If villain is likely to call my push with Ax/some pair, then pushing with AA/KK is GOOD, and pushing with KJ is BAD
If villain is likely to fold those same hands to a push, then pushing with AA/KK is BAD, and pushing with KJ is GOOD.

You made it sound that .... villain will call me with Ax/99/88/etc v.often, so pushing with KJ is BAD .... yet pushing with AA/KK loses value !!!!!????

Furthermore, I believe, that based on the size of the pot, and the particulars of the flop, that villain will either go for his stack, or he wont. I dont think you need to do tickly bets on this flop with these stacks. I just shove it in there and see what happens ... if I am gonna bet at all.

ligger · 13-07-2006 10:23am

Hand 2 villan calls and turns of 32 o/s.. And says "Luv it when a plan comes together"

fuzzbox · 13-07-2006 10:26am

ligger wrote:

Hand 2 villan calls and turns of 32 o/s.. And says "Luv it when a plan comes together"

Naaah ... they both FLAG !!!

ligger · 13-07-2006 10:29am

I knew that would catch on ...

Gholimoli · 13-07-2006 10:37am

fuzzbox wrote:

Gholi.
I realise that there are two scenarios.

My point to you was .....

If villain is likely to call my push with Ax/some pair, then pushing with AA/KK is GOOD, and pushing with KJ is BAD
If villain is likely to fold those same hands to a push, then pushing with AA/KK is BAD, and pushing with KJ is GOOD.

You made it sound that .... villain will call me with Ax/99/88/etc v.often, so pushing with KJ is BAD .... yet pushing with AA/KK loses value !!!!!????

Furthermore, I believe, that based on the size of the pot, and the particulars of the flop, that villain will either go for his stack, or he wont. I dont think you need to do tickly bets on this flop with these stacks. I just shove it in there and see what happens ... if I am gonna bet at all.

Fuzz,
Correct me if im wrong,
but did you not say that you would play the hand the same way with a high pair?
if you do realize these are two different situations then you need to realize you should play them differently and if you do then why did you say you play them the same way?

Also in the case that you do have them then there is nothing wrong with “ticklish” bets and its called building the pot.
Your saying he will either play for his stack or not and its not as simple as that at all.
If he is going to call 450 then he will deffo call a 200 bet and his remaining stack on the following streets but the reveres is not true and you can’t say because he is willing to call a 200 bet then he will also call a 450 bet.
The point is you will lose nothing with a 200 bet(as you will get the rest of it after he feels his pot committed ) but there is good chance he may not pay the 450 at once.

fuzzbox · 13-07-2006 10:41am

Gholi,
If I bluff with big bets and value bet with small bets, then I am really quite easy to play against, am I not?

If I do the same thing with a big hand and a bluff/semi-bluff, then I am much harder to play, am I not?

Also - my whole point was that you said that my bet was bad with KJ because he will call with pairs and Ax, but that if I did this with AA/KK that my bet would also be bad because I would lose value.

How can both of these items be true at the same time?

Gholimoli · 13-07-2006 10:56am

fuzzbox wrote:

Gholi,
If I bluff with big bets and value bet with small bets, then I am really quite easy to play against, am I not?

If I do the same thing with a big hand and a bluff/semi-bluff, then I am much harder to play, am I not?

Also - my whole point was that you said that my bet was bad with KJ because he will call with pairs and Ax, but that if I did this with AA/KK that my bet would also be bad because I would lose value.

How can both of these items be true at the same time?

Fuzz,
My whole point was that you said you play them the same way and i said it was wrong to play them both the same way because playing them the same way often results in the same way but you want different results for the 2 different situations.

Now in the case that you do have them i feel you can suck them in with smaller bets building the pot gradually rather than one big go like that.
Now if you want to mix up your game why not make your value bets smaller to match your bluffs as oppose to making your bluffs bigger to match the size of your value bets. The advantage of this is because ppl generally value bet more than they bluff (and i assume you want to get called when you value bet) its much easier getting called on smaller bets than big bets.

Ste05 · 13-07-2006 12:39pm

Gholimoli wrote:

Fuzz,
My whole point was that you said you play them the same way and i said it was wrong to play them both the same way because playing them the same way often results in the same way but you want different results for the 2 different situations.

Gholi, if you don't play them both the same way then after a very short time your bluffs will be picked off with ease and your Value bets will never get called. Serious -EV.

Gholimoli wrote:

Now in the case that you do have them i feel you can suck them in with smaller bets building the pot gradually rather than one big go like that.
Now if you want to mix up your game why not make your value bets smaller to match your bluffs as oppose to making your bluffs bigger to match the size of your value bets. The advantage of this is because ppl generally value bet more than they bluff (and i assume you want to get called when you value bet) its much easier getting called on smaller bets than big bets.

And this is pretty confusing, are you not just saying the same thing, i.e. match your Value bets with your bluffs bets, (i.e. play them the same way) but you are just advocating making the bets smaller. As you say people are more likely to call smaller bets, hence your bluffs will work less (-EV) and your Value bets will be getting called but for a lesser amount, hence you will be losing Value.

I'm all for risking the minimum to win Pots, but at times Stack sizes dictate the size of a bet, be it a value bet or a bluff, in the case above, any bet would look like it's pot committing Fuzz, so either way surely you'll just push regardless, if you bet 200 and are called are you folding on the Turn/River or are you firing the last 220 into what is now a huge pot and expecting him to fold??

Or do you just check the flop??

Gholimoli · 13-07-2006 2:17pm

Ste05 wrote:

Gholi, if you don't play them both the same way then after a very short time your bluffs will be picked off with ease and your Value bets will never get called. Serious -EV.

And this is pretty confusing, are you not just saying the same thing, i.e. match your Value bets with your bluffs bets, (i.e. play them the same way) but you are just advocating making the bets smaller. As you say people are more likely to call smaller bets, hence your bluffs will work less (-EV) and your Value bets will be getting called but for a lesser amount, hence you will be losing Value.

I'm all for risking the minimum to win Pots, but at times Stack sizes dictate the size of a bet, be it a value bet or a bluff, in the case above, any bet would look like it's pot committing Fuzz, so either way surely you'll just push regardless, if you bet 200 and are called are you folding on the Turn/River or are you firing the last 220 into what is now a huge pot and expecting him to fold??

Or do you just check the flop??

if you read my original reply i said i dont like the play against this particular opponent who is likely to call you with Ax bla bla .i also said betting 450 in to 300 pot on 223 board looks like a bluff.

fuzz then said he would play high pair the same way(in general and not against this villain) and i said your losing value as ppl are more likely to fold to a 450 bet than a 200 bet.

The point is we should not generally play the hands the same way because we want different results from them (in one case we want a call ad in the other we want a fold) and its a bit absurd to believe that the same play will get us two different results and each time it would be the result we want.

i understand the concept of mixing up your game but that does not mean you have to do everything the same way. all it means is that from time to time you throw in something different from your NORMAL ROUTINE to keep opponents guessing and showing them that there is a CHANCE of you acting the same way with a different hand rather than the obvious hand that the action suggests.
Big bets should generally indicate big hands and are generally associated with big hands. Smaller bets are for weaker hands and are generally associated with them and that’s perfectly fine. all you need to do is make sure that is not the case 100% of the time but its perfectly ok if it’s the case 80% of the time.

Also what you’re saying about value betting for less amount or bluffing for a higher amount to increase your fold equity does not apply here.
In the case of having the goods, you have two more streets to bet on so gradually building the pots and sucking villain in bi by bit for his entire stack is pretty standard.
Also if he is going to fold to a 450 bet do you not think he will fold to a 250 bet?

Bandana boy · 13-07-2006 2:22pm

G man your forgetting that when your bluffing your reading him for AK and when your pushing with AA your reading him for QQ

Gholimoli · 13-07-2006 2:30pm

Bandana boy wrote:

G man your forgetting that when your bluffing your reading him for AK and when your pushing with AA your reading him for QQ

im totally confused as to how this comment fits in to the conversation?

fuzzbox · 13-07-2006 2:34pm

Results:
In case anybody missed it .... villains in both hands folded.

Ste05 · 13-07-2006 2:45pm

Gholimoli wrote:

if you read my original reply i said i dont like the play against this particular opponent who is likely to call you with Ax bla bla .i also said betting 450 in to 300 pot on 223 board looks like a bluff.

fuzz then said he would play high pair the same way(in general and not against this villain) and i said your losing value as ppl are more likely to fold to a 450 bet than a 200 bet.

But as Fuzz pointed out above, this is complete contradiction, if he'll call with Ax, then you should push with your big hands. And if you also will push with your big hands here, you also have no option but to do the same with your bluffs, you MUST play them the same for your bluffs to work and your Value bets to be called. I'm not commenting on the individual play, just on the concept behind the debate that developed. Again if you think that a bluff has Negative Expectation then don't do it...

Gholimoli wrote:

The point is we should not generally play the hands the same way because we want different results from them (in one case we want a call ad in the other we want a fold) and its a bit absurd to believe that the same play will get us two different results and each time it would be the result we want.

Again I'm lost as to what you mean, as I'm sure you know, results are meaningless, all that matters is that the play was consistent and +EV, you need to play your big hands and your bluffs/semi-bluffs the same way. I'll repeat again Results are irrelevant. It's whether the push has Positive or Negative Expectation.

Gholimoli wrote:

i understand the concept of mixing up your game but that does not mean you have to do everything the same way. all it means is that from time to time you throw in something different from your NORMAL ROUTINE to keep opponents guessing and showing them that there is a CHANCE of you acting the same way with a different hand rather than the obvious hand that the action suggests.

There are generally 2 ways to mix up your game, (1) to play different hands the same way, i.e. KJs and AA - i.e. as in this scenario, or (2) to play the same hands differently, i.e. play AA passively or weakly much as you would with a draw.

The whole aim is to keep your opponents guessing, so they don't know if you're bluffing or Value betting, and they don't know if you're drawing or getting tricky trappy...

Obviously the concept in (1) above is what we're discussing here and I think we're in agreement on this point. Therefore I don't think I need to say any more here.

Gholimoli wrote:

Big bets should generally indicate big hands and are generally associated with big hands. Smaller bets are for weaker hands and are generally associated with them and that’s perfectly fine. all you need to do is make sure that is not the case 100% of the time but its perfectly ok if it’s the case 80% of the time.

Yes ...... this is just basic stuff, it's just recognising the table image you have developed and exploiting it, if your big bets generally mean a big hand then you must bet big when you bluff.... and Vice Versa, if a small bet looks weak then Value bet smaller, again it's all just recognising your table image.

Gholimoli wrote:

Also what you’re saying about value betting for less amount or bluffing for a higher amount to increase your fold equity does not apply here.

Where did I say anything like this??

Gholimoli wrote:

In the case of having the goods, you have two more streets to bet on so gradually building the pots and sucking villain in bi by bit for his entire stack is pretty standard.
Also if he is going to fold to a 450 bet do you not think he will fold to a 250 bet?

But why bother getting tricky if there's a good chance he'll call an all in now?? Again it's all just Expectation and exploiting your table image.

Bandana boy · 13-07-2006 2:51pm

Gholimoli wrote:

im totally confused as to how this comment fits in to the conversation?

just my brand of sarcastic silly comment on how the same move can work both ways

Gholimoli · 13-07-2006 3:17pm

First of all we need to establish whether we are talking in general or against this particular opponent in this particular hand:

1) Against this particular opponent:
he has a wide and stupid calling range so don’t bluff that big as its likely to et called by Ax which your behind .

now a hand has not happened against this particular opponent where we have AA ,KK on a 223 board where the pot is 300 with 450 behind. if it does happen against him then shove it but since it hasn’t happened then we are talking in general and in that case:

Don’t do it. and gradually building the pot is better and has a higher expectation .
You also made a comment like “you need to play your big hands and your bluffs/semi-bluffs the same way” .
You seem to have heard the concept but got lost in what it means.
To play your big hands and your bluffs/semi bluffs the same way is not only ridiculous and who ever says other wise does not know what they are talking about.
As I said you need to play SMALL % of your bluffs like your big hands and SMALL percentage of your big hands like your bluffs and that’s what the concept is trying to say.
To say in general we should bet 450 in to pot of 300 when holding AA,KK on a 223 board is my standard play(im not going to discuss whether this is good or bad) and seen as I do this as standard then I need to be bluffing the same way as standard is rubbish .

You also made another comment “Again I'm lost as to what you mean, as I'm sure you know, results are meaningless, all that matters is that the play was consistent and +EV, you need to play your big hands and your bluffs/semi-bluffs the same way. I'll repeat again Results are irrelevant. It's whether the push has Positive or Negative Expectation. “

Again you use the term well but don’t seem to understand its meaning.
You talk of expectation but with out results you have no expectation so how could results be irrelevant?
What gives you a positive or negative expectation is the likely hood of the RESULT leaning one way or another.
Expectation is the weighted average of a probability distribution.
In simple terms it’s the weighted average of all the random values something can take.
Those random values are you results and with out them you have no probability distribution and with out that it’s meaning less to talk about expectation.
We play a round with all these fancy terms and make conclusions but those conclusions are often not correct when we miss the actual meaning of the underlying concepts.
Do you still think results are irrelevant ?

Ste05 · 13-07-2006 3:50pm

LOL, Gholi, you should really be a Politician, you are quite the debater.

Firstly I think I made it quite clear from my posts what exactly I was talking about:

Ste05 wrote:

I'm not commenting on the individual play, just on the concept behind the debate that developed. Again if you think that a bluff has Negative Expectation then don't do it...

I was responding to each of your discreet points, and you seem to have just posted a very general reply, you seem to have developed a habit of mis-quoting people and putting different angles on a discussion or point to suit your argument, you also seem to aviod answering specific questions put to you that can't be answered without admitting that maybe the other person is correct.

It's fine to explain broad concepts and normally you are correct, but unfortunately they are irrelevant (or at least it's not necessary to explain them) to the discreet point being discussed. I never said anything about measuring Expectation without results, what I said is that the results of an action are irrelevant, i.e. Whether this precise time he had AA or called with A6, etc. it's what the person will do 100 times out of 100. You then just explained how you measure the expectation of a move (i.e. I assumed most readers would already know this, and I didn't feel the need to explain it again. You can certainly assume that I understand it :rolleyes: )

As I pointed out above, I was responding to each of your individual points, if you'd like to do the same I'll certainly continue in the debate, but possibly the first point to start is to assume that I, at least, have a basic understanding of EV, it's calculation and Poker Theory and then maybe we can have a meaningful discussion.

I can see this one going around in circles again, so I'll bow out here, unless you want to answer any of the specific points, in context, that I raised.

Gholimoli · 13-07-2006 4:23pm

Ste05 wrote:

LOL, Gholi, you should really be a Politician, you are quite the debater.
Firstly I think I made it quite clear from my posts what exactly I was talking about:

I was responding to each of your discreet points, and you seem to have just posted a very general reply, you seem to have developed a habit of mis-quoting people and putting different angles on a discussion or point to suit your argument, you also seem to aviod answering specific questions put to you that can't be answered without admitting that maybe the other person is correct.

It's fine to explain broad concepts and normally you are correct, but unfortunately they are irrelevant (or at least it's not necessary to explain them) to the discreet point being discussed. I never said anything about measuring Expectation without results, what I said is that the results of an action are irrelevant, i.e. Whether this precise time he had AA or called with A6, etc. it's what the person will do 100 times out of 100. You then just explained how you measure the expectation of a move (i.e. I assumed most readers would already know this, and I didn't feel the need to explain it again. You can certainly assume that I understand it :rolleyes: )

As I pointed out above, I was responding to each of your individual points, if you'd like to do the same I'll certainly continue in the debate, but possibly the first point to start is to assume that I, at least, have a basic understanding of EV, it's calculation and Poker Theory and then maybe we can have a meaningful discussion.

I can see this one going around in circles again, so I'll bow out here, unless you want to answer any of the specific points, in context, that I raised.

Ste,
I have no problem answering specific questions at all .i don’t like to admit im wrong (obviously) but if I feel im wrong I will admit it so im not avoiding or trying to avoid specific questions on purpose.
I also don’t have a habit of misquoting people. What I said was from your posts earlier on and can be seen on the thread. now I do have the disadvantage of not having English as my first language(as its pretty evident from my posts) so if there has been any misunderstanding like that its more likely the cause of it.
As for your understanding of EV, its actually a broad enough subject and probability is not as basic as you make it sound and can easily be misinterpreted.

What you said in your post was results are irrelevant and all that matters is EV.
Now I don’t about you but I can assure you that any one who understands EV will find this comment to be untrue as there is a direct relationship between results and EV.
Now if you don understand this then I fail to get the point of you not only using this comment but emphasising on it that results are irrelevant.
I remember talking about results saying depending whether we have a good hand or a bad hand we want different results so we the two cases should be played differently and then you made your comment about results being irrelevant.
Now just so I have no excuse and cant use my poor English as an excuse ,I will be more than happy to answer all your specific questions to the best of my knowledge if you would be kind enough list all your specific question in order in reply to this post.

Ste05 · 13-07-2006 6:03pm

Gholimoli wrote:

Ste,
I have no problem answering specific questions at all .i don’t like to admit im wrong (obviously) but if I feel im wrong I will admit it so im not avoiding or trying to avoid specific questions on purpose.
I also don’t have a habit of misquoting people. What I said was from your posts earlier on and can be seen on the thread. now I do have the disadvantage of not having English as my first language(as its pretty evident from my posts) so if there has been any misunderstanding like that its more likely the cause of it.

Well I certainly wouldn't think your command of the English language is at fault, I think your English is excellent and certainly well above the average written here on boards.ie. It's probably just the same problem we all suffer from, in just jumping in with both feet, and sticking to your guns. I often do it myself, and am quite possibly doing it right here....

I can only imagine how good a poster you'd be in your mother tongue if the quality of your posts in your second language is anything to go by....

Gholimoli wrote:

As for your understanding of EV, its actually a broad enough subject and probability is not as basic as you make it sound and can easily be misinterpreted.

It certainly is a broad topic, but to put your mind at ease, I can confirm that in my degree I studied, many mathematical subjects, including Statistics and topics such as Probability Distributions, Standard Deviation, Variance, etc. etc. are all well covered within that. So on top of the knowledge of EV I've picked up over the years playing and studying Poker, I do indeed understand the concepts. Although your posts are certainly helpful for other readers that may not have such a background and to elaborate on points made by others, but please read my posts as though I have a knowledge of such matters.

Gholimoli wrote:

What you said in your post was results are irrelevant and all that matters is EV.
Now I don’t about you but I can assure you that any one who understands EV will find this comment to be untrue as there is a direct relationship between results and EV.

Maybe I didn't post it correctly, but what I meant was that this exact time the actual results of the Push/move aren't relevant. What is relevant (as you said in other terms) is that if you make the move 1,000,000 times against the same opponent, that the average result over these 1,000,000 times will yield a Profit. i.e. he will fold or call (which ever result you expect to happen) enough times to make the move profitable. And therefore +EV

However I did make the statement that "if you think that a bluff has Negative Expectation then don't do it..." so if as you say below you think that too often the bluff will be called then it's quite a simple decision. i.e. Don't attempt it at all, or if a smaller bluff has a higher EV then do that, etc. etc. etc.

Gholimoli wrote:

I remember talking about results saying depending whether we have a good hand or a bad hand we want different results so we the two cases should be played differently and then you made your comment about results being irrelevant.

And this is completely correct and I'm not disputing it in anyway. But what was discussed was that in order for your bluffs to work you have to make the opponent think that we actually have a big hand. If we play AA the same way, then our bluff is believable, if we wouldn't then it's not believable and hence shouldn't work. And obviously the hand we have and situation we find ourselves in will dictate how we play it. With every hand we play we want different results, we might want to get called to build a pot, we may think a bluff will work in a particular situation and so might try one, we may want to get all of someone's chips in the middle, and obviously we play our hand accordingly.

I don't think I said, or at the very least, I certainly didn't mean that we have to play all our hands the exact same way, what I was talking about is that we have to play the hand we are representing this way. i.e. the story we are telling has to make sense. I think this all started by Fuzz's comment that he'd play AA or KK the same way. This is the point I agree with. Obviously you disagree. If your style of play would never push here then, a push here would look like a bluff. If your style of play would be that you would push here with a big hand then the bet is more likely to work.

Gholimoli wrote:

Now just so I have no excuse and cant use my poor English as an excuse ,I will be more than happy to answer all your specific questions to the best of my knowledge if you would be kind enough list all your specific question in order in reply to this post.

Well they're all there, I suppose you could read the thread again, (including the quotes to get the context of my posts) but I suppose the first place to start is to just use Fuzz's post
"Gholi,
If I bluff with big bets and value bet with small bets, then I am really quite easy to play against, am I not?

If I do the same thing with a big hand and a bluff/semi-bluff, then I am much harder to play, am I not?

Also - my whole point was that you said that my bet was bad with KJ because he will call with pairs and Ax, but that if I did this with AA/KK that my bet would also be bad because I would lose value.

How can both of these items be true at the same time?"

Or in my post # 14 where I asked:
"Are you not just saying the same thing, i.e. match your Value bets with your bluffs bets, (i.e. play them the same way) but you are just advocating making the bets smaller."

Or the last few questions in my post #19.

LOL, that should keep you going for a while...

Gholimoli · 14-07-2006 8:55am

Ste,
We seem to be talking the same thing with minor disagreements about how we would actually play the hand ,but we are agent on the same comments.
Now to answer ou specific questions that you and fuzz asked:

Obviously I don’t advocate bluffing big and value betting small all the time
As fuzz said that’s quit easy to pick out and then your toast.
Im not suggesting bluffing small and value betting big all the time either.

As I said before you do have to mix it up but only a small % of that will achieve what your looking for .for example if you only play 15% of your bluffs like your value bets and 15% of your value bets like your bluffs then your opponent is seriously going to have a problem figuring out which is which.
But what I was saying was seen as any good player should value bet more than he/she bluffs, and we want our value bets to get called ,and smaller bet have a higher % of getting called ,then it makes sense to adjust your bluffs with the size of you value bets ie smaller bluffs .obviously this is not a rule and your value bets are dictated by a lot of things and some times you should make huge value bets etc but I was talking generally if that even makes sense.

As for your last question in post 19 “why get tricky building the pot when an all in bet is going to get called “.i agree that against this opponent you should go all in because as you suggested it’s a higer EV move. However once again because I thought Fuzz was talking in general he would play the hand this way and he wasn’t just referring to this opponent, then I disagreed with him and I said in general ppl will call smaller bets more easily and seen as you have future street to bet on you expectation is higher by gradually building the pot.
I hope I have answered all your questions and if not you can feck off cuz I think we are pretty much agreeing on most things here any way.

Ste05 · 14-07-2006 9:01am

Gholimoli wrote:

I hope I have answered all your questions and if not you can feck off cuz I think we are pretty much agreeing on most things here any way.

Indeed I now think we are in complete harmony...