who played this hand worse??

bops

Effective stacks 400ish

5 players - pot has 80ish
I'm the BB and the PF raiser (which doesn't mean anything - i've been a bit busy)
Villain is Aggro - has no problem putting his stack in [EDIT he's a decent player - old school - follows his gut]

Flop KQ7

I check
Check
Villain bets 100
Fold
Fold
I reraise to 350 (which just covers him and leaves me with sfa)
He calls

I have K5
He has QJ


who's the bigger loon??

cheers

BigCityBanker

you played it fine and utilised your "image" to get him to call. wp.

El Stuntman

you are! :eek:

no he is!!! :eek:

FFS!!!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

more background on villain required I feel.....

IHAVEACAT

anwsers in the question dude

bubbleking

you played it pretty bad but he played it 10 times worse

IHAVEACAT

bubbleking wrote:

you played it pretty bad but he played it 10 times worse

i think 11 times

Flushdraw

If you think he will call your reraise with 2nd pair, he played it worse
If you think he will fold, you played it worse!

valor

lol

Ste05

bops wrote:

5 players - pot has 80ish
I'm the BB and the PF raiser (which doesn't mean anything - i've been a bit busy)
......
I have K5
He has QJ

We need more info on how this happened, who the 5 players were, what position they were in and how the PF action went, also what the blinds were might not go astray.

As played, you were bluffing with TP and happened to get called by an idiot, so I'd say he certainly played it worse although it's close.

bops

Ste05 wrote:

We need more info on how this happened, who the 5 players were, what position they were in and how the PF action went, also what the blinds were might not go astray.

trying to keep it simple - it was a local live 1/2 game

Ste05 wrote:

As played, you were bluffing with TP and happened to get called by an idiot, so I'd say he certainly played it worse although it's close.

i wasn't bluffing - i correctly believed that i had the best hand

he is an idiot fot reading me correctly as weak and thinking he was ahead of a draw for example??

personaly i think that the only thing that seperates the two plays here is that i pushed as opposed to calling a push

tbh your post annoys me somewhat - your rash and imo wrong impressions of the play in this hand are very unlike you

Gholimoli

this is clearly a fake hand unless you were playing this hand HU agianst your self cuz both plays look like they were played bops

Ste05

bops wrote:

tbh your post annoys me somewhat - your rash and imo wrong impressions of the play in this hand are very unlike you

[NOTE: This ended up a little ranty and is certainly not all aimed at you Bops but it's written now so be warned, I actually think you've improved in your posting style hugely since originally joining us and I really like reading your stuff, but something here just set me off....]

Apologies for that, although how the pot ended up being €80 and how you ended up in it from the BB (i.e. OOP for the hand) with K5 is hugely important.

Also how on earth could you have thought you have the best hand with K5 and expect to be paid off by a worse hand, these kind of reads are nearly impossible to write about and would very much be based on lots of history with the Villain or a thought that he was a maniac calling station or was tilting badly. Did you honestly expect K4-, a Q, a 7 or an underpair to put in 200 BB's here??

Although looking at the OP again, I presume you were the PF raiser, so can I take it it was limped around to you and you made it €16 and this was called in 5 spots??

Then you check raised putting the Villain AI with your very marginal TP hand.

If it was a value bet it was about as thin as they come and can't really be commented on here because obviously you had an absolutely crazy image, the variance involved in these type of plays is massive for both players. If the Villain was trying to induce a bluff push intending to call off his stack with second pair, it can't be a long term winning play unless he has a phenomenal read on you, and if you check raised all-in expecting to be called by a weaker hand and not actually hoping he will fold again there's not much we can say here, it's not standard Poker theory and is very hard to give constructive advice about. However if these kind of thoughts weren't going on then it was just gambling, either way it's impossible to discuss.

Apologies if this sounds harsh and rude but maybe I'm just missing something in the OP, but with hands like this detailed descriptions and actions are vital for any kind of discussion.

I could post up loads of looney looking hands that in isolation look like I'm wired to the moon but there was reasons behind most plays and it's these reasons and discussions of same that keeps this forum getting better and better but lately the standard seems to have dropped another level which is sad and this post probably just happened to get the brunt of that.... :eek: :eek: [/RANT]

PokerPissTaker

this all depends on what you wanted the bet to represent wheter you thought he had a big hand and you could get him off it or if you knew you were ahead and wanted it to look like a bluff to but the pot but if you knew you were ahead then why are you trying to get him off the hand

But none of the above are anywhere near as bad as the call, Unless your so good you convinced him you were trying to buy it with 10s or 9s or something thst he put you on preflop

bops

Ste05 wrote:

[NOTE: This ended up a little ranty and is certainly not all aimed at you Bops but it's written now so be warned, I actually think you've improved in your posting style hugely since originally joining us and I really like reading your stuff, but something here just set me off....]

Maybe i sorta wanted to set people off for a start before they looked at the hand a bit deeper - i tried to make the OP as simple as possible giving the basic info required - i didn't want to bog it down with me explaining why i raised it from 2 to 17 in the BB with K5 - we would have never got to where i'm trying to discuss! anyways apologies on my part here.

i too am very disappointed at the level of play discussions on boards for the last ages - they may sound ridiculous coming from me, but that's how i feel. I want to discuss the above at depth for learning sake, but i reckon it's a loosing battle because of my perceived reputation, i also am unsure if i'm articulate enough to describe hands in such depth.

Ste05 wrote:

Apologies for that, although how the pot ended up being €80 and how you ended up in it from the BB (i.e. OOP for the hand) with K5 is hugely important.

fair enough! - lots of limpers and i popped it to 17 on the BB - i was raising to between 7 and 17 every second hand (not up for discussion )

Ste05 wrote:

Also how on earth could you have thought you have the best hand with K5 and expect to be paid off by a worse hand, these kind of reads are nearly impossible to write about and would very much be based on lots of history with the Villain or a thought that he was a maniac calling station or was tilting badly. Did you honestly expect K4-, a Q, a 7 or an underpair to put in 200 BB's here??

This is exactly what i wish to discuss! the answer is very simple, the hand is all about marginal situations and reads based on JND's - being Just Noticable Differences - not obvious reads like Caro talks about, but tiny subtle ones that are very hard to describe - just call them gut instinct for arguements sake - pretend my head isn't rooted up my arse and that i know what i'm talking about - i don't think i'm a prentious pr1ck - but when i discuss this sorta stuff it sure does sound like it!!)

I put him on a good queen, if not TJ: it wasn't anything to do with his bet size, he could of done that with the nuts, it was just a split second feeling i got from his stare that said "i have him"

yes, if he had the OESD or a Q i was probably getting paid here, he was getting 2/1 on his money, he knew i hadn't a monster, and is very aggro - he was only gonna fold air here - which i would have been happy enough with considering my holding.

Ste05 wrote:

Although looking at the OP again, I presume you were the PF raiser, so can I take it it was limped around to you and you made it €16 and this was called in 5 spots??

17 & 4 spots - common practice

people view me as being laggy maniac spewing into every second pot, but imo this is far from the truth, yes i pay to see many pots pf, but i depend on my post flop reading abilities and pot odds to make this profitable - i raise alot PF with good and bad, when i hit i usually get paid very well and i always get maximum return on my big PF hands. I get caught bluffing alot in smallish pots, whilst the same people call me light in very large pots when i've the nuts. I reckon if i get caught 3 times and win once, i'm still up if that makes sense.

Ste05 wrote:

Then you check raised putting the Villain AI with your very marginal TP hand.

This may sound crazy, but checking when 1st to act in a large 5 way pot is kinda like having the button!! - my hand was very marginal, but there was only two others left in the hand when i pushed, one who had 0 interest in the hand, and the raiser who i was confortable that i was currenlty in front

Ste05 wrote:

If it was a value bet it was about as thin as they come and can't really be commented on here because obviously you had an absolutely crazy image, the variance involved in these type of plays is massive for both players. If the Villain was trying to induce a bluff push intending to call off his stack with second pair, it can't be a long term winning play unless he has a phenomenal read on you, and if you check raised all-in expecting to be called by a weaker hand and not actually hoping he will fold again there's not much we can say here, it's not standard Poker theory and is very hard to give constructive advice about. However if these kind of thoughts weren't going on then it was just gambling, either way it's impossible to discuss.

Villian played it to take it down, or to induce the bluff only from me - his read wasn't a hundred miles out (when i crai), i was weak, just not as week as he thought. You have to give him credit for going with his read tho. He doesn't go broke that often when calling off his stack.
I believed that he would call me with OESD or a Q - given the situation - my biggest fear TBH was a weak K, and i'd be looking for a split pot, actually i was more afraid of the OESD. he had what i really hoped he had!

Trust me it wasn't gambling, now and again (very rarely) i play in real gamble mode, but it doesn't work for me profitwise, but it is good to get it off your chest now and again.

A great (undetailed) example of his reading ability was 30 mins later he folded AA to me for $75 (120 in pot) on a 3d5s7dQc board - he was drawing dead! (if i knew he had aces i think i wudda got more, i put him on a set)

Ste05 wrote:

Apologies if this sounds harsh and rude but maybe I'm just missing something in the OP, but with hands like this detailed descriptions and actions are vital for any kind of discussion.

Yep i hear you, but as i said i didn't want it to get bogged down with my PF raise etc - i tried to just put in what was required

Ste05 wrote:

I could post up loads of looney looking hands that in isolation look like I'm wired to the moon but there was reasons behind most plays and it's these reasons and discussions of same that keeps this forum getting better and better but lately the standard seems to have dropped another level which is sad and this post probably just happened to get the brunt of that.... :eek: :eek: [/RANT]

i agree, but the looney hands are where all the good stuff is! - not the ones about how i went broke with AA etc...the standard of posts here has dropped massively lately, you know i have a laugh with the less serious posts, but i don't think i've learned anything here in a while.

I also think that posts like mine a sneered at by most readers, the ones who mainly play internet poker. It's a different game i like to discuss, but many will think that i'm just full of sh*t, which i have no problem with, but is does tend to mess up the discussion.

I'm unsure if any of the above makes sense to you/anybody - i'm close to deleting it all and just saying cheers & forget about it

What i am really interested about in these type of hands is the massive variance in relation to my (and the villains) style of play in these type of hands.

I've been keeping an accurate account of my live play for the last 6 months now. Things overall are v good profitwise, but my big downswings can be attributed to 3 factors:

1) bad reads - you get nights when you seem to loose it!
2) being sucked out (most common eg is having 2 pair counterfitted by TPTK type of hands)
3) People catching more than there fair share of good draws

i don't think i can do too much about 2 & 3, but there is always room to work on #1 - it's a very grey area, but the biggest area of interest to me.

the simplest arguement for minimising exposure to the above 3 leaks it to try and control the pot size better, but this leads to winning smaller pots too!!

meh if you can follow this waffle, you deserve a medal!

bops

PokerPissTaker wrote:

this all depends on what you wanted the bet to represent wheter you thought he had a big hand and you could get him off it or if you knew you were ahead and wanted it to look like a bluff to but the pot but if you knew you were ahead then why are you trying to get him off the hand

But none of the above are anywhere near as bad as the call, Unless your so good you convinced him you were trying to buy it with 10s or 9s or something thst he put you on preflop

I thought i was ahead and wanted it to look like a bluff, i'm not trying to get him to fold - he calls here with any better hand, a Q, and a good draw

I don't think his call was bad in the given situation - i actually believe he was kinda unlucky!! I could have as easily pushed with a good draw, which i am sure he put me on

Ste05

I followed your post and if I had more time I'd write a response tonight, but unfortunately I don't, I presume there'll be more discussion between now and tomorrow but I'll chime in then.

bops

no probs - thanks for reading it and following it (fair play)