pokerfied.com
Promoting poker discussions.

Main
Date: 07 Jan 2009 16:54:24
From: Deadmoney Walking
Subject: The suited cards looked so pretty.
Foxwoods 1/2 nl HE. The table is about 7 pros/regs and 3 donks.

utg pro opens for 15, 3 callers, I call with 96s and 350 in my stack,
utg covers, other stacks are all over the place.

5 to flop. Pot 65$

Flop 9 6 7. I check, pfr checks, caller one bets 45, two folds. I
check raise to 150. PFR folds. the flop bettor doesn't look
concerned, in ten seconds he raises to 260. I asked for clarification
and he said he raises another 110$.

That's a min raise, and I ...

I table my hand trying to get a reaction, he still doesn't look
concerned. I decide I am only beating 76 and fold.

He didn't show but said he had a set of 9s. No clue if he's telling
the truth.

The suited cards looked so pretty, and how the heck did I lose 165
with them and not make it to the turn?




 
Date: 09 Jan 2009 16:58:48
From: Deadmoney Walking
Subject: Re: The suited cards looked so pretty.
On Jan 9, 6:49=A0pm, "Wayne Vinson" <a7a8...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
> On Jan 9 2009 3:15 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
> > Got Negreanus' book, did you? =A0Me, too.
>
> Is this the same Negreanu book that had a section by Tod Brunson filled
> with baffling editing mistakes and weird/nonsensical advice? =A0If so, I'=
m
> pretty sure I didn't get as far as Negreanu's section.
>
> Wayne Vinsonhttp://cardsharp.org/
> Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
>
> ____________________________________________________________________=A0
> RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader :www.recgroups.com

I actually liked Todd's section, even though it didn't really have
much specific advice, like his CP columns.


 
Date: 09 Jan 2009 14:29:14
From: Mark B [Diputsur]
Subject: Re: The suited cards looked so pretty.

"Deadmoney Walking" <tbonesays@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:4072f61e-561a-4c28-b5b0-ff144edddd15@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Foxwoods 1/2 nl HE. The table is about 7 pros

LOL




  
Date: 09 Jan 2009 11:47:36
From: CincinnatiKid
Subject: Re: The suited cards looked so pretty.
On Jan 9 2009 2:29 PM, Mark B [Diputsur] wrote:

> "Deadmoney Walking" <tbonesays@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4072f61e-561a-4c28-b5b0-ff144edddd15@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > Foxwoods 1/2 nl HE. The table is about 7 pros
>
> LOL

The entire original post is a train wreck. Hilarious and sad at the same
time.

________________________________________________________________________ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



 
Date: 09 Jan 2009 03:53:40
From: Deadmoney Walking
Subject: Re: The suited cards looked so pretty.
On Jan 8, 9:30=A0pm, "Stephen Jacobs" <jac...@comcast.net > wrote:
> "Wayne Vinson" <a7a8...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:refi36xhsn.ln2@recgroups.com...
>
> >> I'm trying to learn the small ball style, and this looks like the kind=
of
> >> thing that I louse up too. =A0The hand is playable 5-handed pre-flop f=
or 5%
> >> of
> >> your stack.
>
> > Not to pick nits, but "small ball" is a tournament thing - an
> > acknowledgment that avoiding all-ins oftentimes is key to better
> > tournament results.
>
> > All cash game poker should be "big ball" - you're trying to get as much=
of
> > your money in good as possible, and if you lose you reload. =A0Which do=
esn't
> > eliminate the dilemma OP faced here, since, it's very unclear if he's
> > good, but is the right frame of mind.
>
> That isn't really quite right. =A0Small ball is a deep stack thing. =A0So=
it's
> an early tournament or maybe middle-of-tournament (if you've been having
> some success) thing. =A0In Doyle Brunson's famous admonition "First or th=
ird
> gear, you don't need second," it's a particular version of first gear. =
=A0It
> doesn't go against the idea of getting lots of money in good, but it trie=
s
> to give you the least expensive information possible about whether the mo=
ney
> is going in good or not. =A0It sure looks to me like OP could have seen t=
he
> river for what he paid on the flop. =A0Now if villain really did have a s=
et of
> nines that would have been valuless, but most of the time it's going to b=
e
> worth it.

Yes, this week I have been stuck in reverse to the tune of 2.4k. Not
too many laydowns to make.


 
Date: 08 Jan 2009 17:50:32
From: Deadmoney Walking
Subject: Re: The suited cards looked so pretty.
On Jan 8, 6:34=A0pm, "Wayne Vinson" <a7a8...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
> On Jan 7 2009 6:54 PM, Deadmoney Walking wrote:
>
> > Foxwoods 1/2 nl HE. =A0The table is about 7 pros/regs and 3 donks.
>
> What, precisely, is a 1/2 pro?
>
>
I call virtually everyone who plays about 30 hours a week while trying
to win a 'pro'. I usually extend it to anyone who plays instead of
having a job. Not all pros are successful.


>
>
>
> > utg pro opens for 15, 3 callers, I call with 96s and 350 in my stack,
> > utg covers, other stacks are all over the place.
>
> > 5 to flop. =A0Pot 65$
>
> > Flop 9 6 7. =A0I check, pfr checks, caller one bets 45, two folds. =A0I
> > check raise to 150. =A0PFR folds. =A0the flop bettor doesn't look
> > concerned, in ten seconds he raises to 260. =A0I asked for clarificatio=
n
> > and he said he raises another 110$.
>
> > That's a min raise, and I ...
>
> > I table my hand trying to get a reaction, he still doesn't look
> > concerned. =A0I decide I am only beating 76 and fold.
>
> > He didn't show but said he had a set of 9s. =A0No clue if he's telling
> > the truth.
>
> > The suited cards looked so pretty, and how the heck did I lose 165
> > with them and not make it to the turn?
>
> I really hate the preflop call. =A0Just not enough strength. =A0Of course=
that
> doesn't factor into your later problems as the flop hits you quite hard.
>
> On the flop, I probably lead out about 2/3 pot rather than check-raise.
> Primary concern is that I want to be sure I get paid by weaker made hands=
,
> second concern is to charge a good price to any draw.
>
> As played, it depends on how much stack depth villain has. =A0If he's got
> you covered, I do not table my hand, fold, and never tell a soul - if
> anyone asks I had jacks. =A0If it's less so you're getting more like 3:1,=
I
> call but don't like it. =A0Mostly because it's 1/2 and the players there
> just aren't particularly aggressive.
>
> Wayne Vinsonhttp://cardsharp.org/
> Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
>
> ------=A0
> looking for a better newsgroup-reader? -www.recgroups.com- Hide quoted te=
xt -
>
> - Show quoted text -



 
Date: 08 Jan 2009 17:43:21
From: Deadmoney Walking
Subject: Re: The suited cards looked so pretty.

>
> Anybody who folds top two

Good, You got it wrong the very start.

>and shows the hand should expect to =A0be on the
> receiving end of all kinds of random bluffs.
>
> The fact that you showed the hand suggests that we don't know what he's
> seen you fold before. =A0Without knowing that all the "analysis" is just
> picking at bellybuttons.
>
> -----=A0




 
Date: 08 Jan 2009 17:41:15
From: Deadmoney Walking
Subject: Re: The suited cards looked so pretty.
On Jan 8, 9:25=A0am, "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 8 2009 7:37 AM, Deadmoney Walking wrote:
>
> > IF it was a bluff it was kind of strange since a min raise generally
> > expects to be called, especially if there is already a ton in the
> > pot. =A0After I do call then I am obviously commited and the rest is
> > going in. =A0So why on earth would an overpair do this, especially one
> > that didn't reraise pf?
>
> A minraise may want to be called, but I would expect any raise to be
> called by someone who has put half his stack into the pot already. =A0It
> really is trivial at that point.
>
> Why would an overpair not do it? =A0Who knows, perhaps he felt that
> re-raising a UTG raiser with a weak overpair like TT or JJ is not good?
>
> > the villain was a young guy with a baseball cap and Ipod. I think he
> > plays fairly often.
>
> All the more reason to call.
>
> By the way, this is like the third thread where you show your cards tryin=
g
> to get a read, and IIRC, you have... not ended up with the desired result=
,
> to put it nicely. =A0Accept that you are not Daniel Negreanu and quit doi=
ng
> that shit.
>
> Fellinjay
> --
> Be Loud. =A0Be Proud. =A0Be Considerate!
>
> ---=A0
> looking for a better newsgroup-reader? -www.recgroups.com

I don't do it very often. If I was ahead I think there would have
been a hint of concern in his eyes which were clearly visible. The
lack of the 'desired result' was good information.


 
Date: 08 Jan 2009 15:34:21
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: The suited cards looked so pretty.
On Jan 7 2009 6:54 PM, Deadmoney Walking wrote:

> Foxwoods 1/2 nl HE. The table is about 7 pros/regs and 3 donks.

What, precisely, is a 1/2 pro?

> utg pro opens for 15, 3 callers, I call with 96s and 350 in my stack,
> utg covers, other stacks are all over the place.
>
> 5 to flop. Pot 65$
>
> Flop 9 6 7. I check, pfr checks, caller one bets 45, two folds. I
> check raise to 150. PFR folds. the flop bettor doesn't look
> concerned, in ten seconds he raises to 260. I asked for clarification
> and he said he raises another 110$.
>
> That's a min raise, and I ...
>
> I table my hand trying to get a reaction, he still doesn't look
> concerned. I decide I am only beating 76 and fold.
>
> He didn't show but said he had a set of 9s. No clue if he's telling
> the truth.
>
> The suited cards looked so pretty, and how the heck did I lose 165
> with them and not make it to the turn?

I really hate the preflop call. Just not enough strength. Of course that
doesn't factor into your later problems as the flop hits you quite hard.

On the flop, I probably lead out about 2/3 pot rather than check-raise.
Primary concern is that I want to be sure I get paid by weaker made hands,
second concern is to charge a good price to any draw.

As played, it depends on how much stack depth villain has. If he's got
you covered, I do not table my hand, fold, and never tell a soul - if
anyone asks I had jacks. If it's less so you're getting more like 3:1, I
call but don't like it. Mostly because it's 1/2 and the players there
just aren't particularly aggressive.

Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com

------ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




 
Date: 08 Jan 2009 14:59:43
From:
Subject: Re: The suited cards looked so pretty.
On Jan 8, 2:23=A0pm, "CincinnatiKid" <a1...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
> On Jan 8 2009 2:15 PM, jonathan wrote:
>
> > it wasnt that bad a fold. it was the right fold maybe, the kid would
> > surely show a lesser hand than two pair after the hero shows. =A0basica=
lly
> > he had you beat or he would show his hand here 95% of the time. =A0live
> > players can rarely resist to show a bluff in a spot like that. =A0
> > On Jan 8 2009 10:43 AM, Stephen Jacobs wrote:
>
> The only worse fold I can think of is folding 58 for a flopped lower
> straight. It's a horrible fold no matter how you slice it. If you're
> scared to go broke then you shouldn't be playing. Also, if you commit thi=
s
> much money into the pot and flop 2 pair and THEN fold because you're a
> pussy then you should find a different game.
>
> Seeing shit like this pisses me off. Big pet peeve of mine.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > "Deadmoney Walking" <tbones...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >news:4072f61e-561a-4c28-b5b0-ff144edddd15@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com=
...
> > > > Foxwoods 1/2 nl HE. =A0The table is about 7 pros/regs and 3 donks.
>
> > > > utg pro opens for 15, 3 callers, I call with 96s and 350 in my stac=
k,
> > > > utg covers, other stacks are all over the place.
>
> > > > 5 to flop. =A0Pot 65$
>
> > > > Flop 9 6 7. =A0I check, pfr checks, caller one bets 45, two folds. =
=A0I
> > > > check raise to 150. =A0PFR folds. =A0the flop bettor doesn't look
> > > > concerned, in ten seconds he raises to 260. =A0I asked for clarific=
ation
> > > > and he said he raises another 110$.
>
> > > > That's a min raise, and I ...
>
> > > > I table my hand trying to get a reaction, he still doesn't look
> > > > concerned. =A0I decide I am only beating 76 and fold.
>
> > > > He didn't show but said he had a set of 9s. =A0No clue if he's tell=
ing
> > > > the truth.
>
> > > I'm trying to learn the small ball style, and this looks like the kin=
d of
> > > thing that I louse up too. =A0The hand is playable 5-handed pre-flop =
for 5%
> of
> > > your stack.
>
> > > Top and bottom pair first to act is a check-call hand in small ball,
> though.
> > > After the re-raise, the fold is mandatory for a small ball player. =
=A0Don't
> > > play big pots out of position with vulnerable hands.
>
> > -------------------------------
> > me and you... we'll never get along, i hate the way you play your hands
> > and you wear your gun all wrong
>
> _____________________________________________________________________=A0
> : the next generation of web-newsreaders :http://www.recgroups.com- Hide =
quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


This is exactly right. It's bad planning, similar to a hand I posted
a while ago where I hadn't thought through what I'd do if I was
raised.

But the thing that only one person pointed out I think is that showing
it and then folding was rapidly closing in on the worst thing you
could do. What did the OP expect the other person to do? Squint?
Blink? Fart? Faint? Ok, and if he did that, would you know what it
means? What if he said "Wow, that's a good hand."? Then what would
you have done?

99% of the people who "try to get a read" don't know what to do with
it if and when they get it. I don't know - maybe the OP would be able
to decipher something, but for most people (i.e., if you don't play
live at least 10 or 15 hours a week or have been playing live for 10
years +) this sort of thing is a waste of time.



 
Date: 08 Jan 2009 13:43:56
From: Stephen Jacobs
Subject: Re: The suited cards looked so pretty.

"Deadmoney Walking" <tbonesays@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:4072f61e-561a-4c28-b5b0-ff144edddd15@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Foxwoods 1/2 nl HE. The table is about 7 pros/regs and 3 donks.
>
> utg pro opens for 15, 3 callers, I call with 96s and 350 in my stack,
> utg covers, other stacks are all over the place.
>
> 5 to flop. Pot 65$
>
> Flop 9 6 7. I check, pfr checks, caller one bets 45, two folds. I
> check raise to 150. PFR folds. the flop bettor doesn't look
> concerned, in ten seconds he raises to 260. I asked for clarification
> and he said he raises another 110$.
>
> That's a min raise, and I ...
>
> I table my hand trying to get a reaction, he still doesn't look
> concerned. I decide I am only beating 76 and fold.
>
> He didn't show but said he had a set of 9s. No clue if he's telling
> the truth.
>

I'm trying to learn the small ball style, and this looks like the kind of
thing that I louse up too. The hand is playable 5-handed pre-flop for 5% of
your stack.

Top and bottom pair first to act is a check-call hand in small ball, though.
After the re-raise, the fold is mandatory for a small ball player. Don't
play big pots out of position with vulnerable hands.




  
Date: 09 Jan 2009 01:15:30
From: Pepe Papon
Subject: Re: The suited cards looked so pretty.
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 13:43:56 -0500, "Stephen Jacobs"
<jacosa@comcast.net > wrote:

>I'm trying to learn the small ball style, and this looks like the kind of
>thing that I louse up too. The hand is playable 5-handed pre-flop for 5% of
>your stack.
>
>Top and bottom pair first to act is a check-call hand in small ball, though.
>After the re-raise, the fold is mandatory for a small ball player. Don't
>play big pots out of position with vulnerable hands.

Got Negreanus' book, did you? Me, too. I'm not exactly the world's
best hand-reader, but I'm having a great time using this style in the
micro-stakes games. After an awful month in December (before reading
the book), I'm returning to profitability.

I think the main reason I'm playing better now is because one of the
biggest leaks in my game has been makning crying calls on big bets
when I'm pretty sure I'm beat. Small ball discourages that.

Plus it's a lot of fun to play a lot of pots. The competition at this
level is pretty weak, so no one seems to know how to defend against
this style.


   
Date: 09 Jan 2009 15:49:17
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: The suited cards looked so pretty.
On Jan 9 2009 3:15 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:

> Got Negreanus' book, did you? Me, too.

Is this the same Negreanu book that had a section by Tod Brunson filled
with baffling editing mistakes and weird/nonsensical advice? If so, I'm
pretty sure I didn't get as far as Negreanu's section.

Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com

____________________________________________________________________ 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




    
Date: 10 Jan 2009 00:35:34
From: Pepe Papon
Subject: Re: The suited cards looked so pretty.
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 15:49:17 -0800, "Wayne Vinson"
<a7a88fc@webnntp.invalid > wrote:

>On Jan 9 2009 3:15 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>> Got Negreanus' book, did you? Me, too.
>
>Is this the same Negreanu book that had a section by Tod Brunson filled
>with baffling editing mistakes and weird/nonsensical advice? If so, I'm
>pretty sure I didn't get as far as Negreanu's section.

To be honest, I skipped that section for now, as it'll be a while
before I'm playing high stakes NLHE.


  
Date: 08 Jan 2009 15:39:39
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: The suited cards looked so pretty.
> I'm trying to learn the small ball style, and this looks like the kind of
> thing that I louse up too. The hand is playable 5-handed pre-flop for 5% of
> your stack.

Not to pick nits, but "small ball" is a tournament thing - an
acknowledgment that avoiding all-ins oftentimes is key to better
tournament results.

All cash game poker should be "big ball" - you're trying to get as much of
your money in good as possible, and if you lose you reload. Which doesn't
eliminate the dilemma OP faced here, since, it's very unclear if he's
good, but is the right frame of mind.

Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com

_______________________________________________________________________ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



   
Date: 08 Jan 2009 21:30:50
From: Stephen Jacobs
Subject: Re: The suited cards looked so pretty.

"Wayne Vinson" <a7a88fc@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:refi36xhsn.ln2@recgroups.com...
>> I'm trying to learn the small ball style, and this looks like the kind of
>> thing that I louse up too. The hand is playable 5-handed pre-flop for 5%
>> of
>> your stack.
>
> Not to pick nits, but "small ball" is a tournament thing - an
> acknowledgment that avoiding all-ins oftentimes is key to better
> tournament results.
>
> All cash game poker should be "big ball" - you're trying to get as much of
> your money in good as possible, and if you lose you reload. Which doesn't
> eliminate the dilemma OP faced here, since, it's very unclear if he's
> good, but is the right frame of mind.
>

That isn't really quite right. Small ball is a deep stack thing. So it's
an early tournament or maybe middle-of-tournament (if you've been having
some success) thing. In Doyle Brunson's famous admonition "First or third
gear, you don't need second," it's a particular version of first gear. It
doesn't go against the idea of getting lots of money in good, but it tries
to give you the least expensive information possible about whether the money
is going in good or not. It sure looks to me like OP could have seen the
river for what he paid on the flop. Now if villain really did have a set of
nines that would have been valuless, but most of the time it's going to be
worth it.




  
Date: 08 Jan 2009 13:32:41
From: I eat donks
Subject: Re: The suited cards looked so pretty.
On Jan 8 2009 6:43 PM, Stephen Jacobs wrote:


> I'm trying to learn the small ball style, and this looks like the kind of
> thing that I louse up too. The hand is playable 5-handed pre-flop for 5% of
> your stack.

Small ball: fold preflop to a raise of 7.5BB when OOP to 4 players with a
trash hand. Its about 22 to 1 to flop 2 pairs or better, therefore you
are not getting the right implied odds. Also, if you are going to fold
flopped 2 pairs after puting in 75BBs on the flop, that makes it even
worse.

> Top and bottom pair first to act is a check-call hand in small ball, though.

So why call preflop? You are never going to get the implied odds, are
you? What the odds of flopping the nut straight or the top boat, and what
were your implied odds?

> After the re-raise, the fold is mandatory for a small ball player. Don't
> play big pots out of position with vulnerable hands.

That means you should be folding it preflop. There are 7.5bbs X 5,
37.5BBs once you called the preflop raise. How do you avoid playing for a
large pot if you decide to play the hand?

The best play is to fold it preflop. If you want to chance it with a
trash hand like 69 OOP for 7.5 BBs, you really should be prepared to go
broke if you hit two pairs or better.

'So donkeys, come rally,
And the last hand let us raise!
The miracle suck-outs will tally,
And save the donkey race!'

_____________________________________________________________________ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




  
Date: 08 Jan 2009 11:15:22
From: jonathan
Subject: Re: The suited cards looked so pretty.
it wasnt that bad a fold. it was the right fold maybe, the kid would
surely show a lesser hand than two pair after the hero shows. basically
he had you beat or he would show his hand here 95% of the time. live
players can rarely resist to show a bluff in a spot like that.
On Jan 8 2009 10:43 AM, Stephen Jacobs wrote:

> "Deadmoney Walking" <tbonesays@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4072f61e-561a-4c28-b5b0-ff144edddd15@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > Foxwoods 1/2 nl HE. The table is about 7 pros/regs and 3 donks.
> >
> > utg pro opens for 15, 3 callers, I call with 96s and 350 in my stack,
> > utg covers, other stacks are all over the place.
> >
> > 5 to flop. Pot 65$
> >
> > Flop 9 6 7. I check, pfr checks, caller one bets 45, two folds. I
> > check raise to 150. PFR folds. the flop bettor doesn't look
> > concerned, in ten seconds he raises to 260. I asked for clarification
> > and he said he raises another 110$.
> >
> > That's a min raise, and I ...
> >
> > I table my hand trying to get a reaction, he still doesn't look
> > concerned. I decide I am only beating 76 and fold.
> >
> > He didn't show but said he had a set of 9s. No clue if he's telling
> > the truth.
> >
>
> I'm trying to learn the small ball style, and this looks like the kind of
> thing that I louse up too. The hand is playable 5-handed pre-flop for 5% of
> your stack.
>
> Top and bottom pair first to act is a check-call hand in small ball, though.
> After the re-raise, the fold is mandatory for a small ball player. Don't
> play big pots out of position with vulnerable hands.


-------------------------------
me and you... we'll never get along, i hate the way you play your hands
and you wear your gun all wrong

________________________________________________________________________ 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



   
Date: 08 Jan 2009 11:23:38
From: CincinnatiKid
Subject: Re: The suited cards looked so pretty.
On Jan 8 2009 2:15 PM, jonathan wrote:

> it wasnt that bad a fold. it was the right fold maybe, the kid would
> surely show a lesser hand than two pair after the hero shows. basically
> he had you beat or he would show his hand here 95% of the time. live
> players can rarely resist to show a bluff in a spot like that.
> On Jan 8 2009 10:43 AM, Stephen Jacobs wrote:

The only worse fold I can think of is folding 58 for a flopped lower
straight. It's a horrible fold no matter how you slice it. If you're
scared to go broke then you shouldn't be playing. Also, if you commit this
much money into the pot and flop 2 pair and THEN fold because you're a
pussy then you should find a different game.

Seeing shit like this pisses me off. Big pet peeve of mine.


> > "Deadmoney Walking" <tbonesays@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:4072f61e-561a-4c28-b5b0-ff144edddd15@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > > Foxwoods 1/2 nl HE. The table is about 7 pros/regs and 3 donks.
> > >
> > > utg pro opens for 15, 3 callers, I call with 96s and 350 in my stack,
> > > utg covers, other stacks are all over the place.
> > >
> > > 5 to flop. Pot 65$
> > >
> > > Flop 9 6 7. I check, pfr checks, caller one bets 45, two folds. I
> > > check raise to 150. PFR folds. the flop bettor doesn't look
> > > concerned, in ten seconds he raises to 260. I asked for clarification
> > > and he said he raises another 110$.
> > >
> > > That's a min raise, and I ...
> > >
> > > I table my hand trying to get a reaction, he still doesn't look
> > > concerned. I decide I am only beating 76 and fold.
> > >
> > > He didn't show but said he had a set of 9s. No clue if he's telling
> > > the truth.
> > >
> >
> > I'm trying to learn the small ball style, and this looks like the kind of
> > thing that I louse up too. The hand is playable 5-handed pre-flop for 5%
of
> > your stack.
> >
> > Top and bottom pair first to act is a check-call hand in small ball,
though.
> > After the re-raise, the fold is mandatory for a small ball player. Don't
> > play big pots out of position with vulnerable hands.
>
>
> -------------------------------
> me and you... we'll never get along, i hate the way you play your hands
> and you wear your gun all wrong

_____________________________________________________________________ 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



 
Date: 08 Jan 2009 07:11:16
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: The suited cards looked so pretty.
On Jan 7 2009 6:54 PM, Deadmoney Walking wrote:

> I table my hand trying to show the entire planet how bad I play.

FYP.

---
Morphy
xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
"SHUT UP IDIOT" --The Great Patholio

--- 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



 
Date: 08 Jan 2009 04:37:14
From: Deadmoney Walking
Subject: Re: The suited cards looked so pretty.
On Jan 7, 10:43=A0pm, "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 7 2009 10:18 PM, eldo77 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 7 2009 9:37 PM, FellKnight wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 7 2009 7:54 PM, Deadmoney Walking wrote:
>
> > > > Foxwoods 1/2 nl HE. =A0The table is about 7 pros/regs and 3 donks.
>
> > > > utg pro opens for 15, 3 callers, I call with 96s and 350 in my stac=
k,
> > > > utg covers, other stacks are all over the place.
>
> > > > 5 to flop. =A0Pot 65$
>
> > > > Flop 9 6 7. =A0I check, pfr checks, caller one bets 45, two folds. =
=A0I
> > > > check raise to 150. =A0PFR folds. =A0the flop bettor doesn't look
> > > > concerned, in ten seconds he raises to 260. =A0I asked for clarific=
ation
> > > > and he said he raises another 110$.
>
> > > > That's a min raise, and I ...
>
> > > > I table my hand trying to get a reaction, he still doesn't look
> > > > concerned. =A0I decide I am only beating 76 and fold.
>
> > > > He didn't show but said he had a set of 9s. =A0No clue if he's tell=
ing
> > > > the truth.
>
> > > > The suited cards looked so pretty, and how the heck did I lose 165
> > > > with them and not make it to the turn?
>
> > > UTG pros dont openfor 15 with 99.
>
> > > You got had, son.
>
> > > Fell
>
> > I'm inclined to agree with this .However, if I read the OP correctly,it
> > wasn't the UTG pro who said he had 99. That said, I don't believe the g=
uy
> > had 99. It was probably an overpair. One clue is the mini-raise. He's
> > trying to find out if his overpair is good. If he had a set his raise
> > would have been all-in to discourage a call or at least make a caller p=
ay
> > the max.
>
> Well, my bad, I read that it was UTG who went for broke.
>
> > Calling this raise before the flop is a mistake.
> > And this exact situation he got himself into is why it's a mistake.
>
> > When you play small suited connectors you need to hit a triple if not a
> > home run on the flop to continue.And =A0I don't even consider 96s to be
> > connectors.
>
> > I play a lot of 13NLHE and have come to the conclusion [belatedly] that
> > suited connectors is the most overrated hand in hold'em.What happened t=
o
> > our hero is normal. I see it every day. A guy plays a hand he should ha=
ve
> > thrown away and hits just enough of the flop to get broke, or at least
> > lose a lot of money.
>
> Generally agree, but I think these hands can be played profitably. =A0Not
> when one is willing to put in half one's stack and then fold 2 pairs,
> though.
>
> > eldo77
>
> Fell
> --
> Be Loud. =A0Be Proud. =A0Be Considerate!
>
> ______________________________________________________________________=A0
> looking for a better newsgroup-reader? -www.recgroups.com- Hide quoted te=
xt -
>
> - Show quoted text -

IF it was a bluff it was kind of strange since a min raise generally
expects to be called, especially if there is already a ton in the
pot. After I do call then I am obviously commited and the rest is
going in. So why on earth would an overpair do this, especially one
that didn't reraise pf?

the villain was a young guy with a baseball cap and Ipod. I think he
plays fairly often.


  
Date: 08 Jan 2009 14:33:14
From: garycarson
Subject: Re: The suited cards looked so pretty.
On Jan 8 2009 7:37 AM, Deadmoney Walking wrote:

> On Jan 7, 10:43 pm, "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 7 2009 10:18 PM, eldo77 wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jan 7 2009 9:37 PM, FellKnight wrote:
> >
> > > > On Jan 7 2009 7:54 PM, Deadmoney Walking wrote:
> >
> > > > > Foxwoods 1/2 nl HE.  The table is about 7 pros/regs and 3 donks.
> >
> > > > > utg pro opens for 15, 3 callers, I call with 96s and 350 in my stack,
> > > > > utg covers, other stacks are all over the place.
> >
> > > > > 5 to flop.  Pot 65$
> >
> > > > > Flop 9 6 7.  I check, pfr checks, caller one bets 45, two folds.  I
> > > > > check raise to 150.  PFR folds.  the flop bettor doesn't look
> > > > > concerned, in ten seconds he raises to 260.  I asked for
clarification
> > > > > and he said he raises another 110$.
> >
> > > > > That's a min raise, and I ...
> >
> > > > > I table my hand trying to get a reaction, he still doesn't look
> > > > > concerned.  I decide I am only beating 76 and fold.
> >
> > > > > He didn't show but said he had a set of 9s.  No clue if he's telling
> > > > > the truth.
> >
> > > > > The suited cards looked so pretty, and how the heck did I lose 165
> > > > > with them and not make it to the turn?
> >
> > > > UTG pros dont openfor 15 with 99.
> >
> > > > You got had, son.
> >
> > > > Fell
> >
> > > I'm inclined to agree with this .However, if I read the OP correctly,it
> > > wasn't the UTG pro who said he had 99. That said, I don't believe the guy
> > > had 99. It was probably an overpair. One clue is the mini-raise. He's
> > > trying to find out if his overpair is good. If he had a set his raise
> > > would have been all-in to discourage a call or at least make a caller pay
> > > the max.
> >
> > Well, my bad, I read that it was UTG who went for broke.
> >
> > > Calling this raise before the flop is a mistake.
> > > And this exact situation he got himself into is why it's a mistake.
> >
> > > When you play small suited connectors you need to hit a triple if not a
> > > home run on the flop to continue.And  I don't even consider 96s to be
> > > connectors.
> >
> > > I play a lot of 13NLHE and have come to the conclusion [belatedly] that
> > > suited connectors is the most overrated hand in hold'em.What happened to
> > > our hero is normal. I see it every day. A guy plays a hand he should have
> > > thrown away and hits just enough of the flop to get broke, or at least
> > > lose a lot of money.
> >
> > Generally agree, but I think these hands can be played profitably.  Not
> > when one is willing to put in half one's stack and then fold 2 pairs,
> > though.
> >
> > > eldo77
> >
> > Fell
> > --
> > Be Loud.  Be Proud.  Be Considerate!
> >
> - Show quoted text -
>
> IF it was a bluff it was kind of strange since a min raise generally
> expects to be called, especially if there is already a ton in the
> pot.

Anybody who folds top two and shows the hand should expect to be on the
receiving end of all kinds of random bluffs.

The fact that you showed the hand suggests that we don't know what he's
seen you fold before. Without knowing that all the "analysis" is just
picking at bellybuttons.

----- 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



  
Date: 08 Jan 2009 06:25:39
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: The suited cards looked so pretty.
On Jan 8 2009 7:37 AM, Deadmoney Walking wrote:

> IF it was a bluff it was kind of strange since a min raise generally
> expects to be called, especially if there is already a ton in the
> pot. After I do call then I am obviously commited and the rest is
> going in. So why on earth would an overpair do this, especially one
> that didn't reraise pf?

A minraise may want to be called, but I would expect any raise to be
called by someone who has put half his stack into the pot already. It
really is trivial at that point.

Why would an overpair not do it? Who knows, perhaps he felt that
re-raising a UTG raiser with a weak overpair like TT or JJ is not good?

> the villain was a young guy with a baseball cap and Ipod. I think he
> plays fairly often.

All the more reason to call.

By the way, this is like the third thread where you show your cards trying
to get a read, and IIRC, you have... not ended up with the desired result,
to put it nicely. Accept that you are not Daniel Negreanu and quit doing
that shit.

Fellinjay
--
Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!

--- 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




 
Date: 07 Jan 2009 22:14:42
From: I eat donks
Subject: Re: The suited cards looked so pretty.
On Jan 8 2009 12:54 AM, Deadmoney Walking wrote:



If you are folding top and bottom 2 pair on the flop with a stack of
175BBS, after puting in 75BBs on the flop, why the fuck did you called a
7.5BB raise preflop with 69?

Dont tell me, you like the position...

'So donkeys, come rally,
And the last hand let us raise!
The miracle suck-outs will tally,
And save the donkey race!'

_____________________________________________________________________ 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



 
Date: 07 Jan 2009 19:44:52
From:
Subject: Re: The suited cards looked so pretty.
On Jan 7, 6:54=A0pm, Deadmoney Walking <tbones...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Foxwoods 1/2 nl HE. =A0The table is about 7 pros/regs and 3 donks.
>
> utg pro opens for 15, 3 callers, I call with 96s and 350 in my stack,
> utg covers, other stacks are all over the place.
>
> 5 to flop. =A0Pot 65$
>
> Flop 9 6 7. =A0I check, pfr checks, caller one bets 45, two folds. =A0I
> check raise to 150. =A0PFR folds. =A0the flop bettor doesn't look
> concerned, in ten seconds he raises to 260. =A0I asked for clarification
> and he said he raises another 110$.
>
> That's a min raise, and I ...
>
> I table my hand trying to get a reaction, he still doesn't look
> concerned. =A0I decide I am only beating 76 and fold.
>
> He didn't show but said he had a set of 9s. =A0No clue if he's telling
> the truth.
>
> The suited cards looked so pretty, and how the heck did I lose 165
> with them and not make it to the turn?

Terrible table selection for 1/2 imo.


 
Date: 07 Jan 2009 18:37:57
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: The suited cards looked so pretty.
On Jan 7 2009 7:54 PM, Deadmoney Walking wrote:

> Foxwoods 1/2 nl HE. The table is about 7 pros/regs and 3 donks.
>
> utg pro opens for 15, 3 callers, I call with 96s and 350 in my stack,
> utg covers, other stacks are all over the place.
>
> 5 to flop. Pot 65$
>
> Flop 9 6 7. I check, pfr checks, caller one bets 45, two folds. I
> check raise to 150. PFR folds. the flop bettor doesn't look
> concerned, in ten seconds he raises to 260. I asked for clarification
> and he said he raises another 110$.
>
> That's a min raise, and I ...
>
> I table my hand trying to get a reaction, he still doesn't look
> concerned. I decide I am only beating 76 and fold.
>
> He didn't show but said he had a set of 9s. No clue if he's telling
> the truth.
>
> The suited cards looked so pretty, and how the heck did I lose 165
> with them and not make it to the turn?

UTG pros dont openfor 15 with 99.

You got had, son.

Fell
--
Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!

______________________________________________________________________ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



  
Date: 08 Jan 2009 13:05:44
From: Lab Rat
Subject: Re: The suited cards looked so pretty.

"FellKnight" <jordandevenport@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:5h5g36xlkd.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Jan 7 2009 7:54 PM, Deadmoney Walking wrote:
>
>> Foxwoods 1/2 nl HE. The table is about 7 pros/regs and 3 donks.
>>
>> utg pro opens for 15, 3 callers, I call with 96s and 350 in my stack,
>> utg covers, other stacks are all over the place.
>>
>> 5 to flop. Pot 65$
>>
>> Flop 9 6 7. I check, pfr checks, caller one bets 45, two folds. I
>> check raise to 150. PFR folds. the flop bettor doesn't look
>> concerned, in ten seconds he raises to 260. I asked for clarification
>> and he said he raises another 110$.
>>
>> That's a min raise, and I ...
>>
>> I table my hand trying to get a reaction, he still doesn't look
>> concerned. I decide I am only beating 76 and fold.
>>
>> He didn't show but said he had a set of 9s. No clue if he's telling
>> the truth.
>>
>> The suited cards looked so pretty, and how the heck did I lose 165
>> with them and not make it to the turn?
>
> UTG pros dont openfor 15 with 99.
>
> You got had, son.
>
> Fell

Uh, Fell, first caller had 99, not UTG.
Was 99 guy one of the other two donks, or a pro/reg? What did you put him
on?




  
Date: 07 Jan 2009 19:44:42
From: Arlo-Payne
Subject: Re: The suited cards looked so pretty.
On Jan 7 2009 7:37 PM, FellKnight wrote:

> On Jan 7 2009 7:54 PM, Deadmoney Walking wrote:
>
> > Foxwoods 1/2 nl HE. The table is about 7 pros/regs and 3 donks.
> >
> > utg pro opens for 15, 3 callers, I call with 96s and 350 in my stack,
> > utg covers, other stacks are all over the place.
> >
> > 5 to flop. Pot 65$
> >
> > Flop 9 6 7. I check, pfr checks, caller one bets 45, two folds. I
> > check raise to 150. PFR folds. the flop bettor doesn't look
> > concerned, in ten seconds he raises to 260. I asked for clarification
> > and he said he raises another 110$.
> >
> > That's a min raise, and I ...
> >
> > I table my hand trying to get a reaction, he still doesn't look
> > concerned. I decide I am only beating 76 and fold.
> >
> > He didn't show but said he had a set of 9s. No clue if he's telling
> > the truth.
> >
> > The suited cards looked so pretty, and how the heck did I lose 165
> > with them and not make it to the turn?
>
> UTG pros dont openfor 15 with 99.
>
> You got had, son.
>
> Fell
> --
> Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!

A good pro does not play 1-2 in a casino card room

-------- 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



  
Date: 07 Jan 2009 19:18:26
From: eldo77
Subject: Re: The suited cards looked so pretty.
On Jan 7 2009 9:37 PM, FellKnight wrote:

> On Jan 7 2009 7:54 PM, Deadmoney Walking wrote:
>
> > Foxwoods 1/2 nl HE. The table is about 7 pros/regs and 3 donks.
> >
> > utg pro opens for 15, 3 callers, I call with 96s and 350 in my stack,
> > utg covers, other stacks are all over the place.
> >
> > 5 to flop. Pot 65$
> >
> > Flop 9 6 7. I check, pfr checks, caller one bets 45, two folds. I
> > check raise to 150. PFR folds. the flop bettor doesn't look
> > concerned, in ten seconds he raises to 260. I asked for clarification
> > and he said he raises another 110$.
> >
> > That's a min raise, and I ...
> >
> > I table my hand trying to get a reaction, he still doesn't look
> > concerned. I decide I am only beating 76 and fold.
> >
> > He didn't show but said he had a set of 9s. No clue if he's telling
> > the truth.
> >
> > The suited cards looked so pretty, and how the heck did I lose 165
> > with them and not make it to the turn?
>
> UTG pros dont openfor 15 with 99.
>
> You got had, son.
>
> Fell

I'm inclined to agree with this .However, if I read the OP correctly,it
wasn't the UTG pro who said he had 99. That said, I don't believe the guy
had 99. It was probably an overpair. One clue is the mini-raise. He's
trying to find out if his overpair is good. If he had a set his raise
would have been all-in to discourage a call or at least make a caller pay
the max.

Calling this raise before the flop is a mistake.
And this exact situation he got himself into is why it's a mistake.

When you play small suited connectors you need to hit a triple if not a
home run on the flop to continue.And I don't even consider 96s to be
connectors.

I play a lot of 13NLHE and have come to the conclusion [belatedly] that
suited connectors is the most overrated hand in hold'em.What happened to
our hero is normal. I see it every day. A guy plays a hand he should have
thrown away and hits just enough of the flop to get broke, or at least
lose a lot of money.

eldo77

______________________________________________________________________ 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




   
Date: 07 Jan 2009 19:43:38
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: The suited cards looked so pretty.
On Jan 7 2009 10:18 PM, eldo77 wrote:

> On Jan 7 2009 9:37 PM, FellKnight wrote:
>
> > On Jan 7 2009 7:54 PM, Deadmoney Walking wrote:
> >
> > > Foxwoods 1/2 nl HE. The table is about 7 pros/regs and 3 donks.
> > >
> > > utg pro opens for 15, 3 callers, I call with 96s and 350 in my stack,
> > > utg covers, other stacks are all over the place.
> > >
> > > 5 to flop. Pot 65$
> > >
> > > Flop 9 6 7. I check, pfr checks, caller one bets 45, two folds. I
> > > check raise to 150. PFR folds. the flop bettor doesn't look
> > > concerned, in ten seconds he raises to 260. I asked for clarification
> > > and he said he raises another 110$.
> > >
> > > That's a min raise, and I ...
> > >
> > > I table my hand trying to get a reaction, he still doesn't look
> > > concerned. I decide I am only beating 76 and fold.
> > >
> > > He didn't show but said he had a set of 9s. No clue if he's telling
> > > the truth.
> > >
> > > The suited cards looked so pretty, and how the heck did I lose 165
> > > with them and not make it to the turn?
> >
> > UTG pros dont openfor 15 with 99.
> >
> > You got had, son.
> >
> > Fell
>
> I'm inclined to agree with this .However, if I read the OP correctly,it
> wasn't the UTG pro who said he had 99. That said, I don't believe the guy
> had 99. It was probably an overpair. One clue is the mini-raise. He's
> trying to find out if his overpair is good. If he had a set his raise
> would have been all-in to discourage a call or at least make a caller pay
> the max.
>

Well, my bad, I read that it was UTG who went for broke.

> Calling this raise before the flop is a mistake.
> And this exact situation he got himself into is why it's a mistake.
>
> When you play small suited connectors you need to hit a triple if not a
> home run on the flop to continue.And I don't even consider 96s to be
> connectors.
>
> I play a lot of 13NLHE and have come to the conclusion [belatedly] that
> suited connectors is the most overrated hand in hold'em.What happened to
> our hero is normal. I see it every day. A guy plays a hand he should have
> thrown away and hits just enough of the flop to get broke, or at least
> lose a lot of money.

Generally agree, but I think these hands can be played profitably. Not
when one is willing to put in half one's stack and then fold 2 pairs,
though.

> eldo77

Fell
--
Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!

______________________________________________________________________ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




 
Date: 07 Jan 2009 18:26:54
From: CincinnatiKid
Subject: Re: The suited cards looked so pretty.
On Jan 7 2009 7:54 PM, Deadmoney Walking wrote:

> Foxwoods 1/2 nl HE. The table is about 7 pros/regs and 3 donks.
>
> utg pro opens for 15, 3 callers, I call with 96s and 350 in my stack,
> utg covers, other stacks are all over the place.
>
> 5 to flop. Pot 65$
>
> Flop 9 6 7. I check, pfr checks, caller one bets 45, two folds. I
> check raise to 150. PFR folds. the flop bettor doesn't look
> concerned, in ten seconds he raises to 260. I asked for clarification
> and he said he raises another 110$.
>
> That's a min raise, and I ...
>
> I table my hand trying to get a reaction, he still doesn't look
> concerned. I decide I am only beating 76 and fold.
>
> He didn't show but said he had a set of 9s. No clue if he's telling
> the truth.
>
> The suited cards looked so pretty, and how the heck did I lose 165
> with them and not make it to the turn?

Phil Hellmuth instashove. If he has a set then so be it. Horrible fold.

--- 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




  
Date: 07 Jan 2009 18:37:00
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: The suited cards looked so pretty.
On Jan 7 2009 9:26 PM, CincinnatiKid wrote:

> On Jan 7 2009 7:54 PM, Deadmoney Walking wrote:
>
> > Foxwoods 1/2 nl HE. The table is about 7 pros/regs and 3 donks.
> >
> > utg pro opens for 15, 3 callers, I call with 96s and 350 in my stack,
> > utg covers, other stacks are all over the place.
> >
> > 5 to flop. Pot 65$
> >
> > Flop 9 6 7. I check, pfr checks, caller one bets 45, two folds. I
> > check raise to 150. PFR folds. the flop bettor doesn't look
> > concerned, in ten seconds he raises to 260. I asked for clarification
> > and he said he raises another 110$.
> >
> > That's a min raise, and I ...
> >
> > I table my hand trying to get a reaction, he still doesn't look
> > concerned. I decide I am only beating 76 and fold.
> >
> > He didn't show but said he had a set of 9s. No clue if he's telling
> > the truth.
> >
> > The suited cards looked so pretty, and how the heck did I lose 165
> > with them and not make it to the turn?
>
> Phil Hellmuth instashove. If he has a set then so be it. Horrible fold.

+1

Fell
--
Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!

---- 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com