I sat long enough....this was probably wrong of me to do but i trained a guy to do my job and just worked on poker all day
wetts played the hand in a small ball way preflop by making a small bet with suited connectors. i consider it a small bet (3.5 bb i think) because there is already a limper and the antes. To play small ball from what i understand you need to stick to small pots until you trap the other guy with a monster, the nuts or very near to it. I don't believe your supposed to put your tourney life on hand like that when small balling. He played this hand like he was tight aggresive after the flop, but in reality he opened with a very loose hand got called by a big stack and lost everything. Small ball which is known for suited connectors is about losing many small pots, staying alive with semi bluff and then cashing big with the nuts.
I say small ball this hand or chuck it
That being said i think i did kristy's math for her, its a little much but good for my brain....if its wrong ill re work it.....
looking for her input and everyones....it just proves her words mathmatically i think
villain preflop
22+ but maybe not even jj+
A9-AK, K9-kQ, Q8-QJ
JT
Flop
villain check raises
SETS 33,44,TT
OVERPAIR JJ+ <<< maybe these weren't preflop possibilities??
1. You didn't 'do my math for me' ..I already know how to play this hand. You're the one making mistakes.
2. Really!?!? Now that we've crushed all your other comments you're going to talk about folding pf? What happens if I rip that to shreds, as it is clearly fine to play that hand..are you going to join a group against poker and argue that 'we shouldn't have been gambling in the first place"?
3. You widened the diamond range and narrowed the others
4. jj, kk, aa ARE in the villian's range limp utg+1 with them is not my favourite play..but it certainly happens often enough, and villain could easily flat knowing that he was HU.
5. I didn't read DN's small ball book, but iirc it advocates step 4, so if I'm right..you're advocating against your SECOND attack theory..first Harrington, now DN...
6. Ironically what is going on in this hand IS sorta related to DN; but not in the way you think it is: Link to Ancient Article.
1. You didn't 'do my math for me' ..I already know how to play this hand. You're the one making mistakes.
2. Really!?!? Now that we've crushed all your other comments you're going to talk about folding pf? What happens if I rip that to shreds, as it is clearly fine to play that hand..are you going to join a group against poker and argue that 'we shouldn't have been gambling in the first place"?
3. You widened the diamond range and narrowed the others
4. jj, kk, aa ARE in the villian's range limp utg+1 with them is not my favourite play..but it certainly happens often enough, and villain could easily flat knowing that he was HU.
5. I didn't read DN's small ball book, but iirc it advocates step 4, so if I'm right..you're advocating against your SECOND attack theory..first Harrington, now DN...
6. Ironically what is going on in this hand IS sorta related to DN; but not in the way you think it is: Link to Ancient Article.
gl
1) don't you not comment on my math...with all your help i would really appreciate that. and i didn't 'do your homework for you' what i meant was i am attempting to represent your words through math....feel free to correct it for my sake thx.
2) I am playing extremely tight these days until im down to 10 bb and then im looking for shove edge. I'm keeping it that simple and working on that aspect of my game. i made some cash adding small ball play, but then i went on a big losing streak, right now im playing ultra tight and no doubt a little too tight. i would fold that hand or small ball it.
3) You widened the diamond range and narrowed the others <<< i dont understand this part....where?
4) yes i came to that conclusion too but i forgot about it, especially around the money bubble he may believe that the will be few callers. with my range i put up, it didn't change it that much but i put both. honestly i don't know if what i did with the ranges makes sense. ive never done that before.
5. by step for i think you mean limping in with AA....but thats not in the book...is that what you mean?? or do you mean playing back at somone with aces....because he talks about that but another thing about all this is dn always stresses you have to have a really good read on you opponent and i think alot of people try his style and think its bad because they dont understand that (not refering to anyone here).
..you're advocating against your SECOND attack theory <<<< didn't understand this
....you mean first Harrington, now DN...<<< harrington i don't know what you mean but i learned 'm' from you guys. from what i understand anything over 10m and you can play standard poker, with a bigger m than 20 you have alot of time to accumulate small pots and the nut hands without playing advanced. thats all. and someone quoted slanksy's theory and i didn't think it was used in the proper context, i hope you understood that because you commented on that
6 no idea how but thanks for the link..i can now cheat on my wife if i get one.
Comments
wetts played the hand in a small ball way preflop by making a small bet with suited connectors. i consider it a small bet (3.5 bb i think) because there is already a limper and the antes. To play small ball from what i understand you need to stick to small pots until you trap the other guy with a monster, the nuts or very near to it. I don't believe your supposed to put your tourney life on hand like that when small balling. He played this hand like he was tight aggresive after the flop, but in reality he opened with a very loose hand got called by a big stack and lost everything. Small ball which is known for suited connectors is about losing many small pots, staying alive with semi bluff and then cashing big with the nuts.
I say small ball this hand or chuck it
That being said i think i did kristy's math for her, its a little much but good for my brain....if its wrong ill re work it.....
looking for her input and everyones....it just proves her words mathmatically i think
villain preflop
22+ but maybe not even jj+
A9-AK, K9-kQ, Q8-QJ
JT
Flop
villain check raises
SETS 33,44,TT
OVERPAIR JJ+ <<< maybe these weren't preflop possibilities??
FLOPPED FLUSH suited diamonds (A9-AK, K9-kQ, Q8-QJ)
FLUSH DRAW offsuit with one diamond A9-AK, K9-kQ, Q8-QJ
TOP PAIR all combinations with no diamonds (AT KT QT JT)
Turn
Villain puts in a just under half pot sized bet that screams i like my cards lets go all in
SETS 33,44,TT
OVERPAIR JJ+ <<< maybe these weren't preflop possibilities??
FLOPPED FLUSH suited diamonds (A9-AK, K9-kQ, Q8-QJ)
FLUSH DRAW offsuit with one diamond (AT KT QT JT) <<< cards in range that he caught something and has a flush draw still
TOP PAIR all combinations with no diamonds (AT KT QT JT)
33,44,TT, Ad9d-AdKd, Kd9d-KdQd, Qd8d-QdJd, AdT, KdT,QdT,JdT, TdJ, TdQ,TdK, TdA, AT, KT, QT, JT ......???
wetts is 76.4-23.6 or 80/20 with JJ+
If you are advocating folding pre, thats fine.
If you are advocating folding on that flop, I cant help.
But thanks to whoever resurrected this thread!
thats because im insane now
1. You didn't 'do my math for me' ..I already know how to play this hand. You're the one making mistakes.
2. Really!?!? Now that we've crushed all your other comments you're going to talk about folding pf? What happens if I rip that to shreds, as it is clearly fine to play that hand..are you going to join a group against poker and argue that 'we shouldn't have been gambling in the first place"?
3. You widened the diamond range and narrowed the others
4. jj, kk, aa ARE in the villian's range limp utg+1 with them is not my favourite play..but it certainly happens often enough, and villain could easily flat knowing that he was HU.
5. I didn't read DN's small ball book, but iirc it advocates step 4, so if I'm right..you're advocating against your SECOND attack theory..first Harrington, now DN...
6. Ironically what is going on in this hand IS sorta related to DN; but not in the way you think it is: Link to Ancient Article.
gl
1) don't you not comment on my math...with all your help i would really appreciate that. and i didn't 'do your homework for you' what i meant was i am attempting to represent your words through math....feel free to correct it for my sake thx.
2) I am playing extremely tight these days until im down to 10 bb and then im looking for shove edge. I'm keeping it that simple and working on that aspect of my game. i made some cash adding small ball play, but then i went on a big losing streak, right now im playing ultra tight and no doubt a little too tight. i would fold that hand or small ball it.
3) You widened the diamond range and narrowed the others <<< i dont understand this part....where?
4) yes i came to that conclusion too but i forgot about it, especially around the money bubble he may believe that the will be few callers. with my range i put up, it didn't change it that much but i put both. honestly i don't know if what i did with the ranges makes sense. ive never done that before.
5. by step for i think you mean limping in with AA....but thats not in the book...is that what you mean?? or do you mean playing back at somone with aces....because he talks about that but another thing about all this is dn always stresses you have to have a really good read on you opponent and i think alot of people try his style and think its bad because they dont understand that (not refering to anyone here).
..you're advocating against your SECOND attack theory <<<< didn't understand this
....you mean first Harrington, now DN...<<< harrington i don't know what you mean but i learned 'm' from you guys. from what i understand anything over 10m and you can play standard poker, with a bigger m than 20 you have alot of time to accumulate small pots and the nut hands without playing advanced. thats all. and someone quoted slanksy's theory and i didn't think it was used in the proper context, i hope you understood that because you commented on that
6 no idea how but thanks for the link..i can now cheat on my wife if i get one.
thx