I tanked for a bit before calling this pre-flop, because it is a little light given our positions, but the dynamic was right. It wasn’t what I was going for, but when he checked the flop I realized that the tank-call may, in his eyes, increase the likelihood that I’m slowplaying a big pair and was considering 4-betting. With some chance of winning immediately plus backdoor draws and probably six outs against his check-calling range, some small bluffs are called for:
PokerStars No-Limit Hold’em, $4.00 BB (5 handed) – PokerStars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com
BB ($400)
Hero (UTG) ($622.50)
MP ($406)
Button ($408.80)
SB ($546.55)
Preflop: Hero is UTG with K♥, Q♥
Hero bets $14, 3 folds, BB raises to $44, Hero calls $30
Flop: ($90) J♣, J♠, 2♥ (2 players)
BB checks, Hero bets $33, BB calls $33
Turn: ($156) 4♣ (2 players)
BB checks, Hero bets $55, 1 fold
Total pot: $156 | Rake: $2
Results:
Hero didn’t show K♥, Q♥.
Outcome: Hero won $154
You need to kill it with all that “son” shit: You’re the whitest dude on the internet.
By “all that son shit”, you’re referring to a single instance in the title of this blog post, right? Also biology was one of my worst subjects in school but I’m pretty sure white people have children, too.
This is Boring.
Just to be clear… it’s the mindlessly taking offense at the use of innocuous words that’s boring.
White people aren’t allowed to use certain words, didn’t you get the committee’s memo Andrew?
Unlike the rest of European languages English has no declinations and conjugation.
You have to rely on context very much to get the exact meaning.
This is not the case for Spanish,Russian,German,etc .
You can disregard context of the message and you have the gist easy.
In English you have to be creative with choice of adjective and noun to convey the meaning.
In American English you have to be careful.
This is not the case for the rest of European languages.
You can be lazy with choice of words and you will convey exact meaning.
The verb will do it for you.
I am suprised by DHetfield comment but I respect his(her) sensitivity.
Your interpretation is out of the context but I am not native speaker.
When talking about poker,context and the message -Norman Chad comes to my mind.
When you break down his creative commentary(adjectives and nouns) how Martin Staszko looked and acted during Main Event final.
You have his clear and honest message: He is insane alien who looks like old clown.
I think Martin Staszko is wonderful story for poker.
Norman Chad -(poker commentator?) did not adress this story at all.
Staszko lived in small industrial town and worked in manufacturing plant’s paint shop.
He used to get up at five in the morning in order to attend twelve hours shifts followed by playing poker,leaving only some four to five hours for sleep.
Norman I got your message: You are old clown.
Andrew, I’m interested in your thinking regarding bluffs like this in general. Can you explain a little more about the dynamic you refer to in the first sentence? I’m also interested in your thinking behind when to fire multiple barrels. I understand the idea that your backdoor draws add to your equity in the flop. but that dries up on the turn, so essentially your options are to give up or take another stab, since it seems very unlikely your king-high is good vs. his three-betting range. What informs your decision to double barrel here, and would you have fired a third barrel if he’d called? I think deciding on whether to fire that third barrel is one of the toughest decisions for me to make.
Calling a 3-bet with KQs is usually a mistake against a very tight 3-betting range, which certain players would have as BB vs an UTG raise. To call, I have to believe his range is wide enough that I can profitably call at least one or two bets when I flop top pair and also that I can sometimes make him fold when I choose to semi-bluff a draw.
The river is a tough question and could depend on a couple of things, most importantly the card. I think the turn bet is an easy decision because I get such great leverage. He can’t have much in the way of draws, so his hand strength relative to mine is largely static. That means that whatever he has, very few river cards would give him more than a bluff-catcher. He can’t just call and then evaluate based on the river card. With just $55, I force him to at least think about a threat to the $300 still in his stack.
I’m wondering what you put villain on? Was it a lower pocket pair? (1010, 99, 88)
Also because you have KQ it’s less likely for you opponent to have KK or QQ but it’s also less likely they have AK, AQ too. When pretty much the blankest of all blanks hits the turn villain has to pretty much put you on AA-JJ for him to be behind correct?
It seems like when I ever used to try this I’d get called down by 5’s or A10s.
Do you think being a PS Pro also had anything to do with him folding? Do you think people give you more respect or do you feel that people like to hero call you more due to you being a PS Pro?
I put him on a marginal hand. That could have been a mid-pair or Ax. The thing is it’s hard to get dealt a pocket pair, so even removing a K from the deck, there are still more combos of AK than 88 possible. I would say it’s also not obvious to me that 88 would be a better call than AK here in Villain’s shoes. It may be technically ahead, but 88 doesn’t necessarily have better equity against my range than AK, since it is drawing almost dead when behind.
Overall I probably get more action because of the red spade, but I doubt that was relevant here. This is a player I’d played a lot with even before my deal, so I don’t think he would be particularly influenced by it.
I am very interested in your theory of timing tells.
You tanked preflop.You tank-called on flop to increase the likelihood that you are slowplaying a big pair.
I use actively timing strategy when bluffing in HU.
I try to interpret the timing and the board together.
I bet the flop. The pre-flop tank-call was actually not deliberate, it just occurred to me afterwards that it could look like a slowplay. I don’t have a very sophisticated theory, I just tend to assume that if a player is thinking, he’s thinking about something. Depending on the context, I can sometimes get an idea of what that might be. If he acts very quickly, I can usually assume he’s not making a very thin, sophisticated, or uncommon move.
OK I tell you Andrew what I meant.
I think is much more to that and I hoped that you tell me about it.
I meant the theory as way to build and structure your interpretation of timing.
Let’me share with you just one observation.
There are certaing boards where Villan will play 2 lines with his range.
The first is default line. The second is non-standard one.
My “theory”:The longer the span the higher the probality that he will chose non-standard line.
I found that such observation much more usefull than just rigid assosiations such like: delayed check – weakness,etc.
I found that such additional “theories” adds up nicely to the rigid assosiations to make quality read.
Where are all the white women at?! Seriously, well played sir. Always enjoy a differnt way to see or think about how a hand is played.