nl 50 zoom A7s

Hi.

I think the Turn is a clear call. While he may have 78s a lot, not only should u expect to chop a lot, but having the flush draw makes you a favourite vs other 7X hands.

As for the flop, I think the best play is definitely to donk out. I don't expect people to attack this low wet flop too often and I think it will often get checked around. That would be disastrous for any hand that's aiming for a check/raise so I think you should lead your draws, combo-draws and sets here.

Hey, could you tell what would be a good line on Flop for 55-99 type of hands in such spot?

Thanks

Lead out with all of those, c/calling anything here would be pretty unreasonable I think. With those hands you obviously don't want to call any raises unlike with sets or the kinds of godly draws like the one you had.

With medium strengh hands u shouldnt lead. Just play them passively if both villains are regs.

How is that better? Why would we want everybody to know that when we lead, we have the nuts, and, when we c/c, go ahead and fire 3 because we have a weak pair. The unreasonable claims from the coaches on this site are hilarious.

Forget to mention, even if you're still in 2010 and are playing your hand vs their range(s), instead of playing your range vs their range, I still don't see why c/c would be better than leading, even in vacuum.

Originally posted by ArtisSkirpa
How is that better? Why would we want everybody to know that when we lead, we have the nuts, and, when we c/c, go ahead and fire 3 because we have a weak pair. The unreasonable claims from the coaches on this site are hilarious.

Please tell me what leading achieves here, before posting your insults

Originally posted by mbml

Originally posted by ArtisSkirpa
How is that better? Why would we want everybody to know that when we lead, we have the nuts, and, when we c/c, go ahead and fire 3 because we have a weak pair. The unreasonable claims from the coaches on this site are hilarious.

Please tell me what leading achieves here, before posting your insults

Why would we want everybody to know that when we lead, we have the nuts, and, when we c/c, go ahead and fire 3 because we have a weak pair.

Poker has moved past the value/bluff age. It is difficult to explain complicated situations by calling all of our bets either value bets or bluffs, or trying to achieve some sort of goals with our bets. In spots where we are playing vs regulars and don't have any very specific info about leaks they have in those spots, the only reasonable thing to do is just try and play your range as best as you can. It is unreasonable to have a leading range that never folds and almost never loses and a c/calling range that can never call 3 bets unless it binks a 2 outer.

Like I said, even besides that, it is difficult to play the c/calling game with weak hands even in vacuum. To explain in it in terms you use, leading gets other people to fold a bunch of equity, call with some worse hands, put pressure on their ranges, doesn't let it get checked through, because that is something that would happen a lot and we almost never win when we have to play the turn vs 12 people.

In general, I am fairly convinced leading your whole continuing range is what is best for that whole range, also, I'm pretty sure leading the 55-99 part of our range is going to be higher EV than c/calling it for the reasons I mentioned.

I am not trying to insult anyone, nor do I think I did. But, as a coach I think you should try and explain, dare I say prove, that the one-liner claims you're making have any merit.

I am open to be convinced that I'm wrong about this hand, but it's going to take more than just you saying "You're wrong, I am right". The coach badge should not let you make statements about poker theory, without backing them up with anything.

Notice how you asked me to explain why I think my suggested play was better, before ever attempting to explain why it wouldn't be.

Peace.

i can't prove it, same way you can't prove that you are right here. You are right that this is way too complicated to prove.

About not insulting: So you can go around saying my claims are "hilarious" then claim that you aren't trying to insult me. What's that then? A praise? So now I'm posting here for entertainment and giggles?

Sure I agree with you that not everything is about value betting or checking to induce bluffs. I just don't think this is one of those situations where you want to be folding out people's equity share

1. This is a multiway pot - Folding out people's equity share has way less value, simply because people just don't fold as often
2. Just because checking may be difficult to play doesn't mean it's the inferior option

It is unreasonable to have a leading range that never folds and almost never loses and a c/calling range that can never call 3 bets unless it binks a 2 outer.

I already mentioned that you can lead backdoor stuff. No one said you had to always lead the nuts or some combodraw. I think it has always been largely agreed that leading ranges should always be polarized (note that I said polarized and not pure value).

Also, if villain is bluffing enough of the time, you can just call down with your best bluff catchers. Just because you can never have the nuts in a particular situation, does not mean that you have to fold to 3 barrels.

ultimately this topic is going to be way too complicated for a single thread. I suggest you open one more elsewhere and ask for the opinions of multiple people.