Joined: Mar '11
Location: Croatia
Age: 43 (M)
Posts: 1738
Man so many beats now i can't help it but to rant a little and this seems like the thread to do it... here it goes:
At least i had the sense to get out before i bust the rest of my roll lol. A couple hours rest and will try again later once those donks are out after losing my money
Posted by lukasb: Man so many beats now i can't help it but to rant a little and this seems like the thread to do it... here it goes:
At least i had the sense to get out before i bust the rest of my roll lol. A couple hours rest and will try again later once those donks are out after losing my money
I've just had two more as well in the same BRM free roll on FT.
2 Pair (Top two) flushed on river by some muppet with 5,2 sooted. After building my stack back up had my A,Q, which hit top pair (Q,4,T) beaten on river when another 4 came. This time the clown had 3,4 off. I mean to say!!! Naturally I had raised pre-flop and then bet pot sized when the Q hit and this clown called me.
Posted by Macubaas: Whats important at the end of the day is that you played the hand correctly!
If you indeed lost the hand at least you know that you did not make a mistake and only variance is to blaim.
So lets say the villians range is 55 66 77 88 99 TT JJ QQ KK AA AK AQ AJ AT & QK he's dominated by 60% of that and flipping with 40% unless he has some history with this player it was not the correct way to play the hand.
Posted by Macubaas: Whats important at the end of the day is that you played the hand correctly!
If you indeed lost the hand at least you know that you did not make a mistake and only variance is to blaim.
So lets say the villians range is 55 66 77 88 99 TT JJ QQ KK AA AK AQ AJ AT & QK he's dominated by 60% of that and flipping with 40% unless he has some history with this player it was not the correct way to play the hand.
I was already in the money. It was unlikely that I would have made the next level of payout and the likelyhood of getting a better hand than A,T suited before being blinded out was very small.
So I disagree. In those circumstances I feel it was the correct way to play it.
Now that I know what the villain had I could have shoved and he most likely would have called but I tried to play it in a way to extract the most money in order to reach the next level.
Posted by Macubaas: Whats important at the end of the day is that you played the hand correctly!
If you indeed lost the hand at least you know that you did not make a mistake and only variance is to blaim.
So lets say the villians range is 55 66 77 88 99 TT JJ QQ KK AA AK AQ AJ AT & QK he's dominated by 60% of that and flipping with 40% unless he has some history with this player it was not the correct way to play the hand.
I was already in the money. It was unlikely that I would have made the next level of payout and the likelyhood of getting a better hand than A,T suited before being blinded out was very small.
So I disagree. In those circumstances I feel it was the correct way to play it.
Now that I know what the villain had I could have shoved and he most likely would have called but I tried to play it in a way to extract the most money in order to reach the next level.
You don't say how many BB you have or what the villains tendencies are but if he's been tight then the range i gave is fair and you're just not doing well against it if he's been splashing around then ok.
Edited by primitivo (19 September 2013 @ 12:46 GMT)
Posted by Macubaas: Whats important at the end of the day is that you played the hand correctly!
If you indeed lost the hand at least you know that you did not make a mistake and only variance is to blaim.
So lets say the villians range is 55 66 77 88 99 TT JJ QQ KK AA AK AQ AJ AT & QK he's dominated by 60% of that and flipping with 40% unless he has some history with this player it was not the correct way to play the hand.
I was already in the money. It was unlikely that I would have made the next level of payout and the likelyhood of getting a better hand than A,T suited before being blinded out was very small.
So I disagree. In those circumstances I feel it was the correct way to play it.
Now that I know what the villain had I could have shoved and he most likely would have called but I tried to play it in a way to extract the most money in order to reach the next level.
You don't say how many BB you have or what the villains tendencies are but if he's been tight then the range i gave is fair and you're just not doing well against it if he's been splashing around then ok.
I just said I didn't have enough BB to make the next level of payout. So I did say how many BB I had. Even from my original post "I was about 20th of 25 and I was getting short" a few seconds thought might have given an inkling.
It matters not whether the villain was tight, aggresive or a total maniac. Sure I might have got AA next hand but it was unlikely.
The villain's range had little to do with it in this situation. I feel that this is one of the few, perhaps only, circumstance where it was more important what I had than what the opponent might have.
Once again, I feel that I played this in a reasonable manner given the circumstances.
Early in a tournament it would have been totally stupid. I have even folded AA and KK when on the bubble because they get cracked so often, in my experience.
bad action. next time will be better. 
the viriance play the game
