i alos want to add part of the reason i folded was cause this pot was 3 handed on the river and I really didnt feel he pull a big bluff here into 2 of us. I think i mightve called here with it was a hu pot. not sure if thats a good reason or not

 

Originally Posted by The Lab Rat

i alos want to add part of the reason i folded was cause this pot was 3 handed on the river and I really didnt feel he pull a big bluff here into 2 of us. I think i mightve called here with it was a hu pot. not sure if thats a good reason or not

I'm not sure either because I'm not on the level of a lot of these guys replying in this thread but in my mind I feel that that is definitely legitimate reasoning and I'd be happy to know that it's not with some explanation.

 

Originally Posted by DFish

Rock/Ape are the winners

I call, because of everything Rock said.

Really? A big chunk of rock's analysis rests on Frank not checking the flop with AJ and AT, which as Frank confirmed (unsurprisingly given the flat preflop for such a high % of effective stacks) is flat out wrong. Additionally I think rock's analysis gives insufficient emphasis to the third player in the pot, the river card improves his hand (as well as OP's) a lot. Yeah we're folding a hand near the top of our range (this would be a snapcall if no one else was in the pot), but there's someone else yet to act who in the absence of further information has to be presumed not to be able to do the same thing. Continuing to bet into 2 players when a great card for both their ranges hits is just not a winning play in online MTTs where generally no one has the ability to make a big laydown. IMO.

 

Originally Posted by tbt4653

Really? A big chunk of rock's analysis rests on Frank not checking the flop with AJ and AT, which as Frank confirmed (unsurprisingly given the flat preflop for such a high % of effective stacks) is flat out wrong. Additionally I think rock's analysis gives insufficient emphasis to the third player in the pot, the river card improves his hand (as well as OP's) a lot. Yeah we're folding a hand near the top of our range (this would be a snapcall if no one else was in the pot), but there's someone else yet to act who in the absence of further information has to be presumed not to be able to do the same thing. Continuing to bet into 2 players when a great card for both their ranges hits is just not a winning play in online MTTs where generally no one has the ability to make a big laydown. IMO.

I know more about the other villain than OP does fwiw. And I know lab rat fairly well. This is why it's a winning play.

 

Originally Posted by tbt4653

Really? A big chunk of rock's analysis rests on Frank not checking the flop with AJ and AT, which as Frank confirmed (unsurprisingly given the flat preflop for such a high % of effective stacks) is flat out wrong. Additionally I think rock's analysis gives insufficient emphasis to the third player in the pot, the river card improves his hand (as well as OP's) a lot. Yeah we're folding a hand near the top of our range (this would be a snapcall if no one else was in the pot), but there's someone else yet to act who in the absence of further information has to be presumed not to be able to do the same thing. Continuing to bet into 2 players when a great card for both their ranges hits is just not a winning play in online MTTs where generally no one has the ability to make a big laydown. IMO.

Thought I added more thoughts as to why I thought it was a call other then AJ and AT is rarely in his range... maybe im wrong. From the tone of your response it seems as if you think Frank didn't have enough information about his opponent. In response to your statement in bold, allthough it is "an online tournament and no one folds." This isn't just any online tournament it is one of the BIGGEST ftops events with a huge buyin for the internet, if OP knew this guy was just a hugeeee station or something then he would have noted that. Since he didn't we can safely assume that he is going to be nittier then your AVG random internet pro and more then likely never take this line with a hand that is ahead of OP, most random players like to get money in at somepoint on drawy boards with big hands so unless he decided to check call like a9 or something there is just very few hands that the other villain could have that are ahead of OP.

Just because it appears to be a bad spot to bluff on the surface, doesn't neccesarily mean that FRANKTHETANK didn't have enough information to think other wise. In my response I wasn't commenting on whether or not I thought it was a good spot to bluff, I was commenting on villains range of hands and what he thought of OPS range, I can't really comment much on what he thought of the other player in the hands range, because I have no information about FRANKS and the other players history. However, like I noted before ,the other player in the hand rarely if ever takes this line with a hand that is ahead of Labrat, thus pretty much eliminating him from the hand, thus making it a fairly easy call? Im not commenting on whether or not I thought it was a good or bad bluff, for i don't have enough information to comment on that.

FWIW i didnt even notice the third player in the pot when I wrote out my response lol.

 

Originally Posted by tbt4653

Really? A big chunk of rock's analysis rests on Frank not checking the flop with AJ and AT, which as Frank confirmed (unsurprisingly given the flat preflop for such a high % of effective stacks) is flat out wrong. Additionally I think rock's analysis gives insufficient emphasis to the third player in the pot, the river card improves his hand (as well as OP's) a lot. Yeah we're folding a hand near the top of our range (this would be a snapcall if no one else was in the pot), but there's someone else yet to act who in the absence of further information has to be presumed not to be able to do the same thing. Continuing to bet into 2 players when a great card for both their ranges hits is just not a winning play in online MTTs where generally no one has the ability to make a big laydown. IMO.

I really don't think the presence of a third player makes that great of a difference in this spot, particularly when the only hand he can really overcall/raise with is QK with the flush draw, because he can't really have AJ or sets when he flats the turn, and shouldn't really show up with other 2 pair hands, and if he does, it's gonna be hella tough to overcall with them.

So while I agree with your thoughts, I think if this is a snapcall without a third villain, it should be a call still, albeit a pretty close one.

 

Originally Posted by Duffy08

has frank said what he had?

Had QdTd.

 

Originally Posted by tbt4653

87, which was an OESD on the turn, got there. Anyway, it's not the overcall/raise on the river from the 3rd player that I'm worried about, it's what the presence of another opponent for whom the river card was a good card for his range should do to Frank's bluffing frequency.

Todd why do you think this is such a great river card for them? 87 is the only hand that gets there with that river if he decides to call turn with that OOP. Yeah they could have AT, but I even have a blocker to that. Plus there has to be some frequency where if villain had AJ/AT, that they'd lead turn to protect their hand. All of this seems to be great reasons for bluffing here.

Lab, I think one thing that is important here and it might already have been said I didnt read the whole post, but I think your really undervaluing the fact that your hand here is extremely under repped by the way the hand was played, therefore increasing his chances at bluffing on this river