Jump to content
advertisement_alt

Pudge714

Members
  • Content Count

    2
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Pudge714

  • Birthday 10/11/1988

Profile

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Screen names

Rankings

  • Worldwide

    22

  • All-time high

    20 (2018)

  • Canada

    1 / 2,339

  • Ontario

    1 / 973

  • Toronto

    1 / 223

  • Sliding PLB

    7,646

Cashes

  • Lifetime total

    $6,717,788

  • Biggest cash

    $377,280

  • Number of cashes

    1,825

  • Average cash

    $3,681

Latest post

  1. For the first UTG raise I would probably call AK JJ+, but that is because I am 9-12 tabling and don't feel like making very marginal calls here, but I would never give him a range of AK TT because people will raise stupid hands here and against that range I would need to regularly fold overpairs to unknowns who will raise stuff like J9s. Calling JJ for set value and reraising QQ is still awful because if you are letting your opponent play close to perfectly when you reraise. You will be spewing chips calling for set value here. If you call JJjust because you play cautiously when you flop an OP doesn't mean you are playing for set value you are in position and can control the pot. He didn't raise here to be deceptive. He raised here because he is an idiot any time you need to justify a play in a SNG as an image play in early levels it is probably bad. It is also bad to makes these raises because in late levels you need FE when you push like crazy. He would bet if he had top pair but my preflop and flop calling range are crushing TP I would never fold an OP or TPTK or something like that to him. Limping 43o is horrible no matter how much justification you use for it. You will spew money in the long term by doing it. You may respond that you aren't thinking deep enough or something like that, that isn't the case you are losing money everytime you limp here. Very good players >>>> p5ers>>>>> avergade donkey in most SNGs. The 4x raise maybe stronger, but it is often just a standard open. Some people choose to always raise 80 others always 60. You really got me by using possibly. It is "possible" I will flop thenuts with 72o. It is "possible" that you have been running incredibly hot over a 300 sng sample and that is unrepresentative of your true ability. You seem to ignore that when you limp hands like 96s and 43o they are costing you chips. It isn't a freeroll to hit a big flop which won't happen enough of the time for it to be worth it. This is the same guy you gave an UTG raising range ofAK TT+ Of course, when I assigned him that range, he raised 4xBB in earlyposition in the first hand of the SNG, so your logic that I should have known to range him looser based on a loose play he makes ninehands later holds no water. You are REALLY stretching here, just lookingfor leaks in my post, aren't you? If you aren't giving early positionraisers credit for a hand until you know otherwise, you are just going to getkilled. My point is people are stupid and make irrational plays giving unknowns credit for being decent is stupid and wrong. I was being sarcastic, but you don't really have a nitty image thus far unknowns won't play attention to it and even if they are papying attention it needs to get through so many people it is never profitable unless you are trying some sick range balancing play against unknowns who you will never play again. It's amazing how long it took you to realize I was being sarcastic. Weir is a decent regular it is very probable he was just playing tight early like most other sng regs. Weir hasn't shown a propensity to resteal in three hands or so. It is possible he just had hands like 32 or j4 which he couldn't profitably resteal yet. The vast, vast majority of players fold "suitedand/or connected cards" here. If you spent some time with studentswho learned to play tight over time to grind out a small profit, you would alsoknow that a lot of players fold aces here as well. It's pretty sad. Instead of assuming the player who hasn't been involved in any hands will movewith A2, it's better to be on the safe side. Why do you think that the majority of players are players who learned to play tight over time to grind out a small profit? My comment about live cards was right. Also despite A7 and A4 not being in there ranges pairs make your cards dead. I didn't range them 99+AQ+, merely stated that inorder for them to dominate me, they needed 99+. Most people who are tightfold AT here. I am raising because all of the players remaining in thehand are tight. So therefore, they fold AT. Maybe not GolfManic,but the other's will. 55+ is pretty dominating against you. This shove is awful and if I were a regular I would love to call you with a hand like KJo. I love how you are making assumptions like this based on 40 hands of poker. Yes, a raise from the SB is beating KT here more oftenthan not. I really wish I could make a bet on this. The cutoff is somewhere in there. From myexperience, I see small pairs, AA, and hands like A9 here more often than not. This is probably a case of selective memory. The CO is different for every player and you are creating arbitratry lines here. No, what would be horrible is calling out of positionin second place against the chipleader with a vulnerable hand like AT or77. The BB definitely has to reraise or fold. calling is a foolishoption. I thought you were in the SB so calling would be in position. Calling OOP isn't that bad if you can play OOP. Edit: A couple more thoughts after rereading it. A monster or a good, but vulnerable hand what a narrowrange Why would a range necessarily have do be narrow? This commentmakes no sense. My point is your comment tells us nothing. DABIGFISH: raises 840 to 990 and is all-in I'll put him on A10+, KQ, 88+ to be safe. Though the raiser could have muchless, it's best to guess tight when you aren't sure, because guessingsomebody's range too loose is costly, where guessing too tight is onlymarginally unprofitable. OMG this is so bad. PEOPLE ARE BAD AT POKER THEY DON’T FOLD PAIRS OR ACES ORHANDS WHICH ARE SOOTED And sometimes people are so bad at poker that they don't raise when theyshould either. Though later in the game it's shown that DABIGFISHprobably has a wider range than that, remember that ranging someone looser thanthey are is suicide, while ranging someone too tight is only marginallyunprofitable. Therefore I would move over DABIGFISH with AQ+, JJ+ here, folding AJ/TT orworse. Against the range listed, which I have to state again is horribly wrongTT fairs better than AQ After further review in SNGPT, folding TT costs me $2.32 in equity(hypothetically of course, because I had 47o) against my stated range, rememberthat when I range someone I range them as tight as they possibly are, so therange is not "horribly wrong". Take a little off that $2.32because of my skill edge, and you'll find that it costs me less than$2.00. Not an enormous leak. That's 4 ROI points. You realize you fold TT here, but shove 85s later which is much thinner and furthermore can be massively -EV if people are shoving wide. While if villain is shoving wider here this shove is massively +EV. The 85s in the best case scenario is worse than folding TT in the worst case scenario. (Assuming ranges aren't stupid like AA only or something). Part of your skill edge comes from not folding TT here. $ 4ROI points is huge over the long run. Also someone said that Spacegravy is better than Jennifear. I coached Spacegravy. "Excellent post, one of thebest I have read on this site! I also like the diplomatic way youhandle the criticsm. She isn't claiming to be the best, just a veryprofitable low limit specialist and teacher. I'd like to see some ofthe critics post an entire SNG hand history and explain their thoughtprocess. It would be enlightening for the rest of us! " I would do this except it takes a lot of time and it would be unfair. To the paying suscribers of sngicons.
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.