![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
Very good analysis, TR--- Thanks
Marco,
I am interested in how you convinced players who don't even know the rules of holdem to sit 50-100 with you. It sounds like a gold mine. I need to find richer friends for my home games, apparently.
HoJu
You should have folded before the flop. Even getting three to one odds on your pre-flop bet, I don't think this hand is worth it. The value of drawing hands (like one-gappers and suited connectors) goes way down in heads-up play, because you'll never get more than 1:1 odds on the money you put into the pot in total, since there'll never be more than one person in the pot with you.
If you raise the river, you are laying 2-1 that you have the best hand (assuming you will call him if he re-raises, which I'm fairly sure is a valid assumption).
Did you - and, more importantly, do you NOW feel that you had more than a 67% chance of winning the hand ?
- - - I mean (of course) in retrospect; now that the hand is over and the cards have been shown I think a raise would have been a GREAT idea.
I would have won alot less on this hand than you did, and I would NOT have raised the river.
That doesn't mean you played it badly - you just played it differently than I would have.
Also, let's not forget you knew your opponent; I've never met him/her.
Nice pot,
J-D
Hey all.
I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, and would like to start playing ring games of PL/NL omaha and holdem. There's a no-limit game going on in Lucky Chances in Colma with blinds being 10-10-20, and a minimum buy-in of 1000, with a typical stack being 2500-3000 dollars.
Needless to say, that's a lot of money to be paying to *learn* no limit. What would be your guy's suggestions on learning how to play pot limit and no limit without risking a huge portion of your bankroll?
I usually play 15-30 and 20-40, and I just don't want to get my ass handed to me without having a good chance of actually winning money.
If you are bankrolled for 20-40, the best way to get your feet wet is in live games, at AJ's or Pacific News.
Update: The game at Pacific News is being spread on Tuesdays and Saturdays now. It just started up again a couple weeks ago, and will soon be running three or four night per week. Best thing is to call the club for updates.
I don't doubt that computer programs are educational. But I don't think they can prepare you things like:
1) A guy folds 50, and I mean 50, hands in row, then pops it on a steal before the flop with 7-2 offsuit from the blind after a bunch of players limp for $10. That's the "wild card" hand for several of the ultra-tight players around here.
2) Probing and revealing dialogue.
3) The many many MANY ways that the unique "kill" structure affects the play.
See ya soon,
Tommy
I was reading an article on the internet the other day about a hand that Johnny Chan played and I was very suprised by the way Chan played the hand. You can read the article at. http://members.iquest.net/~brikshoe/Chan_profile.html
The second half of the article talks about a 5 day marathon game between Johnny Chan, Chip Reese, Doyle Brunson, Roger Moore, and a French millionaire. In which there was a very strange hand. I'll post the exerpt here. ------------------------------------------------------- It started with the Frenchman, showing a ten of diamonds, raising Doyle Brunson's jack. Chan showed a six but had a pair of kings (one of them a diamond) underneath; he re-raised, which forced out Brunson, then watched the Frenchman re-raise him. "He don't know what I'm raising on," Chan said, "so when he re-raises, I figure he's trying to sell me on his hand. Make me think he has trips or a pair of hidden aces. But I peg him for two high diamonds in the hole, ace and queen. I know by now he likes to raise on the come. I know if he's got trips, he just calls there to suck me in." On the next card, the French-man caught a ten of clubs, giving him a pair of tens showing; Chan picked up a four of hearts. When the Frenchman bet his pair of tens, Chan raised, then watched the Frenchman re-raise him again.
Almost anyone else would have taken the re-raise to mean the Frenchman now had trips or at least two pair and that it was time to fold. But to Chan it meant the opposite: "When he re-raised me" Chan said, "I knew for sure he's playing two high diamonds in the hole. No way he re-raise me earlier on a pair of tens. And if he got aces with the tens, he don't re-raise me now because he gotta be scared 1 have trips the way I'm betting."
On fifth street, the Frenchman caught a seven of diamonds and Chan got a nine. Still with only a pair of kings, Chan re-raised again in the face of the Frenchman's bet, and this time got only a call. "I figure he still needs a card to make his hand, I gotta bet mine for value. Even though I know he's got four diamonds, he's still about a two-to-one dog against me."
After the sixth and seventh cards were dealt, Chan still hadn't improved. But when the Frenchman bet, Chan called the $38,000 pot with his lonely pair of kings. All that early raising and re-raising, and Chan was certain the Frenchman had nothing in his hand but dreams. Sure enough, the Frenchman's last card — a nine of clubs — hadn't helped; his first two hole cards were the ace and queen of diamonds. Exactly as Chan had figured. -------------------------------------------------------
It seemed to me that Chan was fishing pretty hard here. Saying that he is a 2-1 fav on 5th. With a pair and a 4th flush pluss and overcard to Chan's pair the French player was actually the 2-1 fav or better. For Chan to say "I figure he still needs a card to make his hand, I gotta bet mine for value" sounds like he has no idea what is going on and has little understanding of basic seven card stud fundamentals. He was just lucky to end up with the winner at the showdown. Has anybody heard this story before? What does everybody think about how Chan played this hand?
Comments appreciated
I read the story twice and based on the replies, I must have missed something.
Chan had the best hand start to finish, and he put in multiple, fearless raises after getting a perfect read after only three cards, a read that few would have figured out and stuck with.
Sounds like brilliance to me. How can it possibly be interpreted otherwise?
Because he is a 1.5-1 dog on fifth street. He should not have raised 5th street. Now when the blank hit on 6th street he goes to a 1.4-1 favorite. NOW he should be raising.
Deception..he is representing a stronger hand than he has. He might get Frenchie to lay down Q's up on the river if he raises again (not likely). Anyways..poker is more than about 1 hand. Even if he played that wrong it does not make him a sucker.
There aint no way Frenchie is dumping Qs up with this much money in the pot. Unless he is a total fish.
Others have posted that even with the best hand, he was taking the worst of it. That's more than a sufficient answer to your question, Tommy. But now for something else to think about: When the hand ended, the opponent's cards were shown. If Chan lost the hand (and I'm sure this has happened on similar occasions many times), you would never hear this story. When he wins the hand and the cards are shown, it shouldn't be a huge surprise that he can justify his play by explaining how he was 100% certain that the other guy held the cards that were shown.
Chan did have outs that others here may not have considered, though: At the showdown he could try miscalling his hand and the guy might muck without checking it closely. This Chan guy is a very savvy player.
Tom Weideman
Thanks for your insight, Tom. You're right that he could lie about his read because he won and the hands were shown. I suppose it comes down to his table tendencies, and I know nothing about that.
But this thread has been based on his post-mortem being true, so let me continue that assumption to address the hand again. Yes, he put in one bet at one point when he did not have the best of it. I'm still surprised that every poster talked about nothing but that one small part of story.
IF Johnny Chan's reputation as a great player is deserved, then jumping on his case for one bad bet within an otherwise brilliant hand is like saying Beethoven's Ninth really isn't that good because of some dull passage in the third movement.
Tommy
excellent observation. I agree with Tommy
"IF Johnny Chan's reputation as a great player is deserved, then jumping on his case for one bad bet within an otherwise brilliant hand is like saying Beethoven's Ninth really isn't that good because of some dull passage in the third movement."
I don't think this is a good analogy. It would be different if he played the hand brilliantly except for a slight misread or poor assumption, as these slip ups are inevitable in poker. In this case, even if we stipulate that his read was as brilliant as he claims, then we have to assume that he simply doesn't understand the trouble he is in on 5th st. This isn't a slip up - it's evidence of a deeper misconception. I guess what I am trying to say is that not all single street errors are created equal: Some are clearly one-time occurances that one shouldn't be counted for much, and others demonstrate deeper problems.
I should also point out though that if Chan is good enough to always be correct about such a read (and I think this is highly doubtful, for reasons I gave before), then there will be far more situations where he will do the right thing rather than make a mistake. That is, his edge will be huge if he could truly make reads this accurate on a regular basis, even though he will occasionally still misplay his hand for other reasons.
Tom Weideman
I am not saying chan is bad, he just didn't understand a fundamental concept. If he really was that confident of his read, he is a legend and small mistakes like the one in this hand won't effect him much. But I don't believe he was 100%. I was just surprised to see the "great one" say "I have kings, you don't, therefore my hand is better."
By the way Tom Weideman is right on the money in both posts.
Why don't you guys who are bashing his play, play him heads up? I completely understand and agree with the benefits of analyzing his plays, but the way some of you are talking (not naming names) you talk like you think you could beat him....I'm sorry...but w/o even seeing your game...my money is going on Chan.
That's the main reason, I think, that NL is so uncommon these days. The bad players bust out too soon -- too much skill compared to the variance.
In limit, you can make a bad play that costs you a couple bets, but sometimes you win a large pot. In NL, if you make that same mistake you lose much more, and the pots you win aren't big enough to even make you feel like it's worth doing.
- target
Target: "That's the main reason, I think, that NL is so uncommon these days. The bad players bust out too soon -- too much skill compared to the variance"
I disgree for three reasons. First, not enough evidence. How many poker markets have had no-limit games and then not had no-limit because too many players busted out? I don't think there is substantial history in a large enough number of markets to support your commonly held conjecture.
Second, in the bay area, no-limit games have been going strong for about 12 years, since CA legalized poker. If the "bust out" conjecture were true, then why are these games still going, and getting stronger?
Third, players bust out and quit playing limit poker too. That's the nature of poker in general, not just no-limit poker.
Tommy
Hi Tommy, I think the clincher here is that you thought he thought you were on a steal and thusly you don't think he made a bad call. I understand your analysis of the hand and have a few questions or points to ponder.
I don't see how he could safely assume his K is an out since your small open raise preflop in steal position could easily be KQ or KJ.(along with all the other possibilities of course)
After sitting there for 30 hands not getting involved much he has to put you on some kind of hand when you go all in on the flop (like two pair or a set) and not that you were following thru on some kind of semi-bluff draw or pure-bluff.
I guess you just did'nt have enough money in front of you to protect your hand.(Although I still think he makes a bad call here)
What follows is all 20-20 hindsight but what if you had just limped with your QT preflop? Then the pot would have been small enough that the SB makes a horrible call with his flush draw to your all-in raise. And if you are going to raise the flop, why such a small raise? (It's not like you have a premium NL trapping hand here) Do you think the SB would be correct calling with Kx's to a bigger bet? (Maybe since you think he thinks you are stealing then maybe you decide he would call any size bet you make since you are short stacked?)
Of course you know the reasons for your play and you know I'm not judging you just kicking some ideas a round with you trying to learn all I can. By the way, what a coincidence. You go play an anonymus hand in the wee hours of the night and another poster happens to be on the rail sees it go down and next thing you know it's on twoplustwo! Take care Tommy
Hi Hillbilly,
<>
Are you talking about his call before the flop? If so, yes, I could have had a wide range of hands. But after the flop, there's no way he would call with King-high in the hope that I was stealing. What I mean is, he did not expect to win with King-high in a show down if neither of us improved after going all in on the flop.
<>
True. He could not "safely assume" a king would give him a winner. But that possibility was just enough to tip the scales in favor of calling, giving the money-math. If I had a set, or two pair, or one pair with a king kicker, or pocket kings of pocket aces, then I would win even if a king came. That's not very many hands.
< Agreed. And he did.
<>
Oddly, if I had had much more money than I did, I would not have bet all my chips. Soooo much of this game depends on relative stack sizes. To make an extreme example, let's say I had $10,000. Obviously I would not bet all in on the flop. The toughest problems in no-limit, partly because they come up contantly, is figuring out where the various thresholds are, based on stack sizes. If I had had, say, $2000, then what should I bet on the flop?
The book answer is to bet enough so that the other guy is getting the "wrong odds." But those odds cannot be calculated, because the implied odds are unknown, because even if he calls the flop bet, he has no assurance of getting even ONE MORE dollar out of me if he hits his flush on the turn. (If he checks, I might check. If he bets, I might fold.)
What happens, in practice, is that the players DO think in mathematical ways, but the variables in the equations are LIKELIHOODS of various scenarios unfolding. (If x comes on the turn, he is y likely to do this, I am z likely to do that, etc.)
< True, but like you said, irrelvent. As to the pre-flop betting:
The blinds are 10-10-20, $40 minimum open, with one of the blinds on the button. The hand was dealt three-handed, so I was first to act before the flop (I had the button). The first person to act before the flop can never "raise." There is no such thing. It's not like a normal structure where the BB is a "bet" and the next wager is a "call" or a "raise." In this structure, there is no "bet" that can he "raised" when first in. This is not merely semantical nitpicking. I just wanted to be sure you understood. It's different, way different, making this structure one that has never been written about by an authority. So we're all winging it over here. :-)
The first person in is the opener. So my options were to open for $40, or any higher amount. Opening for $120 to take down an immediate $40 profit sounds crazy, but it was a good play in this game against those players at that time. You'll just have to trust me on that. Also, if called, it puts me in obviously the best spot to take the pot if no one hits the flop.
But let's say I had opened for $40 and they both called. Now, on the flop, if it went check-check to me (which is less likely after the small open), it's doubtful I would bet all in with such a monster. (I'd have $770, with the pot at $120.) That's a "scared" play. I'd probably bet $140 minimum, $200 maximum. It's very rare that a flush draw would call that bet. Either of these players would make the far better play of coming over the top, in which case, all the money is in on the flop, just as actually happened, fine by me.
But let's say one of them just calls, and the flush hits on the turn. Depending on how it goes down, I might not put any more money in, meaning I made theoretical money by putting money in with the best hand, and putting no money in with the worst.
If I bet, say, $160, and the flush draw calls and misses on the turn, now I still have enough amo to bet all in and give them bad drawing odds with one card to go.
Cool game, eh?
< Actually, opening for $120 into a $40 pot is a sizable open in a three handed game.
<<(Maybe since you think he thinks you are stealing then maybe you decide he would call any size bet you make since you are short stacked?)>>
No. See, the problem here is, what is "stealing?" Let's look at it the other way. Let's say you have the SB, and the button opens for $120. It doesn't matter what you "think" he "might" have, steal or otherwise. What matters is, are you ready to play a pot, out of position, with a guy who has taken the momentum?
Seriously, I don't even know what the word "stealing" means in scenarios like this one. Whatever it means, it is rarely relevant if one player is shortstacked. If we both had big stacks, and I opened for $120, and he had a hand that he might or might not raise with BEFORE the flop, then the "stealing" concept comes into play.
< Yeah, I know. This is fun for me too.
<< By the way, what a coincidence. You go play an anonymus hand in the wee hours of the night and another poster happens to be on the rail sees it go down and next thing you know it's on twoplustwo! >>
Aint it though! See, Larry and I crossed paths just now and then at the casino. Then we "met" here on 2+2, and now we gab everytime we see each other in real life. Way cool.
Tommy
Thanks for your extra insights. I understand your decisions in that hand alot better now that that I know the blind structure of the game. Alot of my thoughts were based (incorrectly) on the fact that the BB was already in for 60 dollars.
I'm probably not ready for a CASH no-limit game yet, but I love to practice in local no-limit holdem tournaments. I must be doing something right as I have won the last two (60 dollar buy-in) that I have entered.
I hope Santa brings me those no-limit books I have on my wish list.
Posted by: hillbilly
Posted on: Friday, 1 December 2000, at 10:07 a.m.
give the frenchman free cards to beat him? After fifth st. with 2 cards to come the frenchman has 8 (or fewer)outs to the flush as Chan knows where the K diamonds is. Of course the frenchman has 3 outs to the A and Q for two pair and 2 outs to the Ten for trips, but Chan has two outs to the King for trips to beat any of these hands or can improve to kings over to beat possible queens over by the frenchie. How does this make the frenchie a 2-1 favorite as Chan will win if neither improves in two cards? I don't understand why you are bashing Chan's play here. Of course this all hinges on the correct read of the frenchmans hole cards.
maybe its bitter jealousy of not owning several WSOP bracelets whom the " fish" dubbed by the critical amateurs... those bracelets sure are heavy, shiny, polished, and dont smell like fish.
It is time to settle some egos. I know I would pay to watch these four duke it out for bragging rights. Make it a grind, horse game until the champion has it all. It would be more exciting than the world series, who is with me? We could call it TOC2.
I think Abdul Jalib is a hold'em specialist and Zee has too much money to waste time competing only for ego.
Oh man, would this be cool or what? we could set up the table in a locked steel cage ringed with barbwire. all 4 of our heroes would need nicknames of course. Any Suggestions? maybe Ray Zee could ride up to the table on a Harley. The dealers could be scantily clad Hooters Chicks; better yet make them topless. Oh yea baby! this would put Vince McMahon to shame.
Good thing I have a job with internet access. I don't know what I'd do with myself otherwise.
Why would 4 pro poker players want to play themselves when they can play with fish like us?
d.
Pride, ego, what really matters. Worth a lot more to me than a 10-20 session.
I would be too worried about collusion to play in this game! :)
-Abdul
for the life of me i cant figure who would be in the middle.
blinds are 2-3 with the average stack at about 200. I'm doing pretty well and have been exploiting my image a bit. The table thinks of me as a tight-ass rock.
It's not hard to cultivate that image at this table. The previous game I laid down AJs on the button to a pot limit pre-flop raise and they still laugh about my "terrible" tight play.
I am near the button with 77 and make it 20 to go after one limper. The small blind re-raises 60 to me. I am fairly sure he doesn't have KK or AA and I know he believes I can't put in much money without a big pair. I am pretty sure I am in the classic no limit hell-hole of being either a huge dog to a bigger pair or a slight favorite against two overcards.
Although the odds are I'm losing, I've been getting pushed around preflop for the last several hands and I have a strong feeling that if I make a stand here, I won't get called by less than KK.
I re-raise 100 and sure enough, he mucks JJ. I believe this was a situation where I knew my opponent extremely well and exploited my image correctly, gambling that he didn't have KK or AA, even though I was behind. It was my first big pre-flop move of the night and I was 90% sure he wouldn't call me without one of those two hands.
Assuming that I'm right about my reads on the player and my image, was this the kind of move any of you no-limit players would make? Especially knowing that there's a good chance you're behind if he calls? I thought he might have had TT so I was just about right with my read on him.
I know this was a ballsy move but in some games you can afford to wait around and only ever get your money in when you're a favorite and other games you have to make plays. I just can't shake the feeling that I got lucky with my play.
nate
You got lucky with your play. I would almost never make this play in a ring game. You can't be THAT sure the guy won't call you with as little as JJ, particularly if he has almost half his stack in there. And you don't really want to be called by AK either.
If you've been getting "pushed around" pre flop lately, maybe your raising requirements are too loose from early and mid position. When the stacks are short in relation to the standard bring-in, you shouldn't be raising with hands that can't stand a reraise.
btw, the nit who was so proud of his JJ laydown just invited himself to have me take shots at him all night long.
You did catch a break, but your image made the play successful. I can't tell if your ego is involved, but sometimes a stand is required. You played it out, making your hand look like AA or KK. Good job.
Nate,
I'm busting at the seams to yack about this hand, but you left out the most important info. Stack sizes?
Tommy
sorry! We both had about 400 or so.
nate
sure good players do it all the time. but you knew he didnt have aa or kk. how. it didnt show in the post. also would he have called with queens. if so and you figured he had tt jj or qq then it gets dicey at best. where do you guys find these games where someone makes a big laydown and then shows his hand so everyone at the table can run over him the rest of his life. i hope you didnt show him yours but just nodded and smiled and said i had ya.
I think you played it good and strong after making a good read and understanding the whole situation.
And now that we know you both had $400, I think you picked a good amount to raise, since you didn't get yourself potstuck, and you could still laydown if he came over the top.
I think it's important to realize when a bet or raise "sends a message," and not bet more than is necessary to send the message. You did that just right.
Tommy
In two weeks I'm playing in a pot limit hold 'em game. Buy in is 150, about half will start with the minimum and half will start with more (300-500). 10 handed, blinds 2 and 3 dollars (!).
I don't have much PL experience and was hoping for a few pointers. We all play in a 10-20 game and I am seen as very conservative. Several times in the past, after I've won a hand, some fast players have said something like "let's get you in a pot limit game and see how you do". The implication is that they will run over me, that I can't call the big bets, that their supposedly superior reading abilities will kill me.
I've been reading the Reuben and Ciaffone PL/NL book, esp. on "Beating the Bully" since I expect they will try to run over me.
My questions:
1. Isn't the 2-3 blind structure a little small for a PL game? How should I adjust? It seems I could play supertight b/c the blinds are small. But on the other hand...
2. It seems like I should call liberally in late position after a few limpers, or after an early raise (I guess the most utg could make it is 11 to go?) and a few callers. Play any pair, any AXs, any suited connectors 78 or higher in this situation?
3. How to best use their image of me? On the one hand, I could just rope-a-dope in many spots. I could just wait for a monster. On the other hand, I may need to take a stand in order for them to stop bullying. Should I worry about them perceiving me as so tight that I don't get paid off on my big hands?
Any comments appreciated.
1. Isn't the 2-3 blind structure a little small for a PL game? How should I adjust? It seems I could play supertight b/c the blinds are small. But on the other hand...
It is a small game, so it will be harder to protect your big pairs. One option is to limp-reraise UTG. Another option is to raise anyway and hope someone pushes you around. I would play tight, keep that image your opponents have of you.
2. It seems like I should call liberally in late position after a few limpers, or after an early raise (I guess the most utg could make it is 11 to go?) and a few callers. Play any pair, any AXs, any suited connectors 78 or higher in this situation?
Yes.
3. How to best use their image of me? On the one hand, I could just rope-a-dope in many spots. I could just wait for a monster. On the other hand, I may need to take a stand in order for them to stop bullying. Should I worry about them perceiving me as so tight that I don't get paid off on my big hands?
It looks like you will need to take stand either on the button or in the blinds. Try to move against 1 player only, preferably the loosest guy. Another play is to move in with a draw hand when you are last to act. You may get your opponents to fold better hands. Plus, if you hit the draw, they will pay you off because they put their chips in when they think you don't have the goods.
Important considerations:
How much money to sit down with is very important. If you have, say, $600, then it is better to sit down with all of it than to buy-in for $150 and then pull up three times. By having the extra chips, your bluffs will be more effective. To illustrate why, imagine that on the turn you bet $40 "ALL-IN". Many players, even those aware of your conservative play, will call you reasoning 'Well, its only 40'. If you have more money, then they will pass, not because of the $40 bet, but because of the $120 that they expect to follow it. There are far more 'moves' that you can make when you sit deep.
I don't think that 2/3 is that small a game really. Imagine a hand in which four people call (including the blinds) and the big-blind raises. His raise will be $12. If everyone calls this, then there is already a pot of $60; in other words, the bet on the flop is $60. You don't get that in $10\20!
You will make a lot of money if you flop trips in this type of game, so ignore the limit hold'em strategy of folding small pairs in front position. These can be your big money makers.
In fact, if you raise under the gun with, say a pair of fours and get re-raised by one other player, you could consider calling with it heads up, provided that you both have a lot of chips. This is one of the most profitable plays. Your decision is rather simple on the flop; either you hit a four or your don't. This is much easier to get right than holding a pair of queens or jacks, where you might be tempted to continue calling on a low flop.
Hope it goes well.
D J Young
You are absoulety correct in you post. I will add this however, if 4 people do call a pot size raise on a consistent basis, they are playing way too loose.
The money on the table is very important not only your stack, but your opponents stacks. I think some people in the small games do not consider this.
Crash,
The size of the blinds will have little effect on how much you can protect your hands. Pot limit is a game where you must do much more pot manipulation, and also constantly consider implied odds. (That you are getting as well as those you're laying).
The reason that these gambling players look forward to having you in their game is that if you are too tight, and wait for a big hand, you will not win many big pots. You will win small pots, yes, but they plan on trapping you with suited connectors and the like (e.g. when they flop trips) and you are defending a big pair. Or, as you mentioned, trying to push you off of hands. You don't necessarily need to loosen up, but you must create the size bets and pots that work well for your hand. If you follow Bob & Stuarts advice, you should be fine. I would certainly re-read that book again.
I am not that experienced in pot limit, but I am a tight player when I do play. And the one problem I have is players constantly trying to steal from me. For example I have K-K before flop, raise the pot and get two callers. The board is rainbowed with no straight possibilites yet, and there is no ace. I will bet it out pretty hefty and get reraised. The question is obviously what to do from here. Is he putting a move on me thinking I have A-K or what. I guess what it really comes down to is feel in some situations with bullys because being a tight player we don't like to gamble. I hope this made sense.
1. Isn't the 2-3 blind structure a little small for a PL game? How should I adjust? It seems I could play supertight b/c the blinds are small. But on the other hand...
It does seem a little small for the buy in. In many PL games, though, you can raise 4 or 5 times the big blind. UTG can bring it in for 15 or 18 in this game, for example. Pots can build pretty fast.
2. It seems like I should call liberally in late position after a few limpers, or after an early raise (I guess the most utg could make it is 11 to go?) and a few callers. Play any pair, any AXs, any suited connectors 78 or higher in this situation?
Limit players are used to thinking of position in relation to the button. In PL, position is sometimes determined by the agressor. If the guy on your left is always popping it, then you can count the callers when it comes to you, and play your draws accordingly. The person playing the role of agressor may change a number of times during the course of the game.
Play fewer drawing hands from up front. You will be made to pay for drawing in pot limit. See Ciaffone on this. He says QJs under the gun is a killer, and he's right.
My personal opinion is that defending blinds (especially in your format) is a sucker move in pot limit. Let 'em go if the situation isn't perfect.
Also, until you're confident of your reading ability, I'd avoid low pairs.
3. How to best use their image of me?
Steal. Steal. Steal. When an ace or king flops, look like it's Christmas morning and move money towards the pot. If they play back and you put them on a hand, drop immediately and wait for the next chance.
On the one hand, I could just rope-a-dope in many spots. I could just wait for a monster. On the other hand, I may need to take a stand in order for them to stop bullying. Should I worry about them perceiving me as so tight that I don't get paid off on my big hands?
You'll find that your big hands won't be pocket rockets that flop a set, they'll be your draws that hit. They'll have trouble putting you on these and will pay them off. You only need to take down one monster pot in a PL session to have a big night.
PS - Have a good time, you're gonna love PL.
Opinions please: No limit holdem tournament, Statosphere, 7 places paid.
1) Final table, 7 players. I'm in the BB $1000, SB is $500, ante $200. $1400 in antes and $1500 blind, $2900 total. After everyone folds button goes all in for $1300, obviously a desperate steal. SB folds I have 8s3s, do I call the $300 ? Easy call @ 14/1 ? Easy fold ?
2) Final table, 5 players, $1000/500 blind, $200 ante. I have medium stack, UTG, 1 player behind with sligtly smaller stack, then a huge stack, then two medium stacks, both of which can take me out. I have enough for about 2 more rounds in blinds, maybe. Kd7d, what do you do ? Pass or play ?
3) Huge stack running over table, does 55 or 33 fold in the BB. 5 players remain, same tournament, final table, same structure.
Thanks all comments appreciated, obviously I got bounced at 5th.
x
The game is 2-3-5 at Artichoke Joe's. Most stacks are around 500. I have a little over 200.
I have KQ of clubs in the cutoff. There are several limpers and I make it about 50 to go, mostly wanting to just take it down right there. There are 4 callers so we see the flop five handed.
The flop is J9x with one club, giving me the gutshot to the nuts and a backdoor flush draw, plus two overcards.
All check to me. I bet $100. All fold to the guy on my right who checkraises me for the rest of my stack which turns out to be $87 more.
The pot has almost $500 in it at this point. I was totally stealing this pot with my $100 bet and now I'm caught. The worst hand the raiser could have is QT for the open ender but he probably has J9 or AJ. I doubt he has an overpair because he was NOT happy about calling my preflop raise and only did so after so many limpers called it. So I doubt he has an overpair.
I'm against either AJ or J9 and am getting a little better than 5-1 on my last $87. Do I call here or just cut my losses and buy-in for more?
natedogg
You've got the equivalent of 5 outs twice, and 5:1 odds, so you call. Next time, don't get yourself into such a jam. Either fold or limp preflop. ;-)
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I agree w/ Fossilman. Another possible reason to call:
Does he know that you will raise BTF w/ KQs or, perhaps, AK? You're in the steal position. Could he have you on a steal and be on a re-steal?
A nut draw and two overcards? I think it's an automatic call for $87 more.
Some other thoughts. I presume the "several" limpers were for $10 each. Did you consider shoving in before the flop? Let's say you had only $100 to start a hand, and you decide to play.(Doesn't much matter what your cards are for this point.) Or let's say you had $70, or $50. At some number, it becomes not so smart to limp, and better to move in, right?
If you can pick up $50 in dead money by moving all in with $200, I think that's a good play. Here's the MAIN concept with this play. Generally, the only guy you have to look out for is the FIRST limper. He's the only one who might have you nutted up. If you think there a good chance that he is NOT trapping with a big pair, then I think it's best to move-in and lock up the $50 profit. If one of the other limpers calls you, they most likely decided to gamble (or pick off your bluff) with a medium or small pocket pair. So with K-Q, you're okay.
When you raise it to only $50 after several limpers are in, you're likely to get at least one caller in that game. Now, in order to double up, you have to get double lucky. You have to make a hand, AND have someone else make a second best hand that they will commit with. That's a long shot, best left to big-stack play.
Tommy
I do not care for the bets you made--especially on the flop. Before the flop, you are risking a large portion of your stack, but not enough IMO to have a good chance of stealing the pot against so many larger-stacked opponents. If the game was not too frisky, I may have made a more modest raise (e.g., $25 if the limpers are in for $5) to buy the button, thin the field, and seize the initiative.
Your bet on the flop makes no sense to me. You do not have enough money left to bluff everyone out with this flop, which is likely to have hit someone's hand. [If you disagree, you should have pushed all-in since your $100 bet committed your whole stack to the pot anyway.] I would have taken a free card.
MJS
Hey Nate,
When you mention the blinds, be sure to say that the minimum open is $10 or it will be assumed to be $5.
See ya,
Tommy
If you want to steal BTF, I think Tommy's idea makes sense, shove the $237 in BTF. The first limper is probably the only one who MIGHT play you. Otherwise, I would take the flop for $10 because you have multiway action and a reasonable hand. Since you are short stacked, I would limp for $10.
On the flop, there was $250 in the center, the bet of $100 is not big enough to get people out. I would have bet $187 (all-in) or take the free card. My choice would be to bet the $187. If your opponent does have AJ, you have 10 outs twice. But,if he has two pair, you have a problem, you have only 4 outs plus runner-runner either K,Q, or clubs.
I think the flop bet with a draw is a good play if you are last to act. Especially in the event you are short stacked. Beats calling all in.
I have to agree with all that you must call the re-raise...however, I totally agree with MJS re: your bet on the flop! With the amount of the pot at $250 and 4 other players, it's very unlikely that you can escape without a fight. Also, it's highly probable that this flop hit someone. If you have a gutshot "nut" draw, overcards and the backdoor flush draw, youm more than anyone, will benefit greatly by the free card. Now if you're beig trapped and miss, a laydown is easy. But if you hit the free card, it's quite possible that you could be bet into by the one who missed a bet and you'll be able to push your chips in with that "warm, fuzzy feeling" of having the best hand! One of "my" most important rules on no-limit and pot-limit... don't push all my chips in unless I'm pretty sure I have the best hand!
good thinking until your most important rule which in larger games would doom you to be a loser.
$80-$160 Hold'em. Player two off the button open-limps. Next player in the cutoff seat raises, the button cold calls, the small blind folds, and the big blind calls.
Flop comes 9 high rags. Chips fly everywhere. The big blind bails.
In the showdown, it's a 3-way split between J9 offsuit, J9 offsuit, and J9 offsuit. Yes, I'm sure about the preflop action, the hands, the positions, and the 9 on the board.
-Abdul
I've seen similar plays in the $1-$2 games that I've had to prop. Of course, the 80-160 players surely formulated their decisions through a far more advanced thought process. :-)
If this is typical I have to wonder why Roy Cooke, Mike Halford, Mason Malmuth, Ben Williams and other $30-$60 players are not sitting in the $80-$160 game.
Mike Halford does (rarely) play the $80-$160.
-Abdul
And just how often do you play the 80-160?
give Halford, Cooke, Mason, and Williams A-J and how could they have handled the heat? Oh by the way, I really really doubt Mr. Brier wouldn't have made it to the end on that one.
give Halford, Cooke, Mason, and Williams A-J and how could they have handled the heat?
They wouldn't. They'd simply wait it out for a better spot, then take all their money.
= Raider
What good would AJ have done them. What they needed was A9.
Abdul,
The question I have may sound confrontational over the net but it wouldn't if I were to ask you verbally...but what's your point?
Is it that 80-160 players are not necessarily better than many 10-20 players? If so, I gotta think that you are probably right although I have never seen (let alone sat down) in a game that big.
If it was all AK's with a K on board, it would have been interesting from the point of view of being rare. If it was all different trash hands, it would have been interesting from the point of view of showing how fishy the 80-160 can be. With both those aspects together, I thought it was quite an amusing and strange hand.
-Abdul
That it was!
skp - I've played with you online - and I've also played about 100 hours of 80/160 (Bellagio, Commerce).
And given that info, I'd say you'd hold up well in the typical 80/160 games on the weekends (that's when I've played), I don't know about weekdays, I'd imagine weekdays are a bit tougher than weekends.
Does this hand imply that the 80-160 is easier or harder to beat than a more conventional game?
I have found (I play mostly stud) that such wild games are extremely difficult, not due to the fluctuations (which are wild) but because you can't get a read at all. And for every time your opponents have nothing, one of them has a monster and you get stuck paying off because they are unreadable. The good player's knowledge and ability to get inside someone's head is wasted in these types of games and that is large part of the earn.
Would you agree that your favorite opponent is one who is relatively new, but trying their hardest to play by the book and earn. You can read their every thought, even up to when they are going for a free card. A couple of well placed bluffs and saved bets verses this kind goes a lot longer way than you think and probaly further than the advantage of just starting with a proper hand and hoping for the best in the wild games.
My theory of poker goes as follows. Tight stiffs will beat wild players but experts will beat tight stiffs for more in the long run than they will beat wild players, and with a lot lower fluctuations. [of course, experts will also beat wild players for more than tighties do, but it's less than how much they will make off the tighties.]
I certainly believe this in stud, how about hold-em?
Yes, that is approximately what I've posted on 2+2 several times, and every time I got nothing but quips of disbelief, so I'm happy to hear another voice in the wilderness. I prefer when my dinner does not put up a fight. I consider most (but not all) 15-30 professionals to be bigger fish than the classic fish, because I can get inside the heads of the weak pros and either escape or rob them when they have a superior hand.
As for the 80-160, I was being sarcastic when I said it was a typical hand, but the game definitely plays on the loose-aggressive side compared to the 30-60, which is itself much more aggressive (and in some ways more loose) than the 15-30.
-Abdul
Well, you've got me on your side, although those wild games sure are tempting.
It's like the quote I hear from many low limit players: "I like playing with good players, I hate playing with bad players."
This foolish quote is not as foolish as I think, once I interpret it for them. Which is, what you really mean is that you like playing with players that are so bad, that you know what they have every hand.
Of course, the easiest opponent would be one that you knew his cards every time, even if he played only the nuts.
Knock em dead!
This is a re-post from "Other Poker Games" where there are 36 posts on this same topic.
Sammy,
Thank you for the nice compliment. I am posting the following information for those players who care about a correct tactical evaluation of the situation. The bets on 6th street and 7th street are independent bets. It would be incorrect to establish that a drawing hand (albeit a favorite with two cards to come) is the betting favorite unless both players are all-in. With a bet to come on 6th street, the two events need to be considered independently. As an exposed hand problem, assuming that Chan had a 100% read on the hand, the following are true of the 5th street to 6th street probabilities:
P that Chan fails to improve folds to a bet on 6th street (French -A, 10 diamond): 22.99%
P that Chan wants a free card due to a certain combinations of cards falling: 7.01%
P that both players improve and Chan is still ahead of French: 4.63%
P that French improves, but Chan still must continue with the hand: 10.61%
P that French catches trip 10’s and Chan makes Kings up: 1.10%
P that Neither player improves: 53.66%
Notice that Chan will fold ~24.1% of the time on 6th street.
Chan will bet on 6th street ~63.6% of the time!
Chan will want a free card ~12.3% of the time.
These numbers should clarify the argument for a raise on 5th street. Being able to recognize this in the heat of battle is why Chan plays Killer Poker, and others make vulgar references that are supposed to pass as strength of conviction.
This
i dont second guess his play because not having been there and knowing what the hands really were has made it hard to criticize. however raising on 5th may have been wrong and i dont see how your #'s clarify that a bet is right. when he folds he loses 100% of the fifth st. money he added and the extra money he gets in on 6th is only as a small favorite. since you treat it as an exposed hand question why wouldnt the exposed hand that must call to the end not want to bet whenever it had the best winning chances? since i havent spent alot of time on the thread i may be missing something so i reserve the right to see the light here. show me.
maybe Chan the fish will let you wear his for a week, and your right you had to have been there in the heat of the battle to understand his reasoning to play that hand in such an unusual matter, almost understanding a chess grandmaster dissecting a 20 move variation to your level of thinking. KICK ASS JOHNNY the master CHAN.
Total justice. You are exactly right Mr. Zee, you have said what I had tried to get across for a week. Clearly, no one cares, though because I haven't written any books. G. Ed Conly is making further errors. Many good posters have pointed out and that Chan wouldn't have folded to the Frenchy's flush, like GED Conly assumes. He would have paid it off like the rest of us. Secondly, Chan's logic was....I have a higher pair than him, he has to catch to make his hand, therefore I am a favorite. Well that's just fish talk.
He's a bear hunter; likes thick hides in front of his fireplace.
rz played a bit of Stud in his day; even a smidge of short-handed NLHE w/Bob Ciaffone, I've heard.
ive played alot with johnny as well. fom the time he moved up from small stakes and played 50& 100 holdem with us in 1980 to some 300&600 with him. mostly played pot limit omaha and some no limit holdem with him and i think thats his best game. yet he is a champ in all games. its hard to question one isolated hand or his reasoning, as at the time he may have been thinking something entirely different from what was reported and the hand likely may have been different from what is being discussed.
Ray,
Even if the reporting is accurate, Chan may well have known he was a small dog and decided to play it aggressively anyway, figuring Frenchy would likely go on tilt if the kings held up(which apparently happened).
Interesting hand, regardless. IMO Stud hands are much harder to analyze than Hold'em ones, as the math is much more complex with the independent boards.
Bill
WSOP bracelets should be the capstone of any professional's career, even to relate a pro athlete finally getting his ring .... something Barry Bond's could learn if he would stop taking called strike three in critical situations in the playoffs.
Success in poker is measured by winnings, not capstones.
M- is missing the point
Maybe so.
Your the argumentive sort arent you M.
never intended to be insulting Mr. Zee... just a little barb thats all.... it justs irks me to see amateurs cry about one little hand Chan played..... I'am a proud owner of your HI-LO split poker book along with several "twoplustwo" books.
I'm sick of everyone trying to justify his play. Chan thought he was a favorite and wasn't. And he got lucky when he should have gotten gutted. Nice catch Chan. By the way, you defend him like he is your brother. Go do something for yourself in the card world instead of worshipping stars like Barry Bonds and Johnny Chan.
i need to keep jealous high-headed low lifes like you in check on this forum pal.... the word is "respect" not worship.
Ray,
The initial thread said that Chan made a mistake by raising the 5th street bet of the French guy, my response was that he hadn’t made a mistake, that his raise was correct. I said it was a stronger play than calling. I was also evaluating the hand from the standpoint that Chan knew French’s cards, but not the other way around. Chan represented rolled up 6’s. I don’t think that French necessarily believed that Chan had rolled up 6’s, but Chan played in a manner consistent with holding trip 6’s.
The reasons that I feel the numbers demonstrate why a raise is better (Chan has position) are:
When Chan improves to Kings up, his pair will be up, and French would be hard pressed to get out of line in the betting, and Chan will still have positional advantage. Therefore, he gains the opportunity to take free cards if he retains control of the betting on 5th.
Chan will want a free card on 6th street when French catches a Diamond or Ace, and Chan improves. Chan will want a free card when French catches a queen and Chan doesn’t improve. He may want a free card if French catches a 7. At any rate, these possibilities occur in at least 12% of the cases, and maybe as high as 18% of the cases. In some instances, Chan would be drawing very thin to improve to a winner, and might not be able to call a bet on 6th (even if the additional money was in the pot from his raise). I feel that his raise on 5th street will enable him to receive this free card often enough to be an asset.
In addition, of the ~64% of the times Chan is still ahead on 6th, he will want to bet again because of the likely scenarios of 7th street betting. If he checks and calls on 5th and 6th street, it makes a 7th street value bet more risky. (Whether he has trip Kings or Kings up).
So 24% the time Chan loses 1 big bet. (He’s never going to make a mistake here when French’s cards are considered as exposed)
At least 58% of the time, Chan will “win” the 5th street bet, because he will still be the favorite on 6th street. (Of course I realize that he doesn’t win the whole bet, only a portion of it because he still has to survive 7th street). And considering the tranquilizing effect a card pairing Chan’s board should have on French,this can be no less valuable than 30% of a bet.
Depending upon how the cards fall on 6th, Chan will want a free card from 12%-18% of the time (this depends on how he handles the case where he doesn’t improve and French makes 10’s and 7’s.
In many cases, Chan’s decision on 6th street would be very close between folding and calling a bet when he makes two pair and French makes his diamonds. In these cases, he might be forced to fold (if there was just a bet and a call on 5th street) he would be losing, at the minimum 7.6% equity in the pot or ~70% of a big bet.
If he controls the betting on 5th and 6th street, a value bet on 7th street should be more precise, and he has more options as to how to play unimproved Kings. (He might successfully bluff if French only has 10’s and 7’s up).
To reiterate: I never said that just calling was wrong, I said that Chan was correct, and that raising was a stronger play based on the previous betting rounds. Out of position, or with different early round betting, calling would be a better play. Of course, Ray, I’m always open to counter-points.
Chan will only be ahead on 6th street 58% of the time. That was a goof.
I have been following this thread for a while, and while I won't go so far as to call Chan a fish, I definitely see a flaw in his play. G Ed Conly, I appreciate your analysis, but your argument of playing 5th street strongly in order to get free cards on 6th st doesn't hold water. Frenchy has been betting the crap out of his strong draws combined with his pair of 10's. What makes you think he is going to check if he improves? I can tell you right now, there is no way Frenchy checks his flush or aces up on the turn. THis is still limit poker we are talking about. Chan is not going to be able to move his opponent off any hand that he is FAVORED to make to beat him. If he just calls on fifth street, the bets he saves by flat calling are just the same bets he used to maneuver for the extremely RARE instances where he is going to receive a free card when he needs it. These raises might make sense if he can get Frenchy to fold a better hand than his pair of Kings. But from the looks of it, they can not. Frenchy looks married to his hand. Chan is a great player, and I heard his forte is no limit. It looks like he was trying to use a big bet type play in a limit game. Comments appreciated.
Getting French to give a free card is not the only reason that the play is stronger. If that were the only advantage, it wouldn't be enough to make the play.
The probability that neither player improves is not %53.66
Chan can improve with three 4's, three 9's, three 6's, and two K's. That is 11 cards. Frenchy can improve with any diamond (8 of them), 3 A's, two T's, and 3 7's. That is 16 cards. There is an overlap of three cards, the 4d, 9d and 6d. There are 41 unseen cards (counting Doyle's Jack).
The probability that Frenchy bricks is
1-(16/41)=60.9%
The probability that Chan then subsequently bricks is (let's say Frenchy gets a card that would have helped Chan) is
1-(10/40)=75%
The probability of BOTH of these events occurring is
75% * 60.9%=45.7%
Thus they will both not improve only 45.7% of the time.
You are correct to point out that that shouldn't be "neither player improves", the title should be "Either both players fail to improve or Chan is improves and French doesn't".
In your calculation, you forgot to consider the 3 queens that french can catch. Thank you for pointing out that error.
He catches a K or J, giving him a gutshot to a treetop. Not much, just a little extra.
MAN, these Stud problems are tough to figure; but I'm gonna force myself to do this one, just so I can say i did one....
First of all, I'm going to assume that everything in the article is accurate because I'll bet that *CHAN* related this story to "Cub". No way the boys let some cub reporter railbird their big game with a 'shyboy' like Frenchy.
Note this means that Doyle's Jack wasn't a Diamond, Chip and Moore's windows were irrelevant(call them the 2s and 2c), Doyle raised the bring-in to his right, and that they were (likely)playing $400 ante/$500 bring-in/$1200/$2500(this makes it a $38K pot for Chan to call for on the end).
The pot was $20,497 after 4th St.(can't forget the $3 rake :) lol), so absolutely no way Frenchy folds for $2500 at any point from then on.
Chan has 11 cards that improve him on 6th.
Frenchy has 19 cards that improve him(assuming Chan sticks to his "AdQd in the hole" read).
So Chan doesn't improve 1-(11/39) = .282
Frenchy doesn't improve 1-(19/39) = .487[neglects Frenchy picking up a gutshot straight draw]
Chance neither improves on 6th: .368
"So Chan doesn't improve 1-(11/39) = .282
Frenchy doesn't improve 1-(19/39) = .487"
Should say .718 and .513, respectively.
I don't understand why the raise is proper if Chan will fold 24% and get a free card only 10%. If he is a dog on 5, and only gets a free card due to a raise 10%, then why raise? It seems to me that 24% he will have lost an extra bet and if the raise got him a free card, then 10% of the time, he made a fraction of a bet.
By the way, I am not doubting the play of the hand, just trying to figure out the numerical analysis. It's even possible Chan gave the Frenchman nothing at all. In those games, often ego gets involved in the raising or a previous hand has set off irrational raising wars and the Frenchman could have been raising a 3 straight or something.
The free card isn't the only case in which he 're-gains' the lost bet from the 24% of the cases. He is still ahead 58% of the time on 6th street, he gains equity in all of these cases. He is also able to earn that bet back when he can effectively win an extra bet with a 'value bet' on the river.
The decision on this play is close. I would not say that somebody played the hand wrong if they just called, it will make the hand much easier for French to play correctly from that point, however.
I'd also like to point out that there has been some discussion as to how big the pot is. It really is only about 10 big bets, far from being a huge pot.
Ed,
While not huge, a 10BB pot with two more rounds to go isn't exactly small either. It's definitely big enough to affect play.
Bill
Situation: Final table in a no-limit holdem tournement, paying 5 spots. Nine players left, I have about $10,000 in chips, putting me in 2nd at that point.Player to my right has me about 2 to 1. Blinds are at $200-$400. I have the BB and all fold to the chipleader who, as usual is raising my big blind to $1,500. (he is loose/aggressive with such a huge chip count and I have had nothing to defend with up until this point). Many of these raises, he has shown 1 card, an ace, but seldom with a kicker. I look down to find AJ off. I feel that I have the best hand and consider a strong re-raise, but decide to call only as he can cripple me and keep me out of the money. The flop comes A, Q, 4 rainbow. He checks immediately and I bet $1500. After a long, Oscar winning performance he moves all in. I quickly muck, putting him on A,Q. He shows A,4 off. I eventually win the tournement, but wonder if I should have tried the move I first thought of. I'm fairly sure he would have laid down the weak ace, but on the other hand, I saved enough chips by being cautious to survive and eventually win. I would like any alternative perspectives on this hand, especially by you Greg (Fossilman) as we play in this tournement together frequently.
i would have moved in before the flop at him. its so unlikely you will get called or have the worst hand that its crazy to give up 2100 in the pot here thats your's uncontested. given that you just called and thats not so bad if you intended to try to double thru him but bad if you called just to try to hit something so you could play on, i would have gone broke on the flop. eliminateing any tells like his quick check i would have certainly bet more or all my chips here. there is 3600 and you only have 8500 left.-- since you bet 1500 why couldnt he have any old ace and figure you are trying to pick up the pot with a pair or a bluff.with any aggressive player here id call with my ace jack and then go home crying. you guessed better than me. if fossil disagrees with me ill never post again or quit sending him my lucky keno numbers he pays me $100 a week for.
Please repost in Tournaments Forum.
Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
These no Limit thoughts contain some ramblings, some questions for experts, and some observations that I think are interesting but may not be. :)
I've been playing no limit a lot lately and I'm starting to think about the game a lot differently, which is obviously to be expected.
The game I play in is profitable if you just wait for the nuts. You can routinely find three or four players at the table who will double you up with questionable hands pre-flop or marginal holdings on the river. Patience is all it takes to win. There are also three or four players that you need to steer clear of. I am not one of those players yet.
I am often perceived as being very tight when I play. This is partially because the last several times I've played I ran very cold. I'm also willing to fold AK after I miss the flop and I am out of position. To me, this is a no-limit no-brainer but others can only see me raise pre-flop and then fold when babies hit the board. Sometimes you gotta do that, but they interpret my overall style as weak-tight.
The dangerously good players at the table know what I'm doing. They chip away at me now and then assuming I'm just a total rock waiting for the chance to double up against one of the fish. My image was so tight that last night I raised $40 (it's $10 to go so that's a reasonable but not large preflop raise) from the button with A8s after several limpers, and I got the big blind to fold AQ. I bet the flop when it came rags and nobody called. The big blind asked me if I had AK because he had folded AQ! I couldn't believe it! He was convinced I had AK or better because I had raised at all. Of course I told him yes.
Another aspect of the game I play in is that many of the players are regulars from a much bigger game. I play in a $300 buy-in, 2-3-5 10 to go game and they usually play in a $1000 buy-in 10-10-20 40 to go game. The result of this is that several very aggressive players like to push the table around. They are accustomed to sitting with 10k in front of them and watching 20k pots going back and forth. They bluff A LOT in the game I play. I'm sure of it, but I haven't proven it yet, if you get what I mean. Also, a few are so aggressive that even when they get called a lot they keep it up. That's just their style and I don't think they could change if they wanted to.
Bluffing is much more important in no-limit than in limit. And playing the person more than the cards is also very important. There are players that can push me off KK pre-flop if they bet and other players that I will call all in with AQ pre-flop or even JJ. It all depends on the player.
So, I want to hear from regular LIVE no-limit players. (Tourney no-limit is a totally different equation and I'm not so interested in that aspect of poker at this time.) Do you make more money by calling bluffs or by getting big hands called? I suspect that the answer goes something like "Certain tables will give you all their money by bluffing you and certain tables will give you all their money by calling with top pair Q kicker against your set".
When someone makes a bluff at a pot, it's often way out of proportion to the pot. A $400 bet to win the $150 pot on the river. Ironically, it's the best players who do this, not the worst. If a bad player goes all in on the river to win a $150 pot, he's got you beat, almost every time. Several times I have folded with a decent hand to a pot size bet on the river from the tricky players. Several times they have showed me a monster. Conversely, I've called pot size or smaller bets from bad players with only top pair and won.
In addition, the aggressive players often show their bluffs. It's wierd. I almost never show a hand. Sometimes I am weak and I show my hand but I try to resolve never to show. Let them guess. The bluffers will assume you were bluffing and the rocks will assume you had it. By not showing your cards, you get the best of both worlds by generally reinforcing whatever it is people think about your style. If you show your cards, they might change their mind but NOT showing can't change their mind. They assume whatever they want to assume.
I'm thinking about changing my style at the table and calling more often on the turn or river with as little as top pair weak kicker, but ONLY when I'm heads up with an aggressive player who is a regular from the bigger no limit game. There are players there who are good enough to see me do that just once and adjust, but there are others who simply won't be able to change their ways. I think I know which ones are which.
In fact, certain players are so aggressive and love to bluff so much that you can set them up by checking the turn. They will often bluff 1 to 5 times the size of the pot if not go all-in when you show weakness on the turn.
It's all a matter of playing each person properly. I can see my game getting to a point where I adjust week by week depending on what happened the week before. In order to really beat that game, I'll probably have to be able to adjust to the THEIR adjustments. When I call down a couple monster bluffs, the next time I sit down and the same guy goes all-in, I'll have to adjust and think about folding this time. Or maybe I'll have to COUNTER-adjust and think about calling, knowing that he has expected me to adjust after successfully catching his bluffs. Then the next week, vice versa if I think he's got me pegged as willing to fold now. A constant evolving game of adjusting to others and their adjustments. However, I suspect that this will only happen for the best players there. In general, I'll have a mental list in my head about how each player plays and they generally don't change.
Players 1 2 and 3 bluff too much on the river. Players 3, 4, and 5 like to gamble pre-flop and will go all-in with any straight or flush draw after the flop. Players 6, 7, and 8 never go all-in without the nuts. Players 9, 10, 11 know me well and adjust to me and can change gears against me after observing just a few hands. It's these players, 9, 10, and 11 that will take the most skill for me to beat. It will be a constantly escalating arms race of adjustment and re-adjustment. The winner will be the player who can spot patterns and adjust appropriately the quickest and realize when his current mode has become out-raced and move on quickly from there.
Damn, these guys are tough to beat. I could just make a rule to stay out of their way and concentrate on the weaker players, which is most definitely a profitable style. I will definitely make some money playing like that, probably a lot of money. Maybe as much as $50 to $100 an hour. But I think that if I can get to the point where I can beat the tricky aggressive guys at their own game by out-adjusting them, AND take the fish, then this game will be totally destroyable for a LOT of money. I can beat players 1-8 while sitting in that game, and make a good profit. But I suspect that if I can also beat 9,10,11, even by just a small margin, then the game becomes astronomically more profitable because until that point, they are making money off of ME. If I can turn that around by even a little bit, my profits go WAY WAY up. Is this right? What do other no limit players think? Do your profits come from taking money from the suckers or by succeeding at the next level and NOT losing it back to the experts?
I feel like right now I'm taking money from the suckers, and then re-distributing a portion of it back to the real experts, almost like a table tax for being there. I want to be one of the guys charging the tax as well.
natedogg
< Your suspected answer is exactly right and exactly wrong. Subtitute the word "players" for "tables."
At no-limit, each one-on-one match up is a seperate game. Each hand begins as a "table," but as soon as the field is thinned down to two, as so often happens, its like everyone else goes to the bleachers while two familiar gladiators take up arms yet again.
< Be VERY careful there. When a good player makes that play, he will almost always have a MONSTER hand. Why? Because betting $150 will drive out all bad hands, just the same as betting $400. But the good players know that the only way to get paid off big is if the other guy has a big hand too. So he bets $400 with the nuts on the river instead of $150. If everyone folds, it doesn't matter what he bet, right? But if a weak player is going to call $150, they'll often call $400 as well, especially after the overbet makes it look like an "obvious bluff."
<>
The information war is easily won.
< Another thing to try is flat-out thievery against the spunky-but-rational players. It takes some preplanning to do smoothly. The thing to look for is situations. You limp along with some others with QJs from a middle seat. $60 in the pot preflop. Flop comes K-8-2 offsuit. It gets checked around to the next to last player who would have made a move with AK before the flop. He bets $80. All fold around to you, and there is still one player behind you and in front of the better (this player gives you a form of "protection.")
You have $300 to $400 on the table. There is now $140 in the pot. What is the likelihood of the bettor having a hand that can withstand an all-in check-raise from you, a solid player with a weak-tight image?
Answer: very very slim. This pot is yours for the taking, if your gun is cocked and ready to fire. The key to plays like this is frequency. The cool thing is, the perfect situations come up rarely, so even if you went for it half the time, it might not send off any red flags.
< I definitely stay completely out of the way of lots of players. There are two players that play at the Sunday game at AJ's now and then that I have played only one pot against in two years of fairly regular play. One time we both had A-Q and flopped the nut straight. (We finally bet all-in on the river. lol)
The other one, against a different guy I avoid, was a hand where we were almost even money on the flop with top set vs a monster draw, and we got all in right there mainly because there were others to drive out.
I'm not saying you should avoid the same players, or any players for that matter. I just think it makes the game simpler, and more profitable, and safer, by tagging a couple players per night as being out of your picture. Yeah, that sounds strange, but that's what I do, and you asked!
Tommy
The information war is easily won.
Tommy, can you elaborate on what you mean by this?
natedogg
Let's say a guy has five-high on the turn and makes a straight on the river. He bets, you call. (This could be at limit or no-limit.) He turns over his straight. It's obvious to all that you had five-high beat before the river.
By mucking your hand facedown, always, even if you had the type of hand that is tempting to show, such as top set, players have no idea if you called him down with bottom pair, or if you had a monster, or anything. Further, they do not know that you might be reeling inside after getting a huge hand beat. You might even be prone to tilt for a little while after the hand, but they do not know that! When you show top set, they do.
There are infinite varations on this theme. Every time that an opponent shows a hand, you win a battle in the information war. Every time that you do NOT show, you win another battle. It's an easy war to win, because all that is required is the discipline to never show. Millions of pieces of information are they for the taking, supplied by the opponents. By giving no similar info in return, well, got the picture?
And at no-limit, with fewer hands being shown down, and with tiny pieces of info being potentially worth a big stack of chips, it's even more important, IMO.
Tommy
Posted by: natedogg (nate-web@thegrovers.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 2:18 p.m.
Posted by: Tommy Angelo (Tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 8:44 p.m.
Well, here I go again. I posted something like this on the general theory page a while back and WFM wiped it, so I'll put it up here and see what happens. Probably the usual mixture of indifference and hostility if things run true to form.
Basically there are a few simple and formerly unsuspected rules which determine whether any open-poker game is suitable for NL play. While leaving open the possibility of three-round games, as a practical matter every NL game must have four rounds, made up of 5, 6 or 7 live cards with the last two rounds consisting of single cards dealt face up. Five and six-card games must have one hole-card only, seven-card games must have two, but an extra hole-card or two can be dealt which are not usable at the end (as in omaha etc.) A maximum of three live cards, with a maximum of one fully live upcard can be dealt at the start.
Applying those rules (which I'll give brief reasons for below) produces the best possible NL open-poker games playable with the various possible starting holdings, from 5cs to crazy pinapple, plus a few others which none thought of before, the most interesting of which are NL 7cs (mississippi) (2)1-2-1-1 and NL 6cs (alligator) (1)1-2-1-1. Games which don't follow the rules are seriously flawed for NL play when compared to similar games which follow the rules.
It is interesting to speculate how poker history would have been different if these rules had been discovered earlier, instead of poker invention being a random process of trial and error: between 1850 and 1998, out of the thousands of variations which were tried exactly one new NL open-poker structure was discovered, namely holdem's 2-3-1-1, which is also the underlying structure of omaha etc. The interesting thing about holdem's history is that while it is nearly as old as 7cs, being invented in the 30's, compared with 7cs' circa 1920 debut, in the first forty years of it's existence it barely made it out of Texas, and even in it's home state I would be very surprised if it was ever as popular as 7cs. In the same period 7cs became the most popular poker game in the world.
This leads me to the conclusion that if nl 7cs (mississippi) had been discovered any time before say 1965 then holdem would have had zero chance of being chosen as the world championship game: the 2/3 of the market which played 7cs would not have stood for it if there was a perfectly good NL 7cs game available.
If you can see the logic of that then consider how the market might have developed: considering the effect that WC status has had on holdem's market share it is reasonable to suggest that mississippi would have also shot to prominence, in the process absorbing most of traditional 7cs' market share, since they are so similar. With the rise in NL tournament play, holdem itself would have also risen from it's less than 1% market niche, but without WC status and with a very good (in many ways superior) 7-card NL game to compete with it would never have got near to the status it now holds.
Anyway that's of academic interest, though I think it throws an interesting light on the lack of reaction to mississippi over the past year. But like I say, holdem was ignored for forty years, so there is a precedent.
Briefishly, the reasons for the rules: 1. While there is no real reason that 3-round games can't be played at NL, five rounds is too many, even for PL really: it is very rare to see five rounds of action in a PL 7cs game because players run out of money. Without enough money to be put to five decisions the fifth round is pointless.
2. One hole-card out of five or six is best because when two cards are concealed, trips is the lowest nut hand at the end, which is way too high. You have to be able to bet (or represent) a big pair from go to whoa if no one makes an open pair or shows a higher card. Similarly, three hole-cards out of seven makes quads (usually) the lowest nut hand, so straights flushes and trips can never (within reason) be the nuts.
3. Five, six, or seven fully live cards are best, though exactly why that should be is open to speculation. I can think of some reasons, but who cares? Seven cards will always be the most practical number, though five and six card-stud (the four-round version, ie, alligator) are excellent NL games too. You can try eight or four card games if you like, but they won't take.
4. The starting holdings are restricted to one, two or three cards, with the one-card start being of minor importance: If you start with more than three live cards in a seven-card game you get a 4-1-1-1 structure, which sucks, because you sacrifice the possibility of a multi-card draw at the second round, and there is too wide a range of possible starting hands: you could start with quads, and trips are way too common. Similarly, starting with three cards in a 6-card game produces 3-1-1-1, which is nowhere near as good as 2-2-1-1.
5. Revealing more than one upcard at the start inevitably conflicts with other rules.
I've probably left some stuff out here, but the bottom line is that try as you may, you will not find an NL open poker game which doesn't follow those rules, and conversely, applying them produces every possible four-round nl game.
Comments anyone?
Five, six, or seven fully live cards are best, though exactly why that should be is open to speculation.
By 'fully live cards', what do you mean? Cards that are unseen, and therefore possible to be dealt? Up cards? Community Cards?
While leaving open the possibility of three-round games, as a practical matter every NL game must have four rounds, made up of 5, 6 or 7 live cards with the last two rounds consisting of single cards dealt face up.
It's not clear to me if you like four rounds because five is too many, or for some other reason. My only NL experience is in Hold 'em and Lowball KC. In HE I've seen very little action take place after 2 rounds. Maybe a game like two twist (2-card stud hi-lo with a twist) is the ideal. By the way why doesn't Hold 'em meet all your criteria?
It seems your philosophy that there's a perfect NL poker game. I'm not sure that's true. It may be that games go in and out of fashion, have limited life-spans, and die out when too many people mastering them reduces the good player's edge and the fish's chances.
Hi Mr mack, to answer your query, by "five, six or seven fully live cards" I mean the total of usable cards, whether up, down or communal, excluding those which become dead at the end. So omaha has seven fully live cards at the end.
With regard to the length, four rounds seems to be best for NL open poker, but as you say, shorter games are possible. As for five round games being too long for NL, I think my point is valid, as shown by the fact that trad 7cs is almost never played at NL. Similarly, lengthening holdem to five rounds (or making any other structural change) makes it an inferior NL game.
Holdem certainly does meet all my criteria and is a test case for the rules, which are based on the observation that some open-poker games work very well at NL (5cs and holdem being the first two to be discovered) and some don't, such as 6cs and 7cs. The reasons for that are simple: 6cs and 7cs are too long and have too many hole-cards. It's practical thing more than a philosophy, descriptive more than prescriptive.
We will probably never know for sure, since we won't live forever but I think that contrary to your view poker is now approaching the same sort of maturity as a championship form as chess and bridge in that it is unlikely to change radically in the future. Just as bridge will probably always be played the same way and the chess board will always have 64 squares, draw poker will always be most popular as a two-round game, and seven-card open-poker games will most likely dominate the market: I do however expect there to be a shake-out of the market over the next ten years as mississippi kicks in, though I expect that it won't cut into holdem/omaha's share nearly as much as it does into trad 7cs. There was a glaring gap in the NL championship ranks caused by trad 7cs' failure as an NL game, but that has now been filled, or will be once mississippi makes it onto the tournament lists.
Tx for the feedback.
DZ
Thanks for your response. I certainly agree that five betting rounds are too many for NL poker. (I did play in a 7CS hi lo declare pot limit game. Limiting stack sizes and buy ins was the only thing that kept the game going. )
I was curious about your ratios: you say no more than one up card at the beginning, and the last two must be up. Why?
I think I try to steal pots on the flop too often and get myself in trouble. Here's a hand to illustrate that.
The game is $2 - $3 - $5, $10 to open. The button has killed the pot by posting a $10 blind and that makes it $20 to go.
I have about $1150 in front of me sitting 2 off the button.
UTG opens for $30, 3 callers, I call with 97 of diamonds. There are two players in the pot with stacks my size, others have about half my stack or less. The player on my left calls, and the button calls.
The flop comes 246 with 2 diamonds.
All check to me, but there are two players behind me. They don't seem particularly happy with their hands but that read could mean nothing. Well, I try to steal right there with about a $75 bet. I probably should have bet $200. There's $180 or so in the pot. It really didn't look like anyone had anything. The guy on my left smooth calls, all others fold.
Damn. So close. Now my opponent is a weak player, one of the weakest at the table, and he has about $200 left in front of him. I know he can lay down a mediocre hand if it doesn't improve.
The turn is an 8, giving me a four straight and a four flush. I like my chances now, even though I'm behind.
I bet putting him all-in, hoping he'll fold but knowing I have good outs. He called me with the nuts (35o) and the river gave me no help. I lost about $300 on this hand.
I had 15 outs on the turn when I put him all-in, but I thought I may have had as many as 21 if he was in with just top pair, which is something he was capable of doing. However, if he calls me all-in, then I'm probably back down to just 15 outs, since he must have more than top pair to call his last 200.
What were my mistakes? Was it imperative to bet the turn? If he hadn't had the nuts or a set he might have folded as much as bottom two pair. The chance of that plus my outs made me feel like I could bet the turn.
If I hadn't bet the flop I might have been in a better situation. If everyone checks the flop, then I can move on the turn (which I probably would have done) or FOLD on the turn if somehow I check and he goes all in. I can fold safely because the pot is not as big now without the flop bet and I don't like my odds. Also, if I check the flop and he goes all-in, I can fold again knowing I'm not getting the right odds for my hand, especially given the chances that he's aggressively betting a diamond draw. Instead, I pushed the hand on the flop and made it (probably) correct to put my money in on the turn. I'm noticing that this happens to me a lot. Is this good or bad no limit style? I pick up a lot of pots by betting at them on the flop, but I don't know if this makes up for the times when I get in trouble for it.
natedogg
I think your last sentence pretty much hit on it:
I pick up a lot of pots by betting at them on the flop, but I don't know if this makes up for the times when I get in trouble for it.
This is the question. Just because you tried to take down a pot by betting a draw and it didn't happen to work out this time doesn't mean that you shouldn't do it in general.
On the other hand, you definitely shouldn't do it so much that people realize that that's what you are doing. It's ok to check a draw sometimes to see if the free card helps.
In this hand, I like the smallish bet on the flop. It looks like you're trapping, and people with random overcards will probably leave. The big bet on the turn is also consistent with that. You just happened to run into the nuts, is all.
Note, of course, that you have to pick up way more pots on the flop than you lose when you try, since you lose more money when you get caught like this than you make when you get away with it.
I think the big trick there is to figure out when you want to keep going hard on the turn to convince people you're serious, and when you need to back off because they called with a real hand. And that depends a lot on the player doing the calling. It's an opportunity to make a good read. As long as your thinking of it that way, I think that you will make money on these steals, even though you will of course miss from time to time.
- target
That's pretty much what I was thinking.
One of the questions I had about this hand was whether or not to aggressively bet that draw on the turn. Whether or not I've made mistakes to get me in this position, should I bet that $200 on the turn? Is it a common play for good no-limit players to aggressively but a huge draw on the turn against a player you think may not be holding a great hand? ESPECIALLY when you have him completely out-stacked. In this case I had him outstacked almost 5-1. There's about $300 in the pot and if I bet the $200 he has left, the chances he will fold plus the chances I'll draw out are good enough to bet or not? What if we have BIG stacks? Let's say I've got $700 and he's got $700. Now the pot is $300 and I bet $700 to win it right there but with 15 outs at least.
Knowing he's a fairly weak player and may have called your flop bet with only one pair, is this a good bet now? Any experts want to chime in? (That means you Tommy).
Assuming $200 was the right bet to make, when do the stack sizes get so big that it's not worth jeapordizing it? We may have $1500 each in front of us. If I bet the $500 or so to win the $300 pot with my draw and he moves over the top all-in, I have to fold now don't I? I certainly don't want to bet all-in first if my stack is too big. He happened to have the nuts this time but remember that this player is often in on the turn with weak hands. If I read him as weak, is all-in a play to make with a draw when I have a big big stack? How often does an expert pull this kind of move?
If the answer is "often", should I be looking for this kind of move more often when I'm facing a huge bet on the turn with a board that looks like a big draw? I admit that I've seen this happen a lot. The turn brings a second diamond or something and someone goes all in with middle pair and the nut flush draw. Should I call with top pair at this point against these aggressive tricky players? Is this a winning play in the long run? The problem is that this move ALSO looks like a shut-out from a made hand that doesn't want to lose on the river. I HATE to give middle set all my money with my top pair. (I've done it once and it hurts).
Well, now I'm starting to ramble so if any of you no-limit vets have any germane thoughts about this, pipe up.
natedogg
Target wrote: < I have to disagree with you, Target. If all bluffs on the flop average out to being pot-sized, then a 50% success rate is break even in the long run.
Brunson taught us to "always have outs" when making a move. Of course that makes sense, but there are some situations where bluffing with NO outs is better than some outs. Flop comes K-4-4 in a three handed pot, and both players check to me. I'd rather bluff here with 8-2 than with A-10.
Tommy
Are you saying you would rather make a naked bluff at times because it's easier to get away from if you get played back? Whereas when you bluff with some outs you can convince yourself you're potstuck or have odds to call a reraise?
Take the hand you described with a flop of K44 and you bluff with 82. What if you get flat called? How often do you pound away on the turn or do you just give it up right there regardless?
natedogg
Nate: "Are you saying you would rather make a naked bluff at times because it's easier to get away from if you get played back?"
No, but close. It's easier to get away from IF CALLED.
"Take the hand you described with a flop of K44 and you bluff with 82. What if you get flat called? How often do you pound away on the turn or do you just give it up right there regardless."
Give it up regardless. I like 82 better than A2 because if the guy just calls the flop bet, I might hit an ace. Now I'm in a potentially sticky spot against 4-any and AK. And worse, and most important, if the other guy DOES have K-x, I'm not in a good spot to get paid for much. It's a lose lose.
Tommy
Posted by: natedogg (nate-web@thegrovers.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 4:56 p.m.
Posted by: Tommy Angelo (Tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 7:07 p.m.
You were out of position to play this hand properly. Not to mention that you didn't even have a draw to the nuts (till the turn, then you only 6 outs to give you the nuts). As good as it looked, this really was not the flop you were looking for.
I'm assuming you've read Bob Ciaffone's NL book, but if not, I believe that he explains these position problems the best.
Ok, this is my third time playing pot limit. It's a regular game at my small local casino and I know all the players pretty well (I play 20-40 against them every week). The majority of the players are very bad and I am doing very well in the 20-40 game. It's a 5-10 PL half holdem half omaha high game. Check raising is NOT allowed. The minimum buy in is $500 and that is what everyone buys in for. I've been playing pretty tight solid poker up to this point and I am sitting at just over $600, not much profit at all.
Here's the hand. There are two key players, I have around $600 and my opponent is deep, around 2K I think(they allow cash on the table in this game so it makes it really tough to tell how deep someone is), so he has me covered.
I am in the SB with AdQdJd9s. Five players limp in for $10 each, I complete my $5 blind, the big blind checks. Seven players see the flop, there is $70 in the pot.
The flop is As Ah 6c. I bet $50 and five people fold. My opponent raises it to $100 total and the last player folds. I call the raise. Comments? There are two people in the pot and the pot is $270.
The turn is the 5d. I check and my opponent bets $200. I think for a long time. I have put my opponent on 66 with a high degree of certainty and I am pretty sure that hitting any of my side cards will win the pot. I thought I should fold but I really wanted to call. I figured I had 10 solid outs (maybe he has A6 and I only have 9, but I don't think he does). I estimated I was around a 3-1 dog but I think he will call $200 on the river if I hit (that is what I would bet, much more and I think he would fold). Now, sitting down after the fact I realize I'm a 3.4-1 (34:10) dog to hit. I talk myself into calling. Still just the two of us and the pot is $670. Comments?
River is the Ks. Here is where I think I made my biggest mistake. I've put my opponent on 66 and I'm happy with my read. I think that he thinks I have an Ace with big cards (because of my long pause on the turn). I think I should have pushed in my last $300 into this $670 pot because if my read is right, and my psychological assesment is right, he can't call. Comments?
I failed to realize this until after the hand. I checked, he checked, and he turned over 66 to win the pot. I'm not to happy about how I played this hand. Comments on all streets are appreciated.
If indeed he had 66, he would have to assume that you had an ace and some big cards, as you reasoned.
A king was the MOST likely sidecard for you to have, from his perspective, since (a) you would want to have a king should he have an ace rather than 66, and (b) a lot of people like to play hands with AK and a suited ace.
In your shoes I would have bet out on the end if you made a full house OR if a king or (probably) a ten came (a ten is also a very logical card for you to have with an ace). For the reasons you give, he would pretty much have had to fold if he was a rational player.
So on the turn you could expect to win if any card higher than an 8 came on the river, and your call was merited EVEN IF you could not expect to get him to call anything on the river: 470 in the pot, 200 to call is 2.35 to 1, while 3x9, 4x10, 3xJ, 3xQ, 4xK, 1xA is 18 outs out of 42 unknown cards assuming that he had 66 and none of the cards you wanted, and assuming that a ten would win: 1.33 to 1.
If you felt that bluffing when a ten fell would not win, you would still only be 2 to 1 against and should call on the turn.
If you were not going to bluff if a K came then you only had ten outs, and not the right price UNLESS he would call a bet when you filled up, which seems unlikely despite what you say.
Without in any way meaning to be rude I think your reasoning is a bit inconsistent, since you justified your call by assuming that he would call 200 if you filled up with e.g. a queen, but ALSO think that he would have folded had you bet 300 when a king came. I agree with the latter rather than the former, but they cannot both be right, can they?
I would have done the same as you up to fourth street PROVIDED that I was virtually certain that he had 66, and not e.g. AKQJ, AKJT etc. Another option would be to reraise on the flop: he might conclude you had A6 and fold, but even if he did not, you would have a sporting chance of outdrawing. Of course, that approach might mean you would lose the chance to bluff when K or ten came.
I've been playing pretty tight solid poker up to this point
I estimated I was around a 3-1 dog but I think he will call $200 on the river if I hit (that is what I would bet, much more and I think he would fold).
This was only your third time to play PL. It would have been interesting to bet the $300 to see if you assessments were correct. You've got the tight image. The better your opponent is (or the less bad) the more likey he is to fold. Was he good enough to have seen through a $200 bet and folded?
He is one of the better players in the game but I still think he would have paid off a value bet if I had hit. Looking back I think I should have bet any card from a 9 through an Ace on the river. 3 value bets and two bluffs. I think the King is a good bluff card and the Ten could be a good card as well. If I had deep money and was able to bet the pot this play would have been perfect I think.
Get them to change the no check-raise rule, it is terrible. Late position already has a ton of power in PL poker, by eliminating the check-raise, it becomes close to impossible to play any hands in early position.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
It's about 20 minutes after the hand I just posted. I have around $300 dollars left in this 5-10 PL game. For game details refer to the previous post.
For this hand I am the button. 5 players limp in and I look down and see 4c 3c. I think that if I hit a small straight with this hand I will be able to double through one of my opponents. I'm unsure of this play and I think this is my biggest mistake of the hand. The small blind folds and the big blind checks. Seven players see the flop and there is $70 in the pot.
The flop is Kd 5c 2c. I have an open ended straight flush draw. BB checks and UTG bets the pot ($70). UTG is the local maniac. A consistent loser and overly aggressive. I think he is stuck around 2k tonight, but he has won a couple of big pots recently and has around $1000 in front of him at the moment. One passive player calls his bet and he has around $600.
I decide to raise all in for my last $280. I think the maniac is betting a pair or nothing, I think the passive player is calling with a pair. Here is what I considered when making this raise. I have an extremely tight image (not tough in this loose game) and I think that is a big factor in this hand. I estimated that there was around a 80%-90% chance the passive player would fold and around a 20%-30% chance the maniac would fold. This combined with my read that the maniac had a pair or was bluffing made me push in my money on the flop. Comments?
What I failed to take into account was that the maniac had chips and a $280 bet is no big deal to this guy. He called my bet and the passive player predicably folded. We turn over our hands and he has Tc-8c. There goes my flush outs but I can still hit the straight or a pair.
Turn is an 8 (there go my pair outs) and the river is a 3. I bust out and go home to type this up. I think my biggest mistake is calling preflop, but I would love comments on the whole hand. With this small of an open ended flush draw should I have slowed down on the flop? What do you guys think about this hand?
I think I kind of semi-tilted preflop calling with 4c-3c. I hadn't won a pot in over 3 hours and I just lost $300 in that Omaha pot about 20 minutes before this and I was still kicking myself over not bluffing the river. Having said this, I still believe I could have doubled through an opponent if I flopped a straight (or get a flop like I got), which is why I played the hand in the first place.
I don't know if this is sound logic or not, but feel free to flame away on the entire hand :).
I like your play here. If you catch a couple of people playing their Kings, you can triple through. With the two c's flopping, you have to think one has a club draw. I would assume it's the passive player and you dropped him. I would be wrong, but I guess you have to be there.
I like the situation better with higher connectors. I think even 5c6c is better because you might take off a A5 with the right board. Another thing to think about is when only one club flops and you get a club on the turn, then you're less afraid of another flush.
I would love to hear from the resident geniuses (genii?) about the PL button draws.
I love to see the flop with a hand like this against many players, in an unraised pot, and I have position.
Your all-in raise on the flop is not a semi-bluff, IMO. Basically, from what you've described, I see just about no chance that both of these players fold.
However, it is probably a good value bet if one of them fold. The hand that called you, a higher flush draw, is just about the worst hand from your perspective. Against a hand like AK you're the favorite here.
I would most likely have called the flop bet, and seen the turn card. If they checked, I would have then bet all-in, as a semi-bluff. If they bet, assess your pot odds and make the correct decision.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
This subject has been mentioned before. The first part of the puzzle is do you bet the draw or take a free card. In this case, there was action in front of you. From what you mentioned, I think this draw is worth a shot based on the straight value more so than the flush value. I think you did the right thing, just did not finish.
Here's another interesting hand.
The usual 2-3-5, 10 to go game.
I have about $1000
I have AJ unsuited two off the button. All fold to me. I raise it to $40. This is not an oversize bet to take the $10 worth of blinds. It's pretty typical to bet $30 to $50 preflop from round back just to pick up the blinds. Of course, you don't do this with a hand that has no chance of hitting the flop if you get called, but you can do it with hands that you certainly would not CALL the same raise from the blind with. Anyway....
A tricky veteran player from the big no limit game is on the button and he calls in an offhand manner. Our stacks are of similar size. The big blind, a loose aggressive bad player goes all in for $120 more.
Here's the problem: position.
I'm very sure that I have the big blind beat. Probably 80% sure. However, I'm trapped between his all-in bet and the big tricky stack behind me. If I call, he might move in on me with a weak hand, just to give his own hand 2-1 odds, even if it's only T9s or something. If I raise, I may have run into a slowplayed monster. His non-chalant call has me sufficiently worried so that I drop the hand.
What to do? I was VERY sure I had the all-in big blind beat. What is the play here? I'm pretty sure I should fold, there's just too much danger in the guy behind me.
natedogg
40 is too much to open for with that hand or most hands. 20 is the right #. but 15 sounds better to me. that aside, its an easy fold as i cant believe you can be 80% sure you can beat the blind. also with the good player behind you your money in this spot is lost.
Lay it down, AJ is a trap hand.
A tricky veteran player from the big no limit game is on the button and he calls in an offhand manner. Our stacks are of similar size.
This is all I need to hear. I agree that your bet was to much, but might have been OK if the deal was between you and this guy. The thing about AJ in this position is that you can hit the flop pretty hard and still be 3rd best. My guess is that veteran would put you all in now with an OK hand, but might wait a round with a monster.
What did