![[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 these guys show down?
I laid down the best hand AND it would have held up.
The all-in raiser had Q high, the guy behind me had K9s. Oh well. I knew I was right about the big blind but I just couldn't read what was going on to my left.
natedogg
I have been playing in a local PL game for 2 years now that recently broke due to marriages and a couple of moves. I would like to find another game or start one. If you need a player for a game in the L.A. area, no more than $200-$500 average buy in I would like to join. Please e-mail.
4 handed 40/80 game. I am on the button. LPP (loose passive player) is in the small blind. AP (aggressive player) is in the big blind.
UTG folds, I raise with Kc9c
SB calls BB calls
Flop is 7c7s3s
I know for a fact that if SB has a 7, he'd bet it on the flop or on the turn (or checkraise the flop).
SB checks. BB checks. I decide to check (should I?)
turn is a 2c - I have a club draw.
SB checks (he doesn't have a 7, but if he has a 3 or 2, he would highly likely call one bet).
BB bets.
I decide to raise (to shut out the SB if he has a 2 or 3, and to re-steal against the BB, and if I get called, I probably have lots of outs - 9 clubs, possibly 3 Ks and possibly 3 9s).
they both fold
any comments?
um..where is this game?
it was a shorthanded 40/80 game - which means that it doesn't go all the time, and any one person changes the game drastically.
even if i told you where it was, and you sat in that casino for the next 2 months nonstop, you may never encounter the same situation again.
That's exactly why it is so difficult to critique your play.
I think you did fine but under nearly identical circumstances but with one or two subtle changes, your play could be quite wrong. That's what makes shorthanded poker so hard to offer hand analysis on.
But I will say this: One has to like your thinking processes at the tables.
I would have been tempted to bet the flop because that would fit well with my style of play.
Why did you choose against betting? In other words, when you knew that the SB didn't have a 7, why wouldn't you go ahead and try to take the pot? I don't mean this as a criticism, just as a question to understand your thinking.
The raise on the turn is perfect.
well, rightly or wrongly, I felt I could try the bet or raise on the turn....cause if I bet on the flop, any ace will call, and then that may have caused them to call down to the river, especially if they hit on the river. I figure this way, by betting/raising the turn, it looks like I may have slowplayed a big hand on the flop. But either way, I would think the decision to bet on the flop (in this kind of flop), and betting/raising on the turn - has pretty close to zero ev.
Got
Well played! By raising on the turn you shut out the SB unless he has a Seven and you resteal against the big blind. A bet is almost automatic on the flop so by raising on the turn it appears to your opponents like you have a big hand.
Bruce
You played it perfectly. Too many pre-flop raisers automatically bet when flops miss them. Players who do this can be checkraised too easily. Your raise on the turn looks like you have a huge hand.
.
Hi
I am moving to hawaii in january and i was wondering if they have casinos / pokerrooms in HAWAII???? anyone??
is there anywhere else u can play ?? anyone have tips for getting into a home game??
.
2-3-5 blinds, 10 to go. I have about $400 in front of me.
I am dealt aces under the gun and I decide to send it around with a limp hoping for a chance to reraise.
This game is moderately aggressive and the chance of a raise is pretty good but unfortunately, I only get a bunch of limpers and we see the flop six handed.
So I figure I'm not going to win this one.
The flop is KTT. The blinds check and I bet $40 or $50. Only the big blind calls. Hmmmmmmm
The turn is a 7 and we both check.
The river is a blank and he bets out $75. This bet could easily look like a ten that didn't get to checkraise on the turn or a K that decided I actually had nothing when I bet the flop.
What do I do? I think it's pretty hard to fold in this situation. I know that my opponent played his hand like he had a ten face up in front him practically, but he also played it like he had a troublesome king as well. There's about $230 in the pot at this point.
natedogg
I called and he had a ten. How many would call in this situation?
natedogg
I think I call here, but how did you read this player's $75 on the end? Was it an invitation to fold or an invitation to call? How much did he have in front of him?
I'd call every time. Sounds like you played it right to me.
I just call here. While there is no reason to necessarily put him on a 10 (a King is more likely), I wouldn't open myself up to losing my whole stack in this scenario. The main issue here is, why would he bet on the river? If he has a bad King, the safer play would be to check it down. His $75 bet indicates that he either has the 10 or a complete bust (perhaps Q-J for a straight draw).
I think most players would call on the river here, probably including myself. However, I wonder whether an excellent player (with a solid image) might get away from this hand if he knew the BB to be a strong/solid opponent. I don't think that a solid player would call the UTG bettor with a weak king on the flop, or even with JQ (though I could imagine a strong player raising with JQ if he thought you would slowplay a ten and he could push you off of a king). In addition, the smallish $75 river bet seems like an invitation to call, making Kx and QJ hands more unlikely. I suppose this bet would be reasonable if the BB had AK, but Tx is MUCH more likely.
MJS
Unfortunately, I think you're stuck calling. Getting 3-1 on your money is enough to hope that you win. The results don't change anything.
Assume your preflop strategy works and the button raises to say 50 after all those limpers, what is the best strategy then? To re-raise all in? To re-raise to 100? Maybe just call (for deception) and hope his raise and you overcall convinces the rest of the limpers to drop anyways?
I assume the reason you didn't raise in your hand above is because you wanted to win more than just the blinds. But since your plan backfired (with all the limpers) maybe is it better to just check - fold to any bet since you are in the dark the rest of the way? Or is that too weak tight?
Sorry for all the questions, (my NL- Holdem book is on order) and not judging your play, just trying to learn.
Wish that flop would have come ATT for you :0)
Assume your preflop strategy works and the button raises to say 50 after all those limpers, what is the best strategy then? To re-raise all in? To re-raise to 100? Maybe just call (for deception) and hope his raise and you overcall convinces the rest of the limpers to drop anyways?
I was planning to re-raise all-in and hope to trap a player who has KK or QQ or even AK. Some players are so bad they'll even let you get them all-in with JJ. If I take it down right there, great. I just won about $100 without having to see the river. That's fine. If I get someone all-in, even better.
The one thing I would NOT do is just call for deception. If he raises $50 or even $100, and I just call, then others in between us have odds to call with weaker hands like TT or even QJs. If a flop hits them hard enough they could bust us. So I reraise for sure, most likely all-in.
I assume the reason you didn't raise in your hand above is because you wanted to win more than just the blinds. But since your plan backfired (with all the limpers) maybe is it better to just check - fold to any bet since you are in the dark the rest of the way? Or is that too weak tight?
I don't think that is really a question of weak-tight. It depends on the players and what you know about them. There are some players that you should fold to if they even look at the pot and you have top two pair. Others will go all-in on a gutshot draw bluff. I think weak-tight in this no limit situation is not possible.
If you don't know the players, you should definitely be careful with this pot, which is exactly what was going on for me. IT was early in the game and I didn't know all the players well. In no-limit, if you don't know who you're playing with, play weak-tight until you do.
Also, as David Sklansky said below, there are good arguments for just checking the flop and then folding to a bet. However, I thought I might steal since basically anybody without a T or K will fold for sure. Luckily, I had position on the one caller and his actions made me fairly suspicious so that I called his bet on the river. Luckily because the turn was free. Unluckily because I got trapped by the action misleading me and I paid off. If he had just bet the turn I would have mucked.
I am not a big fan of limping in with AA. You do state that the game was moderately aggressive but with your two aces it is unlikely someone else has Ace big which cuts out a lot of the raising hands.
I think you had to call the $75. Unfortunately you were the one trapped instead of the one doing the trapping.
Ken
There is much to be said for checking the flop as well as betting less, or for that matter more.
Apparently I'm in the minority here, but I think this is a bad call unless your opponent is somewhat tricky. It really comes down to knowing your opponent. Does he make pot sized river bets when he has a hand or does he make smaller bets to draw you in when he's got the goods, and save the pot-sized bets for his bluffs. Does he even bluff? His bet just screams to me that he's selling his hand to you. It doesn't seem that he's betting a king for value here because he'd likely check it down with a king, since you probably wouldn't call him with anything he could beat, and for some reason, a bluff just doesn't make sense to me.
George, I think you pointed out the most important aspect of this hand, and the most important aspect of no-limit which is that knowing the player is key. The game had just started and I didn't know the player. I had almost no information on this guy.
I was pretty sure that he had a T but I felt there was a sufficient chance he had a K to call. Maybe not. But since I had NO read on him, I called. By the end of the night, if we had replayed the hand, I would have folded. I sure helps to know your player.
The irony is that you said it's a bad call unless he's a tricky player. It turned out that he was one of the few players in that game who was NOT tricky. Most players at the table are perfectly capable of bluffing a busted draw on the river. He was tight and unimaginative and I sure wish the hand had occurred about 40 minutes later than it did. I would have saved $75
natedogg
I am 2 after the BB with JJ.
UTG folds, I raise. I get two callers (button and SB).
Flop is 9s2c2d
SB checks, I bet, button calls, SB folds.
I don't know anything about the button - I've never played with him before, and I am new in town and new to the game.
turn is a 3s
I bet. Button raises.
Decision number one - should I call? I decide to call.
River is a 5s - making it 3 spades on board
If he was semibluffing with a spade draw, then he got there.
So, here are some of the hands that some reasonable people may have played this way :
AsKs, AsQs, 99, TT, A9s (not spades though)
or maybe just 88, 77, 66, putting me on two high cards that missed.
With QQ, KK or AA, I'd imagine a 3 bet on the flop.
I check....trying to either induce a bluff (maybe from AQ non spades), or fearing a raise if I bet.
He bets.
Decision number 2 : Should I call? I decide to call.
Comments appreciated.
The action screams big overcards, flush draw to me.
If he had a high pocket pair (JJ or higher) he would have reraised btf. If he's on TT he should raise on the flop -- his hand is weak. A9 isn't that strong either -- top pair top kicker should raise on the flop.
The other possibility is that he's slowplaying something. 99, or a 2 somehow, but you're beat then too.
Having said all that, given that I've never played with him, I would probably call him down here. There are enough bad/agressive players that the information you get here might not cost you much on average.
- target
I check....trying to either induce a bluff (maybe from AQ non spades), or fearing a raise if I bet.
It seems to me that you got what you wanted. You had enough reason to believe your hand was best to induce the bluff. You checked and he bet. It's textbook at this point. You might be losing, but you might be winning. If you bet, he can't call with the worst hand, but he might raise. If you check, he might bluff and you only want to put in one bet anyway.
It worked. Now you gotta call and see if you were right. The pot's big enough. Plus, you're new at the table and the information could be incredibly valuable at this point.
natedogg
Routine call.
I offer some tough medicine... You're going to lose your shirt in 75-150 if you even think about laying down JJ to a raise on the turn here. The only better hands you could hold are QQ-AA and 99, and there are a lot of worse hands you could hold, so if you fold JJ or worse, you'll be folding the majority of your hands, whereas to defend yourself from your opponent, the pot odds demand you at least call the majority of the time.
Against a lot of players, I would even bet the river (if no spade or overcard) after backing off on the turn. Although he could have AA or 99, it smells suspiciously like AK or AQs. Given that the spade hit on the river, check and call.
-Abdul
Look at it this way you are a new person to the guy on the button and the way you played this hand and responded is future info to the button and to the participants at this table, its like lets try newbie out.
in the bigger games you get raised here on 4th all the time. id raise back and make it three bets and bet at him on the river no matter what comes except maybe a nine. i dont ever even consider folding a good hand just because of one little raise especially from someone i know nothing about. there are so many reasons for a raise that few of them warrant a fold or even passive play after when holding what looks like a winning hand. you will end up giving so many free cards and lost bets playing that way it would be next to impossible to stay afloat.
What if he 4 bets you Ray? Do you back off and check the river or let him have another one?
you puke then play the player. thats all you can do as you are probably in trouble.
Call. Then check and call him down since you are newbie or at this level they'll run over your ass down
3 bet the turn and bet the river unless a spade hits, in which case check-call. There are very few hands that the button could have that can beat you on the turn, he is most likely raising you on overcards and a flush draw. Most players will 3 bet btf with 99 so you don't really have to worry about that hand either. He could also have A9 and figure that since he is going to call a bet on the river he may as well raise on the turn. My guess is that he made a flush and you lost. You still have to call though. If you start laying down overpairs or top pair top kicker you are going to get slaughtered in the big games.
he turned over 99 - which was somewhat surprising to me, I was more expecting to see the flush on the river. I didn't think he'd play A9s, but then again, I didn't think he would've flat called with 99 too...I would've figured a three bet from 99 pre-flop.
Cold calling a single, solid early raiser with 99 on the button is a fundamental hold'em error, IMO. I think this is a clear raise or pass. I'd probably raise players that I have control over and pass players that play well post flop.
Unless you gave the table the impression that you are a complete fish, I think the button made a gross error in this hand.
He called your early position raise with 99. That is sheer stupidity no matter how you look at it. Don't get me wrong - there are lots of pros that make bad plays like this.
I leave it to others to explain what is so terrible about the button's play here.
-SmoothB-
Although I agree that 99 should generally be mucked to a tight player's UTG raise, I'm not so sure you couldn't sneak it in on the button, especially if you feel the UTG raiser is capable of laying down an overpair to a raise heads up on the turn.
-Abdul
If it's useful to know the thoughts of an average hold em player, read on. If you want to thoughts of experts only, don't waste your time; skip to the next post.
I would fold on the River unless I just wanted to pay to see what he had, to learn more about his play (something I never do). Here's my possibly flawed reasoning.
He doesn't know me at all. He's got no reason to try something tricky on me. So why would he raise on the turn unless he had a better hand than top pair (9s) or unless he is semibluffing with a flush draw. So he's either got 10s-AAs or spades. On the River the spades come in. So the only hands I can put him on are better than mine. True, pot odds in a limit game beg for a call. But I'd be pretty close to certain on this one. I'd fold. (now I'll read what better players thought).
I am in late position - two off the button - everyone folds, I raise with JJ - SB three bets (a nondescript player whom I have never played against before). BB folds.
Assuming the guy isn't a nut or an overaggressive player, and has no hint as to how you play either, what can you put him on ?
I'd imagine only QQ, KK or AA - with the rare exception raising on AK.
If the flop comes without a J or a straight draw for a J, is it worth it to call him down, even if there is no A or K (thus meaning that AK did not get there on the flop)?
If you are on the button or cutoff, he could be raising with any pair 8s or higher, AJs, AQ, maybe even something like KTs or a suited A pretty easily. If he thinks you are on a steal, he doesn't have to have an amazing hand to reraise here.
Now if you raise from early position and he three bets, he probably has a top hand.
It's not overaggressive to reraise with many hands there, given that it's heads up and you were in late.
So no, don't give up simply because you don't flop a set. See how the flop comes, but I wouldn't lay down an overpair super easily there.
- target
Even given he must have queens or better or AK, you are only a 9-8 dog when cards ten or lower come IF he will bet AK all the way. And if the board contains Qxxxx you are a 16-15 FAVORITE.
..the answers lately have been increasingly less cryptic...
Its intuitively ironic that you have a better chance with the Q than without.
It's not ironic, it's Baye's Theorem.
P.S. I would rarely not 4 bet in this situation.
bayes theorem, hence intuitively ironic.
This makes no difference. I only commented because normally Lord Vader/Oz/Omniscient One/annointerofVLG/DS normally posts a one liner that we all fret over for days.
Most experienced hold-em players, especially those that play for high stakes, know that when you open raise from middle position you do not need a premium hand to do this so his re-raise does not necessarily mean AA,KK,QQ, or AK like it would if you raised from early position or from middle position after other players limped in. With no Ace or King or Queen on the flop there are 18 hands that beat you and 16 hands that you beat if we assume he would 3 bet with AK offsuit. With no Ace or King but one Queen on the flop, there are 15 hands that beat you and the same 16 hands of AK that you beat. Bottom line is that you have a definite play here usually all the way to the river especially if he will 3 bet with worse hands like TT or AQ.
I hear alot about R+C's book on PL and NL poker. My question is simple, is it really that good? Is it the last word on PL poker? Should I have a copy if I want to play PL? Thanks in advance for any answers. Goldfish
It is nowhere near the last word, but it is better than its competition. Ciaffone's sections are much better than Reuben's, IMO.
Oh, the NL HE section of Super System is good, but doesn't discuss any other games. You're best off with both, but go with C&R if you can only get one.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
What is the title to either book anyone?
(n/t)
Probably the best book out there on pot and no limit poker. Reubens also adds a lot.
Ciaffone also has a pretty good more general poker book, IMPROVE YOUR POKER.
His earlier work on Pot Limit Omaha is out of date and no longer valuable.
Great Book!
Reuben's sections seem to wander all over the place (kinda like he got lost in the poker room and wanted to bend your ear for awhile). Ciaffone's chapters are top-notch.
I had Gamblers Bookstore mail me a copy of Pot Limit and No Limit Poker by Ciaffone when I started playing Pot Limit games regularly. Though my games are significantly smaller than the games written about by C&R, I've found the book useful. Though, I must admit that I haven't found Reubens nearly as useful as Ciaffone. Never play London Low Ball...maybe that's why. It's paid for itself about 100 times over since I bought in three months ago.
This poll is in response to a thread below.
What would you do here -
Folded to early position player who raises, everyone folds to you on the button. You have 99. What do you do? The raiser appears to be a tight, solid player.
Same question, but this time you have 22. What do you do now?
What is the worst pocket pair you should call with in this situation?
What are the worst 2 suited cards you should call with?
What are the worst offsuit cards you should call with?
Detailed analysis of the correct play will follow after I get some responses.
-SmoothB-
99*/AQs/AK.
* See my comment regarding 99 in the earlier thread.
-Abdul
Abdul responded with : 99/AQs/AK
Do you mean you would simply call the UTG raise with these hands on the button or would you 3 bet? I would think 3 betting is better, simply to knock out the BB.
I would flat call with every hand I play here, never 3-bet. Mr. Big Blind is going to be in deep doo-doo in general in this spot, so I would like to encourage him to make the mistake of calling. Additionally, I don't want to put in the third bet when I'm a dog to the original raiser, nor do I want to scare the original raiser when I have the superior hand, since I can easily regain the lost bet with a raise on the flop. Against a later raiser, then sure, I 3-bet quite a bit, maybe with every playable hand.
-Abdul
Not having looked at other responses:
Folded to early position player who raises, everyone folds to you on the button. You have 99. What do you do? The raiser appears to be a tight, solid player. Re-raise
Same question, but this time you have 22. What do you do now? Fold
What is the worst pocket pair you should call with in this situation? 7
What are the worst 2 suited cards you should call with? J-10 or A-(5 or less) - not sure which is worse?
What are the worst offsuit cards you should call with? A-(10 or better) or KQ
Hopefully Im not too stupid.
David
IMO, you definitely should muck JTs, AT, KQ etc. These are the classic trap hands. You simply can't cold call an early position raise with these chip drainers.
As for 99 v. 22, it makes very little difference gainst a tight early position raiser. Either way, you are a slight favourite (if he has overcards) or a big dog (if he has an overpair). In fact, it might be argued that 22 is better (assuming both blinds fold) as your set will be harder for him to read and you are less likely to lose to his straight with a 2 on the board as opposed to a 9.
Note that 22 is complete garbage against someone with looser early position raising standards than Mr. Solid. At least with Mr. Tight, if the flop comes without any face cards, you may be able to put a feeler raise out there to see if he has overcards or an overpair. Tight players will generally give you the required info on the flop. With the looser raiser...well...he could be raising in early position with 66/A2s/KJ/AT. Thus, while you may be a greater mathematical favourite to hold the best hand after the flop against this type of player, you simply can't tell with any degree of certainty against these guys who will often 3 bet you with nothing on the flop to see if you are just putting a feeler raise out there to determine if he has just overcards.
In sum, I would fold 22 against the loose aggressive player. I *might* 3 bet Mr. Tight with 22 (but rarely - usually, I would fold). I would probably 3 bet both of them with 99 for different reasons. If I choose to just call, it would be just against Mr. Tight. Mr. Loose aggressive..I am taking it upstairs for sure.
But then again, I am a sucker for pocket pairs. So, you are better off not following any of the above and listen to the others who posted under this thread.
Folded to early position player who raises, everyone folds to you on the button. You have 99. What do you do? The raiser appears to be a tight, solid player.
-I would reraise.
Same question, but this time you have 22. What do you do now?
-I would fold.
What is the worst pocket pair you should call with in this situation?
-I don't like medium pocket pairs in this situation. I would fold pocket 8's and less and reraise pocket 9's or greater.
What are the worst 2 suited cards you should call with?
-I may call with A-Js, but I usually fold it. I would reraise with A-Qs usually.
What are the worst offsuit cards you should call with?
-From an early position raise the worst offsuit cards I play are A-Ko and I would reraise with this.
Derrick
Folded to early position player who raises, everyone folds to you on the button. You have 99. What do you do? The raiser appears to be a tight, solid player.
Call and hope for a baby flop.
Same question, but this time you have 22. What do you do now? Fold
What is the worst pocket pair you should call with in this situation? 88
What are the worst 2 suited cards you should call with?
KQs What are the worst offsuit cards you should call with?
AQ
Detailed analysis of the correct play will follow after I get some responses.
Game is $100-$200 HE. Average players except one, great player.
A mid position player calls, a late position calls, BB (great player) calls.
Flop: 10s-8c-Ks. Mid position bet, late pos player raises, BB (great player) reraises. CAll, call.
Turn: 3h. Mid position player checks, late position player checks, great player in BB bet. Call, call.
River: 7d. Mid and late position players check, Great player bet. Only mid position player calls.
Result: Great player wins with J-8 offsuit (pair of 8s) vs As-2s of mid position player. Great player says: I put both of you in drawing hands; in effect late position flashes to all his holding: Q-J offsuit.
Now I ask you: great play of this hand or very risky approach?
Marco
..so in a world of multiple opposing gravities and other incongruities this play is..?
another excellent post; i always enjoy your comments and this is among your best...wish you would publish a book...i would buy a copy and recommend to many potential purchasers...happy holidays..
On the turn and river, how can a player in the big blind bet after the other players have checked? I will assume that the big blind bet the turn and river first and was called.
The pot was $2250 and it costs the big blind an additional $750 on the flop, turn, and river so he invested $750 to win $1500. Now what do you suppose the combined probability of BOTH players being on a draw given that betting action was? I think this was a very risky approach.
If he truly knew what he was talking about, it looks like a great play.
If he sees the results and then says he put them on draws, then he got very lucky.
I think this was a very risky play with the King on the flop.
There is a great player where I play. After playing with him several times, I can see for myself that he is unusualy lucky too. It is much easier to look great and play great when the cards are realy falling for you.
Mick, I believe that many players who are regarded as great are really more lucky than great. I believe that when you get thousands of players engaging in an activity that is so dominated by luck you will have a few statisitical deviates whose hands always seem to hold up more often then they should and who get more than their fair share of drawouts. As human beings all we see are results so we assign reason to randomness and attribute these results to skill. If we had all the data that was theoretically possible to have we would find that there are very few substantial differences that exists among decent players and that differences in results are driven by how often hands hold-up among players as well as how often they get to suckout on their opponent.
Jim, I did not read your post until late. I agree with what you have said. I would not be able to state the case as well as you have, but from what I have observed, I beleive it to be absolutely true.
On the tournament board, we had a discussion on how extremely lucky we beleive a certain big name tournament player is. (Phil Helmuth) If you see the history of the hands played, you have to come to the conclusion that this is not due to any great play, but due to the statistical deviations that you mentioned.
Very well put.
I find all of your posts to be inteligent and informative. Where do you play and what stakes, if you don't mind.
Mick
Recently I have been playing $20-$40 and $10-$20 at the Mirage in Las Vegas. A few months ago I was playing $30-$60 and $15-$30 at the Bellagio. I switched to the Mirage because my earns are better.
Hellmuth lucky in tournaments? Not more so than anyone else. he is a great player...you need a little luck to win a tournament usually but he gets to the last few people way too much to be called lucky.
Very few players have the great ability to be able to read the players they play against very well. The player who you are talking about may have this ability. Thats what makes him so great. But I feel this is not the case. Most of these type of people will not make the final comment. They usually keep a low profile and are the quit sort. I feel this guy was just making a play lf some type and just got lucky.
Add to this the probability BOTH players were on draws and did NOT get there. On the flop, I think they may even be a combined favorite IF they both have draws. If one has a K and the other a big draw, BIG trouble because our hero can hit trips and still lose.
Play seems overly speculative to me. Better off with penny nasdaq stocks!
It's also been my experience that all the really great players have great luck as well as great skill.
Playing pot-limit omaha high-low, minimum buy in around 150$ everyone is around 300$ to 600$ of bankroll.
Very late in the night, i have been pulled out of the last 3 pots i entered due to pot size bet on the flop by the guy on my left.
I have A,4,7,J unsuited, two after the BB, guy on left (GOL) put 15$ in i call, button and big blind call too.
Flop is K-5-6 rainbow
Here, i want to have a look on the river, a 2 or a 3 being qute good for my straight draw.
GOL bet the pot around 80$, i hesitate but it seems hard to have a lock on this pot at that time, so i call figuring at least GOL is having an A-2 hand but nothing serious on the high. Button calls after a long time thinking, i don't have a read on him, who is generally overagressive and raely passively calling like this.
Turn is a Q, making two hearts
GOL bet 250$ and is all-in. I decide to call as do the button.
River is a T, letting me scooping the pot under GOL's ult for my poor play, showing A-2-3-Q, BUtton agree showing A-2-4-6, with nuts hearts draw.
Did i completely deserve these critics? I thought i was having some odds to call the last 250$ due to the pot size around 570$ due to my playable straights and low draws and the possibility of taking all if a T hits.
While I am not an experienced Omaha Hi lo player OR an experienced pot limit player, I agree with some of the objections.
Preflop you have only miracle draws and a pretty mediocre low hand. FOLD
After the flop, you have an open ended (I don't understand why you don't mention an EIGHT as being good for your straight draw!). I agree with your assessment of the probable A2 hand . I don't quite understand how the guy to your left bets the pot, then you call, then the button calls. Shouldn't the button be calling in between you and the GOL? It does make a difference, as if there is caller between you and the GOL, perhaps you have odds to call your gutshot and open ended. You have about 9 outs (assuming we want to discount the 3 hearts that make your straights).
I have a friend who plays pot limit omaha on occassion, and he once told me that the biggest mistake players make in the game is drawing to less than the nuts. I think thats what you were doing here. Lucky hit this time, but I don't think it would be a profitable strategy in the long run.
David
Due to the lack of sleep , i i misname Guy on Lrft, of course he was on my right, i had to callor fold before the button decision. * thanks for your comments, be sure i am not gonna make this type of call my favourite tupe of play. Pot-limit is dangerous, one bad move could cost you your bankroll so i had been waiting quite a long for playable hands and mucked the rare hands played to aggression from good players.
I surely lack a bit of one essential quality to win substantially at pot-limit : patience!
Arnaud
I think A47J is a pretty weak hand that should be discarded pre-flop. The only thing you can even hope to make is some goofy straight which is not the best hand to make in Omaha/8.
On the flop, I don't like the call b/c while you're apparently getting 240-80 or 3-1 for your straight draw, you lose half the pot if you make your hand. Not to mention the times you make it and lose. Fold this very weak draw.
On the turn, you've actually finally picked up some scooper outs. However you've only got 3 of them. Again, if you're first to call you've got 570-250 approx 2-1, if you call after the button you're getting approx 3-1 to call. However, your only draw for the whole pot is a 3-out gutshot and combine that with your now 6 outs for a half-pot straight(only 3 of those outs are to a nut straight). So you essentially have b/w 4.5 and 6 outs(3 for scoop and 1/2 of 6 for split - 4.5 is if your non-nut low straight is no good). Either way 6/44 is .13 so you'll win about 1 time in 8.5 or so. You're not getting anywhere close to the 9 to 1 odds you need to draw. Even if you credit your opponents for each having A2 you still need 7.6 to one odds (6/40 chance to hit). Clear fold.
You got lucky but were clearly steaming when you played that hand.
Please please please please read this book which will at least give you some basics about starting hand selection in this game.
natedogg
Agree Ciaffone's book on BigBet very good.
Big difference if GOL or GOR.
I made a post a couple of months ago about position, as my game has one very good/aggressive player. Everyone told me that I was correct to sit to his immediate left - making him the GOR, as in your example.
Since then, Ciaffone had an article in one of the mags, I reread his book, and a good player I respect, all said the WORST place to be in a big bet game is to the immediate left of the aggressive player.
While it's true you get to see what he does before you act, there are so many disadvantages to acting first after the raiser that you should do what I did - get another seat.
A-4-7-J offsuit calling a raise in early/mid position - we'd have a seat open for you anytime.
Take Care, Gare
I play in a relatively small NL game about 3 times/week and would like other players' thoughts on a few hands. These hands did not take place in the same session, but for the most part the players are the same. They are posted in general chronological order.
The blind structure of the game is 1-2. The typical stack ranges from 50-700. Typical buy-in is $150.
Hand 1: AKo on the button (I have $250 stack). Rock (who may be on tilt) limps from middle position ($90 stack), and the next player (Loose Aggressive) raises to $8 ($150 stack). I flat call. Blinds fold and limping rock calls. I like that the rock only calls as he would definitely (99% certain) re-raise with a monster. Flop comes AhKs6s. Limping rock bets out $10, LA raises to $20. I huddle, put the rock on top pair with a flush draw and the LA on a steal. I move in for $80 more. The rock deliberates and calls, LA folds. Turn and river are blanks and my top two beat his AsTs.
Hand 2: Q9c on the button ($300 stack). Three players limp around to me and I limp as well, the blinds come in without a raise and we see the flop 6 handed. Flop comes Qd9d3c. Checked to me and I make it $15 to go. The same LA player from above is the only caller ($140 stack). Turn is the 6d. LA checks to me and I bet another $20. He tries to check raise me all-in but accidently string bets and the dealer only allows a call. Yikes, he has a flush! River brings the Qs. He bets $100 and I move him all in for about $5 more (I want him to dig). He calls and his 10-4 of diamonds loses to my full house.
Hand 3: AA in the cut-off seat ($130 stack). 3 limpers, I make it $10 to go. BB ($600 stack) and two limpers call. Flop comes 10-5-3 rainbow. Checked to me, I bet $25. BB calls, others fold. Turn is an off-suit 6. Checked to me and I bet $40. BB calls again (uh-oh). River is a Jack. BB checks, I check. He looks disappointed and turns over the 7-4 for a straight. He was looking for a check-raise on the river.
Hand 4: Pocket Jacks, UTG ($220 stack). I make it $10 to go. Late position player (pretty loose, not too aggressive) and BB call (Loose aggressive) both call. Both have about $300 stacks. Flop comes Ks-10d-6s. BB checks, I bet $40 (no free cards?!? or was this bad). Late position player calls and BB calls. I would have expected a raise from a K, but can't be sure. Turn is a 3c. BB checks, I check, LPP checks. I think I needed to make a pot-sized bet here. River comes 9s. BB bets $50, I fold, LPP raises $100. BB calls and turns over 87o. LPP turns over As5s and takes the pot.
Hand 5: Ks7s in cut-off seat ($600 stack). I have to post a $3 late position missed blind. Middle position player ($250 stack), loose, bluffs too much makes it $10 to go. I flat call, all others fold. Flop comes 6s,8c,8d. He bets $20. At this point I put him on pocket pairs above an 8 or AK. I decide to try to pull off a swindle if I can get him to check to me. I call. Turn brings a 5s (giving me an open-ender and a spade draw). He bets $20 again. I call. River brings a 10c. I have king-high. He checks, I bet $200. His eyes bug out of his head. He thinks and thinks and thinks and thinks and turns over QQ and mucks them. I think about it and decide (against my normal policy) to show my hand with the hopes of getting great action from him in the future.
Any thoughts, critiques, etc would be greatly appreciated.
Nice job on hands 1 and 2.
Hand 3. After several limpers, you really need to raise a significantly larger amount in order to keep them from breaking you with those Aces. Otherwise, just limp.
Hand 4. If you are going to bet the flop here, you should be willing to move on in at the turn when the blank falls. This cost you the pot.
Hand 5. Except in the tourneys, I wouldn't make this play. But if you are going to make that play, I think you're much better off to make it on the turn rather than on the river.
I played in a 50/100 game with a guy who finished in the final table in the WSOP 10,000 tourney, in 98, 99 or 00 (not sure which year). These were two of the hands that I vividly remembered him playing (I was at the table with him for about 2 hours) :
1. called a UTG raise by a renowned world class player (both ring games and tourneys) with Ad5d in the seat to the immediate left. 2. limped in UTG with Qd8d
Before I sat down with him, I gave him a lot of respect as a player - just assumed he may be good because of his finish. However, based on the 2 hours, I would have to say, those were two very suspect hands (along with a few other hands that I don't remember so well), and I would have to drop him down a big notch to "just another guy who plays 50/100 hold'em".
I also saw another big tournament player limp in two seats after the BB with A6o. That particular player in question, I thought may have been a bad player in ring games, but I didn't know he'd be that bad.
So, I guess that brings me to the following question : what does winning or placing high in tourneys mean for ring game skill levels? anything?
NL skill does not translate into limit skill -- and vice-versa. If you are referring to McBride, other than the two big tournaments of 1998, I don't recall that he had much overall poker experience.
not McBride or McManus (two guys who I would not have given too much respect too, especially McBride - McManus is probably an ok player)
was it huck seed? i just saw him on tlc on tv going all in with J8s. what a dork.
Even bad players can get pretty far in tournaments occasionally. There was a player in the TOC (1999) that finished in the top 30 that was just horrendous. He put some very ugly bad beats on top players. He would have been a sucker even in a low-limit game, but lo and behold, he finished in the money.
Even Chris Ferguson said that tournaments are 75% luck! I'm not sure I agree with this figure, but given a field of similarly skilled players, there will be a significant amount of luck involved.
I have to say, however, that I get annoyed with people who take pot shots at widely recognized top players based on a particular hand that appears to be sub-standard. I come from the 'put up or shut up ' school of thinking. In other words, if you aren't willing to play one of these guys in their money games, calling them names like 'dork' just makes you look like a punk.
i am a punk dude. the guy looks, acts, and plays like a dork. it was an objective factual account of how he looked in the wsop. he went all in with J8s and then started to cry about it. cant wait till 20 years (maybe 10) when i can afford to take a shot at him at a non-tourney table. huck seed--gimme a break!
I'm sure Huck will be glad to play a cash game with you at any time. To the best of my understanding, he regularly plays and beats some of the biggest games around, e.g., 400-800 and the like.
If you make the last raise in a NL tourney, and it's a substantial raise, your play really can't be faulted based upon your cards. You will often win uncontested, and the real question isn't what cards you held, but how good was your read that your opponent would fold.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
If that's the criterion you are using, the Huck's play was even more horrendous and dead wrong. He got called by an A-rag (3 I think). Padraig said that every player in Europe knew that Noel was prepared to call after reraising Huck in the first place.
OK, but then Huck wasn't wrong because he had J8, but because he didn't read Noel properly, IMO.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Huck's hand here doesn't really matter and it would have been a brilliant play against most players. The fact that he tried to run it against the one guy in the was either very unlucky or very stupid. Those that play with Noel would argue that it was the latter and Huck shouold have known this after tangling with him frequently the night before.
He's just willing to gamble a lot more than the others.
Basically, IMO, Noel knew that he couldn't be far ahead of anything that Huck might be holding, but he was confident that he was ahead. Most players would have thought I'm pretty sure I'm ahead, but if I'm wrong, I'm way behind, so I'll fold. That is good thinking, and is the correct way to maximize your monetary EV in a tourney at this stage. However, I believe that Noel is pretty wealthy already, and he really doesn't care as much about maximizing EV as he does about winning the title. So, feeling he was ahead, he made the call, knowing that it would go a long way towards making him the winner.
This is especially true against Huck. Huck was certainly the most fearless of all the remaining players. Like Noel, he was probably more willing to go for the win and give up some EV, rather than play only to maximize EV. As such, he was the most dangerous player at the table.
Maybe I'm wrong. But it's a theory, at least.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg-
I mangled the language in that post. I'm not even sure exactly what I meant to say, but I know it wasn't that Noel might be stupid. I think it was supposed to read, "...running that bluff against the one guy whos was capable of calling without a monster was either very unlucky or very stupid."
BTW, I agree with Noel's psychology. He was thinking "this is my best chance to bust Huck and then I can run over the whole table." I'm not even sure he was convinced he was ahead, but was pretty convinced Huck didn't have Aces and he was getting reasonable pot odds since the pot was already very big after Noel's reraise.
Doc Have you heard of varying your play. It's a practice of sometimes playing hands in a way that another person wouldn't expect with the intent of causing confusion or over confidence from another player. If you only saw a couple hands that he was playing less than optimally can you really judge his overall skill? If someone has made it to the final table at the WSOP than they are good, give them that respect.
sure, varying one's play is useful...but not to this extent - are you sure that limping with Q8s UTG and calling A5s after a UTG raise is a good variation of play? I believe in variation of play, but not to this extent
It's been a while since I have posted. My computer died about two weeks ago than my cable modem went down, but anyway it' nice to be back. I'm playing in a three handed 80-160 game about 4 AM with two stuck and wide open players. I am in the big blind with 23o and the pot is unraised.
The flop comes 4 5 6 with a heart draw. I have flopped the stupid end of the straight, but we are playing three handed. To me at least on the flop, I have the World's Fair.
The SB checks and I bet. The button raises. The button is very loose, but he is also highly aggressive. The SB reraises. He is a relatively weak player. I make it three bets and the button caps it.
The turn brings a Four. The small blind checks and I bet. The button raises and the small blind calls. I reraise and the button folds and the small blind calls. My raise perhaps may be very borderline, but I still at this point felt like I had the best hand. I highly doubted anyone had a pocket pair or had flopped two pair with a Four.
On the river a Six of hearts comes. There is now a flush out there and the board has two pair. The small blind checks and I also check. He turns over T7 of hearts to win the pot. Did I miss a bet on the end? I think by the way I played the hand it seemed like I had a straight, but by checking on the end with a flush out there, which is what I put my opponent on it is impossible for me to win. My only chance to win is by betting on the end and hoping my opponent will fold thinking I have a full house.
Comments appreciated.
Bruce
A wild and loose player who played as maniacally as he did before the River surely won't fold for your last bet. Checking it down made sense and saved a bet. Sure, you lost, but I think you played this hand correctly all the way through.
I can see why you would have been tempted to bet here. It's what Bob Ciaffone calles (in print) a protected bet. The guy with a flush can't raise, and he may even fold.
My guess is, however, that often you're just going to lose another bet. This is the type of play over which I often kick myself regardless of how I play the hand. If I don't bet, I wish that I had, if I do bet, I often wish that I hadn't. I guess you've got to figure that if the guy called all those bets, why would he fold when he makes the hand he was drawing to make?
The check was correct. With all the money in the pot on the river, no way was he going to lay down a straight.
This is in response to the poll I started below, regarding what to do with 99 on the button after a raise from a tight, solid player in mid position.
Calling or raising with 99 is a HUGE mistake. If you do this frequently you will lose a lot of money.
You must consider that the preflop raiser will either have a pocket pair larger than 99 or 2 over cards at least 90% of the time. 99 is a big underdog to an overpair. It is 11:10 favorite (nearly even money) 2 any 2 overcards.
If you are going to call here, you are GOING to see the river unless your opponent folds. If you commit to calling 2 bets here you probably won't be folding unless an ace hits the board - and even then, what do you do?
If your opponent is weak tight and you can read him really well, and you think you might be able to push him off of pocket jacks or queens if overcards come, then maybe you can give it a shot.
99 is just as good/bad as 22 here.
-SmoothB-
This goes along with a thread from a while ago regarding what to do in the following situation:
You are in the BB with TT. UTG comes in for a raise. Folded all the way around to you. What do you do?
UTG is tight solid player.
Correct play is to fold.
I will explain again if necessary.
-SmoothB-
This is even more ridiculous than folding 99.
Sorry, wrong answer.
However, you are not alone - this is a common misconception among beginning players. Most good players used to make mistakes like this before we learned better. Don't feel too bad.
An explaination is coming.
-SmoothB-
cant be too wrong here to call as you are getting 3.5 : 1 on your call, and the implied odds when you make a set make this an easy call *if* you play well after the flop. (its when you dont set up that you can lose a lot of money if you dont play well).
if you dont play well, then yes, you might as well wait for an easier to play situation.
brad
im sick of your s***. you are by far the stupidest person on this forum. im behind smoothhead 100%. if you played this loose you really can't expect to win except against beginning players like brett, and even then probably only because he has major tells.
take up knitting until smoothie straightens you out.
tyler
may i ask how you know how bad i play? :)
i just meant that even if you play weak tight and fold if you dont flop a set, its still a (marginal if you play that bad) call. and a lot of good players of course play a lot better than that, which makes it an easier call.
by the way, this forum is for information exchange, not name calling.
brad
youre a complete idiot! you cant even change your name right! case closed!
tyler
youve convinced me. from now on i fold.
brad
Some people never gain enough self-confidence to be able to engage in an exchange of opinions without getting defensive and/or shaken up by a disagreement and resorting to name-calling. These people are great to have at your table too.
natedogg
>Calling or raising with 99 is a HUGE mistake. If you do this frequently you will lose a lot of money. <
This is ridiculous. You are welcome in my game anytime.
>It is 11:10 favorite (nearly even money) 2 any 2 overcards<
So I should fold the favorite? Get real.
>If you are going to call here, you are GOING to see the river unless your opponent folds.<
No reason to see the river if overcards flop and youthink you are beat.
>If your opponent is weak tight and you can read him really well, and you think you might be able to push him off of pocket jacks or queens if overcards come, then maybe you can give it a shot.<
Ain't gonna happen. Only if an A or K hits, then you'll be too scared too try.
>99 is just as good/bad as 22 here.<
Hardly. Just one reason is that with 22, you are guaranteed that overcards will flop, making it very hard to defend. 99 could easily dominate the board.
Back to the drawing board, Smooth.
I was going to be nice, but I have a basic principle I try to live by - when clueless retards who don't know what they're talking about make personal attacks and humiliate themselves, I tear out their jugular veins.
This is what most beginning players, like you, think - Gosh golly, TT is supposed to be like the 5th best hand in poker, and that's great! I should be raising, so I'll gladly call a raise with it.
Here is the problem.
Are you going to fold your TT when overcards come? That is going to happen by far most of the time.
Even if overcards DON'T come, you will be up against an over pair about 1/2 the time.
You aren't getting good odds for your call - only one other player in the hand.
Let's see what he's raising with:
UTG, tight, solid player. He has :
AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AKs, AKo, AQs at least 90% of the time. Once in a blue moon a tight solid player might raise with something else here but 90% of the time he has one of those hands.
So, every time, he will either have:
1) A hand that crushes yours (bigger pocket pair) - over half the time
2) A hand that is a tiny tiny underdog to your tens - you are 11:10 favorite - less than half the time.
You must fold if any A K or Q come on any round unless you flop a set.
Even if small cards flop you will be beaten over half the time.
You are out of position.
It is very easy to see that you have a clear fold. So why do beginng players like Brett make these silly mistakes?
It comes down to this - most beginning players are unable to thing of the strength of a hand as being RELATIVE. What do I mean?
Well, since TT is the 5th best hand out of 169 different hands, it is a GREAT hand and one should definitely not consider folding it.
However, when you pit TT against AA, you might as well have 72 offsuit. You are toast just the same.
I have seen beginning players use this logic:
the board is Ks Qs Js Ts 2c. The beginning player has pocket tens. The beginning player won't lay this hand down for a bet and a raise because a set is such a great hand. It's the same thing with the 9's and the T's, Brett. A losing hand is a losing hand. Whether it's quad aces losing to a straight flush or 3 high losing to a royal flush - losing is losing. You don't get paid for coming in second.
Fold those 9's and T's.
Feel free to email me if you want any other pointers on how to plug some of your leaks.
-SmoothB-
you are an idiot. i'd be more likely to raise AQo than AQs utg. and i would raise with either more often than i raise with JJ.
to rephrase. far more games exist where i would limp with JJ utg than with AQo. far far far more.
but assuming your utg raising standards, folding when a Q hit would be ridiculous. it would be mind bogglingly foolish. go through the combinations and i am sure you will be forced to agree.
also, you are not out of posision. the hand in the original post is on the button with 99. i assumne you now want to make TT an utg raising hand to help skew the numbers your way, but it doesn't matter.
you are wrong about 99, but not by that much. nowhere near as wrong as you are about the TT in the bb.
as for TT in the bb, you already have it heads up and you are getting 3.5-1 odds on your flop bet. assuming you check call the whole way no matter what comes your effective odds are at worst 4.25-3. this gives you plus ev even against your utg raising standards.
i rarely post personal attacks and i dont really mean this as an attack, but i find it quite disconcerting that the arguably least logical person on the forum has the audacity to parade himself as the champion of logic and expert play.
if you are really trying to be logical, i dont know what advice to give you, except that i think you should take up drinking. it has worked wonders for me.
scott
You're an idiot. I'm not wasting any more time with a more detailed explaination because you simply don't have the brainpower to understand.
Hopeless cause.
-SmoothB-
what;s the matter, smoothie? you know you cant handle me in a discussion, is that it? afraid i'm going to embarrass you worse than before?
come on, refute just one of my arguments. just one. bring it, smoothie. i'm tired of your political ramblings and i'm tired of you misleading lurkers.
name anything. any subject in any field. any topic. take either side. i will logically support the other better than you can support yours.
or, since your so fond of polls, ask the people around here who has more poker insight or command of reason or intelligence in general. i bet not one poster who was around when i was regularly posting on poker content would say you were more valuable to the forum. and i likely have the majoiry of posters who never saw what i do when i allocate significant time to the forum.
oh, come on, smoothie. i want it. bring it. let's go.
scott
I am laying 2:1 that scott's IQ is higher than smoothB's.
i know you need an edge, but, still, i've never been so insulted in my life!
iq's dont come higher than mine. and smoothie is clearly an idiot. i think there is an edge at 5-1. damn, i'm lucky i dont look to the forum for undying support or i'd have to kill myself.
by the way, if you're out there, smoothie, maybe you should kill yourself.
scott
Sorry if I've offended you, but I've got to cover both sides. Perhaps the odds will move with increased action.
At any rate, I enjoy your posts a great deal. Keep it up.
if you are not comfortable playing 99 against two overcards, preflop - then you have a major leak in your game.
Get it fixed. You don't know if your opponent has 2 overcards OR a bigger pocket pair than you have.
If I knew my opponent had AK I would reraise. The fact that he might have a hand that grossly outpowers yours means that you lose that tiny tiny edge you have against 2 overcards.
-SmoothB-
let's count the ways that most people will normally raise UTG (not the tightest or loosest player, but a medium aggressive guy) :
AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, 99, 88, 77, 66 AK, AQ, AJ, AT, KQ, KJs
These are all possible.
Now, how many of these hands have an overpair against 99 : the answer is 5x6 = 30 hands
How many of these hands are an underpair against 99 : the answer is 3x6 = 18 hands
How many are two overcards against 99 : the answer is 6x16 = 96
even if you threw out the possibility of someone raising with an underpair versus 99 (88, 77,66), you'd still have 96:30 odds that your hand is against two overcards.
assuming for a second that no one else will play, not even the blinds, a call will be putting in 2 SB into a pot that is now 3.5 SB big.
You are getting 3.5:2 to see a flop where you are getting 96:30 that you are up against an overpair.
I like to raise with 99. Abdul has made some good points about flat calling in this spot with 99 (along with AA-TT and some other hands - but his argument isn't the same as yours). And, you like to fold with them.
Even though I do think a raising is best, calling is second best, and folding is worst, I don't think its that different between the three options. For one guy to be so completely adamant for one option versus the other two doesn't make much sense to me.
IMO, you grossly under-estimate the importance of position in the 99 case and grossly under-estimate the fact that you are already in for 1 bet in the TT case.
Jim and I have already argued with you on the TT case some time ago. You didn't convince me then and you don't convince me now.
On the 99 scenario, the flaw in the "you are a tiny favourite when he has overcards" argument is that this assumes that overcards will call you down to the river. Often, overcards will fold on the turn if you seize command of the action by 3 betting preflop. Sometimes, they even fold on the flop i.e., your opponent has AQ and folds to your bet on a Kxx flop.
On the other hand, there are lots of reasons to just fold 99 too and many are valid but to say that it is foolish to play 99 here or that only idiots do so etc. is just a bit too much hyperbole, don't you think?
Smooth,
Your posts are quite disturbing to put it bluntly. Somehow, you have made yourself a legend in your own time. Granted that you have a very good understanding of the game and your posts are often illuminating. But for some reason you seem to assume that no one else knows what they are talking about. To call 3 Brett and scott rookies is a joke.
If you won't read, or can't understand, a mathematical treatment of the subject then I can't help you. Maybe you should have paid more attention in high school algebra - you might have been a wealthier player.
If you go to the archives you will see that Jim Brier agreed with me on the TT issue, so BZZZTTTTT! Wrong answer again.
I'll dig it out of the archives if I have to.
-SmoothB-
there is no way jim folds TT in the bb to a single utg raiser. i think you have gone beyond misleading and are actually lying.
get that out of the archives.
scott
Don't know about high school algebra but the math degree I got in University helps me understand a little...I think
Has anyone seen SmoothB and Mason Malmuth in the same place at the same time?
-Abdul
I've read the posts in this thread, and I have to say that there is no way that anyone is correct, per se.
The question says a raise from a tight, solid player in middle position, and hero has 99 on the button. That's just not enough information to make any specific course of action inherently right or wrong.
I know a lot of tight, solid players. None of them are the same. Against some of them I would fold without any hesitation. Against others, I would reraise. Against a (very) few, I would call (and it also matters a lot here who is in the big blind).
So, everyone who has held forth that any one specific course of action is clearly correct, I disagree. It may be that against most players whom are correctly labelled as tight and solid that one course of action is best. However, I'm not to sure that that's the case either, and it will vary with the current status of the player, how they've been doing, how aggressive they've been playing, etc.
IT DEPENDS is always the right answer. The useful answers to these questions aren't really answers, they're more (well-directed) questions.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
would you ever fold TT in the bb to an utg raise?
scott
Never. Even against a rock who only raises AA or KK, your implied odds are enormous as yua are guaranteed to extract a lot of extra bets from them if you flop a set and you can get away cheaply if you don't In some ways, the rockier the player, the easier the hand is to play.
That was just an excuse to post this:
Are you aware of the new private weekly pl game in the Times Square area? Email me and I'll give you the details if you aren't.
Kepp up the good work on SmoothB. I think he thinks your are 100% serious.
what do you mean? i'm always 100% serious.
scott
There is no pair I would ever fold in the BB to any (single) raise. At least, not in a cash game (as opposed to a tourney).
Oh wait, I just thought of any exception. If a couple of players, each of whom is VERY fond of back-raising, had limped in, and then an aggressive player raised, I might fold. In other words, here is a situation where I might know that if I call the first raise I'll OFTEN have to call 2 more raises. In this spot, I might dump a small pair, because I don't want to pay 3 more bets to see the flop against 3 opponents. However, even here, calling isn't ever going to be much of a mistake.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
FossilMan, Once again the voice of reason and intelligence. Of course, "it depends" is the correct way to start any response you have to the 99 on the button question.
I'm always right, and don't you forget it.
:o)
(I think...)
People around here don't seem to be doing too well with these polls, so I'll try another one.
You are playing heads up with a maniac. He is pushing all in on every hand and you must defend or else he will blind you off.
Which would you rather call his all in bet with?
22
or
J8 suited.
I can't wait to see the inflamatory responses I get for this peach.
I'll post the results later.
-SmoothB-
if he is pushing all in every hand optimum strategy would be probably fold both of these hands, depending on the stack sizes. but, of the two, the better one is of course J8s.
this was game theoretically solved months ago.
i dont know if you'll answer me, but why are you posting these quizes?
scott
You are correct.
I am posting these quizzes because it entertains me to see people violently defend the wrong answer.
I have to say - one of the people that has responded incorrectly to one of these quizzes is someone I play against from time to time. I recently saw this guy dump off nearly *300 BB* in ONE 15 hour session. That is by far the biggest loss I've ever seen anyone suffer before - at least that I can remeber or that I was aware of.
It makes me laugh my ass off to see this guy call *ME* stupid after that spectacle.
This was in a 20-40 game. I was lucky to be on his immediate left for over half of that 15 hours.
He went on tilt so bad that I started 3 betting him preflop with hands like AT offsuit. Luckily the other guys at the table let me get heads up with him a lot of the time.
I made 120BB that session.
Would you like to know who it was? Would that person like to step forward and identify himself voluntarily?
-SmoothB-
it was me. im the guy.
brad
I don't think this should be the purpose of this forum.
Nothing wrong with the polls, or quizes. People should be able to argue different points without being ridiculed. If you have the correct answer and want to help us readers, thats great. If you can't convince someone of your answer, then you should be happy to have the best of it over that opponent.
Belittling someone for poor play, heavy losses, going on tilt, etc. is counter productive, and totaly unnecessary.
At least he didn't call you a retard.
SmoothB, now that brad identified himself, I have to point out that NOWHERE on this board is there a post where he calls you stupid.
Is there an older thread I missed or something? Your vitriol seems unwarranted. And to cruelly mock his losses, goading him publicly and egging him on to identify himself is tasteless. Quite frankly, it makes you look very bad and not him. It's disappointing.
I agree with Mick. This kind of thing is just not the purpose of this forum.
natedogg
Brad is joking. I play with him a lot, and I've never seen him lose more than 100BB.
J8
"People around here don't seem to be doing too well with these polls, so I'll try another one." Uh, Smooth, a poll is a survey of the population's opinions. how can you get your own opinion wrong. I believe what you are presenting would be more accurately described as "quizzes".
J8
-2d
How many blinds do we each have at this point? Unless my current blind is a big fraction of my stack, I fold both 22 and J8s.
As to which is better, who really cares? They're both just a little better than 50% against a random hand.
Also, If I pick either of these and lose, can I get more money out and do it again? If so, maybe I'll just keep buying in for the minimum and go all in with any hand above 50% vs. a random hand. Or something like that.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
i've recently started playing in a high limit (pot limit-max $300 bet, w/10-20 blinds). most games are hilo omaha, big omaha, spit, 7 card hilo. players are good, tight and fairly aggressive.
dealt a A-3-7-7. Flop comes 7-8-Q. i bet 100, am called and then raised 300 by button (a tight player). with probably worst set (he probably has q's) and 2nd worst low draw, should i have folded then?
also, in this type of game does it make any sense to slow play? people do it, but it never seems to pay off.
thanks
A377 in Hi-lo Omaha is mediocre at best. From the betting action you describe, you were in early position and thus should not have played this hand.
In the hand you describe your big fear is not necessarily that he has a bigger set than you (although that's highly likely) but that he may have a 20 way straight draw or something. With a flop of 78Q, there are a LOT of straight draws likely. If his hand is KJT9, he's got every 6, 9, T or J to make a straight on you. If the K comes on the turn, he picks up all the aces in the deck as outs for the river. 69TJ would be another very powerful draw against you. In that case, any 5,6,9,T or J makes a straight on you.
So in this case, your low might be good if it comes. If it's a 9 handed game, then probably not, but if you're playing 5 or even 6 handed, there's a chance.
You have to know your player. Would be raise like that without the nut-low backup? Would he raise you on a monster draw (as a good Omaha player should)? With a monster straight draw, you're about even to win the high, maybe slightly behind. With an underset you're dead. If he's betting a set, you've got to drop.
Regardless, you need to know your players very well in order to continue with this hand. You are in a position to make a cardinal mistake in Omaha: playing with very few nut outs. Your hand has 5 nut outs (4 deuces and 1 seven).
I would drop this hand unless I knew the players well. Also, your position is terrible. You may get re-raised by the cold-caller behind you. Your only hope is to reraise if you think he's on A2 AND capable of folding it in this position. I personally could not make this play and would fold.
In response to your last question. No, don't ever slowplay in omaha. Ever. Even with quads. You're either going to get some action when there's a pair on the board or you're not, so don't slow play it. Especailly in hi-low split. If there's even one low-card on the board your equity is threatened. Bet and raise.
natedogg.
While there is no obvious answer, I think the most obvious consideration regarding these two problems is POSITION.
In a no limit situation, you would ABSOLUTELY call with 99 on the button if the raise was moderate but not excessive. If you know the player really well, you might even move in. For instance, if this player never raises up front with AA or KK but prefers to send it around, then you can safely move-in and push him off TT, JJ even AK or QQ if it's the right player. I have done this before.
In limit, you definitely want to call with 99 because your position is so important. With position, there are many ways for you to win this hand. If he's raising a large pair, then when overcards come on the flop you can win this hand. If he's raising big cards, you can win if the flop is small. Factor in the chance of actually making a set against AA and you MUST call, if not reraise. If he caps it, you know exactly what to do on the flop. Because of position, you have an edge in this hand. Hell, you could conceivable call with any two cards if the player were predictably tight. If he's tight aggressive and tricky, then you are probably going to the river with this hand because odds are greatly in your favor that you have the best hand. If he's predictably tight, then the flop will determine what you can do with it. But either way, you are in for the flop because of position.
With TT in the big blind, there are very strong arguments for folding and most of those arguments are about position. In no limit, you can't call if the stacks aren't big enough to justify going for a set. If you don't flop a set with TT out of position, you are screwed. Even in a limit situation, you are now the one in trouble, although not as bad off as no limit.
natedogg
I am uncertain about your arguments regarding limit poker. In general, in limit poker you will usually have to show down the best hand to win and I believe that position is an over rated attribute. Having TT in the big blind means that you can take a flop at a lower price than from any other position. Furthermore, TT is a better hand than 99 which means there are more favorable flops which make TT an over pair or even a good second pair (e.g.-J,5,2). In limit poker I want to have the best chance of ending up with the best hand and I am not sure that position is as important as having a better starting hand.
PLO can be a very treacherous game. Often I find my best course of action to be unclear, especially on the turn. Do I want to bet and face a pot sized raise or check raise, or do I want to give a free card when a bet would have won the pot for me. Here is a hand I played recently to illustrate these points.
The game is nine handed with 10 and 15 blinds. The game is very loose preflop with perhaps 25% of the hands being raised and most pots preflop with 6 or 7 way action. I am the second player to enter the pot. I have As Js Jh 8d. Three other players and the small blind call.
The flop comes Ad 8s 3h. The big blind makes a pot sized bet. He is a reasonably solid player. The first limper folds. I reraise the pot $250. The remaining players behind me fold. Only the big blind calls.
The turn brings the Five of spades. The board reads Ad 8s 3h 5s. I have top two and the nut flush draw, but there is also a possible wheel out. My opponent checks. Do I check and give a free card or do I bet? I very well may have the best hand and if I don't I have a reasonably big draw.
I decide to bet $600 and I am checkraised another $1200. I call leaving me with another $300. A spade comes on the river. My opponent checks and I bet. He calls and I win a big pot. By my opponents reaction I obviously drew out.
Comments appreciated.
Bruce
Checking on the turn is almost certainly the better play. I'm not too thrilled with your flop raise either.
Why and why?
I agree with David... You put yourself in a pickle with a raise on the flop... If you get called You are very likely beat already and if your not, If you put your opponent on a wrap for the wheel, he gets there on the turn.. Either way you are screwed..
When you riased on the flop with top two pair and were called, what did you put your opponent on that you could beat on the turn?
Making a raise that will only be called if you are beat is very dangerous in PL...
Derek
Two questions:
What did you put the BB on when he called your $250 on the flop?
Which were the betting streets for this game? i.e. you mentioned raises before the flop, was there any action on 5th street?
Since you describe the player as reasonably solid, he must have a pretty good/very good hand to bet and then call a raise on the flop, no? Given, the flop, the only hands he can reasonably have had fitting that description are a total wrap around the bottom end, or a set. Just possibly the same hand as you: top 2.
That being so, you were almost certainly in trouble on 4th street, and surely this was a classic case in big bet poker of NOT betting again on the turn (having bet the flop), so that you can see the river for free and perhaps make your draw, while avoiding the risk of getting blown out of the pot by someone playing back.
The raise on the flop seems OK to me, depending on your assessment of the player who made the bet.
Ohnonotagain.
You played in a very risk fashion. In your place, I would have checked and hoped for the best. Not a good idea risking a huge bet without the nuts on the turn. Aces and 8s could be dead, your only good card was a spade. Nh but in my modest opinion, you drew almost dead.
Why on earth didn't he set you all in on the turn; he coulda raised up to $1800, right?
And why on earth doesn't he pop you again on the flop? Pot's getting big enough to win at that point.
I totally understand him not raising out of the BB w/AAxx against six(count 'em) limpers.
Sorry, Bruce, but I hate the turn bet and you didn't have a call of his checkraise, either($1200($1500 if you call him when the 3s comes) to win $3000 + your last $300 if he calls it; with only 8 outs) Still no call even if you think the two remaining Aces are good.
Am I the sucker?
There's the old poker player's mantra that if you can't spot the sucker at the table, you're it. This happened to me the other day.
I play in the lower stakes no limit games around the bay area. Currently this means Artichoke Joes and Pacific News. Last Tuesday I played at Pacific News until about 3 am. By the time I got up and left, the only players at the table were no limit regulars. It was a very tough table actually. I was pleased that I was holding my own and walked away with a slight win (under $300). Most of these guys are full timers at the no limit games.
When I got up to rack my chips, the game broke! Am I the fish? There were 7 players left! And they all racked up as I was leaving. That is NOT a good sign.
natedogg
During a particularly horrible session at Belagio in the 30-60, I went all-in for the last time after dumping a few racks. I then went to the restroom before leaving. When I came out, the game had already broke.
Makes you think.
Do you ever check the games you were in at Casino AZ after you cash out? Heh.
Is this a rhetorical question?
Perhaps they decided to quit because they would no longer have the pleasure of your company!
I'd say they thought you were the fish. How long have they known you? If you were the fish, and are now no longer, it's a situation you can exploit. First impressions are lasting ones at the poker table. Judging by your posts, you're picking it up pretty quickly.
Nate,
Obviously I'd be in a better position to answer your question if I would show up to the games now and then. lol
My guess is that the game did NOT break because you, the possible sucker, decided to quit. Did you quit at a time collection? If so, the snowball effect could have been caused by anyone who chose to quit. Many times when those games are down to the toughies at 3:00 am, each time collection resembles the game show "To Tell the Truth" in that everyone is looking around to see if anyone else is going to stand up, thereby causing a chain reaction that breaks the game.
Sounds to me if you booked a modest win in that line-up, playing all the way to 3:00 AM, you sure ain't the sucker.
I remember the first time a 20-40 game broke at the Mirage when I was in it. Wow, what a rush. This was many years ago, and it was the first time I started thinking that maybe I wasn't a sucker anymore.
These days it goes the other way around sometimes. Two weeks ago I went into LC's at 3:00 AM and the only non-low-limit game was a four-handed 40-80.
I sat down all bouncy and fresh, plopped two purples on the table, took the BB, the SB, folded both hands, and the game broke on my button. What the ??? lol
Tommy
in my high limit game (10-20 blinds, pot limit up to 300), i'm the bb and check (there are 3 callers, including sb). flop comes a-a-3, rainbow. i have a-3-8-10 (a is suited). sb checks, i raise 100, one fold, button raises 300, sb folds. i call. i think this was a mistake.
turn is a q, river a 9, button scoops w/aces full of queens. i lose $900 more than i should have. question is should i have folded the nuts because i had bad kickers and no low outs???
any advice would be appreciated
thanks
gt
fyi. i'm used to playing in a low limit, very loose game with 4 to 5 fish who don't have a clue how to play so i can get away with mistakes like above.
It sounds like you're playing Omaha hi-lo, but are you? You didn't say in your post.
If you are, then I don't know. I've never played the game, but it sounds like you're in a spot where someone could have a bigger freeroll than you. What I mean is, against someone else who also has A3, both of you can hit your side cards to make bigger fulls, so you both have 6 outs (maybe only 3 if they have A23x) to bigger fulls to scoop the high end. Of course, if they have 2 low cards with their A3, they have lots of outs for low, and will quarter you. One of your high scoop outs is an 8, which would make their low, so in that case it really isn't an out, since it still leaves you with half the pot.
So, your only scoop is a T with them not catching a higher sidecard at the same time, or an 8 if they don't have a low draw. Also, if they have 2 big cards with their A3, you can catch 2 low cards and steal the low half of the pot with your 8 low.
Basically, no matter what you do, it probably isn't much worse than the alternative. If you fold, you'll be giving up your current equity in the pot, but you'll also not be setting yourself up for a situation where you can get scooped for a pot that's 6 times bigger.
If this is high only omaha, then reraise and get it all-in with your A38T. There is no way you can be any kind of significant dog. If they have A3KQ, then you still only lose when you both hit bigger fulls (as opposed to if they had something like A345, where you lose when they hit and you miss). So, if they have A3, you are still probably less than a 52:48 dog, and if they have 33xx, you're a pretty big favorite.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Even though you flopped Aces Full, you had to fold. Any higher card than a 3 would give your opponent a higher full house. His raise on the flop told you he had an Ace, so you should have let it go. At the very least, you had a clear fold on the turn. There was no way you could catch up to AQ.
You could have saved yourself this problem by folding before the flop. A38T is hardly a premium hand. I recommend you study this game and play at lower limits until you get better. You can lose an awful lot in PL.
i've played in this game three times now, and thanks to a nice first session, am still up. however, i find that playing in the higher limits usually means heads up or three way action after the flop, as opposed to the usual multi-way action in my other game (extremely loose, bad players - limits are 5-10, sometimes 10-20).
however, bets are capped at $300, so in essence its a limit game. fyi, it was hilo - which probably makes my call even worse!!!!
gt
I agree with not 3 betting or calling with 9's against an UTG solid player who raises. You said it isn't a good call with 10's either. My question is why is it a good call/reraise with J's.
Consider the following scenario:
A solid player UTG raises... You should be able to put him on any of the following hands: A's, K's, Q's, J's, T's, AK, or AQ. You have J's, so he has the following even money (basically) hands against you. 16 AK combos, 16 AQ combos and 1 pair of J's (since you have a pair of them) (33 even money hands)
You dominate T's of which there are 6 combos (6 hands you dominate)
You are dominated by A's, K's, and Q's of which there are 6 combos of each (18 hands dominate you)
So why would you play J's if there is an early position raise? Your posts have made me think about this, I have almost automatically 3 bet J's preflop (10's also, but not too many players I play with are that solid up front)
Derrick
It all depends on the opponent you are against.
Now, if I have AK UTG and raise, and the BB calls me, I am going to raise him on the flop unless the board is really scary a good percentage of the time, and depending on the BB. For example:
The BB is a pretty average, standard player. The flop comes down rags, with no A or K when I have AK. He bets. I am more likely to fold or raise. If he is the kind of guy who will check it down if I raise on the flop, as many passive players are, then I might raise and then check it down unless an A or K comes. I effectively pay 1BB for 2 free cards.
If he is a tricky player, I will raise most of the time unless the board is really scary.
If it is a rock, I'll wing them at the muck faster than you can say 'next hand'.
So that's how I am going to play AK against a blind. Now, if *I* am in the BB, and I face my clone UTG who just raised preflop, that is NOT a situation I want to be in. If I were playing against a clone of myself, I would fold TT. If I did decide to play it I would see the river unless the board looked like AAKKJ or something equally menacing.
I suppose that there are some players that I would call with TT against. If it is a predictable player that I know well, I might go for it because I may be able to figure out on the flop if he has AK or an overpair. (Assuming no A or K comes.) There are some players who have very strong tells in this regard. IE small cards flop, I bet, and they will only call or fold if they have AK. Some people are so predictable that it is worth a call with TT.
But my suggestion to fold TT was when doing battle vs a tight solid player, not a weak tight player.
I also might be able to get JJ or QQ to fold if an ace flops. IE, flop comes ace high, I bet out and I can tell if an obvious player has an ace or a lower pair, but a better one than mine. If he raises I dump it end of story.
-SmoothB-
Can you help us settle a little dispute? We need our leaders to guide us along the path to poker enlightenment.
UTG is a tight solid player. He raises. 90% of the time when he raises UTG he will have AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AKs, AKo, or AQs. The other 10% of the time he will have AJs, AQo, KQs, or TT.
Everyone folds around to you in the BB. You look down and see TT. What is the correct play?
The correct play is to fold but no one seems to want to take my word for it. I think that if one of you comes out on one side or the other it might settle this.
It also might be worthwhile to explain why it is foolish to call with any pocket pair in this situation. Furthermore, what is the minimum pocket pair required to call given these parameters?
-SmoothB-
Hi SmoothB , I have post a similar to your (around october 26th I think ) in the general theory forum . The only difference with my uy UTG , he raises AA,KK , QQ , AK , AKs and AQs and nothing else . I had received a lot of answer about that , maybe you could check in the archives forum .
I believe it can be shown that if you only play flops with a ten or three undercards you will in fact show a slight profit. But it is close.
Now perhaps you can see why I object to Mason Malmuth's preflop open-raising hands when facing tough players.
-Abdul
I assume this post-flop strategy could be enhanced (e.g., playing on if the flop is Jack high) so that the preflop call would be more clearly profitable.
What about raising on a queen high flop? You can play the information that is thrown right back at you. If he holds TT too, JJ or AKs and offsuit, he might even consider folding before the turn.
If he just call, I think tens could still be good.
Lars
There are 24 ways he can have an over pair and 20 ways he can have AK or AQ suited. This happens 90% of the time. The other 10% of the time there are 24 ways he can have an over pair and 41 ways he can have AK, AQ, AJ suited, KQ suited, or TT. Now if we weight this according to their respective probabilities we see that there are 24 ways for him to have an over pair and 22 ways on the average (90% of 20 plus 10% of 41) for him to have just over cards. In other words we will have the better hand almost half the time. Now we are getting 3.5:1 pot odds to take a flop and see 3 cards. I am calling every time here from my big blind with my pocket Tens and any other pocket pair. Furthermore, I will flop a set about 12% of the time and there will be a significant percentage of the time when I don't flop a set than under cards below Tens will flop giving me a play here.
the follow up question is would you rather have him play like this or would you rather he also threw in other suited connectors in his raising hands. now you would have the better hand more often for sure but might be faced with some other decisions. next, now do the tens become more playable or not. obviously they do but they need a more skillfull player behind them. so does it also follow that as an opponents opening hands loosin up you need to be more skillfull to play against him. and at what point can you be less skillfull by just playing very tight. something to kick around.
It is a rare player who will raise only 10% of the time with AQ offsuit under the gun. I raise 90% of the time. Calling UTG (and encouraging a calling frenzy) or allowing some guy who would have thrown away his 66 or whatever to your raise to now raise you and take control of the betting is not what I call a good situation when you have AQ.
What do you do with AQ off UTG: limp or fold?
So, IMO, your starting assumptions as to UTG's preflop raising requirements are wrong. Even so, it's still correct to call out of the big blind with TT as the others here have said.
I should add that if someone chooses to limp with AQ UTG now and then, it's beeter to limp with AQs. Your assumptions have this UTG guy raising 100% of the time with AQs and only 10% of the time with AQ off. IME, that's not how most players play...what does everyone else think?
skp -
I think saying that when a player raises, there is a 10% chance that he will have a certain distribution of cards is different than saying he will only raise with a specific hand 10% of the time. See Jim's post for a thourough analysis.
-Oz-
While I understand what you are saying, I think I have correctly understood SmoothB's assumptions.
Lets have some fun take your poker probe and run 72off against AK. Now consider he raised and you call for half the price he effectivly laying you 3to1 on your money minus the other part of the blind. Now what are your requirements for this call. If 7-2 off is not. I guarentee 10 10 will be if it is not already.
2000 WSOP side action - first weekend I ever play PL. Looking for comments/discussion on my play.
Everyone on the full table is pretty passive - all have 200-600 in front of them including me.
I call 5 UTG with 9-9. 4-5 callers see the flop of 9-J-3 rainbow. SB - BB and I check, middle position guy who has been in quite a few pots with cards I would throw away bets 50 - all fold to me - I call. Heads-up. Turn a 4th suit blank - I bet 100 he calls. River a J - I check and he bets 100. I move in - approx another 300 - he calls and shows me K-J off.
I like my preflop call. I question my checking the flop since a couple of these players may well have played Q-10 for $5 - then maybe should have check-raised? I like my turn bet, but wonder what you think of my river check-raise? Let me have it.
TripKings
You certainly made the maximum from this player possible. I would have played it quite differently and most likely made less money.
I probably bet out on the flop but check-call is okay.
Now with your original check-call on the flop, I would most likely check-raise the turn.
Your check-raise of the river also is questionable. Unless he has a Jack there should be no reason for him to bet. Since you bet into him on the turn, he would be silly to let you check-raise him. Of course based on his betting he probably does have a Jack.
Ken
I thought the following hand was interesting, mainly because the statistical match-up that was somewhat counter-intuitive to me.
In a 5-5 plh game, I raise to 30 wih KdQs in the cut-off seat after two mid-position, loose limpers. Melissa Hayden cold calls on the button (she cold calls every one of my raises on ner button out of principle) and the blinds fold. One limper calls.
I have about 1200, Melissa has around 5-600 and the limper has us both covered.
The flop is JcTh5c. The limper checks, I check (I have my reasons) and Melissa bets the pot. The limper folds.
I ask Melissa "do you want to gamble or should I just fold?" as I contemplate a reraise that would put her almost all-in. On 2nd thought, I think that she probably has (at worst) something like a pair of jacks or tens, and her kicker is likely to be one of my overcards. I also figure that if she is drawing to the flush, I am a decent dog if she has the Ace. I decide to pass and flash her my hand. We are friends and always needle each other in a good-natured manner.
She shows a Qc9c. We later have a minor debate about who would have been leading if we got all-in on the flop. I ran the match-up on Poker Probe and was surprised to find that it was an almost dead-on 50/50. So I could have raised without making much of an error, even though she would have over 100 left.
Well she will make a straight or a flush about 1/2 the time. THough some of the times she makes a straight you may still win or chop.
Ill do the math later....
why? mike already did it. he told us the answer in the post.
scott
Sounds like you played the hand like a pousoire. The clutch move would have been a re-pop.
: )
shooter
Amazingly close matchup; she's a tiny fave. Similar to the TJ-McBride hand at the '98 WSOP: TJ-KdQc, Mc-J9s; flop 8s-5d-4s; Mc check, TJ goes all in, Mc calls, turn Jc, river 3c.
Everybody moaned "poor TJ", "how could he call", etc.; when in fact McB was a ~58% favorite. Them ol' flush 'n straight draws w/live undercards...
Lucky you, knowing 'lissa.. :)
When the people were moaning "how could he call," I believe they were talking about Kevin McBride's pre-flop call. If I'm not mistaken, TJ made a pretty sizable pre-flop raise, which McBride called with his J9s. I think the story goes after they both turned over their hole cards (after TJ going all-in) TJ got up and grabbed his jacket before the river card hit.
McB's pre-flop call was bad, but TJ's bet on the flop was even worse, though you'll need to see the video and read TJ's account of the '98 WSOP in Championship Omaha and McB's interview in CP to understand why.
TJ was shaking his head resignedly after the turn hit.
Hellmuth and Vince Van Patten on the vid(and Badger on the Tournament Forum) all said TJ got broke with the best hand.
Omaha PL game. 10 average players. Buy-in $500, blinds $10-$20.
I have 10-10-7-7 with a 10-7 suited. 6 callers, no raise pre-flop.
Flop: 10-9-2 (10-2 suited), no help of flushes for me. I bet the pot in early position, all fold except a player who raise the pot again. I fold.
I folded fearing the flushes and the straights and thinking hard to fill up.
Cautious fold or poor fold?
Comments appreciated
10-20 blinds and all players have $500? Hmmm. . .that's very strange. So, you've committed $20 before the flop and then bet $120 on the flop. He's raising the pot to $480. He'll only have $20 more to throw in, so you're basically going to get to the end of the hand for this one raise. Plus, you're ahead and have a full house redraw if his straight/flush/whatever draw gets there.
With this kind situation, and 30% of your stack already committed to the hand, i say call.
you are the favorite over most hands he will raise with. and the hands that you are a dog to, you are a small dog. the hands like 99 he may have, you got him in a pickle. with decent money in the pot and no alot more to go, bad bad fold. go to corner and sit.
Would it be different if a third player cold-called the raise?
When you're considering the value of your opponent's wrap, don't forget to consider the effect that your holding two 7's may have.
it would be better for the trips as that might mean both players have hands that detract from each others. although there would be more outs against him he would now get 2 to 1 for his dough.
Ah, professors, I forget that the player who raised me the pot (when I ask the dealer showing the cards) fill up a flush in 4th and a straight on the river (No paired board)! (Thanks I earned some bucks in despite of your DIVINE ANALYSYS, PROFESSORS OF MY..........
Don't ask for them.
If you know the answer already, and don't want to hear any contrary advice, why are you asking for comments from everyone else?
As for your post below, where you point out the difference between saying there's a $500 buyin and saying you had $500 on the table, if you leave out critical information, people will have to make assumptions or ignore the post. While your post didn't say you had only $500, it was implied, in the absence of anything further about your stack size.
"What we have here is a failure to communicate."
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Ray has hit the nail on the head here... Even if you fear you are up against a monster wrap Or a wrap and a flush draw you are still only a small Dog..
But the other side of the coin is much better.. If you are being put in by any other hand you have your opponent drawing VERY slim ( smaller set, two pair). With the dead money you have already commited to the pot, laying this hand down is a crime...
Sit in the corner and then come and play in my game :)
Derek
I have never played in a PL game of any description, so please be gentle, but you voluntarily entered a Omaha high pot from early position with TT77?
Maybe I've got a lot to learn about Omaha starting hand criteria, but I'd have that puppy in the muck without a 2nd thought. Middle level sets are usually death in Omaha. Ray? Am I even close to right here?
z
Read his PLO quiz in PLNL book.
I don't know this fellow's background, Bill, but I would bet the rent that he would not have folded this flop head-up.
Maybe PL is a different game than limit Omaha, but to me, this is a trap hand. I would be more inclined to play T-T-9-8 or T-T-9-7 than the middle 2-pair types, but like I said, I'm certainly no Omaha expert. Just my opinion.
6 callers = 120 in the pot. You bet 120, he raised 360. How much did you and he have left? If one of you was close to the buy-in you were getting 2 to 1 to call.
If you have top set against a drawing hand in PLO, then you are evens to win against a drawing hand with 17 outs (the exact numbers vary a bit depending on how many of the cards you have in your hand that your opponent needs).
There are of course Omaha hands which have more than 17 outs. It is possible to have a 20-card straight draw. With a flush draw as well, even more outs are possible. Those kind of hands are rare though.
In the present case, your opponent could have had a 20-card straight draw if he had 78JQ EXCEPT that, as another posted pointed out, you have two 7s in your hand. This obstructs the lower end straight draws on the flop you had.
So in your situation, your were probably about even or a little worse against a good draw (getting maybe 2 to 1 on your money), OR you could be a BIG favourite if the other guy had trip 9s or top two plus a straight draw, which he might well raise with. So you obviously should call, and if you had a bit more money you should probably raise as well, since in such a situation you do not want the other guy to escape if the board pairs on fourth street.
Personally, I would only pass top set on the flop in PLO (assuming there was no made hand possible) if (a) I was out of position, (b) I was SURE my opponent had a MASSIVE draw, and (c) the money was very deep relative to the pot. Otherwise, I think you rarely go too far wrong by putting as much money in as possible, although there are arguments for slowing down as well.
Reading this post I see that I have not said much more in several paragraphs than Ray Zee did in three lines with no punctuation and no shift key.
Quiet, professors! I haven't sayed I have $500 left in my bankroll, I ve sayed the BUY-IN was $500!!!!!!!!! (concerning first answer)
SEcond: I limped with 10-10-7-7 as many players were upset and raise with only an Ace suited.
Third: I never will post in this section as YOU ARE GREAT PROFESSORS AND YOU ONLY CRITICIZE THE OTHER PLAYS.
4th: I want to meet you in a omaha table but remember to take the money to play with me (WORDS ARE NOT WORTH ONE OF YOUR BUCKS!)
F. Y. A.
Geez, lighten up. Ray Zee is widely recognized as one of the best all around poker players in the world. If you don't want his advice, and the other solid advice you received you're a fool. Lose the ego and learn.
I'm sorry if you though my post was rude, but your own post did end "comments appreciated". I also ASKED how much you had left, and did not ASSUME you only had the buy.
Furthermore, I did not criticise your entering the pot, and would have called with 2 pairs, 10s and 7s, in the right kind of game, just as you did, although it's not unreasonable to fold as well.
I hope you don't stop contributing, since your post was interesting. I think you did clearly do the wrong thing on the flop in the situation you described, but your later post was also right to the extent that there are a lot of posters here who will ALWAYS reply by saying the first guy got it wrong! For some reason this seems to apply particularly to PLO, and there is always some guy or other who says "why were you in the pot at all", as if they only play double suited aces or something.
Obviously, this is what you wanted to hear. Are you happy now?
Tuesday night/ early Wed a.m All the flop games at the local card room have died except a short-handed pot limit game. I've played with all of these guys before and feel that I have a decent read on them. I buy in with $500. The blinds are 5-10.
One of the players is super-aggressive and habitually bluffs. His stack has been roller coastering. I knocked him around with near-nut hands a couple times. As of 4 am, I have about $2500, down from a one time high of $4000. Unfortunately, the player to my left is a pot-limit pro whose game is widely respected. He has me out- chipped with approximately $4000. The other players have between 500-1000.
The play has been loose and the pots are often huge.
I'm in the BB with AQT4 with the AT both diamonds. The pot gets raised pre-flop to 40. Most of the hands are being raised pre-flop and folding is not an option with this hand in this game imo. I call. 4 players see the flop.
The flop comes J82 all diamonds. SB checks. I check. Pro bets $160. Others fold. I smooth call. The trap is set. The turn comes an off-suit 5. I check. The pro bets $180. I check-raise another $320 by pushing a stack of green in. He calls.
The river comes an 8. The final board is J8258 with three diamonds. The pot contains $1480. I have $1700 left. I check. Pro bets $1000. This is the biggest single wager I've seen this session. What would you do? Please feel free to flame me especially for not raising more on the turn. Should I have bet the river outright. I'll post results below.
By the way, this Omaha is high only- in case you were wondering.
Anyway, when he bets $1000, I fold. As that was my last hand of the session, I flahed him my AT diamonds. He tells me he had two jacks, but doesn't show them... As I'm racking my chips to leave, I jokingly suggest that I think he only had a king-high flush and that he was too polite to flash it to me. (He's been occasionally showing hands after lay-downs and has shown some flat out bluffs- but he has never bluffed for more than $200). He shoots back "It would be evil to show a lower flush"
Of course on the ride home, I beat myself up for not raising the whole pot on the turn. I'm also concerned that he really only had a high diamond flush, and that I should have called the river. He bet the pot on the flop when the flop came all pink.. If he had a set of jacks, then his other two cards would both have to be diamonds for him to already have a flush with the set for back-up...
Anyway, I think the probability is good that I folded a winner. On the other hand, I did lock up a $1200 win against more experienced competitors and had a great time until the last river card. All comments or criticisms appreciated. Happy Holidays.
You did the right thing.
Your check raise on the flop pretty much telegraphs the nut flush, and if he's rational and a solid player he'll give it up there if he's already beaten. At that point I'd put him on jacks or eights, and he has to call your check raise.
Imagining second nut flush here is monsters under the bed...
That eases the sting a bit.
At the time, I was absolutely certain that I made a safe lay-down. The guy is solid and rational and I believe you are correct that he would've folded a smaller flush on the turn. The $1000 bet on the river, in retrospect, just feels to me like he couldn't stand a call...
I'd feel better about the outcome if I would've check-raised the whole pot on the turn, so that he would have been making a mistake if he had called with a set.
I think you should have check-raised the flop the size of the pot. You need to get him to fold his set if he has one. If he calls the flop, bet the pot on the turn.
As for the river call you are in trouble. Your check is just asking for a bluff by the pro. I don't think you want to flash your nut flush when you fold to the pro. He will certainly use it against you in the future.
Just my 2 cents, Ken
I don't think that you want him to fold his set, but you want him to be making a mistake if he draws to it.
If he is as good a player as you say, and based on your description of the hand, I think it was much less likely that he had a lower flush than it was that he had you beat.
You are certainly correct. I've learned from this forum not to give free peaks and show big lay-downs and I shouldn't have. On the other hand, the atmosphere at the table was congenial and the others were showing more freebies than I. I'm certain that the pro was doing this to set up future action... He had shown that he was capable of $200 dollar bluff re-raises with nothing but courage and knowledge that one of the competitors had very little gamble in him. He had also shown some nut hands that he hadn't gotten action on at the river despite a less than pot-sized wager.
I found the whole session very educational, and would like to think that I gave away less than my competitors. I'm surprised pot-limit Omaha high isn't more popular in the U.S. It sure is exciting, and plenty of opportunities for the shrewd player with courage and a good read on others.
Thanks for comments and advice.
I tried a 1-2 blind, $50 min. buy-in game. I buy in for $100 looking like a typical tourist (which I guess you could say I was - my first no-limit cash game).
My first hand I pick up AA UTG. I raise to $4, player next in raises to $15, 2 players call, it comes back to me and I throw in the rest of my chips. All fold. I think I'd rather take the pot than go against 3 other players in bad position.
About an hour later I get aces again (yes it was a good night) and raise to $20 UTG, 2 callers. Flop comes J high, three clubs, I have A of clubs. I bet $50 and both fold.
In both cases I know I have a great situation but not sure I made the optimum plays. Comments? Suggestions?
You did the right thing with both these hands. Getting AA under the gun in no-limit is tough to play.
I think your goal with AA when UTG is to get all-in or at least so pot stuck that you move all-in on the flop regardless of what comes. If you do not do this, you will be out of position and in a perfect position to get set up to make mistakes. Experts and WSOP champs go broke all the time when they see a flop with AA and have a big stack in front them.
So, I think both times you did the right thing. In my mind, that is perfect no limit play for AA UTG. Make a modest or token raise, and send it around hoping someone plays back. If anyone plays back at all, go all-in or at least 1/2 all-in, depends on stack sizes versus the size of the pot. However, you make your most money, and you make the safest money, with AA when you get in a battle with KK or QQ and sometimes even JJ if the players are weak. So don't be afraid to raise big with AA after someone plays back at you. Either you take it down right there, which is fine, or you get a ton of action from a big pair, which is also fine.
You don't want to be second guessing yourself on the flop if you see it with AA and still have 80% of your stack in front you. Bad situation to be in.
Often you will raise a little bit under the gun and everyone will just limp. If you see the flop 6 handed with AA utg, you can pretty much give up on that pot. You are screwed by position. If you bet out on the flop (which you should do) and you get played back with, you can't tell if you playing against someone holding just top pair or something better. Be VERY reluctant to get all your money in after the flop with AA. Think about it. Would you go all-in on any flop with top pair? Not very often. And AA can only beat top pair, so what is your opponent going all-in with you for? The answer is that he can definitely beat top pair 90% of the time.
So, I think you played both these hands very well. The one thing I would note is that if you had got any action on your $50 post flop bet in Hand #2, even a call, you should probably shut down, depending on stack sizes. If you have $50 left, you're committed but if you had $300 or more, you should consider checking and folding, UNLESS you can definitely put your opponent on a draw, like if the flop was 89T or two to a flush or something.
natedogg
Sounds like the Stratosphere NL game. When I was there in October I was dealt KK early on!
Your initial raise to $4 was fairly weak. Of course being your first hand you hadn't seen the standard raises. I may have re-raised that first one to $50 instead of going all-in hoping to get one caller.
Ken
You are only able to criticize but I'm sure you're rabbits in my table! Come on here and let's play!
These answers constitute a good swubject for a book titled "I KNOW ALL OF THE GAME BUT I HAVE NEVER ENTERED IT"
Good health!
next time say "only positive comments apreciated" instead of "comments appreciated". that way we all know you just want compliments for bad playing. but next time youre not likely to get many helpful answers which you did ,but didnt know because you see through blind eyes.
ok sorry for my words, but I feel in this forum, only a halo of diffidence, supremacy, something who say to us: " DEAR PLAYER, YOU ARE A STUPID ONE, THE ONLY THING WE CAN TEACH YOU IS THAT YOU WILL PLAY IN A FOOLISH WAY, LET'S ABANDON POKER, POKER IS OF OUR COMPETENCE!"
The good news is that my feeling is the same of many other writers in this forum ( register its as this forum is of your property)!!
Yes, you probably have the skills of Stu Ungar or Johnny Chan, but we are here only to improve the game and not to read always this poem: you did the wrong move, you did a lot of mistakes, and so on.
Yes, it is very easy to criticize (even a beginner can do it) but a lot more it'ss hard to build something, especially someone like you, who feels himself at the right of God.
I regularly play omaha, I made my living with it, but you are the best, the supreme Gods of poker. Sorry, sorry again, I'm still in the hearth.
By the way: I wrong forum, I had to write to Ciaffone or Cappelletti, the only men who can give me a good advice.
Salute for me the Empireum of poker players!
.
Ask Ciaffone what he thinks of Ray Zee as a player. I think you'll find that he has a great deal of respect for his talents. The funny thing is, you weren't even being criticized! I'm sorry that you had the notion that you made a spectacular play. You wanted to announce your prowess to all at 2+2. Unfortuneately, you were told that perhaps your fold was erroneous.
Of course, if you really want a game . . . perhaps I can stir one up for you.
When I first looked at this rantthread (is that a word?), I thought it must be some anal, off my med's, results-oriented egotist who wanted to see his name in lights and hear only what he wanted to hear.
But I caught on! scott, you and the pack are playin' us, and having fun over some eggnog at the frat house. You're goooood! Merry Christmas.
if it is scott then i, indeed was a fool to respond. i guess this stuff is going to force me to only respond to posts that are from a real name and someone who has established a record of legitimate posts.
Notice it's not funny? scott's either serious/funny, and he doesn't ramble. This ain't scottie boy. Another way to tell, the young turks tend to stick together in posts.
Maniac
Merry Fishmas
but nice try dinc.
one time you'll be right and you'll look like a genius.
scott
Plus, the guy knows where the shift key lives.
And because the "i" and the "u" are next to each other on the keyboard, I will give you the benefit of the doubt on the "dinc" as a typo, and not some sort of Freudian slip.
(I knew it wasn't you. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.)
uh, er, yeah. a typo. nothing to do with you being canadian. nothing at all.
scott
Pot limit Hold-em with 10 and 25 blinds. There is a live $50 straddle (not mandatory but being done around 20 percent of the time). I am in the cutoff seat with pocket Kings. I make it $200 after everyone has passed to me. I have around $2500. The big blind reraises the maximum. He has around $4000. All pass to me and to make a long story short we wind up going all in preflop. Of course he has pocket Aces and they hold up.
The big blind is an incrediably live player. He had already consumed about six double vodkas. He is a sports franchise owner (no, not Jerry but close). He was making big bets preflop previously with all sorts of garbage. Against a rational player I could probably get off of my hand, but against him what am I supposed to do?
Comments appreciated.
Bruce
Against him, given your description, you lose.
Next time, you probably win.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
you did right considering the money. but remember even drunks when facing reraises dont usually shove too much in with out a big hand in their minds. its up to you to determine what they think is a big hand.
This is plh. You must be prepared to put your stack at risk at any time. If he has aces when are unlucky to have kings, say goodbye to your stack.
I think you goofed by reraising before the flop. No need to commit so soon.
If I have it right, you made it $200 and he raised you $600 or thereabouts, right? If you just call that raise, that leaves you with about $1700 to play with AFTER the flop. Here's where you might get lucky, say, if the flop comes Q-J-x and he bets the pot. What can you beat? Answer, pretty much nothing. Good laydown.
Or maybe you really did have the best hand before the flop, say the other guy had AK, and the flop comes A-x-x and he bets the pot and you sense his confidence is justified so you fold.
See what I mean? I don't know if this applies to PL since I hardly play it. But in the no-limit games around here, people seem to have this feeling that "If I have KK and he has AA, then I must go broke, and when I do, it's okay. Maybe next time I'll have the aces and it'll even out."
Not true. This is a preplanned rationale for antsy play.
Tommy
but Tommy, he said the raiser was drinking and an action player. here you must stick it in. no way you can get away except maybe if an ace flops and then who knows. there are too many hands that you can beat before and after the flop what ever it is when he bets. and you want to get it in early so that he gets punished if he was raising with garbage or a smaller pair that he may ditch on the flop, or worse for you if he bets when an ace comes and he had an under pair or a bluff.
Mr. Zee - are you planning or will you ever write a book on PLH and NLH? I know there was some discussion (begging was more like it) previously on this site, but I don'tknow if you ever answered if you will.
THanks.
I was talking to a stud player a few days ago. He had quad 4's on 5th street. His opponent had quad 10's on 6th. He was retelling me the hand with a big smile on his face, saying "I played it PERFECTLY! I lost the MAX!! I got every chip into the pot on that hand" And he's right. He did play it fine. And so did you.
I don´t play PL or NL, but if he´s really been making exactly these things with garbage, then you were supposed to lose (or suck out on him). Tough luck.
PLO with 10 and 15 blinds. The game is incredibly live with two intoxicated players. One player when sober is a bad player, but the other player is normally an excellent player. There is a live $30 straddle. The normally good playing drunk makes it 150 from the cutoff. The button calls. I am in the big blind with AAQ7 with one Ace being suited. I reraise the maximum. The straddle calls and the remaining two players call. The pot is 4 handed with around $2000 in it.
The flop comes Jh 7h 2h. I have the Ace of hearts in my hand, but I don't have a flush. I have around $3000. I bet $1000. The straddle folds and the cutoff makes it $2500. The button folds. The cutoff for the last two hours has been totally out of controll, but he has been winning. He has shown multiple successful bluffs where he has made huge bets. After much deliberation I fold. I was very temped to call because I had the Ace of hearts. The cutoff than exposed his hand. He had KQT7, all black.
I have a tight image at the table. I made a relatively large flop bet because I didn't want to get pushed off of my hand, but that is exactly what happened anyway. What was my best course of action? Should I have checked and folded on the flop? How do you play against a player like that who is willing to push all of his chips in on nothing?
Comments appreciated.
Bruce
You have to catch him when you have the goods, for the most part.
Even without hearts in his hand, how far behind can he be when you only have 1 pair? So, if you play here and are wrong, you're really screwed. If you're right, you simply can't be far ahead.
With 3 opponents, I think you almost have to check-and-fold this flop. You could have bet out the size of the pot, 2000. In this case, the bluffer would have realized you were unbluffable (since you'd only have $1000 left, and the pot would be $7000 if he raised you all-in), and he would have folded. However, if he or one of the other guys had a flush, they might have gritted their teeth and looked you up. And that's a big risk for you to take in Omaha against 3 opponents.
With the bet you made, if he raises, you're either calling all-in, or your raise is so small that he can't fold. So, unfortunately, even if you can read when this guy is bluffing, you can't do anything much about it, given the relative stack sizes here.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
You didn't get robbed, you dumped the hand and the money without solid kbnowledge or reason. Consider it a gift to the other player and learn from it.
Any kind of decent player in his situation could probably only be raising as a bluff, since if you have the dry ace you have to fold and if you have the nuts he is in a lot of trouble. What good player raises with a king high flush in PLO?
How much you have to modify this analysis because he was drunk depends on him.
Small chance also he had trips and was raising to win it there or else draw out if he had to.
Having bet the 1000 you have to fold to the raise because you are no great favourite against even just a pair, but you are dead if he has a flush.
Did the player perhaps have a good read on you, by reason of your underbet, or some other way?
I'm probably misunderstanding the set hands.
I have QQxx and the flop is (let's suppose) Q-7-10 with 2 suited cards.
How I have to play this hand? Check-call, bet the pot, other???
Thanks
Bruce you made a small bet here. with 2 in the pot you bet one. if he played with you alot maybe he knows that perhaps you would have checked with a flush so you couldnt have one. also your raise out of the blind might mean aces if you are a tight player. and he then knows its a flush or he can steal it. so maybe he was playing well. but maybe he wasnt so its tough to call. but you shouldnt have bet into a 4 handed pot with the idea of folding if raised against action players. you were getting about 2.5 to one for your call so against him maybe it was right to call. if you folded because it was the correct play in your mind then good, but if you folded because you didnt want to go broke with just a pair you need to change your game.
..about making sure you don't leave yourself vulnerable to a raise that you can't call when you may well have the best of it?
"How do you play against a player like that who is willing to push all of his chips in on nothing?"
By becoming a player willing to push all your chips in with *almost* nothing! :)
You've got a tight image. He's been bluffing. Only you know where the ace of hearts is. In retrospect, a check on the flop followed by a $3000 check-raise should pick off the cut-offs expected bluff and should blow all others off the pot. The only question is "Will he fold for the extra $1000 if he initially bets out $2000"??? It sure doesn't seem like the right time to go broke when the flop totally misses you, but your knowedge of the Ah sure enhances your ability to blow people off the hand.
This guy was calling reraises with 6-9o??? Why not reraise the max before the flop? It didn't seem like either of these players were going anywhere. Deception at this point probably is not worth very much, especially against the whale. This guy was throwing a party. Mr. JJ doesn't seem too swift either, especially if he called both your pre-flop reraise and your flop raise when your play is screaming AA (or KK at least). This looks like a good game. If your bankroll can handle it, stay in the game. If not, get out, as strong players with small bankrolls can easily be broken by lucky whales with large bankrolls.
FFor yo to continue or to quit,it all dependeds oon yuour bankroll. You describe about 100 grand on the table at the end of the game. If my pocket allows me will not thuink too uch about investing into this adequate amount o money Gino
playing 5-10 plh after a tournament. 6 players.
I have 750ish and the SB(Other key player) has about the same. SB has been playing tightly for about 2 hours. He's not been making any moves and he's turned over pretty good hands. I'm UTG w/ AA. I limp. One caller, SB raises. BB calls, I reraise. Heads up w/ SB. Pot : 360 We've each got about 550-600 left.
Flop: 99J two spades. I have red aces. He checks, I bet the pot. He calls. He's been playing straight forward enough that I like his call. I put him on a big pair or big spades at this point. I figure he'd have re-raised a 9 w/ the spades out. He could have JJ but this player will not quit about how much he hates the hand(I play limit games w/ him) so I don't think he's on Jacks full. We've each got about 200-250 left now. Pot: 1080.
Turn : Ks. A Very scary card for me and he bets his last 200-250 into the pot and I call. I rationalized it by the fact that it's only 200 into a 1280 pot. I think I made a questionable call here. I also would like some feedback as to the play if we each started w/ larger stacks and he were a more tricky player.
Comments?
You are committed to the pot. Your opponent in my eyes is going to have to show a better hand. You are getting six to one on your call and there is no way you can say with that degree of certainty that your hand is not the best.
Bruce
well, when he checks you surely must bet the flop to keep from giving him a free shot at a straight or flush. if he raises I, would try to determine if he was trying to push me off the pot based on my previous play. maybe he thinks you are trying to pick up the blinds. If he flat calls, I fire again on the turn if a non-threating card falls. What was the result?
I make a reasonable bet here to although this is a pretty scary board. I find it interesting about the most skilled player making the straddle. I have seen this as well in the pot limit game here.
I'm not familiar with Pot Limit rules, but in NL (at least the way they play it here), once can kill the pot by putting in double the big blind, from any spot (except the button and the big blind) - this allows him to become last to act preflop...i.e, the action goes around him, and then the button, SB and BB act, and then he acts. This gives him a good positional advantage pre-flop, and if he plays well in big pots, he wouldn't mind a bigger than usual pot anyway.
I've seen alot of players in the 10/10/20 NL do that, and some of those guys are horrible players, other guys are ok, and some of them are very good (aggressive and too loose at times, but good nonetheless).
What are the rules in Pot Limit regarding straddling or killing the pot?
You've seen Ron straddle? Take a picture.
I see Fred do it more than Ron does.
Well, you said the "most skilled player", not Fred.
This might be an occasion to bet less than the full amount. If he checks, bet $200 again. If he checkraises, you'll still be able to re-raise all in or fold fairly cheap, depending on what you know about him.
Im sorry here, but I dont see how you are worried on the flop. You think he called a pot size bet with 8-10?
The only holdings I worry about here are a)the flush draw. b)some big 8 (A8 or similar)
Given that I see little or no way he has made a hand by this stage, I bet the pot on the flop, no question. If he checkraises, I reraise the pot. I don't claim to be an expert at pot limit or any high limit game, but I just think that whatever he has, he is drawing, and you have to make him pay.
David
Are you kidding? If you don't push as hard as you can with pocket aces with this flop....quit.
This is not limit poker where if you are up against gin you may lose a few big bets more. If I am up against a pair with a flush/ and or straight draw almost half the deck will produce a scare card. Certainly this is not a good spot to be in with pocket Aces.
Bruce
Maybe not a good place to be in with 3 or 4 other players, but heads up against a straddle? I say no way are you not best here. Bet the pot and charge him to draw. I simply cannot believe this is a bad play.
Betting the pot may be right, but what do you do if he plays back? A straight, while possible, isn't too likely, but two pair or a set are things to fear. He's playing you to have AT MOST a big pair and knows you don't know as much about his hand. Building a big pot may give him a chance to make YOU guess whether to commit your stack with only a pair.
Fat-Charlie
I would err on the side of caution here. Those who think a player wouldn't call with 8T or 68 on a straddle haven't played much PL. I would check the flop, and if nothing scary comes on the turn, bet out.
This player would probably call with a draw, so why build a big pot for him? I would probably dump it if raised at any time, unless I was confident I had the best hand. I would rather win a small pot here than go broke.
Bet and fold to a raise. If you can't bet at this pot after he's checked it to you, stop playing pot limit. At this point, forget about slowplaying or extracting maximum value. That is a VERY dangerous flop for you and you want to take down the $500 pot right now.
If he calls, the turn can be tricky. If any 6, 7, 9, 5, 8, T, or heart comes on the turn, fold to a bet, otherwise bet if he checks.
If you know him well, you might be willing to go all the way with this hand regardless. If he bets the turn and you KNOW this player is very capable of betting a scare card like that, move all in and be done with it. If you've never seen him bet the pot on a scare card, fold.
If he checks the turn and you bet, at that point you'll be so close to all-in you can't get away if he raises or if he just calls and then bets the river.
Unless the river is the Ad, it is almost definitely going to be some sort of scare card so if you bet the turn, be prepared to pay off the river no matter what.
Your post sounds like you're playing with scared money. Maybe I'm reading wrong but your questions seem to indicate that. When you are playing no limit and pot limit hold'em, everytime you see AA you would prefer to get all-in before the flop against one player. If you're playing stakes that are so high you can't afford a second (and third and fourth...) buy-in, you should lower the stakes so you can play better.
If I'm wrong about the scared money thing, please don't take offense. I personally could never sit in a game the size you described.
natedogg
On the flop I bet the pot. I was checkraised $1000. After much deliberation I passed. I felt like I was either in real bad shape or a small favorite and decided to pass.
Bruce
Here's the major piece of info I need to know about YOU before answering this question :
What hands have you raised the pot with IN HIS PRESENCE over the time you have played with him.
If you don't mix it up, good PL players know you just raised with at worse AK, and most likely some big pair. That means he has you by the balls. The reverse implied odds of AA in PLH are incredbible compared to limit holdem, especially if you don't mix your play up enough.
Anyway, here's the only thing I don't do in your situation.: Bet and fold to the re-raise. Either check it and make a decision on the turn or be prepared to put him in for a re-raise. Weak-tight = broke in PL.
It's really one of those situations (that happen often on the river in limit hold em) where he can't call with anything that you beat. If he's good, he knows he isn't getting the odds to draw to anything unless he has 8hXh. If he has the straight or 2 pair, you're in trouble. If he has absolute crap he isn't calling, or is ready to bluff.
BTW, I strongly believe he was bluffing and you should have raised him back. If he had a big hand, why not call and let you hang yourself on turn and river.
When and what's the optimum frequency to bluff on the turn or river when the board shows 3 suited cards and I have the Ace alone of that suit?
Is it only a problem about the opponence quality?
Thanks
Even Doyle Brunson, considered to be the best player ever, claims that it's almost impossible to get away from a set in a RAISED pot. In an unraised pot, maybe, but in a raised pot, no way.
It was fate my friend.
natedogg
I've gone broke on hands like this before, and I'm still not sure if it's the right thing to do. When it's happened to me, I was always pretty sure I was beat, but I just couldn't lay down the set.
How would you feel if you folded and he showed you AK? Is it better to err on the side of caution and save the $2000? I'm not sure. It's a costly mistake either way.
You can't win in big bet poker by playing meekly. You played the hand perfectly. But sometimes, shit does happen. Oh, well. Good luck.
It's very difficult to lay a set down. Could you have made such a big laydown. I don't know. A lot really has to do with your perceptions of your opponent. Would he move all in with AK or does he need a set. Shit happens esp. in the wee hours of the morning when rational thinking is very short.
Bruce
Yes.
Fred's $100 raise before the flop was interesting. Pot builder (AA)? Re-steal (you're in the steal position)? He has 12 ways to have AK, 3 to have AA. With what you said about how things were running for Fred, that $100 raise might have pointed to AK. It's hard not to beat yourself up over this.
I agree with the responses that it was just one of those things, and I certainly would have beaten myself up if I laid it down and saw AK. So I was going down. The question I asked myself later was, given my read of either AK or AA, did I play it right? Clearly, unless I have a dead read of AA I have to at least call his $1k raise on the flop. But one of us is probably drawing close to dead. If it is him with the AK, I want to double up, and maybe it would be better to just call his raise on the flop, since I don't want to run him off if that is his hand. Anyway, thanks for the responses - it was an interesting hand.
If you have a lot of money on the table, raise back. If he raises back throw the 10s away. If you have a little money on the table, go all in and pray that he has as.
Limon,
Maybe you misread my post - I was the preflop raiser. And, I have not played in any "million pound tourney", although it sounds like an interesting event. Was that the recent thing in the UK?
x
High Stakes Hold'em
December 2000 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo