![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
The whale is in town. I want to take on the whale. The game is plh with a 5 10 blind structure and $1000.00 buy in. So lets gamble. The whale is to my left, bad position for me.
The whale is raising almost every pot. Bad for me because I want to get in cheaply. About my tenth hand in I pick up pocket aces, $$ signs are racing through my head. The plan, limp in let the whale raise and then I will reraise and eliminate the hangersoners. So as planned the whale raises, players fold,fold and fold except for an unexpected reraise from a player who it turns out has pocket jacks. I call and raise another $200.00, which was not the max. Both players call.
Flop comes 66? no flush draw. Player with jacks bets about $300.00, I reraise the rest of my money and the whale calls or reraises, I cannot remember for sure because things were a blur at this time. No ace comes on the turn or river.
Time to expose our holdings. The whale has 69 offsuit. TIME TO REBUY!!!!!
The question is. Should I rebuy for $1000.00, $10,000 or quit the game? By the time I left the game after another $1000.00 buy in and subsequent loss there was around $100,000 on the table.
you act if you were surprised..these things happen a lot at all levels. you should re-buy if you have a good sized bankroll and playing even-steven low keyed way. losing 1K is nothing at this level.
PLH 10/25 blinds. There is a live straddle. I open raise the pot for $200 with two black Aces on the button. All fold except for the straddler. We each have around $3000. He is the most skillful player at the table.
The flop comes 6h 7h 9d.
He checks. What is my best course of action? a) Do I check the flop along with him and if a blank comes on the turn do I make a play at the pot if he checks or put him all in if he bets?
b) Do I bet the pot and if I am checkraised the pot pass? I certainly may have the best hand, but he can have a big draw with a pair and flush/straight draw where my Aces are in precarious shape. I could also be up against a set or two pair. If he flopped a straight I am almost drawing dead.
Commensts appreciated.
Bruce
I also think he was probably bluffing.
Yes, it's possible that T8 (probably suited) would call a pot size bet BTF. However, bear in mind that if he'll call in this spot with a hand like T8, he'll call with an awful lot of other hands. So the probability he has this exact holding is slim.
If he doesn't have T8, you have to make him pay for his probably draw, so bet the pot. When he check raises, it probably means either a semi-bluff with something like A8s or even a pure bluff. If he thinks you might have raised BTF with something like AK, he can even make this play with top pair and high kicker.
Anyway, I would not have folded having bet the pot.
i dont think there is enough buyers for a dedicated big bet book from me. but id certainly put a big section on the important things in an all around type book. even mason stopped asking. im just too lazy to write many more books, but i like the begging as it feels good.
i would also really like to read a book by you on PL/NL holdem. your book on high-low-split poker is THE best poker book i have ever read.
Where I play only UTG can put up a straddle and he is last to act preflop. I would say that the straddler will typically see a flop around 75% of the time.
Bruce
When I played in the game at the El Dorado, Boyd Frick posted a live staddle. I thought from earlier reading, that it is a bad play. I don't think you'll see a good player do this very often - it's meant to loosen up a game.
By the way, this was the same game where we saw a set over set over set flop!
It would depend on pot size and the number of opponents. Assuming one opponent and pot size bets, 1:2 - one bluff for every two times you have that A suited and the board gives you the nuts.
The above is for the River. Do your opponents call on the turn with a set? That makes this a more interesting problem...
In pot/no limit omaha holding the ace of the suit is a goldmine against conservative players.
Playing 25-25 PLH, late night (more correctly early morning). Shorthanded now - 5 players, Fred (of the Fred and Ronnie duo)is the only one left in the game whom I know. He has lost three or four hands with AK and AQ, once getting rivered by a two outer, and he is stuck and disgusted. I pick up 10-10 on the button, make it $100 to go. SB folds, Fred raises $100 from the BB, all fold to me and I just call. We both have about $2500 in front.
Flop comes A 10 5 rainbow. Fred checks, I bet $400, he raises $1000. I thought about his possible hands, decided he either had AA or AK. Probably in part because I was tired and ready to to bed I decided to put it to the test and reraised the rest of my money. He called, showed AA, and I did not suck out. My feeling in hindsight is that I should have given more weight to his preflop re-raise (even though it was a small one). Moreover, my guess (again in hindsight) is that if he had actually had AK he might have just called my flop bet. So, although a set is hard to get away from maybe I could have saved my money when he raised on the flop. But, maybe I was just doomed to lose it all. Thoughts?
Laying down middle set on the flop is almost impossible, unless you believe almost without a doubt that he had pocket aces and flopped top set. I don't think you could have done much more pre-flop, other than reraise him to 'gain information' as others suggested -- and if he would have come over the top, then the laydown would have been easy. But then he could have just simply smooth called behind you after you reraised (which is what I would do), and the outcome would still have been the same. I think--regardless--you're going to see that flop with pocket tens in a pot-limit game.
Hey Jim!
Sometimes I ask myself, if the flop comes 2-2-2, will I commit chunks of chips. If the answer is yes or maybe, then I think you're better off reraising before the flop and laying it down if he comes over the top. I don't raise the full pot size. A $200 preflop re-raise would most likely have found out what you needed to know. If he just smooth calls that raise, you'll likely have to shrug off any subsequent lost chips being outplayed.
Anytime I've got position on a guy and he reraises the amount I raised, or just a touch more(at pot limit or no-limit), all my alarms go off. It's clearly a pot-building play, to either set up a steal if he thinks I'm likely to be weak because I'm on the button, or to bulk up the pot in case a magic flop comes for him with an off-color hand. I generally rule out AK and AQ and narrow the range to any pocket pair or maybe a J-10 suited type of hand.
But my first first first suspicion is ALWAYS pocket aces, maybe kings. Not that I'd get off a set after the flop in the hand you described, but maybe with the alarms ringing early enough and loud enough, it's occasionally possible.
Good seeing ya again,
Tommy
you can protect yourself from people trying to build pots against you by being aggressive. No one would put in a weak raise like that against you if you weren't known as a caller. PL and NL are raise or fold games.
Anytime someone raises me they know it can all go in the middle. this causes stress amongst them. stressed players are easier to read they react in a more animalistic way.
I bet and raise alot and generally get my way. for someone to re-raise me they have to be brave for 97% of the population bravery takes a good or great hand the 3% that can re-raise bluff me I will not make any money off of but that is a rare player indeed.
Ummmm... I don't know who you play no limit hold'em with, but please invite me to the game. If it's that easy for you to take control of the game just by raising a lot, I'd like a seat. If Tommy doesn't get it first.
natedogg
sure i'll save you a seat right between myself and stewart reuben. i don't beleive you'll have a good time. i love players who overthink the game. you think it's a card game, it's a people game.
Tommy Angelo is the best no limit hold em player alive; heed his advice.
x
Still, Tommy is a better player than you. Therefore has more credibility.
Hey Tommy,
Against some players, I'd like the play of reraising preflop. But against Fred (or many other old time pot limit regulars), I don't think you need the re-raise to know that at best you are even money and most likely a dog preflop. Like I said in an earlier response, he would not reraise from the blind with any hand like j-10s - or even AQs. It would only be one of the big pairs or maybe AK. A reraise by me would only be helpful if it smoked out AA (as he had here). So in that case he'd no doubt have come back over for the maximum and I could get away cheap. But AA is not necessarily the most likely hand for him, and with the other hands he could have, he'd just call and I'd have then put more money in than I needed to with a marginal hand. Once he's shown me he has a hand, like he already did, I'd rather wait and see what the flop brings.
But, maybe I need to rethink - certainly would have saved me some money on this particular hand.
Unlike what Limon seems to be advocating, I'm not going to get all my money in preflop with pocket 10s in pot limit against someone who plays solid cards most of the time. But for what its worth I don't always play the same way. In fact, I re-raised preflop with 10s in a PL game at the Taj tournament against one of the tournament players who makes a lot of moves. I ended up winning a big pot in that one (the flop came all low, we got it all in and the 10s won).
I do agree about the alarm bells when he raised from the blind , which really provoked my original post - it was a situation where I knew I was in danger on the flop, but I ignored the alarm bells :-).
Happy New Year - maybe see you this year at WSOP.
Jim
Against some players, I'd like the play of reraising preflop. But against Fred (or many other old time pot limit regulars), I don't think you need the re-raise to know that at best you are even money and most likely a dog preflop.As you pointed out before, I think the key is who you're up against. I use the play frequently against rock limit players who are visiting a PL game. But I don't use it to get information about folding, I do it to see If I can get JJ or QQ to sail into the muck. Against the right player, AK and KK will sometimes drop. Depends on the player, the image you're projecting, and the stacks. This was a thought-provoking post and an interesting thread.
a raise on hte button can be almost any two cards. you said the guy was stuck. he could be re rising you with sooo many hands that cant beat two tens it isn't even funny. you should have re-raised 400 and when he came over the top it is an easy laydown and you lost the least amount of money possible. "trapping" with 10-10 before the flop is a suckers play. i see alot of these poor plays amongst american players. maybe that is why you faired so poorly in the million pound tourney.
Interesting comments. Before the flop Jim makes it 100, Fred raises 100, Jim re-raises 400. Then if Fred re-raises you fold? Trapping with TT may be a sucker play, but trapping w/ AA isn't. Does a re-raise by Fred mean AA, and a call mean AK? If so, Fred's easy.
trapping with aa IS a sucker play in a cash game. fred has over $800 in the pot to go out and take. when you trap with aa you are as likely to trap yourself. if fred will call a 400 raise out of position he is a weak player. this is a raise fold situation for fred.
re-raising before the flop is not a perfect play, there are no perfect plays in poker. it is the best play.
I'm not sure where the 800 figure comes from. I agree with what you say about trapping with AA, not so much because Fred doesn't have position - leading out isn't so bad in PLH- but because AA doesn't trap much coin in big bet hold 'em. Having said that, trapping is exactly what happened. I'm not sure why Fred only bumped it a buck, but it turned out to have brilliant results, and it did succeed in making it head up.
I disagree that Jim should fold to a raise, or should even try to precipitate one. PLH is a flop game, Jim has position and a potential hand, he should try to see the flop. ATx is the dream flop. He's got trips, and the A is there to provide a big pair and a pay off. In a tourney, perhaps this isn't correct if it knocks him out, but in a cash game it's just a beat and a rebuy. Just my opinion, I'll think some more about it.
25 + 25 100 raise-jim 100 call-fred 100 re-raise-fred 100 call-jim 400 re-raise-jim
now fred can push in $1500 and take down an easy $850 with no contest.
pray that he has AK, not pray that he has as.
Earlier postings suggest you can clarify your position by reraising pre-flop. Not necessarily. What if he just calls you reraise? What have you learned now? That he has KK, QQ or AK? He does not need to oversell his hand at this stage, there will be 3 more opportunities to get it in.
After I responded to Limon's first post, I realized that he probably meant to recommend re-raising preflop with the 10's, to gain information. As Gordianus says, I already had a lot of information when Fred but in his $100 re-raise. Fred is not so predictable that it could only be AA or AK based on his preflop action, but for him it definitely had to be either QQ, KK, AA or AK. He would not reraise out of position with much else. If I had responded with a $400 preflop reraise(as suggested by Limon), in this case I probably would have benefitted by Fred coming over the top and I could get away from it then. But with the other hands he would likely have he'd just call, and I'd just be putting more money in expecting to have the worst of it. Call me a wimp, but when he put his raise in from the blind I was pretty much done with it unless I got a flop.
To avoid unnecessary chatter, I will stipulate that this is tied to knowledge of the opponent - there are some maniacs who don't have to have much when they come back at you from the blind, but Fred is not one of them.
I invite all of the players who post, or simply read here to join me in a New Year's Resolution:
"I will not whine anymore!" If someone plays bad and wins against me, that's o.k. That's what I want them to do! If they played correctly, then I made a mistake and I will learn from it!
"I will not blame dealers or others for my losses." The dealer has nothing to do with it...ever! They insure that the game I'm in is being run fair and honest. The bad players are what feed my bankroll. I want them in my game. I can not lose if I play well. Today maybe, but never in the long run.
"I will not ask for deck changes or new setups". This only slows down the games and cuts into my profit. All decks have the same 52 cards in them... nothing changes!
"I will tip all competent dealers for every hand I win". For most, this is their sole source of income. I win consistantly thanks in part to their hard work. They deserve my praise as well. If they are incompetant, I will tell the management, not berate them in front of others!
"I will not allow abusive players to ruin my game". If a player abuses a dealer, I will speak up. If a player abuses another player, I will try to pull that player aside and make him realize that a bad player is good for the game, don't send them off by abusing them. I will make it a point to make this game better for all.
"I will tell no more bad beat stories". I will greet all my fellow players with questions about their lives. After all, life is more important than poker. (But poker is a close 2nd) We've all seen it ALL before... no need to beat a dead horse!
"I will not talk about the play of a hand with anyone at the table". Why should I help educate my opponents?
"I will become that ONE player we all enjoy playing with". We all know that person. He/she is always pleasant. Fun to be around. Never has a bad thing to say about anybody.
Please join me in making this a part of your game. For that matter... make it a part of your everyday life! Happy New Year to all and Keep Playing Hard!
die
bmckay's response is fairly typical of the attitude of the cheap lowbrows who continue to give poker a bad name. It's no wonder Corporate/Sponsorship money does'nt want to come within an asses roar of the game in the United States. So long as that kind of attitude finds sufficient voice then its ostrich-head-in-the-sand philosophy will be taken as representing a sizable percentage of the poker electorate. I vote for the resolutions.
I sat down to a small no-limit game a few months back. Blinds were $5 and $5. $100 buy-in although most people had $500 or more. A "local pro" (bah!! really a jerk) locks up a seat in the game and when he gets to the table.. before he has even gotten chips.. he gets into a verbal fight with the guy who will be sitting on his left.
I made about a grand off the jerk before leaving the game because things became too serious. I admit I caught some cards but he was speeding around and was going to get caught by someone. I dont know how he did that night. I heard he was pulling out thousands. He is definately a good limit player and plays as high as $150/$300..
i doubt the people who are constantly involved in verbal altercations carry.
brad
What about people who giggle?
I thought I was the king of the whole giggling thing until I met Brad. He certainly takes it to a whole new level. He has stolen my trademark and for this he must perish.
be careful, i carry.
just kidding :)
brad
Glen I, for one, think that you are absolutely right! I think the responses you got showed NO class. Good luck this year. Dino.
@
you have to admit that Glen's post is pretty annoying. If I see him I think I'll take his milk money.
While you are taking his milk money he will take your stack. Sounds fair to me.
- Joe in Connecticut
Wow! Never imagined I'd create such a stir. For those who stuck up for me I thank you all. You know what I meant. It's all about self improvement. For those who spoke in contrary... well, I expected as much. You're what's wrong with the game.
Can I say something here ? This has nothing to do with sponsorship - I don't like the angry players but that's life !!! It happens and sadly it happens in poker more and more. New Year resolutions are meant to be broken anyway and surely this one will by most !!!! If you had lilly white attitude in poker you still have zero corporate sponsors CAUSE there is no viewership and no products. head bands, shoes etc....and no image I agree, but image will not make it happen by itself. HNY
I have been playing a lot of PLO and PLH for the last four months. I have been doing well in general, but I still have a lot of learning to do, but I feel like I am progressing overall on the growth curve. Anyway, back to my post. Initially when I began playing I rarely bluffed or semibluffed, but as my confidence increased I looked for profitable bluffing oppurtunities and tryed to capitilize on them. My opponents have me labeled as being very tight, which makes bluffing oppurtunities even more likely to succeed. Anyway here are two hands for your analyses. We are playing PLO with 10/25 blinds.
I call after UTG limps in. I have something like 6678 double suited. Playing the hand is certainly very borderline at best, but thats not the point of my post. There are two more limpers and the cutoff raises to $75. The blinds call and we see the flop six handed.
The flop comes 69Q rainbow. All check to the raiser. He bets $200. I checkraise him another $400. He calls and everyone else folds. We each have around $6000. He plays very tight, more so than me. He is having a good evening so he appears like he may be protrecting his chips. The turn brings a Ten. I bet $1000. He calls immeadiately. I know he doesn't have a straight, otherwise he would have raised, but the only hand he could possibly have is a set of Queens. The river brings a blank. I check and he checks. He wins with three Queens. Should I have made a big bet on the river? Retrospectively I thing a big bet would have gotten me the pot, but I failed to pull the trigger.
The next hand occured about an hour later. I am in the cutoff seat and everyone has limped in for $15. I call and the button raises the maximum. The blinds and all the limpers including myself call another $250.
The flop comes JJ3 no flush draw. All check to the raiser. He bets $1200. Everyone folds and I am last to act. We each have around $6000 in front of ourselves. I feel pretty strongly that he two Aces and probably no Jack. I call and raise the pot. I have no pair and no draw, but I feel like I can get him off of his hand. He after much deliberations folds and shows me his two Aces. I tell him good laydown and stack my chips.
Comments appreciated.
Bruce
Please redo the first hand, since I know you accidentally made a mistake about 1 of the cards. As it reads, you have 6678, your opponent has QQxy, and the board is 69QTz. You say he wins with trip Qs, but you have a straight. So, what was that turn card, a J maybe?
If it was a J, and he called your bet, does that necessarily mean he puts you on a straight and will fold if you bet again on the river? Or, does it mean he gives you some credit for a straight, but will still call if a blank comes on the river? You need to know which of these is the more likely to decide whether or not to shoot again on the river.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
In the first hand I had 6679. Sorry.
Bruce
Bruce,
I think you proved your point by using the wrong hand first which was bearly playable. I wouldn't play the second one.
The second hand you read your opponent perfectly.
Good posts Paul
This hand came up in a tournament a while back. It made me think about trapping and slow playing in nl, and when it's a good idea.
Agressive player with a huge stack (20k) (HS) raises 700 from one off the button. I have a bit-lower-than-average stack with about 5k in the small blind, which is 100. I have KQ, and call the 600 to me. Any complaints about this call? BB calls as well.
Flop comes KQ6 rainbow. I check, BB checks, HS bets 500, seriously underbetting the pot. I raise a thousand, which is also underbetting the pot.
My thinking here is that it's still a small amount for him to call, and that I want him to call here. In retrospect, if I was really trapping, I should have made a small bet up front. At any rate, I am looking for a call here.
BB folds, HS thinks for a while and calls. Turn is the extremely bad A, but I feel pot stuck and move in. He calls with AK. Bad play on the turn, I know.
But the question in my mind here is, how good of a hand do I need to trap on the flop? Top two is good, but is it good enough? Especially a dangerous top two like KQ, where there are likely draws and other decent made hands.
What about a baby set?
I've noticed that in limit, slowplaying is almost never the thing to do. But you can make so much money in nl through deception that it seems much more worth it.
Thoughts on this?
- target
Just going through this myself, letting the loose players bet into me when I have a good hand.
2 examples of slow play that led to a win in my weekly game recently. I was 2-1 down in chips against just one player who is loose aggressive (we play a knockout, tournament style NL Holdem game and there is just us 2 left). He was starting to push his weight around when I got A-A, I checked, he put me all in with A-10, I won that so I am 2-1 up in chips. About 4 hands later I have K-10, i pass again, he passes, flop comes A-Q-J, he goes all in again. (I cannot remember what he had as i held out my hand and said thanks very much !). He was edgy before the second hand as i just kept passing to him and he did'nt have a clue what I had or what i was doing, so after each flop I simply bullied him out of the pots.
Slow play against aggressive types seems to do the job but against more expierenced players I cannot see how you could get away with it as easy as i did.
I do not usually play like this but picking your opponent seems to be the key in NL.
tab
As always, it depends.
However, I don't think it's so much the raw strength of your hand, but the strength of your hand compared to the texture of the board, as well as the proclivities of your opponent(s).
There are people I've trapped with as little as second pair, and people I couldn't trap with top full. If they won't bluff at you when you check, or if they won't call when you do finally make a big bet, it doesn't matter how strong your hand is. Likwise, if they're the sort that just have to take a shot at the pot if you check once or twice, then you can trap them with many hands.
Also, how likely are they to beat you (the texture of the board), and how likely are they to make a good second best hand? If the board is K95, you have 555, and you think they have 89, then by catching an 8 or 9 they can make a good second best hand. However, if they won't call a big bet with that hand, then by trapping them all you'll do is win slightly more if they catch, and lose it all if they instead hold QJ and catch a gutshot T.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
big hands are made for big pots. bet raise and re-raise. do the same when you hold nothing but sense weakness.
The game is 2 on the button, 3 small, 5 big, 10 to open.
The button has killed the pot for 10, making it 20 to open. Killing the pot lets you act last even after the big blind. All fold to small blind who opens for 20. I call with Ah9h. Stacks are around 400.
Button calls and we see the flop 3 handed, 60 in the pot.
Flop is Q46 of hearts, giving me the nuts. We all check. The button is usually very aggressive and I was figuring he would bet when we checked the flop. Oh well.
The turn card pairs the 6. Dammit. Small blind checks, I bet 60, both players call. I don't like it one bit because I know that at least one of them has a 6 and can fill up if not already full.
River is a K. We check to the button who bets 120. I call but I'm not happy about it.
The button shows a 6 only and is totally flabbergasted that I didn't play more aggressively.
Did I play it wrong? Should I have raised the river? Comments please.
natedogg
If the other person had top pair, you could have bet a small bit to trap (though usually won't work against good players) or tried to overbet the pot a little. Maybe someone else had a queen or king high heart and would call your bluff. Or maybe someone had a smaller flush. It is usually wrong to slowplay in no limit from my understanding. Hope this helps. Also, as far as the bet on the river, I think you could have raised a little bit.
Wetfish
I don't think raising the river has any merit against most opponents. I just don't see you getting a lot of calls from hands that you beat, compared to getting calls (or further raises) from hands that beat you. Most often, your raise will get folds, unless you have a strong reputation as a bluffer.
I would tend to bet the flop here. People often expect you to trap with a made flush, and a bet here will often be interpreted as a steal or a single high heart (a draw). In such a case, the button might make a big raise to resteal or force you off your draw. If he does, you have him perfectly trapped. However, since you say he's aggressive, checking to him is also an option. However, if the money is deep, I would tend to bet out and get more of it in there now. Checking would be a better play if my opponents or I are shallow in money.
However, your read of your opponents is the most important thing to consider here.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Another reason to bet the flop is to cover for the times when you bet an suited flop as a bluff, which I know you do sometimes. If you bet some small amount both when you have it and when you don't, that makes it really hard for someone to have a clue what you have.
- target
It's hard not to feel like you left money on the table ex post facto.
Thinking about it, though, you probably wouldn't have done much better than the $120 you made even if you would have bet or check-raised the river. With my style of play, I probably would have bet ~$150 on the river unless I thought he'd call more with a bad '6'.
If you make a 2/3 pot or smaller bet, then you may face a large raise from a six (full or not), but you'd have a hard time getting away from the hand.
With a weak '6', the guy can't call much of a raise from you unless he's live. So, I agree with Greg on that aspect.
he was flabbergasted...therefore you played outstanding...jmho
Nate,
My thought is to raise the rest of your money on the river, mainly because you only have a couple of hundred bucks left.
As I understand it the agressive button checked behind you on the flop, so that makes hands like two pair or a set on the flop unlikely for him because he'd want to put pressure on a one card heart hand. When he just calls the turn bet, it is reasonable to put him on a 6, but unless he has K-6 specifically (it is possible - could be Kh), you still have the best hand on the river, specially after the button bets and the small blind folds (that is an assumption - you didn't say what SB did). To me since the money involved is small and you probably still have the best hand, raise it. If nothing else if he calls it will show that you'll get it all in without the stone nuts.
But you can't be too unhappy with the results of this hand, since you got the money and left him amazed.
I agree with Greg that if the stacks were deep, it would be better to bet the flop, hoping that he has flopped something to raise you with. And in that case, if someone just called the flop bet I would not want to play it too fast once the board paired. Then you'd have to depend on your read of the opponents to decide whether you are willing to get broke with the flush.
After logging many hours at my local Potlimit Omaha game (10-20 blinds) I have been doing some reflecting on the sizes of bets I have been making during the course of the game.
It seems that the weaker players in the game are giving too much up by varying their bet size. They usually bet the whole pot if they have flopped a big hand with no or few outs, or bet a portion of the pot if they are on a draw or have flopped absolute monster.
I have come to the conclusion that if I am going to bet, it is better to ALWAYS bet he pot whether I am on a draw, have a made hand or am making a play at the pot. I find if I do not stray from this approach my opponent will have difficulty putting me on a hand.
Am I out of line here?? any comments would be appreciated.
Derek
I think there is a LOT to be said for your approach. As you point out, it gives no information away. Also, when you are betting the best hand you win the most, and when you are bluffing, your bluff has the maximum intimidation value.
I think exceptions exist, especially where you are playing against players who are simply too unaware to pick up on any information which the varying size of your bets might give. Then, you can bet less than the pot to get a call which you would not otherwise, and so on.
I (very modestly) see plo like a game of 1 best hand on the flop who have to protect his cards (no matter if betting the pot, check-raising or other) and other players involved in the hand chaising this best hand. When I have the best hand I put myself on my opponents clothes: do i prefer to play a drawing hand calling a pot bet or a medium-low bet (or better getting a freecard)? If the turn card (when i have the flop best hand) scares me (that is 3 suited cards, possible straights or worst a showing pair that doesn't help my hand)I have to resume my knowledge of the opponents and the bet size have secondary importance.
TJ sez to (almost)always bet the size of the pot; The Coach sez something about varying along the lines you list.
Gotta go w/TJ on this one. PLO's a wacky enough game as is; why waste time figuring out bet sizes when you could be studying your opponents?
Incidentally, I would NEVER show an uncalled hand in PLO.
I don't have any hand descriptions and poker tales..... I used to play some small NL games and always thought NL was to die due to lack of players and games. Now playing 9/18 and 20/40 in Colma I see that on Fridays they have 3-5 NL tables (on can be a PL) for Holdem. Thatis a record in North America, a dealer tells me. Many faces are familier from my old NL days but all the NL pro's must be there in the USA (along woth some local fish ;-) p.s. I have no affilication with them and Colma (is Lucky Chances) in the SF Bay Area.
x
Every Wednesday there is a small no limit tournament at the Bicycle casino in L.A. followed by a 1-2 no limit cash game. It is a blast, a lot of strange charachters in hte game.
yes, Colma is clearly the No Limit capital of the world at this point (aside from during the WSOP side action games).
Big no limit game in Colma.
10/10/20 blinds.
Alot of people have a lot of money.
There are 4 limpers in for $40 (not too unusual) to the cutoff.
The cutoff has $650 - he is a very aggressive, and sometimes a bit loose player who can take shots. He raises all in.
The button is not a player that I know. But he has $750. I raises all-in.
The Small Blind is a very aggressive player and loose too, but a winning player in NL (big loser in limit). He has $2200. He flat calls the $750.
The BB folds, and UTG folds.
The next guy is a very good, solid NL player, he has $3000 in chips - he calls $750 as well. All other player folds.
There is about $3000 in the pot. With two guys left with action. The SB has $1450 left, and the other guy has more than that.
The flop comes Q83 (or something like that - it is Q high, that's all I really remember).
SB bets all in.
Limper calls.
SB turns over JJ....limper turns over AcQc. Limper wins the whole pot.
Questions :
If you were the SB, would you play the hand? If you would have played it, would you have raised all-in or just called, as he did?
If you were the limper, and the SB has flat called...and you know he can be very aggressive on the flop and after, would you call an extra $710 with AcQc? With the possibiity that you can only win any side pots that may be created on the flop?
Thanks. I am praying Ray Zee will read this and respond...hopefully what I have written is clear enough.
IMO, both the limper and SB misplayed their hands. Both of them should've folded. I mean, the first guy raises all-in, well, he doesn't have to have JJ beat, but he sure all hell should have AQ beat (pair or AK). When the next guy goes all-in also, he should have JJ minimum, or AK at worst.
Now, maybe the SB and limper know these 2 guys don't need to have the hands they're supposed to have, but they are still risking a lot of money where they would appear to be, over the range of hands the raisers might hold, slight favorites at best. AT BEST. I wanted to accentuate that, because I think they'll be pretty big dogs over most ranges of hands that the raisers will hold.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
5/5 pot limit hold'em. I have $450. i'm in the big blind with QJo. 5 limpers see the flop: QQ7. Small blind checks, I check, checked around to aggressive player who LOVES to steal pots. He's on the button and bets the pot $25. I'm the only one who calls. Turn is a 2. I check, looking to check-raise. He checks. River's an Ace. I bet the pot $75. He raises $200. I shove in. he reluctantly calls, saying "i let your ace-queen get there". he turns over 77. i go home now. am i the only one here that would have gone broke on the hand? or did i play it ok despite the result?
there are monsters under my mattress!!
Would you have gone broke with only 1 q on board? What could you really beat unless the other guy is an idiot or someone likely to be playing a q-rag?
Sounds like you got outplayed. It happens.
Why go all in here? What do you expect him to call you with here? I like the bet on the river, but even calling his raise is questionable (much less reraising) as the worst hand I could imagine him having here is the same as yours, and most likely he has you beat.
My play on the river here would be to bet and fold to a raise, or check and call.
x
Ok, this one has been bugging me for a few weeks now, so I thought I'd post it on here and see what kind of reactions it got:
Local Pot limit game, Blinds 5/5, I have about $1500 in front of me (one of the biggest stacks on the table), 9-handed.
3 or 4 players fold to a limper of unknown playing ability (about $700 stack), another player folds, and I raise the pot, holding AK of Clubs. All fold to one of the blinds (pretty good player with approx. $500 stack), who raises the pot. The limper now cold calls the double-raised pot.
Is folding here terribly chicken? I was afraid of the little blind AND the limper each having a pair, so that even if I hit my Ace or King, I could be way behind to an unknown set in either hand. Also there are other "death flops", like those with an A or K with another high card AND one club. Now I could be up against a set and a straight draw, and have to consider calling a pot-sized bet on the flop. Really thought I could find a better spot than this.
Interested in all opinions. Will post actual results in a couple of days.
It depends on the players in the game.
If you are playing against good tricky aggressive players a reraise is in order, and you'll have to be willing to fold if it gets reraised again, but with any reasonable set of players, you need to lay down here. You said your stack is one of the biggest but with this hand, stack size is crucial. If your opponents have only a few hundred in front of them, you fold. You raised the pot $20, BB calls $20 raises $60 and limper cold calls. You have to call $60 with $180 in the pot.
Making a straight or flush with AK is too unlikely to be worth calling the re-raised pot here, and facing AA or KK may kill you especially if these players are not the types to risk their whole stack preflop with weaker hands (which is basically what they're doing by getting themselves pot-stuck preflop if their stacks are under $300 or $400).
With bigger stacks a lot of people might call but if you can see a flop for 5 or 20(especially AS THE RAISER) that's a LOT better implied odds than $60 more, especially now that you're holding a potential trap hand.
You are DEFINITELY a dog to one of these guys and may have your outs seriously diminished by another AK out there. What happens if you call the flop come AQ or AJ or even AT? What if you flop two clubs and these two overpairs make you pay your whole stack to hunt for another club?
And if one of them actually has AA or KK (which the betting might be indicating) you are very close to dead.
Just drop the hand. Folding AK in PL and NL is an easy skill to learn but few people learn it well.
However, I will point out that since you have position and a monster stack, there are good reasons for calling IF you believe you can get away from being trapped. If you flop a K or A and get married to it for your whole stack, you may want to just avoid this situation entirely.
Lastly, you have to know your players. For instance, if the BB is prone to assuming you'll raise limpers on a steal, he might be on a resteal or even betting a hand like AQ for semi-bluff steal value himself. The cold-caller is your real problem and unfortunately may be giving the reraiser a lot of protection just by calling.
However, if you know these players are capable of tricky aggressive moves and might bet like this if they suspect you are stealing, you may want to pop it again to see if you can take it down right there. ONLY because your stack is so big you won't be pot stuck and if someone comes over the top AGAIN you can easily lay down.
natedogg
Tough spot, and it really, really depends upon the players.
You sound like you don't put either of them on AA or KK, for whatever reason. Let's pretend that is a sure thing.
Well, if you can get all the money in now, you will win something like 40% of the time if against 2 underpairs, or 1 underpair and one Ax (where x is Q or less). This being the case, you make a pretty nice +EV by getting it all in preflop.
What if you just call preflop? The pot will be $260, and the players will have about $415 and $615 left, respectively. The question here is how much money can you get out of them if you flop top pair, and they don't trip up? Or, if you flop a flush, and they trip up or not? You will flop top pair or a flush about 1/3 of the time, so your money going in preflop is pretty close to EV neutral in that respect. However, if they both fold to your bet whenever you flop top pair and they don't improve, you don't win much. And, if you always fold when you don't flop top pair, you again don't win (or lose) much. The key to the profit or loss of playing this hand with a call preflop is the expectation of your postflop play, and that depends entirely upon your opponents.
Of course, if we have to give both opponents a reasonable chance of holding AA or KK, then calling and reraising can both be troublesome. Given the play so far, I simply cannot give the limper credit for AA or KK. His initial limp is in line with these hands, but if he is just calling the reraise, how can he have AA? He might, you never know, but he'd have to be a poor player. I guess he could have KK and he is now waiting to see what the flop brings, as he now figures an A on the flop is sure death. However, that would still be the sign of a weak player, IMO.
You just can't put AA or KK beyond the reach of the blind. If he had either hand, wouldn't he play them this way? He certainly could, even if he didn't do it everytime. Maybe the play here is to raise him like $120. This may get him to fold hands like JJ or TT or even AK, while with AA he certainly would take advantage of your raise to get it all-in (and you can fold). Of course, your raise being the third raise, he might just call with KK (and QQ even), so you can't necessarily assume he's off those hands. Also, if the limper is waiting in the weeds with AA, he will likely come out now, as the pot is getting so big.
Overall, I think I like this play the best, unless the opponent is so tricky that you can't put a reliable read on him, based upon his response to your second raise.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Was hoping for more responses, but appreciate the two that came.
I did in fact fold here, and sadly, the flop was something like 752 with two clubs, and my flush would have come on the turn, with another small club; the limper folded after calling a pot-sized bet on the flop, when another pot-size bet came at him on the turn. I congratulated the small blind on managing to get me out and told him (and the rest of the table) what I had, which got many raised eyebrows around the table. As this was my last hand of the night, and the small blind was someone whose game I respected, I talked with him at some length as I was picking up. He told me (assuming he can be believed) that he had a big pair, and was kind of unsure what the limper had. He agreed that I was in a tough spot, and thought that my action was probably best, although he admitted that any action in my spot would leave one wondering.
I know that at this form of the game, the answer almost always has to come with the caveat: "It depends." However, it was nice to see that this one was not at all clear-cut. It certainly bothered me at the time.
If I decided to pass with big slick suited in this situation, I certainly wouldn't advertise this to the table. All you accomplish is inviting your opponents to take shots at you in the future. Nobody really needs to know how tightly you play or how much thinking you put into a potential call or fold. Whether you call or not before the flop really is very situational on your read of your opponent.
Bruce
In attempting to explain why it usually is easy to determine the correct size of your bets in no-limit games, Mason wrote the following:
"[I]n most cases all you need to do is bet a little more than what would be correct for certain classes of hands to call. For instance, suppose there are two flush cards on board, it is fourth street, and you hold a good hand. Just bet a little more than what would be required for your opponent to get 4-to-1 on his call. Now if he calls you he has made a mistake. It's not that hard."[1]
So far, neither David or Ray have attempted to defend this statement. I'm wondering if anyone on this forum would like to embrace it.
Or can you explain what sort of errors Mason might have made?
-------------------------
[1] Mason Malmuth, "Re: Amazing Hand by John Cernuto", 5 January 2001, 2:42 p.m. in the GENERAL THEORY forum under his own 5 January 2001 thread entitled "Amazing Hand by John Cernuto."
"So far, neither David or Ray have attempted to defend this statement."
Why should they, I think itīs absolutely clear what Mason is talking about. You probably know that the odds of making a flush (when youīve got a four-flush) on turn are 4.22-to-1. Now if your bet gives an opponent say 3-to-1 to call, and that opponent has a four-flush, then he shouldnīt do so because itīs a negative EV play. Where is the problem with that?
greg,
You might want to read David and Mason's responses, below. If you still don't understand the problem, please let me know.
You mean that giving an opponent 4-to-1 when his chance of hitting the hand is 4.22-to-1 is too small a bet due to implied odds? Thatīs why I wrote 3-to-1 in my initial response, but I think Mason was just trying to tell us the principle anyway, not what the exact numbers should be. But for the sake of perfection you could call it a mistake.
greg,
You wrote: "You mean that giving an opponent 4-to-1 when his chance of hitting the hand is 4.22-to-1 is too small a bet due to implied odds?"
Your numbers might be a little off for the given situation, but you seem to understand the basic flaw. Mason neglected to take into account his opponent's implied odds when he calculated his bet size. Several of us on the GENERAL THEORY forum also mentioned this particular error.
You wrote: "Thatīs why I wrote 3-to-1 in my initial response . . ."
Your response, however, didn't seem to take into account your opponent's "chasing" tendencies. For certain opponents, a bet that offers 2-to-1 odds might give you a higher expectation that your 3-to-1 odds or Mason's nearly 4-to-1 odds.
Nor did your response (or Mason's) take into account the hand-reading problem that "target" mentions in the post below.
How does he have implied odds if Mason is going to fold if the flush comes? I think you make an error and many players make a similar error when they call as a pot-odds dog and think "he'll pay me off when I hit."
Michael,
You asked: "How does he have implied odds if Mason is going to fold if the flush comes?"
Perhaps this question is best answered with another question. Do you think Mason should fold every time a flush card comes on the river?
No, but in the passage you quoted, he said "... put your opponent on a flush draw..." I'll bet he folds every time on the river when he puts his opponent on a flush and can't beat a flush.
Micheal,
I asked: "Do you think Mason should fold every time a flush card comes on the river?"
You responded: "No, but in the passage you quoted, he said '... put your opponent on a flush draw...'"
Not in the passage I quoted, he didn't.[1] He did "suppose there are two flush cards on board." The difference might seem subtle to you, but it is important and worth your effort to ponder.
You also wrote: "I'll bet [Mason] folds every time on the river when he puts his opponent on a flush and can't beat a flush."
If, by "puts his opponent on" you mean "is 100 percent certain his opponent is on," then you are correct that Mason doesn't have to worry about implied odds. More generally, if you always knew for certain when you were beat, then you never would have to worry about your opponents' implied odds on the turn.
But if Mason indeed did make this grossly simplifying assumption, then he runs into the same problem I mentioned in my reply to "target." Namely, it could destroy his main point.
Mason was claiming that one reason no-limit poker is simpler than limit is because, "in most cases all you need to do is bet a little more than what would be correct for certain classes of hands to call. . . . It's not that hard."
If it's not that hard, though, why would Mason need to make the simplifying assumption you mentioned?
-------------------
[1] Mason wrote: "[I]n most cases all you need to do is bet a little more than what would be correct for certain classes of hands to call. For instance, suppose there are two flush cards on board, it is fourth street, and you hold a good hand. Just bet a little more than what would be required for your opponent to get 4-to-1 on his call. Now if he calls you he has made a mistake. It's not that hard."
The optimum bet is always more than that which is proper to call. However depending on the opponnents chances of calling various size bets, it may be quite a bit more rather than slightly more.
As usual Mark Glover is right and I love the footnote. For sake of argument to stress a particular point I simplified the situation slightly.
Now Mark, when are you going to get to McEvoy's limit hold 'em book.
Mason,
I think you'll find that admitting your mistake actually will help your credibility. In any case, my Pappy would approve. Well done!
Mark,
I think you'll find, if you read the posts on the "General Theory" section, that I never agreed with this statement as made. I understood what his point was, though.
You are truly the defender of precision.
The next thing I publish, I will certainly send you for your dissection.
David,
Yes, the "optimal" versus "exploitative" problem is one flaw in Mason's statement. Can you find any others?
I have a proposal for you, Mark. Why don't you write an essay as to the correct thinking that is involved in this decision? You can explain how exploitive is better than optimal. (By the way, I understand your point without further clarification).
I can't wait to read it.
Frustrating thread...what's the frickin reason why Mason was not correct? Have a nice day.
mason was not correct because a bad player will make the call. the trick is to figure out how bad he is and then bet that amount. You want Bad Player to make as big a mistake as possible. If you only bet slightly more than what would be correct for your opponent to call, then Bad Player is only making a small mistake when he calls. On the other hand, if you bet too much Bad Player will not call and thus it is your bad play that forced Bad Player to make the correct play, which is fold.
David identified the "optimal" vs. "exploitative" flaw in Mason's statement (after several posters on the GENERAL THEORY forum already had done so). Boris then explained it nicely on this forum.
Mason's statement contains at least three other conceptual errors. Any idea what they might be?
Hm. I note that Mason is assuming that you know the other person is on a flush draw. If there's a draw on the board and you have a big hand, you can potentially bet to signify that you are on a draw yourself and are looking to trap a smaller hand.
There's also the chance that you don't have the best hand. If you have a good but non-nut hand (top two or baby set or something), then you also need to fear being trapped.
If you're looking to trap someone, you might also bet small hoping for a raise so that you can reraise or jam for maximal profit.
One note, Mark, is that it's hard to figure out the conceptual errors without knowing what information is assumed to be true. If we can assume that we know the other person is on a flush draw, and that they will win if they hit it, then this problem is a lot simpler. This seems to be the assumption that Mason is making.
If, though, you are questioning or disallowing that premise, then his statement is so vague as to be fairly useless.
- target
target,
You wrote: "I note that Mason is assuming that you know the other person is on a flush draw. . . . There's also the chance that you don't have the best hand. If you have a good but non-nut hand (top two or baby set or something), then you also need to fear being trapped."
I group these into what I call Mason's "hand-reading" error. I don't think anyone mentioned it on the GENERAL THEORY forum, so double kudos for you!
To help illustrate this flaw, imagine you hold QsJh and the board shows QhJc6s/2c. Your chances of winning this hand could differ depending on whether your opponent holds Ac8c, AcKc, KcTc, AcQc, Qc6c, or 6h6d. Rarely can you put your opponents on two exact cards. Usually, you can only put them on a range of hands.
-----------------
You wrote: "If there's a draw on the board and you have a big hand, you can potentially bet to signify that you are on a draw yourself and are looking to trap a smaller hand. . . . If you're looking to trap someone, you might also bet small hoping for a raise so that you can reraise or jam for maximal profit."
While this is a good point (and well worth mentioning), I didn't count this among Mason's four errors.
I gave Mason the benefit of the doubt on this one. I considered "trapping" hands to be "very good" hands. I also assumed that when Mason mentioned having a "good" hand, he meant having only a "good" hand and not a "very good" hand. But, I could be wrong here.
----------------------
You wrote: "If we can assume that we know the other person is on a flush draw, and that they will win if they hit it, then this problem is a lot simpler. This seems to be the assumption that Mason is making."
Perhaps Mason did make those assumptions. If so, this could blow his main point out of the water.
He claimed one reason why no-limit poker is simpler than limit is because, "in most cases all you need to do is bet a little more than what would be correct for certain classes of hands to call. . . . It's not that hard."
If it's not that hard, why would Mason need to make the simplifying assumptions you mentioned?
---------------------------
You wrote: "If, though, you are questioning or disallowing that premise, then his statement is so vague as to be fairly useless."
I never said his statement was very useful. ;-)
G. Ed,
You wrote: "By the way, I understand your point without further clarification"
Then my work here is done. ;-)
Or is it? You often claim to see things that, when pressed, you seem to have difficulty explaining. I understand that you might have trouble articulating certain ideas, but practice makes perfect.
Do you think you briefly could explain what you understand my point to be?
You must think I'm an idiot.
G. Ed,
You wrote: "You must think I'm an idiot."
You do understand my point! ;-)
I also notice that you manage to respond to every single part of my posts except the part that suggests we play cards. I wonder if there is a reason for this? Being the man who likes to apply his theories, this shouldn't be objectionable.
When was the last time you looked up the word 'articulate'? Does anybody see how this might not apply on a written forum?
I understood your point, though.
Pot Limit Omaha Home Game with an interesting structure; no blinds, antes of $1 each, meaning it can be checked around pre-flop. I'm in the dealer seat with 7-10-9-rag with the 7 and 10 being diamonds. $3 bet before the flop which I call. I know everyone is going to say throw this away, but this is not the point of the post; this game is wild, and I just consider Omaha to be a $4 ante game most of the time in this game. Preflop bets are not respected in this game at all. Flop comes K-6-8, two clubs. I bet $5 with my open ender, 2 callers, and a $10 raise from the cut-off. Everyone calls. Turn is the 10 of hearts, giving me the nut straight and putting 2 hearts as well as 2 spades on the board. I bet $20, folder, middle position player makes it $40, cut-off thinks hard and calls $40 cold. I reraise $28, putting the middle position player all in (he had $8 left) and the cut-off calls. At this point I have $90 left, other active player has well over $130. River comes a dreaded club and he promptly bets $50. I agonize over this a long time, but with the size of the pot and the possibility he was on hearts, I make the crying call. He shows me the rivered flush; just a bad beat or could I have done something else? Should I have called at the end?
Whether you should have called on the end or not is impossible for me to say. It depends upon the bettor, entirely.
However, besides the preflop call, the big mistake I see is your tiny bet and raise on the turn. There was something like $80 in the pot on the turn, and you only bet $20. Then, when raised $40, you reraised only $28. You have the nuts. Unless you know this guy is on a flush draw, and you know you can safely fold the river when the flush hits, there is no point in not getting all the money in now while you're ahead.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I see your point about raising more on the turn, but I considered a number of factors. When raised on the turn, I knew the raiser had the same straight and we would be chopping if it held up. There was also a chance I was getting freerolled with a flush draw by him or, at best, a draw to a higher straight if a card like a jack came. The cold-caller definitely had a flush draw with a chance of him having a draw both ways. I think no matter what I raised on the turn he would have called (he had already put in a lot of money, he had a bigger stack, and we were about even money if he had the double draw), and that we were about even money going into the river.
Jeff
Yes, you could have been facing a freeroll. However, if you're going to call anyway when the scare card hits the river, then get it all in on the turn anyway. As it was played, you pay the freeroll when it hits, you pay the draws when they hit, but you don't collect from the draws when they miss. If you get it all on the turn, you at least collect from the draws when they miss.
Of course, the real answer is to play a better hand preflop, and thereby you'll find yourself in a tough spot like this much less often.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Perfect example of how playing crappy card pre-flop can waste you. Crappy cards aren't so bad because they cost you a small amount of money to play and then don't hold up. They cost you money because they make crappy hands.
Anyway, you don't say how many people are playing, which makes a difference. You don't say who the pre-flop raise came from (if its the cut-off seat, look for a AJQ in his hand, with suits). You don't say what the club on the river is. You made an even worse call if it was a J, Q or A. You also say 2 hearts and 2 spades on the turn. It's hard to analyze if you're going to write the hand up so poorly.
Anyway, I probably check-fold the flop, but not if there are 2 diamonds out there. I might bet the pot on the turn, but its possible you are getting free-rolled or are up against a hand that has both flush draws and big straight draws, or flush draws and house draws, who is not going to fold.
You have the nuts on the turn, but there are two flush draws out there, and draws to bigger straights. It's possible the cutoff seat had a 24-outer against you if he had the right cards (any club (9), any heart (9), any AQJ (6 more uncounted cards). 26 outer if you add in the 9d9s). You can't always be scared of that, but you don't have a hand that likes being re-raised on the turn.
With two guys in there, you very well might bad a big dog with small nuts on the turn. Worse case scenario, you might NEED an offsuit 2,3,4,5 in order to win. That's only 8 cards in the deck. ALL other cards make it so you don't have the nuts. This happens a lot in Omaha, but is much easier to deal with in limit.
Calling that river bet depends entirely on your read of the player. I don't like it though. Was it really a bad beat or did he also have the str8 or good enough cards so that he was odds on favorite on the turn to catch you?
Believe me on this: you're going to have a lot more fun and success playing pot limit if the hands you get involved in are hands where you have the lead and the best redraws, not the other way around. You will get hands that are easier to make money on than this one.
First of all, don't get caught up in pot limit omaha games with trash hands like this if you like money.
Second of all, you had an open ender (wrap actually) with a 2 flush on board. You said the game was wild. Then why on earth did you bet it? Did you expect anyone to fold? Plus, that straight was your only out. I would not bet this unless I thought there were some chance I could win the pot right there.
Think about it - a wrap with a 2 flush on board, like yours, was a 9 outter - no better than a flush draw. In fact, much WEAKER than a flush draw because it is much easier for someone to draw out on you than if you had a flush. They can make a flush or full house.
As for the crying call on the river. You can't ask us to tell you whether to call or not because it all depends on your opponent. Some players never bluff on the river. Fold. Maybe he is a maniac. Call.
You must consider this - you bet, another guy called raised, and that guy called. What was he calling with?
Now, also keep in mind that on the river, one player is all in. If he is bluffing, he still has to manage to beat the all in player - who raised on the turn, if you remember. He can't blow ALL of you out of the pot. And he has to worry that one or both of you might have flushes.
I wouldn't play this hand to start, and I wouldn't call the river bet.
-SmoothB-
On the turn the board was K 10 8 6, two hearts, two spades. Even though you had the nuts at that point, think how many cards you would hate to see on the river - any 9, Q, J, A, any other heart or spade, any pair on board. Lets say there are a couple of hearts and spades in the hands of opponents. That leaves something like 18 flush cards, 7 or so additional straight cards, plus the pair cards, that leave you with a hand that is far from the nuts. So it is hardly a bad beat if one of them gets there since better than half the deck probably beats you. I don't like Greg's thought of a bigger bet on the turn. At most I'd check and call (and pray) but check/fold is not too bad an option. And like others said, playing these kinds of hands in the first place is the best recipe for getting broke.
I didn't say a big bet on the turn was the best play.
I said that if you're going to call on the river anyway (even after the scare card hits), THEN you might as well get it all in on the turn.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
don't worry, Greg, I was not implying you'd be playing that hand that way. And I agree that if you are going to call the river no matter what comes you might as well get it in. Of course calling no matter what comes is not a very good idea in pot limit.
As part of this hand and then one betting pre-flop. I was down to my last few chips and the night was comming to end. I had AK in the hole and 89 all rainbow. I threw out a bet bc I figured what the hell and I knew everybody would call beacuse everybody always calls and they knew I was on tilt at the time. I also had only 9 chip remaining after the preflop bet. Jeff was the last caller after everybody calls. I floped my kings up two pair and bet 5. everybody calls Jeff thinks about it and makes a call. the next card gives him the nuts he bets $20 and I put my last 4 chips in hopping the river brings an K, 8, or 9 to fill me up so I can cash out wit some respect. The person who called the $40 in Norortious for being unable to lie down any 4 flush no matter how big the bet. We knew thats all he had. The thing to rember is if there is any chance preflop in this game u don't fold
§
Some random musings here, I apologise if it rambles on or fails to be interesting. This is crossposted to rgp.
I am currently a good middle limit (20-40 and 30-60) player in the SF bay area. I'm beating both games for between two and three small bets per hour after several hundred hours of record keeping. I'm interested in learning no limit play.
I'm interested in NL for a couple of reasons. First, I have some vague WSOP dreams in the back of my head, and there just don't seem to be that many NL tournaments around to practise in. So cash games seem like the best approach. Second, NL is big fun. It's really entertaining to watch someone get outplayed for their entire stack, and especially fun to do it.
The problem is that I'm not very good. I've only played a half dozen times or so. I've cashed out a winner about half the time in my tiny sample size, but two of the three times were very small wins. My losses are all fairly substantial. This is all in the 2-3-5, 10 to go game that Natedogg posts about from time to time.
Winning half the time is fine, except that I don't feel like I'm winning due to a big skill advantage. In the limit games, I quickly get reads on players, feel like I'm in control of my game, know which players to bluff and which to value bet at, and so on. I feel like I know what I'm doing. In the NL game, I feel slightly lost. I don't really know when to value bet AK after the flop, or when to lay it down. I have trouble putting people on specific enough hands. I *know* I get bluffed out of pots, but I also sometimes call down a winner which gets quite expensive.
In summary, I don't feel confident in my NL abilities. Mostly it's people reading, but some of it is mechanics. I know the value of a starting hand, but I still don't have a good feel for how much to bet in which situations. It feels extremely player-dependant to me.
I've read the three NL books, and feel like I understand them fairly well.
So the question is, how do I go about getting better? If possible, I'd like to do it without dumping too much money on the games around here. These $1000 losses are hard on the bankroll after more than a few of them.
Thanks, target
Tough spot. You've read the books. You're a winning limit player. You don't seem to have problems "reading" your opponents at limit play, so it's not just a lack of that skill.
I guess the first thing is to play in every NL HE tourney you can, assuming these are cheaper than the cash games, even if there aren't that many. Next, bring a pad of paper, and write down the tough hands you played, with as much detail as possible, and post it here. Include what you were thinking at each point in the hand. That way, even if we can't tell you what the right play is, we can at least tell you if we believe you're thinking about the right things as you make your decisions. Since poker in general, and NL in particular, is so dependent upon your opponents, a person who wasn't there can almost never be sure they're right about the best play. But, we can be sure what were the major things you should have been considering when you made your decision.
Try to find a lower limit NL game?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I would suggest that NL tourneys are NOT a good way to learn the big bet game, nor are they all that helpful in learning important people-reading skills. The reason for this is that such a large portion of your stack is usually committed before the flop. That means that most of the major decisions are made on the flop, where you don't have that much information.
Try to play in some small-blind/deep money pot limit games, and you will really be tested. Firing that 2nd pot-sized bet on the turn into 2 callers with only a pair. Check-calling with JJ for all your chips when a King rivers to pick off a busted flush draw. That's poker and those reading skills and tough decisions will help you in all other forms.
These $1000 losses are hard on the bankroll after more than a few of them.
These $1000 losses are hard on the bankroll after more than a few of them.
Maybe you need to start out slower. It's certainly easy to lose $1000 on a 2, 3, 5 game, but maybe you are underestimating how much you have to learn. Position, for example, is going to be completely (entirely, totally) different from what you are used to. Until you can book big wins, make a minimum buy in, and see how tight and agressive it is possible to be. See how long you can last. No plays. They can come later. If you can develop a simple strategy that will keep your nose, if not your entire head, above water, you can use it to finance your NL studies. How long are your sessions? You probably have only to play an hour to collect enough situations for a couple day's thought...
Something to think about, certainly. I do also have a $1000 win, so it's not all bad.
I will consider playing short bits at a time -- that seems like it might be a good idea. Last night I only played 20 minutes, but that was due to surprising outside factors.
I did cash out a winner, though, but mostly because I found KK at one point.
- target
I began playing big bet poker about 4 months ago, although I play only pot limit. You need to approach the game differently and have to begin thinking and analyzing situations like a no-limit player. Each time you enter a pot your entire stack of chips is in jeopardy. Position is much more important in big bet poker. I would avoid playing drawing hands and small pocket pairs in early position. Play tight until you become more comfortable with your playing abilities. You should be retrospectively analyzing each hand you play. Bluffing and semi-bluffing are much more important in big bet poker. Numerous opportunities present themselves in the course of a session. If you are not taking advantage of them you need to reapproach things. If you are afraid to put your entire stack of chips in when you don't have the nuts or when trying to buy the pot you definetely need to reexamine things.
Bruce
I know who you are playing with. And I know about the small tournies that were mentioned. While I must admit that I don't play in the NL game you have lately been venturing into, most of these players are not that good. They tend to gamble too much which you've probably seen. Think about these players carefully. While they may be slight winners in the limit games around here I suspect they are more likely losers and they in no way could handle a tough game by the standards spoken here on 2+2. I think spending some serious time in colma studying the NL game there could help. But that gets very "live" too. I do however have a couple of people for you to watch and maybe talk to but won't mention them here, shoot me an e-mail I'll talk to ya after work this week(off friday).
From what I've seen tho I think a winning limit player will do better in the long haul around here. There are just too many good games. And it's pretty easy to see some of these NL players really "gambooling" which could hurt your stack dramatically. Occasionally they even start "bet blind, raise blind" playing and pretty quick theres 10K in the pot.
Good luck man.
Nice to finally meet you!
How to get better? Here's how I did, and do. Figure out who the winning players are and when you see them do something that you wouldn't do, figure out why.
On position. As soon as ONE player enters the pot in front of you, and you now have position. Not necessarily LAST position, which is of course way better than anywhere else. But you have position on at least one player.
When you are the opener, you have no position.
Example, it's better to call with 5-6 than to open with AK. Sound strange? It is. It goes against everything we know about winning at limit. At no-limit, when you're out of position in a heads up pot, the cards are essential. When last to bet, the cards become nearly irrelevant.
Let's take AK vs 5-6 with a flop of J-8-2. It the AK is first to bet and bets, the pot belongs to the 5-6. Free money. You don't even have to raise. Calling is a good play if you sense any fear at all from him. When he checks the turn, bet and take it.
When the 5-6 is first to act, he can either check and fold, or bet and then be in the same awkward spot as the AK was, except without even one overcard to hit.
My mind races, full of scenarios experienced and imagined. In general, if I'm playing a heads-up, limped-in pot against a typical player with a typical opening hand, I'd rather have 7-2 behind him than AK in front of him. I HAVE position, with options and reads galore, since me opponent has now assumed the position. :-)
Tommy
With all this recent discussion about which game takes more "skill" to beat and which is more "complex".
Happend to watch the 1999 TOC and read the latest CP last night. In the Card Player the was a reprint of A. Glaser's recount of Chiu's demolition of a 7CS final table at the 2000 WSOP. And, of couse, during the 1999 TOC he outplayed everyone and cruised to victory. We should call Mr. Chiu up and ask him which victory took "more skill and complex thinking". Any third grader could have whiped-out that stud table with those cards....if they where in separate rooms. And he clearly was more skillful and thinking on a more complex level than the others at the TOC.
What my question really is........does it take more skill and complex thinking to win at NL with any ramdom cards or does a Limit player waiting on a Pos Ev situation and capitalizing on it rely on these characteristics more often?
One more.....if the goal in poker is to win the most money possible(in the shortest amount of time would be nice too) then wouldn't it be in the more skilled and complex thinking players best interest to destroy a NL game rather than grinding it out in Limit?
TripKings
Let's look up at Isle of Man 1 million pound tournament and at his great winner mr. Duthie who won the title in the final table with almost nothing in hand. At NL is it possible, at limit HE too ?????? The pure essence of poker: winning even without a hand! At limit HE it's very hard to win several hands without a hand. NL HE: A lot of heart, patience, skills, sense of timing, courage. In a word, ladies and gentlemen we present you "THE POKER".
I would agree that David Chiu played a great tournament. He did not out-play everyone. He drew out on Doyle Brunson to eliminate him from the tournament.
You may recall, he drew to 6 cards (Ace or Queen) for a significant amount of money (more than could be justified by the pot size) to win the pot.
Even David, (for whom I have great respect) made an error on this hand. Granted, it was certainly a 'read' error rather than a playing error, but nevertheless, if he loses that pot, Doyle's even with him in chips.
I would be interested in his input into this discussion, but I don't know that it would cover any new ground.
Maybe the top players would be better off playing NL. But, if the NL game is non-existent or relatively small in stakes (let's say, 5-10 blinds), while there is a limit game being played at 400-800, where would you play if you were the best player in the room and had a good bankroll?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Damn I'm tired of this pointless discussion.
natedogg
.......natedogg. But, it has been such a huge topic all over the poker community lately. I was just looking for more insight from people that know way more than I.
TripKings
P.S. Keep up with the NL posts!
what happens you are mean and you cup the flop nice with an all in flopper of the non-white status and raise all in with only a 2nd nut touch?? please help me flop mean
I'd like to nominate this post as "Most Incomprehensible Post in the Hig Limit Forum".
Seconds?
- target
Sounds like this person is a non-english speaker. Si tu hablas espanol te puedo ayudar.
Barry
That's fine, as long has he leaves his nut cup out of it.
- target
heh heh
This means that if you go all in and flop a King high spade flush you should not touch the guys nuts who flopped the Ace high flush or they will kick you out of the casino.(even if he is wearing a cup)
You raise a good supposition. In all irony, this could depend on on a number of completely unrelinquished cup measures. First, you need to be sure that if your opponent has the nuts, you do not get double nutted, as this will put you in a most unenviable position. Second, if he instead has has the upper edge covered, then raise with a hefty all in maneuver, lest he overtake your testicular overage on the next street. Finally, do not show your cup floppage after whole, bile laden incident is over, so as to avoid the inuendo and whispers of "nice" which would surely detract from your meanness.
.
This is how I would play this hand. Yell Aieeeehyaa! Calculate your reverse implied odds. Estimate the chances of your opponent holding Presto. Multiply this times your pot odds add one big bet per hour. Ask the cocktail waitress for her phone number. Write it down inside your copy of HFAP. Throw your cards at the dealer. Yell AK no goot. Order a beer.
This approach always works for me, except the waitress never gives me her phone number.
This game has three blinds, 2 on the button, 3 small, 5 big, 10 to open.
I'm in the small blind with TT. A loose, VERY VERY drunk player opens for 40 from mid position. He cracked KK with A4 and he cracked another KK with two babies. He is sloppy drunk and has been misreading the board on some hands.
All fold to me and I decide to call and see what happens on the flop.
The flop comes 338. Well I figure I'm ok here. The drunk bets 90 and I checkraise 110 more.
Now he casually throws in 3 $100 chips, raising me 190 more. This is the first time he's reraised all night. I decide to lay down. I've now put him on a big pair and don't want to go broke with TT. The important part here is that I've observed several hands where this guy got raised and every time he was weak, he would pause, look agonized, and either call or fold. This time he raised so I figured he had AA or KK if not A3.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot the most important part: stack sizes. I had about 1000 in front of me and he had me EASILY covered 2 or 3 times. It was one of those painful scenes where the drunk idiot kept getting his money in as a huge dog and winning on the river. Everyone at the table was shellshocked by this guy. However, it also inspired a lot of people to go to war with him when they shouldn't have. They forgot that a fool can make a hand even if he's a fool. The drunk took a LOT of money from people who were playing over-aggressive poker. I didn't want to be one of those people. I figured why go to war without solid footing when I can just wait and he'll present me with an opportunity when I've got better cards than TT as an overpair to the flop? Of course, my cards were bad all night and I never got the chance but that's another story....
But anyway, the point of this post is that I felt this guy had a big hand even though he's mostly been showing crap. This was due to the fact that he'd never reraised anyone all night and his mannerisms were inconsistent with other hands where he had been weak.
natedogg
I think he made the classic drunk-bluffs-out-weak-tight-player play. He know YOU don't have 3, but he knows that you don't know he doesn't have 3. If he really had a 3, why wouldn't he let you lead again with your obvious overpair on the turn since he has position and he is viewed as a calling station? Maybe he was too drunk to reason like that.
In any event, in nlhe, a player who is capable of hitting hitting all kinds of flops can be a dangerous opponent. Especially when the money is deep. It is tough to take alot of post-flop heat with a single pair, no matter how large as most boards begin to look scary.
That is how guys like O'Neal Longson send people busted from the table scratching their heads.
if i have seen the guy raise with a majority of hands worse than TT before the flop i am going to re-raise here . . . IF i have seen him fold to a re-raise before the flop before and IF he raised in a way which seemed like he wanted people to fold. otherwise i will call and bet out after the 338 flop. if he raises me i fold. but that is my table image, i would surely bet out with 3 3's i always bet out and almost never checkraise. people know this and will not re-raise lightly. there is a small chance i will re-raise him if he raises me. he should be afraid of me with a 3 out of the blind and not the other way around.
Recently I lost a NL HE tournament with 10-10 vs a fellow who played like the drunky man named in the post below, but I have seen several times that 10-10 and J-J is a very problematic hand (in NL games and tournaments). Problems: if you are in early position with these hands it's difficult to establish the size of the raise (I don't think a good idea only limping with them, at least in the most cases). If you raise a low-medium amount, when the flop shows an overcard (or 2) we are in trouble. If we shove a huge raise is it possible to fall in confrontations with higher pocket pair (not frequent but hurts very much when it happens) and if we bet all-in we fall in a aut-aut situation: or we took only the blinds either we are called by higher hands. In a word, what's the best approach to play these pocket hands? I read many recounts concerning hands played all-in by very strong players (WSOP final tables, etc) but in my last 4 months observations the only thing I could note is that pocket tens (and Jacks) are losing hands. Can you give me some suggestion?
Thanks, Marco
My advice is this: In a no-limit game where you could get high implied odds later on in the hand, playing 10-10 and J-J up front probably play about the same as 2-2 through 9-9. What I mean is, you are going to get most of your value out of them when you flop trips. So what I would do is try to limp in with them. If you get raised a small-medium amount you can call for value since they are mid-big pairs. However I wouldnt call a large raise. Then if I didnt flop trips I would usually check and fold them if there were over cards, but bet the size of the pot or more if there where no overcards.
Everybodys got an opinion and thats mine,
Bishop
Thanks of your opinion Bishop. I think you wrere pretty good saying it's better to play 10-10 in that way. In new NL hold'em games I saw too many times an Ace-9 off or an Ace with worse kicker calling a all-in raise and catching an aace on the board so I'll take your suggestion and I will try to consider that hand almost like a drawing hand (and hoping to realize a set on the flop).
Marco
I'm a bit leary of bishop's advice, if you have J's you have a very good hand and the only hands you fear are Q's J's K's or A's. I have not played much nl but i think to limp and give a cheap flop to lower pocket pairs suited connectors and over cards has got to be a mistake.
I do see some truth in what you are saying. Obviously if you are in mid-late position and nobody has entered the pot you should raise, you should also raise if there is one limper in and you want to isolate them. But his question was about playing 10-10 and J-J up front. And my opinion is, in no-limit you need a much stronger hand to raise with up front. I think by limping in you will lose less in the long run when you dont flop trips and there are overcards. This is because you dont have a pre-flop raise in the pot that might make you feel committed to go to the showdown.
As for letting weaker hands like smaller pairs or overcards in cheap. Even if you raise it still might be correct for them to call because they could be getting tremendous implied odds if they hit their hand on the flop and you cant get away from yours.
The bottom line is, these are hands where you will either win a small pot or lose a large pot and I wouldnt recommend investing a lot of money on that type of hand, especially when you are up front and you are going have bad position for the rest of the hand
Bishop
"The bottom line is, these are hands where you will either win a small pot or lose a large pot and I wouldnt recommend investing a lot of money on that type of hand, especially when you are up front and you are going have bad position for the rest of the hand "
I disagree with this. I think your earlier response was right on. I consider JJ to be the same hand as 99 or even 88 when playing no limit. It is almost 50/50 on getting overcards in any flop. In that situation you DON'T want to be out of position. Without a set, you've lost the pot if any decent player is in there with you.
If you play JJ properly, then the above quote is exactly opposite the truth. You will either win a BIG pot or lose a small pot because you treat JJ like any other middle pair. Flop a set or you're done with it. This is when playing put front. From the back you can do other things with it but not a lot when there are overcards.
JJ is actually THE premier trap hand in my experience, and that goes both ways. You can get trapped badly and you can lay a huge trap with them. I almost never play JJ aggressively preflop. If no overcards come, you can still get trapped by a bigger pair that didn't play aggressively either. This happens WAY too often to feel comfortable about a baby flop with JJ. In addition, even if you catch your dream flop of 259, you don't have much of a chance for the river to come without at least one overcard, and then you're back to not knowing what to do. If you're up front, you're screwed.
Also, good players know that if you can see a flop for a reasonable price, they might be facing a mid-size set with their giant overpair. So they proceed with caution but if they get a flop like KJ2 with AK, they are going for broke. Now you have them because you didn't play aggressively preflop, you played like you had 99 or something. The reason this works is that almost EVERYBODY plays JJ aggressively preflop and I think it's a big mistake. You can trap players with your set of JJ because they just don't put you on a "monster pair" preflop. I don't consider JJ a monster pair.
natedogg
Natedogg I agree with what you said. I knew that statement was wrong shortly after I posted it. It was one of those situations where I knew what I was talking about but I just didnt say it correctly. I was trying to remember and put in my own words what Brunson said in S/S without actually going back and looking in the book, that way I technically wasnt plagiarising it. What I was trying to say was this, (and its paraphrased about mid pairs against over cards or higher pairs from p.479 in S/S). "If you're up against AA or KK with a pair of QQ your about a 4 1/2 to 1 underdog (I guess those odds apply to JJ also) and if you're up against AK you're only a 6 to 5 favorite. So in these situations you are either a big underdog or just a small favorite, and you can pick a better spot to get all your money in.
In my future posts I will be very happy to have your good answers.
By the way, I lost another tournament with chips lead with these damned pocket tens..... :_)
Marco
JJ is and excellent hand, only 18 out of 1325 hands are better. That means you'll have to wait for 2 hours on average before you get another hand of equal or better value.
JJ is a tough hand to play. First of all, the most important thing is the chip situation. I like to think about these things in terms of tempo. If you have the chips to make one pot sized raise (or post flop bet), that's one tempo. If you have the money to make one raise and one pot sized bet after the flop, that's two tempos.
If you're in the big blind for instance and you have one tempo, then any reasonable hand is worth an all-in raise. For instance the earlier tonight (5-10 blind no limit), I had AJ offsuit and raised five limpers (four cold limpers and the little blind) $60 and won the pot doubling my stack. An hour later, I raised $50 all-in on 8-8 in the little blind and got called by an A-Q who hit an A and a Q and broke me.
These plays serve two purposes. First, I am known as a tough player and these plays are good for the image. I play with the same guys (often this is true in casinos as well), and image is important. So, any good hand is worth a raise in a one tempo situation.
Later on I had two tens in the big blind with about $450 (2 1/2 to 3 tempos) and didn't raise. Hands like this are much tougher to play from in front and I like to use Bishop's advice here. A jack came on the flop and everyone checked. Another jack came on fourth street. I bet forty dollars into a $65 pot and got a call from the button. This particular player wouldn't let top pair go on the flop, so I bet again ($60) on the river when a blank hit. This probably wasn't the best play. As it turned out, the button had a flush draw (claim this verbally anyway) and released. A weak check might have been better here.
Still later, I had another pair of tens one spot off the button with about $1200. Now, I don't agree with Natedogg. It's nice to think about hitting a set and trapping someone with AK or something who hits top pair at the same time. The problem is that you're only going to hit one set every five hours and that's only if you play every pair. Only a small percentage of the time will have someone trapped with a big hand when you do hit a set. Another point is that even if I hit a 10 and someone makes (for example) ks or qs with an ace kicker, it is going to be difficult to beat this player out of more than two tempos in an unraised flop (even if you're behind him). A pre-flop raise gets the pot out of shape quickly.
In this case, I raised about five other players $50 and after the little blind called all but one player came in. Only one other player had a big stack, and the little blind had only about $200. The flop came 7 9 Q with two spades. This is the most problematic situation. If someone bets, I have to release unless it's a special circumstance (a couple of players are inveterate trappers whenever they make a good hand, but will lead on a bluff if they have two big spades). Everyone checked and I had to make a decision.
Now a couple of things are important here. First there are two spades and two players had just the right amount of money to make a big all-in raise with a flush draw. Also, I had the ten of spades. It's a minor point, but the key issue here is this: If you bet and get called by a queen, you're in a hopeless mess. If you check, you may let someone with AJ offsuit catch a stray card to beat you for free. The fact that I had the ten of spades meant that if I chose the checking route, I still had a chance if two spades fell.
The psychology of the moment is also important. At this point, I was ahead about $700 and had shown some good hands. Poker players are like animals. If it's been a while since you beat them, they lose their fear. Try a bluff some night when you're bad loser and they'll fall all over themselves calling you.
The overcard itself is equally important. An ace is the worst one since people routinely play Ax suited in no limit poker and looser players often play Ax off suited. A king is much less dangerous and so on.
Another point is that it is tough for someone to call with Qx suited in this situation since they can't beat any real hand and they can't call any more bets. (Note that players who'll call third or even second tempo bets with top pair no kicker are in big trouble in NL). It's much easier for someone with a 10 J to call. So, sometimes you can bet a dry queen out and get called by a draw hand.
In the end, I checked, a red eight hit on fourth street. Everyone checked again and I bet $150 into a $250 pot. The little blind called with 7 10 of diamonds and a six of spades hit on fourth street and we ended up splitting the pot after he checked again and I bet him all in.
Unfortunately, I didn't have a pair of jacks tonight.
My long analysis was (at least) one point short.
The trapping/sandbagging propensities of the players is also a critical factor in the pair of ten situation described above. On Sunday, I drive up the road an hour or so and play with a completely different set of players (only a couple of rounders play in both games). In this game there is very little trapping and only rare check raising. Anyone with top pair good kicker would lead. We also ante instead of playing with blinds and the combination of the very straight forward play and the fact that the button acts last for all four bets (instead of just the last three) means that position is even more of an advantage.
In last night's game, the players sandbag and trap frequently--more so than in any of the 12-15 no limit or pot limit games in our area.
My final point being that the common tendency to check and trap the pre-flop raiser was another factor in my decision to check the pair of tens with one overcard last night. On Sunday, I probably would have bet.
Since we have had so much fun debating limit versus no limit I thought that I would post the following essay that will appear in my book POKER ESSAYS, VOLUME III. (Note: It first appeared as a column in POKER DIGEST.)
Pot-Limit Players
Every now and then when I'm playing in a middle limit hold 'em game, someone will sit down and announce that they are a "pot limit" player. They usually do this with a bit of sarcasm in their voice, as if to say us limit players are a little inferior since we don't have the courage to make a "big bet" and that we don't stand a chance against them.
I, on the other hand, just love it when one of these announcements is made these people lose virtually every time they are in my game. In fact they usually lose their money quickly, get very mad, and leave in a huff. The fact is that these people generally have no understanding of limit hold 'em and don't stand a chance against even marginal players.
Years ago I wrote several columns as to why limit hold 'em is a strategically more difficult game than no-limit hold 'em. (See my book Poker Essays where these essays appear.) Many of the same comments would also apply when comparing limit hold 'em to its pot-limit cousin. When you cannot bet enough to protect your hand, you must frequently resort to other strategies which can be very tricky to execute correctly, and which very few people have mastered completely.
But that is not the thrust of this essay. Its purpose will be to discuss a couple of errors that these people make which forces them to lose their money very quickly in the limit form.(By the way, it's a shame they can't lose it a little slower. Then they wouldn't get mad and quit so fast, and would probably go through even more of their money.)
The first mistake they make is playing too many hands. There is something about the size of the bet that makes them think that any two cards is frequently okay. In pot-limit, they are painfully aware that certain hands can trap you for a lot of money on a later street. What they seem to ignore in limit is that these same hands can also be very expensive, though not quite as much. Thus you see them playing any ace and other hands with questionable kickers, and they play them all the way through regardless of the action.
The next problem is that they always bet out and never understand what the size of the pot is. In pot-limit, since you can always bet the size of the pot, in a sense the pot is always the same size. This is not at all true in limit. For instance, sometimes when you bet you want anyone with a weak hand to call because they are not getting proper odds to do so - the pot is small; other times you want these same people to throw these exact same hands away - the pot is big.
This of course can create some tricky situations for the limit player. Sometimes the best play is not to bet what appears to be the best hand. It might be correct to go for a check raise, or it might be correct to play your hand passively on that round, and try to raise on the next round.
The third error that some of these pot-limit stars make is that they can turn into weak-tight players on the later rounds. In pot-limit the penalty for betting and being raised is greater than it is in limit play. Thus many pot limit players learn to always throw away marginal hands such as middle pair on the flop and fourth street, since against many opponents these hands can only beat a bluff (and you are getting poor pot odds to continue). In limit the opposite is true, not only do you need to call more because of the size of the pot compared to the bet, you should also be making more of these calls because your medium strength hand may beat some of the legitimate hands that your opponent might make.
The last error I want to discuss has already been mentioned above. It is simply the fact that these "pot-limit" players refuse to accept the fact that to be good at limit hold 'em (or limit stud) you need to be a highly skilled poker player with a great knowledge of general poker concepts, as well as much specific knowledge that pertains solely to limit hold 'em. When you sit in a poker game and refuse to accept the fact that the game you are playing requires much skill to play at an expert level, that some of your opponents may be much more skillful than you are, and that you have a lot to learn about the game, you don't have a chance and should lose your money quickly. This, more than any other factor, is why these players usually leave the games mad after they have quickly lost part of their bankrolls. They just can't understand how these "simpletons" have ended up with their money.
Finally, I want to point out that there are a few people who are highly skilled at both forms of this game. The difference between them and our "pot limit" stars is that they worked very hard to achieve the skill levels that they have, and when they sit in a limit game you never hear them announce that they are "pot limit players." They are just there to do a job and do it the best they can.
xxx
</