![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
Tommy,
Thanks for posting the examples. It will give me something new to try. I like the first hand. Who would have ever thought that you had the straight? Now, let's see if we can get Ray to reveal a few more of his winning strategy secrets.
Good luck
mah
I don't really know where the term "post oak bluff" comes from. We used in Texas 40 years ago. Doyle Brunson----www.highlandsclub.com
You got all your money in when you were a 15-1 favorite. Where is the bad part?
Very interesting hand. Where do you have this regular game?
Because i grew up in a big bet environment I guess I have an unfair advantage. when i play PL or NL with a group of average americans i feel like the conquistadores must have felt when they first landed in the new world using rifles against spears. There is no doubt many who post on this forum are good limit players but limit is such a weak game it produces weak minds.
In the doyle/ungar play mentioned doyle WAS trying to trap stu but NOT into calling his bet. He expected stu to make a move on the flop. Doyles mistake was not his bet size it was his read. And he wasn't even reading stu's hand he was attempting to read his mood.
All (good to average) PL and NL players are acutely aware of the odds real and implied.
"In the doyle/ungar play mentioned doyle WAS trying to trap stu but NOT into calling his bet."
Heh, that's not what he says in his post below.
Doyle don't play as well as limon since he is just a stoopid American.
One of my most memorable hands was an underbet. It cost me my 3rd WOSP title. The main event was down to me & Stu Unger. This was Stu first time to play no-limit hold em, and he had been extremely lucky to get down to head up. I'm not trying to take anything away from Stu, he went on to be the best tournament player ever. But, he was far from an accomplished player and made a lot of mistakes. The flop came A-7-3 with two diamonds. I had A-7 of spades and Stu had 4-5 off suit. We had been playing for a while and the ante and blinds were big. The pot had about 75,000 in it-Stu checked, I bet 27,000 trying to get called. Stu called it, a deuce came, Stu bet 80,000, I moved in, he called and the game was over. I've always regretted that play--but Stu wasn't giving any refunds. Doyle Brunson===www.highlandsclub.com
Doyle,
Thanks for posting the first hand info. In Supersystem, you call a small bet into a large pot a 'Post Oak Bluff'. Where does this term come from?
Great post
Regards,
Joe
great story! Sorry he filled on you. I like all of em. Bad beats, good beats, as long as the money is deep!
Cheezer,
After the hand, everyone kept telling me things and couldn't understand my reaction:
"Chuck, why didn't you show him your flush, he'd have folded!" - "I wanted him to call" "Just show him one card, he'd fold!" - "I want him to call!" "Don't bet so much until he misses!" - "I want him to pay for a draw."
Maybe I just play wacky ass poker :)
M.
Ok actually, you slammed your cap down and kinda ran a little lap around the room.
But you took it better than I would have.
It took a wicked bounce, or my range is better than I thought :) But like I said, I couldn't bear to be there. Kind of like being at your own funeral :)
PS this person was at it again, flipping the button to decide whether to call his set versus a made straight. Again, it took him several tries before someone volunteered to flip a coin for him :)
I just ordered "Pot Limit and No Limit Poker". Any coments?
Jon I.
A very good book which gives most readers (myself included) much to think about.
I've been invited to a small buy-in no limit game. The buy-in is $100 and the blinds are $2 and $5. Talking to the host he says almost everyone buys in for the minimum, but the game lasts about 8 to 10 hours and starts with 8 to 10 people. With many people rebuying. My question is what should kinds of adjustments should you make for the early stages of this game?
It seems to me that with those blinds you're pretty much married to a hand preflop if you've raised or called preflop. You've already put in 25% of your stack on a raise - don't you pretty much have to follow through on the flop? So I would suspect that you need to start with some pretty powerful hands and forget any speculative hands until the stacks (yours especially) have been built.
Comments?
Carol wrote: "You've already put in 25% of your stack on a raise - don't you pretty much have to follow through on the flop?"
No.
Just because you raised doesn't mean you ever have to put more money in the pot, whether you're short-stacked or not. You put more money in if you think the play has positive expectation, that's it. If you raise with JJ and get a few callers, and an AK on the flop, why should you put more money in the pot? Usually, you shouldn't, even if you used up half your stack raising preflop.
As always, it depends. Analyze the situation, think what are the most likely results if you bet, raise, call, etc., and estimate which situation results in the greatest profit, or least loss, to you.
Easy, right? ;-)
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Apply the '5 and 10' rule to calling preflop raises in pot and no-limit. If the raise will cost you 5% or less of your stack then call. If the raise costs 10% or more then fold. In between you have to just judge it for yourself. Pussycat
"Apply the '5 and 10' rule to calling preflop raises in pot and no-limit. If the raise will cost you 5% or less of your stack then call. If the raise costs 10% or more then fold. In between you have to just judge it for yourself. Pussycat"
Why in the hell would you ever do such an absurd thing? I mean think about it for a moment.
If I were short stacked and had only $100 and held AA I'd gladly invest as much as I could with the hand. By imposing silly rules as you have suggested you are only fooling yourself. An edge is an edge. You should be willing to put it all in the middle when you start off with the best hand possible given the size of your edge.
I'm sure he was just talking about calling with hands that need help. If you have a hand like 87s or 66, be willing to put up to 5-10% of your stack, preferably when you have position. If out of position, make sure you have lots of players in because your only hope of winning with a hand like that when out of position is to flop a monster and you want as many people in there to catch a second best hand that will pay you off.
natedogg
You've stated an important concept for no limit. Correct strategy dictates very solid play when you have a small stack. It's amazing how often, though, players don't understand this. Many players play looser with small stacks because it won't cost them much.
A corollary to this point, no limit games often suck for the first few hours. If you can get a seat, try going later. Often, the bigger stacks will open up and play long shot hands, and they're taking way the worst of it against a solid short stack player (you).
Finally, the position to hand lay is less with a short stack.
If you opt to play with only $100, yes I agree you have to play tight. However, why not buy in for $300-400 instead? Now, you can play a more normal game, you can escape traps if you sense them, and set a larger number of traps against your short stacked opponents.
$2-3-5 blinds, Tuesday game at Pacific News in San Mateo. Hey locals! The game is going STRONG!
I'm on the button with the kill. I had, uh, does it matter? J-6.
Six players see the flop for $20 each.
5-5-3 with two of a suit.
All check to me.
I had been checking behind the field frequently. Since I had a wild-card hand, could be anything, I went ahead and bet $80 this time into the $120 pot. The flush draw possibility on board gave my bet more weight because it looked like a bet that I'd make to protect any pair or even trips.
Several players folded and the toughest 2-3-5 player around raised $100. The others folded and it was back to me. This was one of those levels-of-thinking situations. Against this player I usually just fold even when I'm fairly sure he's on a move because I have a policy of not tangling with him. But last night was different. The first few hours I was right behind him and was running over him on small-to-medium pots.
Then I busted him for $700 when I flopped top set and made the usual underbet from last seat after being check to. He check-raised all-in. Thanks Ray!
After that hand I had about 1700 on the table and no-one else had more than 1200. The tough player moves seats to half-a-table away from me and bought 2K. I ribbed him, "Why'd you buy so much? No one but me has that many chips!" We're GREAT friends so this was tons of fun. He never gets dejected, one of the very few players you can rib when he's stuck and not be breaking the ribbing code.
When the J-6 hand started he had about $1000 left, so after he checked raised $100 on the flop, he had about $800 remaining. I raised $200 more. Not enough to commit to his stack size, but enough to posture heavily. It's according to Doyle. If he calls the $200 raise, it's as if he is calling his whole stack. I LOVE that concept, and it comes up all the time.
He took forever and finally folded. A few moments later I went outside to proudly tell Alex about the hand. I came back in and the tough player said, "I know you bluffed me because if you had a hand you would have just sat here, but when you bluff me you run out and tell Alex."
How's THAT for a post-mortem read!
(He said he had ace-high and I believe that he seriously consired coming over the top all-in with it.)
This guy is so good that he can go on what looks like tilt, like he did last night, seeing way more flops than usual, and take perfect advantage of how is being perceived. When he's revved up, it's dangerous.
Soon after that a seat opened up right behind me and he took it and the game was full so I couldn't move. So I quit. lol Overall he's WAY up on me on our heads up tangles. Last night I got some back. Fun, because he's fun. Satisfying, because it was my turn dadgummit.
Something to consider:
At no-limit, if you eat pot-stickers, you'll get pot stuck.
Tommy
Hey,
Don't pick on Ray that much. :) I consider him my friend. The knowlege in his High-Low-Split book has made me a small fourtune in the LL/ZOO paradise omaha/8 games. I haven't even worked on the Stud portion of the book yet.
Great hand! Great position move by Ray as a counter attack..gawd who would want him sitting behind you. That is one of the funniest things I have ever read...I have got to come railbird that game sometime. I need Ray (or you) to write a big-bet book before I can play in it.
Best regards,
Joe
.
Oh! I see what happened. The comment, "Thanks Ray," was not thank-you-for-the-chips, it was, thank you for teaching me the underbet.
Tommy
Where and when is this game? I will be staying in Palo Alto next Tuesday night and would like to play some nlhe or plhe.
I thought that Lucky Chances wat the best spot, and have not heard of Pacific News before.
Michael,
Pacific News Cardroom spreads a 2-3-5 10 to open NL game on Tuesdays starting around 7.
It is a very small club with only two tables, but it's a friendly atmosphere.
Artichoke Joe's usually has the same structure no limit game on Sundays around 7 or 8 p.m.
Also, Bay 101 and Garden City both spread a 20-200 spread limit game fairly regularly. It plays a little different than no limit but similar in a lot of ways.
Hope that helps.
natedogg
Does the News still allow smoking?
Nope! And they fixed it up nice, way better than before.
I suspect you are being facetious, but otherwise, I think that's amazing. How often do you show down a hand and get surprised by what your opponents show you?
Personally, I can narrow the opponent's hand to usually between two and three possibilities and I rarely get shown a hand outside those possibilities. It's often the type of situation where my opponent either has the flushdraw or a set. Unfortunately, this kind of read often does me no good because the two possibilites require such totally different reactions. But I'm usually right, for all the good it does me.
I wonder how to get to the point where you could play the same opponent with the exact same flop and know when he has the set and when he has the draw.
natedogg
''''' ( 0.0 )
~ \_/
When you end by saying, "Not!", does that mean you won the $186,000 and didn't give $156,000 back, or that you didn't win the $186,000 in the first place?
I can honestly say I have never won $186,000 and then given most of it back in the same session.
It means a lied about the whole thing. (Not the fact that the games were there, but about my participation in them.)
I don't know how interesting this hand will be to all of you but I observed it yesterday. Blinds are $5 and $10. A player named Danny limps in UTG, a couple of players limp on in after him, the button makes it $30 to go, SB folds, BB calls, Danny raises $100, everyone folds except the button who calls. Danny is a player who rarely raises pre-flop. He is very loose and calls with quite a bit pre-flop with a lot of crap but his raises pre-flop are indeed quite rare. The button is a player who I don't know at all but plays hold'em at limits from $4-8 to pot limit, short handed and full games. Danny and the button have about $3000 in front of them. Flop comes out Ah, 5d, 4d. Danny bets $300 and the button calls. Next card off is an 8c. Danny checks and the button checks behind him. River is a 10c. Danny checks, button bets $600. Danny calls the $600. Danny turns over a pair of J's and the button turns over AK. I thought the check by the button on the turn was interesting. Comments?
From your description Danny shouldn't have had JJ in my opinion. He should have been holding AA or KK. When he checks the turn the button needs to decide if Danny is trying to trap him with AA so he checks behind because few free cards can hurt him. When Danny checks the river the button figures his hand really is best and value bets the pot figuring Danny is going to call with his high pocket pair.
Notice that if the button bets $600 on the turn Danny could come over the top all in. The $600 bet threatens both players entire stacks.
Anyway, that's how I see it. I'm very surprised that Danny calls $600 on the end with J's. Must be a poor player. The button's hand almost screams AA.
IMO Danny is a bad player. I'm really not sure whether or not the button was worried about Danny having AA.
That changes alot. I think it depends on how good the button is too. Then I would lean towards the logic natedogg mentioned. In the 5/10 PL game I've played a few times if a couple of the players in it made Danny's move preflop they would have AA or KK approx. 100% of the time. Good thing is that if you knew this and had a small pair and actually saw the flop and made a set against them you would be able to double up. Of course I was personally never this fortunate, but I was aware of the situation.
Danny plays a lot better now than he did the first time I played with him a few years ago. We used to wait for him to get there before we started the game.
My take on this is that the button was probably timid, and wanted to make sure he wasn't being sucked in, and that a flush didn't get there, before he bet. If he checked to induce a call from Danny on the river, he doesn't know Danny, as he would pay off on the turn and the river.
Actually, Rounder, HPFAP discusses inducing bluffs (and incorrect calls) with aces or kings by checking behind an opponent on the turn when they check. So even us lowly and dim-witted limit players are aware of, and sometimes use, these tactics.
Dan Z.
.
Didn't mean to demean limit players it's just a lot of limit players have never played anything else I have worked with a lot of them and see the amazement on when I suggest checking the turn with a hand like this.
Seems like everyone is getting to good for a guy to make any money at this game any more.
You're right, the check by the button on the turn is interesting. In fact, it's by far the most interesting move in the hand.
Up until that point everything was pretty straight-forward. The button raised a bunch of limpers, which he could be doing with any kind of hand. The small blind re-raised with a medium pair hoping to take it down right there. The button smooth-calls with AK.
The medium pair bets out on the flop hoping to represent AK against someone without AK and gets called.
All totally routine. But WHY did the AK check the turn? This was either a very highly sophisticated play or a dud. It really depends on what the button knew about Danny's play, and if the button read Danny correctly.
Let's say Danny is a fairly good player and checks the turn. Normally, this is the sign of somebody who has second pair and has given up on the pot after the flop bet. As he should have. If Danny is a good player, that is probably what was going on.
Now let's say the button reads this perfectly and knows that Danny has given up. Then checking was perfect. By checking, he hopes to induce Danny to bluff the river or at least check and call the river now, because there is now doubt in Danny's mind that the button has and ace. That's probably what happened. And checking is not very dangerous against an obvious underpair. There's only two cards to hurt you.
But what if Danny called on the river because he was just too dumb to let go of JJ? Then the button erred horribly because he was going to get paid on the turn and river. He could have busted Danny for nearly his entire stack. So it all boils down to what the button knew about Danny.
If Danny is a good player and knows the button player, then he probably had his reasons for calling the button down on the river and the button simply outplayed him. But if Danny is one of those players who just can't let go of a pocket pair when an ace comes on the flop, well, his play was horrible. That's just about the worst playing tactic you can bring with you to a pot limit game.
natedogg
I don't think it takes a highly sophisticated player to check the turn with AK here. He is either way ahead (only 2 outs to beat him), or way behind (vs. a set of aces) or very slim chance tied. This all seems pretty clear to me. So if he thinks he can induce a call on the river, checking is fairly clearly right.
I have many of the same questions you do. Danny is a poor player IMO and he is hard to bluff and he probably wins most of the pots that he does win by picking off bluffs. I'm pretty sure the button had a good read on Danny.
Check on the turn was brillant only a limit player would think it was a bad play.
Danny pretty much gave up his holding as a pair less than AA by the way he played the hand - button's only concern was a set and his check on the river tole him he had the best hand I just wonder how he calls the $600 with the A out there.
I'd have to say that based on this hand alone the button is a superior player to Danny.
The button induced a bluff, which heads up is a common tactic.
Mason has made the point that no limit and pot limit games don't last in poker rooms because the poorer players are not going to return. Whereas in structured limit games even a bad player will sometimes have a good session, etc. But why then are these no limit games the standard in so many Europian poker rooms?
Just a thought - I've played there and asked the question - theyh wonder why we play so much limit.
My opinion is poker was meant to be played my men eye to eye over a pot limit or no limit table.
No ladies don't get on me about the "men" part but I am old fashioned.
Limit poker is like a lot of other things "American" for business reasons and not the best interest of the game.
"My opinion is poker was meant to be played my men eye to eye over a pot limit or no limit table."
I prefer just to cut to the chase and fight to the death.
Before or after drinking one of your designer coffees?
..
Just wanna share a little story which kind of made my day. It isn't about a hand, nor winning or losing a big pot, it's about respect. For some weeks I've been playing in a PL game which is 50/50 Omaha-8/Texas. One of the regulars is a 60-year old man who played winning poker in Europe for 35 years. He's a real mess but he sure knows how to play. The others in the game range from decent to really awful. I mean horrible. It's pretty amusing to watch the old man when he enter, he will always come by the table and check peoples stacks then go buy a beer and make a buy-in equal the largest stack. This is maybe the 10th-12th we play in the game simultaneously and when he arrives I've manage to triple up the original $500 to $1500. This makes me the biggest stack, 2nd is around $750. He makes his ordinary approach, get a beer and says to the lady selling chips: "Give me $750"
I smile inside.
PLH, blinds are 10-25. Our hero is a novice that has read a lot bit but is very inexperienced, and he has 4k on the table. His opponent-to-be has him covered, and is an ultra loose pre-flop raiser that plays semi-aggressively but OK after the flop (has shown down 96o for the nuts after open raising to $75 pre-flop from middle position). The Opponent has been playing with our hero for about 4 hours, and probably realizes his inexperience.
The hand:
Enemy raises to $75 almost UTG, and our hero calls in the cutoff with T8s. Flop comes T84 rainbow. Opponent bets $125, our hero just calls. (?) The turn comes another 8. Opponent checks, hero checks (???). River comes a J, opponent bets $425, and hero raises another 1k. Opponent folds (after about 15 seconds).
Somehow I imagine that our hero's play must depend drastically on the opponent, but any ideas you have about this hand would be greatly appreciated. I feel like although I have read a bit, I really don't know what the best way to maximize my profit on the hand was, and what I should be thinking as this hand unfolds.
Thanks in advance!
I'm no PLH expert, but I think you put too much on line with your river raise. TT won't fold, JJ will come over the top and no worse hands will call you.
Am I right?
lars
I'm not sure you were in a super profitable situation. Yeah you have a full house but what can your opponent have after checking the turn to pay you off? BTW I don't think calling the raise pre-flop was right either but I'm no pot limit expert either.
Your preflop call is questionable, but if the raiser has been raising with junk, this might be the best hand. On the flop, I wouldn't give him a chance to catch up. Come back at him for, say, $250. Then bet around $500 on the turn. This would make a bet of $1000 on the river seem much more reasonable.
By waiting to hit him with a big bet on the river, you might as well have announced your hand before putting in the money. A little deception goes a long way in PL. The reason I am not exact on the amounts you should bet is that most PL games seem to have their own accepted bets. Bet whatever fits in to what the others have been betting.
I am rather inexperience myself but here is my take. I fold preflop for sure. Maybe I am too tight, but this is a simple muck for me.
Suppose I call, well then I raise on the flop. I would make it $300 to go on the flop. On the turn, if I don't raise the flop I would make a $125 bet to build the pot and to give myself the room to steal future pots with some underbetting (if you underbet and then show down the nuts your underbets will get more respect in the future, and you don't give an overpair a free card). On the river, I wouldn't make such a big raise, it SCREAMS slowplay. Make it 1K total and he might entice AA or KK or something similar to call.
Well, maybe I don't know anything (which is likely), so I will now read the other responses.
Enjoying this forum and hope to debate more often, this is my first time posting. IMO pot limit is maximizing profit on each hand and one to three mistakes a night can usually cost me a winning session.Table image is the key.
When a novice image, most of my winning bigger pots were by trapping like he did.As novice, weak tight, if would only raise with trips or 2 pair, probably would not get called on the flop raise, profit $235 if raise, $660 as trapped played.
Once image loosed up, known to sometimes raise with (on the flop) AT JT or even J9, much better chance to get called as the 3 Bet Brett suggests $250, $500, $1000.potenial profit $1985.
However, when the 2nd 8 hits, would a $500 bet be called? A check from a tight player gives opponent a chance to catch up or a bluff on the end. $250 looks like a better bet. Opp. may even play back if he thinks your trying to buy with a draw J9 or top pair.
So much about how one playes this hand has to do with the way the other guy has been playing and how I have been playing similar hands. I don't think there is one right answer to this one but everything being equal I think I might raise the river to $850 to induce a call.
I may also be betting the turn but that a lot to do with what the other guy is likley to expect me to do with a full house - if I think he expects me to slow play it for a big bet on the river I may bet the turn if he expects me to bet out the boat, I check.
I just want to confuse this guy on the turn.
I met Phil H. for the first time at LC's the other day. We played NL at the same table for a couple hours. I forgot to ask him if it was okay for me to post about it, but something tells me he wouldn't mind. Seems like a nice fella to me, again verifying my hunch that people take jeering shots at the folks on top just because they're on top.
I could not stay out of his way because:
1) He saw a LOT of flops 2) He was two to my right
Two funny stories.
I won a big pot against him by getting all in on the flop with two outs and sucking out. Yeah, he had some remarks, something about, "Which days you do you guys play again? I might have to start coming more often."
Someone that was giving him the rundown mentioned that we sometimes play on Thursdays. I bit my tongue before saying, "Sometimes on Thursdays we'll build a game around certain players. Come on up."
I couldn't say something like that unless I knew for sure that he knew I was kidding, so I kept quiet anytime he talked about quality of play, his or ours. I must admit, I had a sense that I was sitting with greatness. And despite his lose tongue, I got no bad vibes from him. He's not a meanspirited guy, and that's the main thing IMO.
On one hand two guys got all-in on the flop, both with flush draws. The flush came. 9-7 lost to 10-3. The table was loud at the time and no one was paying noticable attention to the hand. Through the din, I heard Phil kick into commentary mode, explaining that, "This is a most interesting hand. If the flush had not come, ten-high would have taken down this big pot."
Accurate? Yes. Something an announcer should say? Yes. Was anyone listening? Well, no.
My first hand of the session was again Phil. I folded every hand up until my second button. One limper, Phil made it $140. I called, the limper folded. Flop: A-x-x. Phil bet about $200. I called. Turn: blank. Phil checked and I bet $400 and he showed 9-3, no pair no draw, and folded. I had no pair and no draw as well and called the flop because I didn't think he had anything and I could win it on the turn. So yeah, I played this one good. But later I got all-in with two outs. Phil most definitely outplayed me for the session.
Phil took another bad beat as well so he had a rough, short session. But when he left, he gave as warm a goodbye as I've ever heard. Impressive.
Tommy
Well, lets here about the suckout.
I'll take my shot...per Tommy he had top pair with an overcard kicker. Phil had the overpair matching the kicker. Thus...two outs and a brutal suckout.
Or, Phil had top pair on the flop and Tommy an underpair and Tommy sucked out by making a set.
Interesting guess.
I don't know Tommy at all, but from his posts here I would doubt that he would get alot of chips involved with an underpair.
Adam.
It was a two outter preflop. So it was probably something like QQ vs. TT. Maybe a little bit better rank for Tommy since he did get all-in preflop.
- Andrew
We went all-in on the flop, I had top-pair with an overcard and Phil had a pocket pair that matched my overcard. See above thread for details.
Tommy
Post! Post! Post! PLUHEEEEEEEEZE!
We should all send Tommy a dollar, and get him to start posting every hand he has ever played in chronological order.
I have like THE worst memory when it comes to hands. Thank goodness for the pen. Sorry, I didn't write this one down. Best recollection:
Phil had about $1200 and I had him covered. I had 9-8 on the button. (SOOTED! But in all of my posts, I only indicate suitedness if it comes into play AFTER the flop since otherwise I think it is distracting information.)
Phil was two to my right and nudged it some after a couple limpers. He made it $120 or thereabouts and I called because I knew for sure one of the limpers would play too.
The flop was 8-7-5 or 8-6-5. The first guy checked, Phil bet $160 or $180, I raised $200, the other guy folded, and Phil said "All in" instantly. I called just as fast.
Phil had pocket nines. The turn was an eight. (I also had some outs to tie.) River, blank.
Phil did a most ethical thing on this hand. When the eight hit the turn, I turned my hand over right then even though I didn't have to. That's the common etiquette in these no limit games. The intentional super-non-slowroll.
But I did this little wrist-flick thing, not sure why, and my nine landed face up and my eight went straight on to the muck face down. I reached out and grabbed it from the muck and said "eight of clubs" before turning it over. That all happened real fast. Phil never made the slightest indication that he ever considered trying to get my hand ruled dead, which he could have. I mean, he could have tried. I suspect it would have been ruled live because I called the precise card, and because of the betting, and at LC's the policy is to get the money to whoever has the best hand when inadvertant physical mishaps happen.
Phil turned over his pocket nines. We had had a pleasant conversation going for quite a while up to this hand. He lit into me for a while. That's something I haven't encountered for years! Not because I don't make bonehead plays and suckout. I do that plenty. It's just that noone critiques me. No biggie. I didn't say anything back or even look at him. Hat bills come in handy sometimes.
Phil had been playing pretty fast during that time. Soon after he changed gears so fast, wow, blew my mind. On his button, there were at least five limpers for $40, and he folded for $30 more. ($10 blind on the button.) Yikes! I'd call any two cards there and so would most anyone else in the game. Those situations are rare, and even 7-2 looks good from the catbird seat. The flop on that hand came K-x-5, all one suit, and the hand was shown down and a player had flopped a flush. I looked at Phil and he knew what I was thinking. He looked at me and said, "I had K-5." If true, he would have flopped two pair and lost some chips for sure.
If he really did have K-5, all I can say is, nice gear-shift, and good laydown!
Tommy
Another great post.
What is it with Hellmuth and pocket nines?
Besides the famous WSOP hand vs. Chan in '89, I've seen or read about at least 5 or 6 big hands where Phil made a move with 99.
Strange. Pointless, but strange.
n/t
I know most of the posts and books suggest a maniac, who is always raising, is preferrable to my right. The thought being I can reraise and drive out other players. However, I prefer to have the maniac on my left in bigger games and pot limit.
By being more selective on my starting hands, and knowing he will raise often for me I trap other players. Additionally I have the opportunity to call or reraise the maniac once I see what the other players are going to do.
I would sooner have this position than constantly have the raiser drive me into the tight players and the better hands.
YOUR THOUGHTS PLEASE.
I've come to a different preference than the norm by thinking in extreme terms.
This applies to limit only, not PL or NL.
Let's say there is one player who raises EVERY pot, for life. Having him directly to my left would make the game unplayable, with no chance to ever get last position from the cutoff or two-off the button.
Having him two to the left means I am behind him two hands per round. Not bad, since I'm only really geared up for those two hands anyway, my button and cutoff.
I don't want him on my immediate right because all life long I'd have to make many preflop decisions, of two or three bets each, with hoards of players left to act behind me. In that regard, two to his left is better than one, and three is better than two, and now we're heading all the way around the table.
Optimum spot? I think it's best to be half-a-table away from him, four, five, or six seats. Whadya think?
Tommy
Having him on my left gives me check raisealility and trapability. I must admit in a big bet game I like only one maniac in the game it cuts the collective outs in half & let's me isolate easier and that can't be bad.
Tommy
I agree 2 to my left is probably the best for me.(I like your idea of position on the maniac for 2 hands) Still do not want to be across from him. Even if he is on my immediate left I feel like I have the button against all the players at the table except the maniac. I usually know I have better cards than him and if I can get any read I can stay away for his monsters. AGAIN THANKS.
I like the maniac on my immediate left so long as he is the only mnaniac in the game. They are very predictable and easier to isolate.
Rounder? Using the extreme example in my other post, are you really saying that you would PREFER playing for the rest of your life while NEVER having last position except when you have the button?
Tommy
I am saying I don't mind the maniac on my immediate left so long as he is the only maniac in the game.
Let's put it this way if there is only one I don't care where he is sitting I'm gonna take him down 4 out of 5 sessions.
What if there is more then one in the game. Say the table is on tilt ( tends to happen from time to time in lower limit games) or there just happens to be a couple of idiots at the table.
Gotcha. But what if there was exactly one maniac in EVERY game you played in, for life, and that he raised EVERY flop no matter what. And you could choose any seat at the table. What seat would you pick?
Tommy
I have always done better when the maniac was in close proxcimity to me one or two seats away and better when he was on my left - but logic tells me I want him on my right 2 seats away so he is on the button when I am on the bb.
So under normal circumstances I want him on my right so I have the benefit of seeing what other players are doing before committing to the hand.
Most what you are saying here makes sense, although the last comment is questionable. A lot depends on what game you're playing and where you are moneywise.
First, pl/nl holdem
I definitely want the maniac on my left if I'm playing two and half tempos or less. This strategy may not work for everyone, though, as you're basically resigned to playing to trap--looking for one big all-in reraise with a big pair, AK, or possibly AQ. You'll be able to play less than one in twenty hands using this strategy.
If you're much deeper, then being three or four spots off (to the right of) the maniac works for me. This position gives you three or four hands where you have the maniac leading into you on the post flop bet. Also, if the maniac is not purely maniacal (raises only 60% to 70% preflop), you will get to limp-in on or next to the button occasionally.
In Pl omaha
If you you're playing two tempos or less, you can sit on his right and wait for a big hand to set in on. In omaha, though, you don't have the same edge you would have in holdem. And you may get in a situation where you're playing against four to six players with aces. If you sit on his left, you can lever up and play heads up. Or you can play two or three spots to the left and try to trap one or two players with the maniac.
If you're really deep, I like to be three or four spots to the right for a lot of the same reasons listed above in the holdem discussion.
NL omaha
Sit to his left, wait for two aces (at least one suited) and put everything in.
Thank you for your comments, very helpful. Like everyone else I enjoy your posts. I have just found this site and hope to be a regular reader and maybe even contribute
Sunday at AJ's, 2-3-5 blinds NL.
I had 88 and the flop came 7-6-5, two of a suit. I did not have the eight of the suit. The other two players checked to me and I bet $180 into the $180 dollar pot. The first guy check-raised all-in. The other guy folded. The raiser had me covered. I had $540 left.
This player is feisty and plays many flops and likes to push with a draw. He's also physically unreadable in these situations. A lose but tough player, and experienced. My least favorite kind. His range of hands was anything from a flopped-straight to two pair to a set to a flush-draw-straight-draw. The worst hand he could conceivably have was pocket nines, but I think he would have bet out with that.
Your play.
Tommy
I think you have to call here, getting 2 to 1 given your description of the player. This play smells much more like a drawing hand than a made straight. This is a case where your short stack makes it an easier call, IMO.
You're getting about the right price against a set, two pair, or the less likely overpair. Ironically (which is probably why you noted it) he would rather be holding 99 than any other overpair against your hand.
The only hand that really buries you is the 89, which seems like an odd holding for an early position player in a raised pot. But you did say he was loose, so
I am assuming that you were the preflop raiser, which is important information here. If you were, it would seem as if the better play for a flopped straight would have been to lead at the pot.
p.s. I am snowed in on the East Coast, so I am delaying my trip west until next week.
Good discussion. Probably a made up hand $540 to call a $1080 pot(if my math is right) I do not agree you have `about the right price` against set or two pair or most any of the hands you thought he might have. A clear fold. What would you have done Tommy.
How can you not agree that he has the right price against a set or two pair? This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact.
Excluding redraws, Tommy has 10 outs with two cards to come against a set or two pair. That makes him a 1.6 to 1 dog. I don't have to do the complete math to get the exact odds, as the reduced odds factoring in his opponents redraws are offset by the chance he is semi-bluffing with something that Tommy leads.
If you fold here afraid of two pair, you need to review your poker math. With an overpair and an open-end straight, two pair is the one made hand you HOPE your opponent holds as you are getting great EV on a call. Against a set, it is essentially EV neutral, depending on whether your opponent has a backdoor club draw.
Here are some matchups for the 88 hand against other likely holdings.
88 vs.
Top 2 = near even money
Top 2 + backdoor club draw = 1.1 to 1 dog
Top set = 2.2 to 1 dog
Top set + club = 2.4 to 1 dog
99 = 3.2 to 1 dog (the worst matchup for the eights as there are only 2 nines left for the straight and it kills the 2 8s as outs)
99 with a club = 3.4 to 1 dog
Other overpair = 1.6 to 1 dog
Other overpair + club = 1.8 to 1 dog
JcTc (two overs + flush draw) = near even money
4c3x (small straight + club) = 2.4 to 1 dog
4c3c = 3.5 to 1 dog
Ac7c (top pair + flush draw) = 1.1 to 1 favorite
98s (nut straight) = 11.1 to 1 money dog (88 equity is mostly splits)
From Tommy's description of this player, these data support a call. It sure ain't a "clear fold."
Not a made-up hand. Target was there. But then, no one actually saw my hand, so that I could be making up. :-)
"I believe every lie you tell me."
(Josephine Angelo a.k.a. mom)
Well I think the worst hand he could have would be something like A7o with the Ace of the suit.
Given that the pot was somehow created to be $180 preflop with three players, there must have been some action preflop. Could you advise what the preflop action was?
The player who eventually moved all-in opened for the minimum $20. The next player made it $60. I called, and the opener called, and three of us took the flop with me last to act.
Sorry, should have included this. You're right. It is important, since now you know that the range of hands for the opener (the eventual check-raiser) is indeed vast.
Tommy
I dont know the first thing about no-limit or pot-limit, but from a pure odds standpoint you have to call.
Your getting 2.7-1 on your money, and unless you feel srongly that he has a made straight odds say you must call.
If he has pocket pair TT-AA, you are a 1.6-1 dog.
If he has 99, you are a 3.16-1 dog.
If he has 77, 66, or 55 you are a 2.15-1 dog.
If he has 76, 65, or 75 you are a 1.02-1 dog.
If he has a flush and a straight draw, ie Ac8c with a 5c6c7d board, then you are a 1.23-1 dog.
If he has a made straight, then you are up a creek. Unless the straight is with the 34, then you are only a 2.2-1 dog.
Your only getting 1.7-1 on your money. My bad.
So calling is not so clear cut. Hmmm.....
So the preflop raiser folded to the checkraiser's move all in and it's 540 to Tommy.
Did the preflop raiser have a bigger stack than the checkraiser? Doesn't his presence protect the pot somewhat from a move by the early opener (who became the check-raiser)?
I don't think I want all my chips in the center here and have a hunch you wish you would have under bet the pot by about 80-100 dollars less or so.(so a fold would be easier on the head)
So I'm inclined to fold. However, this opponent surely knows you like to get frisky on the button and if he knows he can come over the top and get the preflop raiser to fold his likely overpair it puts you in a tough (shall we say "dicey") spot.
Well I wasn't there and you have to go with your gut feelings. Does this post have no results because you folded or are you letting a few more chime in with their analysis?
Re: the PH post earlier- IMO, PH was playing with a celebrity as much as vice-versa.
Hillbilly, you are right that I DID wish I had bet less, regardless of the results.
Good point about me getting protection from the third player's stack. Yes, he had us both covered, but in this situation no protection was served by him. Recall that the big stack is the one who bumped it to $60 preflop. After the flop, he was second to act, and checked. That's a give-up check if there ever was one. He certainly cannot count on a bet from me in last seat so that he can check raise. The FIRST player, however, CAN reasonably assume that he'll get a chance to check raise with his nut straight on the flop.
Woops! Just gave away the ending.
I called, obviously. I ran the hand by Alex today and he said I'm a slight underdog after the various possible hands and stacks are considered, but that it's an automatic call because if I win the hand, this player is more likely to tilt and blow big chunks.
So happens that was exactly what I was thinking about before calling.
Let's say we know for sure that an all-in call decision is 52-48 in our favor. It can still be best to fold if the next level of parameters, the game-impact ones, suggest it's best to wait for another spot to get all-in.
Or we could be slight underdog, and if we know the game will break when that player busts out, and he's likely GOING to bust out to someone, then this might be our last chance so let's go for it!
Writing about hands here has made me realize more than ever how many decision-making factors are unique to no-limit.
Tommy
I was thinking along the same line. In situations that are close to EV neutral, I like to gamble it up, especially against the tilters.
Looser play in these situations has several benefits:
1. It can put someone on tilt, as mentioned previously. And even if you lose, it is generally better for the game if the chips get moved around.
2. It is good for image in big bet as it discourages strong bluffs and semi-bluffs against you.
3. It is more fun.
Of course, it alo increases variance. However, if you have a bigger bankroll than your opponents, having less fear of variance is an important weapon.
The question that would interest me about this hand is, Do you think your opponent played it correctly?
Obviously, he ended up with your stack, so it's hard to argue with it too much, but why move all-in with that monster on the flop, unless he was just trying to push you off a flush draw. Maybe a flat call would look like a draw or top pair, possibly even keeping the third player in with AK (maybe the ace matching the two suited cards), then if he catches one of his overcards, you got a nice little situation for yourself.
I don't know, he probably played it right. Just seems like the only hand that's a threat(excepting of course a set or 2 pair, which you're definitely calling with) is a flush draw , and I don't see how he would have put you on that after you just bet the pot from the button. What do you all think? Maybe a moot point, since Tommy called, but how would you have played it?
He absolutely played it correctly by shoving in on the flop. The reason is one that hasn't been mentioned yet in any no-limit threads I've seen, and it's a biggie.
A scare card on the turn can freeze either or both players. That means the guy who MIGHT have gotten called-all-in with the best hand on the flop now has a chance to get bluffed out, or not get paid off.
You have 99 and I have 88 in a mildly raised pot. Flop comes 9-8-2, possible flush draw. I bet and you just call, trapping. Turn card, 7 of the suit.
WOOPS! Hand over. No way there will be a called-all-in with two big stacks.
Drastic example, I know, but this kind of thing happens all the time in lesser degress.
Tommy
"His range of hands was anything from a flopped-straight to two pair to a set to a flush-draw-straight-draw. The worst hand he could conceivably have was pocket nines, but I think he would have bet out with that. "
"I ran the hand by Alex today and he said I'm a slight underdog after the various possible hands and stacks are considered, but that it's an automatic call because if I win the hand, this player is more likely to tilt and blow big chunks"
I think you're a huge dog to even split the pot, and would've folded immediately(unless I went all in myself initially), but the point about him going on tilt certainly needs to be factored in.
Tommy, I would've ~probably~ played this hand as follows: 75% check behind, 15% go all in, 10% bet the pot(and then likely folded when he raised all in).
"He absolutely played it correctly by shoving in on the flop. The reason is one that hasn't been mentioned yet in any no-limit threads I've seen, and it's a biggie.
A scare card on the turn can freeze either or both players. That means the guy who MIGHT have gotten called-all-in with the best hand on the flop now has a chance to get bluffed out, or not get paid off. "
A great concept, but I don't think it applies to your decision to call the checkraise(not saying you said it did). I think you're hoping here to just take this pot as it now stands. So I think you WANT to check behind and HOPE for a "freeze" card.
A very dangerous situation and opponent, and very educational. Thx for your posts.
Hi Bill,
I'm sitting here trying to rationize checking behind but I just can't do it. The second guy who checked was the pre-flop bumper. No way he is calling a significant bet. So with $180 out there up for grabs, and me with what is VERY likely the best hand, with a redraw to boot, I have only one guy to worry about, a player who limped preflop, called a small raise, and plays lots of pots.
Winning enough of these kind of pots with the WORST hand is the difference between being in the red or black over the long haul. Winning them (or at least trying to) with the best hand is a must. The thought of giving a free card to two checking opponents with an overpair makes my joints ache. I still think it's a clear-cut mandatory value bet on the flop.
Tommy
Hi Tommy,
Hmm, I thought you said in your original post that the worst hand he could have is probably 99.
My point on checking behind was that a freeze card on the turn could be helpful if you're against JJ or TT. I've never played casino NLHE, but I've always read that the "big draw" situation is one you want to avoid.
The problem w/betting(and not going all in) is, of course, whatta ya do about a big checkraise? I've always heard that betting draws can get you knocked of them. Again, thanks for your posts and please let me know if my thinking's wrong.
BTW I haven't read all the thread yet, but I'm assuming you called and didn't draw out...?
Bill,
We might be having a communication breakdown. (Now I'll have that Led Zep song in my head all day. :-)) Twice you implied that I had a draw. For the record, just in case it's not clear, I had a pocket-overpair and both players checked to me on the flop. I had a straight draw as well, but that is incidental. Pretend the flop was 2-2-2. Pocket eights ain't no draw in my book!
You are right that betting draws in last seat and getting checkraised can make a player fold a perfectly good draw that he could have drawn to for free. Balancing that is the understatement that checking does not make people fold. :-)
Tommy
"The worst hand he(checkraiser) could conceivably have was pocket nines..."
You had pocket 8's...
How a 'bad' a play would initially going all in on the flop have been for you? I don't think that would be laying a set the right price, let alone two pair(assuming a set/2 pair'll put ya on a strt) , and it keeps you from outthinking yourself(again, not saying you did anything wrong this hand, except maybe betting too much[or too little]).
Me quoting my buddy:
" . . . after the various possible hands and stacks are considered . . . "
Bill,
That was admittedly sloppy wording. I agree that I was an underdog to win the pot. "Stacks" meant "pot odds." Getting 2-1 on my money on the final call made it a nearly even-money decision, or at least that's what Alex thought, and the thread so far seems to confirm.
If that's true, then the opponent's potential tilt factor, normally a secondary consideration at best, moves to the top of the parameter-flow-chart. That's one of the reasons I thought the hand was interesting.
Tommy
If the player is as you describe him and his range of hands is that wide, then I muck here. You have an overpair and a straight draw, I don't like the overpair because it's not much of an overpair..I don't like the straight draw because the board is two suited..and well, it's not much of a straight draw. Why go broke here? I muck and wait for better days. yipe yipe yipe..tail between legs...
Read the odds I posted above and you will see a flaw in your response. Against a single opponent with a made hand, your straight draw is generally good (unless he redraws). Against a single opponent that is drawing to the flush, your pair is good. You are only drawing slim against 99 or a made nut straight.
If this were a multiway pot, your analysis would apply. Of course in that case, Tommy would be getting nearly twice the price.
Excellent thread/analysis of the hand.
Michael, I saw the flaw in my post as soon as I read that Tommy called instead of mucked. :^) I guess I still don't totally understand the gamble here.
From Tommy's original post.
"His range of hands was anything from a flopped-straight to two pair to a set to a flush-draw-straight-draw. The worst hand he could conceivably have was pocket nines, but I think he would have bet out with that." That sounds to me like Tommy expects him to have a good hand.
He is getting exactly 2-1 on his call. Just going by his words in the post, he holds some respect for the hands this opponent chooses to play. Against an opponent this good, is 2-1 is enough? If Tommy had other reasons such as putting the man on tilt, then I cannot factor those in. If you just average all of those hands together that you listed, it makes Tommy's hand an average 2.75 - 1 dog (yes I know you can't do really figure it this way). Nevermind that most of those hands you listed have Tommy drawing to catch up. There are just not a lot of hands I can see here that a good opponent could push in with that would make this gamble worthwhile to me.
One poster mentioned an underbet into this pot from Tommy's position, and I think that would have been a good way to play it.
With all of that trying to figure odds on unknown hands aside, I am sure that if Tommy made the call, it was correct. After reading the post and NOT figuring out the odds or even trying to as I should have, I posted what I would do from my gut. To me--given that board, any good hands the opponent could have would have Tommy in a pinch already or drawing at his straight. If I am counting on the straight to save me, personally I have got to feel strongly it will be good when it comes. In my book, that not the case when the board you are drawing at is already two suited. I am curious how much the sooted board factored into Tommy's decision to call.
I am also curious what Tommy would have done if he would have underbet into the pot and the same opponent still came over the top of him. Once again here, an underbet might have saved some money.
I will end this post by saying that I am not a big bet player..the only N/L experience I really have is in tournaments and in a tourney against an opponent like this, my survival instinct kicks in and I would have probably layed this hand down. Like some others here, I must experience and learn big-bet thru Tommy's posts. Let me say for the millionth time how much I appreciate them. Thanks for posting the loosers as well as the winners!
My-bad for the hasty judgement on the hand.
Best regards,
Joe
Wow Joe. Lots of good points.
About the opponent. I didn't say he was a good player, rather, that he is unreadable (dangerous)and that he likes to push hard with draws (hyper).
" . . he holds some respect for the hands this opponent chooses to play."
Well, no. Sorry I wasn't more clear. "Plays lots of flops" was meant as "has low preflop standards."
Perhaps now, knowing of his hyperness, your scales are tipped closer to 50-50 as the likelhood of him having a draw goes up.
Then, and now, I do not think my call was "correct" or "incorrect." (I can't use those words without quotes because they are objective islands in a sea of subjectivity.)
As to underbetting, I almost bet $100 but chose to bet the pot at the last second. $100 would have been a good play if I had been doing it all night like usual. But to come out with an underbet in this spot after hardly underbetting all night would have been begging for someone to rob me. Or at least that's what I think I was thinking at the time.
I'm going back to frequent underbetting!
Tommy
I kill it on the button for 10. This makes it 20 to go, and means that I act last this round.
4 players come in for 20. I find TT, and raise 100 more. My thinking here is that given that the pot's not raised, I probably have the best hand, and would be happy taking the pot down right now. This is not an unusual play in this game, and in generally works. Thoughts on doing this?
I get two (!) callers. One is a loose aggressive tough player (the same one in tommy's post below), the other is a player who has a huge stack, but seems nervous about the size of the game. I have 800 left.
Flop comes 974 rainbow. Both players check, I bet 400 into a $400 pot.
Tricky player folds. The nervous big stack looks at me, and to my eye, reads me for a bluff, something like AK. He raises all-in.
Should I call for my additional $400? Did I make a mistake somewhere? Results to follow later.
- target
This seems like a good time to underbet the pot, Ray Zee style. A bet of 200 into this pot will win immediately almost as often as a bet of 400. Given the texture, it's pretty hard to put anybody on a draw, so either they were always ahead of you (e.g., JJ), just got ahead of you (e.g., 77), or they are and always were behind (e.g., AQs). While you don't want to give a cheap card to hands with 2 overcards here, they are likely to fold for 200, since they have to be afraid that they are losing even if they hit on the turn.
Now, as for his $400 raise, do you think you're ahead? If you think there's a 20% chance you're ahead, then call. If it's less than that, fold. Reading him is the hard part, and we really can't help with that from the perspective of the internet. It appears from your words, however, that you must feel there is at least a 20% chance you're ahead, so a call appears in order. Hope you won.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Target, I don't like calling nervous players when they make a big raise. If you have read someone as being nervous because of the stakes, then it's a contradictory read to think he's read you for a bluff and is putting in $700 on a re-raise bluff.
If you were right, then what an awesome read, but I suspect he had you beat.
This hand smells a LOT like slow-played aces, which is a common trait for beginning no-limit players. Otherwise, I think he had a set. The board just does not call out for a draw. I doubt this nervous player put in $120 with T8. He'll show you a made hand 90% of the time in this situation.
natedogg
Well, it sort of turned out you were correct.
He was not happy at all about my call. He put me on AK, I'm pretty sure.
But he had JJ there. So he couldn't beat the big pair I was representing, but could beat the overpair that I had.
So the call turned out badly. What do you think about the rest of the play?
- target
I think you played everything great until the call, but your opponent's play was abysmal. The only pair below his own that he could beat was TT. Other reasonable pairs you might have had were sets at this point.
If I were you I might have bet less on the flop but then again, a pot size bet is fairly unreadable and there's a lot to say for it.
Like I said, I think your play of the hand was good, but your biggest mistake was making two contradictory reads on the player. With AA you would call him but with TT, you had to figure he had a monster pair. It just turned out he was so inexperienced he misplayed JJ as a monster pair, but it still beat TT.
natedogg
Do you think the player with JJ should have mucked? Sounds like you're advocating an automatic laydown here. I don't think that's the right play. If the stacks were bigger I think a fold by JJ is in order. But with the initial raiser only having $800 left in a pot with about $360 and a bet of $400 on the flop I think you go all in or fold with going all in the better option. You don't want AK to catch for free and if you call you're pot committed anyways.
Let me qualify this statement a bit...by reraising two limpers before the flop with tens it's clear the raiser is a fairly aggressive player. Against that kind of player going all in with JJ I think is the best play. I've been wrong before though.
I think that slowplaying the JJ before the flop was a bad idea, a terrible play. Raising from the kill with a mediocre hand in order to take it down is totally common in this game. I would have popped it again with my JJ preflop. The time to move with this hand was preflop. A $200 raise would have probably been sufficient.
natedogg
Not to give away too much of my play, but if someone limp-reraises the pot in no limit, I lay it down without a monster. That's a strong, strong play.
That's about the only time that I think about laying down KK, for instance.
The other time that I saw a big move like that was that same night, last sunday. UTG opened for the minimum, three callers. I'm in the BB with the happy pair. I raise $60, UTG jams for $250 more, my aces hold up against his kings.
Limp reraise == scary.
- target
When Dave bet $400 I was thinking it was too much, regardless of his hand. If the other guy is going to fold, he'd fold for $300 just as well as $400. Difference is, if he moves all in, now it's $500 back to Dave, a higher price, longer odds, basically he's less likely to feel potstuck with just a slightly smaller bet.
I think the most important factor of Dave's decision should be, in advance, am I committed if the other guy raises all in? If you don't want to be committed, then pick a bet size with that in mind.
I'm not trying to rag on Dave. I think his game is very good and his table presence is phenominally fine.
But . . . :-)
When the other guy raised all in, I think Dave has to muck. The primary thought is not "What does he have that makes sense with the betting so far?" It is, "What can I beat?"
Trying to retrace the betting to get a read often falls flat because some guys are real tricky. Latching onto the first hunch, though usually the best policy, has to be shucked aside, and fast, when a huge bet goes in that doesn't jive with the hunch.
The only hand Dave could beat was a non-set-making pocket pair lower than eights. Would the guy with only $100 invested pop in $800 out of the blue, facing a man who just bet $400, with an underpair? I don't think so.
Tommy
In retrospect, I clearly should not have called. I can only beat a small pocket pair, or something like A9s. And given that there are hands that I should be wary of, I need to not make a pot-sized bet there -- being pot-committed is painful.
Well, lessons learned, I suppose.
Though I have to disagree with at least on thing you said, Tommy:
"I'm not trying to rag on Dave. I think his game is very good and his table presence is phenominally fine."
Phenominally fine is clearly an overstatement. I really think I'm close to being able to beat that game, but I'm not there yet. Which is why having someone rag on my play is useful -- it's easier to learn after talking about it than just thinking about it in a vacuum.
Something I really need to work on in this game is bet size. I've tried betting somewhat random amounts, as well as betting the pot, but for the most part I don't feel like I'm thinking about bet sizes correctly. Worrying about who gets pot-committed at what point seems like a critical factor though.
- target (AKA Dave, in case someone didn't figure out who the heck Tommy was talking about)
"Worry about who gets pot-stuck at what point seems like a critical factor though."
Seems like? It's like THE most important thing. Even with big stack against big stack, where the likelihood of a called-all-in is slim, the thresholds that COULD lead to pot-stuckedness are in play the second a bet is made after the flop.
Let's say you and I have $2000 each and the pot is $100 before the flop. You bet $100 after the flop, and I am going to raise, just a matter of how much. The difference between raising, say, $100 or $200 or $300, has enormous bearing on when (now or on the turn)and how quickly (within a betting round) pot-stuckness kicks in. If I raise $100, you can easily just call. If I raise $300 or more, there in much more pressure on you to either raise or fold.
So let's say I raise $300 and you decide to raise back. You could raise half your chips, implying that you are committed, without actually being committed in your mind if I come over the top.
Or you could raise $300 more, putting the raise-or-fold pressure back on me.
And so many levels in between! Add to that there are still cards to be considered, sometimes incidentally, and hoo boy, what a game.
When the debate over the "skill" and "complexity" of limit and no-limit comes up at 2+2, the stack-size considerations are often mentioned in passing, when in my view, ALL differences between the two games are a product of this essential difference.
Tommy
This is a very good discussion. I tend to agree that everything in target's play is good, except that a $250 or $300 bet would have been better.
One thing that nobody mentioned is the image that target had projected. Had targetyou been caught defending a pre-flop raise with an uncaught AK or AQ
ignore previous post: I hit the wrong button.
This is a very good discussion. I tend to agree that everything in target's play is good, except that a $250 or $300 bet would have been better.
One thing that nobody mentioned is the image that target had projected. Had target been caught defending a pre-flop raise with an uncaught AK or AQ? Do you have a fast player's image or a tight players image? If target had been caught bluffing a couple of times during the night and had a fast player's image, then his play is correct. Big stack could have A9, A7, AK, 88 or a straight draw.
Another point made earlier is that the jj player is a fairly weak player. A lot of weak players give a "thought about raising" tell. In this case he had two chances to give this tell. He also had a chance to give a "please bet" tell after the flop. Target's lack of discussion on this point indicates that he's a weak player.
Finally, anyone who doesn't raise with 10 10 on the button needs to go back home to momma.
What do you do with AQo UTG? It seems to me that if I raise a significant ammount only better hands will call. Should i limp? Maybe raise a little?
Against a tough lineup you should fold.
Against a weak lineup, you should raise a bit, because if you make a hand you'll get paid. But at this point you're playing limit poker style: you must make a hand to continue. You also don't want to raise too much because if you get raised back, you'll probably have to fold.
You should almost never limp no matter what kind of game you're in.
natedogg
I know this is wordy nitpickiness, but without anyone willfully putting in money ahead of you, you really aren't "raising," you are opening. The range of reasonable opening bets is small. Opening for more than 5X the big blind in a normally structured game is a silly bet with any hand, in my opinion, unless you have AA or KK and a live one is itching to get all-in with a short stack.
What to open for with AQ? I don't think it matters.
Tommy
I've played PL and NL cash games in Oceanside, Vegas, Wisconsin, and New England. I've yet to play in a game with the structures you guys describe for the NL games in the Bay Area. That is, in the games I've experienced, you can limp in for the exact amount of the big blind (and there are always only 2 blinds, unless someone straddles). So, in these games, you can "open" the pot without putting in more money than the big blind, and limping like this with small pairs, suited connectors, etc., is sometimes the norm in these games.
To the best of my knowledge, the structure you're playing is a left over from the days of NL lowball, and was never commonly used in HE or Omaha games. Please let me know if I'm wrong.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
You are exactly right, on all counts.
In a game where you can "call" the amount of the big blind before the flop, then yes, a raise by the opener is technically and physically a "raise." Local indoctrination keeps from thinking in those terms, that's all.
Tommy
Local indoctrination seems like an action-killer, imo.
I don't like this structure as is discourages the weak loose players from limping and (inevitably) calling a raise.
I don't agree. I think it's just a bigger game than the blinds alone suggest. A limp costs you X, while the total blinds cost you only about the same amount.
On second thought, I guess it does promote tighter play. If it cost you $10 to limp in this game, the blinds are $10 total. In a game I'm used to, a $10 limp means you're spending $15 for the blinds. So, for the same size pot, you spend less in blinds before getting involved, meaning you can be more selective if you wish before getting involved.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
This style of opening is Bob Ciaffone's brain child I think. He discusses it in his Omaha Holdem Book. The theory is that it is supposed to promote tighter play, but in practice this didn't really (so he says). I think that he "invented" this blind structure for pot limit holdem, but I'm not sure.
I've never played it, I'm just reminding you of something I read so you can look into if you wish.
Yes, the minimum open in Northern California is the sum of the blinds.
2-3-5 blinds = $10 to open.
5-5-10 blinds = $20 to open.
$10-10-20 = $40 to open.
Yeah, I know it looks like merely double the BB, which it is, until you get to this game which is frequently spread:
$1-2-2 blinds, $5 to open.
Cool, eh?
Back to 2-3-5, 10 to open. Expanding on what Greg said, this blind structure is equivalent to a normally structured 5-10 no-limit game. A good player is more likely to limp for $10 with $15 already in the pot (two blind of 5 and 10, normal structure) than with $10 in the pot (the local way). So in that sense, the game is different. But the loser players will limp in both games. I can't deny that this appears to be an advantage for the better players, thereby making it an action reducer in the long run.
I'm as certain as I can be that this structure did not come from Bob C. I've been told multiple times by ancient locals that it is a direct carryover from the no-limit low-ball days, the three blinds, with one on the button. Back then, any player could KILL the pot for ANY amount, from any seat, before the cards came out, and the minimum open was double the kill. That got modified for hold'em. We now can kill the pot for $10 or $20 (yes, there can be two kills on one pot) and the minimum open is double the biggest kill. And the kill acts last before the flop.
Some casinos only allow one kill. Some do not allow kills on the button.
In a 2-3-5 with a kill out on almost every hand, the game now plays like a normally structured 10-20 no-limit game. So when you hear about these puny blinds, be wary. This game can play much higher than it sounds.
One of the many things I like about this structure is the gear-shifting it allows, not just for me, but for everyone. It's one more thing to keep track of, making the game even more intricate.
Tommy
The whole, sum of the blinds equals the opener, is what Ciaffone talks about as being his brain child. I don't know the facts on any of this stuff (I'm just a rookie and I've never even seen a live no-limit game, let alone played in one), I'm just stating something that I read in his Omaha book.
Maybe he "borrowed" the idea from Lowball and "adapted" it to PL omaha, and then called it his own. If you read through his Omaha book you will see what I am referring too.
By the way, sounds like a pretty fun game, but too tough for me. No-limit seems way too difficult to me. A mistake in limit costs a bet - A mistake in No-Limit costs a stack.
Do you mean that you don't limp in the limit games that you are in?
"No matter what type of no limit game you are in".
:)
natedogg
How frequently will AcQs10c4c take down the pot against AsAhKhKd when all the money is in before the flop? (I'm not making this up. Someone actually put about $400 in with that first hand: limped for $2 in early position, reraised a $15 raise from the button another $65, then called when I reraised the rest of my stack. Guess who won?) Sorry, I didn't intend this to be a bad beat story; just wanted to find out the percentages.
This is about as bad as it gets in Omaha high, but it really isn't possible to put a horrendous beat on someone in that game when all the money goes in preflop.
From 50,000 runs on Poker Probe, the AAKK hand is a 2.8 to 1 favorite, winning about 75% of the time with a few splits.
For comparison, AsAc vs. AhKc in hold'em is a 15 to 1 preflop favorite, and I've seen that bad beat more than a few times.
Thanks for the info. I had a sense that such hands were more vulnerable than one would like them to be with all the money in, but I have to confess I thought I was in better shape than I was. As opposed to hold'em, I'm usually conservative about raising pre-flop in Omaha generally (since the flop can hit so many hands in so many different ways) and I can't remember sending my whole stack to the middle before; but knowing I could build a big pot heads up against a loose canon marked with an inferior hand... I just couldn't resist. Was this a mistake? I've been told that when you've got a significant edge you should push it hard, but sometimes (as in this case) it can mean your whole bankroll for the night if the play backfires. I'm trying to learn the game, so I's welcome advice from all parties on such matters.
It's tough to find spots where you can get your money in this good unless your opponents are braindead after the flop or will pay off on the river. That is something you need to decide. A guy who makes a play this bad before the flop is a good candidate to make an even worse play post flop (like getting all-in while drawing dead). The problem is, if you don't get his money first, he will probably lose it to a tougher player and then quit.
Zoid,
in your shoes, I would do the same again and again. PL and NL is all about getting action on big bets when you have the best of it. You being a 2.8:1 favorite is phenominal. It might not look so good compared to the 15:1 in the AAvAK example, but that 2.8 out of 3.8 represents almost a 47% advantage for you - that's phenominal. Keep getting on the good side of situations like that (while avoiding the bad side!) and you'll have the money in no time :)
In Omaha high, I'm loathe to try and isolate with anything less than good pocket aces (which I define as either double suited or single suited with 2 face cards) unless I'm virtually guaranteed to isolate. Nothing is more frustrating than trying the trick you mention with AA93 rainbow and getting 7 callers :P
M.
The game is PL Omaha with a $2 ante and $5 on the button. Most of the players buyin for $100-200. 2 questions.
1. With so little money on the table, is this game worth playing?
2. What would you buy in for?
1. If everyone in the game won't go in their pocket it could be a slow game. How are they? I would play it because you could risk as little as $200 to make $500 or even $1000. I am not a big player though. If I made $1000 in a session I would be quite happy.
2. I would try and buy in enough to cover everyone. This is just the way I like to play.
Derrick
"Is it worth playing"? That depends on you. How much do you desire to earn each session?
The players are definitely willing to go into their pockets. I should have been more clear. When I watched the game what frequently happened was someone went all-in for $30 with 3-400 in the pot. It was a difficult game to protect your hands. Is this a good game to get involved with?
I play in a local PL game like that, but in my game if you play the nuts you often get called, by a very slim out hand. Sometimes the guy flukes a 2 out on you, but usually I leave a winner. Nut straights in Omaha get drawn out on, but I wait until the turn to pop it. If I still have the nuts, I bet pot laying only 2:1 pot odds on the 10 outer (at best) trips call, or the 9 outer flush draw... both need about 4.5:1 to call. This maximizes your EV if they call, and it seems that many are willing.
I have run into a situation where we both have the nuts and I don't have any redraws... In my game I have a good idea who will hit me back on the turn with a lesser hand and who has the same hand. If I am heads up with 1 of these guys I don't hit it again. If there is someone in between us I often do.
Unfortunately, maximizing your EV increases your variance.
There's a lot to consider in a game like this.
If its a home game, don't buy in for so much that it looks like you're there to wreck everybody. For instance, bring at least 1K, but don't buy in for it if everyone else buys in for $100. Leave the grand or at least a few hundred extra on the table if the game is table stakes. If nobody else is doing this, maybe you don't want to either, so that you appear to be "one of the guys".
I would guess that people will go to their pockets. It's a rare game where the majority of players lose their initial buy-in and pack up and go home. I mean, they came to play poker didn't they? they understand swings. You can lose $200 with a *single* one-dollar blind in half an hour.
Is the game worth playing with so little money on the table? Only you can decide that. Not if you're a lawyer and you could be making $300/hour at your job instead of playing and all the players are good and no one will go to their pocket. It is worth playing if you're playing with 9 CHUMPS who will go to their pocket.
Those buy-ins are really small, though. Our PL game is a single blind, and the normal buy-in is usually about 100x that single blind, sometimes 200x that blind.
Anyone know anything that happened? I left like an hour before it was supposed to start... $10k/$20k blinds heads up no limit game supposedly Chip Reese vs some Billionare or something....
Also it was $1million or $2million buy in...wow.
how big of a percentage would that be of Chip Reese's bankroll? I would have been suprised if he had more than 3 million - but I guess he must have to be somewhat comfortable in that game - even if he does have a huge advantage over the other guy. I guess he could also be backed by Doyle and others.
I heard he was completely backed, and keeping 30% of his winnings.
and none of the losses? that's a sweet deal in 10K-20K!
Well, its what was going around the poker room, but obviously between him and his backers.
Ted Forrest(not a good limit hold'em) won millon.
Who all ended up playing then?
Have to read at RGP.
didnt see it at rgp. any of you bellagio trolls care to share any interesting details?
You say what. Not a good limit player. Ted Forrest may be the best high limit player in the world. Thats why he plays these games.
I said "he is not a good limit hold'em player",from what I saw when I played full game and short-handed 60-120 up against him years ago...he might play better. Mason also didn't think he play good(ask Mason),some top players I knew also have same opinion. He won yesterday meant nothing(that millon means a lot) because he was against a (suppose to be)Live One.
Poker Is 101% Luck (-1)% Skill
ronzoni said, "Poker Is 101% Luck (-1)% Skill "
You make a comment like this and you expect us to believe that you are right that Ted Forrest (one of the most respected tournament players) is not a good limit player.... hmmm not likely.
Shawn Keller
My quote is meant to be fun,you don't have to believe but if some day you have a chance to have him in your game I'm sure you will love it.
I also played against some big name or World Champion who play much better than Ted...Huck Seed,Jack Keller,Eric Seidel,Berry Jonhston(nice guy)and Phil helmuth( I think he can play good and I didn't see him act like people said at least to me...when I played 200-400 HE against him six years ago I had AK he had AQ flopped Q turn K he said I had better hand and acted nicely)
BTW Do Ted 4Less own any Food4Less?
Give your head a shake....
Ted is one of the best when the limit s get REALLY high.
U may be right,few can prove it since few can play REALLY high.
I don't know for sure, but I would imagine Chip Reese has more than 3 million in his bankroll. A while back there were stories of him winning 2 million during a week of Pot Limit Omaha. But you're right regardless any bankroll he has is unlikely to be able to play this high on a regular basis. It's a crapshoot where he has the best of it, but he certainly could have lost in this game.
Yesterday 2 guys were playing $20K/$40K blind no limit, and the millionares were only playing with eachother... Doyle was "ONLY" playing something at $1500-$3000 blinds.
I live in Bay Area and I have read the forum for a long time. I know of these no-limit games y'all go to and I am eager to play them. But having no experience in NL, what is the best way to get good without getting killed? I don't have a huge bankroll, what is the best game out here to practice in? Are the 10-200 games worth it? I play limit mostly, but these games seem so exciting. However, the logic you guys use goes over my head sometime. I usually understand it, but know I'd probably never utilize it yet. So I ain't playing with you sharks for awhile. I've read the books and forums, I'm ready to try. Where are some good games to get my feet wet?
GV
Try some of the cheap buyin NL HE tourneys. While there are plenty of reasons these won't adequately train you for NL cash games, they are a reasonable place to start without risking too much money. You could also play some of the pokerpages.com tourneys online for free, as well as funcom.com NL games. These aren't realistic because nobody is really risking anything, but it's better than no experience.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
There is a small blind (1-2) PL/NL game in the south bay open to RGPers and the like. You can either send me email or post to the ba-poker mailing list (see yahoo groups and search for ba-poker) for more info.
You've got several choices, but the best are the 2-3-5 games on the peninsula. The buy-ins are $200-300 so you won't get stung too much while you learn. DON'T try to learn this game at Lucky Chances unless you are very rich.
I'm newer than new to these games, but they are more fun than you've ever had playing poker before.
Sunday night, 7:30, Artichoke Joe's in San Bruno off San Bruno Ave near El Camino. Do not be late or you will not get a seat.
Tuesday night, 6, Pacific News in San Mateo on 3rd St. (tiny card house).
There are others, and soon Artichoke Joe's will have a Friday night game and a Saturday no-limit lowball game.
Matt
I know this is NL 101 type of ?, but say my opponent has $1000 and I have $2000. He goes all in and I call his all in. He wins the hand. Does he get all $2000 of my money, or only the $1000 that matches his bet?
Thanks in advance!
Only what he can match, same as in limit.
If not, i would play nl with 20$ agaisnt big stacks hehe
Yes...good odds.
He gets everything you have in front of you, and sometimes you have to go the ATM to finish paying him off.
NL Newbie,
Ignore all of the silly answers on this thread. He only gets $1000.00 of your $2000.00. If he wins the hand, you are left with $1000.00. If you are new to poker, I would suggest starting with a limit game to get your feet wet.
You might want to go to www.paradisepoker.com and download their software if you are new to poker. You can play for free. You can also go to www.pokerpages.com and play in free no limit tournaments. You can also play free tournaments right now at www.pokerspot.com.
I would also recomend that you get some books and magazines on poker and read up on it a bit after playing in a few of these free games. That should let you get your feet wet enough to play in a live game for the first time. Try a small limit hold'em game for your first shot at live poker. Don't be afraid to tell the players and the dealer that it is your first time playing, they will help you with the action and the blinds. Try to wait for pocket aces, kings or ace king the first time you play. It is much more fun if the first pot you play is a winner!
You will find that many card rooms have free poker magazines. This web site has a number of excellent books for sale. A book that I found very helpful when I was starting out was "Winning Low Limit Holdem" by Lee Jones. It advocates straight forward rock solid play. I don't think this website has it, but you should be able to get it at amazon.com You are much more apt to have a winning session the first time you play if you stick to it's advice when you first start playing.
If there was one piece of advice I could give you, read what the books say about position until you understand it fully. Acting last with the button is POWER make sure you understand why. Also pay particular attention to your selection of starting hands. You will see players gambling it up...playing and winning with all kinds of crazy starting hands, DON'T let yourself fall into the trap of playing like them.
Best regards,
Joe
PS, if you have any questions about getting started, you can always e-mail me at cheezerules@hotmail.com.
Hello all,
I welcome all comments. I am a avid player..I play limit holdem about 6 days a week. I play 20-40 and feel I play pretty well. I have only recently started pl and nl. I would like any advice or criticsim on these hands I encounterd. 1st 10-15 blinds avg stack 500 I have 850 I have a-js under the gun I raise 100. all fold to two off the button who re-raises to 250...call or fold? I called flopped the nuts and doubled through. how is that hand to be played..also I picked it up again right after but unsuited play or fold...I mucked it. 2nd hand in the bb with 9-9 two off the button raises 150 1 before the button calls (by the way there are 3 limpers early)so I raise 100 to get it 3 ways. 1st raiser goes all in..about 500 more the next person calls he only had about 76 anyway..do I fold or call..I had a nice stack enough if I call and miss I can be ok. I called they had q-q and a-a repsectivly. sorry so scattered I am still playing in the tourny. Trying to reconstruct while playing. any remarks would be appreciated.
There are many different types of NL games. The size of the bets/raises,etc. usually follows some kind of conventional pattern, depending on the game. The more you play, the more you'll learn about what kind of hands certain bets represent. It sounds like you're new to this NL game. Sitting down cold, without knowledge of the different players, can be real dangerous. They'll put you off your hands too easily. And it doesn't sound like you can be aggressive enough to compete just yet. My advice would be to observe a couple sessions before you sit in to try to get a feel for everyone's style. Good luck.
It sounds like you're playing a pokerpages tourney, or the like. There is very little resemblance between these games and real world cash games, and not much more resemblance to real world tourney games. When you can play for free, the quality of the players is quite low.
As a general rule, don't raise 100 when the blinds are 10,15. I usually raise to about 3x the big blind, or about 45 at this level. If somebody makes a big reraise, they usually have a big hand, much bigger than AJ or 99. However, online for free, you may see anything. Don't expect anything like this if you play in the real cash games, like those Tommy et al. describe in the Bay area.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
It's a rare day when AJ and 99 are happy hands when an opponent shoves in.
You posts would be much more readable, and make people much more likely to respond, if you broke them up into paragraphs, with a blank line in between each chunk. One hand per paragraph, if you please.
In both cases, you have a decent-to-good hand, and someone is putting in a big raise. You have to think about what you could beat.
With AJ, not much. Someone raising hard has a big A or a big pair. They *might* have something like TT, in which case you are only a little behind, or they could have AK, in which case you are very sad. If they have AA, no chance. So you're either a small dog or a big dog. Not a good place to be.
With 99, you are *slightly* ahead of overcards, and way behind overpairs. You really want to avoid situations where you are a small favorite or a big dog.
Good hands, but hands that don't like a lot of pressure.
- target
I'm fairly new to NL&PL myself, but if I have 9-9 then I want to see the flop as cheaply as possible. If I don't catch a nine then I am gone. When you make a small re-raise you give the original raiser a chance to go all in. You probably don't want to do that with a couple of nines. A-J is okay, but it generally cannot stand a big raise.
I was reading my new copy Super System and especially the section on the trouble hands (i.e. KQ, KJ, QJ etc).
Now in it, Doyle indicates that he would call a preflop raise with such a trouble hand IF it was suited.
I admit I'm not sure why. Even if you are a very good hand reader or have excellent people skills to know when not to get involved when you flop top pair, as you could be outkicked or overpaired, it seems to me then that the only flops you would really feel confident here is when you flop a str8 or a flush (maybe trips). Maybe when you flopped a good draw, if you feel you could outplay your opponent and make him lay down a better hand with a big semi-bluff. If you indeed flop a flush or a str8 (or trips), I'd think your opponent would be less likely to pay you off because of the scary board thus decreasing your implied odds.
I really understand the validy of calling a raise with small connectors but with these types of hands, I'd need some comments.
Thanks,
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
Doyle likes to semi-bluff when he reads an opponent as weak, as do many aggressive players. Suited hands have many more semi-bluff opportunities. Dry bluffs are frequently unnecessary, as semi-bluff hands and situations arise more than often enough for you to stick to them and teach your opponents that you're capable of betting or raising without a hand. There really isn't much value in a dry bluff in a cash game.
However, if any of our cash game stars wishes to inform me why I'm wrong, I'd love to hear it. My opportunities for playing cash PL and NL games has been severely reduced for the last few years here in CT.
Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
The effect of suitedness might appear to be winning pots with flushes. It's not. The real effect is that it gives legitimate oomph to an otherwise lousy hand when a flush DRAW comes on the flop OR the turn. You can bluff for a discount because you have outs.
In other words, I agree with Greg.
Tommy
The reason is simple:
Opportunity for aggression.
Doyle really likes to bet hard. He wins lots of pots through aggression. You can't afford to bet really hard with nothing at all very often though, sans a really good read on your opponent.
Suited cards give you more chances to semibluff, to take down pots through aggression knowing you still have outs if the guy calls for some reason.
You also occasionally make flushes, but that's almost beside the point.
- target
Doyle,
I just want to say that I am a huge fan of yours and I appreciate you posting on this fourm. I have your Super System book and it is one of the most read books in my library. I can't imagine the amount of work it took to put something like that together. It has paid for itself many many times over for me. I read it and read it and I learn something new each time.
Anyways, here is the request. Would you mind posting some of your bigger hands, the biggest pot you ever won, the most memorable play, something along those lines? People like me who don't get the opportu