Played in a "must-move" game over the weekend and lost a few hands while making plays that, in retrospect, would've been more appropriate in the main game, but were likely mistakes in the must-move game. Thus I'm curious if others make strategy adjustments simply because the game is a must-move game?
Earl,
We play $20-$40 with one, sometimes two "must move" tables to the main game. I watch the order of the board to see who will be moving from my table and what order. This may affect my decision as to seat change and how long the present game is tough/loose/mixed.
But in all circumstances, we should always play our very best.
You generally should start by assuming that strangers in a main game are tighter and better than strangers in a must-move game. Live ones tend to bust out before they reach the main game.
This question seems odd. Play based on the composition of the current game, not whether it is a must-move, main game, or regular game.
However, consider the must-move rules. For example, in some cardrooms in LA, you must move immediately when called but get to come in behind the button for free; therefore, when you are first up and there is a chance you will be called in the next few minutes, your best play is not to play - refuse to take the big blind.
-Abdul
Abdul,
This is great advice and also applies to situations when you expect to be called to another limit. Also, it you are really EV concious, you can work in your bathroom breaks during the time the blinds pass and so on.
In a few days I may start a goofy thread on the $9 (cost to her) powder room/smoking break my student took two days in a row when she knew she was leaving in fifteen minutes anyway. I need to make sure I get the math right. It is hard to explain that small edges matter to someone who is up two racks on a given day ;-).
Regards,
Rick
NO
Advertising in a must move game when you will probably be moving shortly accomplishes very little.
I always look to see who is moving ahead of me and I also look to see if there is a board. When playing in a must move game you sometimes have to be prepared to play short handed.
I pretty much play my normal game in general except for advertising and image plays.
Bruce
Turn over is twice as fast so "advertising" isn't worth as much, even though you will find some of these players in the main game.
I would say that other players may tend to be a little distracted since they are still "waiting" for their game of choice, but I'm not sure how you should take advantage of that.
- Louie
I think Bruce hit the nail on the head. Advertising, or "image", has much less value since the table composition changes dramatically (composition being the theme, which a few alluded to but seemed mystified by the idea that a must-move was unique). But perhaps all of this depends on your style of play. Looking back, I've found that my better plays are wasted on a game where the table composition changes dramatically. Tighter, technically perfect play is much the best in those situations (the idea that we should all play "our best game" is too nebulous, since "our best game" is based on situation).
I seem to be playing in a 10-20 game with a half kill a lot. Where the winner of a large pot puts up $15 and the game becomes 15-30. What I cant figure out how to modify my game to meet this condition. I have generally followed the following approach:
a. When the kill is in late position, I have been tightening up my raising requirements a bit, specially when the player with the kill is the type to raise without much of a hand when he has the kill action.
b. When the kill is in early position and calls I have been loosening up my raising requirements in late position trying to steal the added blind money (I dont think I have had a positive gain from this strategy)
c. I have generally been looser in raising when I have the kill trying to improve my implied odds.
Anybody have anythoughts on the best way to deal with this game. The other day I played in this game where 4 out of 5 hands were kill hands -- including many $400 plus pots!
It appears from your post that the killer acts in turn. If so, your "a" and "b" strategies make sense...but don't loosen your steal-raising too much (unless you know the blinds and killer are very weak/tight). Your "c" strategy makes no sense IMO, unless perhaps you don't mean what you said.
I think a kill pot is a good opportunity for a good player to score. I like to play my normal game pre flop tight/aggressive but tend to bluff more because you have leverage in a kill you don't in the normal limits.
"a. When the kill is in late position, I have been tightening up my raising requirements a bit, specially when the player with the kill is the type to raise without much of a hand when he has the kill action. "
I would also tighten up my limping requirements given the type of player you described. You don't want to get caught in a raise with a trashy hand. However, if the player is a frequent raiser, you could use his raises to drive other players out or limp-reraise and build a giant pot with your best hands.
"b. When the kill is in early position and calls I have been loosening up my raising requirements in late position trying to steal the added blind money (I dont think I have had a positive gain from this strategy) "
I think that in general, killers tend to defend more often than not. Or at least that's the way it is in the kill games I play in. Reason for this is that in my games, the killer acts LAST. Also, in my games the kill is posted by a player who has won two pots in a row. These players tend to be the loosest ones, and therefore tend to defend their blinds and call raises more indiscriminately than other, tighter players.
"c. I have generally been looser in raising when I have the kill trying to improve my implied odds. "
This statement makes no sense. The implied odds are exactly the same - because they are measured in BETS, not $$. I certainly would not raise more loosely now that the stakes are higher, if anything I would play the same or more tightly.
Interesting post.
Dave in Cali
To explain c.
Lets suppose I have posted the $15 kill and am holding pocket 8's in middle position, and the game is such that I would not normally raise in this position. However, if I have already posted the $15 I am now more inclined to make it $30 (as I will be putting $15 voluntarily into the pot) when every one else is putting in $30 preflop.
Cheers
In terms of big bets, what were you best and worst sessions?
My best session was winning 60 big bets in a 20/40 game....and my worst was probably 40 big bets in a 40/80 game (both sessions were between 8 and 12 hours).
ex,
I never seem to break the 75 big bet barrier on the plus side, but my worse days have never exceded 50 big bets and that was only a couple times. My session length is about eleven hours max but my big loses were in shorter sessions.
Regards,
Rick
+120 bb (12hours) in 3-6 stud. -50 bb (10hours) in 3-6 stud. +55 bb (8hours) in 6-12 hold'em. -40 bb (12hours) in 6-12 hold'em. Those are my best and worst ever for both games. I never play stud anymore so those are from a long time ago.
My worst days are about 50 BB. I never will go under more than that. When I have a session that bad I take a week off, maybe more. Best days are between 20 and 40 BB. Doesn't seem to be much in between. I tend to lose more during a losing session than I win during a winning session. The good news is that I've had two losing sessions the last 2 1/2 months and 14 winners. If I could learn to leave after four hours of breakeven poker I'd have a healthier br.
chris
Best was on a Firday night 1999 at Binions in LasVegas.
I was playing 4-8 waiting for a 10-20 seat to open up I was up over $400 when my seat came free and I won 90+ big bets inside of 3 hours. Most of which came from a wild and woolie hand where I made quad duces.
Biggest pot ever was an "in between" game in England in the 80's - the lads were drinking a bit of beer and the game got out og hand - I won a pot with 6k (about $10K at the time) pound sterling in it - the hand a J and 3 I knew nothing could beat me high and the 2's and 2 3's were out so there was only one card in the deck that could beat me. I went "pot" and collected a huge pot with many IOU's and checks in it.
Took me a long time to collect all the money but what a blast.
Worst sessions - I really don't like anything negative so I'll just skip them OK! Suffice it to say 40 bb loss in not out of the question :-)
Best = 5-10 +63bb Worst = 6-12 -23bb
i remember a couple of 200+ big bet days. but the two i like best were at binions in the 70's. in 5 10 &25 no limit games both days back to back plays i won over 40 from the minimum buy in without ever showing down a hand at any time during the two plays. impossible you say--believe it or not.
I'll never play heads up no limit against you. You're probably more aggressive than me.
you can bet your sweet bippie i am. good luck.
Around $1400 (35 bb's) in one and a half hours in a 20-40 HE game.
I had played 10-20 from noon until 9 pm and was loser just at $500 at that point, at that time my biggest loss to date playing 10-20. Leaving my chips on the table, I went to my room, showered, and returned feeling crisp, and quit at midnight an $800 winner. This was a rush of 65 big bets in just under 3 hours.
My best day ever was 90+ big bets in a 3-6 game. Worst day: 40 big bets in a 9-18 game.
As mentioned in another post, I recently dropped $5300 on paradise playing 2 20-40 tables over about 12 hours, got a good nights sleep and won 4700 the next day in about 10 hours of play at the same two tables. Both sessions are testament to the advice the experts give about when to play and when not to play. Think maybe I'm a high variance player? Yes, I like to mix it up, but I've been learning when to temper it. Mason mentions in one of his essays that many players developed by being lose aggressive and over time learning good judgment. That's what I've been doing and it is paying off big time.
Best day happened three days ago... I'm still thinking about it. I won 82.5 big bets at 10-20. It was a seven hour session. I think I may have left too early because the game was REALLY good but I have never won this much so I think I got a little excited a left.
My worst session was 47 big bets at 5-10. I lost this in about three hours. Every hand seemed to be second best that day.
In terms of big bets won, you will find that your best days will be in low limit poker (below $10-$20). In terms of big bets lost, you will find your worst days in middle limit poker ($10-$20 through $30-$60).
At $3-$6 my best session was winning $650 or almost 110 big bets. My worst session at $3-$6 was losing $129 or about 20 big bets. But I only played about 180 hours of $3-$6.
At $4-$8 my best session was winning $890 or about 110 big bets in a 17 hour session. My worst session was losing $144 in an 8 hour session. I have only played about 100 hours of $4-$8.
At $6-$12 my best session was winning $580 in a 10 hour session which is less than 50 big bets. My worst session was losing $460 in a 12 hour session which is about 40 big bets. I have played about 150 hours of $6-$12.
At $10-$20 my best session was winning $1600 in a 13 hour session which is about 80 big bets. My worst session was losing $1000 in a 10 hour session. I have played about 300 hours of $10-$20.
At $15-$30 my best session was winning $2000 in a 13 hour session which is about 65 big bets. My worst session was losing $1700 in a 5 hour seesion which is about 35 big bets. I have played about 600 hours of $15-$30.
At $20-$40 my best session was winning $2600 in an 8 hour session which is about 65 big bets. My worst session was losing $1900 in an 8 hour session which is about 50 big bets. I have played about 1200 hours of $20-$40.
At $30-$60 my best session was winning $1800 in a 9 hour session which is only 30 big bets. My worst session was losing $2400 in 6 hours which is 40 big bets. I have played about 350 hours of $30-$60.
I once heard a story about a guy who won $1,100.00 in a $1-$2 game!! I have reason to believe it's true.
My best session for big bets was in a 2-4 game at the tropicana in AC last year. A man with a foreign accent and a drink in his hand came up to the 2-4 table and bought in with two orange and six black chips, or $2,600. EVERY SINGLE HAND, FOR EIGHT SOLID HOURS, HE WOULD LOOK AT THE DEALER BTF AND SAY "HOW DO YOU SAY, RRAAIISSEE!". There were NO pots the entire game that were not raised BTF. This essentially raised the stakes to 4-8, especially since he was a frequent raiser on all streets, regardless of his holding. I won over 600$, or 150 big bets. Total insanity!
My biggest loss in terms of big bets were in 3-6 kill and 5-10 (no kill) in which I lost 300$ and 500$ respectively, or 50 big bets. The 5-10 was a proportionately bigger loss though because there was no kill.
Dave in Cali
145 big bets is biggest win. Have had several exactly 50 bb losses ($1000 in 10/20).
At 4/8 4-50 BB wins and 5-25 BB losses.
At 6/12 1 - 40 BB loss and 3-16 BB wins don't play 6/12 much.
10-20 35 BB loss 50 BB win 25 sessions or so
15-30 13 BB win , never loss, haven't played much.
20-40 1 10 BB loss played only once.
I seem to study more than I play, that will change soon.
When I started out playing, I was extremely aggressive. My biggest win back then was +125 BB, and my biggest loss was -100 BB; both in 10-20.
More recently, my play is saner. My biggest recent win was +80BB in 10-20, and my biggest loss was -60BB in 8-16.
William
3-6 Hold'em
Best session: +41 big bets (in 3.25 hours, yikes)
Worst session: -59 big bets
I won 500 big bets once. But it was no limit.
win of 85bb/loss of about 65bb (30/60).
5/10 in A.C.-taj mahal:
2,367 dollars in fourteen hours-if that seems unbelievable the following makes me glad i had two witnesses (because i sometimes wonder if i imagined the whole thing )
* i never saw pocket aces * i never saw pocket kings * got AKs once; floped two kings, got run down by a gut shot (it wasn't really a bad beat - the winner held KQ and probably thought he had the best hand all along * got two sets of queens cracked - the only two times i saw pocket queens WHERE DID THE $$ COME FROM ??? * AQ over AJ - i lost count but maybe a dozen times * ditto KQ over KJ * one MONSTER pot with pocket jacks on the button, capped on every round except the river, flopped a set, turned quads, and took off two full houses, a straight,and two flushes * pocket nines and tens that were winning very nice pots, (but not monsters) in all cases UNIMPROVED to sum it up, hand after hand after hand when my cards were just a little better than what i was up against!!! i was getting more free cards than you could imagine, and was getting away with almost every bluff i attempted. now the point of the post - yes there is a point and it's not how brilliantly i played, although i do think i was at the top of my game and i was NOT playing every hand i picked up.................. the cost of this run (rake and tokes) was well in excess of FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS - rake $4 per hand, avg. tip a little over $1. if this makes me sound like the biggest whiner in history, please consider the following: the pots were averaging between $100-150 dollars meaning if i had won ten or so less hands my win would have been cut in half but my cost would have only gone down by about $50 (cost to me: app.$350) take away five more winners and now my haul for the day is now around $600 AND IT COSTS ME $300 TO PLAY i don't feel a need to extrapolate any further - a six hundred dollar win in a 12-14 hour session of $5/10 hold'em - or any other game for that matter (more than FIVE big bets per hour) would send most of us home floating on a cloud. how fluffy would that cloud feel when you sat don and realized that you had left one-third of your winnings on the table. more importantly, how do the bad players EVER WIN? this is not a selfish question - it is not about making sure the "producers" have an occasional win so as to guarantee their return; they've been returning for years, the same ones day after day after day. and, for whatever reason they will keep returning. But don't they deserve at least a chance to book a win now and then? i've seen games - more than i care to remember - where EVERYONE got up a significant loser (10 or more big bets). something is wrong here, but absent our complaints nothing is gong to be done to fix it. i don't recall being appointed guardian to the poker world; maybe i should just be glad that there is a place for me to go and pick up extra spending $$ almost at will ( $27 and change/hour over the last five hundred plus hours at $5/10 hold'em and stud ) but it just doesn't seem right. i want to peel them ( the players ), i'd just like to see them get something that resembles a fair shake. COMMENTS AND/OR RESPONSES PLEASE!!!!!!!!
I was the small blind in a $5-10 game sitting with pocket K's. A good player in middle position raises pre-flop. I reraised the pot making everyone fold. The original raiser cap the pre-flop betting, leaving me and him heads up. The flop was Kd 7s 5d. I checked, he bet and I raised him. He reraised me and I raised again capping the bet. I feared he may be on the flush draw but I was going to make him pay for it. The turn was another 5 giving me a full house. I bet and he called. The river was another 5. I didn't really want to see 3 5's on the board but I still had my boat kkk55. I bet the river and he mearly called. I showed my boat, and he mucked his cards before I could ask what he had.
My question...did I play this right and what do you think he had??
AA, with the ace of diamonds, or AK with the ace of diamonds, or AK without the ace of diamonds.
77 or AK
He obviously had AA or AK. What else could he possibly have?
Why when you win a big pot would you ask your opponent what he has? Who cares? Take your money and be a gracious winner. Even though your intentions are not to be rude and needle your opponent and you are just curious you will probably come across the wrong way.
Bruce
Normally the cap is off in a heads-up situation when the betting round starts heads-up. You played correctly. I would guess he had AA or slick with the Ace of Diamonds.
Do you think AK diamonds overplayed his hand preflop and on the flop?
He cannot have both the Ace of Diamonds and the King of Diamonds since the Diamond King is on the table. He could have the Ace of Diamonds and the case King. If this was his holding then I think he did over play his hand. He should not cap pre-flop and he should not re-raise on the flop when he gets check-raised.
I would have shown aggression on the turn instead of on the flop because the bets are double there. He probably had two Aces.
What are the limits of choice out there? What is the bankroll you bring to that game? At what point do you decide to call it a night?
I play 4-8 I bring 200-300 to play and if I get up $200 or so I call it a night. I find that if the game drags on the rake is too hard to overcome. I usually end up kicking myself if I play the last 4 hours of an 8 hour session.
comments?
A $200-$300 session bankroll is more than adequate for a $4-$8 game. Don't play in games where the rake is more than 5% with a max of say $4.
200 to 300 is about enough for you not to delve into your pocket too much. Regarding the quitting after winning 200 win, be more flexible. If the game is real loose passive and/or you have good command of the game, be more likely to continue. If, on the other hand, the game has turned bad, it's time to hit and run.
4-8 HE, loose and pretty passive. I am on button with 4c4d. Three limpers to me, I call, SB raises, BB calls, all call, 6 way action.
Flop is Jh 3d 2s. SB checks, BB checks, everyone checks... Of course I take the free card. SB looks somewhat disappointed.... (a little foreshadowing here folks)...
Turn is the beautiful 4s. Now I have a set. Of course I would have FOLDED for a bet, but there was NO BET! NOW the SB bets. Bet he wishes he would have bet the flop... two callers to me, of course I RAISE! All call, 4 way action.
River is another apparently beautiful card for me, the 7c. All check to me and I bet. SB and one other call. I show the set of fours and SB mucks KdKs face up.
I think the point illustrated by this hand is that when you are in early position, and you get a good flop, betting out is usually the best play. There was nothing to suggest to the SB that anyone would bet the flop. After all, HE was the raiser BTF. This was NOT a good opportunity to try for a check-raise. This lineup was pretty passive, with many pots getting checked down to the river. In a more aggressive game, perhaps, but not in this one. His failure to bet the flop cost him not only the pot, but several more large bets as well.
Comments welcome.
Dave in Cali
Your comments about SB's check are right on the money, especially with that safe flop, but ESPECIALLY since the button doesn't seem to be very aggressive.
I think you should have bet the flop EXCEPT when you have good reason the SB is trying to pull a fast one. Well and except if its real loose and you can expect a few calls.
Your 44 is certainly worth a call if SB bets the flop and everybody folds; there being far too great a chance he has overcards.
- Louie
"I think you should have bet the flop EXCEPT when you have good reason the SB is trying to pull a fast one. Well and except if its real loose and you can expect a few calls. "
Actually, this game was very loose and if I had bet I would fully expect to be called by both overcards, Jacks, second or third pair, or miscellaneous pocket pairs and backdoor draws. I thought betting would be futile since I was unlikely to win the pot outright, and would not know where I stood against callers. Also, the SB was somewhat more aggressive than the rest of the field so I would not want to bet into him with an underpair.
"Your 44 is certainly worth a call if SB bets the flop and everybody folds; there being far too great a chance he has overcards. "
I agree here. However, it is unlikely that everyone would fold to his bet in this game. If this scenario had occurred, I would have probably called him down, unless scary cards came on the turn and river.
Dave in Cali
Do you think he overplayed his hand preflop and on the flop with the AK of diamonds?
If the SB is aggressive as you say then his check is uncharacteristic (he would bet AK) and so you are correct to deduce his chances of pulling a fast one are high; and I therefore agree with your flop check.
Oops, wrong post.
But you know if the SB bets and 4 call youll be getting 17-1 on your call, which is enough to try hit a 4. (Yeah the odds are ~22 to 1 but you have big implied odds).
It might be correct to bet the flop even if all check to you if you think he might checkraise w/ A K or something, as you are a favorite against 2 overcards now, and if someone had a J they pbly would have bet it so there is a reasonable chance you have the best hand(!).
And, I wanted to tell you about the Ah8h hand. I did some math and I think its closer than I thought but I think its a fold on the flop, but ill check it again (i don't have it w/me ill try and post it later).
Actually, both you and Louie make a pretty good case for either betting or calling the flop, but I think I would generally fold most of the time unless the pot odds were very good. (17:1 would be pretty close). It would depend on whether my outs were totally clean or not. Any doubt and I fold.
If you can get the figures for the A8 hand I would be interested in seeing them. I do think that particular call was marginal and borderline either way. I'm sure I would not have called if I hadn't been winning so much at the time. If you get them, copy and repost the hand and start a new thread.
Dave in Cali
In a game this loose it would have been very hard for SB to protect his hand with an outright bet. If he does bet it should only be for value not for protection. I think he took a good risk by checking on the flop with the intention of raising a late position stealer/freecard bettor like yourself. If it were me in your situation, I would have bet on the flop to steal on the flop/gain a freecard on the turn. And of course, given your description of SB's demeanor, he would have checkraised you to drive out the other players. I then would have called prepared to fold on the turn if bet into and I don't hit it.
Dave,
I'll answer this one again without reading any other replies yet. I hate to have Louie Landale's wit mess up my style.
This wasn't "Fancy Play Syndrome". It was a distant relative named "Stupid Play Syndrome". When someone raises out of the blinds, opponents expect the raiser to bet the flop since this so often means big pair. When the pre fop raiser doesn't, opponents often fear top set (in this case trip jacks) and will gladly take the free card.
Interestingly, the hand 4d 4c has its own name around these parts. Next time refer to it as a "Mason Malmuth" and most of us will know what it means.
Regards,
Rick
This is an interesting hand came up last night. Typical 3/6 holdem, 10 handed.
I'm in BB with AcKh.
Preflop: call, call, fold, raise, rest fold, SB call, I just call, two early limpers call. 5 players.
Flop: Ad 5s 7c SB check, I bet, limper1 fold, limper2 call, PFraiser 2 bet, SB cold call 2, I 3 bet, all call.
Turn: Qs SB check, I bet, limper1 raise! PFraiser 3 bet! SB cold call 3. What do you do here?
Assume you only know that SB is fish, but you don't have much info about the other two players except they are not maniacs. What do your opponents have?
Results later...
you fold. Looks like SB has a 68 or 69 or 34, he's probably drawing to a straight (notice 34 is pulling to a double belly buster that stands to be the best hand if it hits). PFR could easily have AA and merely called your 3bet on the flop, hoping you'd lead again on the turn so he could raise. Maybe first limper has QQ, doubtful, or maybe first limper has 77 (more likely, and he slow played his monster flop). If first limper has 77 then I think PFR probably has AQ (not that these two's hole cards are dependent on each other)and is overplaying his top two pair hand. Either way I'd say that you're beat and drawing close to dead. Assuming the best, that PFR raised with A7s and limper limped with 57s your only outs are the 3 queens and the 3 kings, neither of which give you much betting power. I'd say fold and lose your 3.5 BB, be done with the hand, there has to be a better spot to throw the chips in the pot.
chris
SB: 68
Limper 1: 55 or 77
PFraiser:AK, AQ, AA
Of course SB wins when a 4 rivers ;-)
Clear fold IMO
Just my thoughts
M.A.
I would muck on the turn. My guess is the 1st limper flopped a set and the raiser has AQ
Being a very low limit game, I would have to assume that this is "no foldem holdem" where anyone can have anything and it is very likely that everyone has garbage. But in this case, you're just gonna have to assume that someone has at least a two pair. I say fold it and cut your losses. You're down two three outs if the two pair also has an Ace.
You have a clear fold on the turn. The pre-flop raiser has AA or AQ and the raiser probably has two pair or a set. The small blind could be on a flush draw. You are either playing with 3 outs (maybe less if the Ks gives someone a Spade flush) or you are drawing dead.
I fold. I think there is a set of Aces or Queens or at least two pair with A-Q. There is also a possible flush and straight draw, although I don't think the straight draw is too likely. I'm especially concerned about limper 1 who raised the turn and cold called two when you made it three bets on the flop.
noooooooo, i had a nice long post for you guys to read and i accidentally closed the window....great, just great.
ok, i'll just get to the point this time.
how does limper1 raise after the turn if he folded after the flop?
and since this is the typical 3-6 holdem game, that fish in the sb is on a straight draw with QT, something pretty decent to call with in 3-6. and with the typical word in mind, he's hanging around there w/ second pair like some 3-6'ers do that i've played with.
thus, that middle position pre flop raiser raised with 6-8 spades, and did this preflop because he wants to bust out w/ some counter tells, which are pointless in some 3-6 games because hardly anyone bothers w/ tells since everyone plays everything. with this in mind, he is betting this straight and flush draw because he's been reading 2+2 and read that post that the hand with the highest percentage of hitting its outs will most often win, and win big. unfortunately, he's not going to hit either hand come the river because it just doesn't sound like he is. thus, his raising btf out of position to try to throw people off bit him in the bumm as he was unable to hit nor get you to lay down your hand in the following streets. i've noticed that people in these limits don't pay attention too much to position and that an early position raiser should have a better starting hand then one who would raise btf in late position. they see suited stuff, and mmm, they fall in love. [yes, i've done this several times and it's bit me in the butt cuz ppl w/ middle pair have called me down while i pure bluffed every street because i was caught in that situation where i tried to be fancy and make a play out of position...when in fact you should just play ur hands if you've got them and fold when you don't.
woah, this post got pretty long. hope u guys understood what i meant. now if that 3rd player is in...it'd be different, since it won't be heads up anymore. and in heads up, anything can happen with pocket pairs that are lower than the cards on the board and those people holding say pocket eights will try to bet out and raise out to scare those with pocket jacks or in this case AK, to fold.
well, have a nice day. bye bye.
One of them has Ax flush draw for spades, another had set of 7s, and the raiser has KK
I'm in BB with AcKh.
Preflop: call, call, fold, raise, rest fold, SB call, I just call, two early limpers call. 5 players.
Flop: Ad 5s 7c SB check, I bet, limper1 fold, limper2 call, PFraiser 2 bet, SB cold call 2, I 3 bet, all call.
Turn: Qs SB check, I bet, limper2 raise! PFraiser 3 bet! SB cold call 3. What do you do here?
I fold. limper2 call.
River: Kd limper2 bet. PFraiser call. SB call.
Final board: Ad 5s 7c Qs Kd
limper2 has 7d Qd - two pairs. PFraiser has As Qh - top two. SB fish has JJ.
I missed out on a big pot, but I believe I've made the correct fold on the turn.
This is an easy one to figure out. On the river you were dead to a King so you had 3 outs from 46 unseen cards which means the odds were 43:3 against you. At the point where you are deciding whether or not to call the double raise back to you on the turn there is 41 bets in the pot and it costs you 4 so the odds are 41:4. Assuming you collect one double bet on the end if you hit, you will win 43 bets for a 4 bet investment. So you are getting 10.75:1 on a 14.3:1 shot. This of course ignores what the other three players actually had.
Why didn't you 3 bet preflop? Maybe my experience is skewed but in most game i play in when the BB 3 bets after the button raises most will get out of his way.
(n/t)
Three betting pre-flop with slick even out of your blind is not at all bad especially if the raiser is the kind who raises on shaded values. You might be able to get the two original limpers to fold rather than call a double raise back to them.
My observation of the game was no one will fold even by 3 betting the flop. Later I was thinking perhaps by check raising on the flop I maybe able to drive out the limper if the limper hadn't invested any money on the flop yet. But once limper invested money (called 1 bet) on the flop, he felt he's commiting himself to the pot...
Before reading the results I'll say that the limper has Q5s or Q7s, The PFraiser has QQ or maybe AQ and the SB has 2 cards.
Does a player who stays until the showdown have to show his cards if asked what he has? I've been playing in "home" 2-4 and 3-6 HE games for a while, but have recently begun playing in AC. In my private games players always show when asked, but people get annoyed at the casinos sometimes.
I don't agree with the idea that it doesn't matter what a losing player was holding, as I saw someone post earlier on this topic. I'd like to know if someone was outright bluffing or if they had a strong hand cracked...that kind of information can help me decide on future bets.
Yes, in most public cardrooms when there is a showdown any player at the table can ask to see the losing hand. Now I believe in Reno, I think at the Peppermill, they have instituted a new policy where no one can see the losing hand if the loser wishes to have his hand simply mucked. But this is a rarity.
About 5 years ago, when I first started playing poker I was in a $1-$5 stud game and I asked to see the losing hand at showdown. I lost a $50 pot because when the losing hand was exposed it turned out to be the best hand. Since I was the winning player and ask to see the losing hand, the losing hand became live and I lost the pot! Since then they have abandoned this practice.
In general it is a bad idea to ask to see the losing hand. It causes hard feelings and slows down the game. The only exception would be if you suspected collusion and wanted to see what the suspected colluders were betting and raising with.
Jim, do you think that in most large casinos and card rooms that there is that much collunion going on? I have seen it go on at some Las Vagas nights but not in any casino.
I believe such collusion is rare at the 3-6 to 6-12 limits, and uncommon in the mid-limits.
In casinos and public cardrooms I think it is rare. I have heard that in some high limit games ($80-$160 and above) players are frequently playing off the same bankroll and can occasionally "gang up" on a tourist.
A number of years ago, when still learning Omaha/8, I had called a bet at the river and when faced with my opponents hand, thought I had lost, forgetting that it was a split game. I attempted to muck my hand, but the "winning" player asked to see my hand. The dealer turned it over and declared it was a split pot since I held low.
That was my "lesson" on asking to see another's "losing" hand.
This of course is an incredibly stupid rule. Once a player voluntarily relinquishes control of his hand it should make no difference whether the winning player asked to see the hand or another player at the table. Putting it another way, why on earth should a player not involved in the hand have the right to ask to see the loser's hand but the winning player has no such right?
Jim,
We've argued this before a little but who knows where it is buried (actually, you are so organized I bet you do - I'm glad guys like you put men in space rather than screw ups like me.)
The logic of what you say makes sense on the surface but the bigger picture is that the rules should be "good for the game" in addition to being fair or logical. In order to discourage the guy who just won the pot into further humiliating his opponent, we have this rule. Believe me, I think we have many bad rules, but this isn’t any where near the top of my list.
Anyway, you stated that this should only be done when you suspect collusion so we really don’t disagree much. But I’m guessing that the $50 pot lost (which is huge at that limit) will never be forgotten ;-).
Regards,
Rick
Why not make the forced-exposed hand live regardless of who asked to see it? Or do you think only pot winners try to humiliate pot losers?
Mark,
Most clubs have other rules to discourage third parties from asking to see others hands. In general, we try to discourage any player from repeatedly asking to see others folded hands, and have a rule in our book saying it will not be tolerated.
Rick
Excellent point.
A stupid rule? I can't help but think it is justice if someone wants to see a hand and it happens to beat him he (the one who wanted to see) IS NOT entitled to the pot he wanted to see the hand EG he asked for a whowdown which the other player wanted but now that it was forced to be seen i dont think the one who wanted to see should get it.
This might teach the loudmouth a lesson.
But suspicious when a player at showdown throws his hand away (let us say it barely touches the muck) then the hand is OVER. You should either have a rule that says no one is allowed to see it (The Reno-Peppermill Rule) or a rule that allows for anyone in the game to ask to see it (The standard practice). In the latter case whether or not the person asking happen to also be the person who won the pot is totally irrelevant.
If someone wants to throw his hand away then he should be able to AND the other person is not allowed to see it. Or the person who wants to see it should run the risk of seeing a better hand beat him if he really wants to see it.
I think asking to see if a bad idea and those who want to see should at least run some risk.
In the case you describe if the hand hits the muck (barely), it should be considered dead and once it was dead it should be allowed to be viewed by anyone!
If I had to make a choice I would choose no one is allowed to see it. But then again bc I havent' seen much evidence of collusion and such is the reason I feel this way. If i felt a game was suspicious (Ha ha), I think i would leave... And I don't beliee someone just watching the hand should have the right to ask to see them. Maybe one could start a policy if you want to see a person's hand you have pay a certain amount, but I doubt it is likely.
If you call the bet, and asked to see the hand, then the hand should be killed by the dealer and then turned over. I never ask, just do to the fact that, I have seen two players ask what hand they beat and have the players turn over a winner, that they did not know they had. I know that you want info but when you call a hand make sure that the called players shows down frist and then just fold if beaten.
It's poor etiquette requesting to see a losing player's hand. The whole intention of this rule is to prevent collusion. It creates hard feelings, antagonizes players, and slows the game down. You will never find a top player asking to see a losing players hand unless he suspects cheating. Professionals just don't do this and neither should you. As a player you ought to be able with some degree of accuracy figure out what your opponent has otherwise you shouldn't be playing anyway. Why embarass your opponent when he has just lost a big pot? It makes no sense and all you do in addition to creating hard feelings is encourage him to play better.
Bruce
no text
In this regard, it is especially foolish to request to see the cards of loose fishy players. You want the fish to have fun gambling; do not embarass them.
This is a hypothetical example, but it is still very realistic. You win a big pot with pocket Aces. The live one puts you on a bluff trying to run through AK and he calls you with bottum pair or pocket Deuces. Obviously he loses. Now you emabarass this guy by asking to see his hand. How do you think that will effect his play in the future?He will be more motivated to play better. It's just plain bad for the game.
Bruce
I suspect this will get alot of response as essays have been written about this topic.
You are right this is information you would like to have however, if you weren't in the pot some would argue this isn't information you are entitled to. I suspect even the winner of the pot isn't entitled to it if he didn't pay on bet on the river and maybe not even then! Second it is irritating to have someone ask what you have and have the dealer turn your cards face up, it seems like a cheap attempt to embarass the loser of the hand (not in the best interest of the game), i dont think anyone who didn't pay a bet on teh river should be allowed to make such a request.
FInally because it irritates people it probably isn't worth doing, as generally speaking good poker games are happy ones, and this little info you get pbly isn't worth irritating someone/and or the table.
Maybe if you really want to know ask the player who lost ," did you have what you think i had?" in a kind of freindly /sympathetic way. they might tell you. (You could ask (if you thought he had say a pair of q's, "did you ahve a pair of q's?")) i don't like doing this and i think if you pay attention youll get more than enough info w/o asking people to turn over their cards.
You have 7-8 in, let's say, the Big Blind or on the button. The flop is 9-10-K different suits. You have an open-ended straight draw, but you probably don't want to see a jack fall on the turn or river since it would give anybody with a Queen a king-high straight. So should you look at this as a 4-card draw instead of an 8-card draw, and continue if the pot offers enough money for a 4-card draw?
Also, if your hand(in this example)were suited and you had a backdoor flush draw, would that make much of a difference in deciding whether or not to continue.
Thanks for any help, Randy
Randy,
Against a medium to large field, this matters a lot, in addition to the fact you are drawing at the bottom end. It may even be worse than four outs in that you can make your best straight on the turn and get nailed on the river. Back door flushes make a difference and I would call it as being worth another out (Abdul's web site has some good stuff on estimating the value of backdoor draws in terms of outs - you may want to check there as I need to bone up a bit myself).
Note that holding a 43 with a flop of 5 6 9 might not be that dangerous if you up against an early raiser and you get it head up or almost head up.
For example, you called a sane UTG raise and several callers with 43 suited in the blind. The post flop action went you check, UTG bets, most or all fold, and now it is your turn. Here you can feel fairly sure that you have eight outs plus your semi-bluffing and scare card outs.
Regards,
Rick
When you have 87, you MUCH prefer the flop 45K (face value 4 outs) than the flop 9TK (face value 8 outs).
I might prefer K54 if I were the big blind, but on the button if i hit the straight with a Q I'll know soon (in almost any game) enough if it is good. I give the 87 about 6 outs in this situation. For one thing AQ (and often KQ) is not likely out in an unraised pot. QJ is another matter of course. But a Q doesn't have to be out. The 4% or so for a backdoor flush is indeed about 1 out. Before the turn, a 1-Card out is worth 4.25%, the backdoor is 4.16%.
[Yhave 87, flopA= 45K (face value 4 outs) flopB= 9TK (face value 8 outs).
Aaaah, but fear of a stiff queen is NOT your only consern with flopB. If you catch a 6 you can easily lose with any 7,8,J,Q. You may already be drawing dead. Pairing the board is much worse when there are a few high cards out there.
You have a great point which I will embellish: Position matters more when information about the opponent's hand can drastically alter your best play.
- Louie
These are the kind of hands that cause many players to be losing players. Dump it - if the field ib big you probably are drawing dead or close to dead if a small field it isn't worth the draw.
Dump in these situations and you will end up ahead.
Basically, you are right about only having a 4 card draw, since the Jack will likely give someone with a queen a higher straight. You effectively have the same odds as a gutshot, not an open ender.
The presence of a backdoor flush SLIGHTLY improves your hand. It might be about the same (on the flop) as having a 5 outer instead of a 4 outer. In otherwords, it makes only a small difference.
The situation you described is a marginal one and you should only draw at it if the pot odds (or implied odds) justify doing so. Be SURE you are correct because this is a very marginal situation and if you just always folded it you would not be losing very much over the long run.
Dave in Cali
Hi forumers,
Great forum you got! Hope my contribution(s) won't lower the level too much -)
The other day I was playing in a somewhat loose-passive 10-20 HE game. Two fold to me, I have 22. Since I expect several limpers, I call. Indeed, 2 limp in, plus the 2 blinds.
Flop comes TT5 rainbow.
The 2 blinds check and I bet. I figured I might have the best hand, and if I'm raised I can fold with a clear conscience. But no one raises, and in fact 2 call, and the 2 blinds fold.
Turn is a 9.
Here I wimp out and check. When both remaining players checked as well, I realised I had made a mistake.
River is a J.
With the str8 possibility I just checked (I thought a bet now would be called (or raised) only by better hands), one limper bet, the other folded, I called. Limper turned over a J for the better two pair.
How awful was my turn check? How about the bet on the flop?
All comments appreciated!
Steven
Pre-flop I am not comfortable with you limping with a small pocket pair despite the fact that it is a loose, passive game. You are out of position and you have no idea how many players will be taking the flop with you. I think you are better off folding here.
On the flop your bet is a good one since 2 of your 4 opponents have checked. You might win the pot outright or at least get to a cheap showdown. When the two limpers behind you call, you have to figure you are probably beat if not by a Ten then by a Five or perhaps a larger pocket pair. There is no draw for these guys to be going after when they call your flop bet.
On the turn, when the Nine comes I think your check is proper into two opponents. You are probably beat and if someone is on a draw your bet will not force them out anyway. While betting here gives you your best chance of winning the pot, I don't think a bet will win the pot outright often enough to make it profitable since this is a small, unraised pot.
On the river, I would have folded when the first limper bet since all you can beat are over cards and from the betting I think this is too remote.
Jim,
I honestly thought you would indicate that there were too many opponents to make a flop bet (see my post below). I guess I zigged when you zagged ;-).
Regards,
Rick
I would normally not lead into 4 opponents with the underpair, but when 2 of them check and there are only 2 remaining I think the likelihood of winning the pot outright by betting goes up significantly.
I think the biggest mistake was calling preflop with 22 out of position. Save these hand for last position. You can´t know how many players are going to call the bet and whether you will be raised or not.
Anyway, the bet on the flop with considering folding if being raised is ok, when you play against tight opponents. Bud it seems, that they were pretty loose. When you think they lay down overcards and small pocketpairs and gutshut-draws -> bet. If you don´t think so -> check and fold.
Being called on the flop the check on the turn was ok. You will be beat something like 80% of the time.
Just my thoughts
Regards
M.A.
oF course there was no gutshut draw possible. I thought, it was TT6. Sorry
m.a.,
One advantage of being the forums leading insomniac (and living on the left coast) is that I often get the last word in (could you imagine if Badger kept my hours - he would ALWAYS get the last word in on just about every topic). On the other hand, the day crowd buries some of my replies.
Anyway, one thing to note is that against loose opponents who call too much, you are not only very likely to be beat, but you will often get beat because they will call with weak overcards and other hands that most tight players fold. So when you wrote...
"When you think they lay down overcards and small pocketpairs and gutshut-draws -> bet. If you don´t think so -> check and fold"
...you were right on target (despite overlooking the lack of gut shot draw in the original post).
Regards,
Rick
Sorry, but english is not my mother-tounge. I´ve looked it up in the dictionary, couldn´t find it.
I know, this has nothing to do with poker, sorry Mason. I hope you don´t mind.
M.A.
It's a guy in bed with Cindy Crawford.
Your dictionaries suck, no offense. Try this one.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
great page for english-suckers :-)
M.A.
Izmet,
I book-marked (or should I say “favorited (sp?)” – I use MS IE 5) your dictionary link. It looks better than mine on cursory analysis.
Also try downloading GuruNet from www.zdnet.com. It sits in your system tray and is available after highlighting any word with a right mouse click. Pretty nifty but I just started using it so I only give it a qualified indorsement.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Sorry I just have the home page link above but I really gotta run.
Rounder,
I guess the point of my post was that it is easy to describe a game as loose passive when it fact most of the "loose passives" are on your right (and they already folded) leaving the rest of the table somewhat tight and situationally aggressive. So I had problems with the pre flop call and think the situation is very typical (that certain hands lose value when first to enter in middle position versus early position or UTG).
I steal my share of pots and then some but four opponents and a board paired in the upper middle range spells trouble. If Steven’s opponents played in the manner “m.a.” described in his post then the flop bet is OK but once called in two spots I think a further bet is suicide.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. You guys get the last word in on this, I need to leave for work ;-)
Steven,
I wrote most of what follows before Jim and others posted as I took a break when my best friend came over to watch a little late night TV and ruminate over the state of poker and the world. I hope my thoughts are not too disjointed or merely repeat what they say but I might as well tidy it up and post it.
One observation is that a lot of us get in a game that we think to ourselves is loose-passive and maybe it is for a while. Unfortunately, over time it may in fact tighten up or get more aggressive and we start losing money with the baby pairs up front and especially in the middle!
In a loose passive game, your call with 22 pre-flop was quite a bit worse after two had folded than if you were UTG. You are less likely to attract callers behind and more likely to get raises behind. I would toss the bottom three or four pairs away here and also make sure I am sitting behind the looser players if another seat opens up.
I think four opponents are way too many to bet against with this flop (without looking, I’m guessing Jim says the same). Now if I was in the blind with 22 and the flop was 5 5 T a bet would be much better since they must fear a five from you (but I would prefer one or two fewer opponents). Another problem is that an eight through jack in the “calling zone” pre flop so you don’t get the pot for a bet very often. Best of all for your deuces is a flop such as 5 5 K since there are few hands that would call pre-flop that can stand your bet.
Now back to your hand. That it plays out as it has to the turn is expected. As discussed, a bet into four opponents rarely loses them all with this flop. Now another “calling zone” card comes and you check. I think the check was correct and be prepared to give it up to a bet in most cases.
The fact that they didn’t bet, took a free card and beat you is one of the expected outcomes. The smallest pairs are always up against overcards and this hand really was doomed from the spot. A middle pair can at least eliminate worry about the five and take or apply a little more heat. The smallest pairs usually need to flop sets when up against four opponents, even if two are in the blinds.
Regards,
Rick
You know I didn't think calling w/2's upfront was such a mistake. Maybe a little but it depends on how loose/passive they are how many you expect to call and the action you expect to get if a 2 flops.
I think alot of people advocate in a typcial game to throw away 2-5's upfront.
I like your bet on the flop and your logic, but being out of position causes a problem on the turn. If you bet the turn you are betting 1BB to win 4 BB, so if you expect to pick it up more than 20% the bet is good, but there is a decent chance you can get raised as some may raise if they know you will release (and if you wouldn't play a T this way).
I think if the players are somewhat timid and not tricky a bet may well be in order but if tricky and aggressive a check might be right.
Rick, He said it was a lose passive game - perfect for an aggressive player to pick up pots from weak players.
Mike
You had a perfect semi-bluff going until the turn - you should have fired out like you had a set of aces.
You missed a bet and paid for it.
Play Better next time.
Rouunder,
How can he play like he had "aces" when he didn't raise before the flop?
Regards,
Rick
Rick's point is true. No one would believe that you had an overpair.
However, Rounder's point about continuing with the semi-bluff is a good one. Although I wouldn't really consider this a semi-bluff. Since you only have two outs, it is closer to a plain old bluff.
However, if you planned on calling the river after checking the turn, then you should just go ahead and bet the turn. if you get called again, you are beat and give it up. But your turn bet may very well win you the pot. I wouldn't be surprised if the remaining two opponents were calling with either overcards or the five, and you may get the five to fold on the turn. I don't think anyone had the ten or they would have either bet the flop or raised your flop bet.
Dave in Cali
Those were my thoughts too, but only after my two opps had checked on the turn...
You lost it with the check on the turn. Most losers will call to see the turn with any two cards (especially overcards), but will laydown if you bet the turn.
Thanks for all the answers, especially from some of my favorite posters. It's fun to see them disagree-).
I personally thought my bet on the flop was fine, but my check on the turn was wrong. However, I wondered (and I should have stated that explicitly) how much the latter thought was driven by hindsight.
Steven
If you were pretty sure there was not going to be a raise pre-flop and a few more people would come in behind after 3 limpers, it's not entirely a mistake, but not good either. I'd fold 99% of the time.
Flop, turn : 9's, T's, can be prevalent when it is not raised pre-flop. I would have check-folded the flop. Remember for the semi-bluff to work, you need 3 conditions. You do not have the condition that it is possible everyone will fold. Way too many people in to try it. I think Feeny talks about this as a "bad play the good players make."
If the flop was checked around, maybe a turn bet picks it up for you since the big bet cuts into over-card's odds. Here, the semi-bluff may work. You'd be offering 5-2 to a straight draw and to overcards. Might even get a 9 to fold, figuring you were going for a check-raise on the flop with T's, 5's or an overpair (this would be a real weakling, tho.)
River : 9's, T's, J's on the board. It's sort of a bluffing board, but I'd have to put him on one of those three cards (AK or AQ would have raised pre-flop). He could even have had 87 and called the flop-bet with a double back-door straight draw. I don't think this was a good call on your part. There's only 4 big bets in the pot. It's iffy.
mth.
I was playing in a very loose and passive 5-10 HE game. EVERYONE limps in, and I am on the button with KQs (diamonds). Everone calls, except BB.
Should I raise here?!? This was my real quandry.
For those who want a "bad beat" story,
Flop KsQs3d. It's checked to me, and I bet. 6 callers or so (too many to count exactly). Turn, 2s. Checked to me, I bet, 3 callers or so this time. River, As. SB bets, someone calls, I fold. SB shows Js7c, wins huge pot.
Aside from calling preflop, I think this player played his Js close to correctly, calling 1 bet with 3 to a straight flush, then on the turn with the 2nd best spade.
Did my pre-flop raise keep him in? I think to myself, "a player calling a raise out of the SB with J7o is probably not calculating his pot odds on the flop." Do others agree or disagree with this statement?
That's not much of a bad beat story... now I can tell you a bad beat story... no I'll spare you.
Anyway I don't think I would raise in this spot. Against a full table KQs is not an outstanding hand. You may have the best hand but you still need help on the flop. For instance if an ace falls on the flop, with this many people you can almost be guaranteed that someone is holding an ace. If you are in early position you may raise to thin the field, however, on the button you are certainly not going to get anyone to fold, except maybe the blinds. In a 5-10 game once someone has made a single bet they will always call a raise.
Plus if you didn't raise before the flop someone may have bet into you on the flop and then you could have raised them and this would likely have made the sb and others fold.
Obviously once the third spade hits you have to be concerned about a flush but you still must bet in order not to give anyone a free card. Once the fourth spade hits and the sb bets out I think you have to fold.
You didn't play the hand poorly, I just wouldn't have raised btf. When four spades hit there's not much you can do.
I think it would be playing results to argue that raising pre-flop is right here. Many players would raise on the button with King-Queen suited and lots of limpers but they are doing it as an "action play". Mathematically I don't think it makes a great deal of difference whether you raise or not. I have seem some pros even raise with a hand like Six-Five suited in a spot like this. King-Queen suited in this situation is an outstanding speculative drawing hand and there is nothing wrong with keeping your cost down to take a flop with a hand that has no immediate value and lots of opponents.
As it turns out a raise might have driven him out but who knows? Maybe he is the kind that will play any two cards from his blind when there are lots of players regardless of whether or not the pot is raised. Furthermore, how do you know the other caller did not have a smaller flush?
Jim,
what hands DO have immediate value? It's impossible for an AK to win a 10-handed pot without at least pairing, and the same is true for almost all pairs. It would be generous to say 9s or better have a chance to win unimproved, even jacks are pretty unlikely.
Does this make these the only proper raising hands against a large field? I would appreciate your analysis of the topic.
To me a hand of immediate value in a situation like this is AA,KK,QQ,JJ. No starting hand, not even AA, is a favorite over a large collective but these large pocket pairs will win more than their fair share in my opinion even when they are unimproved. AK is a special case because when you flop top pair it is always the very best pair with the very best kicker so I would raise with it as well. The problem with KQ even when it is suited is that your top pair is always vulnerable especially against a table full of opponents.
I prefer raising before the flop, but calling is O.K. The way the hand played out there was nothing that you could have done any differently. You still would have lost on the end had you raised.
However the SB made a terrible play. How can he possibly call on the flop with a backdoor flush and straight draw with action behind him. That is a horrible call. Only a clueless idiot would make a call like that.
Bruce
Bruce, I am glad to see that someone agrees with me that raising BTF has merit. Although Jim and Clint do have a point about KQs being a speculative drawing hand, I think that against this large a field that this is a prime opportunity to raise for value. I have occasionally raised suited connectors for value when there are many in, but I have never done so with anything lower than T9s. I may raise with QJs or higher when there are 6 or more callers ahead of me, but this is not etched in stone. It depends on my image and the state of the game. However, I think KQs should usually be raised with in this type of game, where people are playing really trashy off-suited hands. I just feel that there are a proportionately higher # of flops that help KQs that the raise is justified. Plus, you will only rarely lose to a higher flush with KQs if you make a flush. I will also raise with this hand if I am in middle or late position and everyone folds to me. Ironically, folding this hand to a raise may often be the best play, unless the raiser is very loose and raises with trash, or you are in a blind and only have to call a partial bet.
Further comments on raising with KQs welcome.
Dave in Cali
"Should I raise here?!?"
YES. Raise your suited connector with two high cards for value. You are getting implied odds from unsuited cards here plus you may win the pot if you flop a pair, plus you have a good kicker if this happens. Raise BTF most of the time with this hand if no one else has raised yet.
"a player calling a raise out of the SB with J7o is probably not calculating his pot odds on the flop."
This is probably true. Anyone who actually calculates pot odds is very unlikely to be such a poor player as to call raises with cheeze like this.
Still though, you should have raised BTF. This super-genious of a player may have folded and perhaps you would have won the pot instead of losing it. This is another advantage of raising BTF with KQs. Whether they will call or not, you should still charge those trashy unsuited cards double to take the flop against your KQs as you are a favorite by quite a bit.
Dave in Cali
Everybody seems to think you didn't raise BTF. Sounds to me like you did, and correctly. You have a great multiway hand and your raise will likely buy you a free card on the flop of turn if you choose to take it.
As for your preflop raise keeping the SB in, maybe it did. You should be happy about this. If he exposed his hand on the flop, would you be rooting for him to call or fold?
To fold. What else?
.
if you raise, you'll win more $$ in the long run; this statement does not seem open to debate. if you call, you'll win more pots in the long run; i think this too is clear cut. i would opt for the former, but there are reasons to consider limping: is your B/R running a little short- raising is definitely a higher varience play... do you have a super-aggressive player to your immediate right or even close to your immediate right who is apt to bet the flop with little or nothing if it's checked around to him (allowing you to raise and thin the field ); if so calling before the flop is a viable option there are other factors to consider, but overall raising in the situation you described is in most cases by far the better play. as an aside, once the 5TH player has voluntarily entered the pot i tend to stop thinking about raising to move the blinds- although it does leave you feeling numb when you get a premium hand cracked by the big blind in an unraised pot WHEN YOU KNOW HE WOULD HAVE FOLDED FOR A RAISE any and all comments greatly appreciated-- this is a pet subject of mine
I was in a 1-4/8/8 game some time back. Very passive game preflop. I pick up 5c6c in the cutoff. 4 limpers to me, I call then the button raised. SB and all call. Bad call initially for me ? Flop comes 2c4hTd . All check to the button who bets. Rest fold. Button is an off duty dealer that's really frustrated that he can't win a hand. I figure him not to be blowing off chips with just overcards. I call. Bad call again ? I'm on happy tilt, up about $150 ahead, as I call, I boast "lets see if I can get the perfect card. That would be the the 7c !" Now I actually said this. The dealer turns the 7c. Now I 'm open ended and have a club draw. I say again ' Well since I asked for it I have to bet." I bet $8. Button thinks for a second and calls. River is the As. I can't win is if I check so I bet again. This guy rolls over his pair of jacks and folds. I say "Wow that was the perfcet card," and don't show as I rake the pot. I usually say very little at the table but I think I might have talked my way into this one because he was running so badly. What do you think ?
"Very passive game preflop. I pick up 5c6c in the cutoff. 4 limpers to me, I call then the button raised. SB and all call. Bad call initially for me?"
No. After 4 limpers you are getting enough implied odds to play suited connectors. The only time you might fold this hand after 4 limpers is if you expect a raise or there is a complete maniac still to act. Playing this hand in the situation you described is perfectly acceptable.
On the flop, You are getting about 15:1 pot odds to call with your gutshot and backdoor flush draw (I wasn't entire sure of the exact action from your narrative).
If he was paying close enough attention, the fact that the 7c was your "perfect card" should have made him think twice about folding on the river. What could the 7c have given you that made it your perfect card? pocket 77? Otherwise the best it could have given you was two pair or a draw.
Since you bet the turn, you were pretty much forced to bet the river because it was your only way to win the hand. Mucking face down was a good move. I think you talked your way into this pot, but don't count on that happening very often.
Dave in Cali
Yea, I guess he was looking for the J and didn't consider my draws.
Against a player with reasonably good table presence there would be no disguising the fact that you are on a DRAW and did NOT flop the better hand. Asking for 7c would indicate you have two clubs and he therefore should deduce you have some sort of straight draw.
You should limit your comments to times where you are confident your chances of manipulating the opponent is GREATER than the chances of giving your hand away.
Your talk may have given you the guts to bet when the Ace hit, but you won since you bet when you snagged the Ace (he would have called had an undercard come).
- Louie
Most of you who have been kind enough to respond to my posts are aware by now that most games I play in contain a straddle button. I find that this can greatly complicate things at times. I just want to point this out up front so I don't get the usual responses like, " good players don't straddle", etc.
This was a straddle pot with a strong player (sp) in the straddle. A good tricky player (tp) raised the straddle to $30 ($10-$20 game). I made it 4 bets with Kh Kd, and sp called 2 cold in the straddle (oh,oh!). 3 handed.
The flop came Ah,Ac,4h. sp checked, tp bet, I raised, sp called 2 cold (double oh,oh!), tp calls. Turn is 7s. sp checked, tp checked, I checked. I am not worried about giving free cards since I may already be beat, drawing very thin, or possible dead to AK. Also, my check may cause someone to bet the river with a hand like QQ. Is this wrong thinking?
The river was a brick. sp checks, tp checks, I bet. sp thinks for a LONG time and folds, tp calls, and my KK wins. What a hand! sp was very relieved by his fold on the end, but later told me that if he plays it right he wins... What could sp have had? I put him on hearts, but when he almost calls the river what 2 hearts could he have had? Or was he contemplating a bluff/raise? I put tp on a lower pocket pair. What were my mistakes in this hand? And what the @%$# did sp have? Thanks.
Kevin
SP had QQ maybe and was thinking he could have gotten you out.
I'm a little confused by this straddle button. Is it a straddle or a kill? If it's a straddle, wouldn't the first raise be to $40? And so is this a required straddle, sort of like a third blind? Is the straddle UTG, or what?
Yes. The person to the left of the BB must put in a $20 straddle (in a $10-$20 game). The first raise therefore would be to $30, the next to $40. It's a silly rule, but the casino where I play still puts a 4 bet cap on the pre-flop betting even when there is a straddle. Most rooms would allow an additional raise when there is a straddle.
Not EVERY pot gets straddled however. The pot only gets straddled when the player who has the straddle button is to the left of the BB. The straddle is also live. For example, if no one raised, the straddle would have the option to raise himself.
Hmmm... so how does one get stuck with the straddle button?
What casino is this at? Is it typical for your area?
Well, whoever wins a straddle pot get the straddle button and straddles the next time they are in position to do so. I play in the Chicago area. I much prefer a kill or 1/2 kill, but this particular casino is not set up for this. State gaming laws, etc.
As I said before, the presense of a straddle can pose some problems for me. Because it creates "unaturally" large pots at times and a player's actions are often not always in line with their actual holding. This in turn, can make for some tricky situations. Thanks for your response Niels.
In 10-20, the SB is 5, BB is 10, raises before turn are in increments of 10, so straddle is 20, raise is 30.
Kevin
It looks to me like sp had QJh,TJh or Kxh. I would bet that it was Kxh and he hit his rag card on the board. That was the reason he thought about calling. Was the sp Jeff? If it was i would bet on the other two hands as he only occasionally plays hands under twenty. I agree the tricky player probably had a pocket pair. When you raised the flop i think that should have tipped off the sp that you didn't have an Ace.Why would you want to scare everyone off on the flop by raising. And you sure don't have Arag because you would never make it four bets with that hand pre-flop. Sp should have bet the turn and the river and put you to a very tough decision. Also, by calling two cold i think you have to put him on an Ace imean he is a sp. Lar
I know what a live straddle is (never, never, never do it), but what the heck is a straddle button? That connotates no choice. Is it anything like a kill button?
What conditions create a straddle in these games?
Kevin,
I think you played the hand well. The only other choice (if you wanted to try to represent the Ace)would be to call the flop and raise the turn if bet into or bet the turn if everyone checks - but to be honest, I think you played it just fine.
I personally fee the sp should have bet the turn and represented against you to try and get you to lay down. I would be interested in knowing who the players in the hand were and might be better able to tell what they might do given the situation.
On a good note, now that I am back in town, you and Larry and IRS Frank will have a sucker to pick on instead of the usual tight tough players at HC.
Good Post - thanks for sharing.
Michael D. Soccer/Sucker Mike)
Thanks for the response Mike.
sp was Sean, tp was Willy.
The only reason I don't like smooth calling the flop, is that now sp might check/raise with QQ. Now if tp calls I have to muck the flop. Don't you think? Also, if sp calls the flop and tp bets the turn, raising is a much more dangerous play with sp still in the hand. I may even have to fold since I now have to consider that sp might be check/raising the turn. I agree that sp should have bet the turn. Now if tp calls, I have to fold. What do you think sp (Sean) had???
Kevin,
With all due respect to you - and I truly respect your game - Sean completely misplayed the hand. Given his reputation as a tight player pre-flop, he should have bet the turn and forced you to muck. I know if I am in your position, and Sean bets the turn after facing the heat pre-flop and on the flop, I would not give him another penny. I have no idea what he had - maybe 1010 JJ or QQ but he totally misplayed the hand in my opinion. He should know that you respect his game and are capable of laying down a hand given the right situation.
In regards to your play, I feel that you gave away the lack of an ace in your hand by the way you played it pre-flop and on the flop - I would have come at you with gins blazing on the turn knowing you did not have an ace.
Obviously, given the way the hand played out, you played it fine and had a very good read on your opponents to win the amount of money you did.
As I said though, I am somewhat mystified as the what Sean had. Just my thoughts.
Mike- Can I pick your brain just once more on this? You wrote:
"I feel that you gave away the lack of an ace in your hand by the way you played it pre-flop and on the flop - I would have come at you with gins blazing on the turn knowing you did not have an ace."
Pre-flop I capped the betting and ON the flop I raised Willy... Do you mean that I showed weakness BECAUSE I raised Willy on the flop, and that if I truly had an ace I would've just smooth called? I don't know Mike... I may have raised Willy even if I HAD AK. The pot was getting pretty big and I wouldn't want them hitting a 2-3 outer on me. When the pot gets big I'm usually happy to define my hand and take it down ASAP. Do you think this is too conservative? If I had AK I'd still figure to get plenty of action from another ace. Please be honest. Do you think this type of thinking may be what's preventing me from from moving up to the next level and becoming a strong player as opposed to just tight? Thanks Mike.
Kevin
in a 10/20 he game i play in (at a casino) there is another player that i don't bet with. If we wind up head up we just check to the river (ifthere are others in the pot it is business as usual). This brings up number of questions:
1) is this colusion? (we aren't playing on the same bankroll) but when one of us raises and the other is the only caller it can look wrong. 2)raising him or check raising him can look as if we are just trying to get a lock on the pot(between us). 3)one of us can be inclined to play "wrong" in order to keep others in the pot. 4) one of us might be more inclined to call the other's raise knowing that we will be treated as all in
I have no interest in in cheating. When he first offered to check to me (as he does a couple of others in this game) i thought it was ok. but im wondering how others feel. Thanks in advance.
You are probably not doing anything wrong but appearance is everything. In my opinion if it even appears wrong, (and it could), it's not worth it.
I don't see anything unethical as long as your agreement doesn't spill into other situations. It is difficult psychologically to avoid that. I have sat at tables with my brother and also my brother-in-law. Since we are all competitive we just try to beat each other brains out like with every other player, and so the game goes on. I think this is the kind of thing that should be announced, which is what I do when my brother and I are at the same table.
This is obviously cheating. You can cheaply chase with a drawing hand because your buddy gives you free cards on every round. But I need to worry about raises on every subsequent round. So you can play a lot looser. Think about everybody doing this except one guy. He would get creamed.
If this is acceptable then why don't you just tell the whole table what you are doing?
It's bad for the game. If you are a winning player you should not do this. It's not cheating but its pretty close to it and it certainly has the effect of influencing the way you and your friend play. It just looks bad and it has absolutely no benefit to your game. If you are a winning player why potentially piss off the live ones.
Bruce
Though this is a relatively innocuous form of collusion, it can be damaging to the game (and your reputation).
There are some times when your strategy can be completely different due to your being in a killpot game. I am going to provide an example but this is by no means the only possible situation where this occurs. Please feel free to respond with more examples or discussion as this topic has not been as thoroughly beat to death as other topics, such as AQo BTF.
By the way, the kill pot structure I am referring to is this: When you win two pots in a row (there must be a flop or it is a push), then you must post a double sized blind bet (the kill), and the betting limits double for the entirety of that hand. If you win again on your kill, it remains a kill until you finally lose a pot.
Say you are in a 4-8 kill pot game and you win the pot. The next hand, you are in middle position and limp first in with QJs. Everyone folds to the BB who calls. The flop comes all J T 3 rainbow and the BB checks. While this may seem like an almost automatic semi-bluff bet to try and steal the pot, there are some considerations that apply here that do not normally apply.
Under normal circumstances, you are getting 2.5:1 odds if you bet. That means that you need to successfully steal the pot slightly less than one in three times for this bet to be theoretically profitable. However, since you won the previous pot, and there has been a flop on this hand, if you win the pot, then you must post a kill. Therefore, you are risking 4$ to win 10$, but if you win the pot, you must POST an 8$ BLIND! Therefore your bet has negative EV instead of positive. If you win the pot here, you will have a total loss on the hand of 2$.
What this illustrates is that the fact that you will have to post a blind if you win the pot (and you won the previous pot) significantly changes your pot odds. It can turn a +EV situation into a -EV one. You should also be less likely to enter the pot if you have won the previous pot, because if you win again, you will have to post a double sized blind. Your pot odds are reduced by a big bet anytime you have won the previous pot. This could change a profitable situation into an unprofitable one. Example:
You won the last pot. You are on the button and have QJo and decide to try and steal the blinds*. You raise and both the BB and SB call. Flop comes K 9 3 rainbow. You have a gutshot straight draw. SB bets and BB calls. Under normal circumstances, you have 8:1 pot odds for your 11:1 draw. If you count implied odds, you almost have a call here. You can most likely expect to make up the difference (plus probably a little extra) with bets on future rounds. However, since you will have to post a double sized blind if you win, your true pot odds are only 6:1. You might not be able to make up the difference now, and therefore you should fold.
* - if you steal the blinds, then there is no flop, and the kill is a push. You still keep the button but you only post the kill if you win the NEXT pot (assuming there is a flop). Therefore, you should not alter your blind stealing strategy just because it is a kill game.
The point of the above example is that the kill can turn a marginally profitable situation into a losing one. you are losing a big bet of pot odds when you have won the previous pot. This can change the strategy in many places besides the examples I have provided.
Any comments / corrections / pummelings welcome.
Dave in Cali
I think that games with kill pots complicate things quite a bit. Aside from just losing a BB by being forced to post the kill pot blind, players (unwittingly I think) adjust their bet/raise/call standards quite a bit in kill pots. Last weekend I played in a 8/16 game that killed to 16/32. The game gave me a lot of trouble. Quite often I had to post the kill blind and found myself sandwiched between the real blinds and players in later positions. Add on top of this the fact that some of the ordinarily weak/tight players seemed to be much more aggressive in kill pots and I found myself not wanting to play kill pots b/c most of the time you wind up with a mediocre hand out of position.
OTOH, this game was very beatable and all the players at the table seemed like regulars so I should probably learn how to adjust to the unique problems of this structure.
Dave in Cali wrote:
"The next hand, you are in middle position and limp first in with QJs. Everyone folds to the BB who calls. The flop comes all J T 3 rainbow and the BB checks. While this may seem like an almost automatic semi-bluff bet to try and steal the pot, there are some considerations that apply here that do not normally apply"
I don't understand. You are NOT stealing or semi-bluffing here as you hold top pair... If this is a typo and should read "the flop comes T93" or " first in with KQ" it makes sense.
Continuing on the assumption you meant flopping an up and down straight draw:
"Under normal circumstances, you are getting 2.5:1 odds if you bet. That means that you need to successfully steal the pot slightly less than one in three times for this bet to be theoretically profitable."
This is not true. It would be true only if your opponent folding was your only win. But you have the additional chances of winning by hitting your draw or pairing. So, before going further, I just want to make sure I'm following your post correctly....
Kevin
you are right about the flop being T9x, I meant an up and down, not top pair.
I think with the example I used that you would rather have them fold immediately since you would probably not want to chase a straight draw heads up most of the time, and it would be clearly unprofitable if you knew you were going to have to post another big bet if you won. Say the SB bet instead of checking. You would be getting 3.5:1 odds, but minus the kill, only 2.5:1 odds, which to me would indicate a fold. So in this case the bet is only slightly better than a pure bluff. Obviously if there were more than one other player the situation would be different, but your pot odds are always cut down by a big bet when you are in a kill game and have won the previous pot.
My example may not have been the best one possible, perhaps you can come up with a better example for this situation. for instance, say you had a double belly buster with only one or no overcards....
Sorry about the confusion...
Dave in Cali
Dave, I think your arguement makes a lot of sense. However in your first example when you flop top pair and you bet on the flop that is hardly a semi-bluff. If you get action on the flop you will in all likelyhood get a call on the turn and river with probably the best hand so I think it becomes a +EV situation. Limping in middle position without any other callers in this situation probably is not a good play unless you have a group 1 hand or pocket Tens or Jacks. I would probably refrain from trying to steal the blinds in your last situation unless I had a big hand because getting a walk is probably pretty slim and you truely have a -EV situation then.
Bruce
"I would probably refrain from trying to steal the blinds in your last situation unless I had a big hand because getting a walk is probably pretty slim and you truely have a -EV situation then."
Bruce: I am not sure what you meant by this, please clarify.... Remember, if you steal the blinds, you do not have to post a kill. You still have the kill button but it says "no kill". when you win your second pot in a row it gets flipped over and says "kill" and then you post. If there is no flop you keep the button but don't post a kill blind.
Dave in Cali
What is the likelyhood of you stealing the blinds? If you have tight players in the blinds and they will fold with a high degree of frequency then by all means raise. But if this is a normal 4-8 game that is next to impossible and you have a -EV situation.
Bruce
Ok, that is what I thought you meant.
Although you are right about stealing the blinds in a 4-8 game (almost never works), consider blind stealing in only a theoretical manner. Suppose it was 15-30 with a kill to 30-60. Now your blind stealing strategy remains the same.
Dave in Cali
I think my blind stealing strategy remains almost the same. The only difference I make is in marginal cases I pass.
Bruce
No, your blind stealing strategy changes significantly.
The EV of a blind steal attempt is made up by the EV of winning the blinds * the percentage of times you do it, plus the EV of having to play out the situation if the blinds defend.
It's the second case that makes it a good idea to not attack the blinds with hands like 72o. And in this case, the fact that you'll have to post a double blind if you win means you only want to attack the blinds with a hand that has huge EV in the case of a confrontation, OR the blinds have to be so tight that the steal attempt has a very high chance of success.
See my message below on "kill pot pre-flop strategy". Note that failed blind steal attempts are about the worst-case for losing big EV from the double-blind post.
Hmm, you know I was thinking about half kill games recently as they were recently installed in the casino i usually play in.
I haven't read the others but you should note just because you post a "kill" blind doesn't mean you have lost what you post, you may get a good flop or may steal the blinds. (ive noticed in some 1/2 kill games players seem to play more tightly when the kill is on), you haven't neccesarily lost a bet as you have some equtiy in the kill pot.
Maybe one would be more inclined to play if late position w/a leg up as opposed to early as you would prefer a late kill post than early.
Another thing to notice is if you win a lot of hands (and are the killer) you opponents become more afraid of you. this sounds like nonsense but i think people become somewhat hesitant to get involved w/someone so lucky.
Though if you really believe you are losing that much by playing w/a leg up and winning the next hand tighten up considerably. YOu pbly aren't losing that much EV here though i suspect you might be if you fold in some of the examples you give. (I think in the first you were heads up with the BB w/top pair, you aren't trying to steal it, you are value betting!)
While your obsevations are qualitatively correct, you have overestimated the cost of posting a kill. When competing for your second consecutive pot, your pot odds are not reduced by one big bet. This is because the money you post as the killer is live. If you happen to receive a normally playable hand during your kill pot, your post cost you nothing (and you have gained if the killer acts last); if you receive a hand you would not otherwise play, you still might win the pot.
Most of the situations you give are post-flop. I wonder how much one should tighten up pre-flop with the leg up. I am guessing that posting a big-bet (even in late position) must have -E of at least 1/3 to 1/2 a big bet. Against just one or two opponents, you should tighten up significantly pre-flop. Stealing the blinds with hands even as good as QJo or ATo is probably a mistake because you lose a whole bb in kill-blind and drop when you win (in 4-8). Against many opponents, you don't have to tighten up as much. However, it surprises me that some of the pro's I see in 8-16 don't seem to follow this. I have been experimenting with trying to steal from them when they have a kill or leg-up, and haven't been too successful.
As others have posted, your loss is not a full big bet, because the two random cards you are dealt on the next hand will return a pretty good chunk of your EV.
How much depends on your position. If you're going to have to post the kill UTG, then you should throw away just about every hand before the flop except premium pairs and AKs. If you are going to post the kill on the button if you win, the penalty is not nearly as severe and you can play a few more hands.
Note that the vast majority of normally playable hands pre-flop are actually pretty low EV, and most of them should be tossed in a kill game if you just won the pot. The exception would be hands that have high implied odds if the game is loose. For example, the EV of small and medium pocket pairs is pretty small, but that's mainly because they usually miss the flop. If they DO hit the flop, the EV from that point on is very high.
So, let's say you have pocket 6's. Let's say you play them 10 times, and you lose $10 9 times, and win $150 the tenth time (rounding some numbers here a bit).
The total EV is then $6.00 per hand. Some people are making the mistake of saying that since the EV is only $6.00, you should fold because if you win you have to post $10 next time. But that's not the case. Look what happens in a kill pot: this time, you lose $10 9 times, and win $150 minus your kill of $20, or $130 the other time. Total EV per hand therefore only drops by $2.00 to $4.00 per hand
The hands you really want to tighten up on are the ones that hit a lot of flops but lose fairly often when they do, and when they win tend to win small pots. A hand that loses $40 7 times and wins $80 the other 4 times has an EV of $12 per hand. If you've just won a pot, the EV in a kill game drops all the way to -$4.00. Hands that have this characteristic are offsuit connectors, medium pairs heads-up, etc.
Therefore, if you've just won a pot you need a lot of opponents to play in the next one and a hand that plays well in multi-way pots, OR you need a hand that has huge EV in the first place (AA,KK,QQ,AKs).
f
Last night I noticed a pattern in the game I was playing in. Whenever it was checked through on the flop, there was always a bet on the turn. The obvious counter to this is to slowplay more than normal. My question is: how far is it correct to carry this concept? Here is an example. From the button, I raised the blinds with Ah7d and they both called. The flop was A94 with two clubs. It was checked to me, and I checked. Notice that this play could easily cost me the pot.
All comments are welcome.
William
I noticed that "you noticed that your play could easily cost you the pot" - have you not already answered your question? Bet it and take it down. Why wait to get bet into on the turn, then you raise, and are reraised. How is that for a nice outcome? Slowplaying is rarely a good idea, and never with top pair, shit for kicker.
Because it could also easily win me two big bets, by causing one of the blinds to bluff twice with nothing. Remember that in this game, whenever it was checked through on the flop, someone always bet the turn.
William
When you raise before the flop and check with an Ace on the flop it looks very suspicious even for the live one. Your better off betting on the flop which is what everyone expects you to do anyway. Keep in mind with an Ace there is always a straight draw and you have two opponents so getting fancy may very well cost you the pot. You have a shit kicker and if you are led into on the turn you may be up against a bigger kicker. This opponent may have been waiting for a checkraise on the flop and you are now going to lose more. I just don't like to slowplay or get fancy with very marginal holdings unless I have a real good read on my opponent.
Bruce
I would assume this game was a higher limit - 20-40 or higher where sophisticated plays have a reasonable chance of success.
I think checking top pair on the flop occasionally to fool your opponents in a tight game is good poker. In a loose game it is a waste of time. You would do this to (1) induce a bluff from your aggressive opponents or (2) induce calls from opponents who are trying to pick off a bluff.
I think you should only do this when you flop an ace or a king for top pair. Checking anything lower is inviting disaster - a free overcard to snap you off.
Checking top pair 1 out of 5 times would be my guess for the right mix to keep your opponents guessing.
This was 20/40.
William
It's such an unatural play when you raise before the flop and check when an Ace comes. If you want to get tricky check the turn and induce a bluff on the river. Even the live ones smell a rat. I don't like giving a free card on the flop with one more card to come. On the turn it is less likely to get outdrawn with only one more card to come.
Bruce
You should be willing to check-raise more often, and then do it again on the turn if it didn't work on the flop. You should also be willing to raise much more weakly on the turn. I would be hard-pressed to check and induce a bluff or two from last position since you know for sure you are giving them a free card (something you don't know when you check in early position).
Having said that, it sure looks like you will have some golden raise-steal opportunities on the turn (if you like that sort of thing). If so, you can give your steals more power by once-in-a-while checking your aces on the flop and raising the turn. lets hope they learn to respect your raises enough to fold but DON'T respect your checks enough to stop them from betting.
- Louie
William,
I would definitely have bet the flop as there is no way at all I feel my hand is strong enuf to give anyone a free card. The only exception I can think of would be a tough short handed higher limit game (60-120 and higher) Just my thoughts.
Michael D.
What is the percentage that when holding pocket jacks, that an overcard will come up on the flop? This came up in a discussion at a table today and nobody seemed to be certain of the correct answer.
Thanks
This is easy to figure out. The answer is 100% minus the percentage of the time no over card flops. There are 4 Aces, 4 Kings, and 4 Queens or 12 cards possible. The flop consists of 3 cards. The probability of the first card on the flop not being an Ace, King, or Queen given that you have two Jacks is: 38/50. The probability of the second card not being an Ace,King, or Queen given that the first card is not an Ace,King, or Queen is: 37/49. Finally, the probability of the third card not being an Ace,King, or Queen given that the first two cards are not an Ace, King, or Queen is: 36/48. Then the probability that none of the three flop cards is an Ace, King, or Queen is: [(38/50) x (37/49) x (36/48)] which is about 43%. Then the likelihood of the flop containing at least one Ace, King, or Queen when you have pocket Jacks is: 100% - 43% which is 57%. In other words the flop will contain an Ace, King, or Queen more than half the time.
Jim may want to confirm my math, but about 5% of the time that one or more A/K/Q flops, you will flop a set or better (odds of making a set * odds of two cards being A/K/Q). So about 48% of the time you should flop an overpair or a set.
It's also not a complete disaster if the flop comes down with an overcard but you have a straight draw (open-ended Q, T, 9 giving you 10 outs or maybe gut-shot nuts draw A, Q, T giving you 6 outs). You might even have a straight draw with a backdoor flush draw.
Jim, can you please do the same calculation (that you did with jacks) to Queens, Kings, and Tens? Please....I suck at math.
Kings - 46 good cards left (50-4 Aces) -> (46*45*44)/(6) = 15180 good combinations. 19200 - 15180 = 4020 bad flops, so 4020/19200 = 20.9% of the flops contain an Ace.
Queens - 42 good cards -> (42*41*40)/6 = 11480 -> (19200-11480)/19200 = 40.2% bad flops
Tens - 34 good cards -> (34*33*32)/6 = 5984 -> (19200-5984)/19200 = 68.8% bad flops
Or....
50 cards left to play that can flop (50*49*48)/(3*2*1) = 19200 ways. 12 of the 50 are AKQ, leaving 38 'good' cards. These 38 can be combined (38*37*36)/(3*2*1) = 8436 ways, leaving 19200 - 8436 = 10764 bad flops (contain at least one or more AKQ). Thus, 10764/19200 = 56% of the time you get a 'bad' flop.
Probabalities make my head hurt... ;-)
The numbers Jim gave are correct, but maybe you would like to how many times no over cards fall or you flop a "set." (OR even you have a straight draw (open ended or gut shot).
P( no over cards or a "set")=
P( no overcards)+P(overcard(s) and a "set")=
P( no overcards)+ P(quads w/overcards)+P("set"w/2 overcards)+P("set" w/one overcard) 1/(50C3)[(38C3) +12 +2(12C2) + 2(12(36))]
=~48%
P(floping openended w/overcard(s))=P(KQT) +P(QT9) =1/(50C3)[(4^3)+(4^3)]< 0.6%.
P(gut shot w/overcard(s))=6(4^3)=~1.9%.
SO if you count gut shots and openended and sets, the probability you get a flop you like is over 50%.
I have been wondering about something. I have read posts about writing notes at the table etc. What other things can you do, and what would be considered pushing the boundaries?
For example, could you use a laptop computer while playing? Could you use a palm pilot or equivalent to send emails? What are some things that might get you in trouble, or might just annoy everyone immensely while not being technically against the rules?
-SmoothB-
Sometimes I listen to my MP3 player and bounce around in my chair. I don't think it's too rude, considering some of the crap that people say at the table. But some people tend to get annoyed since I'm not "paying attention to them"
I'm a relatively newish player (2-3 months). The second or third time I was in a cardroom I noticed that one guy was sitting and reading a magazine the whole time he was playing. When I got up I realized that he was reading Playboy. Now that's class!
Another time a guy sat and picked huge pieces of skin outta his toes... Looked like some kinda fungal infection. I left that table pretty quick!
Low-limit hold-em at Bay 101... The best humanity has to offer! Marc
In AC, they say you can't speak on the phone while playing. Also, you can't speak in different languages. It was a strange experience being caught between two big Greek guys shooting their mouths off at each other!
Two guys screaming in greek, sounds like my weekend at the bellagio, but it was farsi.
Seriously, there should be no non-english at the table. Once I was to the left of some guy who's wife came in and started looking at my cards. During the hand they started speaking to each other in russian, and I made them stop because she was saying the equivalent of "you better win this one." Good thing I knew a bit of russian.
To repeat, don't allow any non-english during the action.
You could have repeated the line from Rounders:
"...no f-ing Sputnik at the table!"
Oh yeah?! I once sat next to an old woman who flossed her teeth while playing a hand. She also constantly picked her nose with the finger she used to picked up her chips with. To make it worse, when she's about to bet she would cup her hands and blow into the chips with a mist of saliva, the way a craps player would blow into his dice - but hers was really really moist. It was the only time in my life that I actually didn't wanna win a pot.
How about this one guys, I was sitting at a low limit table really early in the morning and all those cronics who were still majorly stuck were there. All unshaven and smelly. All of a sudden the one sitting next to me lays out a HUMONGOUS fart and makes it seem like nothing had happenned. Everyone could tell it was him who did it too since he also slid sideways in his chair to blow it out of the side of his A-hole. Some nastiness we poker players have to endure at the table by lower walks of life is just horrendous.
I really don´t know, what your problem is, Mojo. That´s exactly the way how I became a winning player. Sometimes you have to compensate the lack of talent with other tactics! ;-)
M.A.
Marc,
I'm in favor of demanding increased civility in the card room but don't think gross behavior is limited to low limit.
Year's ago I say a guy in a 100/200 game clip his toenails while playing. A few years later a 40/80 prop player was playing after shift (he was stuck). Hr was a sweaty gut so he gave himself a bath using about 300 of those little moist towelets. He just threw the discards to the side next to his chair. I'd tell more stories but I'm getting nauseous thinking about it.
Regards,
Rick
In some venues, you can smoke recreational drugs, subjecting your opponents to noxious and carcinogenic fumes.
There was a guy at the Jack Binion WPO in Tunica that was watching DVD movies on a portable DVD player during a satellite. I didn't care since all it can do is distract him but seriously, Smooth: You are talking about moving up through middle limits and I think you will learn a lot if you practice your observation skills. I know it helps tune me in to concentrate on what different players do in different situations. You can get so you KNOW what to do when a difficult call or fold comes up.
I saw John Feeney pull a palm pilot out of his pocket at the table.
do you think they would let me take in holdem for advanced players? or at least an odds table or two?
Seems like a palm pilot would be a major help...you could store an odds table, a list of starting hands. Hell, the whole damn text of HEFAP.
Or was it just a small Etch-A-Scetch? Primitive, yes, but so cost effective!
I'm on the button in a tight 10-20 game (this hand though some loose calls were made, something strange must have been in the air). 2 callers after blinds, I limp in with 7-5d (I'd been playing some pretty loose cards and showing them to try to generate some action for my bigger hands), SB calls. Flop comes 10d-9c-3d. 3rd player bets, 4th calls, I call, blinds muck. Turn is Qd. Flop-better comes out betting, next player raises, I call, original better calls. River is a blank. I win the pot with my flush against Ks-Jd and Kc-Js (turn raiser).
Question is: would you raise with the small flush to make bigger flush draws pay, or do you just call the raise for fear of being beaten by a bigger flush? Or is it simply a judgment call?
When a flush card appears and it is bet and raised to you, I think you should just call and not re-raise. Most of the time you will be looking at a better flush. If someone has the nut flush they will definitely cap the betting and if no one has a better flush you will not frighten anyone away which is not bad.
Since you were in-between the two players, your best play was to call. By calling, you get an additional bet from the player behind you with no risk of being reraised by a better hand. If you raise, you probably lose at least one call -- maybe both! -- and may also be reraised by a bigger flush, so a raise had a negative expectation. But had you acted last, you should've considered raising on the river.
It is (with some justification) rare for the first better to have two-pair or better, or has a big diamond; that Queen looks like a bad card for his hand but he bet anyway. Facing this player with a double bet is regularly to your advantage.
If the raiser is conservative then you are stuck calling this one down, but if he is sensibly aggressive I think you should raise.
Keep in mind I appear to fear flushes far less than almost all other regular posters here; which makes me doubt my ability to judge these situations accurately. Never-the-less there are only 3 of you in the pot...
If you KNEW what they had you would DEFINATELY raise and try to get that stiff Jd to fold.
- Louie
Personally I would have raised the turn for sure -believing(hoping) that I had the only flush out there - obviously anyone with a large diamond is going to pay you off to try and hit their draw. If you are beat by a bigger flush on the turn then you are stuck and have to pay it off (sometimes we get punished when we hit the small flushes) but if you are going to play the hand (which I believe to be correct on the button), I believe you should definitely try and extract the most money possible out of it. You said the game was tight - depending on how tight and your table image, I might have considered raising pre-flop.
Obviously if the diamond hits the river you are dead and can safely muck. Just some thoughts.
Michael D.
I don't think a bigger flush is a major consideration here. I would assume I have the current best hand and try to figure the best way to win the pot. So I would probably reraise.
There could be a bigger flush but the likelihood is nil.
IMO, Just call it down. You may be beaten already, but you certainly cannot fold. Louie has a point that if you knew what they had, you would rereraise to make the lone Jd pay and to charge the other straight as much as possible since he is dead.
Dave in Cali
First, a bit of introduction. Loose player, who I'll call Ralph, to my immediate right calls my raise of pocket QQ with T6s and flops trips to beat my pair. He said before the call that he shouldn't be calling me. He then calls the next nine or ten hands, whether raised or not, and shows me his hand each time.
A few hands later, I raise with AKo UTG. Ralph calls from the BB after everyone has folded. Again, he says he shouldn't be calling, but this time he shows me his hand, KQh.
Flop: J,10,5 rainbow with one heart. Ralph bets. How do you play the hand from there?
Thanks,
John
Are you saying he showed you before the flop? If the answer is yes, then raise the idiot. He only has 7 outs (other than runner-runner hearts). Four 9's and 3 A's. Plus you know his hand, so if an A or 9 hits, you dont have to pay him off.
Don't let your lack of a pair obscure the fact that you are at least a 2:1 favorite. A big advantage you have is that YOU have cards HE needs, you have the King covered, a Queen gives you a straight and you have one of his Aces. Your advantage would be much smaller if he had 87 and flopped the draw since he could make a pair to win.
If he's going to check the turn then raise now, otherwise raise the turn.
Another tactic would be to show him your King and raise now, hoping he'll deduce you have the same hand he has and he MAY pay you off on the river when you both miss and you bet your no-pair for value, accompanied by "he can't call, he missed".
- Louie
John,
Are you saying he showed you his hand nine or ten times in a row when you were in the pot? Either way, you shouldn't call this guy Ralph; call him Santa Claus instead.
My strategy would be to call along and just take his money as the favorite. If he checks the turn then bet (if you still have him beat). Don't punish him too much with raises. After all, if you behave badly, the next time you might just get a lump of coal.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
Would I be in nine or ten hands in a row? No, he showed me how he played every hand that I wasn't in. But I guess force of habit took over for this one.
Anyway, I resisted raising the flop, called his turn bet when another blank hit, and bet the river when another blank fell. He knew enough to fold.
John
PS. He left the 5-10 game to move over to 10-20.
I hope you followed him over there.
:-)
Like you are ahead which you are.
I'd make him pay through the nose to draw to the straight.
You have him beat. Raise. Show him your hand too if it makes you feel better. If he wants to draw against you heads up, let him. You have the upper hand and he is a dog who is not getting good pot odds to chase you.
Dave in Cali
I have only played 3-6 and 4-8 Hold'em. I would like to move up to at least the 10-20 and maybe 15-30 level next week when I'm in Vegas. Perhaps 5-10 would be better?
My questions are: What is a reasonable transition to higher betting levels (I'm not very experienced)? and how much should a person buy in for at the various levels? I usually buy in for $140 in a 3-6 game.
Now be nice and don't you sharks try to hunt me down next week!! I'm still learning.
Rich
I would recommend the $8-$16 game at the Bellagio. It is a loose, passive and sometimes loose, aggressive game and you don't need as big a bankroll. It is a standard structured game with blinds of $4 and $8. If you plan on playing for about a week, say a total of 40 or 50 hours, then a total playing bankroll of around $1500 to $2000 should be more than enough.
Jim,
Thanks for the recommendation. I think I will try this limit at the Bellagio. I had not thought of 8-16 limit game. What do you think of the 6-12 at the Mirage?
Rich
That also can be a good game against the right line-up but it tends to be tighter than the $8-$16 at the Bellagio.
I played both rooms last weekend, and if you're the kind of guy that likes to make the good laydowns and bluff at the end, I'd take the 6-12 at the mirage (which played like 6-12 in northern cal). If you are used to no-fold'em, take the 8-16. The 4-8 game seemed much tighter than the 8-16. But I've only played each game ~10 hours each so don't take my word for it.
Better yet, take the money off the drunks at the luxor in the 1-4-8-8 game.
I think you should take Jim's advice. My opinion is that given the tone of your post, you are not ready to move up to 10-20 or 15-30. Don't be offended, but if you are not very experienced, you should stick with the lower limit games and get more experience. If you can afford it however, go ahead and try your luck at 6-12 or 8-16 (sounds like 8-16 is an easier game). Or better yet, try Hamster's advice and play 1-4-8-8. I played it at several casinos and while the games varied, most of them were fairly easy games to beat. I found a terrific game at Mandalay bay in the middle of the night, but I am not sure what the action is there on a regular basis (I usually play in southern cal).
Anyway, good luck, err... Positive Standard deviations....
Dave in Cali
If you plan to move up. You must be ready for more aggresive players and better players. Especially at the bellagio. But each player faces these decisions a few times in their lives. You will be able to tell if you are ready for this limit if you feel you are not being jerked around by the better players. You will be able to access your abilities against some of the best players in the world. Concentrate on each hand and try to work out the strategy and you should be ok in the long run. Just don't come to my game laugh. Have fun and play well.
I am in Seat #3 as the big blind with the 6s6c. #7 limps in and #10 raises to $30. Everyone folds to me and I call. #7 calls. There is $100 in the pot and three players.
The flop is: 10d5c4h
This flop may not have helped a pre-flop raiser who could be raising on over cards. I bet $15 with my second pair hoping my two opponents might fold. #7 calls and #10, the pre-flop raiser, raises to $30. There is $160 in the pot and it costs me $15 to take off a card. Any Six gives me a set, any Seven or Three gives me an open-ended straight draw, and any Ten allows me to lead out on the turn representing trip Tens. I call for another $15. #7 calls. There is $190 in the pot.
The turn is: 10h
I bet $30. #7 calls. This bothers me and I figure #7 must have a Ten. #10 throws his cards at the muck and they turn face up showing QhQd. There is $250 in the pot and two players.
The river is: 4s
I now check planning to fold if #7 bets. #7 checks. I win as #7 shows the Ah5h for Tens over Fives losing to my Tens over Sixes.
All comments welcome.
Jim,
I think, there is nothing much to say. You played the hand perfectly and the reasoning, why you played it that way is perfect too.
Just one thing: If the preflop-raiser is very aggressive and raises with only overcards on the flop too you might have considered a reraise on the flop (to get the caller out of the pot)
Regards
M.A.
Jim,
Depending on your opponents and their tendencies, you might have considered reraising the flop to try and get the 7 seat out or make him pay for his possible straight draw - and then leading on the turn. Really just depends on who you are up against. Otherwise, I think you played the hand just fine.
Michael D.
Jim,
I think you played the hand well except I would not fold on the end if #7 bets. If he did have a ten, wouldn't he raise the turn when you bet?
Also, I would consider check-raising the flop to eliminate the middle position player.
Puggy
Jim,
I doubt anyone could argue with your flop call getting these odds out of the blind.
This is a great flop bet and your logic is impeccable here. I especially like the idea that you will lead again on the turn if the board pairs the ten.
When the board paired the top card your lead bet on the turn wins half the battle by eliminating a decent player who “realizes things” (as Mason would put it). Now you are head up with essentially an unknown hand held by an unknown player.
Then you wrote: ”I bet $30. #7 calls. This bothers me and I figure #7 must have a Ten. #10 throws his cards at the muck and they turn face up showing QhQd. There is $250 in the pot and two players.
The river is: 4s
I now check planning to fold if #7 bets. “
Must have a ten??? Maybe he has a ten, maybe he has an overpair to your sixes, maybe he has overcards, and maybe he has lots of things. His play really doesn’t make much sense and you are head up getting just over nine to one on a call of his river bet (if he makes one). So to me folding is unthinkable unless I knew a lot more about this player.
If there were any debate, it would be whether or not you should be BETTING the river or not. You might get some calls out of ace high hands that he wouldn’t bet or some laydowns of middle pairs who just finally wake up to the “fact” that Jim Brier wouldn’t bet a hand they could beat. Of course, you need to know your player here but to me the only choice is between calling and betting.
Regards,
Rick
I agree with your bet on the flop, but I would have folded after #10 raised. It's close though, you figure that each 6 is definitely an out, and a 10 might be an out plus the running straight possibilities all make it close. So I cannot be too critical of the call. I do not think re-raising would be a good idea here. If #7 had folded, then raising to win the pot right there would be okay, but it is very unlikely that both players will fold to a re-raise.
I agree with your bet on the turn.
I think #7 would have raised on the flop if he had a 10. But I still agree with your check unless #7 is a major calling station. This may have been the case given his horrible call on the flop. But if you don't know this player, then I think you played it correctly. An added bonus is that you got to show your hand to #10, which could get you more action on your big hands later.
Steve Fiete
Jim,
I think you played it great except for your reasoning that if he bet you would fold. I think you have to pay off the river here. He quite possible would have bet with a hand like the one he had or bluffed with a worse hand like a busted flush w/no pair or overcards. Well played.
Well played. I like everything you said except that you would have folded to a river bet. I would have called him heads up, unless you have insight on this player that makes you believe he must have a ten to bet.
BTW I would have called you down with Q-Q -- you made a nice play on the turn and had the right opponents.
Before reading the other posts...
I think you played the hand brilliantly.
Preflop, your call is pretty standard and correct.
On the flop, you very well may have the best hand, so your bet is correct. When you get raised, I do feel that you have enough to take off a card, given your backdoor draws plus two more sixes. I also do not believe that the bettor has a ten at this point, so your plan to bluff if another ten comes off is a good one.
On the turn, betting out representing the tens is a brilliant move. I cannot believe that the raiser folded his queens face up! I would also be nervous with the seven seat calling.
on the river, I disagree with your logic here. I think you should check and call rather than check and fold. You cannot be certain that the seven seat will have you beat if he bets. Your hand is more than enough to pick off bluffs and you beat second pair which is something he might bet with on the end. I would have called had he bet.
Good hand..
Dave in Cali
You can't fold to a bet on the river heads-up. I don't know why you were thinking that. A bet on the river from seat #7 would be extremely suspicious to me. If he had a ten, you should have heard from it earlier. He should have raised your flop bet, and raised your turn bet when the ten paired.
I liked your play on the other streets, although I might have considered a check-raise on the flop if your late position raiser was the type to almost always bet the flop if it's checked to him, even if he just has overcards.
I would've been more inclined to check-raise the flop with 6-6 and a late position BTF raiser. But you can't necessarily anticipate that the 10-seat has only a couple of big cards, because he already has a limper in. Your turn bet was a strong effort to win the pot, but many players with an overpair would've come right back over the top of you to check you out. The turn bet allowed your opponents to play bad -- one "any-Ace" opponent overplaying a cheesy middle pair draw and another opponent who got scared with the best hand. Cut yourself a piece of cake.
5-10 at the Taj. Loose table. I'm in the BB with JTo UTG limps, next player raises, cutoff and button call and I call.
FLOP is QS QD 9s.
UTG bets out, preflop raiser raises, button calls and I fold.
There's $77.00 in the pot and I feel
1) I could be drawing dead 2) The Kings are dirty because of KQ 3) The spades are tainted as well 4) The 8d or 8h could come and a redraw to a boat on the river is a possibility.
Of course no one had KQ, no one had spades, the king came on the turn.
UTG had KJ. Preflop raiser had AKo.
a) was my fold correct? b) how big would the pot have to be to call?
Your fold was correct given both an open pair and a two flush on board. To your list of reasons for folding you need to add: 5) it could get raised again, and 6} there are flush redraws against you at the river even if you hit one of your 8 outs and your hand happens to be good. I do not know how the pot could ever get big enough to justify calling a bet and raise back to you to pursue a straight draw on the flop given that board.
Your fold was correct. You need odds of 10.5:1 (counting implied odds) to call. Plus you need some extra $$ in the pot to make up for the paired board. Plus you need some more $$ in there to make up for the fact that there is a flush draw out there. There is very little chance at all that I would ever call in this situation unless the pot was offering about 20:1 odds, not counting implied odds.
You made the correct play despite the result. The result is irrelevant. Remember that. It is only whether you made the right play, not what the result was.
Dave in Cali
Last night, 15/30 Commerce. 3 limpers to me, I have A3 of spades, I call, cutoff and button both call. SB calls and BB passes on his option.
Flop 3d 8s 9d. Checked to me, I check, cutoff bets, button calls, sb passes, bb calls, two limpers fold, limper on my right calls. There's $180 in the pot. Any spade that doesn't pair the board gives me a draw to the nuts, an Ace gives me a probable best hand, and a 3 has decent implied odds (I'd been playing tight and pretty straight forwardly). Is there enough money in the pot to take a card off? What if there was only $120?
It's 8.5-1 you hit an A or 3 on the next card, giving you a likely winning hand unless someone has A9s or A8s. You're getting 12-1 on your money and I'm not even counting the backdoor nut flush. Easy call.
$120 is only 8-1, but with your flush draw and implied odds I'd still go for it. You do have to be a little worried if the ace of diamonds hits, but there's a slim chance that you might have the best hand and your opponents are in there on draws and overcards.
In both cases, you should bet the turn if no overcard hits. And if the BB hadn't called, your hand would have been worth a checkraise on the flop.
Since you chose to play the A3 out of position. For all intents and purpose you missed the flop.
If you need an excuse to "take one off" you can use the size of the pot but I would muck here if not pre flop then certainly on the flop.
Suited ace with a wheel card in middle position? That's out of position? well, it's not optimal(i'd rather play that hand on the button or in a family pot out of the blinds) but I don't think it's an automatic preflop fold with 3 limpers.
Ok you call one of the limpers who presumably bets in front of you then there is a couple of raises. You gonna call 3 bets now - with that rubbish - of course your pot odds have improved but do you want to throw good monay after bad - that's why you should be playing speculative hands like Axs on the button - not in mid position - you are out of position - that's my only point.
yes, rounder, in a more aggressive game or against more competent players I wouldn't play Axs in middle position. This game was pretty passive and loose.
I think being two off the button after two limpers is enough to call BTF with A3s. I would not exactly call this "out of position".
On the flop, there is enough $$ in there to take one off. He has 4 clean outs plus a backdoor draw. His call closes the action. I think he has enough to take one off. He promises to get paid off more than enough to make it worth one small bet.
I think you are playing too tight here, but then you are somewhat known for that on the forum. I would be interested to see who agrees with me on this.
Fire away!
Dave in Cali
f
Since I stopped chasing cards in this sort of situation my hourly rate took off. I think the take one off mentality is the reason more guys (good players otherwise) can't make more than 1 BB an hour.
Not tight - smart.
Even though I do not completely agree with you, your point is taken....
Dave in Cali
Calling BTF is a no brainer. The game is loose and the pot figures to be a large family pot perfect for A3s. What more can you ask for?
On the flop with bottum pair a backdoor flush draw and a possible Ace as an out your decision to call for one small bet is quite easy. Why anyone would pass in this situation makes no sense to me. Passing in spots like this clearly over the course of a year is going to hurt your bottum line.
Bruce
chris,
You are getting 12 to 1 on your call. About 22 to 1 is good for the backdoor nut flush draw. The two threes are 22.5 to 1 against and are very strong. The aces add more value but the Ad makes a flush possible. In all an easy call since your action closes the betting.
If there were only $120, I would say it depends on how the $120 got there. If you had more folding post flop and you got it head up or three-way, I like it a lot. If there was less money pre-flop but all call post flop then you may be in trouble and I would probably fold.
Did you consider betting the flop? It may be right with the right opponents and circumstances.
Regards,
Rick
With a pot that size and with two to a flush and two to a straight on board, Chris would be almost assured of a raise if he bet. I think that in his situation he wants to see the next street as cheaply as possible.
I say the flop check was correct, with the clause that a checkraise should be forthcoming if no one calls between the bettor and him.
I always consider betting the flop when I have a piece of it but with the two diamonds and two straight cards out there I felt a check was better. I could easily be raised by a straight draw and then 3bet by a flush draw and have no idea where I'm at.
anyway the 3c came off the turn, I checked, cutoff bet (putting himself all in) buttton raised, everyone folded around to me, I 3bet. Button grumbled and called. River was a blank (K of spades), I bet, button called. cutoff had the flush draw, button had 89 and had flopped top two pair and slowplayed the flop. The results notwithstanding I couldn't decide whether I should have called the flop bet or not. I really do need to learn to calculate odds better. I know the straight/flush odds and I can estimate pretty accurately how much money is in the pot (although I think in terms of # of bets in the pot as opposed to amount of $), the odds I don't know are things like the odds of hitting another 3 (as inthe example above)or the odds of turning a flush draw.
thanks guys chris
This kind of problem and the decisions you are facing are really the "bread and butter" of hold-em. Nothing exotic, just a common everyday situation.
Pre-flop, I like your limp with Ace-Little suited from middle position when 3 players limp in front of you. You are getting the mutli-handed action this speculative hand requires and the pot is unraised.
Once the flop comes, I like your check when 5 of your 7 opponents check to you. Against this many opponents you cannot win the pot outright by betting especially since there is a two flush and two cards in a straight zone on the table. You have bottom pair, an Ace over card, and a backdoor Spade flush draw. I would want to take a card off cheaply here. When the cutoff bets and gets 3 callers you are now getting 12:1. You have 5 outs with any Trey or Ace but the Ad may not be an out. Nevertheless you have 4 clean outs plus your backdoor draw. You clearly have a call here. Even if there were only $120 in the pot giving you 8:1 I still think you can call given the implied odds.
I do not particaly like A3s , but if i see this flop i am calling 1 bet to see the turn, if i get no help i am checking and folding , if i hit 1 of my outs i bet the turn.
I've had very little real-life short-handed experience, so I'd appreciate everyone's comments.
Late last night in a 2-4 HE home game, we're down to five players. I'm in the big blind with J4h. UTG limps (fishy loose/passive player), and two fold to the button (rock who knows how to correctly play aggressively into a small field). When the rock has come into a hand, about 70% of the time it's been a raise.
Flop comes rainbow KQ4, one heart. Checked to the button who bets, and I check-raise. Fish drops out, and button reluctanlty calls.
Turn is an offsuit 3. I bet out, and button calls.
River is another 3. I bet out, and button calls.
Results to follow. Comments?
Rock says, "You got a pair?", and I show him my 4's up. He mucks, saying, "Nice hand. I should've bluff-raised on the river." I knew better than to tell him he was right.
I don't think the fact that you're shorthanded has much to do with this situation. This plays just like a full ring game where a lot of players have folded. Your call from the BB is marginal though one I may have made. Your check-raise is ok, i guess, if you're sure rock doesn't have an overpair. When he calls your bet on the turn, there is no way you should bet the river. How many hands will he call you with that you can beat? He seams like kind of a "loose rock" to me.
You didn't say whether he raised pre-flop. If he called your check-raise and you won the pot, he is not a rock. Your bet on the river is a classic mistake, I believe. How often will you have best hand when a rock calls? Almost never, unless he is actually a good player who perceives you as an habitual bluffer. Rocks are not good players they are just rocks.
The button did limp in, preflop.
I suppose I was using the word 'rock' too liberally.
1. you did not say if the button raised. If he did, you should have folded. If not, continue with your free play.
2. On the flop, you check-raised... Why? What did you hope to accomplish? All you had was a backdoor flush and backdoor straight draw. Not much of a hand. I believe the correct play now would have been to check and fold. I think you were trying to buy the pot.
3. On the turn you continue with your attempt to get the button to fold. Didn't work again. Sounding like it's getting expensive. The BEST you can hope for is a jack on the river now.
4. river he calls your futile attempt at one last bluff. Ouch, that was an expensive attempt to win a fairly small pot. You should pick your places for short handed aggression more carefully.
Dave in Cali
sorry, I typed too fast and didn't see that you had a pair.
I still think you picked a weak hand to get aggressive with. You got lucky that he didn't have AK, AQ, or a pocket pair. I can't imagine what he called you with unless it was AJ or 22.
Dave in Cali
Hello.
3-6, rather tight/sometimes agressive,passive table for it being 5 in the morning.
I'm in the BB with pocket kings.
To my amazement, 5 total callers, eventually capped by me.
flop is Q36 with two hearts.
sb checks, i bet.
pre flop raiser raises, small blind 3 bets, i cap.
[i'm thinking that sb hit two pair or a set. =( ] [i'm thinking that pre flop raiser has pocket pair or AQ]
turn is a 5 non heart.
sb bets out, i raise, pre flop raiser calls, sb 3 bets, i cap, pre flop raiser folds.
river is a heart.
sb bets, i cry calling.
sb rakes in pot w/ 2-4 off for a gushot straight that hit on the turn!!!
i asked him why he played that when it was 3 bet to him btf and he's in EP and that i noticed he's been playing very well, always turning up good, high and/or suited cards...
he replies with "because it's a bad beat hand...etc etc, one of my favorite hands along with 89.
arrrrgggh, can you guys please help me point out my mistakes and where i could have saved money, such as on the turn where i had a feeling that he flopped two pair or better, but when you havc the cards, you bet them...so i did.
You lost at least 3bb too much. Does it make a difference if he's holding QQ or 24? If you think he has two pair or trips then why are you raising the turn with the worst hand? Depending on the player you don't have to call the river.
chris
You should not be capping on the flop and the turn. From the betting pre-flop and subsequent it is too easy for you to be up against AA, a set of Queens, a smaller set, or a hand that can beat a pair of Kings. On the flop when you bet and it gets raised and re-raised back to you then you need to slow down and just call. When led into on the turn, you should not raise but just call. You lost too much money on this hand.
A related tale for your further comment. I agree with Jim that you were stuck, but lost too much money on the hand.
My hand was AA middle position in a 10-20 game at the Trop. I was first in with a raise and only the BB called, (of course). The flop was 4-4-9. He checks, I bet, he calls. (Should a warning flag go up? Why did he call?) The turn is a 6. No flush poss. He checks again. Even though my spidey sense tells me he has a hand, I bet again. Get check raised. I call. River is another 9. He bets, I call. He shows a 4-6o. What? Call my raise with 4-6o???
I also lost too much money on this hand.
Okay, think of this from your opps point of view. They see a guy cap it preflop. Lots of people cap it preflop with any hand they would have called with just to cap it, so this doesn't count for much.
The flop betting tells you a little something. You bet into two preflop raisers so you probably don't have a weak queen. So they put you on AQ. Two people raise you when you're saying you have at least top pair top kicker. So they either have excellent draws like AhQh, or they've flopped a set. Either way they've taken your hit and it didn't slow them down. Now, when you cap it maybe they're seeing you with AA, KK or QQ.
A 5 comes on the turn and a previous non-bettor bets right in your face. He ain't scared of no set.
The clues are there but sometimes it's hard to see with cowboys kicking up dust in your eyes.
Just get on your knees and thank god for fools who have "favorate hands" (my fav. hand is the winning hand) - one bit of advice - don't ask a fool why he does foolish things you might give him the idea he shouldn't be playing rags for a pre flop cap.
BTW tilting is way over rated. :-)
is Td9d.
Perhaps this is totally illogical, but whatever, I know that and so do you.
However, just because I have a favorite hand does not mean that I justify making stupid calls with it! For instance...
Td9d:
UTG: fold
Cold call an early position raiser: No.
Raise on the button after eight limpers after saying something like "let's build us a giant pot": maybe...
So like you said, don't try to talk people out of their "favorite hands". I like mine!
Dave in Cali
yall might think I am crazy but I have a favorite hand, but I only play it from the BB in an unraised pot, its 72 yes I know it looses but If I see the flop free and make a hand I usually get well paid for it,(nobody expects the old duces full of sevens) and if I dont I muck for free.
I saw a guy get 27o in the BB in an unraised pot 6 players. Flop was 227 with a flush draw. Lots of action, an ace completes the flush on the river. After two river raises with two players left, he wins against an ace high flush and a king high flush. Ace high had AKs on the button and didn't raise.... I KNOW the player in the BB would have dumped his hand for a raise... Too bad for the button! Should've raised! He got that kind of action because no one believed him.
Dave in Cali
I can't think of why you would raise the small blind's initial bet into you on the turn after you had shown soooooooo much strength on the flop, and your reraise on the turn is an even bigger mystery? The only reason I would raise the small blind's FIRST bet on the turn is if he were a maniac, AND I'd have to feel highly confident that my raise would knock out the remaining player/s. Without BOTH of these conditions, I'd simply call him down.
Also, don't ever ask a player why he chose to do something after you lost the hand. All you do is let everybody at the table know how pissed off you are, and then the better players are going to start circling you for the kill(well maybe not in 3-6, but in 10-20 and higher--definately, so get out of the habit now). Plus there's all the consequences that Mike Caro is always pointing out that occur when you chastise players, too many to write with my slow-typing skills.
Good Luck, Don Martin
"Hands don't put you on tilt, you put you on tilt."
Not only is this an excellent point, it's the ULTIMATE point as far as the subject of tilt is concerned. - B.F. Skinner
3-6 Kill HE, Kill pot. Killer is UTG. Very loose somewhat aggressive game. I have JJ and 2 limp to me in middle position. Here is the classic quandry with pocket jacks: They play worst against 3 or 4 players, which is what it looks like there is going to be for this pot. Should I raise or just call? I decide that two more players downstream look like they are preparing to call, so I decide to call and go for the flopped set rather than put in a futile raise to try and thin the field. So I just call and two more limp, late position player raises to 12$. 7 players take the flop for 12$ each. I am tentatively putting the raiser on AK, AQ, or a pocket pair tens or higher. His play is somewhat solid, at least he seems to know what to raise with BTF.
Flop is 7d 3d 2c. Checked to me, I bet. Time to test the waters and see what the raiser has. Two call, raiser just calls. Now I am putting him on AK or AQ. ALL 7 PLAYERS CALL THE BET. Pot has 21 small bets in it.
Turn is 4s. Again it is checked to me. Despite the large field and the feeling that I am going to get cremated on the river, there is no other play for me but to bet. I put the 12$ into the pot. 6 callers, raiser folds. 33 small bets or 16.5 big bets in the pot.
River is 2h. Against this many players, not a good card. Actually, I don't think there are many cards at all that will help me, most will probably hurt me agaist this many players. Player to my right bets out, but he is almost all-in and only has 2$ left. I complete the bet to 12$ thinking that I may get called by someone who has the seven for top pair, or perhaps pocket tens, nines, or eights. I will be very unhappy if I get raised, but hopefully no one played a two all the way to the river in a kill pot!!! But then again, this is no foldem holdem!!! Anyway, no one calls my river bet so I take back 10$ and the bettor and I show it down. He has pocket eights and I win a giant pot. I went from about 150$ down to about 50$ up with this one pot.
Comments on my pre-flop play and river value bet? any other comments welcome....
Dave in Cali
just my feeling, but you may want to lob in #3 before the flop. you have your multiway pot, and you're getting more money in with the likely best hand. you also can get a better feel for where you're at against the other raiser. true, you may get more chasers later, but in no fold-em, you'll get them anyway.
I did consider limp-reraising, but decided against it. I felt that if the pre-flop raiser reraised me I would be sunk and stuck even further than I already was. I was down 150$ before this hand so I may have let that influence my decision (Feeney tilt?). Any comments on the possibility of a limp-reraise BTF in this situation? You are correct about the chasers, they are the reason I was stuck - I kept getting drawn out on by the implicit colluders....
Dave in cali
Dave, I think your initial idea of limping was solid, in that raising could have put you in a bad spot. I'm just proposing the re-raise as an option to consider when it comes back and you see it seven way. if you flop a monster, everyone will be even more pot stuck than normal. maybe if it were eight or nine way this would be a better option, but I would start considering it at seven way.
I think you should raise preflop. When you just call and the button raises then you should 3bet. IMO, preflop play at low limit tables is about getting multiple bets out of badly dominated hands, even if the button has AK or AQ you're a slight favorite head up and all of the other callers give you a lot of dead money in the pot and they have almost no chance of winning. Now if you had raised preflop then that pair of 88 should lead on the flop, you can raise and now AK,AQ has to call two cold to hit a hand that he doesn''t know if it's any good if he hits it.
I don't like your river bet, I would just call and call the rest of the bet if someone else completes it. All the cards are out you probably have the best hand but what worse hand can call. You open yourself up to a raise here unneccessarily.
I prefer raising before the flop. You have the best hand in all likelyhood and the initial raiser may make it three bets and you may be able to play your Jacks with a thinner field where you can take control. I would rather play pocket Jacks 3 or 4 handed than 7 or 8 handed. The Deuce on the end seemed like a good card. It's unlikely for someone to chase with bottum pair and it may have counterfieted anyone with two pair.
Bruce
the 2 on the river was a great card for you. it didn't make any more straughts. it doesn't make anyone a higher pair. you catch up you some ragedy 2 pair like 43 or 74. someone probably doesn't have a 2.
the only better card would have been a J. then a 2 then a 3 then a 4. then a T then a 9 then a 8 then a 7. then a Q then a K then a 6 then a 5 then a A.
i am not sure about Q and 7. maybe the should be switched.
scott
Loose 4-8 game, nine handed (no kill on this hand). I am the BB with AhKh. EVERYONE is in when it gets to me, so naturally I raise. All call. 18 sb in the pot.
Flop is Jh 2c 6d. SB checks, I check. Next player bets and 6 people call. I have more than the right odds to call with my backdoor draws and two overcards, so I call.
Turn is Ks, a good card for me. I bet and four players call.
river is Ac. I bet and UTG raises. I make a crying call thinking I probably lost to a straight.
Results to follow. Comments welcome.
Dave in Cali
Amazingly, he had AQo and I won a big pot with my AK.
In a 4-8 game, no one folds two-pair on the river unless there's a four-flush or four-straight or higher pair on the board with several raises; so UTG's raise was futile.
A-Q!!!. Good Lord, I gave this guy way too much credit. What did he hope to accomplish with that raise? Did he seriously think he had the best hand at that point?
In my comments below, I failed to mention that I would have quite possibly re-raised at the river, depending on your judgment of how solid this UTG player was. As I mentioned, there is NO chance of him having Broadway. He might have the small set, and if you do 3-bet, he should 4-bet with his set because you in all liklihood do not have Broadway or a set of Ace's or King's given your betting pattern on the hand. He has probably made a mistake raising you with a smaller Ace's-up hand, and I'm going to extract full profit. But A-Q!!! They don't even play that bad in the 4-8 game here in Edmonton.
Well played - good ending. Only thing I would have considered is not raising pre-flop - hoping to check raise the flop.
I would definately not have raised BTF. AK, suited or otherwise, is a drawing hand. You must improve to win, particularly against that many opponents. I would have even considered not raising out of position with that many in with as much as KK. You are an underdog against that large a field. Also, when you do hit your hand you are in a much better position to have the relative strength of the hand hidden. The BTF raise somewhat defines your hand.
Short comment:
You did the right thing at every round. Easy raise btf, good call on the flop, good bet on the turn. In no foldem, the river bet is good here -- lots of people chase with crappy aces.
You have to be a little worried about the straight, but the ace should make more people bad hands than makes people straights there.
- target
B4 I read your post I'm gonna guess that UTG has AJ or another aces-up hand. I would be inclined to checkraise the turn but don't know if that would work.
Without having peaked at the results, I would think UTG would just as likely have had two-pair on the river. With the nut-straight, one could argue that his best play with three players still to act would have been to smoothcall. Now I'll check to see if your tears cleared after the dust settled....
overall well played. on the river i have a couple comments. one is that you are more likely beat by a set than by a straight. second, a worse two pair is far more likely than either. i think a river 3 bet is correct, but i don't know if i'd have had the balls to actually reraise.
scott
I agree that a weaker two pair is the most likely hand, unless the opponent is super passive and wouldn't checkraise without the nuts, etc. etc.
A 3-bet is an interesting idea. I think you can do it if you can confidently lay your hand down to a 4-bet and/or your opponent won't 4-bet you with a set
I'm not sure what a river three bet would accomplish. IMHO, a set will not fold here (not a straight, of course) and you will lose a bunch of two pair hands. Even at 4-8, people respect river raises and, especially, river reraises. while UTG's most likely hand when he raises is a smaller two pair, the chances that he beats Dave goes up immensely when UTG calls or raises the three bet.
i do not think a typical player will fold 2 pair to a 3 bet. certainly some players would and against these a raise would be a mistake. also, if it were not heads up going for overcalls would likely be more profitable than reraising. but in the situation he is in, i i think a smaller two pair will grumble and call.
scott
Without looking at the result, I'm guessing UTG probably has AJ or maybe A6.
I've looked at the results and I think it was a very strange raise by UTG. Anyway you have to call but I would not three bet here I would simply call.
My only other comment is that you say you "naturally" raise with AKs in the BB. I would not raise in this situation. Everyone is already in so you are not going to get anyone to fold. You do make the pot bigger but this may even encourage people to go after their draws and with nine other people drawing you will be in trouble. You also you will have poor position throughout the hand and AK is still a drawing hand so you need help. Therefore, I would not raise in the BB with AKs and a large field.
I have to disagree here. I know AKs is a drawing hand, but it is a very GOOD drawing hand. I wanted to build a giant pot here because I am getting implied odds from the field. I know no one will fold, but I have to raise anyway. If I was off-suit I would not raise in the BB against a large field like this.
Dave in Cali
Dave is right. Chances are very good that AKs is the best hand in the field, unless you're against a field so passive they're falling asleep. But more important than that is that there's an almost zero chance that AKs won't win its fair share of 10-handed pots, and that's why we put in the second bet with it. The only question is whether you'd 3-bet a raiser if there was one coming in (I'd do it for sure if it were a late position raiser). The 2-bet out of the blind after limpers is virtually automatic.
Well played on every street. (I put UTG on AJ, since he did bet the flop and raised with two pair on the river.)
In this particular game, I would probably 3-bet any late raiser or any player who I think raises way too loosely (which is several players that frequent this cardroom). Reason being - charge the weak players even more to see the flop with 92o, J5s etc.... In a game with better players I wouldn't three-bet, or if a tighter player raised, same thing.
Dave in Cali
I'm gving my take before peeking at the results, Dave.
There is no way this guy has Broadway, IMO. You raise out of the BB and then check. He comes out betting with Q-T looking at a Jack-high rag flop. I don't think so. He's either got a small set or something like A-J.
Now when you bet the turn and he just calls, one of two things is happening. You either just ran him over when you spiked your King, and he's trying to take one off, or he's got the set and does't want to raise or he'll lose the limpers downstream. The flop at this point is not too threatening to a set of 6's, for example (no flush draws, and runner-runner str8's), but nonetheless, if I'm him and I have a set, I would still raise in case the limpers have some sort of gutshot Broadway draw now that the King appears.
On the river when the Ace hits, that's maybe the 'miracle' card for his A-J. However, if he thinks it through, he shouldn't raise anyway. You have flashed all the signals of Slick, and if he's got A-J, he was drawing very thin on the turn anyway. The Ace was just a sucker card for him.
In either scenario, I don't think he played optimally. If he's got the set, he should raise the turn. If he's got A-J, he shouldn't raise, or should have even folded on the turn, IMO. Be interesting to see what happened.
10/20 couple of days ago. Fairly tight table, early in the session, I've only showed down two hands both hands were top pair/good to excellent kicker. Anyway, pass around to me, I'm in middle-late position with KQof spades. I raise, button calls two cold, sb calls and bb calls.
Flop Qc Td 8h. not a bad flop. checked to me, I bet, Button calls, Sb calls, BB folds.
Turn 7h checked to me, I bet, Button folds, sb calls.
River Kd sb checked, i bet, sb raised. I didn't want to call but figured a hand like KT might play this the same way, I called and he showed me AJo. Should I have just checked the river? I had a feeling the K was a bad card for my hand but I bet head up with top two. One reason I bet was b/c you still need two cards for Broadway and this player (I felt wouldn't call all that way with a gutshot), I noticed, as soon as he checkraised, that he could have been pulling to a double belly buster as any jack make a straight if the 9 comes off. Did I really overplay my hand here? Or am I thinking too much at the river?
chris
You played it perfectly from start to finish and got unlucky. Better luck next time. It's hard to put anyone on a gut shot in this situation.
I would bet it - it is likely you have the best hand, and will likely get called if you do. It is also unusual for someone to check raise the nuts on the river, unless you are know as overly-aggressive. If he had bet into you, and you raised, that would be overplaying it.
This is a tough call but I think I would have bet as well. Jim Brier has made the point that you shouldn't say to yourself "there's enough in the pot" type of thing. I have been betting the river a lot more lately and have made more money because of it. The K was a little scary but its hard to put him on a gut shot. Plus usually a player will fear that you will check the river and therefore he will bet out.
You lost two big bets by betting the river, however, if you bet the river more often you will find you make up for all of these check raises, plus some.
So, you fear a Jack. Bad bet if he's got AJ(16), good bet if he's got KJ(8), maybe good bet if its QJ(8) (he MAY call), doesn't matter for other Jacks.
Its a good bet if he's got most trouble hands especially AK(8) and KT(6) and AQ(8); maybe K9(8). It doesn't matter for his other hands since he's not going to call.
Bad bet is worth double since you will call the raise. Some good bets are worth double since HE is going to raise.
Add it up, its pretty close.
- Louie
I would bet the river every time in this situation when you have the top two pair. There are many worse hands that will call your bet like any Queen or a lower two pair.
Situation: I´m in a 8-10 handed, typical loose-passive, low limit ring game.
Question #1: From what position - if at all - would you play KJo, QJo or ATo?
from late position if you have one, maybe two, loose limpers and then you should often raise, esp. AT and AJ. Pass, even in late position, if you have a bunch of limpers ahead of you unless you play exceptionally well postflop. Let other people lose money on top pair/second best kicker.
I would play KJ and QJ only from the button or cutoff. I might relax my standards a little from middle position if I was the first one in.
AT is slightly different because if you hit an ace, people will stick around with ace-rag offsuit. I'd limp with this in middle position if I was sure there wouldn't be a raise.
This is a similar dilemma to one I got flamed on a while back, but on the earlier hand, the board was much more compact and semi-bluffable.
Aggressive 10-20 game. I am UTG with AhKh and decide to limp. A solid middle position player (MP) and an aggressive but looser late position player (LP) call. The SB folds and the BB checks.
Flop is Kc-8s-3h. Cha-ching, right?
BB checks, I check because I am CERTAIN that LP will bet if no one else does. MP bets, LP raises, BB folds, I three-bet and now MP caps. Uh-oh. LP calls and I call. I figure MP must have 8-8. I have not seen him get out of line in an hour; he is tight. I figure LP for something like KJ or KQ only.
Turn is a rag, not a heart. I check, MP bets, LP calls. I call.
River is another rag. MP bets, LP folds. I call and no surprise, MP has 8-8.
With the board that diluted, there was really nothing else a tight player could have when he capped on the flop, except maybe AK also, but I was sure he would have raised preflop with AK. I was quite sure I was beaten -- where, if anywhere, would you have folded? On the turn?
Thanks. SW
When he caps it on the flop. You don't have to call that last bet, it will only get you in trouble, say if an A comes off or another K. I don't like capping it on the flop with just top pair/best kicker with a raggedy flop like that, K83rainbow what draw could he be jammin on, you said he's tight, there's not a hand that you could beat that he could have. The time to get out of a hand is on the flop. Is he gonna cap it with KQ ? KJ? I'd say he has at least top two (K8s), but since he's tight more likely 88 or even KK if the table's been doing a lot of limping with good hands.
chris
If there is any place you can get away from this hand, it would be to dump it on the turn. Since the capper was a tight player, there are really only three hands he would likely cap it with, 33, 88, or KK. If he had AK, you are only drawing at half the pot anyway. Any other reasonable hand he could hold beats you, so dump it on the turn if you can bring yourself to do it. The suggestion by chris to dump it on the flop by not calling the cap is another possibility, good for keeping yourself out of trouble.
I know it is hard but this is one of the few times where I could dump such a hand with such a flop.
Dave in Cali
you should have raised preflop with that hand, If he was really a tight player he would have let that hand go, and even if he took a flop if you had check raised on the turn he might have put you on KK and let go, far less likely then him releasing preflop but still not well played. If youre worried about people overrespecting your preflop raises then try over playing weaker holdings preflop instead of slowplaying stronger holdings.
if you didnt think you could get him off the hand somehow, (very unlikely since he has the second nuts on the flop and no good draws to contend with)and I am guessing the turn and river didnt put a straight on the board then the time to release was the moment you put him on 88, you had a backdoor flush draw only, and there was no way you were getting odds for it. a king would fill him no help there, and an ace doesnt help either. your only ous were runner runner aces, kings, or hearts I cant do the math yet but I know enough to know its bad poker to keep going after the flop here.
I raise most of the time with AKs up front but chose to mix in this play. Bad timing.
MG,
I must disagree. You say to muck as soon as you put him on 88. My god, what if you're wrong and he doesn't have 88?? And there is no way he is going to muck his set on the flop when he gets check-raised. Yeah most of the time you should raise it in with that hand but if I choose to vary my play and limp, AKs is the kind of hand I would limp with and re-raise as opposed to a big pair. It is the kind of hand that might win a big pot and you don't lose as much not raising it in. Especially when your opponents put you on a big pair when you limp/reraise.
These hands play so much easier when you play naturally and forget the cute stuff. Pre-flop you should raise with super slick (AK suited). Now anyone who calls you, especially a tight player, can be put on a reasonable range of hands. By raising you usually get out the medium pocket pairs so this reduces the likelihood of someone flopping a set on you. The other porblem is that no one will read you for AA,KK, or AK since you didn't raise pre-flop. So their betting and raising could easily mean just top pair and not two pair or a set. But if you raise pre-flop and bet the flop, now when you get raised and re-raised you know you are badly beaten given that board since no draws are out there. Now if you have no draw you can fold with a clear conscience since you are usually playing 3 outs and sometimes less if someone has a set. In this case, I think you would have to take a card off because of the backdoor nut flush possibility. Nevertheless you can bail out on the turn more easily when a blank comes if you get any heat.
Once i have 3 bets in i am calling the 4 bet. When the turn comes a rag I wuold consider betting the turn ,then if i got raised again I would probably lay it down without to much trouble. Otherwise i would be guessing and probally have to call him down.
Couple of points, Scott. First of all, why let them limp when you have such a premium starting hand as AKs? As Jim Brier pointed out, you may have got the Little Oldsmobile hand to fold pre-flop, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Second, once you have limped, why check the flop? Barring the unforeseen set hitting, you in all liklihood have the current best hand. Start charging them now! Top pair/top kicker is certainly no invincible monster and I'm coming out betting. Once you get heat from the solid player, you have to adjust, but I suspect at the table it's going to be hard to get away from this hand until at least after the turn. Gotta know your customers, and judge accordingly. But once you don't raise pre-flop, this just complicates the judgment process, IMO.
Third, how can you be so certain that the solid player would have raised pre-flop with Slick? YOU didn't, and do you not consider yourself a solid player? Put yourself in his shoes with something like KQ, for example. The K-high flop hits, you come out betting. Why wouldn't he raise with something like KQ? You haven't shown him anything for pre-flop strength, and his best play probably IS to raise at this point. You might be trying something with A8s.
It's a fact of life that people occasionally make sets. When they do, they usually win a nice pot. Tell him, 'Nice hand', and raise next time with AKs.
4-8 HE, no kill pot this time around. I limp 4th in with 7s6s. Button raises and 7 players take the flop for two bets each.
Flop is 3s 4d 6d. Checked to me, I bet. Button and BB call.
Turn is 9s, giving me a flush draw to go with my pair and gutshot straight draw. BB checks, I bet, both call.
River is 5d, giving me a straight but putting a flush on board. BB bets out, I call, Button raises, BB folds (?), I make the crying call.
Comments welcome, results to follow. (result is strange...).
Dave in Cali
He had AA and waited till the river to raise. I won the pot and the BB looked F#@%ing pissed!
Go figure.
Dave in Cali
slowplaying aces gets you hurt, hopefully he didnt learn that lesson so you can take him for more money later.
now for your play, I think I would have checked the flop, while you have top pair, its a very weak one, given the preflop raise, the number of callers, and the low cards on the board I think you would at least be up against somebody holding a bigger pair and I dont think your draw was strong enough to bet on its own. otherwise I think you played it well from the turn on down.
one other question, I am guessing that the BB let go of a baby flush. while in this situation It worked well for you, with players who can lay down a flush instead of calling one bet, how good was the game?
just my thoughts-- I have been known to be wrong
The game was terrific. Biggest bunch of Magoos ever to have gathered west of the mississippi! Well, almost....
The games at my cardroom lately have been very good. 3-6 very loose players at the table, one or two skilled players (including me most of the time), and maybe a rock here and there. The only problem is that sometimes there are frequent raisers who have lots of $$ to blow. they cause my variance to go up and make the game kind of crazy. If there are more than one of these in the game, I usually look to switch games. Otherwise, I always ask for a seat change button as soon as I sit down, so I can get to the maniac's left if they come into the game. There are usually 3 or 4 games to choose from at the 4-8 and 3-6 level, plus a 6-12 and 8-16 are often going as well, so game selection is good.
Dave in Cali
I was just curious, the BB either had 78, a bad flush, or no reason to get upset, and on this side of the mississippi the low limit players I look for wouldn't ever let go of a flush, or even a draw. I can not tell you all the times I have had a set cracked by 24 suited on a backdoor draw. Yes varience is a bitch but it is so worth it when you rake those massive pots these mooks built for you.
My play: Take the freecard on the turn. I'd play the river the exact same way.
Re: the turn: What free card?
The turn is a gimme: Dave absolutely must bet. In fact, it's the only street where the choice of play is crystal clear.
Yes skp....
I have 12 outs with my gutshot and flush draw, plus a probable two more if I make trips, but I might not win it if I make two pair because anyone with a five then has a straight, therefore I did not count any sevens as an out. So I have fourteen outs and what could very well be the best hand (unless someone hit the nine and now has a higher pair than me). Plus, since I am only against two opponents, I stand a reasonable chance of winning the pot with a bet. Therefore, betting is a must and is the best move.
Dave in Cali
The moral of the story is mucking on the river can be very hazardous for your bankroll. In general I play with so many clueless bozos that you have to be real sure you are not releasing the best hand on the river for one bet. Overcalling often becomes the correct strategy on the river.
Bruce
Besides a temptation to check-raise the flop you played just fine.
What's the problem? You think perhaps you should have made a spectacular 3-bet on the river? I don't think so.
VERY curious you got only 2 calls out of 6 opponents in a raised pot. Hard to believe 4 players didn't want to play their overcards. VERY curious. It makes me suspect you have a hopelessly tight image.
- Louie
You may be right about my having a tight image, but at these games it is an asset. I actually would LIKE some of these people to fold once in a while to my bets/raises. Most of the time, I fold 15 hands in a row, only to raise UTG, get 7 callers, and still have 4 left when the river comes around. I'm not sure what happened on this hand, perhaps the baseball game was distracting them. Or maybe they all want to go smoke a cig.
Dave in Cali
I haven't looked yet, but I think you played the hand OK. You have the top pair on the flop, and because it is such a weak pair, your kicker shouldn't matter too much. The spade draw on the turn doesn't hurt, and I would have continued to bet there as well.
When the flush comes, and you are bet into, you are now in a bad position. You have someone behind you waiting to pounce, and that's exactly what happened. When the BB folds to the raise, you are pretty much pot stuck, and have to make the crying call given the size of the pot, but I wouldn't expect to win this hand more than about 10% of the time, and split maybe another 10-20% of the time.
This is why playing suited connectors is much safer when in later position, IMO, low limit or no low limit.
I have been doing well moving into the mid limits lately (10-20, 20-40, and one stint at 40-80) but I have to admit that table selection accounts for a lot of this. In a full game I admit that I play pretty tight and boring, but when the game gets short handed I become looser and very aggressive.
My question is this - I have read a lot of posts here about how you should be very aggressive. I think my play might seem rather passive to some people but there are very very few times when, at the end of the hand, I say to myself 'I really wish I had been more aggressive and raised.'
I guess my question here is, how do you change gears? I can do it, but not at will. Usually if I get on a good run of cards in the course of my normal play I will get a bit more loose and aggressive if I sense that people at the table fear me. But I find it impossible to do this while losing - people just think you are going on tilt and don't respect your bets and raises as much when you're stuck.
Anyway, can anyone give me some good advice on how to change gears?
-SmoothB-
Here's a thought. Take a hand where you checked because you had nothing, but your opponent bets, yet you perceive that he has a hand but is somewhat weak ... try a check-raise bluff now and then.
Yet you are correct. Don't get fancy when losing. You will just lose more money. Brunson once said something to the effect that, "if you cannot show them a winning hand now and then, you sure as heck cannot bluff them." It is best just to leave if all of the circumstances put you in a mental corner.
Try this phase 1 strategy: if you are in a situation where you WOULD have played 65s then play this hand very aggressively regardless of what you actually have. If you are in a situation where you would only play solid hands then you CAN play this one passively regardless of what you actually have. Strike some ballance if you would have played T9s.
Yes, this means you cannot ask "I had KQs, what should I do?" since your play of THIS hand depends on how you would have played other hands in that situation.
Yes, we are talking about marginal situations. If a hand is crying to be raised then raise.
So, if you are at a psycological disadvantage (such as when losing) you should speculate less B4 the flop and this strategy will tend to cause you to play passively after.
- Louie
Game is $6-12 at the Mirage. Table is generally loose BTF with tighter play after.
I'm in the BB with Q7s. When the betting comes to me there are 5 players already in. I can play for free and do so.
The flop comes 622 with 2 of my suit. I check, UTG bets, and by the time it gets back to me only 1 player has folded and everyone else has called.
At first I was going to call with my 4-flush but then chose to fold my hand. I felt pretty sure that there was not a 2 being slow-played. But with this flop I had to figure that at least one other player had to be on a flush draw. For someone to limp BTF with AXs or KXs seemed to be likely.
Would you have folded here?
BTW, the flush card did come on the turn but it turned out that no one was drawing for it. No one had a 2 either. The winning hand was 2 pair.
The 6-2-2 flop is so ugly I would definitely shoot a semi-bluff into it, even against 5 players. You should rarely worry about a bigger flush draw being against you (unless three of the suit is on board and you're drawing at a one-card flush).
I think if you play 2 suited cards and you hit the flop you really have to play it out. You not only have a 4 flush with an ok high card you also have 2 over cards.
With that flop I think you have to go for it and play it strongly.
Since you were not getting a lot of heat (ie no raises and a free BB hand), I would have at least called the flop. Although your draw is not to the nut flush, the odds are pretty good. Your do have to make a judgement about your 2 overs, it's hard to get excited about Q7.
Assume you called, if you hit an out, you should bet the turn. If you get raised, you have to decide is your hand good.
You are falling in the going broke by playing to tight syndrome. There is 6 small bets before the flop and 4 bets on the flop totalling 10small bets to make this call. The odds to make the flush are 1.86 small bets to 1. Even if you are drawing dead and there may be a higher flush draw out there the adjusted odds are about 4to1. If you do not draw here and on the turn you are just giving your money away. I have written a lengthy article on this on rgp. I would not bet the flop as you have no chance to win by betting the flop. Checking and calling is the best choice by far. Also you have an option of check raising on the turn and representing a 2 and may get the bettor to fold as you are in the blind. You have to look at all aspects when you play the hand. It depends on what you think the opponent is betting.
Yes you are playing way to tight, I think a raise was in order......
You definitely played too tight here. You are getting great pot odds to pursue your draw and this will more than cover the times you hit and lose. Although it is possible someone else is on a flush draw it is too early to come to that conclusion. Suppose the turn brings a flush card and you bet and you get raised and re-raised. That is when you worry about a bigger flush or a full house.
If Jim Brier says you're playing too tight, take notice! :-)
I think you played it fine. I try to follow the best hand, best draw, or get the *&^% out policy. I do not feel you are giving much up given the situation you described. Even though you would have won this particular hand, I believe you are better off in the long run playing it the way you did, especially given your position. Just my thoughts.
Michael D.
I disagree. You have to stay in this hand, otherwise what are you going to play? Only hands where you have the nuts? The pot odds are very much in your favor. If you don't play, you're giving your money away.
This hand needs to be bet. You would like to make your queen a good out, and you will gain the most flexibility in the play of the hand with a bet. In addition, you might win the pot. If you consistently fold hands like this in situations like this you are costing yourself money.
Yes. By the time the bet got back to you on the flop, you were getting about 9:1 odds to draw at your flush. Despite the fact that the board was paired, and that a higher flush draw COULD have been out there, you were still getting a huge overlay of odds on your call. Remember, with two cards to come, your odds of getting there are about 1.86:1, and you were getting nearly 4 times those pot odds to continue.
Call. Consider check-raising for value, you were in the perfect position and you could have gained info about the other player's hands as well. Plus, your representing the deuce might have allowed you to win the pot on a later round if no one had one.
Dave in Cai
New poster here. Had some thoughts I would like feeback on if possible...
The majority opinion seems to lean toward playing this hand aggressively. Now, I am fairly new to the game (played 4-8 for a year, and 10-20/20-40 for the last six months) but I am trying to get my 'thinking' to where it needs to be.
Since my thoughts were to drop the hand, and all the experienced players seem to lean toward playing it, I would love some feedback on why my thoughts on this hand are incorrect. Here were my thoughts :
What could the BB be playing that he would not raise pre-flop and raise UTG ? Given that the table is 'loose pre-flop' and tight thereafter, could we put him on a likely high pair (JJ, QQ ?) or A2s (obviously not the suit that hit the board) reasonably ? 66, 22, Ax of the suit that DID hit the board are less likely possibilities but still in the running ? If this is true, than we have a fairly good draw against the BB. I can definitely see the playable aspect at this point.
However, once 3 other players call the BB (and this is a table that is tight after the flop right ? meaning that calling a bet from an early position better indicates a reasonable hand ?), what can we put them on that a Q high flush will beat ? 2 trips, a pocket over-pair and a J high flush draw ? trips, A6s, a pocket over-pair and a J high flush draw?
I would tend to be a little worried about the Ax flush draw beating mine but also be a little worried about a made hand (66, 22). One or the other might not be enough to dissuade me from this hand but both of these, along with the draw that trips and two pair have, combined with the fact that you don't have a hand you can bet for value, add some more with you having bad position...well, it's what I think of as a 'trouble hand'.
I realize there was not much action (other than the early position bet), thus giving you better odds at drawing but I am concerned about a middle or late position made hand waiting for a trap raise on the turn (especially since it IS a tight table and everyone stayed for an intial bet).
If you DO make a spade (assuming it's not the ace), how do you play it ? If you bet, you may be betting for the strongest hand on the Big Bet round (with you having no outs against a full house or higher flush). What do you do when you get a raise ? If you are not already beat, you are certainly not pat and any callers will only call if they can draw out against a flush. The only hand you have beat for sure is a lower flush draw which, given that it is a tight table after the flop, won't give you much play.
If you are going to check-call, your implied odds are poor and you really should drop the hand on the flop.
Check-raising is the only option left. If you check-raise and get re-raised, you have to drop the hand (assuming you are not against a super-strong player at a 6-12 table). If you get called, you still don't know if you are beat (a higher flush that is worried about a full house or a low full house that misreads you are viable calling hands). About the best thing you can hope for is for it to check around to the last player who may than make a position or semi-bluff bet which you can than raise and knock some draws out.
The funny thing is that I am not really considered a particularly 'tight' player being somewhere in the middle of the tight/loose spectrum.
I went into some detail here and obviously not everyone is going to agree with each little part of it but I am more interested in a critique on why my overall thinking is wrong in this situation.
Thanks in advance for any advice !
jpjeux
Folding any flush draw, even a 5-high one, is always wrong here. Your effective money odds are somewhere around 6-1 (9 small bets in the pot already, say 6 more on the turn and 2 on the river; and assuming you "spend" an average of 3 bets drawing to your flush). Your drawing odds with 2 to come are about 2-1. A queen or a seven could win it for you as well, although with four opponents it's hard to put much stock in either. But note that your opponents are more likely to be on overcards instead of small overpairs (failing to raise with a medium overpair here certainly would be a mistake).
I would have bet the flop and would have certainly considered a check-raise on the turn.
Forumers,
After getting criticized for playing 22 from an early position ("How did I play those deuces?" below), you think I learned my lesson? Ha ha, no way!
I get 44 in a sometimes aggressive game. One limper in front of me, I call. The guy next to me raises, one caller, both blinds call and then the original limper reraises. With 5 opps I call, guy next to me caps, everyone calls. Flop comes something like KQJr, and I fold, thinking that that was the last time I played a small pair from early position.
So, I needed two lessons to get convinced.
It is not so bad if there is no raising. Coming in early with a pocket pair in a loose, passive game can be okay. But it is the frequent raising that hurts you and having to pay multiple bets to take a flop.
If i limp early with a small pocket pair or small suited connectors and it is raised and reraised by the time it gets back to me, unless i have alot of callers i just fold, and try not to do that again untill the game goes back to being passive again.
3-6 loose, maniac.
I had pocket 2's utg. I called one bet.
By the time it came back around to me, all but one person folded and it was capped. I folded.
Flop was raggy. No 2. Capped around again.
Turn was a 2. =(
River...I forgot...but my trip 2's would have held up.
From what I read the day before I played this hand,I always read to fold them for multiple bets before the flop, etc, and to fold if the flop is bet and my set didn't flop. So, hopefully, I made the correct play because it's the correct plays that count in the long run, right?
In retrospect, a few hands later, it was the same exact thing, except a calling station lady held pocket 2's. capped preflop, she was still in. capped on the flop, she was still in. turn came a 2 and she ended kicking my pocket aces' butt. Then again, she didn't raise back when her trips hit, so I bet out each street, and paid her off.
My point is, she was down, I was up. =)
Have a nice day. Bye bye.
Some people never learn till the money starts to try up. You may be one of these cases just do not wait to long. But what I suspect is that you have enough money to survive so it may take longer. All the best this is meant as an honest comment. I see it every day.
Actually, I think I learned my lesson now (never was a slight exaggeration). But thanks for your concern!
Steven
8.6 to 1 =4 4 4
I am intersted in responding to the postings on this site but need a little help undrstanding some of the " lingo" at times. Seating numbers is one of them. What is the number relative to? For example; if someone writes "seat 4", is seat 4 four to the left of the button? Is seat 10 the cutoff?
Doing some deep thinking about hands will help me develop as a player and at the same time hopefully assist other fellow players by responding.
Rich
The convention is that the first seat to the dealer's immediate left is Seat #1. It goes around sequentially until the last seat which is on the dealer's immediate right which is Seat #10. This can also be Seat #9 if you play in California where they only seat nine players.
Jim, Thank you again. You are always very helpfull and it is appreaciated. I play in Northern California, mostly in the Scaramento area. Next week I will play in Vegas.
By the way, he means the corporal dealer, not the player with the dealer button.
Thank you, That is a big difference.
Be advised that some very knowledgable writers (Abdul and Zadeh among them) use numbers going in the other direction. It's best to read the post and figure out what system they are using from the context.
Also, some of the better games have sergeants rather than corporals dealing, although a lance corporal may be used in a pinch...
It appears to me that seat numbering would be simplified if the numbers were relative to the button rather than the dealer.
It would eliminate the reference position to the dealer. Leave the dealer out of the equation. Does it really matter if the button is in seat 5 rather than seat 8 under the current convention? What am I missing?
It appears to me that seat numbering would be simplified if the numbers were relative to the button rather than the dealer.
Right. Forget the dealer. The button marks who would be dealing if the players dealt for themselves, and so indicates the order of action.
I think it would make sense if you let the button be in seat n (where n is the number of players), the Sb is in seat 1, BB seat 2 etc. When I post I usually think of who called in early, mid and late position.
I find it harder to read posts when someone gives seat numbers, but maybe bc few actually post that way...
I find it harder to read posts when someone gives seat numbers, but maybe bc few actually post that way...
I agree completely. I was just pointing out that some people would call the small blind n-1. When Abdul says "one off the button," I think he means one seat to the right of the button. This makes good sense to me because it remains the same regardless of blind structure or if the players deal for themselves.
Norman Zadeh moves counter clockwise too, but gives the dealer number 0 in an ante-only game. The person three people to the right of the dealer is player #3. One use of this system is that when #3 acts, there are 3 players left to act--when player #5 acts, there are 5 players left to act, etc. In a game with two blinds, the big blind is player #0. This makes sense to me also.
After I finish converting America to the metric system, I am going to make the standardization of poker terminology one of my next priorities. So far, no one is holding their breath.
You wrote: It appears to me that seat numbering would be simplified if the numbers were relative to the button rather than the dealer.
Me : The problem with that is that if I describe a hand from a game I played in, I remember where the people were sitting because I was at that table. I'm in seat 1. The guy in seat 3 called. The guy in seat 10 raised, etc. If I were to describe the hand and the button was at seat 5, I'd have to do all the conversions to describe the hand.
Also : Abdul describes his hand positions from 1 off the button. 2 off the button, etc, but if he were describing a hand, I'm sure he would use seat numbers.
Usually, a hand involves, "hero" in seat m, another player in seat n, and sb and bb, (and others, sometimes button. sometimes cut-off (one off button)) and so all you need to keep in your head is their relative positions. lb acts. bb acts. hero acts. other guy acts. etc.
You'll get used to it.
mth.
Also if you live in MN, tables are only 9-seated. :( Just FYI
3-6 game. Fluctuates between being loose-aggressive/loose passive throughout the evening. I am in middle position and pick up pocket Kings. Two limpers to me. I raise. 1 cold caller. SB Folds. BB Calls.
Flop = 2 2 2 (I am not including suits as they are irrelevant for this post)
Checked to me. I bet. Cold caller folds. BB Raises. 1 cold caller (early limper). I reraise. BB calls. Early limper folds. Heads up.
Turn = 7
I bet. BB Calls.
River = 4
I bet. BB Calls. I turn over kings. He folds saying “Your pair is bigger than mine.”
Things I have been mulling over: I knew AA was not there, else it would have been raised/reraised preflop.
I reraised flop to “see” if he had a two. This is what I don’t think was the best play. Playing like this, I think I missed an extra BB on the turn and/or river. My feline in retrospect is: “What could he have called a raise with preflop that would make my opponent quads?” Welll… this IS LL, and he could easily have A2 K2 even Q2 or J2. My reraise was to see if that was the case, BUT Why wouldn’t he wait to raise on the turn?
After not reraising my flop reraise, I thought that if I bet the turn and then was raised, I would back off or fold – it was a close thought.
HOWEVER I thought I played this hand well – predicting my opponent’s behavior and reading his possibilities. It was the best hand I played throughout the evening, with reference to my thinking skills at the table.
Thoughts welcome… Thanks, Tim
I don't think a raise on the flop should be to "find out" if your opponent has a 2. Your raise should be to get more money in the pot with what is most likely the best hand. In a game where people are going to put money in the pot drawing very slim, you don't need to be fancy when you flop a big hand. Just pound the living daylights out of them and they'll gleefully pay you off. If I get dealt this hand, well my opponent is just going to have to show me a 2, I'm not getting off of my kings afraid of THAT card.
I play 3-6 games almost always because I'm still in the learning process. I find these games very unpredictable according to the books I have read. So, my feelings is that the BB could easily hold A2, etc. and you could have been hit hard. However, I think the odds that he holds a "2" is against him.
I would have come out flying chips all the way with your hand to the end showing confidence. That's my rookie opinion.
Would you ask whether you should have smooth called the reraise if the turn was an A or 2and the player behind you (who called the first bet and definetly would have called the next bet too but folded to the raise) had something like AQ, too? I don´t think so.
The pot was already big enough, so be happy to get it heads up with a player drawing to 2 cards.
Regards
M.A.
Play it fast because you still have a problem if an ace hits on the turn or river. Tim, I think you did well.
it looks like you have 2 or 4 collective outs against you. (three if opponent has a pocket pair, four if he has Ax plus the two) adding a third player in there muddies the water a little as it adds a few potential outs against you. the fact that he folded the three bet kind of indicates that he was on overcards (this being a LL game I would expect him to stay with a pp). Now, he could have been drawing extremely thin with Kx or less or just very thin with AX. I like the idea of pounding the turn and keeping the other player in. you make more money if the cold caller calls one more later bet. here's the big thing: the flop action will not relly tell you anything. Often in LL, a player will lock onto a read and not let go. If the bb put you on overcards, he usually will not change that read until you pound it into him on the turn. The fact that he called you down indicates that he thought you were overplaying your hand. Also, he probably wouldn't make his big move until the turn, had he flopped quads. I say wait until the turn and make more money.
Tim,
I think you played this hand perfectly.
However, your narrative is a little confusing. You state, "This is what I don’t think was the best play. Playing like this, I think I missed an extra BB on the turn and/or river."
If you were in middle position and the BB was the only one calling, I don't know how you could have missed a Big Bet on the turn and river. The BB is first to act, and if he was only calling, he must have been checking to you.
I think you made the most with this hand.
40-80 Hold-em
Typical loose game. Three limpers and I am in the cutoff with Q9s and I call along with the button and the SB. Live one in the BB raises and everyone calls the raise and the SB makes it three bets and the BB caps it. Everyone calls and I call along with the button. Naturally I am not real thrilled about putting in 4 bets with my hand.
The flop comes K46 with one heart.
Everyone checks.
On the turn a second heart comes giving me a flush draw.
The BB bets and there are three callers including myself.
The Ten of hearts comes on the river.
The BB bets and one player calls. I raise and both players call. The big blind disgustingly mucks his set of Kings.
I was the beneficiary of a $2000 present. Slowplaying can be very hazardous for your bankroll.
Bruce
The BB made the same classic mistake that many players make, they flop a really good, but not invincible hand, and then they try to get fancy. Given that the BB was the pre-flop capper, he should have bet out on the flop. He could NOT count on anyone betting and allowing him to get in a check-raise. I am a strong advocate of betting when you are in early position and you flop a good hand. Trying for a check-raise can be hazardous to your bankroll, as BB found out on this hand. I am sure you would have folded to a bet on the flop, right? But once the turn comes, you are in to the end....
Good post
Dave in Cali
Of course I fold for a bet. The pot was literally given to me.
Bruce
The BB should DEFINITELY bet his set of Kings on the flop and hope he gets raised by AA or AK. As Doyle Brunson taught me, by betting you can make 3 bets by check raising you usually only make 2.
You should NOT fold on the flop if the BB bets out with his set! There are 7 people in this hand and each paid 4 sb to see the flop. That's 28 small bets. If the BB had bet and there was only one caller you would be getting more than enough odds (30:1) to cover your runner runner flush and straight possibilities. Of course, if you knew he had a set you have to fold but you didn't know that - you should call a bet. If you don't get the right card on the turn then fold there.
SmoothB
I was playing recently at a 10-20 game filled with decent players and one pro. After a couple of hours, a new player joined the game (although I hadn't played with him before, he was known by the card room staff). He played like an absolute maniac -- raised almost everytime he was in a pot (with real rags, we're taking everything from J7o to 83o). Over the next two hours, he dumped over $2,000 at the table.
Generally, there were 3-4 callers, so this guy was generating a lot of action. The pro was in almost every pot with him, often raising & re-raising on the flop, often driving other players out of the pot.
Here's what concerns me. The maniac would play back at the pro with absolutely nothing -- no hope of winning at all. This gave the pro the ability to re-raise and make it tough for people to stick with marginal hands. Occasionally, the maniac would do this when the pro was not in the pot, but generally the pro was there.
Also, the maniac did not appear frustrated at all that he was losing tons of money and that all of it -- plus most of the pre-flop action from other players -- was going to the pro. Moreover, once the pro left the game (with about $3,500 -- he was at $300 when the maniac joined) the maniac calmed down and played a solid game.
Does this sound like collusion to folks?
(While I was at the table, I didn't think about the possibility of collusion, I just saw this guy as a fish. Nonetheless, I played very tightly and pulled in about $600 during this stretch, so I was not in a suspicious mood. Now that I think about it, I find this guy's behavior -- especially his conversion into a decent player after the pro left -- so completely bizarre that I wonder whether the two were in cahoots.)
I'd love to hear your comments & thoughts on collusion.
Thanks, NW Card Hack
Of course it sounds like collusion, but I don´t think it was. It´s more than raising and reraising the other players out to make collusion profitable.
I don´t know whether you read D.S. collusion examples here some weeks ago. According to the responds it´s not easy to play a colluding game the right way, even if you do know exactly the hands of your partner (the way it is possible in internet-poker). On a life-poker-table in a casino you must be very good to sign your partner the exact hand you have. And even if they could, they probably would play their partner game in a way which isn´t that obvious.
Maybe this guy just didn´t care about his money and liked the way the pro gave him action. And after the pro left he couldn´t enjoy being the only aggressor in the table.
Just my thoughts
M.A.
No the pro was just doing what he should to get most of the the loose opponent. What happened in this case was the the loose opponent got his emotions involved with the good player and dumped all his money to him. Not realizing what was going on. When the good player left the player who caused him to lose all the money had gone so the loose player slowed down it happens all the time.
If it was collusion, it was pretty stupid collusion. Having two players blindly raise and re-raise is a good way for both of them to lose a lot of money.
"This gave the pro the ability to re-raise and make it tough for people to stick with marginal hands."
Fine, players were throwing away their marginal hands. But what about their decent hands? Did nobody receive JJ, TT, 99, 88, AK, AQ, AJ, KQ and the like? If they did, why weren't they calling the two aggressors to a showdown? The game supposedly was filled with decent players, after all.
It sounds like the game was filled with tight-weak players, and the pro took advantage of the situation to score a nice win. I only wonder why the pro left the game early. I hope his six-year old daughter had a birthday party he wanted to attend.
"Nonetheless, I played very tightly and pulled in about $600 during this stretch . . ."
You might have made more if you had loosened up.
I've seen a fair amount of collusion in public cardrooms, so I keep my eyes open for cheaters. This incident wouldn't be even a small blip on my radar.
the hideaway?
pocket 5's, against 4 players, you are first to act. Flop: 2 Q Q rainbow Turn: Q River: J no flush possible
heads up after the flop. Do you check or bet the turn and river? Some players at the table basically laughed in my face when I showed pocket 5's after checking the turn and river. I won the pot. Should I have bet instead of check?
Thanks for your help
gamblerbri
YOu need to clarify somethings, are you the BB UTG?
I suspect no one raised before the flop. Against typical opponents I think you could bet the flop (did you?). You may have the best hand on the flop and a bet may get rid of some overcards to your pair, there is even a decent chance you could win the pot now. If you get many callers, you can slow down on the turn.
Dont' worry if they laugh. Did they really expect you to have a Q?
I assume you bet the flop and got 1 caller.
You should have bet the turn. From all 47 possible cards to come on the turn, 2 of them are great cards (5s) and 2 of them are very good for you (Qs). Don´t forget, if the other player has a 2 in his hand, he is drawing very thin (only to hit his kicker or the case Q if it´s bigger than a 5).
Of course the other player won´t give you much credit for having quads, but he probably won´t raise you if he doesn´t have the Q (he would have to be a very tricky player, but i don´t think he´s tricky enough, when he checks it down after calling on the flop)
Bet the turn and check/call the river.
Regards
M.A.
I'd be betting the flop - specially if I senced no one hit the flop. I'd surely be betting the full house on the turn - You are giving free cards to people who surely have over cards on you - you must win this hand as soon as psooible.
You bet the flop and got called. The turn Q is a GREAT card since if reduces by half the chances someone had a Queen. Bet again the turn.
Bet against a loose player since they are likely to HAVE and CALL with a 2. Check-and-moan against a tight player.
- Louie
BTW, they laughed at you because you checked a full house indicating they have little notion of the relative value of hands and are more conserned with the absolute value.
Just because YOU understand there is a huge difference between an A-flush with NO PAIR on board compared to TWO PAIRS on board, doesn't mean they do.
If they have 3rd pair and top pair pairs on the river, they think their hand "improved" to 2-pair.
- Louie
I have bet into quads about 8 times in the last 3 mons. If i feel i have the best hand i bet if i get raised on the turn wich i did in these sitions i just fold if the player is not to tricky, but i am not going to give him a free card to beat me.
Greetings,
About a week ago a famous poster (Dave in Cali) gave a hand where he had flopped a backdoor flushdraw, backdoor straight draw, and two overcards in a two flush board. He asked if he shoudl call a bet on the flop. Some thought so ((I believe there were 17 bets in the pot and his call would close the action on the flop)).
We'll solve this problem w/some assumptions . We'll assume it will only cost one bet on the flop and on the turn, and if there is another two flush if it gets there our hand will lose, but we win if the flush or the straight gets there.
Q1) How big does the pot P have to be (including bets won on the turn and river) to call a bet on the flop w/only a backdoor flush draw (which will win if it hits). Lets suppose we only win if we make a flush. If we go through all 47(46) boards. We see we will lose
1 sb 37(46) times, 3 sb 10(37) times, and we win the
pot (P) 90 times.
SO your expectation over these 47(46) trials is
E= -1(37(46))+ -3(10(37)) +90 P. Set E=0 and solve
for P. P= 31.2 so if you can expect to win 31.2 sb on
average when you win (or more) you can call on the
flop.
Q) How big does the pot P have to be (including bets won on the turn and river) to call a bet on the flop w/only a backdoor flush draw, and backdoor straight draw (which will win if it hits) in a two flush flop. (I should note this is almost the situation described except Dave in Cali had two overcards, I thought hitting the overcards were suspect and may only cost more so we shall assume the only real draws are to straights or flushes).
Lets assume the pot is big enough to call w/a gut
shot on the turn. So then he has 18 cards that
can turn which will make him call and an average
of 8 2/3 outs on the river if one these cards
turn.
So in this case your expectation E over these
47(46) trials is
E=-29(46) -3(18)(37 1/3)+ 18 (8 2/3)P
Again set E=0 and solve for P and we get ~21.5. So if we can expect to win over 21.5 small bets when we win we can call on the flop.
I was quite surprised by this number and this implies a call was in order contrary to what I thought at the time.
Thanks for reading, please let me know if you want me to clarify any points of the calculation. (Or if you found this helpful).
I was going to solve a) backdoor straight draw, and flush draw w/o a 2 flush but i feel lazy now. Maybe someone else can post this soln...
I think it is more important on how you play the hand.
I'd only be in this if really late against weakish opponents. I'd be really aggressive on the flop for a free card on the turn if checked to me I bet and/or raise.In other words I am on a semi bluff. If I hit the river I win if not I have a chnce to get the pot anyway.
It isn't rocket science - don't over complicate the problem.
Good job on the calculations. I guess my intuition was right on that hand. Since I thought it was a close decision, I allowed my current table image and status in the game to influence my decision at the time towards calling. Keep in mind that since my call closed the betting this also influenced my decision to call on the flop.
In case anyone wants to go back and look at the thread, I titled it "my play of hand gets groans from opponent" or something similar to that....
Thanks Suspicious...
further comments / analysis welcome.
Dave in Cali
Umm ...I don't think I complicated this problem, I think doing this calculation IS what determines (in this situation) whether this is a call or fold on the flop). Raising in a marginal situation turns this into a negative situation and you may not even buy a free card.
I don't think the answer is that obvious either, I definitely thought a fold was in order and that is not the case.
Hi!
I wonder how I can prevent myself from going into a shell in headsup games when playing against aggressive opponents.
If I get reasonable cards I usually play pretty ok. My problem starts when I suddenly get streak of bad card, 52, Q2, 74, etc. I start folding preflop and this invites the aggressive players to play even more aggressivly, preflop and postflop.
As a result I see my stack of chips to slowly evaporate and I then start to play more cautios when I get something reasonable. This means that i stop raising as much prelop (in case I miss the flop) and folding more on flop.
I have read the section in HPFAP about shorthanded play and used the recommended standards for cards to play with but get the feeling that I sometimes still play too tight. I have also read Abduls texts about the subject and usually do pretty good against many different kind of players. But I still can't shake of me the feeling that I am to tight against real aggressive opponents.
How do I handle those players who reraise you a couple of times even though they don't have much and often also manages to fold when I do have a good hand?
Anyone have any good idea what I can do to improve my game? Am I to easy to read?
I also wonder what a reasonable buy in is in for example a 3-6 holdem 1-1 game. $100 - $200?
< ://Whenever I'm heads up with a guy that is obviously a solid tight-agressive player, and the pot is not worth bluffing at, I'll just fold if bet into. Next time, you'll have the hand and he'll bluff at you again, and you can call, call, and raise him on the river. =)
://Or, more importantly, find another game. After I've complained about loose-passive loose agressive games since all these players draw to the river, and I've played in a couple very tight-agressive games with a bunch of excellent players, I'd rather play in a loose-passive, loose-agressive game since all you have to do is sit there like a log and wait for high pocket pairs and high cards, [group 1,2] cards.
://Anyways, my point is, I was stuck in this maniac game for about a hundred [3-6] because I was playing too many medium connected, drawing hands, and decided to play a lot tighter. I did and I ended up having a winning session.
://If you know of a habitual bluffer against you, let him bet for you, and like I said earlier, raise him on the river if you have a hand worth it, and you win an extra bet. =)
://Have a nice day. Bye bye.
x
Excellent post, especially the part about finding another game.
Lets change the question: "How do you play heads up against someone who bets far too much but folds realistically?"
Rarely let go of any pair.
Figure out which round is generally his last betting round. If he bets the flop and turn and checks the river then his last betting round is usually the turn. Call until then and give him a play on THAT round; pretty much no matter what you've got, but not all the time.
One is doomed heads-up if you feel over-powered. Snap back or get up.
- Louie
One things for sure, you have to play a lot more hands when playing heads up then normally. If a guy is betting and you're folding he is gonna have the best of it while you're waiting for a premium hand. You must re-raise quite a bit and realize the way the math plays out in order to not give an automatic edge. In other words if you're the BB and he raises and you play as you would in a ring game he knows, (or should), that if you fold 2/3rds of the time he's gonna win a lot of money. This is sometimes forgotten during the heat of battle and is an important point to remember. Hope I'm being clear on this.....
I agree with this, you have to open up if the table is 6 handed or less. Especially if you are first one in, or in the BB. Pairs, any 2 "big" cards, any ace-x hand, and middle connectors should be played out. Of course, in a full ring, you can be much more patient.
of
Posted by: Abbe
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 2:33 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 4:37 p.m.
Posted by: Red (caseycar@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 5 August 2000, at 11:39 a.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 5 August 2000, at 11:33 p.m.
Good Morning, I played in a game with a 5-10-15 betting structure, 2-5 blinds.(Texas Hold'em). There's not alot of choices here in Florida and that's what they offer on the boat. I'm use to a straight 10-20 game and was hoping to get some feedback as to how this structure can be played to my best advantage and or anything in particular to look out for. This may be understood but just for clarification purposes you must bet the given amount each round, 5 then 5 on the flop then 10 and then 15, in other words if your first in you must check or bet 15 on the river and so on.
Thanks
So the river bet is 50% more than the normal structured game. This slightely favors drawing hands over trouble hands.
There is a natural temptation is NOT raise the turn waiting for the river, and I suppose you will find times where that is correct. You will also find that the opponents will do this FAR more often than they should which means you should assume you have the better hand on the turn less often. It also means bet for value marginally on the river less often since you are more likely to be trapped.
Dare I suggest you slow-play a hand or two to the river in order to set up some spectacular river steals later on.
Overall we are probably better ignoring this slight difference in structure for fear of over-compensating.
- Louie
Thanks Louie, any other responses would be greatly appreciated...
One game I play in has a similar betting structure. It's 5/10/15/20. Up to those amounts on the given streets. The biggest thing to notice is drawing hands such as Axs become VERY playable from any position.(atleast in the game I play in which is moderately loose/passive). Since the capped pre-flop bet is a single bet on the river, the implied odds are huge. It's a more extreme structure, but I'd say play more speculative hands than before and be prepared for your big pairs to get drawn out on a lot, since this structure does lend itself chasing.
Greetings,
Here are some hands where I thought I might have misplayed them, though the first I only note because of some of the thoughts running through my head. All comments welcome.
1) 6-12 game fairly loose and passive,
I raise UTG w/99, next player reraises, next cold calls all other fold, I just call hoping to see a 9 on the flop.
FLop comes 222. I check (I thought about betting but not only do I have a 3 bettor but a cold caller so its unlikely i have the best hand). It gets checked all around!
Turn is Q. I check again, next bets , and next raises! I folded here though at the time I thought the turn raiser must think what i think. That the 3 bettor has nothing other than AK or something and wants to get this hand over with, thus I should 3 bet here, sanity prevailed as i thought there is no possible way these guys are thinking this (cold caller was a fairly unsophisticated played). I folded, next player comes over the top, next calls.
River is an A, check check. 3 bettor has AA and was being overly cute, next player had a Q.
2)10-20 game loose somewhat aggressive...
5 limpers I limp on the button w/ 55 blinds call.
Flop comes 3 4 4 w/2 clubs. All check to an agressive player in mid position ahead of me who bets all fold, I raise BB makes it 3 all fold to agressive player who calls, as do I.
3 see the turn of 2o.
Bet raise, I thought i was getting near 26-4 on my call, and w/openended draw, and 2 5's, and possibly 2 4's as outs I called, BB just calls.
River Qc. BB checks out! Next player bets, maybe I should fold the pot was huge, I called and he showed me 6c5c. I had much fewer outs than I thought.
Should I have folded on the turn? ON the river? Other comments?
Thanks alot, all comments appreciated! as do I
I have no problems with the way you played the first hand. It's questionable if you want to raise with 99 BTF, I usually do not, however, I will sometimes and I don't think it's a bad move one way or the other. On the flop I would check to a 3 better. When it is checked around it is tempting to bet but with the Q on the turn I would probably have checked as well and when there is a bet and raise I definitely fold. You're also right that the player with AA played way too fancy.
On the second hand I think your raise after the flop was a good bet. You have a small pair, however, at this point it is an overpair. You will force anyone with two high overcards to fold. You also may find out if anyone has a four. When the BB makes it 3 bets you have to be concerned and think he has a four. When MP player cold calls you have to put him on a good draw. Although you should call the BB raise. On the turn when the BB bets and MP player raises you have to put them both on very good hands, it is unlikely that MP would raise a player who just made it 3 bets without a very good hand. He may have a full house and your only outs are the two 5's. I would definitely fold on the turn.
Unless you flop a set or something like Open ended with your pair in the middle or right end of it or 3 under cards best to get out unless you are really sure of your opposition.
I agree with Rounder. Small and medium pocket pairs get their value from making sets. It would take a big sized pot for me to see the turn and river with an unfavorable flop (i.e., sans set).
However, with the second hand, assuming that your opponents are loose/passive on the flop, I like the S&M's idea of raising on the button behind the limpers with the 55. You earn extra value when you flop a set, and if the board is unfavorable your preflop raise might induce a free turn card (and thus another chance to make a set).
Jon I.
But I did flop an over pair though in a paired board, I don' t a call is correct on the flop, a fold maybe isn't that wrong but I think the raise is best. And I have to call the reraise as I'm getting 19-1 on my call and I close the action.
If I have 7 outs on the turn I have enough to call and it looked like I had 8 or more (6 for the straight, 2 5's, maybe 2 4's). Maybe I'm being a bit optimistic but I don't think the call was *that* bad. It turned out i was in an almost worst case scenario, I had effectively 2 (4 if the BB doesn't have a 4 or a bigger pocket pair).
Thanks for the response to all!
On the first hand, pocket Nines is not a raising hand under the gun. You need pocket Tens or better.
On the second hand you should fold on the turn. From the betting someone could easily have trip Fours and even something better. Your straight odds could be killed by boats and flushes.
...calculate pot/implied odds?
[For example, you hold a drawing hand in a loose/passive game in late position, such as 89 suited...]
://Or like a straight draw on the flop and want to calculate if you're getting good enough odds to make a call worth it
>>Here's my question: Is it possible to just count the number of small bets that are put into the flop as they're put into, and also on the flop, and convert that to big bets come the turn and river and keep track of that also?
~~And then when you have to decide, you know that there's an X amount of sb or bb in the pot and that a flush draw hits 1/3 of the time w/ a 4 flush on the flop?
||Now that I've posted that, I just realized you have to know off the top of your head the odds for stuff to happen, and that keeping track of the number of bets put in as they're put in is a way to do this...great...I should just bring a palm pilot to the table or code a program that can figure out this stuff in a second. =) I wonder if that's ok at the table.
//In any case, if you want to help a lost fish sulking around in the river, please reply and let me know your thoughts so I can have something to read while I'm here at my summer internship.
Http://www.Ok, have a nice day. Bye bye.com
I count half bets and full bets, but tend to add it up after the action is finished and while the dealer is dealing the next card.
7 half bets B4 flop. 3 of us put in 2 half bets and 1 put in one on the flop, so thats 7 more half bets making 7 full bets. Its bet and raised to me on the turn and surely the better will call making 11 full bets and it costs me 2 and I have a flush draw. I'll surely get paid off the river. I'm getting 12:2 or 6:1 but I'm pretty sure I'm dead if the board pairs so I have 7 outs out of 43 unseen cards or 43:7 or 6:1 against. Maybe the other guy has a bigger flush draw and maybe I'll win if I snag a pair, and maybe the other guy will cap it. Looks like a marginal fold is called for.
So I raise since that's what I wanted to do anyway.
- Louie
Counting bets is far superior to counting money since you always have to do those awkward divisions. And it makes for analysis independant of the stakes.
4-8 HE, no kill. Loose game. I am in BB with 65o and 6 limpers, no raise.
Flop is 5d 6c 9d. SB bets. Normally I would raise here, but I know that my raise will NOT drive anyone out of the pot in this game. I think I will wait for the turn to raise. (I may have been smokin' too much of something at lunchtime...). I call and button raises, I call as does most everyone else. 5 players in. I think that since I did not raise the SB's bet on the flop, I should have at least limp-reraised on the flop when I had the chance.
Turn is the 6d. I decide to try for a check-raise. I am thinking the button may have been trying for a free card with a flush draw (standard play for the button). Someone MUST be on a flush draw, right? It gets checked around. DAMN! I knew I should have bet.
River is another 6 and I bet. I get one caller, the button, who has JcJs.
I think I really screwed this one up. Since I have posted a bunch of winning hands where I played well (for the most part), I had to post one where I think I played badly (even though I won the pot).
Blast away!
Dave in Cali
What up my fellow Cali playa!
Here is an excerpt from your reply to a post that I just read regarding Bruce's flush on the river when BB did not bet his set of kings...
<< I am a strong advocate of betting when you are in early position and you flop a good hand. Trying for a check-raise can be hazardous to your bankroll, as BB found out on this hand. >>
Don't fall into the trap, just bet it out.
Hahahaha, I just thought of that right now. Okay, I gotta get back to configuring this workstation.
Have a nice day. Bye bye.
Jon, I.T. [information technology]
<>
Don't smoke weed, it slows your body down, as evident in your trying to slow play two pair. =)
Ok, have a nice day. Bye bye.
If you're that confident that no one will fold on the flop, then not raising or limp-raising maybe isn't so bad. However, I'd be inclined to raise even if it's just to make the weak draws pay the toll.
On the turn, I'd bet out. Your opponents are probably going to think you made a flush or maybe trip 6s, but if the game is very loose some will probaly call with big single diamonds. Also, the button may raise, in which case you can 3-bet if the others have already folded, or perhaps just call to try to keep in others who are likely drawing dead.
Caddy
i think you should usually raise the flop bet. but if you really think noone will respect this raise, waiting until the turn can be right sometimes.
same as above considering the reraise. but i think it is highly likely a limp reraise will knock out lots of hands you want out. which makes the raise almost always correct.
given how you played the flop, i like the check raise on the turn. i cannot believe the weak over pair gave a free card. bet and fold to a raise is a much better play for him here against many opponents.
you played the river the way you had to.
the clearest mistake you made was failing to reraise the flop. it would have gotten gutshots and most draws to better two pair out while gathering an awful lot of dead money in the pot.
incidently, you would not have tried to check raise the turn if you had 3 bet the flop, so you would have gotten those bets too. (ain't hindsight swell?)
scott
You advocate checking the flop after screwing up the flop. I think the turn should be bet, representing the three sixes. Any made flushes will raise, giving him a potential three bets instead of just two.
true. but a flush will likely be on your left, causing the field to face 2 bets cold if you bet. in the event that no flush is out there, you are likely to get a bet from 2 pair or a straight or a lone big diamond than a raise.
a bet on the turn is ok, but in situations where the flop play would be correct a turn check is correct.
scott
I agree that you "really screwed this one up". You need to raise with your flopped two pair. Who knows who will call and who will fold? The point is that you need to make it as expensive as possible for them to be chasing you. Whether or not they choose to fold is a decision for them to make but they have no decision when you just limp. On the turn with a lot of opponents you would think someone would find a bet but herein lies the problem with the check-raise approach to poker. When no one bets your hand for you, you end up losing a round of bets frequently and you occasionally give a free card to an opponent who ends up winning the pot but might have folded if the turn had been bet. The check-raise move frequently gets you an extra bet but occasionally costs you a round of bets or even an entire pot sometimes.
I'll post w/o looking at the other replies. I would pbly raise out of habit on the flop, even if you don't get rid of most of the field you are a favorite! And as you said once the buttton raises you should reraise, this might get rid of alot of the field as they might be paranoid of the button capping it.
You have to bet the turn, maybe someone else was trying to be cute and checkraise the button. Nothing makes players freeze like the sight of a flush. Bet!
Suspicious,
Of course you would raise the flop, you have a history of protecting hands of the flop, i.e. the jack high straight flush and four tens. I agree this time it is right though, its not the mortal nuts!
Raising with bottum two esp. with a highly coordinated board is mandatory. We all are victims of temporary insanity. Hopefully it doesn't become permanent.
Bruce
I'm sitting at a poker table, trying not to lose my mind after twelve hours of play, I'm looking around the table and I only see familiar faces, even the fresh ones aren't new to me, same loser faces I see at this table every time,... there's a guy that drives a cab at night, but that cab of his seems parked for weeks in front of the cardclub, and his ass seems glued permanently to that seat over there... his young wife came ringing at the door once and the security guy came to our table looking very embarrased not knowing what to do with the crying lady and the cabbie ran to the toilet to hide and she came in not saying a word and I felt pained and ashamed while she browsed our table with her silent contempt... A young asian player, dressed as sharp as possible is playing standing up, showing off his hold'em prowess, flashing his holecards to the dealer to impress her with his awesome folds, I catch a glimpse of JTo that he throws into the muck utg, and he is staring at the dealer milking her for some admiration, but he gets none, that Viennese chick is not putting it out for no slanteye kid... she smiles broadly to an older local guy though, he's been throwing enormous tips at her when dragging a big pot, and I realised then, this guy is going to get laid tonight, he's gonna shag her blue and he's gonna get off cheap... It's a frenzy in my head, I feel discomfort and I feel guilt sitting there with the scum in the early hours of the morning pretending I have hothing else to do, watching the faces for tells, but only seeing the diseased minds in pursuit of money, where else can a guy make so much with no effort... and it saddens me to find myself silently enjoying their bad beats or stupid moves, enjoying their misery and their misconceptions about themselfs, we are all losers, can't you see it, dumbsuckers???...
I wander away in my thoughts... I see images from the distant past, wondering if I really lived that life or is was it just a nice, cozy, fluffy illusion... was it real?, could I really be that happy at some point?... I see myself running home and I open the door and there she is, sitting on the bed crying her eyes out and I feel a miserable pain in my chest seeing her like that and my mind is overrevving frantically searching the database of the past days, what the fuck did I do wrong?, what made her hurt so bad?, I'm a lying bastard and she finally realized it, I was sure, I was scared...
"I was watching Discovery,..." she utters.
"So?"
"So there was this wildlife documentary... and a cute little fox had four cute little fox kitties...", I felt the pain in my guts, looking at her sobbing like that...
There has to be more. I waited for her to contiue...
"And one little fox baby was blind!..."
And as she was crying in my arms I held her tight and felt the hot streaks going thru me, the streaks of love I felt for that little girl, sobbing away over a little blind fox...
"It's on you, sir. It's been raised."
I see the dealer with a funny look on his face waiting for me to act. I'm still in half a daze desperatly trying to appear tough and in control. My eyes shoot around wishing to hang on to something familiar. Focus returns and I snap my fingers desperately trying to appear casual...
I'm in the blind and I look down and squeeze the edge of my cards just a notch over the green surface... I see:
There was an early very loose limper, everybody else folded and a quiet guy in the small blind raises. This guy has a hand, I know. But the limping fish doesn't, I know that as well. I call.
The flop comes:
The small blind bets, I call, limper calls. Turn is:
The small blind bets, I call, limper calls. River is:
He checks, I bet, limper folds, Silent Bob calls instantly. I drag the pot, he shows black pocket queens.
Mercifull Allah, you make my cards run good. I only wish you made me stay true to that girl...
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
great writing. i am amazed you can write so cogently and poetically in a second tongue.
if the fish is very likely to drop on the flop or the turn facing two bets cold then i think you played it perfectly. otherwise depending on the tendencies of silent bob as raise may be correct on either street.
scott
Izmet,
did you think that you had value with 7,5 in the blind for a raise when you knew you were against a hand and you couldnt win with a steal on the flop?
why did you not raise on 4th street? did you want to suck in the guy behind you who might have a bigger diamond? or did you want the extra bet. since the bettor had a hand it could very well be trips or a straight or two big pair, might you not get raised here and like it?
1. The silent player was playing sanely, not just tightly. We both perceived the limper as a loose aggressive fish (I think). Therefore Silent Bob could easily have something like QJs (and I myself would be raising in his spot with many additional hands to get rid of the dreamer in the BB). As long as there's a good chance of not being against an overpair, I like the 5 to 1 (plus implied) odds I'm getting, especially if I think I'm the best player of the three.
2. Raise on the turn is the best play. However, in this hand I went to explore the dangerous path of exploiting the opponents. The limping fish was in a habit of going too far with his hands and Silent Bob obviously did hit on the flop. At least one if not both of them of them is drawing dead and with a raise I can only kick out an 8 and 9 (I'm not that sure of the T, this guy sucked big time) of diamonds. On the other hand, for one bet only, the fish will call with the Diamondish Deuce. I would be raising for value there (and not worrying about those three diamonds) to make the ace and the queen pay thru the nose, so essentially I missed one bet on the turn.
Now if I tell you I planned to raise (or obviously bet if checked into) the river to recoup that bet, can I be forgiven for not raising the turn?
Anyway, I could pull some more goot arguments out of my ass (and OTOH I could pull a lot more counterarguments if this was Mason or David playing in my shoes). I posted this hand because the play was not straightforward. I need to do some weird shit sometimes, if only to keep them on their toes.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Two questions:
1. You don't think the fish would have called a flop raise? And if not, why didn't you try a steal?
2. Was the dealer changing sexes a tipoff that Allah was about to work a miracle? I am unfamiliar with these matters, as American dealers are encouraged to maintain their genders while a hand is in progress.
I once had a dealer change sexes after I got her home, but that's a whole other story. All I can assure you of is that Allah worked no miracles that night.
1. On the flop I am surely beat on my right. To add value to the draw, I need to keep the third guy in. Forget about the steal, it's not how it works on this kind of a flop against the sb raiser.
2. Dealers rotate on half hour where I play. I appreciate your sarcasm, though, it makes me realize I'm not the only one with shitload of problems.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Good prose but bad poker. Pre-flop it is weak poker to be calling a raise with Seven-Five suited against only two opponents. On the turn, raising is quite clear. You don't want to give a cheap card to someone with a singleton Diamond. You need to lower the boom now and force anyone chasing to pay two big double bets.
The narrative is good, the hand is pointless, the play is weak.
Who cares about the hand?
What a great post!
By the way how do you get the cool graphics for the playing cards?
It would be great if we all could post hands with graphics like this. Is there a relatively easy way to do it?
I think there is a subtle message here as well. If Izmet hadn't been tired and letting his mind wander, he wouldn't have played a weak hand weakly. This has been a problem of my own sometimes over the years.
It can be almost as a player I know says: "You become one of them."
Try this:
Phat Mack:
I didn't understand all that was on the page. It looked cumbersome and complicated. I was able to cut and paste a card once only I think. After that I couldn't. Is there some easy way to use this, like just cutting and pasting?
Cut and paste the example at the top that reads like this...
IMG SRC="http://www.annabelles-treasures.com/poker/Cards/as.gif" ALT="As" HSPACE=10 VSPACE=20 NOSAVE HEIGHT=100 WIDTH=72 ALIGN=MIDDLE>
...except make sure to cut the front "<". If you want to show five cards, paste it five times. The above location is for the ace of spades. Note that it has "As" in it twice: once before .gif, and once in quotes after ALT=.
Replace the two As's with the code of the card you want. For example, if you want to show a heart straight flush wheel, you would go to the first paste and replace the As with Ah. The second paste would have them replaced with 2h, then 3h, 4h and 5h. Like so...
IMG SRC="http://www.annabelles-treasures.com/poker/Cards/ah.gif" ALT="Ah" HSPACE=10 VSPACE=20 NOSAVE HEIGHT=100 WIDTH=72 ALIGN=MIDDLE> IMG SRC="http://www.annabelles-treasures.com/poker/Cards/2h.gif" ALT="2h" HSPACE=10 VSPACE=20 NOSAVE HEIGHT=100 WIDTH=72 ALIGN=MIDDLE> IMG SRC="http://www.annabelles-treasures.com/poker/Cards/3h.gif" ALT="3h" HSPACE=10 VSPACE=20 NOSAVE HEIGHT=100 WIDTH=72 ALIGN=MIDDLE> IMG SRC="http://www.annabelles-treasures.com/poker/Cards/4h.gif" ALT="4h" HSPACE=10 VSPACE=20 NOSAVE HEIGHT=100 WIDTH=72 ALIGN=MIDDLE> IMG SRC="http://www.annabelles-treasures.com/poker/Cards/5h.gif" ALT="5h" HSPACE=10 VSPACE=20 NOSAVE HEIGHT=100 WIDTH=72 ALIGN=MIDDLE>
I've taken out the "<" again so you can see the text rather than the image. Try putting the "<" in front of each IMG and preview the message. You will see the five cards.
I don't think it's as easy as you'd like it, but it's relatively easy. What operating system and what browser do you use?
I use Windows 98 and the newest Explorer.
I downloaded Netscape but it told me it couldn't install until I closed Instant Messenger. Only problem was, the whole screen was taken up by the preface to the Installshield Wizard--no way to close AIM or anything else.. I rebooted so I could do it, and could never find the Wizard again.
A writing style comparable, yet superior to Hemingway's, a playing style comparable, yet superior to Sklansky's, a fable comparable to, yet superior to those of Aesop, replete with a moral: what more could one ask for in a post? It had something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue. I laughed, I wept, I learned. Quite simply the most entertaining post ever on this forum. Thank you.
no text here
Wonderful post, Izmet. Very nice combining of the scene, the players, whats happening at the table, what you're thinking about home, etc. Maybe you had been at the table too long. Still think you should pop Silent Bob on the turn, though.
Got any more stories like this to post?
I live in Los Angeles and while I don't play all the time I do play 3-6 Hold-em regularly. I recently returned from another trip to Vegas. I like to play at the Mirage and have also played at a few of the other resorts as well.
I find the play in Los Angeles to be wild and sometimes unpredictable with huge variances. When I am in Vegas I seem to win a lot more than when I am playing in Los Angeles. I think that the game (3-6 HE)may be easier in Vegas. Maybe Vegas just fits my style better. The Vegas game seems to be more "by the book". You can actually drive people out with a raise. This seldom happens in LA. La seems to be much more aggressive.
It also seems more relaxed in Vegas. In LA people yell and get angry and throw cards at the dealer. I have not seen this behaviour in Las Vegas.
I would like to know how other people view the differences between the different styles of in these two citys as well as accross the country.
When you say the game is easier because people seem to play by the book......think about what you are saying. If people seem to be playing correctly then the game is for sure tougher to beat then a game where a bunch of idiots are calling and betting with total garbage. You must resort to a loose game strategy (usually) in LA. The money will be easy to get but fluctuations will be large. Also in a 3-6 game you can't make much at all because the limit is so small and the button drop will eat up the majority of your profits. I think that people confuse winning pots with winning poker. In Vegas it will be easier to win a particular pot in many situations then it would be in LA simply because you often can drive people out (where they would stay with you if you are in LA) and therefore have fewer opponents that can draw out on you. While you may win a higher percentage of pots, this doesn't necessarily translate into bigger profits overall.
When I say "by the book", I am implying that the game is more predictable and therefore more controlable.
For low limit poker, Vegas is superior to the big cardbarns in L.A. The rake is far less and there are actually a greater variety of games to choose. I strongly recommend the $1-$4-$8-$8 spread limit game that is offered all over Vegas. It has $1/$2 blind structure which gives you great implied odds for your draws and you are able to play more hands. A decent player with reasonable luck should be able to average $8 per hour with a low standard deviation.
Post deleted at author's request.
"LA 3-6 games have higher variance, but variance is not a bad thing in itself, as long as you are"
Well, this is plainly wrong. Just compare two bets with equal expectation but different variances. The one with lower variance is better.
Variance (or standard deviation more accurately) is a measure of risk, and how bad it is depends on one's risk tolerance or utlity function. The negative effect of variance is measured by "certainty equivalence" (CE), a concept well understood by pro bj players (see bjmath.com). If you have a very large bankroll, then variance is a relatively small, but then so is your EV.
CE is a mathematically cogent way of accounting for the negative effect of variance.
"Variance (or standard deviation more accurately) is a measure of risk,"
How is it that one measure which is the sqaure root of another can be more or less "accurate" than the other?
"If you have a very large bankroll, then variance is a relatively small, but then so is your EV."
Umm... No. Your variance and EV are independent of your bankroll size (unless of course you are expressing them as a percentage of your bankroll).
Murdoc
I'm not sure exactly what Murdoc is saying here, but ideally you would like the ratio of EV to variance to be as high as possible. This allows you to utilize your banktoll most effectively. If you have an equal EV in two different situations, but one situation has much higher variance, the lower Variance situation is clearly preferable. In Poker this means you can play higher with the same bankroll size and earn more if you have a lower variance with the same EV. So higher variance by itself is bad unless your bankroll is so large it is not an issue at the limit you are playing or could be playing.
Also, Variance by itself is bad because it is to your disadvantage to wager on perfectly even money bets. The reason is that a loss is always a greater percentage of your bankroll than a win of the same size would represent. The effect may be negligible with relatively tiny bets but it still exists.
For a graphic and extreme illustration of this principle in action, if one bets 1/2 of one's bankroll on an even money flip with each toss of the coin, one's BR will shrink mighty fast (even if you win a few extra flips). At smaller increments the effect still exists but it is not as noticeable. This is why in Blackjack if you bet more than your advantage as a % of your bankroll your profit starts to decline. Betting twice your edge as a % of BR will keep you even overall. Betting more than twice your edge will cause you to lose overall.
So yes, Variance by itself is bad for your BR and your utility function.
With all that said, I have still generally found it more profitable to play in very loose games even with a higher rake, unless the games are also extremely aggressive/manic.
Post deleted at author's request.
It is a trade-off that needs to be weighed, that's the main thing.
It is not clear that a good player will make more in the LA cardbarns at low limit than here in Vegas. Consider the following:
1. The $1-$4-$8-$8 game has only a $1/$2 blind structure instead of the traditional $2/$4 for a $4-$8 game. This is lower than the $1/$3 blinds for a $3-$6 game. This is the most popular low limit game in Vegas. This allows the good player much better implied odds on his suited connectors and small pocket pairs which he can take advantage of more effectively than the poor players.
2. The $1-$4-$8-$8 is spread limit not structured. Typically the poor player is only betting the minimum when he has the best of it when the good player is chasing. But when the good player has the best of it he is betting the maximum and the poor player is paying through the nose to chase. This gives the good player a big advantage.
3. These low limit games in Vegas are heavily populated by tourists who view poker like craps or blackjack and therefore play accordingly.
4. Many cardrooms here in Vegas spread a $6-$12 game but with blinds of only $2/$3 instead of the traditional $3/$6. Again this helps the good player.
5. If you are a low limit player who has to live off his bankroll a high variance because a critical consideration. A friend of mine named Ron rents a room here in Vegas and plays low limit poker exclusively (nothing higher than $1-$5 stud or $1-$4-$8-$8 hold-em). He looks for loose, passive games and avoids games with a lot of pre-flop raising. I ask him about playing in California and he stated that he could not tolerate the big swings and the damage to his bankroll if he ran bad in those games over an extended period of time.
6. You are having to overcome a much higher rake structure in California than here in Vegas. A $6-$12 game at Commerce with its $4 dead button charge and 9-handed game will cost your anywhere from $12 to $16 per hour to play. In Vegas, the $6-$12 games has a 5% rake with a $3 maximum and they seat 10 players. I estimate the cost to play in this game for a tight,aggressive player is about $7 per hour.
As an aside, if you are a $10-$20 or even a $15-$30 player and can only beat these games for one small bet per hour (versus the one big bet per hour metric) you are probably better off playing $1-$4-$8-$8 than $10-$20 or $15-$30. You will win at about the same rate with far less bankroll fluctuations.
All good points.
The only point that struck me as questionable was concerning the type of players in the spread limit games. If I recall from my trips to LV these games frequently seemed to be heavily populated by older locals who were often pretty tight.
Low-limit game selection is more important in Vegas than in LA, because most of the LA games are very good. Nevertheless, I believe a strong low-limit player who exercises some game selection will win more in Vegas than LA due to the reasons described by Jim. Of course, California is the clear choice if you are fond of breathing.
Post deleted at author's request.
I agree that a fast game with weak players is more profitable than a tight low limit game. While I've never played below 5-10 at LA rooms, I played a fair amt at The High Desert Casino in Adalanto during the 80s at the 3-6 and 4-8 levels, very good games. I don't think you had to even be that strong, just better than the avg player. As for my self if I'm low on money I'd rather shoot it up in a fast low limit, than try to grind in rock garden.
40-80 Holdem
Live one limps late middle position. Button raises. Button is a tight solid player. Hands he has shown down are very appropriate for his position. Up front he is turning over group 1 hands. Steal hands are better than average for stealing.
I call in the BB with QJs. Three way action BTF.
Flop comes Q46 spades.
Check, bet, and I checkraise. Fold and button reraises and I call.
Red Nine comes on the turn.
I bet and he calls.
A deuce of spades comes on the river. I check and he bets and I fold.
Initially I thought I made a good laydown. We mutually respect one anothers play. When the flop came he peaked at his cards to see if he had a spade. I don't think this was a fake tell. When he called my bet on the turn he had to I think be able to beat a pair of queens or have a spade. I just don't think he would have called with two red Tens. So when the fourth spade comes I am beat. But then on the other hand if I calculate the pot odds I am getting I have to be correct about 90% of the time, which is a very high percentage of the time to lay down my hand.
Questions and comments are welcome.
Bruce
This is one time saving a bet is probably right, in spite of the pot odds.
He's either bluffing all the way or has a bigger pair or the big draw.
Unless this player is willing to pull a spectacular bluff all the way against YOU, a fold is in order.
JcJs i think
He is either bluffing or he has a big Spade. With anything else he would just check it down on the river and hope his hand is good. When he re-raised you on the flop and stayed with you on the turn he can beat a pair of Queens with a Jack kicker so he is not bluffing. Against this opponent as described by you, I think folding is right.
I would prefer betting out on the flop, primarily in hope of getting the live one to contribute some dead money to the pot.
Betting out has its merits but by checkraising I will probably get it heads-up unless the live one has a real hand. If I was heads-up on the flop I would have probably lead out.
Bruce
Don't you want the live one's money? His money is likely to be more valuable to you than money that the tight/solid player contributes to the pot. [And as you suggested, your checkraise will not eliminate the live one if he has a strong draw to beat you.] The other major reason I believe your check-raise was questionable is the risk that the tight/solid player would not bet.
I don' want his money if he has a spade of any wrank.
Bruce
I thought you flopped a flush! I didn't notice you had top pair. Sorry.
1. Since the other guy is also a good player, he will also have known that you only have to fold more than 10% of the time on river for him to show an automatic profit.
2. You check,
3. and the board looks scary.
4. He knows that you´re capable of folding on river for one more bet.
I´m not saying that it was wrong to fold because you were very likely beat; but I´m very sure he´d have tried to bluff you if you were not.
no S i think
I had just finished a profitable $15-$30 session and decided to join my girlfriend at the $3-$6 table. It was a typical no fold 'em game.
There is a 5-way capped-pre-flop hand (I was out) when the flop comes 575r. It is capped on the flop with two players remaining. Turn is 9. Now the remaining two players proceed to raise, re-raise, and re-re-raise each other until there are nine big bets in front of each player! The river is a J, and there is another bet/raise/call round on the river.
The result: 77 wins GIANT pot from 59o.
You're a Cardinal?
btw, that's why one's not supposed to play frickin' 59 off.
later.
Where is this game, even at 3-6 I'd play !!!
Yes, I'm a Cardinal (actually an alum).
This game was (big surprise) in a California cardroom -- namely Bay101 in San Jose, which I frequent for its $15-$30 games which often play like $3-$6 games.
I wondered how ridiculous the following play was:
I have QQ in the SB. 2 limp in and the button raises. I reraise, limpers call, button reraises, I cap, everyone calls.
Flop is AT6r.
I check, being pretty sure there is an ace out there and expecting I will have to fold against a bet from one of the limpers and a reraise from the button. But the 2 limpers check, and the button bets. In several previous pots he had been betting both flop and turn only to check-fold(?) the river. So, given that history and his position, I was not convinced his bet implied an ace. I called, and so did one of the limpers. Also, none of the limpers had been check-raising before.
Turn is an 8.
I check (is that correct?), limper checks, button bets, I call, limper folds.
River is a 2.
I check, button bets, I call.
Well, with hindsight that was a nice induced bluff, as it turned out he had only flopped a pair of T's, but how ridiculous was all of this?
Given your description of the button I would prefer checkraising on the flop to find out where I am. Hopefully you will get the pot heads-up and then you can lead on the turn. I don't like checking and calling when I have the worst possible position. If you don't checkraise on the flop then checkraise on the turn. Playing aggressively maximizes your chances of winning.
Bruce
Bruce,
Your suggestion indeed makes perfect sense to me. This is in fact how I would play top pair/weak kicker (which is somewhat similar) from early position against 3 or more: check-fold if there's a lot of action, check-raise if only the guy last-to-act bets.
Steven
I usually don't cap pre-flop with QQ and no position - and no chance of reducing the field. If by chance I did, I would lead out on the flop when the Ace flopped.
I agree with Bruce suggesting a raise against THIS player, except for his "to find out where you are at" puke. Calling him down only costs a half bet more than raising and betting the turn under the presumption you can confidently fold the river; and you have to be REAL confident before you can even THINK of such a fold. This means the "information" you gained wasn't worth very much at all even if it was REAL reliable; which it rarely is.
Getting the 2-limpers limpers out of the pot is more valuable than inducing the button to bluff.
If it were heads-up I agree checking and calling him down is sound and usually correct.
- Louie
Louie,
The main reason to check-raise is to get the pot heads-up. However if you check-raise and one of the limpers calls or reraises you have found out exactly where you are. You are in bad shape, and for all intents and purposes, you are done with your hand.
Bruce
Steven,
I might suggest check raising the flop to see where you are at and eliminate a possible bad A if you felt the button would bet second pair. By checking and calling, you are allowing the others to draw at you for minimal cost. Personally, I like to define the hand a little bit more especially sice you were in a perfect position to check raise. Just my thoughts.
Michael D. (soccer Mike)
What limit is this?
I wouldn't have capped with QQ but considering the button raised and re-raised with KT, QT, or whatever... I find all of this quite strange. In a capped pot he thought he could win it with a bet on the river? It seems like your check on the turn was ok since you are out of position and you don't want to get raised on the expensive street in case your hand is good. Also, he might check a hand like KK because of the Ace. Your read on the button is what determines how you play this hand.
Pre-flop you should not cap the betting with QQ being out of position like this. But let me get this straight: FOUR players are in a CAPPED pot pre-flop and NO ONE HAD ACE?? Sounds like this game was played in an asylum.
There are 20 bets in the pot when the flop comes. I would not lead into 3 opponents when the Ace over card flops. I would check like you did. When it is checked around to the button, you have a tough decision to make when he bets. There are 21 bets in the pot so considering implied odds you are justified in playing your two outer here. However, if you raise you destroy your implied odds plus you run the risk of the pot getting re-raised. One of the limpers could easily have an Ace and not be betting because they could be worried about being up against a bigger Ace and getting raised or check-raised. Who knows? Now with the pot this big they will call if anyone bets but they frequently will not bet themselves. If no one has an Ace, you are not giving up much by just calling here since there are not that many cards that can beat you. Of course you check on the turn. At this point you are just hoping the button doesn't have an Ace or a miracle Queen will show up. I think your play was fine.
Jim,
But let me get this straight: FOUR players are in a CAPPED pot pre-flop and NO ONE HAD ACE?? Sounds like this game was played in an asylum.
This was what I originally meant by the title of the post. I also couldn't believe no one had an ace. This wasn't played in an asylum, but in Hollywood Park [or is that an asylum?-) ].
You seem to be against the check-raisze in this situation, but isn't this:
One of the limpers could easily have an Ace and not be betting because they could be worried about being up against a bigger Ace and getting raised or check-raised.
an argument in favor of check-raising?
(And thanks for all the clear and common-sense answers you post!)
Steven
I don't mean that your posts display just common sense!
While the fear of being check-raised will keep them from betting it will not keep them from calling hoping for: 1) You don't have an Ace, or 2) Maybe they can pair their side card and two pair will hold up.
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that about 75% of the hands posted for discussion here usually involve the Hero being "in the BB with XX, and there was no raise, so I got to see the flop for free"...
I find this a bit fishy.
Does this phenomenon exist because Hero doesn't want to admit that he might have played JTo UTG? Or called two bets cold with Q8s? Or played 94o *anywhere*?
So, when posting the message, Hero's position conveniently happens to "migrate" over to the BB? (Alternatively, if it's not the BB, instead they were on the button so it was their position which allowed them to play pocket 3's and still call multiple pre-flop bets...)
Has anyone else noticed this? Or am I just getting to be a curmudgeon in my old age? It's just something that seems to catch my eye a lot, and kinda sticks out like a sore thumb...
Take care,
Mike D. (Who often catches himself saying, "Lemme tellya about this bad beat! So I was in the BB...")
Mike,
I printed out about a hundred (usually longer) threads that I found interesting and sorted them according to what the hero had on the flop (top pair, flush draw, openender+2 overcards etc. etc.).
Quite a few of those long threads concerned the play of top pair/weak kicker. All of these hands (usually something like K8o) were played from the BB, but that makes sense.
Another reason for so many posts about the BB could be that it is usually less clear how to play from early position than from late position.
Although I doubt it's 75%, I definitely noticed the same phenomenon. But maybe it is just you and me.
Steven
I noticed it this week and was going to post something on it - great minds think alike? I think there is something about wanting to post the main substance of a hand, but not wanting to get flamed for playing shit hands by limping after a few limpers - something many of us are guilty of especially at lower limits. I think about half of the time the "BB" is likely not the BB. The other half are legit, because we do play more hands as "BB" almost by definition.
Lets pretend posters are ethical and may post ANY hand they have actually played which was "interesting". "Interesting" usually means then decisions were not obvious. Such decisions usually involve non-premium hands, hands they have little experience with, and usually involve being out-of-position: Premium hands in position are routinely easy to play. Most posters are reasonably selective which has the non-obvious result that they will play and win a disproportionate number of hands from the BB.
So they are already PLAYING a large number of hands from the BB, these hands are often ONLY played from the BB presenting unfamiliar situations, and they are almost all "out-of-position".
So it surprises me not at all that a very large number of POSTED hands are in the BB. I'm sure its not 75%.
Having said that, I suspect your phenomenon DOES happen but nowhere near as often as you suggest.
- Louie
Mike, a good player will play more hands out of his big blind than from any other position. In fact, a good player will play more hands from his big blind than he will from the first three positions combined I would guess. This is because: 1) You frequently get a free play, and 2) Being half-way in allows you to call raises with a much wider variety of hands than from any other position.
Because most of us are playing so many marginal hands pre-flop from a our big blind, the big blind becomes the source of many problems for us. Many of the difficult decisions I face at the table stem from being in the big blind with a raised pot and a marginal hand. I usually catch a piece of the flop so my outs are few but the pot is large and the opponents are many. This leads to the most difficult decisions.
Lucid, cogent and reasonable responses, all.
Having read the possible explanations for the "phenomenon" that I mentioned, it makes perfect sense that the BB will often get players into more trouble than in any other position; and it would be for THIS reason (rather than lying or embroidering the truth) that the BB seems to play a prevalent role in a lot of threads.
I suppose the cynic in me looked for (and found) the worst possible explanation... but I suppose I should have looked harder or been more willing to give the benefit of the doubt.
Oh, well. Lesson learned... thanks for helping me see all sides of the argument.
Mike D.
You couldn't be more right, Mike. It is obvious that at least a few players have shamelessly changed their positions and the details of their play. I know because I have seen some of the hands as they were played, posted and they don't match up. Selective memory. I think people convince themselves the play was good and need the "experts" to agree that the play was good, so they smudge the details. Big Blind, Button, my ass!
Ok, I have heard some guys where I play cards talk about these computer hands and how according to some computer thy are higher percentage winners....someting like q7? Can someone please let me know what they are, and what computer tells them this? TTH?
thx,
kevin
Q7 became known as the "computer hand" after someone made some hopeless 500 hand repetitious study on some home-made holdem simulation; and Q7 appeared to be the "average" starting hand. Forget it.
Most computer simulations are hot-and-cold in that they only determine how often a hand wins with no betting nor folding. While this is certainly useful information it does NOT accurately predict how well a hand will do in actual play.
Small pairs, for example, win seldom but they are MORE valuable then their win rate suggests since when they make a set they rarely lose and can beat lots of other hands. Weak trouble hands (KT), for example, win often but they are LESS valuable then their win rate would indicate since they often have to go to the river as a 2nd best hand. That is, they often make good hands that lose in the show-down. When they DO win, its often a small pot since nobody has much.
With a pair of 22s you are usually GLAD there is a river bet since you will routinely be betting for value with your set. With KT you would usually prefer there to be NO river bet since you often don't know where you are at.
Hence the title "trouble" hands. These are the hands that computers tend to rank higher than expert judgement would suggest.
- Louie
20-40 Hold-em
Shorthanded game with 5 players. I am in the BB and UTG raises. He normally plays 4-8 or 8-16 and seldom plays 20-40. He appears to be uncomfortable in a shorthanded game and is waiting for a seat in the main game. He hesitates briefly before raising. Everyone else passes. I have K6o. I decide to play my very marginal hand. I feel I can outplay my opponent and feel he is intimidated by me.
The flop comes AK2 rainbow.
I check and he bets. I check-raise and he reraises and I call. A blank comes on the turn. I check and he checks.
The river brings a King with no possible flushes. I bet and he calls.
He disgustingly mucks his AT and tells me how lucky I am and then proceeds to tell me how he put me on a bigger Ace or two pairs. I say to myself all he had to do was bet on the turn and I am through with my hand.
I had a very favorable outcome, but am I correct to play this hand? Comments are appreciated.
Bruce
Mike D.
Excuse me if this happens to be another hand played from the big blind. Hands from the big blind often turn out to be quite interesting because they are hands played under special conditions.
Bruce
No problem, Bruce.
You have my permission.
;)
It doesn't sound like he was all that intimidated!!! Personally, I don't think I'd want to go to war with an early raiser without a slightly larger sidecar to my king 5-handed. I like the way you played the hand after the flop, though.
Bruce,
I definitely understand that the game was short handed and you wanted to protect your big blind, however... given the fact that you were up against a lower limit player who is less likely to be over agressive at the 20-40 limit with less than a strong hand, I would have definitely mucked pre-flop. After you called - and checkraised the flop, you were correct, he was intimidated and definitely misplayed the hand. If I were him, I would have had as many chips in the pot as fast as possible on the flop and the turn and if I was beat by a bigger A then so be it. He totally misplayed the hand after the flop and it cost him. That being said, I would be very careful about calling raises with K6 from any position under most circumstances. Just my thoughts.
Michael D (Soccer Mike)
You were lucky he misplayed his hand. Calling UTG raises from a player that is probably playing quite tightly is suicide. No amount of "outplaying" after the flop is going to make up this deficit in the long run.
Your theory obviously paid off since the guy screwed up but I would advise you to not do it again. You got lucky and that's not what this game is about.
P.S. I wouldn't be so blunt if you hadn't asked...Red
Before reading any responses:
I am a very aggressive player and I would have mucked K6o. Especially considering he is a lower limit player, I would put him on a bigger hand than AT when he raises UTG. If you do play it I like the CR on the flop. When he re-raises you're in trouble. If he bets the turn you are correct to fold. You caught a miracle on the river. Remember, even though he is inexperienced and intimidated, that doesn't mean he might not have a hand.
There is a very fine line sometimes between being able to play a hand profitably and becoming a live one yourself and playing too many hands. Looking back in retrospect even though I won the pot I think crossed the path.
Bruce
The key to this is will the player lay down any sort of hand and will he bet nothing. If your read of him is a passive LL player, you lay down on the flop and move on. He'd be too worried about being beatenif he were playing QQ or JJ. He's got the A. With a pair of Aces he'll call all the way down, too. He wasn't going anywhere, but he let you catch up. Fold and save your two bets for another time when either he has nothing and/or you have something(not that middle pair is bad SH, but against TP, it ain't hot).
If he's a trickier player I'd do exactly what you did. CR the flop(regardless of what hit). Call a reraise and check fold on the turn.
Patrick
You need to outplay him SERIOUSLY to justify K6. On the other hand, you're getting 3:1. Perhaps you can justify playing this hand if you expect to check-raise no matter the flop.
Other than that, well played. Well, check-raising THIS flop is questionable unless he'll lay down a bigger King right now since he isn't going to lay down any Ace and you don't mind giving a pocket pair free cards.
Reconsider telling him how to play better. Rather make the situation even more valuable by telling him you KNEW you were going to win and was check-raising the turn. Or tell him you were check-raising the turn because you thought you had the better hand.
Skrewyism: Its correct to go out on a limb when you have this dominance over an opponent. But remember that limbs lose their strength in proportion to the SQUARE of the distance you go out: twice as far is 4 times as dangerous.
- Louie
There are a few posters who feel as if your opponent played his hand incorrectly. I think it's debateable. Yes, if he bets the turn you fold, but he doesn't really have a kicker and a free card isn't that dangerous to his hand. You have a close decision to call his re-raise with k-6, you're right at the edge of the envelope. For the one poster who suggested that he would put as many chips into the pot as he could with A-10, I have serious questions about his being a successful short-handed player.
Bruce,
I'm a low limit player looking to move up to higher limit games soon. I think that if I were playing that particular hand I would have bet the turn because your lack of a reraise after his reraise would indicate to me that the AA is probably the best post flop hand. I would therefore try to make it expensive for you to draw. I think intimidation would play a factor just in general but in this hand not so because of how you played the hand with a check and a call.
Just another view from a low-limit player.
Rich
How is it possible to win at this limit. Recently played at a riverboat casino and the players started with ANY two cards. One player called UTG with 4,7 offsuit, called a late position raiser and ended up winning the hand with a pair of 4s!!. This was a common type of play. Any comments appreciated.
Sounds like an easy game !
THIS TYPE OF GAME IS AN EASY WIN.JUST LOCATE THE PLAYERS THAT TAKE EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING TO THE RIVER(THERE IS ALWAYS ONE OR TWO IN THIS TYPE OF GAME)AND GO AFTER THEM FULL BORE AFTER USING A TIGHT OPENING STANCE.
You are right, and I am trying to learn the patience to do this. But it is hard to keep folding inferior hands THAT I KNOW ARE BETTER than most of these players are starting with. Is this just part of becoming a winning player?
Absoultely, especially in a full game. The best way to deal with these games is play better starters and make sure you hit the flop. If you do, jam it, if not fold. Normally, one or two players have good hands.
It is interesting why these games are like this. I mean your looking at maybe paying $12/round to play. Why not sit back and wait for good hands? It is truly amazing to me why people fail to see this. They play any two and go thourgh needless volitility.
This advice that you just wait for good hands is just plain naive. These games usually have many players in every hand. When you just wait for good cards like some of your respondents advise, a couple of things will manifest:
1) You often won't flop the best hand when 6 other players come with you.
2) You will be identified as a high-hand player and so will not get much action when you hit.
Think about it. You wait patiently for 25 minutes like the superior player you are, watching 3 or 4 players go to the river every hand. Then you are dealt AKo. The flop comes A97 and you bet. Five players fold and one calls. He's caught middle pair and has a backdoor strait draw. Not exactly easy money.
My advise is to look like your are one of them but NOT BE. This means playing some of the same crappy hands they are, pulling some of the same bizzare plays they do, but not as often. This requires a lot of discipline - not falling into the same pattern they are in.
If your going to try this, can I at least offer the idea of being in the last 2 seats in an unraised pot when playing 83s?
Not true. Play tight. -if
---
Izmet Fekali (But a sooted ace calz & rulz!
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Sorry, but you are wrong.
Tight and aggressive always wins in the long run.
If you loosen up and play down to their level, you have lost your edge. Patience is the key.
Anyone who knows anything about poker is already aware of these things.
Simple. Play against that guy all night.
Of course you are right but how in the world can someone play like this? I am trying to learn the game before moving up to higher limits, but all I seem to learn is how to keep from shaking my shaking my head in disbelief when I see some of the hands these people play.
THE THING THAT YOU LEARN IN LOW LIMIT IS SELF CONTROL HOW TO SPOT THE SHEEP AND HOW YOU DON'T WANT TO PLAY.TO TRUELY LEARN A PROPER GAME YOU NEED TO MOVE OUT OF NO FOLD'EM
Peter,
Please refrain from using all caps. It's hard to read and it seems you have some good things to say.
Sorry I sell on Ebay for a living so my cap lock is always on (you get more attention with big letters) I'll make sure that it is off from this point forward
You must, above all else, stick to a game plan. Make sure that when you have a premium starting hand you raise and reraise preflop. Post flop, make sure the flop has hit you and you either have the best draw or best hand before committing to the pot.
Don't get frustrated and don't play down to their level. Tight and agressive will get the money.
Thanks for your response. Guess I just needed some reinforcement.
You need to have a firm understanding of how tight you need to play. For the most part their is a fairly rigid set of guidelines laid out in Sklansky's hold em book. Most of the stuff in the book won't apply to the game, but it will give you a feel for how many hands you need to fold.
Read my post dated Thursday, July 28, 2000 titled "Is There a Doctor in the House?". It addresses the low limit issues you refer to. I received some very good responses. I was not playing tight enough in the game I described. The post is on the cusp of being archived. Right now, some of the responses are still shown in the threads, but my original post must have just been archived.
In response to your post, I have several comments:
1. If you approach this game properly, you will beat it.
2. The proper approach is to first play the starting cards appropriate to the game. The starting cards for a loose-aggressive game should be tight and played in position. Play only the top 12 or so ranked starting hands. You do not want to pay multiple pre-flop bets with drawing hands. Drawing hands need to come in cheaply to get the proper implied odds.
3. You can loosen up in loose-passive games. If your drawing hands do not get raised, it pays to see the flop if you can see it cheaply. Do not play junk. Read the books that specialize or have chapters on low limit play to get a sense of appropriate starting hands and position for a loose-passive game.
4. Pay attention to position. It is very tempting in a loose-aggressive game to play something like A,9o; J,10o; or 9,8s out of position. Don’t do it. Only play them in later positions with no raises in front. You should enter only three or four pots in an hour on the average. On occassions, you can go an hour or more without entering a pot. Winning play has periods of boredom.
5. In loose-passive games, you can loosen your starting requirements, but you must still pay attention to fundamental starting requirements. Now you should average entering four to six pots an hour. You still may have times where you go an hour or more without entering a pot. Again, winning play has periods of boredom.
6. If you play properly, you will play many fewer starting hands than your opponents When they win with junk, they are pushing the chips back and forth to each other. The luckiest one will have the big stack of chips giving the illusion that that might be the proper way to play. They will not be taking many of your chips, because you will not be in as many pots. When you enter a pot, they will come along, so, when you win, it will usually be a good sized pot. Bottom line, in general, they contribute to your pots, and, in general, you do not contribute to theirs.
7. Identify the players that go to the end with a small or medium pair. If you are on a straight or flush draw and miss it, but end up with a pair of nines, it may be good against a player or players like this. If you sense you can beat them more often than the pot odds, go for it. Call their bet. The pot is probably big. This is no time to save a bet.
8. Identify the more solid players in your game. Even these low limit games have one (that’s you) or more players who play better hands. Be more respectful of their actions and act accordingly.
9. If you are at a table with a maniac, change seats to the immediate left of the maniac. If the maniac is raising every hand, or there is more than one, change tables. Very important. Get away from the crap shoot.
10. I have been advised that one must be able to beat these types of games before moving up in limits.
Good Luck.
to "tyro" extremely well written, yet concise; one of the best posts i've read here.i think you helped your new "pupil" alot. p.s. lack of concision ( i think i just invented a word ) is probably the leak i need most to plug.
Thanks for the compliment. I am just passing on things I have learned on this forum. There are a lot of players here who are helpful to others.
Very good post Tyro. Only one comment I disagree with. Number 9 said not to play with two or more maniacs. I strongly disagree.
Maniacs will guarantee the money gets in the pot, and I don't know if there are many players more profitable to compete against then the one who will bet, raise, and re-raise with nothing. The weakness of maniacs (to a solid player) is their PREDICTABILITY (i.e. they play too fast). Furthermore, with one maniac, you only get an extra bet or two in from him when he comes in by himself. With two maniacs, the pre-flop always gets capped, the flop always gets capped, etc. Come in when you have the best of it, and you continually get paid off.
Sure, you may lose some strange hands every once in a while, but playing with two maniacs, a tight aggressive player will ALWAYS end way up in the long run. Of course, just my opinion.
I agree with you. My post was more how I would handle it for myself. If you have the bank roll and can hang on for the wild swings, by all means, go for it. Just make sure to play only the good hands, as you say.
Tyro, I have read about the tightening of your starting requirements in a loose aggresive game. (HFAP) What many posters reply with is that after tightening their starting hands (folding hand after hand), when they do get a premium starting hand, everyone folds. It appears to the table that you are the only one who is not willing to gamble. This is why in "theory" this strategy will bring the bacon, however I haven't seen a good response to the "fold, the tight ass just entered the pot" problem.
MC, Trying to beat this type of game is very frustrating. Because of their very loose starting requirements, you can loosen up yours a bit, particulary in late position. High cards and big pairs go down in value. Sure, you are going to suffer greater swings in your bankroll due to the bad beats. If this type of game gets you on tilt, don't play it. Game selection is of primary importance. If the game doesn't suit you, try another with more reasonable players. If you chose to try and beat this game. 1. Increase your bankroll 2x to 4x 2. Never bluff 3. Bet when you have the lead 4. Best hand wins 5. Release second best. Just because they (collectively) outdraw doesn't mean you (individually) can.
I have been teaching my mother to play hold'em and over a three month period she has come along nicely.She is going to Vegas in two weeks and I would like for her to play in some of the daily tournaments to get some cheep playing time against a better level of player (she is playing 2-4 amd 3-6 now).Does anyone agree or disagree with this approach.Thanks
Thursday just after noon at the Trop in AC, 10/20 hold em. We've been having a good old time. Nice game, average for the joint and beatable. I've been in the 4 seat for two hours and am up a bit. Two players come over from the most-move game and take seats 9 and 10. Everything seems innocent enough. None of us notices it but we are about to enter the twilight zone.
I look down to see KQ. I call. The cut-off, a reasonable sort, raises. Seat 9 reraises. Seat 10 caps. Hmm. Okay, I don't know these guys so I muck my hand and sit back to watch. Flop is A,7,2 rainbow. I'm glad I chucked my paint. Cut-off bets, Seat 9 raises, Seat 10 reraises, cut off calls and Seat 9 caps. Others call. Hmm. What can they have? Turn is a 9. Cut-off checks, Seat 9 bets, Seat 10 raises. Cut-off folds, Seat 9 calls. River is a 3. Seat 9 bets, 10 raises, 9 calls. Seat 10 shows down two pair, with 7,3 off. Seat 9 mucks. Eight people shift about oddly in their chairs. Look at each other. I suddenly notice that the new dealer bears an odd resemblance to the late, great genius of the occult, Rod Serling
I played in this game for 15 straight hours! It never got any saner. In that time there couldn't have been more than 3 or 4 unraised flops and the words "you chop?" were never heard. And what made matters worse was that our friend from outer space in Seat 10 started catching cards. That 7,3 off trick got older and just as annoying as a Wayne Newton song. A maniac catching cards can run over a table. This guy was like a road grader! In less than an hour he won in excess of $3k in what was, nominally, a 10/20 game. And to make matters worse, he started infecting the rest of the table with this lunacy. I was heads up with a usually sensible player (and trust me, heads up with anyone other than seat 10 was rare). He cracked my set of Qs with a rivered straight when he showed me 10,4!
At 3 in the morning I crawled to bed, a bundle of nerves, frustrated, angry and bewildered. My mouth tasted like the bottom of a bird cage but I was, astonishingly, virtually even. I managed to survive only by catching a couple of flushes in huge pots and, in the spirit of the game, flopping full with 6,4 when I protected my blind when it only got hit with one raise!
When I came down the next morning it was still going! Six of the originals were still there – including the dealer who clearly now was sporting horns and cloven hooves. The stakes were now 15/30 but the action was, if anything, even nuttier. I hope I am impressing on you how weird this game was. The house had roped off the table to keep the now dozen or so railbirds away.
I could go on about this game for hours. More astonishing hands unfolded than I have ever seen, but I want to get to the main point here: How can you beat a game like this? Yes, I know the basic principles about tight play, picking your spots, etc. I know that, in principle, they work. This is basically how I (with a little bit of luck) managed to get out down only 2 BBs. The problem is that a game like this is so volatile that you just don't have enough time for the dust to settle. When I left to go home some 30 or so hours after the game began, the lunatic in Seat 10 was (predictably) down several thou, but the bulk of this was sitting in front of two of the weakest, loosest chasers in the game.
Thoughts out there?
if your employer allows you to, and if you are adequately capitalized both for the game - $3000 should do it; 5 or 6 thou would be better - and for your living expenses, take a three-month leave from your job, find a place to stay, play no more than 6-8 hours a day four or five days a week taking frequent breaks during each and every session AND NOT JUST AFTER YOUR BAD BEATS. you will beat this game. for how much? hard to say, but if it were me i would bring an empty suitcase with me when i left home. i can't say for sure that you will fill it - you likely won't but you just might. i would also recommend having both a powerful antacid ( for occasional use during your sessions ) and a generous supply of valium for after your sessions - not for use as a tranquilizer but to combat the symptoms of dizziness you are almost certain to feel as you leave the casino; WIN OR LOSE ---dramamine will suffice if you prefer not use prescription medication, but you will have to take it before you play, as anyone who is prone to seasickness can tell you. it's useless once you "leave the dock". ***seriously, 4-6 big bets an hour is not an unreasonable expectation under the conditions you described, but be forwarned, bone tight play alone won't do it. counting blinds and "time" it is going to cost you close to $100 per hour to sit in a $15/30 game - more when it gets shorthanded, so it's going to take quite a while for the cream to rise. then again you might win your first few hands and never look back, but i would have a back-up plan just in case this does not occur. p.s. i speak from experience. in the summer of '98 i played a little over 500 hours of "$3/6 with red chips" in L.A. ( actually most of their $5 chips were yellow ) and took home twenty-eight thousand and change AFTER EXPENSES, and while i would like to think i am the best limit hold'em player alive be most assured i am not. the down side; almost two years have passed and i am just now recovering from the experience. i would never do it again, but i am glad i got the chance to do it once. GOOD LUCK AND BEST REGARDS.........
This type of game was pretty typical for trop 10-20 when I lived on the east coast. I would watch the game often but only played in it a few times (I usually play 5-10 or lower). Maniacs were commonly found at any seat in the table, often two or more in the game at once. 52s is a raising hand, especially if you are UTG. Don't you know anything about 10-20? My personal opinion is that you may be able to beat the game, but there are very few people who have enough time, let alone enough patience, to even begin to try. Go to the craps table, it's an easier, less frustrating way to lose your $$. On the other hand, if loose aggressive games are your thing, trop 10-20 is the game for you. Just get ready for some wild rides.
Dave in Cali
You probably played well enough to make a decent score. The variance can be be high in limit hold'em to begin with and when you get a totally wild game the variance gets in the stratosphere. In a game like you described 30 hours is not that long of a time period.
6-12 Hold-Em. Bay 101.
Sort of a mixed game where it was tight-aggressive on some hands and loose-passive on others.
I am in seat#5. Dealt AhAc in SB. Everyone except seat#1 and #3 limps. I raise and everyone calls.
Flop comes 8c9h4c. I bet out and called by everyone except the button who folds. Turn is an offsuit J. I bet out again and am called by #6 and #7. Seat#8 raises and #9 folds. I think #2 cold calls the raise. (I can't remember if he folded or not).
I call for time and to briefly think it over. I have played with #8 before. I would classify him as a typical player bordering on weak tight. He seems only comfortable in raising pre-flop with big pocket pairs. And only flat calls with big Aces pre-flop.
I thought it was equally likely he could have a two pairs, set, or a straight. I didn't think he was trying to make a move on the pot with a draw or just a jack. If he had a straight or a set I would be drawing dead and slim respectively. But if he only had two pairs(i.e. J9 or 89), I had some outs against him. Obviously at this point the pot was quite large, which factored heavily. I decided to call.
The river was an offsuit 8. It was amazingly checked around. #8 showed AJ, which was the last hand in the world I expected to see from him. My aces held up and I won the pot.
My question is was this one of those situation that David Sklansky always talks about being a close decision between calling and folding? Or did I have a clear fold on the turn given what I knew about the player?
All comments and crticism appreciated.
I can't fault the way you played the hand. Folding on the turn is out of the question for your above stated reasons. Because the board is highly coordinated reraising with a possible straight is overly aggressive. On the river with the board pairing you may have caught up if you were up against two pair. However with your poor position you are forced to check. I think you played the hand very well.
Bruce
I like the way you played it but I am concerned with the fact that you thought a fold was even a choice. Your thoughts were of the player in #8 seat. What do you think he thought you had? If he put you on AK, which might be very likely, he thought he was ahead. After all, he didn't make a move with just a jack he made a move with ACE JACK, not a bad hand against someone who might be holding AK.
Greetings,
Here are some hands where I thought I might not have taken the right course of action w/these hands.
1) 10/20 w/half kill short handed (about 5-6 players, I have been running over the table and was the killer in late position.)
1 player limps I raise w/ KsKc next cold calls, BB calls, as does the limper.
FLop comes
Js 9c 4s.
They check to me, I bet next player calls BB raises next folds I three bet next call and BB caps it! All call.
SO 3 see a turn of a small blank.
BB bets, I call (would you raise here, I thought BB had 2 pair or a set, and so I was in big trouble but I couldn't believe folding was right, I called hoping the board would pair), next player calls.
The river is 9h.
Which I thought was a good card and was hoping BB would check, he bet I agonized and called though since he bet I really thought he had a full house (I seriously consdiered folding, how bad is this?). Next player calls. (BTW BB seemed fairly solid when I had played w/him before other player is weak and I think thinks Im running over the table.)
I ask the BB if he has a full house, he says that I must beat him. He turns over QQ. Surprise surprise!
Did BB over play this hand? SHould I not think he has a set or two pair as most would checkraise the turn w/these hands?
2)10/20 full game. early positioin player raises, all fold to me I reraise in late position w/AsAh BB cold calls, UTG caps it, I laugh to myself as I can only call, BB calls.
FLop comes
9 c 8 c 6s.
BB checks, next player bets , I raise, BB makes it 3!. Call call. (would you cap here? I thought I must behind and so the call).
Turn 4h.
BB bets, call, I just call again.
River the Qc.
Check, bet (!?), I call again call.
BB had KK, and early player has AcKc.
I go for a LONG walk.
I suspect I'm a 90% favorite BTF, though pbly only 66% on the flop.
3) 10-20 kill pot, killer checks, I raise in mid positioin w/ AsKd, all fold to BB (same as BB in hand 2) makes it 3. killer folds.
flop comes K 9 5 w/2 spades. He bets I raises he reraises, I disgustedly call and decide to pay him off THought I strongly suspect he has AA, maybe I should have thought there are 6 ways for him to have AA, 6 ways to have AK, and 1 way to have KK, and 6 to have QQ.
Turn is a small spade. He bets I call.
RIver is a small blank, he bets I call and he shows me AK. I gave serious consideration to folding on the flop/ and was on such tilt I was actually obvious that I had picked up this draw.
He shows me AA and I leave. Had very bad luck today, and was thinking to leave for a while and this put the icing on the cake!
All comments appreciated!
Thanks alot.
First Hand) I can't fault the way you played the hand. KK shorthanded is a monster hand. The likelyhood of being up against AA is really pretty slim. Big blind overplayed his hand to a degree although given the fact that he had an overpair he really didn't play his hand too badly. Since you are last to act raising on the turn accomplishes very little. I absolutlety would not consider folding under any circumstances. They are going to have to show me a better hand. Your overall mood seems to be very pessimistic and with strong hands you wrongfully assume that you have to be up against a better hand rather than assessing the value of your hand against the board.
Hand Two) Them are the breaks of the game. BTF you are a huge favorite but you were up against a flush draw on the flop and he got there and there is nothing you can do. On the flop with a coordinated board and a flush draw I would slow down. I see no reason to cap the flop. When a blank comes on the turn you should probably raise but when the club comes on the end about all you can do is call.
Sorry, but I don't follow your third hand.
Bruce
I am not one for folding often on the river; I much prefer to pay it off. To support this I will tend NOT to put in questionable 4-bets earlier in the hand: if a player responds to my aggression with aggression TWICE; well there is going to be a showdown.
I may have played a little different than you but you certainly did NOT play "wrong".
You seem to presume that you are supposed to win when you get these premium hands, and I think THIS is why it upsets you so much that you have to take long or permanant walks. If you are upset certainly walk; but you need to work on not getting so upset. Objectively analyzing how well I played a hand helps me a lot in this area.
- Louie
I play low limit and seldom get to play hands like this against two or three other players so I may not know what I am talking about. It seems that the hands described are going to win often enough to make money with them. Unless there is overwhelming evidence that you are beaten, I think they should be played like winners, that is very aggressively. Poker is gambling with a thought process. You have to gamble when you have a good hand. You should win more than you lose, that is all you can ask. Any comments?
Sorry I mistyped 3) hand. Should read: 3) 10-20 kill pot, killer checks, I raise in mid positioin w/ AsKd, all fold to BB (same as BB in hand 2) makes it 3. killer folds.
flop comes K 9 5 w/2 spades. He bets I raises he reraises, I disgustedly call and decide to pay him off THought I strongly suspect he has AA, maybe I should have thought there are 6 ways for him to have AA, 6 ways to have AK, and 1 way to have KK, and 6 to have QQ.
Turn is a small spade. He bets I call.
RIver is a small blank, he bets I call and he shows me AA. I gave serious consideration to folding on the flop/ and was on such tilt I was actually oblivious that I had picked up the flush draw .
He shows me AA and I leave. Had very bad luck today, and was thinking to leave for a while and this put the icing on the cake!
I don't think you played any of the hands incorrectly. On the first hand I would definately not raise on the turn against someone who had capped the previous round. OBviously someone could have two pair or trips and have you beat. That said I would never have folded any of these hands. Sometimes you will lose with these hands and there is nothing you can do about it. I think the advice of Louie is very good here.
Thanks all for the comments. I think in all 3 of these hands another player showed exceptional strength, when he was in fact behind. But bc of this strenght I was quite pessimistic at that point regarding the strenght of my hand.
As for getting angry, well I thought i t was better to get angry and go for a walk as opposed to telling myself I'm not mad and stay at the table and play badly. I think I used to do quite often in the past.
Does it not upset/anger you when someone suckouts on you when you were a 90% favorite and the smug bastard acts like he did something clever!? I refrain from making comments, but it is hard sometimes. One freind of mine seems to think its awesome when he here about these suckouts... I need to work on being less annoyed and more amused...
Thanks again.
You need to figure out a way not to get upset. If they weren't drawing to beat you there would be no game. It's just part of the game and there is nothing you can do about it. Have you read John Feeney's book? There is a nice section on dealing with tilt. John's background as a psychologist is refreshing with tilt.
Bruce
Dear Bruce,
Thanks for the notes. I think a big problem during hands 2) and 3) was suffering from a massive dry spell and was waiting for a little rain and maybe thought too presumptiously that these hands were it. My temperment is OK when I lose w/these hands if Ive been doing alright.
I know that these things shouldn't matter (eg how im doing) but somehow they do effect me.
I have lost considerable more in some other hands where I knew where I was at and didn't get that upset as I knew I was making the right play (and was an underdog to win the pot).
Thanks again for the notes.
I recently posted a thread about playing K6o in the big blind against a relatively inexperienced player when he raised thinking I could outplay my opponent and he would also be intimidated by me. The overwhelming consensus of opinion was I should not have played the hand to begin with. I have no problem with that. Now let's say I had in the big blind K6s and I am facing a raise with the same player and it is a 5 handed game. Do I call his raise? I routinely see good players calling in this situation. I know that doesn't make it right. Do you really want to pursue a flush draw heads-up with a relatively weak holding? Does being suited add that much more value to your hand where it now becomes playable?
Comments appreciated.
Bruce
I would say it is a playable hand in this situation.
1) It costs only one bet. 2) Good implied odds due to all of the money already in the pot. 3) You have good control over the player showing strength.
Of course, it should be played with a strong "fit or fold" mentality on the flop. If there are five players already in the pot, a raise probably won't knock all of them out (if any of them). You won't be heads up. Obviously, if you would be heads up, #2 becomes irrelavant and that may be the most important reason for staying in with a mediocre hand in this spot.
One other small consideration: Do you fear a limp-reraise? If you do, a call becomes more dangerous...but I rarely see it, so it wouldn't be a major consideration unless your opponents are capable of such a play.
Mojay
I will be heads-up against the UTG raiser. Everyone else has passed.
Bruce
Bruce:
In my opinion Kx suited is a junk holding and may have some value in an unraised pot, but considering that the pot has been raised, dump the hand. Your odds to call are not enough at 9-1.
Frank Donnelly
The value of the suited hand is NOT just that it can make a flush. It can make a flush DRAW which lets you often semi-bluff AND it lets you stick around to catch a K or 6 to accidentally win.
- Louie
page 175:
"In fact, if you are in a good, loose game, you are under the gun, and you choose to only raise with hands like big suited connectors that play well in multiway pots, there would be nothing wrong with that"
I am somewhat confused because of that statement in HFAP, because 1 or 2 weeks ago, when I wanted to know whether to raise with big pairs utg or to just call and check-raise the flop (because it´s now more likely that someone will bet) was the better play in no-fold´em, I think everyone who answered was strongly in favour of raising preflop. Then I find the above statement which is contradictory to the advice some of you gave me. Can someone help me out?
I think the section is talking about raising with big suited connectors as opposed to merely calling with big non-suited connectors (specifically A-Q). The advice is directed at your play in very loose games, where your raise will fail to cut down the field. With big pairs, you raise. Perhaps either Mason or David will verify this.
"For example if four people come in, you should play" K5s "You do this because:
1. Four people have come in 2. ... 3. ... 4. ..."
(this advice was given in the chapter "loose games")
I always thought suited hands play better if there are many people in the pot, and four seems too little in my opinion.
--> Question: Can someone explain mathematically why I only need four callers (not counting the blinds, I assume) to see the flop with Axs and Kxs?
Your chances of flopping a flush draw are similar to those of flopping a set. When added to the other beneficial flops for these hands you can call with that many players.
in the original version of HPFAP they devote almost an entire page to the play of "JJ" before the flop stressing that it does best against either a very small OR very large field, but loses alot of value against "exactly 3 or 4 callers" since with this number of opponents it is difficult to win without improvement but when you do improve there are not enough players left to allow you to extract maximum value; ( don't make the insane inferrence that i made as a beginner thinking that this hand does not play for profit against 3/4 - it plays for profit against any number, it just loses much of its value in this case.) while i am pretty sure that the author(s) were reccomending calling with Axs and Kxs if 4 OR MORE came tumbling in, it is possible that these hands may actually play best against EXACTLY 4 ( or 5 ) callers for reasons almost opposite of the "JJ" example if you get 6 or 7 callers you are almost going to hav to make your flush [or miracle full house] to win - you will often have a hard time making two-pair stand up, if you are lucky enogh to make two-pair, and one pair - even aces - with your weak if not non-existent kicker barely stands a chance. if on the other hand you make this button call with fewer than four callers in front of you, there is almost no payoff for completing your flush, you receive less than you deserve when you are able to make two-pair, and you are still in trouble if your final result is one pair ( with no kicker ) i still stand by the thought that the author was suggesting a large field for these hands - my own experience w/ace-rag suited has been and probably will always be "the more, the merrier", i just thought this alternate possibility might provide something to consider. perhaps someone out there has an oppinion on this - possibly even one of the authors, maybe the one who was recently complaining ( rather humorously, i thought ) about - - "having to do everything around here" best of luck with your flush draws.........
The point of the section was to show how your play is different in a loose game than it is otherwise. Specifically, if your opponents play badly, there is no pre-flop raise, and there are a bunch of callers in front of you, you can play a lot more hands from deep position than you would normally think, especially suited hands. Suited hands do play better with more rather than less opponents. By "four people come in", I assume the text means there are four limpers. This means that, if you play, most likely 7 people will see the flop. This is certainly many people. Even if there are only two callers, so that "four people come in" includes the blinds, this is still a pot with 5 players. If you play significantly better than your opponents, this can be a profitable situation.
15/30 Bellagio,fantastic game,Im in big bling with Ad/Jc,3 limpers + myself and my best poker buddy ,a tricky low/mid(15/30-30/60)limit pro in mid late position.5 see the flop Kd,Qd,Jd,I led bet,one fold to my buddy who raises,we lose the other two,I call,turn 2c,I check he bets I call,river 10c,I bet he raises and I folded.All I'll say is I put him on a small flush.Did I throw away half the pot,all of it,save 30,or just get flat outplayed?After the hand was over he said something about my Ace of d's, and only half the pot and that he was freerolling but he said it loud enough for everyone to hear which in our "poker lingo " ,might have been telling me I made a good laydown.
It's hard to imagine your buddy coming in with 10xdia with others to act behind him. Maybe 10 9 of dias but he would HAVE to slowplay the flop. I think since he is your buddy he knows you are capable of making a big laydown. I think he had A,10d and you gave away half the pot.
If you're going to fold to a raise on the river, you should check-call instead. It costs you the same number of bets, but gives you a shot at winning the pot. Of course, you have to think this through before you shove your chips out.
Personally, I would have check riased the turn and bet out the river - especially knowing there was no way he had the nut flush and only a tiny chance he had 109d. If I had played the turn the way you did I would have definitely checked and called the river.
Michael D (Soccer/Sucker Mike)
I don't quite understand your bet on the river. What hand would your buddy have called with that you could beat? The way you played it, I believe it would have been correc to check-call the river.
Call the raise you just gave away money by the way how many bets were in this pot. If there was more then 3 you gave up money. Sorry I am trying to be serious here.
There are very few good laydowns if any. This was poor river play on your part. The only reason to bet the river here is for value. If your opponent is a mid limit pro you must consider his play. I'm sure he considered yours. If there is a possibility that he can out play you then you must play him straight forward. If you can't call his raise don't bet here. Just check and call. BTW I might also consider betting or raising the turn with your hand. Again your opponent is the deciding factor here.
I have been playing in those games at Bellagio. I plan to play for a few more days. Look me up. Bald fat Italian with a white gotee.
Vince.
Bad play. Let's look at this differently. Your opponent knows you don't have a flush or straight by your previous actions. If he has a straight which is what I believe he had, his raise on the end is costing him nothing, and by doing so he has everything to gain and nothing to lose. The worst possible scenario he splits the pot and the best possible scenario he gets you to fold half the pot. If you bet on the end you have to be prepared to call a raise otherwise don't bet and just check and call. I think your friend being in the hand influenced the way you played.
Bruce
He had 8/7 of diamonds .It made sense on all streets.The pre limp,if he held Ac/10d he'd preflop raise to lower the # of opponents,kk,QQ,JJ,all raise ,small pairs limp but play different post flop,suited connectors play well here pre flop and the raise right away after the flop makes sense,once everybodys gone the turn plays itself,if i bet or ck. raise i get popped again (not a good thing),once the straight comes on the river the hands I can beat ,KQ,JQ,KJ,Q10,J10,sets etc.will not bet but might call. I bet knowing my friend knew I had the Ace of diamonds hence a straight and that Im supposed to call the raise,that made me lay it down.Also I dont like to call raises with the only chance being a chop.It was highly unlikely of a stone bluff raise here.Id like to thank my friend for sharing his hand with me ,we are always straight with each other,that being said Ill probably check call next time.
hi, i've been playing holdem for a couple of months now and logged 150 hours of playing so far and was wondering if my win rate now is a good indication of what i can expect to see or if there's a long way to go before it stabilizes? thank you.
After playing for a year you should be accurate to within one small bet per hour as to your win (or loss) rate.
I am an over-all winner but I'm sure I went 150 hours in a row with a loss EVERY hour. OK, maybe 130 out of 150.
Don't even THINK about it until 500 hours. 1000 hours is more realistic.
As Malmuth has more elegantly stated if solid players could win THAT consistently then weak players would LOSE that consistently, would lose heart and stop playing. Wild variences inherent in the games' structure let bad players win just often enough for them to keep coming back. This means good players will have considerable good and bad streaks.
- Louie
It will be about 2000 hours 1 year is not enough. Have fun and keep good records. This will give you an idea of whats going on.
Read Oz's article in the current Poker Digest: "Is your wallet fat enough?" It will thoroughly address your question.
...been a while since I posted anything, but I thought this was interesting...
In a shorthanded (6 players) no-limit home game with just one $0.50 blind, I am the second person after the blind with pocket J's. The game is pretty loose preflop and a little less loose postflop. All the players are moderately aggressive.
UTG calls the blind and I make it $1.50 - the guy behind me folds and everyone else calls. The flop comes 258o, total rags. I bet $3 and the next player makes it $5. Everyone else folds. This player is a good friend of mine and we both know each others' playing styles very well. He is a good player and very aggressive. I figure he most likely has some sort of overcards and I can trap him later as long as he doesn't hit anything.
a J comes on the turn. I'm sure he's going to bet so I decide to go for a check-raise. He bets $5 and I raise it to $15. He then re-raises to $25. Now, I'm pretty sure he doesn't have overcards anymore - I put him on a low set; so I have him dominated. I figure he puts me on a pair of jacks so I play it that way and just call.
The river is a blank. He has maybe $50 in chips left and I have like $30. I'm pretty sure he will bet so I decide to go for the check-raise all-in. I check and he checks...(damn!) He turns over AJ.
What would you have put him on? How would you have played this differently?
Sounds like the games that I've been playing in before moving up into the 3-6 holdem in the local indian casino.
I would've raised all in on the turn after he showed so much agression. I don't think he would've been able to lay down top pair, top kicker, unless he has a very very good read on you. [and an all in raise, depending on your character, can represent a bluff and he has what he may thing as a 'bluff catcher']
Like I've read from many of the posts here, slowplaying's a bitch. Just bet out.
btw, where do you play at? I'd like to drop by and lose a few dollars to you guys. I kinda miss the home games w/ like 20 dollar or so buy ins. [table stakes]
I'll be attending UCI this fall as a freshman, and LA isn't that far away. Alright man, later.
-Jon
with stacks that deep relative to the blind, you should be playing a lot of hands for a small raise. hands like 75 and A4. so your raise with JJ is a-ok. i would raise a little more. well, there is the blind and a caller to you, so including your call the pot is $1.50. a raise to $2 is a pot sized raise. i like to overbet the pot slightly preflop, so i would raise to $3.
on the flop it begins to get complicated. the pot is $10. a pot sized bet would have been a better move than a laughable $3. so you put him on overcards and thought you could trap him. trap him when? would you fold if a Q, K, or A fell? would you pay him off?
in any case, he raises your $3 bet by $2. (why'd jamie do that?) counting your call the pot would be $20. i count about $60 left in your stack and some more in his. i would have come over the top here all in. i know it is a considerable overbet, but you will not be able to fold to a reraise or a bet later after you raise $20 here. so you might as well get it all in at once.
the reason i reraise at all is that i don't want to have to fold to a big bet on an overcard which i will half to do a lot of the time when i do not reraise. that gives him a lot of outs. but i get rid of a lot of these outs if all my money is in the middle. i can't fold. so you see by betting you take away lots of his outs.
assuming you call his flop raise, you are of course very happy with the turn.
again he way underbets the pot, you way underraises the pot, and he way underreraises the pot. he bets $5 at $20. you raise $10 at $30. he reraises $10 at $50. this isn't limit. don't play it scared.
if it got to that point i would definitely come over his 3 bet all in. it still would be an undersized raise.
i hope that game is still going when i get out there.
scott
I would have tried to go all in on the flop, hoping for a fold.
The turn gives you a good shot to double through - you've check raised and he's re-raised - I'm wondering what you're waiting for. It looks like you may be pot building, which is normally a PL feature rather than a NL feature. I've played in NL games where the pot has to be nursed along in pot sized raises. Is this one of those?
After check raising on the turn, I don't think trying the same thing on the river has much point to it: it's not going to work. In fact, check raising the turn can be used as a play to show down a marginal hand for free.
By the way, the game sounds great. I don't see cheap NL games as a step down from 3-6, but as several steps above. 25 years ago it was the most prvelant form of hold 'em, but it's hard to keep the bad players from going broke too fast.
Stop underbetting the pot. We all understand the pot odds theory, I don't understand why you, Mark, and Craig keep making pansy-ass $1 bets into $200 pots. If you had been making reasonably sized bets, you probably could have doubled through.
Jacks aren't going to "trap" overcards. Take the pot down on the flop. At least put him all-in on the turn, for the love of God. If you really thought he had a set, does he strike you as the sort of player who'd lay it down?
on the river you just push your money out -- act like "oh well -- may as well" type thing. You got too cute. Other choice is to reraise on the turn.
Why does it matter what you put him on in this situation? What you have to ask yourself is how much he will call. He has shown aggression and already has his money in the pot. If he has a low set, get it all in there. I don't understand the check on the end. If he is such a good player he is probably not going to let you check-raise him twice and he didn't and you lost $30 by not betting.
When he reraises you on the turn, go all-in. He only had 50$ left and he was most likely pot committed. you had the upper hand and the pot was big, plus you only had 30$ left anyway, which he would almost certainly call.
Dave in Cali
Folks:
Two to three weeks ago I posted KJ suited for a raise. The substance of which was I called a strong tight-agressive player"s raise under the gun on the button with KJ suited. I was resounding critisized, justifiably so, for such move.
Todays game was 10-20. I am in the big blind with KJ of diamonds. Weak player limps under the gun. All fold to small blind who raises. SB is an equally tough tight-agressive sort who with 90% probability has AA or KK. On a few occassions he might show AK. I call the raise out of the big blind.
FLOP: Js, 3d, 2s
SB bets out, I raise, weak player calls, SB reraises, I cap.
*****When the SB reraises I know I am currently beat. I cap the betting because I want to disguise the nature of my hand, such that if I pick up any improvement on the turn, I raise the SB who is perfectly capable of mucking an overpair to the board if he beleives he is beat.
TURN: 9d
SB bets out, I raise, weak player folds, SB calls.
*****I make a four flush and proceed to semibluff, but SB calls much to my dismay.
RIVER: 4d.
SB checks, I bet, call. I win on diamond flush. SB shows AA.
The two areas I request comment are the call preflop and capping on the flop. Preflop I considered myself significantly undermanned, but called based upon 5-1 odds and better position than the SB. On the flop I committed 20 dollars when I knew I was beaten and potentially 40 dollars more to a semibluff strategy. The fact that I drew a flush is of no phylosophical importance. Any comments?
Frank Donnelly
From your narrative I get the impression if the sb was playing with his cards face up on the table you would have played the hand no differently.
Therefore according to the Theory of Poker which states that " .. . every time you play your hand the same way you would have played it if you could see all their cards, you win." you were destined to win.
Of course, the theory doesn't take into account someone with a death wish playing KJs for a raise against AA, capping it on the flop with top pair, backdoor flush draw into an overpair. Or does it?
Inquiring minds would like to know!!
All in all I think you overplayed your hand and came out to the good. Bravo!!
Frank:
If this player is so predictable that he would only raise here with AA, KK, or AK you should obviously fold before the flop. The fact that your cards are suited really doesn't add *that* much value in a 3 way pot, and you are dominated by any of his potential holdings.
The problem here is that if the SB is a good player, he could be raising with any number of hands. This is where your read of a player makes or costs you money. There are some good players I would call here. There are also many I would fold.
If I call and get this flop against the player you describe, I think I would be stuck just calling him down. Why raise a player who you believe has you beat?
Hello IRS FRank,
Let me be the first to respond here. First of all, just out of curiosity, who was the sb? - The reason I ask is that if he is a strong player and knows the utg player is extremely weak, he may raise with any number of hands to try and eliminate you and get the hand heads up. It just depends on how strong a player the sb is and if he is capable of making this move - thats why I am curious as to who it was.
In regards to your call pre-flop, if you knew for 80%-90% that he had AA, KK, or at worse AK, then you know your hand is completely dominated with poor drawing odds and I think you know the obvious answer is to muck. However, given the circumstances and the possibility that I may have believed him to be raising to eliminate me, I believe a call here or possibly even a reraise is in order. The reason a reraise may be in order if you are going to play the hand is to try and eliminate the utg limper and get best position throughout the entire hand without risking the limper catching a flop and you being caught in between a sb pre-flop raiser and a limper who happens to catch something. Either way, I think it depends on the players and their tendencies on wheter to reraise or to call. Personally, given the situation you described, I feel a muck is entirely in order.
On the flop, you are stuck. This is what happens when you call raises with weak holding such as KJs. You played it fine with the exception of the cap - not sure about the cap on the flop - Personally I would have called the reraise and then raised the turn if I thought he may lay down or at least check the river and allow me to check behind him unless I caught - although he bet into you on the turn anyway even after you capped the flop so you ended up making more money. But given the situation, you were playing right into his hands and he played it very well by betting into you and getting the most money in the pot when he definitely had the best of it. The only way I see your cap as functional is if you really feel you have the best hand, are trying to eliminate the limper, or will check the turn if the sb checks or if you feel the sb may fold on the turn if you bet - otherwise I feel the cap on the flop is probably an overplay of the hand.
Ok - just my thoughts - hope they help
Michael D (Soccer/Sucker Mike)
Soccer Mike:
SB was Matt.
After reading your post and the prior post, I clearly should have mucked preflop. I fell prey to that old siren "But I am getting pot odds!"
Frank Donnelly
Seems to me to fold preflop is wrong, w/pbly 5-1 on your call I think you could call w/a suited king! Unless the early limper will limpraise often I think the call on the flop is pretty clear, maybe one will add the proviso that "one has to play well on the flop and later streets."
If you think the SB will only raise w/AA, KK, AK he is a favorite to have AK, so your raise can't be that bad as you are a fav to have the best hand. When the other player cold calls and SB caps you should just call as you are getting 13-1 on your call, enough to try and hit your 2nd pair, trips, or backdoor flush.
Is the SB capable of laying down, would he have still played this hand this way if he had AK!? I doubt it so you should just call the turn, and actually hope the next player calls you want the weak player to call, since the SB seems to be saying he won't fold.
1) if the only possible hand the sb could have been holding was AA, your btf call would be clearly correct. however, since you were of the oppinion that KK or AK were both possible, folding would have been a better choice as either of these would leave you almost totally dominated. 2) i would not have capped the flop; doing so all but announces that you are putting on some kind of a "play". since i assume you wouldn't cap the flop with a set, ( and with that board you can't possibly sell him on two-pair ) i would have waited for the turn to raise - trying to move him off his hand. 3) if he is "capable of laying down an overpair if he thinks he is beaten", i don't necessarily think you need improvement to raise the turn - as long as the turn card is not an ace, i would probably take a swing ( now if i'm him i have to give serious thought to the possibility that you flopped a set ). if the turn is a queen he almost has to lay his hand down; from the way you played the hand, if you didn't have a set on the flop you might have just caught one. in sum, if his only possible hands are: AA, KK or AK calling btf is a is a mistake. but i agree with the previously expressed oppinion that under the circumstances he could have had quite a larger array of hands. that being the case i think you made a good call for a bad reason. fortunately for me i have NEVER made this mistake - at least not in the last three minutes. L.H.O.L * * laughing hysterically out loud Nice hand, good result, best wishes
You wrote:
"1) if the only possible hand the sb could have been holding was AA, your btf call would be clearly correct. however, since you were of the oppinion that KK or AK were both possible, folding would have been a better choice as either of these would leave you almost totally dominated."
Is this a typo? If not, can can you clarify? Wouldn't AA have KJ MORE dominated than AK? I understand you have more wins against AA than KK, but why would KJ prefer AA over AK?
Why does KJs prefer to be against AA vs KK? How will KJ win? a)by making two pair or, trips B) straight or a flush.
The only way KJs will beat KK when not making is straight or a flush is when the board is something like JJ xxx. If a K lands KJ is in huge troulbe.
But if KJs is against AA, KJ will win (not including straight or flushes) when the board is something like KJxyz, KK xxx, JJxxx. I would guess this is 10 times as many good boards if not more.
Re-read both posts. clf-NY stated you would rather take KJ against AA that AK. This was my question.
I thought I asnwered this q. See aug 8 1 18 am post.
Semi-bluff would be more convincing if you called the 3-bet and THEN raised the turn. 4-betting looks a lot like a "free card" play. It would also be a LOT more convincing if you WOULD 2-bet right away if you had flopped a small set ..err.. if the SB believes you would.
Few players will lay down over-pairs short handed, and rightfully so; so I would frown upon the 4-bet.
"The fact that I drew a flush is of no phylosophical importance." Well, it sure IS psycologically important. Getting outdrawn by a flush is a LOT more annoying when the bone-head raised with the draw, and is one of the MAIN reasons to raise hopelessly with a draw: some players will be on tilt the rest of the night.
- Louie
Frank,
I haven't read all the other posts. But you say:
"*****When the SB reraises I know I am currently beat."
And you knew he 90% had AA or KK pre-flop.
If I knew someone had AA or KK preflop, and I had KJs, I would fold. If I knew my KJ (J32 with one of my suit) were dominated by AA or KK on the turn I would fold. You are a gigantic underdog who got lucky getting perfect runner runner turn and river.
He is not going away with his AA or KK.
Excellent post, and congrats on the win, but you should fold when you know you are beat, not raise someone who you know will stay in.
Mark
This is a gray area for me so please give me some help. When is it best to go for a raise on the river? Here's a hand I played on the button. I cap the pot with AA The flop comes Ah-Kh-6d original better bets out. (It's heads up) Is this a good time to wait till the river to raise? I'm concerned about the flush.
I hope that is not how you would play a flopped set of aces because if so your game and approach to limit poker has a lot of room for improvement. In a capped pot with a set of aces or for that matter even just an overpair of aces I would tighten up my seatbelt and open up the throttle. You clearly have the best possible hand and you are up against multiple draws in all likelyhood. Anytime there is an ace on the flop there are straight draws and there is also a flush draw. From the flop on I would be raising and reraising as much as I possibly can. You have the best possible hand and you need to charge the draws as much as possible. This is not Omaha where you can flop a set and still be an underdog. Waiting until the river to raise makes absolutely no sense and you do not get the value you deserve with top set plus you may also allow backdoor draws to get there.
Bruce
You bet, raise, and reraise like the maniac you often see to your right in a 3-6 game.
When you bet, and this guy raises, and you raise back, and he raises back, and you raise back, and he raises back, then you should start having an orgasm from seeing all that money in the pot eventually in front of you.
Capped pre flop and better bets out...he can have kk, or ak, or something crappier....either way, you have him DOMINATED and his chances of catching miracle cards to beat you is slim like jim's beef jerky.
later.
-jon
(1): "When is it best to WAIT until the river to raise?" When you are sure you can get in only one raise, the opponent is not going to fold before the river, the opponent is going to BET including the river incluyding when he is bluffing, and there are significant cards that will make you wish you had NOT raised at all. There is also the case where you fear a re-raise so you wait until the river since he won't reraise you then.
In your example it would be a "disaster" to wait until the river to raise. Raising now disguises your hand, and you have the potential to get multiple bets in now and the turn (you raise, he calls. He check-raises the turn and you 3-bet. If you call then raise the turn he may get suspicious and flat call since it looks like a slow play).
(B) "When is it best to raise on the river?" Well, with a good but not great hand and potential callers behind you then routinely go for the over-call. In the same situation with a weak hand you MAY raise to discourage an overcall. You should raise more liberally when the opponent is NOT going to reraise you since you know he does NOT have the nuts. You do NOT need the nuts to raise after a couple callers so long as THEY WOULD have raised with a great hand: in affect you are only conserned with the better. Since the pay-off is so high (3:1) I am MORE likely to raise after aggressive players have called than if just heads-up.
- Louie
How can you be worried about a flush? If he's jamming pre-flop, he's most likely got AA, KK, QQ, or AK, right? The flop and your hand eliminate AA, and I can't see betting into that flop with QQ. He's got KK or AK, in which case you want to get as much money in as possible. I can see waiting until the turn to raise, if you think that you'll get more bets out of him that way, but I don't think I'd wait. If he has KK or AK, he loves this flop. He'll probably raise you back. He wants to get his money in there. Do everything you can to encourage him.
If he's capable of jamming pre-flop with QJ of hearts or something, fabulous. You still have to make the draws pay. I really don't think he can have any hearts, let alone two. In any case, I don't see how you can not raise.
It is well documented that expert limit holdem players win at a rate of approximately one to one and a half big bets an hour. I was wondering how players win rates vary when playing shorthanded? Intuitevely I would think that a good players win rate would be increased in a short handed games as more hands are played per hour and shorthand play allows a good player to play more hands. However this would be balanced against the increasing factor of the rake. Interested to hear peoples views.
Hi Richard, I have played a lot of short-handed and head-up poker over the years, but unfortunately I only have data from Jan.99-present. 20-40 overall win rate is 1.07 bets/hr. Head-up 4.85 bets/hr. 30-60 overall win rate is 0.48 bets/hr. Head-up 3.22 bets/hr. Two things you should know: I usually will not play head -up unless the rake is free. I am doing the room a favor trying to keep a game alive so I don't feel guilty asking to play free. Also, I give the incoming dealer $5 for his/her entire down. These numbers could be way off because it only accounts for 1600 total hours(87 head-up). Nevertheless, it is my opinion that head-up is worth at least 3X what you can make in a full game. I would expect that with 3-5 players the number to shoot for would be two big bets, though I have no numbers to back this up. One thing I learned the hard way though - pick your spots. It should only take a few minutes to realize if your opponent/s are capable of playing well "short". If they are-you're gone! Also, if you get off to a poor start-pack it in. Image is critical short-handed. I like to lay down almost everything in the first 5 minutes so that when I do start playing - they will assume I have something. Go get 'em!! Mike
If you have a minute. Please check the Beginner's Questions and clarify some points in the thread that begins "LL Hold'em" about 12 ftom the top. TY
ratso
so jim is the 'higher source.'
while i respect jim and his opinions, i know poker pretty well. when jim and i disagree (which is not all that rare.) i am sometimes left standing after the dust clears. of course, sometimes so is he. sometimes we both are and sometimes neither of us survives the melee.
in any case, jim will agree with me here. i know this because we have had a couple of deep discussions about small pairs. while calling limpers in the sb never came up per se, the fact that we were arguing about raising limpers from the bb and calling raises in the sb and calling 3 bets cold (with several opponents) on the button leads me to believe he'll agree with me on one.
scott
scott, you now are beginning to sound like my father (well, well, well)
actually, jim is not the higher source to which i refer, but i thought i'd take advantage of his thinking since he represents some of the higher limit players. my sources will be from 2 pro players who play 5/10, 10/20 and 15/30 at the taj in ac. (hey i like this small caps stuff) and do not have "real" jobs. they never tell me what they earn, but they drive new decent cars and have nice homes in the suburbs of ac (longport, absecon) and their kids are in colleges. i have copied the thread to a wp and will talk about with them in 2 weeks when i am down there.
i appreciate the discourse. learning can be a painful process. if you do get to ac and i can find you and niels, i'll be happy to buy you guys a drink like a pepsi or something.
ratso
Pepsi sucks. They bought our highschool a cheap ass scoreboard in exchange for the removal of all Coca-Cola machines from the premises.
I used to not drink Pepsi because it tasted bad. Now not only do I not drink Pepsi, but I refuse to eat at Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, or KFC.
Right on Niels. I do not go to those places either. Only the best for you and scott. I know a good pizza place that sell some coca cola (my preferred non alcoholic drink). At least 2 good places in AC for pizza and a 3rd that Ray Zee mentioned if it is still there at Resorts.
Or come visit us at Turning Stone. We'll be there from the 16-21st this month. The LL games there are unbelievable. And I believe they serve Coke products, even if their pizza is awful. (On par with grease-covered cardboard.)
sorry, i didn't meant 'well, well, well.' i meant 'welliky, welliky, welliky' to be said in a homer simpson voice.
of course, you can and should learn about the game any way you can. but this is not a borderline issue. whether and how much i win or niels wins or these pros win is not important. some simple thought experiments show pairs to be extremely profitable in this situation.
scott
Good lord, scott and niels you guys should be doing more than answering me on what amounts to "live" talk. get away from that computer and go skate boarding or surfing; even a trip to a mall to check out the babes or take a bus to the casino.
I am getting paid quite well sit at my terminal and to piss off on this forum.
Seriously, I appreciate your input and take it seriously. I am a good listener. That is probably why I win consistantly but not tons of money. My variance is quite low.
You have very strong writing skills. [just wanted to let you know that]
Ok, have a nice day. Bye bye.
-jon
[did u pass the AP eng/lit test?]
ok, later.
[referring to scott]
i noticed your 'in any case' whenever you moved onto a new topic. [i like to use that phrase myself]
not to mention your 'per se'
see, school does pay off. higher education makes a person a better speaker/writer.
ok, later.
-jon
3-6, loose/passive. 2 solid players to my left, guy w/ smoke coming out of his ears two seats to my right. everyone else ho hum and passive.
i'm in the seat to the right of the button [is this cutoff?] anyways, 3 limp in and I raise because I'm 'supposed' to have the best of it right now... Limpers call.
flop is A-6-9 rainbow.
checked around to me, i bet. [is it usually mandatory to bet out when one raises pre flop to show no weakness?]
two players call.
turn is rag.
checked to me, i bet.
lady across has been calling without looking at her cards, i figure she has the ace. person to her left folds, now heads up.
river is a blank.
she checks, i check, pretty much knowing that i won't get her to fold.
she shows ace-4 off and takes the pot down.
did i lose one too many bb? what do you guys do when there are overcards to your high pocket pairs in a game described such as this?
thank you very much, and have a nice day. bye bye.
-jon
good raise pre-flop.
i like the flop bet, but for the following reason : the lady may bet the turn if the flop gets checked around, assuming no one has an ace. In other words, you bought yourself a free card on the turn and then charged yourself to see the river. Yes, you cost yourself a big bet. When AK or Q comes, consider JJ to be a drawing hand in this game and play accordingly.
Basically, the same people who will play Axo are the same people that will call it down when their ace hits.
mth
In other words, you bought yourself a free card on the turn and then charged yourself to see the river.
That is certainly true, but you don't necessarily want to be giving any free cards yourself. With two opponents on the turn someone could have KQ, T8s for the gutshot draw, K6s, and a whole lot of stuff that can potentially beat you if you check but will fold if you bet. Not saying that checking behind is necessarily wrong, as it has its merits, but against your average calling station (which this woman appears to be, showing down A4o), the turn bet can easily be for value and hence correct.
you are right about wanting to charge (K9 K6 Q6 Q9) and gutshots to play. One has to figure, though, that with two people calling the flop bet, at least one of them has an ace. Possibly even going for a check-raise on the turn after hero raised pre-flop, and bet the flop. I still don't think I'd bet.
Also, who knows what that turn card was. He says rag. Well, flop was A69. He would have mentioned a KQ. It wasn't a jack or a 4. That leaves T875, all of which could have set up a check-raise, by a made straight (some more likely than others). a 2 or 3 makes a bet more sensible.
Still, the tendency for players in a loose low limit game to stay with any ace makes a check on the turn my play.
mth
I don't agree that with two people calling the flop bet that one of them necessarily has an Ace. I do agree that exactly what rag the turn was should be factored into the decision of either betting or checking the turn. Also, I would be more inclined to bet pocket jacks on the turn than pocket queens or kings as there are more overcards to the jacks that could lose the pot on the river.
By the way, just to the right of the button is indeed "cut-off" and no, don't feel obligated to bet the flop after raising pre-flop. You should bet more often than not because the reward of winning the pot right there if greater than if there was no raise pre-flop, but your opponents also realize they are getting greater odds for their call.
You DEFINATELY must not routinely bet into a field just because you were the pre-flop raiser. Doing so vrs 2-3 opponents is a different matter. One advantage of raising pre-flop is to take free cards ON the flop vrs "check-to-the-raiser" types.
I may be tempted to take one stab at it, but as you say the Ax is going to show the hand down.
- Louie
Hmmm, interesting, I'll definately take that into consideration. I was getting tired of betting for the passive players, only to have them call me down with a higher pocket pair or what not.
I always thought that 'i can't show weakness' was something to abide by, esp when you show strength pre flop...i think saving money would be a better thing. =)
okay, thanks. have a nice day. later.
-jon
Tight 2-4 game (at most 1-3 "bad" players who will call with 97off, A4off, etc).
What are your opinions on calling with these hands? I first list the situation and hand, then how I acted in that situation recently:
1. KQsuited UTG. I called.
2. AJoffsuit two from UTG, fold to me. I called.
3. 98suited 4 from button, two limpers. I called.
4. AKoffsuit on big blind, 3 limpers and SB to me. I raised.
5. JToffsuit in late position, 3 callers to me. I called.
I know these are at best questionable calls/raises, and I would like some feedback. I am trying to plug leaks in my game. What should the standards be for these hands? Thanks!
You are tighter than David Sommer's jeans.
Well, the reason I don't think this is playing too tight is because most of the time with these hands, you won't flop something great, or will get beaten. With AJ, you want to flop and Ace. It seems many times I get a J only to lose to a Q or K... also 98 and JT are obvious.
With AJ you want to flop a Jack. You have a big pair with an Ace kicker. That is a stronger hand than a pair of Aces with Jack kicker esp. in a raised pot.
Bruce
Thanks, that's true! I was thinking if the flop is KQJ or KJx or QJx...
Here's my 2cents:
1)Either call or raise.
2)With 2 passing I would enter with a raise esp. with the game being tight where you will thin the field.
3)Call or pass. If by calling you think you will create a large family pot then fine, but if it's going to be a shorthanded pot and with action still behind you passing might be preferable.
4)Raising or calling is fine.
5)Calling is OK if you don't think it will be raised.
Bruce
I would pass both 3 and 5 if the game is tight aggressive. If it's tight passive, I would still pass 3 but call 5.
Haven't read the other posts, but this is my take:
1) KQs UTG I call
2) AJ I call and occasionally raise depending on players behind.
3) 98s I muck
4) AK in BB with 4 opponents I raise 20% of the time.
5) J10o I would muck here unless callers before were loose players and blinds almost never raise.
Overall, none of your plays were that questionable. You will have to look elsewhere for the big leaks.
1. KQs raise some, call some, fold if you have a tell somewhere. 2. AJo raise, occasionally fold. 3. 98s call 90%, fold 10% never raise. U want a big field. 4. AK raise 80%, call 20%. With the odds in your favor (4-1 vs. 2-1 that you'll hit), get that money in there, the hell with deception at 2-4. 5. JT mostly call, rarely fold, occasionally raise for variance.
Played yesterday and got killed. First hand pocket Js, one A flops, pair of Aces win. Got pocket Qs cracked twice and pocket Ks cracked once. I did take one pot with AKs, but did not improve! I have never seen so many straights made with hands I would not consider playing. I feel like I got bad cards all day and maybe mediocre hands began to look good to me. Does being patient in this game mean only playing 3 or 4 hands per hour? Maybe I am "unlucky", because based on the cards I got yesterday, that's about the number of hands I should have seen. By the way, "killed" was $240
I think the "maybe mediocre hands started to look good to me" part is what you want to look at.
P.S. How long did you play your pocket J's after the overcard hit, if it was to the river and it cost you bets then that is something to look at as well.
To make you feel better...
I had pocket jacks, [played agressively btf, on flop, on turn] and lost to A4 off. [ace flopped]
i had pocket kings, only to run into a solid player's trip aces on the turn. [capped pre flop, capped on flop, i check called the turn when the ace hit and paid the dude off]
my queens ran into aces held by a passive lady who did not re raise btf, and on the flop when low cards hit. though i lost the minimum thanks to her passive play, i lost nonetheless.
i was up for the session, about 280, in a 3-6 loose/passive, sometimes agressive game. most of that came from drawing hands that i played with regard to position and the number of players, and was fortunate enough that they hit against those who had top pair. i bet and raised when i had the best of it, and tried to get away from hands when i didn't, or just paid them off when i had those pocket pairs mentioned earlier.
this is, however, a 3-6 loose game, and that said, pocket pairs need all the luck in the world to hold up against a field of hungry drawers. 5-10 should hopefully be a little more tight, but then again, it's the players who make the table.
i've seen some sorry ass players who just plain sucked go to the 4-8-12 and 8-16 tables. that's scary. it's all about game selection. if i had the funds and and more experience, i would've followed them there like a lost puppy. [or a better analogy, i would have followed them there like a boy sprung on a girl]
i personally like to find games where there aren't too many people with huge stacks of chips in front of their faces, nearly blocking their vision.
alright, i have to get back to configuring this computer. later.
-jon
If you have pocket jacks in a loose game and an Ace falls on the flop, you check. If there is a bet, throw your hand away unless there are about 20 small bets in the pot, then you have the pot odds plus implied odds you need to see the turn. You also need to be sure no one will raise any bet made. You need to be last to act to be sure no one will raise unless there are only calling stations behind you. In a loose game, many players play Ace-anything. If you play the flop as described above and don't catch a jack on the turn, check and fold to any bet. Are you aware of pot odds and the odds for catching one of the two remaining jacks (22:1)? If not, study, study, study.
The same applies to the queens and kings. It takes experience to know to throw away pocket kings. I have thrown them away many times. I learned the hard way on this. Ace on board, players betting and calling or raising. What else could they have but at least a pair of Aces? Those kings look so good, but they are practically worthless. A 22-1 shot against a made pair of Aces. Throw them away the same as described for the jacks. If there is no Ace showing, but straight possibilities, flush possibilities or a pair on the board or two or three of these possibilities showing, and there are several people betting and calling the turn and river, some one has hit it and you are beaten. This is the nature of low limit poker.
Money goes from the impatient to the patient. Hang in there.
nt
I would like to talk about a previous post on the merits of KJs in the BB when the SB raises, but from the SB's perspective. In this situation the SB had AA. This player was me.
To those that have read Frank's post, you already know the details of the hand and how it played out.
What I am asking for are some thoughts on my play with AA from the SB. I will share mine, and would like to know if people feel that my thinking at any point in this hand is flawed. Or if in your honest opinion I simply was going to lose this hand. I would also like to know in response if anyone makes the laydown on the turn. My thoughts follow.
I raise preflop to eliminate the BB. I do not want him having a free draw with weak cards. I respect the player who is currently in the BB and am fairly confident that he will fold most hands to my raise. The limper in this hand is a weak player and if he even gets a small piece of the flop, chances are I will get paid off on the hand.
The BB calls my raise. When the flop comes, and I am raised and reraised I truly believe that this player is on a spade draw. Frank is a relentlessly aggressive player with a top draw or big pair. (this is meant as a compliment to Frank). I also think that the only hand Frank has that may beat me is JJ. I think with 22 or 33 he folds preflop. (I will not even bother to mention J2 or J3). I bet out and am raised on the turn. This made me pause and reconsider JJ, but I still think the draw is most likely. My thought is still 75% belief that I hold the best hand and should not fold. If the flop possessed more scare cards to me, I WILL lay this hand down. I as a rule do not get married to a hand, and will fold if I think I am beat. I simply did not think so on this hand. Is this thinking flawed??
Of course, I do lose this hand when the BB fills the back door diamond draw to a hand that was top pair 2nd kicker. I lost 120 on this hand. Should I have folded the turn when the BB represented a set? Could I reraise and make it 60 on the turn if I really believe I have the best hand? I was disappointed but not tilted by the outcome of this hand. However I would like to know if there are players who would play it different than I. All responses appreciated. Thanks.
The BB figures to be getting 5:1 on his pre-flop call if the limper is truly a weak player and will always call but never re-raise. Right or wrong, most players consider this sufficient odds to call with any pocket pair. I'm not saying you should have folded, but you seem only concerned with JJ and no other possibility of a set. So something to ask yourself would be, would you have folded if you thought 22 or 33 were an additional possibility?
It also strikes me as strange that neither of you bother to refer much to this weak player in your posts,discounting him as if he were a potted plant beside the flop. Weak or not, this guy called $20 cold twice on the flop! He DOES have some bearing on both of your hands... If he has spades, this slightly reduces the chance of the BB having a spade draw. (Would this increase your read for a set?) And if the BB has the spade draw with him, it reduces the outs for both of them. If the weak player has a jack, then there is 1 less out for the BB. (although he may not need it to beat the weak player, this extra out comes in handy to beat you). Also, weak players can flop sets too! Some of these things should be taken into consideration by both you and the BB. As Mike D. would say... Just some thoughts.
Mat
You played the hand perfectly. When Frank raised he put a power move on you that backfired when you called the raise and even though this might give you pause to rethink i would definitely call the raise and make the crying call on the river. You got your money in on the turn when you were a big favorite,better than 4-1, and Frank was a big dog. You can't be results orientated in poker you have to strive to get your money in when your getting the best of it and let the luck factor take care of itself. Frank got lucky by hitting his hand and i doubt if he had to do it over again he would play his hand this way since he was getting the worst of it throughout. I'll be there Wednesday at Hollywood hope to see you. Good luck Ice.
Kevin:
You are very correct to say that the weak player should not be discounted. However, he folded to Frank's raise on the turn, so my decision to fold, call, or raise the action on the turn was vs. one player. But yes I do believe that even then I need to consider what he laid down. I do not believe he would have folded either the spade or diamond draw, nor the top pair for that matter. So at this point he becomes inconsequential. (This is easy to say now in hindsight, but he probably held the A-spades and was looking for either runner-runner flush or perfect-perfect to the wheel straight). If this player were to have raised on either the flop or turn, a fold on my part would have been easier. (btw I used some of your phrasology in my original post, hope you don't mind my borrowing it).
I've re-thought what you have to say about the possibilty of a set other than JJ. Because of the addition of other players in this hand, you are right, the BB would have the odds to call with any pocket pair. I need to consider that in the future. Thanks for the input. I always think your insight is well thought out.
Since you already knew that I thought you played it perfect, I always like to play the devil's advocate and throw out more things if only to confuse myself.
I think you played the hand very well and find no fuzzy thinking. You had way the best of it on the flop, but unfortunately for you Frank got lucky and caught runner runner and to add insult to injury he played the hand super agressively so you lost the maximum. Them are the breaks of the game. In a shorthanded situation when you have an overpair against an agressive player contemplating a fold on the turn when raised is dangerous for your bankroll.
Bruce
Folks:
I have watched a particullarly skilled player isolate weak players on hands before the flop successfully now for about one and a half years. My question is how weak a hand should be used to make this move under the following scenarios.
Weak A: Calls 75% of the flops. Plays meekly and will not raise unless he has near nuts. Routinely calls all the way to the river with second or third pair. You would love to bet into this player on the river with top pair and a good kicker. Preflop raises are all genuine.
Weak B: Calls 40 to 50% of all flops. Quite agressive when in possession of a real hand. His favorte play is to bet into the turn or raise the turn with a four flush or a four straight. Will call with second or third pair to the river, and often will call the river. You also would love to bet into this player on the river with top pair and good kicker, but will not get quite as may calls as Weak A.
The benefits to attempting to isolate these types are as follows:
!. Heads up play on these inferior sorts on many, many occassions. 2. The isolator is given a loose raiser image to those who can not figure out what he is doing (and Beleive me when I say there are handfulls of otherwise skilled players who do not read what the isolator is doing.) He earns many additional calls down the road.
The major drawback is an increased variance.
Now I have seen the Isolator do this with ATo, Axs, KTo, and QTo. How deep can one go into Sklansky's hand groups to successfully isolate? My presumption to this question is that the weak players behind the flop action will not call two cold, and that the strong players will not have such a read on the isolator that they will routinely make it three bets. Thanks for any input you may have.
Frank Donnelly
I believe this type of isolation will come almost naturally in low limit games. If you subscribe to the Lee Jones starting hand theory, there is not much raising by you before the flop. Many of your hands are not exposed by a preflop raise and you are getting maximum bets in the pot by additional callers. When the flop suits you and you have the lead such as top pair or overpair, bet. These type of players will pay you off with second or third pair. That is the bread and butter of low limit holdem. I don't believe it is a particular starting hand(s) that initiates the isolation, it is the fact that you have have the lead with the hand you played.
Mark:
Just to further define the scenario, these weak players line up side by side in a 20-40 game every thursday which, with the exception of these players, is a very tough game.
Frank
Different question. I don't play at this limit and would be interested in what the experts think.
Isolating weak players is likely more effective in middle limit games than lower. In lower, the other players will come in for cold raises thus minimizing any value of isolating.
In middle limit games that are somewhat solid, the better players take turns trying to isolate. Since we are talking about raising with less than premium hands, this should be done in later position to reduce the reraise by the observant good players or those who wake up with very premium hands.
I prefer to try and isolate around two to one off the button. Take a peak to my left to see if anyone looks like they are getting ready to put chips in play.
Finally, if I do isolate but miss the flop, I need to determine if the player is likely to call me down. If so, shut down and dance the next one.
I think this is a great question. Since there's not a whole lot of response so far, I'll take a stab at a partial answer. Maybe once better players start responding they can clear any misconceptions I have.
I think you should use a big card theory when isolating. Not AK, AQ, per se, but cards which may win a showdown if unimproved. I think it's also important that your kicker can play when both you and your opponent make a 2nd or 3rd pair hand.
Against a weak player who plays any ace, you can isolate with hands like A9o or A8o. Not only because you likely have the better ace, but if you both make a 9 or 8 you figure to have the better kicker. Against a player who plays any suited king or queen, you can try isolating with hands as weak as KJ,KT or QJ,QT. I think the lower you go, the more important that you have control over your opponent. You want him checking to you. You want him to be the passive type who will let a critical free card fall that lets you back into a win. Of course, all this goes without saying that you are mindful of your position and the tendencies of the players behind you.
I once found myself sitting on the immediate left of a very good player who was isolating the weaker players every chance he got (same player?). I was well aware of what he was doing and was becoming quite frustrated after 3 solid hours of him pounding me off of every playable hand I was dealt. I decided to take a stand. I started 3-betting him. After doing this a few times, I was rather proud of myself. I thought I had arrived at an ingenious plan until I realized I had overlooked one key element... I was NOT good enough to outplay him after the flop! So it was back to mucking my normaly profitable hands.
Hi Frank,
I'm new to hold'em, but you asked for any input.
Frank asked, "How deep can one go into Sklansky's hand groups to successfully isolate?”. IMO you're asking the wrong question. The real question is how can you best maximize your win rate using these insights into your opponents play. 1) Isolate the bad players yourself. 2) Lower your requirements to call a raise by this player when they are trying to isolate. 3) Improve your reading of the isolator's hands depending on the players in the pot. 4) Do not go to war with isolator when they are trying to isolate. You want to benefit from these insights, not stop the isolator. 5) Gain an image as a loose raiser. Bet more for value and bluff less. 6) Seating at the table will significantly impact on how you apply this insightful information.
Additionally, I suspect that the isolator has preflop tells against at least the weak players. The isolator is doing more than simply adjusting his hand grouping requirements for a raise. This player might be better than you suspect.
Why is an increased variance a drawback? Are you playing on small bankroll? The objective should be to maximize your win rate.
Have a Great Day!!!
You'd like to isolate the first of the two players you describe more than the second. Aside from maniacs, weak, predictable, readable opponents are among those you'd most like to isolate. The hands you mention as well as others are all fine for it under the right circumstances (Considerations include position, tendencies of players behind you, your current image...) I'll be lazy and just say see an essay of Roy Cooke's (in his book) called "Playing Loose Correctly" for more.
I don't see really the point in isolating an agressive opponent. What you want is a passive predictable opponent. Tight or loose is unimportant. Of course you need to be heads-up. I would raise "liberally" to isolate only on the button or in the cutoff with almost certainty nobody else would play.
Of the hands you've listed, it's logical to isolate with the big cards. But as we've discussed here recently, Ace-small suited is NOT one of the hands that would be considered an "isolation" hand. You can also throw out the K-small hands (suited and unsuited).
I don't believe the poster is talking about 3-betting to isolate (the subject of the recent discussion as I recall). He's just talking about a single raise. Axs should be perfectly acceptable for this as long as other variables are right for it. I think there's even an example of isolating a weak player with Axs in HPFAP. I agree about Kx and probably Kxs.
To David and Mason:
While going over your HPFAP 21st Century edition, Appendix A: Probabability, page 309, I have noticed that your foot notes are incorrectly crossreferenced. Thus, in the Table of Probability of Completing Hands, it stands:
No. of Outs Percentage
15 54.1 (3)
9 35.0 (1)
8 31.5 (2)
(1) Straight flush dray (2) Flush dray (3) Straight draw
The correct order of footnote references under the "percentage" colums above should read (1), (2) and (3). Your earlier HPFAP had it right.
Congratulations!!!!
You are the One Millionth person to point out that error. Johnny, tell him what he's won!!!
I actually know the guy who was the first one,to point out that error to Mason. I just wish I had had the foresight to "Linda Tripp"(tape record) the conversation.That sound of shock and amazement would have fetched high dollar for Gary Carson's listening pleasure :-)
That disclaimer they put in the front, about not worrying about english (the Shakespeare section), gives them their out...
Can anyone tell me if it would be worth it to purchase this software? Is the computer challenging enough for the in game win rates to be fairly accurate? Its pretty expensive for me to purchase right now but I will if you guys recommend it. Thanks a lot.
JCG
It is a must.
I think this software is worth having. The key is to use it correctly and not jump to conclusions. Determining your win rate? Probably useless. All lineups are pretty easy to beat. And they only get easier as you pick up on their tendencies. But there are other ways this software can improve your game. Becoming proficient at counting bets, recognizing different flop textures, and so on. If the software does nothing else but increase your patience by showing you how bad bad can get, (you can play a 10 hour session in about 20 min.)it is worth many times it's price. I'm not a math expert, but I know many use this software to run simulations. You just have to be careful in interperating the results. Hope this helps.
I will tell you this I bought this software one month ago. prior to that i was winning 65% of the time now i will say atleast 85% of the time.it will pay for itself in less than two weeks.
Has anyone compared Wilson's Turbo with Acespade's holdem program?
Yes, there was an Acespade Hold'em Pro review about a year back on rec.gambling.poker, but the reviewer is known to be manic-depressive.
---
Izmet Fekali (life sux and then you die)
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
No, really, I was. 15-30 I had K8c. three callers to the SB who raised. SB was a very loose, maniac type. he raised. I've played many hours with the SB, and the chances were good that he held less than my hand. He'd raise sometimes if the lights flickered.
Anyway, I called, as did everyone else, and the flop came AJT with the A J of clubs. SB bet I called as did one of the late limpers.
turn was an offsuit 7. sb bet, I raised.
was this raise called for? I had the nut flush draw and a double gut-shot straight draw. SB plays some bad cards, but he is willing to lay down hands that he thinks he's bet on. the late limper hasn't seemed that interested in the pot. and seems like he's calling by rote. I figure a draw or a weak ace.
results to follow.
Late limper re-raised. SB thought about it long and hard and called. uhoh. I called.
I still had my flush and straight outs (minus the ten and seven of clubs) if he had a set or two pair, all of my outs if he had a pair and a flush draw, the queens and the flush draw if he had 89 (plus the nines for a split), or the queens for a split and the flush if he had broadway. In addition, the SB's call kind of indicated AK or AQ (he'd raise with these, off suit or not in the blind.) Hell, I've seen him raise with 6-3 suited UTG!!
Anyway, I figured I had a lot of outs, but I wasn't sure which were clean (with the exception of the nut outs)
river was beautiful club. I gave some thought to a checkraise, but decided against it. the late limper was a tight prop who probably wouldn't have bet into the flush, even with a straight.
I got one caller and, of course, took down the pot.
comments?
If you raise the flop you can fold out gutshots and therefore make a king a possible out for you. Aces and open enders will call your double bet and thats okay because of your strong draw. I think you raised on the wrong street.
Hmm depends on the players, if the SB is a loose raiser and the rest of the field may fold you may want to make it 3 bets befor the flop though this is a very volitale play if it works (everyone folds, and SB is weak that is great, however if a few call or someone reraises this play has certinaly backfired!(
I wouldn't want to raise on the flop as I want many callers.
I wouldn't raise on the turn unless I thought there was a decent chance I could pick it up there and not sure this is likely. I think you would like to call and induce the people behind you in.
The first step to recovery is to be honest with yourself. Admit it you were under the gun. We know. It wasn't you, it was the evil god of flickering lights that made you do it. Its ok. The truth shall heal you. Anyway...jokes aside, I personally think you played it very well on all streets given your read of the opponents. The raise on the turn is potentially highly profitable even as a pure bluff, given your read of the sb and the late limper(although u had him wrong but hey, live by the sword die by the sword.) Then, of course, by definition, the semi-bluff is better. Well it worked out; well played. Now next time I am under the gun with K8suited guess...hmmmm.
"SB was a very loose, maniac type. He'd raise sometimes if the lights flickered."
This is my new favorite line! I love it... I have immediately incorporated into my poker lexicon (repetoire?). Of course I will give you due credit for it (unless you borrowed it from someone else)
Aw, hell... I'll just use it and pretend I made it up!
Thanks for the laugh; I spit Diet Coke all over my keyboard (gotta get out the Q-tips now), but it was worth it.
Mike D.
that's what happens when your read marlow and chandler sometimes instead of sklansky, malmuth and zee.
Posted by: 2d (matti2d@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 1:01 p.m.
When is it proper to defend a big blind against a late position raiser who has entered the pot with a raise? Assume that everyone after the raise including the small blind has folded...what sorts of hands do you call the raise with? Finally, what if the small blind has called? How does that change which hands you choose to defend?
All help and suggestions will be greatly appreciated. Also, I am assuming that the raise would not have occurred except for the fact that the player is late position first in.
Iowa Matt:
In the situation you describe, I will call from the BB with group 6 hands. The raiser may be going as deep as group 8 hands to steal, but there is still the possibility he has a premium holding. Also, I look only to the big card group 6 hands, I want to be able to win a high card showdown.
My strategy would not change if the little blind called since he would also recognize the steal and come in with lesser hands. If the SB smelled a steal and had anywhere from a group 1 to group 4 hand I would expect a raise to isolate the stealer. Therefore a SB call indicates a fairly weak hand.
As Soccer Mike says "Just my thoughts."
Frank Donnelly
In response to FD's response, I think your analysis of how to play the *SB* in this situation is excellent. (Better than I can come up with. Thanks.) But don't you think the first part of your response depends more on how you read the raiser than to sticking with a set play. I gather from S&M that the better a player you become, the more flexible you can be when using their hand groupings. Please comment.
Dax.
Greetings,
Here are few hands where I think I misplayed these hands. I think I gave my opponent too much credit in all three cases. Any general tips on thinking in these (somewhat) shorthanded pots would be greatly appreciated.
1) I open in midpositon w/ raise holding AcQc, next player cold calls the rest fold.
Flop comes
7h 8 c 9 c. I bet and get raised, I just call (which I really don't like).
The turn comes Jh, and I pick up a gut shot, I bet and get raised again. I call. Would it have been better to checkraise, I think checkcalling is OK as I'm getting 13 1/2 to 2 on my call.
The river is 4h, I check and fold.
I think I have to play this hand much more aggressively, I think ive gotten used to players who have backed off when I show agression, and sometimes don't play well against some of the more agressive players when I hold a speculative holding.
Comments!? SUggestions!?
2)QQ in late position, early player raises, another (loose) cold calls, I make it 3 bets blinds fold and these two call.
Flop comes A high rainbow, and they all check to me and I check. I thought it was too easy to be checkraised and there is no way an A will fold here and it was highly unlikely an A was not out.
Go ahead flame away.
The turn was a blank 1st player bets, next folds as do I.
3)QcTc mid position 3 limpers I call 2 call behind me as do the blinds.
FLop comes 7 8 9 rainbow, all check to me, I bet next player calls and all others fold(!)
TUrn is a small diamond, I bet and get raised. I call.
The river is an offsuit A. I check (since this player was calling alot of people down, and suspect he wouldn't raise on the turn w/o a made hand). He checks and shows 7d2d!
I know I played these hands weakly, but I would appreciate some comments on how to improve my play in these heads up type positions. Seems I give my opponents way too much credit.
All comments appreciated.
hand one- sounds to me like this guy made a hand he wasn't going to let go of. I think checkcalling is in order and folding when you miss your flush. unless you honestly think he would go to war with a king high flush draw, unless he was holding KK with one a club, and even then that has you beat.
hand two- my only complaint is that I would have bet the flop so if one of them checkraised I could let it go there for a small bet, checking out the flop makes it much more likely that somebody here is bluffing, making the desciscion more difficult in my oppinion. and probably more costly as well.
hand three- well played, I like the bet on the flop. I hope you dismembered the fool playing 72 on subsequent hands. You might could have bluffed on the river but I doubt it would have done you any good based on his hand selection I am inferring that this player is pretty dense.
as always this is just my oppinion I could be wrong.
Here goes:
hand 1) You are up against a made hand and no matter how you play the hand you are destined to lose. Personally in a heads-up situation I prefer being the aggressor and reraising on the flop and leading out on the turn.
hand 2) You are giving up way too much by playing so passively. Even though you may have been up against an Ace your more observant opponents are going to take notice and play accordingly later. You have to bet the flop and play accordingly. Checking and allowing your opponent to bet on the turn is an invitation for disaster. He certainly can have a smaller pocket pair than you and for a bet you are passing with the best hand. I just don't like the way you played the hand.
hand 3) You were up against a live one and those are the breaks. You had a lot more outs than you thought. Retrospectively a bet on the river may have gotten you the pot.
Bruce
1) You bet the flop and get raised, you bet the turn and get raised, i do not consider this playing weakly. I personaly do not 3 bet on draws heads up. I would have played it the same way.
2) I bet the flop , if raised call then fold turn if bet into on turn. If called check turn.
On the first hand, you had AcQc with a flop of 7 8 9 with two clubs. You bet and get raised. I would seriously consider reraising her because it is heads up and you have a whole bunch of possible outs with any club, or quite possibly a queen or ace. If you get four-bet on the flop after reraising, I might start to fear JT and just check-call on the turn trying to make the flush. Otherwise, your three betting the flop may very well slow your opponent down and allow yourself more ways to win the pot on later rounds.
On the second hand, I would probably fold QQ with an ace high flop against that many opponents.
On the third hand, betting out is not that bad on the flop but you risk getting raised or check-raised and having all your callers for your draw driven out. On the turn, you semi-bluffed with your open-ended straight draw against one opponent. I don't think this was a bad move. When raised, you have to call. Checking and folding the river was probably the only thing you could do with your missed draw.
On the whole, I don' think you played as badly as you think you did.
Dave in Cali
1) I checkraise OR check call the turn.
2) You lost this hand when you checked the flop. An Ace out there is not guaranteed. You have to find out, and since you had the position you HAVE TO BET THE FLOP. Be suspicious if you get called. Then you can check the TURN, if you want. If I'm the first player, after you checked the flop, I bet the turn no matter what I have. KQs wins!
3) You play is OK here. Maybe a "loose bluff" on the river, but only against a player you KNOW can fold a pair on the river.
Taj 5-10 late middle [position with 66.
4 limpers to me, I call as does the sb. Flop is 6 8 K rainbow. All check to me I bet 4 callers.
Turn is Q. No flush draw.
All check to me I bet. sb calls, mid pos calls.
River is a 9.
Check to me, I bet, sb checkraises, mp folds.
Comments?
I called the bet fearing the straight. sb had 98 and had caught two pair on the river. My feeling after was I should have popped it once to see, but i just might be playing results.
yes you missed a bet here, maby more. but there was no way you could have known it. with the fact that you do hold bottom set. (although we can probably eliminate QQQ and KKK here as almost all low limit players raise with these hands preflop) and the straight coming on the river where then the sb showed strength I dont think you had much of a choice but to call. In my oppinion there were too many hands out there that could beat you for you to risk repoping. just my thoughts I could be wrong.
what can you tell us about the player you were up against, maby that will affect the outcome as well?
This was my second hand dealt after posting as a new player so I had no info to act on.
As Mike Caro pointed out in his Book of Tells, certain demographic groups have certain TENDENCIES (not necessarily all members of a particular group display the tendencies of that group).
Anyway, his age, race, etc. can give you an idea of how he plays.
The main reason I'm bringing this up is that a specific demographic group likes to check-raise or, more typically, bet into you when a scare card hits.
Falcon
You played correctly. Since no one was betting, you couldn't raise, so all you could do was bet. When you got check-raised on the river, a crying call is in order. The pot is too big to fold, and your hand is too good to assume that you are beaten. But raising again would probably be foolish, so just call. Pay off the straight if me made it, otherwise you will often rake in the pot with your set despite his check-raise. The pot is plenty big enough and reraising will often just cost you two more big bets. The extra $$ you gain by reraising is not worth the risk. Call.
Dave in Cali
Tough to tell in a 5-10 game, but I'd definitely reraise. The SB almost certainly hit his second pair. He didn't bet out or checkraise you on the flop, so he doesn't have a king. A set of kings or queens is unlikely, as he would have raised preflop, and you can pretty much ignore the double inside straight.
If he's a pretty bad player, 99 is a very distant possibility, but I would put him on Q8 or 89, more likely the latter, and reraise the river.
Tough call. I wouldn't be overly concerned about missing a big bet. In the course of a year this is going to have an insignificant effect on your bottum line because there are going to be times when you reraise with the worst hand.
Bruce
I just call the check raise. I was playing last night, flop a set heads up against the sb who was a fish, bet it all the way a flush shows up on the river, i get check raised i call and he shows me a flush. When you get check raised in low limit i must have a monster befor i make it 3 bets against a reasonable player.
I think you played it well. You could have been beaten by the 9.
The other responses don't mention the possibility of the SB holding 75s, flopping an open-ender, getting there on the river.
Two pair would be the obvious choice I would put him on. Of course the straight is out there and the 9 could fit two ways based on the board. I think the decision is close on whether to re-raise. Do you think that he has put you on trips or a pair of K's? His checkraise on the river suggests that he can beat top pair. Now you have to decide whether his read on your hand is correct.
Regards, Dugie
That was my dilemma. There is no way he could have a read on my hand and he probably would have checkraised with anything that beat top pair. My primary consideration was that he came from the small blind in an unraised pot and could have anything. even 57o.
...your own question.
QUOTE "My primary consideration was that he came from the small blind in an unraised pot and could have anything. even 57o." END QUOTE
So why are you even concerned about re-raising? You ALREADY got your bet on the river, so you were NOT scared of a straight, until he raised, so you called. Sounds OK with me.
If he HAD the 57, you would probably be posting asking if you should have checked the river.
.
Bob,
My point is simply this. If you are afraid that the SB could have any sort of holding then why bet on the end then? On one hand you are saying you are afraid of the straight but by betting on the end you are demonstrating the opposite. So which one is it?
Regards, Dugie
a friend of yours or a little old lady then fold, otherwise i would just call, or if i was feeling lucky pop it once.
brad
Thanks to all who responded to my post "5-10 Holdem Again" yesterday. I'm just now getting around to reading them. It seems I really have a lot to learn. Thanks again.
Here is a hand that I played in an extremely loose 4-8 hold'em game. Four people limp in, the small blind, who is very loose-passive raises, I call in the big blind with Qd Jh, the 4 limpers call. The flop comes Qc 6h 6s, the small blind bets, I raise, everyone folds, the small blind calls. The turn is the Ks, the small blind checks, I check. The river is the 7c, the small blind checks, I bet, he calls. Should I have called the pre-flop raise? Once I did, how should I have played the hand?
Regards, Mitch McDeer -- I lost the pot, the guy had pocket Aces.
the small blind, who is very loose-passive raises
Warning!! Warning !!
If you knew the SB was passive the raise should have tipped you off to his AA KK or QQ. When then Ks hits the turn you have to put SB on at least a big King (AKs?). In this case he had AA.
QJo KTo KJo.. these hands are what I call the *second best club*. They win small pots and lose big ones as they like to come in second. Players love to go to far with these types of hands and when they pay you off all the way its good for your $$ per hr when they play them .
Once an over card hits and you have a few opponents you have to be very careful.
Best of it !!
MJ
I don't like calling raises with hands like you had depending on the raising standards of the sb - I would probably play the hand just like you did except I'd probably bet the turn and river IF I were in the pot that is.
Your description of him as loose-PASSIVE says a lot. When he raises you after 4 limpers, I think you have to respect his raise and put him on a strong hand -- stronger than yours. I would have folded to the raise. Had there been no limpers or had your hand been suited, I would have called.
Jon I.
"suited" just isn't eneough to call here.
It is the kind of thinking that takes you from 1 bb an hour to a losing session.
Because of the money in the pot and assuming the limpers will call the SB raise, would this be worth one small bet to see the flop? If the flop does not give you trip queens or jacks or a straight draw, get out. Comments please, is this a leak in my game?
Problem is with QJ say you flop a Q or J or maybe worse yet 2 pair you anr almost surely looking at a straight. This a a huge trap hand and causes many to lose much money. It's not for me with a passive player raising preflop.
Most will tell you to play it with a few other players I just don't like it in this situtaion.
Maybe I call too many raises in the blind but I think one would definitely call w/ almost any connectors. Any suited face card I think one can call w/.
The case w/QJo is the danger, as many have pointed out , of making the 2nd best hand. I think if you want you couldn only continue when you flop at least 2/pair or a straight draw. (The straight is the hand youd really like to make and not top pair for the 2nd best hand reason, while if you make a straight it will usually be close to the nuts ).
Granted calling w/QJo is not a great situation especially if you don't play well on later streets but one cannot wait for only great situations in poker if they want to win. (unless they are in a trully fantastic game).
In a perfect world when he bet into you and then he called your raise a red flag should have gone up and you had to know you were beat.What hands would he raise with before the flop from the small blind into an already established multi way pot that you had beat?You should have taken the 2 free cards your raise gave you to try to suck out (actually not free but 1/2 big bet).The only hand you could beat is AKs and then he got there on the river if he had that hand.Even a typical loose passive wouldnt push a hand that wouldnt beat the board into 4 or 5 people.Especially if he plays loose before the flop but passive after.If you knew you were going to get approx.11-1 a preflop call is ok but if you had any chance of a reraise which I suspect was the case(you said it was very loose) you should have laid it down preflop.If you were in Vegas it could have ended up being 3 cold back to you.A very bad thing in a raised multi way pot with JQ off.
Basically, you're getting 11:1 here, plus whatever money you can win postflop. So, you call pretty much no matter who the raiser is, unless there's reason to fear a reraise from one of the limpers.
Yet, as others have pointed out, a passive player has raised from the SB position. This screams to the world that he has a big hand. So, you should be prepared to play very cautiously if you flop exactly 1-pair.
Here, the 66Q flop is NOT good. Yes, you have top pair, but even if the SB only has AK, one of the limpers behind you can easily have a 6 or a better Q. I would have just called here at most, and frequently folded. If this guy has QQ, you're dead. If he has AA or KK, you only have 2 outs. If he could have AK, but most likely would not have bet it into the field like this, then a fold is definitely the right play. Your call preflop was only for flops that gave you 2 pair (of Qs and Js), trips, or a straight draw. Or, if he had checked this flop that gave you top pair, then you can start putting him on AK or an underpair (JJ for the flop given), and play the hand as if you were in the lead now.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Calling preflop isn't too bad. My personal style is to bet the turn when they could be drawing (often if I have as little as AK-high) and then check the river when its harder to call with an inferior hand.
Falcon
You play sounds OK. It's his play I question. He played his aces much too weak, expecially after the pot got heads up.
With your hand, I would have bet the turn when checked to me (and lost an additional bet ), assuming he would raise if he could beat me.
The SB could have played JJ exactly the same. He played his Aces much too weak, IMO.
Anyone willing to tell me what the S&M hold'em starting hand groups are. I ain't got the books so it would help if someone could just post 'em for me. Thanks
this could take months...buy the book.
theprince
Three points:
1. Buy the book.
2. You can find the groups on Dick's Poker Page (see links)
3. Buy the book.
I would have to agree with Niel's sage-like, yet simply stated advice. The hand groups are nice, but the insight provided in how to USE those hand groups is what makes buying the book a must.
Jon I.
Right on
didn't do a thing for me except let me know how some are likely to be playing.
.
If u ain't got the books u needs to gets 'em soes u can play them groups accurately.
LOL
I have been reading the holdem questions and responses in this forum for a few months now and really enjoy the various insights, perspectives, opinions, detailed analysis, etc. There is more technical intelligence gathered here than there is in corporate america. I want to thank all of the wonderful people who have been posting questions and responses.
I realize that there are probably not any psychologists reading this, but perhaps many of you are parents. Here's my question. Twice a month, we have a local, home grown if you will, neighborhood, holdem game. Stakes are 5-10 and there are usually 7-9 players. The other night the game was short handed with only five players. I let my 14 year old son play. He has read many of the books, used the software, played for fun with plastic chips, etc... and has a sound basic understanding of the game, much more so than all of the weak, passive, limpers in the game.
He won over $200, but that is not the point. My wife and in-laws have not let me alone about what a terrible thing I've done and how the boy is now going to grow up to be a compulsive card player.
If you all want to join them, go ahead, but, like I said, as a group, the respondents are very insighful and I'd like your thoughts on whether or not a young teenager should, or should not be exposed to the game we all enjoy so much.
Thank you.
well, john feeney is a psychologist.
i see nothing wrong with it. but i am only 18 and have been playing seriously since i was 16.
i think morality has established itself in several areas where it doesn't belong. i don't see any intrinsic morality in sex, drugs, hard work, or any number of countless other issues. i don't think being polite is moral. i don't think being disobedient is immoral.
let me just say that i would have liked to begin poker earlier in my life and wish i had. so i can't very well think it is immoral to do so for another, can i?
scott
My father tought me to play cards when I was 12 years old. It was just Five card draw, Seven stud and other home games. We only played for 25&50 cents but whats the difference. At least your kid understands the game and plays well. I hope he keeps on making money.
Your son is off to an awesome start. I'm 18 as well, and have been playing for just about a year now.
I still remember a jr high friend of mine calling me up late at night, just about a year ago, asking me if I wanted to play some cards. I decided why not, so I went.
To this date, my parents don't know that I have been to the casino several times--they only have slight ideas that I play some sort of cards because my AP Gov't teacher told my mom during one open house that I would be a good poker player because I liked to read. I denied ever playing poker to my mom, because if she knew, she'd kick my butt.
At any rate, you'll be able to monitor your son and know where he is. You now have something to do with each other that you guys can talk about.
I've learned a lot in just about one year. I can now beat those guys that tried to take my money a year ago w/ ease. This is because I've taken the time to study the game and read the books--they have not.
At 14 years old, a kid will soak in everything he comes across, and will try his best at becoming the best player he can be. There's no doubt that with this forum, reading the books, and practicing, that he'll be a good, if not excellent player.
The thing is, from a student's perspective, don't let the game take him away from his studies. Regardless of how much money he may make in his first game, school is by far the most important. The second you see his grades start to slide, or when he starts sneaking out against your orders, or anything that seems fishy, let him know of the consequences of lying and what not.
For example, there will definately be games at school, and afterschool, and playing every weekday and weekend is ridiculous. If you are to allow him to play at that age, set rules on when he can play. [ie, only once a month whenever you have that gathering or so]
Do not let it get out of hand and allow him to be a compulsive gambler at such a young age. There is a plethora of other things a teenager should be doing.
The consequences of allowing a young kid who won big his first time can be devastating-he may have the mentality that he cannot lose, but as we all know, that is not the case. Everyone loses. In addition, you have to warn him about knowing his limits, and not going into debt.
I know of a person, who I used to be poker buddies with, that has a $300 debt with another poker player that he hasn't paid for about 2 years. He himself owes me $55. The guy that he owes $300 to is good friends with his older brother, and that is why the guy in debt is still alive. Otherwise, he would've got his balls cut off, or as we kid around with each other, assassinated. Luckily for him, we don't want to be sent away to jail for murder.
I apologize that this post is a bit long and tedious, but then again, poker is just that. Just make sure he is not only physically, but mentally able to handle the game, and everything that goes along with it.
To sum it up, I'd let him play, but only when you are around. [as in at the table]
-jon
Compulsion has nothing to do with exposure. Of course, you cannot have a compulsion to do something of which you are completely unaware, but beyond that, people do not get compulsive just because they do it at a young age. Should we worry about my 3.5 yo becoming compulsive about Barney just because she watches the show?
The attitude of your relatives reflects their inherent belief that gambling is wrong. Only with that frame of reference did you do anything wrong with your son. Of course, gambling is addictive to some people, and causes them great harm. I know some guys in my high school who were addicted to gambling and lost a lot of money. From my personal point-of-view, the main thing you should worry about is educating your son so that if gambling does become an addictive, out-of-control problem for him, he'll know to recognize this fact and help himself.
Just like sex education, the exposure doesn't cause the negative consequences. In fact, ignorance is more likely to lead to negatives. Just make sure you're educating your son on not just how to play well, but how to control himself and behave well.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Money and kids don't mix. I don't like it. It's not even his money and this is what I hated most in my youth, kids flashing dad's car and dad's money. Sure enough, I soon started showing off my first Harley, except I earned that money myself.
When he starts earning money, I say go ahead. It'll be a lot different game for him then.
But I could easily be mistaken here. Some of my ethics views are probably twisted and I don't even realize it. A good rule of thumb: Do you have second thouhgts? If yes, don't allow it. Safer that way.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
this may have no sound basis as I am a hedonistic chemist (the legal kind), but if your kid's been reading and practicing on the computer, he must realize that there's skill involoved. That in itself should give him the proper background to make wagering choices. I tend to think that if someone's going to be a compulsive gambler, he will make his own way to that field. I don't think a little introduction to a low limit home game has spurred him to become an uninformed titanic thompson wannabe (although ty had the best of it most of the time). If you found your kid betting with the dice in an alley, not taking odds, and not throwing the dice (hey, he could be a mechanic), then i'd say you have reason to worry. just make sure he knows what the best of it is and how to get there, and he'll be alright.
Before reading the other responses, here is my two cents....
I played in my first money game of poker in the boy scouts at camp when I was nine years old. We played nickle/dime dealer's choice. Many of the players played a game called "mexican sweat", a version of no-peek seven card stud with "dueces are kill cards". (if you get a two, you are out. turn over your cards and get on with the next hand, rough game!). Others played regular 7CS, 5 card draw, and a few other games. I did exceptionally well in this game and it basically got me hooked on poker for life.
Despite my new found love for poker, I did not become a compulsive gambler. My mind was strong enough that it did not dominate my life. If your son is strong minded and you feel he can handle the responsibilities of gambling, then by all means let him play. 5-10 is awfully large stakes for a 14 year old, but I assume he was playing with your $$. As long as he keeps it all in perspective, I see nothing wrong with it.
Dave in Cali
Speaking as a "kid" myself, i can say that i hate it when my parents/family try to tell me what is moral and what is immoral.
I was raised well, and i will continue to make the good decisions that my parents taught me to make, ie: learning a game of poker will not corrupt the life-long teachings of good parents.
A quick lesson on "morality":
My mother had me at the "ripe old age" of 19 out of wedlock. Since she was not married, my grandmother did not speak to my mother for 5 years. My grandmother punished her own daughter severely because some book said it was a sin.
My grandmother also believes gambling is a sin.
I find it hard to see my grandmother's higher "morality".
Fistdantilus
Len:
I'm not sure this forum is the right place for this but it is an issue of considerable importance so let me give a shot at a reply.
Let me try to deal with this issue wearing two hats. In addition to being a poker player, I'm a professor of psychology. I authored "The New Gambler's Bible" (foreword by our friend Mason, who consulted) and I've written widely on gaming, risk taking and life....
Your question is not simple and I would not be surprised to see a variety of responses, reasoned and otherwise to it. Generally the problem lies in whether or not your boy has the maturity and self-awareness to make well-judged decisions. You can't legislate morality but you can, and as a parent must, establish a sound foundation for your children to grow on. Putting your kid in a situation like this one at his age may not be the best thing to do for the simple reason that he probably isn't sophisticated enough (socially, cognitively, emotionally, financially, and interpersonally) to make the proper decisions for himself.
Now, of course, age is no guarantee here. We all know lots of "grown-ups" who also lack this level of personal insight and awareness. They do indeed tend to get themselves into trouble--sometimes in gambling, more often in other ways.
Before anyone jumps to condemn (as apparently some of your acquaintances have), it is important to appreciate the evidence on problem gambling. The research in this area is utterly compelling. Virtually no emotionally sound individual gets seduced by the lure of the green felt. What is known as "comorbidity" is the rule. That is, problem gambling practically never occurs in the absence of one or more of a variety of other disorders such as alcoholism, drug abuse, deep social problems, bipolar disorder ("manic depression"), difficulty in maintaining relationships, financial irresponsibility, etc., etc., etc....
Understand, I'm not saying that what you did was wrong because I don't know you, your son, or anything else about this situation. I'm just raising (a few of many) issues that need to be considered.
My son (now in his early 30's and a professor in his own right) plays a damn good game of poker. We talked about it (and other venues such as playing the horses) early and often during his teens. When he began to play seriously it was with confidence in his own abilities and knowledge of the risks.
Could he have done this when he was 14? Don't know. Don't think so. Could he do it when he was older because he was exposed to gambling early on? Don't know....
Hell, life's like that.
Hope this helps. Feel free to contact me.
Arthur
.
You should let him play the occasional game of hold-em for the same reason you should let him have a beer with you when he asks for one someday (if not already). I remember the kids in high school with the most problems had the strictest parents, and in my four years of college the kids who were most likely to get too far into drinking or drugs had been sheltered up until they left home.
That said, make sure he's spending the vast majority of his time on school and activities designed for people his age. Take him golfing.
One more thing, when you do let him sit you should bankroll him and tell him when he's broke he's out. Letting him play with his own money may lead him to spend too much free time trying to figure out how to get the cash to play. That's where the compulsion could begin.
I've been gambling since I was 9 years old when 14 I used to play with my aunts (any one of which could win the WSOP) when there was an open seat in their friday game.
Last spring I put my 21 year old daughter in a tournament and whs finished 7th and was one of the few in her dorm to return with MORE money than she staterd with.
You can give a man food and feed him for a day or you can each him to fish and feed him for a lifetime.
Aspects of Poker are important to know and can enhance a persons life outside of poker.
Three things strike me as most important:
1) If he plays, he must become educated about the game, about basic statistics, and about the psychological aspects of gambling including compulsive gambling
2) It is probably very important that he plays on his own money. If he earned that money mowing lawns he will have a better feel for what is really going on. Plus he will probably be a lot less likely to call a raise with a weak hand. In addition, if he continues on as a player, he will be developing some of the necessary psychological strengths at an early stage by playing on his own and taking some lumps. He may even learn what it means to earn/build a bankroll and to save and manage his money.
Playing on his own money will probably let you know pretty soon if he has enough maturity to start handling things like this. It is probably important, too, that he does earn some money apart from poker somehow. A part-time job can be too much for many teenagers but there is no reason he can't mow some neighbors lawns, etc. I mowed some neighbors' lawns in high school, and looking back it helped show me I could work when I wanted to, although it also pointed up my inherent tendency to procrastinate. If he just plays on your money he will be missing a most valuable learning experience. His own money should come partly from things like birthday gifts from relatives, etc. or allowance with attached responsibilities, but I really think that if you are going to allow him to play he must actually earn some money too. If he wins too easily he may never learn what it means to really earn a few dollars.
i dont know about today, but 200$ was more money than i ever saw (combined throughout my youth) until i got a job. heres what i would do as a father. tell your son he can play until his money runs out. ( i assume you loaned him the money to play in the first place.) let him see first hand how easy it is to lose 200.
btw, if he really wants a buy in after he goes broke, theres always yardwork ... (id say a months work of work, at least 40 hours, for say 2 buyins (100), and see how much he plays)
brad
oops, btw, i just thought of this ( i personally never borrow money so i didnt think of it right off), but if he played with your money then i think it is of paramount importance to inform him that since it was your money (if it was) you two split his win.
gee , now hell really have no chance with only 100 (if you let him play).
brad
Len:
I believe that you have placed a great post, and from the number of responses I'd say a very thought provoking one.
I do not believe that it is IMMORAL to teach, or allow a 14 year old to play poker. There are too many relevant aspects to this game that correlate to life to make such an all encompassing remark.
However, there is more to playing WINNING poker than knowing what to do in a certain hand situation. How one manages his or her bankroll is paramount to becoming a well rounded player. I believe that this may be a tough lesson to learn with somebody else's money.
Good Post...nice to have something with a little different spin for a change.
As much as I'd ideally like to say that a 14-year-old shouldn't be told what to do by a parent; in reality, a 14-year-old has no idea who he is or who he is to become. It is because of this that I believe allowing a 14-year-old to play in a father's regular poker game should be discouraged. (Especially a game with limits as high as 5-10, clearly something he won't be able to reasonably afford for many, many years)
I remember playing cards at that age, but for nothing like the stakes mentioned here. We played for nickels, maybe, or one or two hands for a quarter...or even more popular, we played cards for baseball cards! And it wasn't in games like the strategic texas holdem...it was games like "in-between" or "Guts"...things with a bit more randomness to them and a lot less strategy. Teaching a 14-year-old to attempt to coherse money from his friends is a bit strange...he'll only grow up thinking that being a bit of a money scoundral is o.k.
Let him make his own decisions...he's got more than enough years ahead of him to play "serious" poker... no need to rush that.
Beefcake
...just my opinion, of course :P
The game is 10-20. 1. In small blind with 55. One limper, cutoff raises, button folds. Cutoff would do this with wide range of hands. If I were in BB I would call, but here I folded. Correct? BB call correct? Had I called I would have check-raised the cutoff on an ordinary flop, but folded if the limper bet. Correct? 2. UTG, a loose player, raises, FOUR cold callers, SB folds. Since I'm getting 11.5-1, I call with K8o. OK, bad, horrible?
I like your thinking with the 55.
next hand.
getting 11.5/1 on a 30/1 hand is not my idea of a deal.
Not much money to be made with a small pair vrs 2 players with over cards, and you aren't getting near the odds to make a set. If folding is "bad" its not bad by very much. Play only if you are confident in your ability to outplay these predictable opponents after the flop.
Not much money to be made with crap, even getting in for half price.
- Louie
Your fold from the small blind with pocket Fives is correct despite the fact that the cutoff may be raising on shaded values here. If you were in the big blind, I think you should call because of the implied odds if you flop a set plus against only one or two opponents there are a lot of flops that are good for you if they are less than Ten-high. For example, a flop of 6-2-2 would be a good flop for your hand and should be bet. Your question about check-raising if the cutoff bets "an ordinary flop" but fold if the limper bets is too general to answer because it depends on the flop. However as an overall strategy I think leading in a raised pot when you catch a good flop is the best approach. With regard to your last question, it would be bad poker to be calling raises even out of your big blind with King-Eight offsuit since most flops will miss you and even if you catch a King your kicker is too weak to play it profitably. I would fold King-Eight offsuit in this situation but I would play it if it were suited.
Playing 3-6 game. 1 player loose agressive (LA), 1 player tight passive, 7 other players loose passive, I have the best starting hands at the table by far.
I am lucky enough to pick up pocket A's in the small blind. UTG calls, fold, LA raises, fold, call, fold, call, call, I raise, BB calls everyone else calls. 7 way action, I am not too excited about my chances now, but you don't get pocket A's all the time.
Flop is KQ3 rainbow. I am pretty happy with the flop. I bet, BB folds 2nd to act raises pre-flop raiser folds. A tight passive player 3 bets everyone folds to me. I know this player is better than AK. I put him on KQ and am reasonably sure I am behind. Should I fold?
I cap it to disguise my hand. 3 callers to the turn. Turn is 3 giving a back door suit draw. Now if loose passive player doesn't have a set I am best. I bet to get information from the loose passive player. Should I have tried for the check raise? Should I automatically assume I am the best right now?
Both call no raise.
River comes rag... I bet they call. Player to my right doesn't show his hand but he has a king (he says), and tight passive player has KQ. I win
My main questions are:
Should I have capped it on the flop? Should I have tried to check raise the turn?
Thanks,
Derrick
I would not have capped it on the flop and just called all bets because with this much action you are most certainly up agaist KQ. I would not fear a pocket pair from either caller since neither was the pre-flop raiser. I would bet the turn once the board pairs because you may have the best hand and also to make it expensive for the other caller who may be on a draw. Nice hand.
Regards, Dugie.
You were behind on the flop and caught up on the turn. Capping on the flop when behind esp. when you have few outs really accomplishes little except costing you more money. You have 2 Aces as outs assuming no one has a TJ, 2 Threes, and runner runner pair (3 more outs) so on the flop you are in pretty bad shape. On the turn when you catch up I would lead out rather than risk giving a free card. The pot is plenty big at this point and there is no reason to get cute.
Bruce
In what way does "disguising your hand" help you in this situation? A player with KQ will not fold fearing a set, and an ace will proplay make them check call anyway. Capping on the flop may have cost you action when you drew out on the turn, although I'm still not sure a checkraise would be wise.
Should I have capped it on the flop?
No. You were beaten then, and you knew it.
Should I have tried to check raise the turn?
No. Only a FOOL bets that turn that has LESS THAN aces up, considering the pre-flop, and flop action. So if someone bets the turn, they should have you beat.
You have a reasonable draw vrs KQ (3:1 against, I think). Since even tight-passive players will raise late with KK or QQ it sure looks like you are up against KQ or 33. Given that the 1st raiser is a favorite to have a King there appears to be 6-KQs left and 3-3s left. Pot's plenty big enough to DRAW. Now if the flop were T73 it may be a different matter since the likelyhood of a set is comparatively MUCH higher (the don't raise with TT and don't call with T7).
"Raise to disquise my hand". This raise does not disquise your hand. Disquising your hand doesn't do any good. Since you need an Ace (if against a set of 3's) or an Ace or a 3 or a running pair (if vrs KQ), if you outdraw the KQ this player cannot ourdraw you if he has a pair-hand good enough to raise. Raising this player out doesn't look profitable. I suspect you need to aknowledge the real reason you raised.
So you catch the perfect turn card. After "disquising your hand" why would think a check-raise would work? he doesn't seem to like his hand enough to 4-bet. Surely AA is one of the hands the KQ can put you on and he knows the 3 is a bad card for his hand, and he might be up against a set of Ks+Qs.
Once you (correctly) put a passive player on a strong hand there is little reason to get tricky. You are going to the show-down and should play accordingly.
- Louie
I find your whole thought process on this hand very strange. Pre-flop you 3 bet, get 7 way action with the best possible starting hand, and yet you say you are not too excited about your prospects. You should be ecstatic since you have a very positive EV situation here. When the flop comes, you say you are very happy with this flop. Believe me there are thousands of better flops for your hand than those that contain both a King and a Queen. Nevertheless, you correctly lead and you get raised and re-raised. You ask in the narrative whether or not you should fold and then at the end you ask whether or not you should cap. The pot is too big for you to fold. Capping does not disguise your hand it merely costs you extra money to pursue your draw unless you had some reason to believe it would get capped by the original raiser. You should have just called. On turn, the Trey is a good card allowing you to overcoat all other two pairs. You should bet the turn and avoid running the risk of having it checked around on the expensive street with a new draw now on the table. Betting the river is fine since you should assume your hand is best.
10 handed game Almost new player limps in the cutoff. I raise with TJh in the SB He reraises I call Flop is 6c9hKh. I check he checks. Turn is Qs I bet he raises I call River is Ks I check he calls
I had read him exclusively for KK and had planned to bet the river hoping to get two more bets if a blank had come. I would have checked raised if a third heart had come and checked called if the board had paired. He turned over KAo Maybe I should have reevaluated other holdings especially when the river came. What do you think?
I don't believe this. You are greedy, but you don't do the most profitable thing.
---
Izmet Fekali (Bet the flop!)
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
The big problem heads up is that you do not get enough real hands. So with your big draw on the flop, you have to bet or check raise. Your check is fine if you were planning to raise; otherwise it's real weak.
On the turn, you should have kept going. You have the nuts. You missed a golden opportunity here. Basically you gave him money.
The other thing is, don't put him on a single hand. Cater to a variety of holdings he might have.
William
I had read him exclusively for KK and had planned to bet the river hoping to get two more bets if a blank had come. I would have checked raised if a third heart had come and checked called if the board had paired................WHAT?
I don't like the way you played this hand at all. Pre-flop, I don't like your raise from the small blind with your suited connector. You have a speculative drawing hand and you are out of position so you cannot get any free cards. Save this play for a hand with more high card strength like A-T or K-J. You should just limp. On the flop, you should bet into one opponent who just limped. You might win the pot outright and you have outs if you are called. On the turn it was dreadful for you to just smooth call his raise when you have the nuts. You should 3 bet on the expensive street and extract more money while you still have the best of it. Who knows what the river will bring and how he will react? Get your licks in while you can.
I agree. Raising with J-10 out of the SB in particular seems like an impotent play (not to mention failing to get the extra bet on the turn).
.
i think its all right to raise sb with JTs if you feel you have good control over single opponent ( thus you must be sure big blind will fold), where when you bet out the flop he will probably fold. having said that, its still a pretty speculative play.
brad
Ok...
First off, raising from the SB with JTs is not a good move. Your hand is speculative and you are badly out of position. Limp.
Second, you should have bet the flop heads up. Your semi-bluff here would be a good one. Your single opponent may fold allowing you to win the pot outright, plus you have twelve outs if called and two more cards to come.
On the turn, you should have reraised when he raised you. Even if you KNEW he had KK, you would still want to raise as much as possible on the turn! You have him beat and he is drawing to beat you, a 3.6:1 underdog! And the more you charge him to try and beat you, the worse his pot odds become!
I also think that you put him on KK way to early, and did not revise your opinion once the hand started to play out. His play is not necessarily consistent with KK. Yes, he limp-reraised BTF, but it is less likely that he would check the flop with two flush cards on board if he had KK. There are a variety of hands he could have played that way.
The biggest mistake you made was not reraising on the turn when you had the nuts and you were assuming that he only had trips. This is a must raise situation. What if he had AKs and had the flush draw? You would want him to pay for that as well. If he had AA, you would want to charge him the max since he was drawing dead. Basically, when you have the nuts, you should NEVER stop raising, especially on the turn when someone may be drawing to beat you.
Dave in Cali
Please advise me the day you see someone limping reraising preflop and checking a K96 flop without a big hand. Limping reraising preflop is usually a very strong act. What about checking the flop with so much strength shown! Even AK or AA was and is still pretty inconsistent to me (very few people would check the flop with these hands) and the fact he played AK this way means he is trickier than the vast majority of players. My turn call was bad. I badly forced myself to keep confidence in my read on the river. I felt very sad when he turned over AK and that now the way I played the hand looked awful.
"Please advise me the day you see someone limping reraising preflop and checking a K96 flop without a big hand. "
Remember, the flop had a two flush. It is unlikely that any semi-reasonable player would slowplay that flop with AK, AA, or KK. The fact that he limp-reraised BTF means less than you think, you had a good draw which was to a hand that would beat any of those limp-reraising hands. Play it like you got it. Remember to keep raising the turn when you have the nuts next time, especially if there is still a draw to beat you.
Dave in Cali
If you figure he has AA, KK or AK he is much, much more likely to have AK. It is incorrect to put a player on one specific hand, rather you should put him on a range of hands. I think you need to reraise the turn and bet on the end no matter what comes. If he has KK you will be raised and probably lose two bets on the end lose but if he has AA or AK he will call always and raise sometimes. These times will make up for the times that he actually has KK and fills up on the end. Also, if he has KK why would he check the flop. I think he made a mistake checking the flop with his AK anyway. He gave you a free chance to hit a gutshot.
15-30 game, I'm on the BB with Kh-7h. 4 limpers to the button who raises. SB folds, I call, limpers call. Flop comes Kd-Qc-3d. I check, limpers check, button bets, I check-raise to try to blow out the limpers. But two of the limpers call (obvious straight or flush draws), then the button reraises.
Now I think. My image at this stage of the game is loose-aggressive. All 3 of my remaining opponents are decent players. One of the limpers in particular would not play a draw for 2 bets unless it was the nuts -- I put him on the A-x of diamonds. The other limper probably has smaller diamonds or a straight draw. I've been reraised by the preflop button raiser, an intellectual sort who could be making a fancy play, but who nonetheless has raised into a full field. I consider that if he has a big King (K-Q even?), then I'm drawing nearly dead against a made hand plus I have to fade one or more nut draws behind me. I fold.
Comments?
Results to follow.
Earl,
Irrespective of the results (which I suspect will show you folded the best hand), I would fold too.
Calling may seem to give good odds, but obviously whatever card comes on the turn and river you will have to pay again, and you have no certain outs, thus destroying your odds.
The check-raise is standard play (i.e., according to many earlier posts covering similar situations: a notable exception is Jim Brier who, I am pretty sure, will disapprove of the check-raise!) with top pair/weak kicker from early position. You're too weak to bet out against 4, but if only the person last to act bets you check-raise to find out
1) do the other limpers have anything?
2) does the bettor really have something?
In your case, the answer seems to be yes, so fold.
For whatever it's worth.
Steven
I prefer leading at the flop rather than check-raising although check-raising may not be bad. You have top pair/no kicker and the board is highly coordinated with a two flush on board. I want to see how the limpers handle my bet through them into the button raiser. If you get callers and the button raises, I think you should fold since you are probably dead to a Seven and even then the Seven of Diamonds may not be an out. The problem with the check-raise approach is that you are investing 2 bets to "see where you are at" and you will frequently get re-raised with that board and the presence of a pre-flop raiser. I think you are costing yourself additional money here.
But Jim,
If you check, and fold if one of the limpers bets and the button raises, you save a bet compared to your betting out. Only if just the button bets do you check-raise, which may get the limpers out.
So, in the worst-case scenario (as happened to Earl) you do lose one more bet, but in other cases this strategy seems to have the advantage of either saving a bet, or putting more pressure on both limpers and button. Do you agree?
Yes but not all scenarios are equally likely. The most common scenario is for everyone to "check to the raiser" particularly when an Ace or a King flops and especially when BOTH a King and a Queen flop. Now the problem is that a pre-flop raiser will frequently bet regardless and so no information is gleaned when he bets. For example, he might bet AQ figuring his middle pair with an Ace over card is good after it is checked around to him. However, he will probably not raise a bet without a King or AA or QQ. You gain more by betting your hand here and seeing how the field handles it than you do by check-calling or check-raising.
Was the button a friend of yours? Because of your checkraise on the flop he made the draws pay 3 bets and thank-you very much. I do not like calling a pre-flop raise with this weak holding of yours IMO. Your only value in this hand is the heart flush and this is not the nuts. What usually happens on this type of holding is the flop comes with a K and most players get stuck in the hand. This hand cost you too much money.
Regards, Dugie
Dugie notes that he doesn't like the preflop call. Personally, K-small suited is a disgusting hand, but on the button in a limit game with 7 1/2 small bets and likely 4 more, it's an easy call.
He also points out that my check-raise on the flop caused the limpers to have to pay 3 bets for their draws. Good point. I'd actually considered reraising instead of folding, so they would've had to pay 4 bets. Entirely my point -- I don't want them in the hand.
The turn came a King of clubs, and the river an offsuit Ace. The button had Q-9 of diamonds, and one of the limpers had A-10 of diamonds, so he raked in a nice pot that would've been mine. But as Steven pointed out, the fold was correct, despite the results. In fact, I liked Steven's analysis the best -- you can't bet into this field, your only hope to get the limpers out is a check-raise.
My button opponent told me later that he thought that his best chance of winning that pot was to try to take me off of a bad king. A hand analysis shows that he wasn't the favorite even after I folded, but it did increase his winning probability considerably (from about 10% to about 41%).
But in one area, I disagree with both Steven and Jim. I was not check-raising to "find out where I was" in regard to the limpers. I had a pretty good idea where the limpers were, I was just trying to move them. My only concern was that I was dominated from the button, and had no defense in a bad position. Thus the fold instead of the reraise.
Anyone have an opinion on the button's play?
My take:
Calling preflop is a no brainer. For one more bet you get to play Kxs in a multiway pot. Hopefully you'll get lucky and flop a flush draw, triplicate Sevens, or two pair. Of course you flop top pair with poor kicker. On the flop I like your check-raise. After putting in two bets on the flop with a highly coordinated board, I myself for one more bet, am going to have a tough time folding my hand. I would prefer calling the additional bet on the flop and see what happens on the turn. I can't fault the button for his play on the flop. He flopped middle pair with a flush draw, although his flush draw unknowingly is worthless. Personally I really don't like raising with Q9s on the button. I'm not even that excited about playing the hand in this situation. I would prefer more participants in the pot and if I play the hand I would really like to play it as cheaply as possible.
Bruce
I don't totally disagree with you on the pre-flop call but I just wanted to point out that this type of holding does cause problems for the less experienced player.
My comments concerning the check-raise on the flop is this: with 4 limpers between you and the pre-flop raiser, someone will have a hand or a big draw and will not release the hand to your raise. There is just too many callers between you and the raiser. I know you are trying to win the hand but what is wrong with peeling off a card cheaply here and see what the turn brings. If your hand had more equity in it like a back-door flush draw then maybe the check-raise would have some merit. I'm not trying to play results here but am simply stating IMO that fancy plays have ther place but this is not one of them because of the number of players in the hand.
Regards, Dugie
I think the idea of a call on the flop isn't so bad, since K-7 is out of position. However, the flip side of check-raising versus "taking one off" is that at the time of the check-raise, you don't know for sure how many -- if any -- limpers are going to stay. Without the benefit of seeing the outcome, it's possible that none of them had much of a hand, and the failure to check-raise could cost you not only the pot now, but future bets later when you straggle along to the river with top-pair weak kicker and get beat by someone holding a gut-shot or other such nonsense (the winner in fact had top-flush draw with a gutshot straight and won it when he paired Aces).
Let's face it, it's a tough call exactly what to do on the flop. I really can give good arguments for folding or taking a card off. I guess I am biased by playing almost exclusively in L.A. I just see in general so much capping on the flop and three betting on the flop with subpar hands and big draws that I hate like hell to give up top pair. Then on the turn and river after you pass the action is check check and you have surrendered the best hand. Of course on the flip side every situation is different and your opponents have a lot to do with how you play a hand. In L.A. there are more capped pots than in Vegas where you can bet and raise four times compared to three times in L.A. I think this also affects to a certain extent the play on the flop.
Bruce
I would call BTF. I think if you're willing to pay two bets on the flop, you have to be willing to call three. One more small bet on the flop lets you see the turn.
I don't understand your comment about check raising the flop to drive out the limpers. Why is that such a concern? You put them on straight and flush draws and nobody is going to fold the nut flush draw with this big a field for 2 bets. Also, if you have the best hand the draw hands are going to pay you off. They are an underdog to make their draw. You don't mind them calling since it is unlikely you can win this pot this soon.
Had your top pair been Q high or less i think going for the check raise is a good idea, because you want to drive out over cards, but with a A or K the there is not as much to worry about. So take a cheep card and hope you spike a second pair or fold.
Interesting comments. I played much more NL and PL hold-em before I ever took up limit, so the idea of drawing nearly dead is not something I'm used to doing, i.e., calling any sort of bet to get further involved. Yet it's true that a check-raise is pretty much hopeless against top-flush/top-straight draws. However, it's not true that the flush draw (in particular) was an underdog to make his hand. In fact, the A-10 was the favorite, with possibly 15 outs on the flop (discounting that he was against another flush draw).
I witnessed a hand last night that had me wondering when do you laydown KK or AA. I recently posted a similar hand, so I apologize if the question seems redundant. But knowing when to do so really separates players.
Typical 6-12 hold-em. Bay 101.
Tight player UTG opens for a raise. Next two folds. New Player(NP) who just posted calls the raise. The rest of the field (including me) folds. Loose player in SB cold calls, and another loose player in BB re-raises. UTG caps the betting and all calls.
Flop is 752 rainbow. SB checks, BB bets, UTG raises, and NP and SB cold calls. BB re-raises and UTG caps. SB and NP calls.
Turn is an offsuit 4. SB checks, BB bets out again, UTG and NP calls. SB check-raises. BB calls and UTG goes all-in. NP folds.
River is another 4. SB bets out and BB calls for the side pot.
SB turns over AA. Both BB and UTG had KK.
My feelings were with all the strength that BB and UTG showed and yet were check-raised on the turn by a player who has just been passively calling. I think that whether you had KK or AA, you have to laydown the hand.
I realize the pot is large but only an idiot would check-raise the turn with an inferior hand. I just don't think it is done with all that betting and raising.
The SB was loose enough of a player to have called the pre-flop raises with a suited connector hand or a small pocket pair. On the turn when he check-raises, I think you had to put him on a straight or a set. But whether he was loose or tight, I think any player that would check-raise the turn when you have shown strength, IN A MULTI-WAY POT, must have a monster hand.
Is this thinking correct or am I an idiot?
All comments appreciated.
No, you can't lay down a KK overpair to a check-raise on the turn here. You could be up against "merely" two pair, e.g., 54s (this is 6-12, after all) plus another overpair and maybe some idiot with 43s or A7. Yes, there is less than a 50% chance you will have the best hand here, but no you can't fold. The pot is 21 big bets at the point of the check-raise, and so you need only about a 9% chance of making the best hand to call down your opponent (or actually a little more due to the multiway action.)
If you were facing two cold on the turn it would be different, as you would fear additional raises after you call.
-Abdul
In middle posisition you have AA , you are first in and raise. next to the button and big blind call. Typical players.
Flop 10s-7s-3s, Big blind bets, you decide to raise with AA . other player folds and big blind re-raises.
Question: should you have raised in the first place?
now that you have raised, should you let it go against the re-raise(in general of course against typical opponents 10-20) ?
None of your aces are spades.
Thanks in advance
Raising on the flop is fine, flopped flushes are rare. When the bb reraises I would check it down to the river unless another spade hits.
Yes, you should raise the flop bet since it most likely is a come hand and not a flopped flush. When re-raised, just call and plan on just calling to the river unless a fourth flush card hits.
You probably should raise, and then call it down after being reraised. However, if a blank hits on fourth street you can make an argument to raise again. If the fourth spade comes you are on your own. If two blanks come and your opponent checks on the river you should bet every time unless you are against a very tricky player (and even here you should probably bet).
A lot here depends on your opponent. Notice that an aggressive player will reraise with many hands that you currently beat. This includes a possible straight-flush draw, and a hand like AT where the ace is a spade. (An ultra aggressive player might not require the spade to reraise. He might put you on two overcards -- probably with a spade -- and try to make you pay for it.)
There are some good arguments for not raising on the flop.
Oh Mighty Oz,
Head up I can see some logic to calling but with a player yet to act this may be beyond me unless the plan is to allow the button to raise or fold and let his action help define the probable hands out against you. So...
...if you call AND the button raises AND the big blind calls OR folds then you call. If the big blind makes it three bets you fold.
When you call AND a blank hits the turn bet if the big blind checks (OR if he had folded the flop). Fold if the big blind bets. If you bet AND are raised again by EITHER player, then fold.
IF I got it head up under the above conditions, I would probably call down most river bets against any typical opponent (who should be moderately tricky at this level).
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Is use of the term “Oz” disrespectful or is Vince the only one allowed to call you that?
...I thought it didn't post and I made a few minor corrections once I got a second chance ;-).
Oh Mighty Oz,
Head up I can see the logic to calling but with a player yet to act this may be beyond me unless the plan is to allow the button to raise or fold and let his action help define the probable hands out against you. So...
...if you call AND the button raises AND the big blind calls OR folds then you call. If the big blind makes it three bets you fold.
If a blank hits the turn bet if the big blind checks OR bet if he had folded the flop. Fold if the big blind bets. If you bet AND are raised again by EITHER player then fold.
If I got it head up to the river under the above conditions, I would probably call down most river bets against any typical opponent (who should be moderately tricky at this level). IF it is still three-way on the river and you are facing a bet, call Tom Weideman, for he is even smarter than Oz.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Is use of the term “Oz” disrespectful or is Vince the only one allowed to call you that name? I don’t want to be disrespectful but I do like to have fun.
I only read Dave's,but how about raising the turn after smooth calling the flop.usually anyone on draw will call 2 "small" bets so a raise on the turn might be more effective.If you have your man drawing he's just been charged for it,you can check the river thus making your river call on the turn.Also he might try to get tricky and ck pop you on the river hence you avoid a trap.It keeps him from outplaying you somewhat,also if you are reraised on the turn you can safely release and sleep at night.And once in a great while he may muck his hand,even a better one.Am I way off here?
Player,
I’ll respond without looking at the other eminent posters yet. If I disagree with Mason, it is a 3 to 2 favorite that Mason is right, but I may be overrating myself. If I disagree with Jim Brier, I am even money to be right. If I disagree with both, listen to Mason. I don't know SammyB well yet so I can't handicap his reply. If John Feeney replies, listen to him as he is playing good these days. Oz probably won’t reply, as he is too busy over on rgp. I hope Louie Landale replies. He writes with a lot of emphasis just like Cosmopolitan Magazine did years ago (fifteen ways to get HIM to think YOU are a virgin even though you’re NOT!)
The flop raise is mandatory against typical opponents. Folding is unthinkable as is calling with one player still behind. The big blind should be betting a wide range of hands, some of which will be the small flush, some of which will be a pair with a spade, a few of which will have you beat but you can redraw to (ten-seven, no spade), or a set which will have you drawing slim. The BB should also be throwing in some semi-bluffs with overcards and a decent spade if he is typical. He won’t if he is a LOL (little old lady per Jim Brier).
If reraised you probably should call and give it up on the turn if another spade comes and you are bet into. If another spade doesn’t come and it is checked to you on the turn, you should probably bet and fold to a checkraise.
I’d comment on the river but I hate to think ahead.
Regards,
Rick
Jim, Mason, Sammy B, Oz, John and Louie may give good advice, but how can they compete with someone who reads Cosmopolitan? (Fifteen ways to get HIM to think you have a FLUSH even though you DON'T.)
Your advice in this post is, IMHO, perfect.
Question: should you have raised in the first place?
Absolutely- for value, for control, for deception.
now that you have raised, should you let it go against the re-raise(in general of course against typical opponents 10-20) ?
Never. Compare the odds that you're beat with the pot and what it costs to call, call and then thank the guy for reraising on the flop, instead of check raising the turn.
None of your aces are spades.
Damn.
Many things to say but I don't feel like mentioniung them all. But one point is this. The guy behind you will usually fold anyway but if he doesn't because you merely call, he often has a hand you don't want out.
As to calling me OZ, that is no longer my preferred handle. Matt on the internet forum was kind enough to christen me El Supremo and I think I prefer that.
Finally as to Tom Weidemann, isn't he the guy who got his PhD at U. of Michigan or some similar school for the learning disabled?
Sklansky, a few points: * Try to post under the post to which you want to reply, this takes the IQ of a house plant. * The question is in regards to play following the third player's fold. * There are no cheap PHDs, as you know. $ Keep writing great books.
Gus,
I think El Supremo does this deliberately to annoy skp and me. Both of us have busted his chops on this before. And what is a houseplant's IQ?
Regards,
Rick
The IQ of a house plant is roughly equal to the IQ of a cracker.
El Supremo,
You wrote: "Many things to say but I don't feel like mentioniung them all"
I like this better than "I'll let others elaborate." It seems more, more...honest!
"The guy behind you will usually fold anyway but if he doesn't because you merely call, he often has a hand you don't want out."
It better be pretty often if in fact he would fold to your raise (e.g., if he had a medium spade and the big blind did not have a spade). There are many bets already in the pot.
Tom Weideman is a genius and the University of Michigan is a great school but awful cold in the winter. His rgp post describing why tournaments will never get lasting sponsorship was classic and thought provoking. Too bad www.deja.com is crippled and I can't find it.
BTW, you appeared to misplace your post again. This makes me wonder if guys like you tuck your shirts into your underwear ;-).
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Computer Hint for the Day: I hope you don’t mind me “mentioniung” this. Keep a MS Word document open called “Spell Check Work Area”. Type your elaborations in there. Spell check it then cut and paste it into your forum. A rich guy like you should have a decent enough computer to multi-task.
After the BB's flop bet, our hero is in a reverse implied odds situation which is exacerbated by the whipsaw threat posed by the cut-off seat. These conditions normally favor a raise or fold approach.
If our hero raises, a typical player (TP) in the cut-off seat would likely fold the following hands containing the Q, J, 9, or 8 of spades: AQ, AJ, KQ, KJ, 99, and 88. [This assumes he wouldn't have cold-called hero's raise with even weaker hands, and he would have 3-bet with AK and AA-JJ.] If hero just calls, TP would likely call with these threatening hands.
El Supremo suggests that if our hero just calls and TP also calls, hero is likely to profit from TP's call. I suppose hero would profit if TP called with the following spadeless hands: AQ, AJ, KQ, KJ, KT, AT, 99, 88 (Also AK and JJ if TP would not have 3-bet these hand). However, it is questionable whether TP would call with some of these spadeless hands.
The case for raising seems strong to me; however, the value of raising is probably inversely proportional to the looseness of TP. Perhaps someone can do some mathematical analysis.
You forgot that AA also profits when the third guy has a spade as long as the first guy does too.
Aces play themselves, I used to think, until the experience proved me wrong. There's much more to this hand than raising. Here are three aces hands from my personal notes. They were all played in a somewhat tightish game with some very tough opponents. They were played in three separate sessions.
I raise. Cutoff calls and the button reraises. This guy is one of the top players in the world, an extremely knowledgeable and seasoned Vegas pro and he has a very good idea of my play. This pain-in-the-butt is smart and is not toying around, he has a hand, not that I mind it dis time. The early limper folds, cutoff calls and I make it 4 bets. We take the flop three handed.
Flop comes:
I bet, they both call. Turn is:
I bet and only the tough player calls. River is:
I check, he bets and I call. He shows AK of spades and takes it. I try to hold the tears, to no avail.
He calls and we take the flop headsup:
He checks, I bet, he calls. Turn is:
He checks again, I check behind. River is:
He bets now, I raise and he calls. He shows AhAc and drags the pot. I need to use the handkerchief again.
To my amazement (the game was fairly tight), the button flat calls, so does the small blind and so does the big blind. It's five way to the flop:
UTG bets, I flat call, button calls and the blinds do the arrivederci joining the observers. Three handed now, turn is:
UTG bets out again, I call, button calls. River is:
UTG bets again, I call, button calls behind. UTG reluctantly shows 87 of clubs and the button flashes 77. UTG asks for a handkerchief.
Is there a way to play any of these hands better? What does 2+2 panel think? I'm seeking comments here, not the nodding.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Please repost this as a new thread Izmet. The present discussion concerning calling on the flop vs raising should not be sidetracked.
Repost not needed. This thread has a new subject title. Interested commenters are advised to so note and separate the comments on two different subjects.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Hand #1 : What're gonna do?
Hand #2 : If you check the turn to induce a bluff or a value bet from a weaker hand like JJ,TT and so on(or avoid a checkraise, more likely in this particular case), why raise when the "tough" player bets into you on the river? What hand can/will he pay you off with that you can beat? JJ, TT ? Would he play KQ or QJ this way? Would he play KK this way? Head up I can see the benefit of checking the turn, I can also see the benefit of just calling your opponents river bet, I can't see the benefits of raising the river bet, you've admitted this is a tricky/competent player.
Hand #3 I think you should raise the turn when bet into, button would almost certainly have raised the flop with that many callers if he had a queen, if UTG has a queen then he just has you beat, the likelihood of UTG raising preflop and flopping trip queens is just kinda screwy, which hands will he raise with UTG that have a Q (probably just AQs and QQ, maybe AQo, KQs,QJs), if he has KK or even JJ,TT,99 and he suspects that you think he's on a flush draw he might 3bet the turn given your flatcall preflop (he thinks you have AK or weaker). Of course, I would have 3 bet preflop (esp. if no one else has called between initial raiser and my AA) When bet into on the flop, a lot depends on the player, will he 3bet my flop raise and lead again on the turn with just a flush draw or will he only bet the turn on a draw if I just call the flop, are we head up? and so on. I really think the turn calls for a raise in this hand, even more so given the player behind you and even more than that given what you've said of the UTG player.
chris
Hand 1) You got unlucky. He sucked out on you and there's not a whole lot you can do.
Hand 2) I against a highly skillful player would have never played the hand to begin with. You either win a small pot or lose a big one against the pro. However if I did play the hand I prefer playing it more straight forward betting on the turn, although you would have been in all likelyhood checkraised and been faced with a tough choice. If I check on the turn with my opponent leading on the river I prefer calling. Raising has minimal benefits. He's not calling you with anything you can beat.
Hand 3) I just don't like the way you played the hand from start to finish. Why play the hand so passively? I prefer either raising on the flop or on the turn and becoming the agressor. Interestingly the way you played the hand you won the maximum getting big bets on the river from the bluffer and button although playing so passively in future analagous situations may cost you the pot with draws getting there.
Bruce
Sorry for my late response, I was busy elsewhere. My comments on the three hands:
1. I posted this one to bad beat whine only. Nothing really interesting there.
2. I tried to get maximum value out of this hand. Folding preflop was not my option as he could've been on a steal (anything from 55 to JTs to KJo should open from that position) and I do NOT flat call a late-middle opener, not ever. This opponent should call me on the river with a worse hand (an underpair, AK, a bad queen) as he knows I'm capable of bluff raising on the river. OTOH, the better hand cannot reraise me there. Note I lost the minimum against his aces in this particular instance. Also, by playing this way occasionally, I try to add support to those river bluff raises, no hold'em hand should be viewed in isolation, there is always a bigger picture.
3. I was surprised by negative responses on this hand. Preflop, per Abdul's teachings, I never reraise a sole utg opener, it leaks information. The flop was paired and I got bet into. Whay the hell should I raise there? There's no way to chase the flush draw out and I have a redraw against that. It is perfectly acceptable to rope-a-dope with a non-vulnerable hand (an this is THE mother of all non-vulnerable hands, note the ace of clubs in there) to avoid losing too much when second best. Again, if my hand is best I extract maximum, and lose the minimum if not. Even when the flush draw is out there (which in fact was the case), I cannot charge more than I did. If I raise at some point, I lose at least one player in the process, and it's not going to be the dangerous one. If I get repopped, can I lay down the aces safely? No way, not at that table.
Imagine all the possible scenarios (a queen in front and a pair behind me, a draw in front and a queen behind, a bluff in front and a draw behind, a draw in front and a queen behind, etc.) and you'll see there's no way to earn more if I'm ahead or lose less if I'm behind either on flop or turn. Hence I named the hand as I did. I extracted maximum without ever raising. An interesting hand indeed.
In the aftermath, I was thinking this could be a possible Morton Theorem problem (do I want the third guy to call or not?) but I dismissed it soon, as I figured the threat of being beat already was too big to consider chasing out the guy behind. If I'm mistaken here, I'd sure like to hear it.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
On the first hand, "The Grand Suckout", you played fine and this was a bad suckout. The "seasoned pro" on the button has to realize that he is in trouble when you make it 4 bets. On the flop, the pro has a call because of the Spade on the board coupled with his two overcards and the large pot.
On the second hand, I think your 3 bet pre-flop with AQ offsuit is marginal. Agreed that the pro does not have to have a premium hand to open with a raise from middle position but if he has one he will be raising with that hand as well. You are in trouble if he has a premium raising hand (AA,KK,QQ,JJ,AK,AQ). However, your re-raise should shut out the rest of the field and you do have position. I think you should bet the turn when checked to. Your lone opponent opened with a raise from middle position but has played weakly since then. You have top pair/top kicker and should continue betting your hand. You don't want to give him a free card to a flush draw or a straight draw. I don't like your river raise given his willingness to suddenly bet which could mean AA,KK, or an Eight.
On the third hand, your flat call with pocket rockets is good only because it looks like you will be heads-up with position in what is a tight game (e.g.-$10-$20 daytime lineup at the Mirage). It was unfortunate that the button and blinds were able to find a call. In retrospect, re-raising would have been the better play but I think under the special circumstances your smooth call was okay from the cutoff seat. On the flop, I think you need to raise since there are 3 players behind you and there is a two flush on board. Given the presence of so many other players you need to put pressure on anyone with two Clubs, a Four, or a pocket pair in their hand. You may be raising with only a two outer but you need to see where you are at given the large pot now at stake. I guess the rest of your plays are fine but I really don't like being in a reactive, calling mode throughout the hand. The UTG played weak poker by raising pre-flop with Eight-Seven suited. Tricky or not he will get buried in the long run playing this way.
Thanks for the responses,I received way more than I expected.
As this particular hand turned out the bb had the flush, but from reading the posts I played it as well as could be expected. The board paired on the turn and the bb checked, and I bet, then on the river we both checked which might not have been correct but saved me a bet. thanks to all
Izmet,
Contrary to the other posters, I like the way you played the 3rd hand. A flop raise will not eliminate anyone with 2 clubs. If somebody has a 4, they only have 2 outs against you. If somebody has a Q, they will probably call your raise, then raise (or checkraise) you on the turn. Note that a tricky player might also do this with a pocket pair.
Once the turn comes, there are no additional draws (besides the club draws) which can be out there. The 2 clubs will call anyway so not raising is not that big a mistake. You don't mind other people drawing to their 2 outers here. If you raise, get 3 bet and muck on the turn, you could have seen the river for the same price and given yourself a chance to hit the Ace.
Puggy
Before reading the other posts...
"Question: should you have raised in the first place?
now that you have raised, should you let it go against the re-raise(in general of course against typical opponents 10-20) ? "
Yes. Raise the flop. you likely have the best hand. You are also raising to gain information. If you get reraised, it is usually by someone with a made flush. Those times when you get reraised by a non-made flush, it is usually the ace of that suit doing the three betting. So even if the flush is not made already, there is most likely a premium draw against you, and you are viturally certain not to improve enough to beat a flush. You only have two outs to a set, then you still need the board to pair if you are going to beat the flush. So I think letting the overpair go for a raise is a good idea. Raise for info, if you get the info you were looking for, use it to correctly fold (the pot is NOT going to be big enough to call unless something extraordinary had happened).
If you raise the flop and just get smooth called, it is usually by a flush draw. If no flush card comes on the turn, bet again. This is not a good situation for you in the first place, so you have to be careful. Don't be afraid to release your aces when this type of thing happens, you will probably wind up saving yourself some cash.
Dave in Cali
interesting post dave. To further elaborate, I was trying to get it heads up and make the bb pay if he was drawing with the ace.
I have to say that when I was reraised I came close to letting it go, since a made flush with either the ace or king seemed like the only logical hand that someone would reraise with in this spot. If he had simply check raised, I would have felt different.
It was a strange hand as he checked when the board paired on the flop. Overly cautious, as he didn't raise me with his ace high flush when I bet the turn. It just felt out of sinc, so I checked behind him on the end. Anyway, thanks for the input, all these comments have really helped me think about a few concepts I hadn't considered.
I had this the other day at a 6-12 table.
I raised preflop with AsAd in middle position.
Flop comes Kd9d4d.
Check to me, and I bet. (Is the bet appropriate, check-call, or check-raise) Woman on my left raises. One caller, I reraise (I want to know how high the flush is, or if she's on a draw) Lady calls and the caller folds (solid player, tells me later it was KQ, but that's dubious)
When she calls, I put her on a baby flush; she would call with pretty much any suited cards close to each other.
Next card is a blank. I check and call.
Last card is a blank. I check, and she checks behind me. I figured river bet has neg EV.
So guys, rip me apart. Sklansky said there are reasons to not raise. Was my re-raise terrible (I did it to gain information, although a call didn't provide that much, a cap would have)
Thanks...
After reading the above, I agree that there's a lot to be said for raising the flop, and it's probably the decision I'd make in the heat of battle at the table.
However, after some thought, I'll present a little more on the CALL option. Feel free to point out errors or fuzzy thinking.
The pre-flop betting has built a pot with 6.5 small bets in it.
If our hero raises, the cutoff is getting immediate pot odds of 4.75 to 1. The cutoff has to worry a little bit about it getting reraised behind him, but on balance, including implied odds, if he has a reasonable singleton spade he is getting odds to draw regardless.
On the other hand, if our hero chooses to smooth call the flop, he offers 8.5 to 1 odds to the cutoff, which allows the cutoff to call will all manner of mediocre holdings, and should make our hero money on those times that he calls. Of course, if the cutoff folds, great---he accomplished the same thing for cheaper than he could have via raising. If the cutoff raises and the BB then 3-bets, I think that folding now must be considered.
Let's assume that the cutoff simply calls. We now have 9.5 small bets = 4.75 big bets in the pot.
If the fourth spade comes on the turn, our hero has saved money. In the face of any significant action, he can probably muck without too much fear of going astray. (Of course, knowing the particular proclivities of opponents could influence this decision one way or the other.)
But if a blank comes, when the BB bets again, now raising might be a possiblity for our hero. Now the cutoff gets 3.875 to 1 immediate pot odds on a call, which, combined with the risk of a reraise behind him may reduce his estimation of his implied odds to the point where he may even laydown a singleton spade. (Whether it would be correct for him to do so may be a matter for some discussion.)
If reraised by either opponent, I think he has to lay his hand down. In an ideal world, however, the cutoff will fold, and the BB may fear a slowplay, so that if he chooses to simply call the raise, he will likely check to our hero, who can now decide between checking it down and betting his pocket rockets for value.
So, with the raise the flop strategy, assuming the 4th spade does not come, it will likely cost 3.5 BB to play to the river. In contrast, by simply calling, when he is beat, it only costs .5 BB if significant aggression appears on the flop (if you agree that our hero should fold if forced to call two cold,) and only 2.5 BB otherwise. Moreover, if the BB simply calls the raise on the turn, our hero has the option of betting again on the river for value, potentially getting as much money is as in the previous case when he does, in fact, have the best hand.
All comments/flames welcome,
Dave
I would simply call the flop, if a blank hits on the turn I would call again, and if a blank hits on the river I would call again. There are a lot of reasons why I would play the hand like this that I don't want feel like getting into but they involve the concepts that most of the time you are drawing nearly dead or are a slight favorite; the players behind you will likely play only high quality draws or hands that beat yours; and you will win more money when you have the best hand and lose less when you don't.
There is a concept with which I am certain that all of you are familiar. It is the idea that one should position oneself to the left of certain players; either tight or loose. Or the old saw, "When in doubt sit behind the money." While I admit this has merit, I have found that it is far more important in the games that I frequent, to position yourself optimally vis a vis the blinds. Recall another axiom, which I think can be regarded as fundamental, "Poker begins with a struggle over the blinds (or antes)." This of course leads me to conclude that position in relation to your opponents when one of you is in the blind is a far better approach both theoretically and from my own experience. If you are in a game with excellent players to your right, and there is a blind stealing element to the game, I think you are in a bad spot. Conversely, having overly tight or loose weak players in the blinds while you have late position is a bonanza, when I have this auspicious occassion it bodes well for a profitable session. Well, what do you all think? I could elaborate, but I am certain you get my point.
I think Malmuth talks alittle about this in his Poker Essays.
But I think if your game is mostly blind stealing find another game!
Indeed one needs to strike a balance between who yuou want to your right and left when you aren't in the blind (you want loose, agressive and winning players on your right, and you want tight players on your left amd those who play tightly in the blinds), while when you are in teh blind you want passive players to your right to try and get a free play. I think most of the time you are better off sitting behind the money as you pbly aren't losing as much by being attacked in the blinds as much you gain when you are in later position.
I think this somewhat depends on how tight/loose you are. But I usually try to position the loose,agressive, and good players to my right whenever possible.
backdoor,
I think your ideas are correct when you are in tight and tough games. If you play 40/80 and below in Los Angeles, or 20/40 and below in Las Vegas, find another game.
However, if you often play short handed (e.g., you prop, are playing late at night against stuck steamers, or want to keep a potentially good game together), I believe this may be of vital importance. This is especially true since you will often have freedom to change seats. Good post and I hope others can add their thoughts.
Regards,
Rick
I think an extension of your post could come from your suggestion to have either extremely tight or extremely loose opponents on your left. I know that I want the total rocks or other weak-tight opponents on my left so I can not only steal their blinds, but also bet or raise to get them to fold. the few times when they raise ME, I usually know to get out of the pot unless I have a good hand.
I still think it is a must to position yourself to the left of loose-aggressive players. You just don't want them on YOUR left or you will not be able to play many hands, constantly fearing that you will get raised with a marginal holding and be putting in too many bets without a strong enough hand. Maniacs eat you up BTF (unless you play very tightly )if they are on your left.
If you have overly loose players on your left, that is not bad. You won't be able to steal their blinds, but when you have a good starting hand you can get them to call with inferior holdings more often. Also, they often call your bets so you can value bet more.
Good post and discussions.
Dave in Cali
In contrast to David and Mason, I believe you want to sit on the RIGHT side of tight aggressive players. The reason is that these players do not play a lot of hands. Someone has to sit behind you, and it might as well be someone who is normally not in the pot. Furthermore, as another poster menitoned, this puts you in a good spot when it is your blind, as these players are now not in a position to steal from you.
William
There are a number of considerations. I think it depends on how they're weighted in a given game.
It's good to be in a position to steal the blinds of a tight player who plays weakly and predictably postflop. (It's a bit of an illusion that you want to go liberally for the blinds of a tight, *tough player, because he may [in the long run] give you a lot of trouble the times he does defend.) It's good to sit behind a very loose player since he will be in there contributing semi-dead money to a lot of the pots you play. It's good not to have a very aggressive blind stealer who plays well postflop two or three seats to your right. It's good not to have a very tough heads up player who doesn't chop (such as in some time games) on your immediate left. It's good to have a bad heads up player who doesn't chop (in a time game) on your immediate right.
All of those things exist on continuums though. You might, for example, choose *not to sit to the left of a *somewhat loose player, because there's another seat that will allow you to steal the blinds of a *really weak-tight player. You have to assess which factors stand out in this particular game. (All things being equal, though, I'd generally rather sit behind the really loose player. Note that the presence of such a player in a game will often mean that blind stealing opportunities will be minimized.)
Of course these things vary according to the type of game. e.g., as Rick points out, the blind stealing considerations will loom larger in tighter, tougher games.
There is a concept with which I am certain that all of you are familiar. It is the idea that one should position oneself to the left of certain players; either tight or loose. Or the old saw, "When in doubt sit behind the money." While I admit this has merit, I have found that it is far more important in the games that I frequent, to position yourself optimally vis a vis the blinds. Recall another axiom, which I think can be regarded as fundamental, "Poker begins with a struggle over the blinds (or antes)." This of course leads me to conclude that position in relation to your opponents when one of you is in the blind is a far better approach both theoretically and from my own experience. I
I just finished playing 10-20 where I got no action whatsoever on my big hands. Just wanted to know if anyone would have played the hands differently. Hand #1: 4 callers to me and I'm the button with Ac9c. I call. SB calls and BB checks. 6 of us see the flop, Kc8h4c. Checked around to me and I check. Turn is 7c. Checked around to me, I bet and everyone folds!!! Should I have checked the flop? What about the turn? Hand #2: I have KhKd and raise in middle position. All fold to the blinds who both call. Flop is Td8h8c. Check, Check, I decide to check hoping to trap a player. Turn is Ks. Check, check and I give free card. River is blank and neither player calls my bet. Any advice on trapping other players is appreciated...
I fell it is fundamentally incorrect to slowplay in both the cases you describe. In the first case, there is five opponents and it is theroretically incorrect to slowplay anything at all. In the case of the your nut flush draw with A9clubs, you most certainly can bet the flop, and it is pure profit to you even with as little as two callers, considering position and your overcard ace. Additionally, given what seems to be a timid passive table, there is semi bluff potential for you to win without improving, and this is a rare bird against five opponents. A very good argument can be made for raising this hand preflop against those limpers, provided they are not the passive types who will limp with their strong hands. The hand with the kings unequivocally requires a bet on the flop as there is any ace and a cheesey free straight sitting on the flop. Be happy to win right there. This is not a slowplay situation. The turn can be checked if u r in a mood for trapping, because you now have a monster against blinds. Perhaps you should consider that you have a tell? I dont know but maybe this is the reason, although these seem like super passive types to me.
One note. I used to get really annoyed when I didn't get an action on my big hands. But once you konw this you can steal away! If they are so afraid to call you bet , bet more often. (BTW I used to bet alot my big hands and (when I was getting annooyed) I thought I was getting insufficient action).
Semibluff away! There are gobs of small pots you can take. This isn't a bad thing. You need to strike a balance and be aware how the table percieves you. But if you arne't getting paid off you should be even more i think.
Steve,
Hand #1:
Regarding the first hand you wrote: 4 callers to me and I'm the button with Ac9c. I call. SB calls and BB checks. 6 of us see the flop, Kc8h4c. Checked around to me and I check.”
I think you should have considered a flop bet. It might make an ace or even a nine good if called and has a reasonable chance of winning right there despite five opponents. Note that the flop is unconnected for straights and contains a king, which most players will raise with pre flop at this limit.
”Turn is 7c. Checked around to me, I bet and everyone folds!!!”
Since you checked the flop it really appears that there is little out there or else they would have taken a stab at it. I can’t think of a hand that could catch up to you not betting (e.g., a set, two pair) and the hands that are strong (a smaller flush) should have bet themselves. This might be a rare case where you should check the nuts on the turn despite the rather large field and the fact that you act last. It may just give someone a chance to catch up enough to bet into you on the river. I also wonder what others think.
Hand #2:
You wrote: ”I have KhKd and raise in middle position. All fold to the blinds who both call. Flop is Td8h8c. Check, Check, I decide to check hoping to trap a player. Turn is Ks. Check, check and I give free card. River is blank and neither player calls my bet. Any advice on trapping other players is appreciated.”
I think you should have asked the dealer to deal a sixth card before betting the river. Maybe then they would have caught up a bit ;-).
Regards,
Rick
Rick - "Considered a flop bet"?! With 6 players in, the first flop is easily worth capping, not to mention putting in a single bet. Checking the turn is an interesting play, but by betting you might get calls from the Q or J of clubs. I could go either way.
One merit of betting the turn in hand 2 that you didn't mention is that you might get check-raised by an 8. Wouldn't that be nice? Maybe you'd even get a call by a straight draw.
Niels,
I’m not sure we disagree but there seems to be a logical flaw here somewhere.
You wrote: ”With 6 players in, the first flop is easily worth capping, not to mention putting in a single bet.”
Remember, our hero had the button and five opponents checked the flop to him. If he bets and gets no calls that is great. He wins right there with an ace high flush draw. If he bets and gets three or more calls that is good to great. BTW, capping with five opponents would not be as great as it looks as another flush draw or two is out besides the likelihood of a set being out meaning making a flush with a paired board costing our hero (and the other flush draw) big bucks. If he bets and gets two calls, it is about break even, assuming one of the callers is currently leading by a bit. If he bets and gets one call (who leads him or has odds on drawing out when he misses), that is bad. He would wish he took a free card. But as I said, I would have “considered a flop bet”.
”Checking the turn is an interesting play, but by betting you might get calls from the Q or J of clubs. I could go either way.”
You would get calls from those hands but you may get calls all the way down to a medium club if another one comes on the river. If a club doesn’t come then you get calls from hands that may try to keep you honest on the river but don’t want to pay two big bets to do so. And I certainly don’t see free cards beating you here.
”One merit of betting the turn in hand 2 that you didn't mention is that you might get check-raised by an 8. Wouldn't that be nice? Maybe you'd even get a call by a straight draw.”
True enough but I would think an eight would bet the flop. Anyway, on the second example I felt the odds that I had a decent opportunity to make a wiseass remark overwhelmed all other considerations.
Regards,
Rick
"This might be a rare case where you should check the nuts on the turn despite the rather large field and the fact that you act last. It may just give someone a chance to catch up enough to bet into you on the river. I also wonder what others think. "
Rick, I think you may be right on this one. On the first hand, the only real chance of your getting beat is if someone has two pair and fills up on the river. However, if they had two pair you would have probably heard about it by now. Therefore, giving a free card here is not a bad idea.
Second hand, you wrote: "I think you should have asked the dealer to deal a sixth card before betting the river".
While this is one POSSIBLE way to have dealt with the situation... i think he should have considered betting the flop as another way to play it! :)
Dave in Cali
I would have bet the flop too. You would get some callers just thinking you are tryingto steal. I too would have bet the turn. They just had crappy hands. I think your flo bet would have made some stay.
hand 2, I would have bet the KK post flop and taken my chances against a check raise from a set.
Excellent post.
The easy part is that both hands should have been bet. Do realize that tight players will not get involved in a nothing pot late in a hand unless they have a big hand themselves -- thus, if you have any kind of a hand, then bet! The other moral to this story is that if you want to get action, you have to give some. Sitting and waiting until you have a monster to bet shows you to be a tight player yourself.
My suspicion is that you are playing backward, like a lot of players do. Betting the hell out of moderate hands and sitting and waiting with the nuts. Do you find that your early round bets and raises are getting called? If so, then your opponents have detected this pattern. Also you raised pre-flop with the K's, they know you have something so you may as well bet. You are not fooling anyone. They expect you to bet, don't disappoint them. Whenever I see a pre-flop raiser with position check the round out, I get very suspicious. And with the 4-flush, if they are aware of the free card play (which most seem to be these days) they will call (and sometimes raise). Get their chips in the pot!
On hand#1, you should have bet on the flop for two reasons:1)in order to semi-bluff (representing a pair of Kings) and 2)in order to get a freecard on the turn on your nut flush draw. On the turn, you should have checked in order to slow play (thus, allowing someone to "catch up" and/or to induce a bluff on the river). On hand#2, you played near perfectly and got unlucky that the blinds just absolutely had nothing.
Greetings,
Here are some hands where I flopped some monsters, I thought I played them well but a freind of mine thought I might have misplayed a street or two.
Tell me what you think...
1) 10/20 loose game.
3 limp I just call in late position w/ TT (if less people were in I might raise), and 1 call behind , both blinds call.
Teh flop comes TT 2. (Wow!)
Blinds check, aggressive player bets, 2 call and button raises, aggressive player folds next 2 call, I just call.
4 see a turn of 4.
All check to the button, who bets 1 call I raise button calls other player folds(!).
River was 5, I bet button calls... Player to my right claimed he would have made a fullhouse if I didn't raise him out on the TUrn... A few people made fun of me as I raised to "protect my hand" on the turn. Maybe I might have won an extra bet if I just called but I thought waiting for the river to raise was dumb as many will pay on the turn but not on the river...
2)10/20 game. Im new to it and playing at a very odd time for me (Monday morning).
4 limpers I limp w/55 on the button. Blinds call.
Flop comes 5d 5c 6c. (wow, twice in one weekend!)
Agressive player ahead of me bets in late positioin, I call and 3 call after me.
The turn is an 8. All again check to the aggressive player who bets again, I thought a raise might lose many of the players after me, so I call and 2 call (one commented about being openended though it seemed he iddn't like the call).
The river was a low blank. All again check to the agressive player in late position who bets again, I suspect no one made their hand and raise now, all fold including the initial bettor who said he had a pocket pair.
I thought I played this fine but it was suggested for me to raise on the turn as the straight draw (and others) are not going to fold now and will think I only have one five.
3) weak 6/12 game. 4 Limpers I call w/ 4c5c in the SB BB calls.
The flop is (you guessed it)
6c7c8c (too bad im not playing video poker)
I check and it gets checked around.
Turn is 3h. I bet 2 call. (I suspect it will get chjecked around if I check again).
River is an 8. I bet next folds and get raised (!) by last player. I reraise and he hesitates and finally calls.
He said he just had an 8.
Seems like a very long time since these hands happened! Comments...
Wish I had this kind of luck.
The problem with hand 1 and hand 2 is that the flop smooth call and turn raise screams, "I HAVE TRIPS!" The fact that you actually have quads is irrelevant, since with boards this lousy, trips are probably enough. I'd prefer to bet the flops and check the turn, making it look like you tried to steal but gave up. Unfortunately, since the player to your right bet in both cases, you didn't have the option of raising the flop. You're just not going to make any money of these hands if no one else hits something - I think you played them pretty well. Too bad the pocket pair didn't trip on the river.
I'd bet the flop on hand 3. You'll get calls from straight and flush draws. Besides, if someone else bets and you either checkraise or smooth call & raise the turn, you're essentially screaming once again, "I HAVE A FLUSH!" I definitely would not check the turn. If you're up against someone slowplaying the A-high flush, a checkraise will put him on his guard. If you just bet/reraise, who knows how many bets you'll get.
1) I like the turn raise if there is a flush draw on board. like you said, many will call a turn raise but not a river raise with a draw. However, the turn, with not flush draw, only offers a tiny straight draw, so the likely hood of someone drawing is reduced. with no flush draw out there, I'd just call and hope someone makes something on the river.
2)see above. with both a flush and straight draw (and maybe a made straight) on board, you can raise the turn without fear of losing too many hands.
3) I'd bet out on the flop. people may put you on a single club and call you down with anything. also, single clubs will call, hoping that you're on a pair. Especially in weak ll games, you have to bet your hand. people who flop monsters here will almost always slowplay them. slow playing gives away your hand since everyone does it. Interestingly, I've found that the best way to hide your hand is to play it in a straight forward manner.
I don't see any particularly egregious mistakes. You might want to file this idea away for future reference however: In many games, a bet or raise on the flop will keep opponents coming instead of the expected result of a fold. Many players, especially the "any-Acers" and the overcard players, will take one off to the turn which will also often get them involved further. It's hard to flop a monster at hold-em and not many will believe ... although that may depend on your image also.
A feature of "loose" games is the propensity of players to make a single hopeless call on the flop "one time". These same players often do NOT call a double bet. This means you should make players face a double bet when you have a questionable single pair but should NOT make them face a double bet with your monsters. It also means you WANT them to face a single bet pretty much no matter what reasonable hand you have: pair, draw, or monster.
I approve, therefore, you no NOT raising with your first two monsters. But I believe you should have bet out your monster #3 since the chances of getting called is real high and you don't want to give up all that loose money. I often will bet the monster on the flop and then check, hehehe, the turn.
On hand 2 you would have made 2 double bets from the player who folded 55. It would cost you one bet to just call. Since this player is a serious underdog to snag a 5 and you are getting only 2:1 to try, it doesn't seem like a wise wager. Good turn raise since you already have players in that like their hand enough for 1 bet.
- Louie
On the first hand I think you could have waited till the river to raise, but I don't think your play was that bad. You were in a position where you pretty much knew that two players would call your turn raise, so a lot of the time I might go ahead and raise then. You may have made one more big bet (on the average) by waiting till the river, but this is not guaranteed. However, your hand was pretty much a complete lock, barring two runner for a pocket pair, or a straight flush. Therefore it would be OK to slow play some more on the turn and try to get as many people in as possible.
On the second hand, there is somewhat more of a case for raising the turn, mainly because the flop had a flush draw plus a straight draw, and the turn made more straight draws possible. When a blank hits on the river it is not surprising that everyone folded to a raise. This is one flopped monster that may have done better with a turn raise.
On the third hand, I may have even considered betting the flop. I often just bet out when I flop the nut flush (it has happened a few times). I think that you may as well bet so people with a club will go ahead and call. It is more likely that they will fold on the turn with this type of flop, so go ahead and bet. Anyone with a big club will probably call the flop, and there could be several big clubs out there with all those low cards on the board and in your hand. Plus, anyone with the 9c will probably be totally tempted to call, trying for the elusive straight flush (which you have one of the cards).
It should be noted that if YOU were the person with the 9c, a fold would probably be in order as you likely only have two outs! But most weak lower limit players will almost certainly chase this one, so betting the flop may again be the best play.
Good post
Now I get to see what the others wrote...
Dave in Cali
I'm a recreational player, but I still prefer winning over losing (who doesn't?). However I always seem to play until i've given back most or all of my win, especially when i'm sitting on a monster win of a couple grand. In hindsight I always wish I would have gotten up, but when I'm at the table with a huge pile of chips and no other plans, I just can't make myself do it. Is this an ego thing, or do I just like playing poker too much for my own good?
Doug,
Before you sit down you should have some idea as to how long you have to play. If you have a personal engagement in eight hours, get up then at the latest. Don’t screw up your personal life for poker. If you have some flexibility at the back end, still plan on a session length. It should not be much more than eight or nine hours anyway as few people play well after this period.
Consider playing longer ONLY if you have no important personal commitments AND the game has become much better than average. This assumes you are not too tired and still playing well. Do not let stack size impact your decision. As a rule of thumb, I want the game to have about 1.5 times my normal expectation in order for me to put in an extra hour or two. This is how much you would make in “overtime” in a real job. Don’t take this too far, as sessions extending past twelve hours or so can really screw up your next few days (i.e., you will feel like sh_t).
Sometimes you will play a little longer in the great game and get unlucky and lose or reduce your stacks. Learn to deal with this. Sometimes you will play a little longer and win much more. If you make good decisions here your expectation should increase in the long run.
I think John Feeney’s book has the best material on how to view session fluctuations. Remember, the “next hour you play is the next hour you play”. It doesn’t really matter if it is played today or some other day as long as the game is good or better than average.
Regards,
Rick
So, you make a mental note that you have a good win of $1000. Which is more memorable: losing $500 and going home or winning another $1000, then giving $500 of it back? In both cases you are likely to feel like you lost $500 of your great win, but in the 2nd you are $1000 richer than the first; it just doesn't FEEL that way. You tend to forget that you improved $1000 to $2000. It is also extremely rare for a player to leave when their stacks are at the highest they have been: this being a feature of varience and not any sort of discipline. (I read somewhere that typical good black-jack professionals 99% of the time have a smaller lifetime gross win currently than their lifetime maximum.)
I see two exceptions to my objection to "should have left while I was ahead" crap: (1) You tend to go on "Happy Tilt" and play hopelessly loose when winning (2) The big win probably took a long time, you've been playing for several hours, and you are too tired to play well (or the game tends to dry up late in the night) (3) You are an over-all losing player: any excuse to leave early is a good one. OK, 3 reasons.
Only you can determine if you have problems (1) or (3). However, I strongly suspect your problem is (2): you are playing far too long in a session. If this is so it doesn't make much difference if you are winning or losing: you are a serious underdog the last few hours of a marathon session.
It sounds like you need some session discipline: set a hard limit on how long you will play. To enforce this be sure to schedule something to do after the session: Going to play at Noon Saturday? Schedule something for 8am Sunday as this will prevent you from playing late Saturday, assuming you need reasonable rest.
Another trick that has worked for me is to have a list of moderately important chores to do: if I leave a poker session early I can attack one or two of these chores, and THIS helps give me the boost I often need to get up and leave when I "know" I should but I don't "feel" like it.
You have "no other plans"? Well, make other plans.
- Louie
I set an artificial time limit and win/loss limits. When I get to any of those points, I take inventory of my mental capacity. If I'm still "in the zone", I continue on, but put myself on alert to get out when I tilt in either direction.
I continue to propose that 4 hours is the optimum session length, but for many people, that doesn't seem satisfactory.
"...I ALWAYS seem to play until I've given back most or all of my win...". By saying "always" you are essentially implying that you tend to engage in this self-fullfilling losing behavior regularly and consistently. It may have become a habit for you. I don't know enough about you personally to make totally accurate conclusions from this. However, if you tend to REGULARLY stop playing only AFTER you've given back all or most of your winnings, it may be that that's what you really want to do at the unconscious level. If this is generally true, it is a warning sign telling you that you may be your own worst enemy at the poker table. This can be especially true if at an intellectual level, you are fully aware of the fact that "it's all one big poker session" and that stop loss or stop wins are totally bogus concepts. Know yourself.
I found myself frequently in the same position. I broke myself of the habit by setting strict guidelines. For one month I would arrive at the game and say "I'm leaving after I play 15 hands", or "I'll make 5 pre-flop raises and be gone," or a bunch of other goofy things. Not only did it help me end those 16 hour sessions, it improved my overall discipline.
Try to always leave after winning a hand as well.
Best of luck, Winger
my take on this is that it is near impossible to seperate out the noise from the signal in 8 or 10 or 12 hours. only lately have i begun to realize this, and ive played almost 4000 hours. theres just too much luck in the game. what this has meant for me is that i no longer think of being up or down in a 'session'. (well, i try ...) i bring a fixed amount of money (say 30 BB) and play until the game gets tough or i bust out.
as far as i can tell, the secret is to get out when the game gets tough, no matter how many chips are in front of you. its easy to leave because youre tired or have something to do, but to leave a game (especially when winning) is a hard thing to do. it should come with experience, and along the way you may come up with some mental notes (like, when i start to be afraid of losing (my formidable stack) , its time to leave ...).
in the end, mason is right on: you have to develop a deep understanding of the game.
brad
My general rule is if i get up 3 times my buy in, and then lose back my buy in i quit and take my winnings, if i have been playing for any reasonal amount of time.
I probally would not leave in the first 2 hours, but if i have been playing 4 or 5 hr. i wuold take my win.
it really just depends for me. if for some reason this makes me start playing at all scared then ill leave, but if im still feeling and playing strong and a favorite over the opposition then im glued.
also poker is almost my only recreation, which i guess is a seperate issue:)
brad
First, realize that a player who consistently tends to give back his winnings when he continues to play is probably not a favorite in the game. Another possibility is that the player does normally have an edge in the game but goes on "happy tilt" (i.e., his play deteriorates when winning big).
Second, difficulty quiting a game when you are winning can be a warning sign of compulsive gambling. Consider whether gambling is interfering with other aspects of your life.
A player second to act limps in. I have jacks two of the button and raise. The big blind calls as well as the limper.
Flop: 3c 7s 9c.
Blind checks, the limper bets into me. I think he might have something. I also think he might be betting because he wants to be raised. I make it two bets to define my hand. Big blind folds and the limper/bettor calls.
Turn: K offsuit.
He checks. I bet and get checkraised.
I bet and folded in this case because I thought I could lay it down safely(here). Something like this happens too often though and I think I'm being a little too aggressive and stubborn with my hands here.
At what rate do you think I should check in spots like this, in spots where I think I might get checkraised?
Based on your experience with this player, you appear to have a good read that he has a monster hand (AA, KK, maybe a set. I think I would check and call with that strong a read - unless an overcard came, where laying down makes more sense. I would have put in the turn raise and hoped for a check by him on the river - spiking a Jack would be nice too :)
i see all the better players checking here.
either youre ahead to 6 outs at most (AQ or AJ) and thus a free card wont be that bad, or your beat (AK, KQ, KJ) and drawing to a 2 outer nearly dead.
against an average middle limit player i say check most of the time.
brad
Berya - I haven't read the other responses, but don't play results. Your play in this case may have been fine all the way. In many similar instances the opp would have had only a pair, a flush draw, etc. You would often end up winning the pot. But if you got a sense from his behavior, or were familiar enough with his patterns of play to know there was a strong chance he had a big hand and was going to check-raise, then you could have checked along and just called on 5 (on the possibility that he didn't have such a big hand). Seen in isolation, without specific information to the contrary, there's nothing wrong with the way you played it.
Last night I made it to the final table in a tournement ( this being my 3rd tourney- I was excited ). When the blinds get to me, they are 10K and 5K. I have 17.5K. Can't call raise in the big give it up. In the small I have Q7c and am facing a man who went all in. Relatively sure the BB won't call (significant?) I decide now is as good a time as any to gamble; it's a long shot but so are my chances of surviving another five minutes at this table . Was this a stupid move? should i have tried to get something better with the other 2.5k before my BB hits again?
Conlusion: no clubs I loose to a big pocket pair
.
Couple of questions.
Did you have the 17.5k after posting the blinds and how many were left. I have a few comments on your NL play if you are interested email me.
Mike
3-6, EXTREMELY loose, [not necessarily agressive, but more maniac-esque]
I'm stuck about 50 bucks for what seems like forever, and I feel as though I'm playing drunk as I have tunnel vision, and can't even walk straight. This table was a goldmine, and I waited and waited but rags after rages kept coming.
I try a live straddle utg as ppl do some weird stuff at this time of day....lo and behold, it gets 4 bet to me, and i capped [5 bets b/c of the straddle]
HOLY COW, it's a family pot. THIS POT IS HUGE.
I have 89 suited under the gun...[btw, who was is that said in an earlier post that 89 utg is an easy call? you sir, are a genius]
in any case, flop is 7TJ with a four flush possibility.
OH BABY, I must've had an orgasm when i saw those cards [I'M KIDDING].....okay, moving on....
sb checks, bb bets, i raise, person to my left 3 bets, person in late position caps.
everyone calls except one person.
turn is 3, no flush possible. bb checks, i bet, person to my left raises, late position person 3 bets, i cap. [everyone in between calls except 2 ppl]
river is an ace, [no flush possibility] i'm surpised that there's still an ace out there...
great...just great...who chased with KQ...i sure as hell hope no one did.
i bet, call, fold, fold, rest call.[woohoo, no ace high straight since no reraise...]
i take down a massive pot as i catch glimpses of a guy complaining about his trip aces, and the person to my left who raised had trip jacks.
yet again, high pocket pairs get shot down by suited/connected cards...muahahahah...hey, it's a family pot man...one has to play those cards and see if the flop hits 'em hard...right? =)
at any rate, i cash out and as i'm lifting up about 5 racks up and i drop 'em all over the floor cuz i tripped over the chair. HAHAHAHA, i must've looked like a frickin' idiot!
the point of this msg is, if you can find it within' urself to hang in there and control urself, u'll make a forture [w/ a heavy dose of luck of course] in loose/agressive/maniac-esque games found in the wee morning hours. just expect huge swings, and find it within' urself to fold those gutshot draws even if there's all those ppl in there...heck...someone must be there already...then again, it's 3-6 so draw draw draw!!!
another tip that i learned from watching another person...you know it's time to go when you ask for a color change for the lower chip value/color. that just plain sucks.
also, go home when you can't see straight!!! goodness...okay, that's my story for early this morning.
feel free to tell me how stupid of a play my live straddle was...
now for my question: utg with 89 suited, of course call one bet right? if everyone's in, and capped...would u call for the flop? flopping a straight afterwards and figuring out what to do is a nobrainer...BET and raise!
did aces over play his hand? what would u have done in aces' position? check and call?
okay, any advice would be appreciated because i'm starting to love these types of games, a hell of a lot more so than tight agressive 3-6 games.
have a nice day, bye bye.
-jon
I think that this is horrible preflop play. First of all the live straddle is a bad play. as you say you felt like being silly, and i think that's great; poker is supposed to be fun.
As for the call, i'm not sure you know how to count, because if you did then you would see that if it was made four bets, then you would not be calling one bet as you later state in your post. Second, those are two raises. How can you know that everyone is going to call? What are they raising with? Pocket aces and pocket jacks. Maybe they aren't as maniacal as you think. At this point, your 89 is leaning very heavily on it's implied odds, so I think the cap is plain wrong. you got lots of action after the flop, but how dependable is that action? If you're only going to get a few calls down to the river then your implied odds are not good enough for a call, let alone a raise. The opposite of that, which i think is more applicable to your table is that they are super agressive. 89s is likely to flop a draw, in which case, you will be tied into the pot and forced to call all the way to the river, maybe two, three bets a street. This means that when you do make a draw on the flop, your profit is going to plummet.
Moral of the story: against super maniacs who cap all the time every street with every "playable" hand, play tight. Calling under the gun with 89s is not tight, it is bad play. Hold 'em is highly position dependant, and hands like 89s want to be on the button.
-james H.
Well, it sounds like you had a good time but I am disturbed about the whole thrust of your message. You were playing in a good $3-$6 game but not getting any cards. You were tired, and stuck so you decide to start gambling by playing bad poker. You put in a straddle, which is always a rotten play, and then you pay 5 bets to take a flop with a medium suited connector which is more bad poker. You are doing exactly what all the other players at the table do-not playing with an edge just gambling. You catch a miracle flop and get to run down quality holdings while laughing all the way. You think that your message from all this is to simply hang in there, the luck will change, and you will win if you play long enough. But in the long run players who straddle and pay multiple bets to take flops with suited connectors are usually losers over the course of a year. You need to re-think your position on this.
well stated Jim...what do you expect from someone who goes by the name Butt Jingles???
Suited connectors play best in family pots. Ideally one would like to put in only a single bet with your holding. The hand can be played up front if you feel like you will get a multiway pot. I don't like putting in 5 bets with 89s but if everyone else calls I will probably see the flop and play accordingly. I am not a big proponent of a live straddle. Keep in mind with your hand if you're putting in 5 bets with it your variance is going to be very high. Fortunately you flopped gin but on the other hand you may have flopped a big draw and had to put in multiple multiple bets on the flop and turn and not gotten there and you would have a large dent in your chip stack. I will sometimes gamble with these hands up front if I feel like I will get enough action on later streets, but you need to be real careful with these hands.
Bruce
playing 89s UTG in any game is going to get you more lost chips than won. Straddling, even if live, is a money loser. you are putting in a raise with two random cards and you are way out of position. plus any good players with halfway decent cards are going to reraise your straddle and try to isolate you with what will probably be two crappy cards.
After that flop you played the only way you could.
As for taking a capped pot BTF with 89s, perhaps on the button when the raises come in stages (due to pointless limp-reraises), but otherwise FOLD IT.
Dave in Cali
"If u can find it within yourself to hang in there and control yourself, u'll make a fortune"
If controlling yourself is straddling and calling a capped pot with 8-9 I guess u did a great job. I'm just wondering what your morale would have been if someone showed you K-Q at the end?
Winger
oops. meant moral.
"...the point of this message is, if you can find it within urself to hang in there and control urself". You call straddling utg and calling multiple raises with an 89s in early position "control"? You played like a drunk and got lucky. Your win had nothing to do with "hanging in there".
left intentionally blank except for this statement.
Just a quick comment or two... I remember hearing from some loudmouth at an O/8 table saying the straddle is the worst bet in Poker. I disagreed but didn't want to argue w/him.
However when you straddle you want the table to a)fear you at least somewhat b) be tight and somewhat passive. So when the table caps it when you straddle this is not a good table to straddle at.
That being said 89s is a good hand in most LL games as you can expect multiway action for hopefully no more than 1 bet or2. YOu dont' want to have to pay 5 bets to see the flop. You got lucky, but implied odds hands want to see the flop cheaply.
You did fine. Technically, the straddle is negative and playing 8-9s UTG is negative ... but not for the price you got. No hand was that big of a favorite before the flop with that many callers. But that's not my point.
In a loose game where you are not catching many cards, occasionally you have to make an "incorrect play." About 15 years ago, a friend in a stud game told me "if you never make a bad play, you'll never win a big pot." While that advice isn't quite accurate, the essence of that statement was not lost on me. Maybe it could be distilled to, "if you never play a bad hand ...." If you've heard about some of the hands that Jack Straus used to play, you'd grasp this concept even more fully.
But making a risky play with a hand that has a decent shot at flopping something is even better (I made the same play WITH THE SAME HAND in last year's TOC and flopped a big flush with straight flush potential, but got sucked out on by a running full house).
The point is that it isn't good play to always play technically correct. You'll find that these occasional oddball plays have even more impact against "good" players, since they struggle to deal with someone who isn't playing "by the book."
Moderation in all things.
"Moderation in all things?" Is this like Men Nuygen's advice in his interview with Lee Munzer in Poker Digest Magazine about "playing too solid"? My problem with this idea is simply this: How many times do you have to jump the fence before you get a hand that will win at showdown? How much money will you have pissed away with straddle bets and dumping multiple bets into a pot pre-flop with weak cards only to have to fold once the flop comes or at some other point before you catch a miracle board that allows you to win a big pot? The problem is we only hear about the few times these idiot plays work out well but never hear about all the times they lose money.
Very well said, Jim.
Doesn't HEPFAP suggest that one occasionally raise in early position with a hand like 89s? If every move you make at the poker table is predictable, you will lose large amounts of money to the good players. I think one should pick one's spots to "play badly." I will occasionally make a bad play to try and run down those players who play too solidly and are apt to go on tilt.
So that was what Mr. Butt Jingles was doing? He was making a variance play and intentionally playing bad so that he could get future action on his good hands? Did we read the same post?
Woah...I didn't expect so many responses, especially something along the lines of Earl's.
In any case, this was the very first time I've ever tried a live straddle, and only because it was late and I was up 100, then lost it, then lost 50 of my buy in to another person who sucked out on me at another table.
At the time, I had a loose-agressive image, however, i was able to shut it off and fold when I knew I was beat or had absolutely no chance in winning.
I pride myself in playing tight in loose games, however, it seems whenever everyone else appears to have tighten up, I loosen up and become the aggressor. The aggressor in the sense that I'll raise in late position w/ anything half decent in a kill pot to isolate those who called. However, I will fold crap hands when there are bets and raises in front of me.
Isn't there some saying about being able to 'turn off your agressiveness' at will? I was the killer for a good 5 hands [but hardly won anything] an hour or so before the infamous 89s live straddle and all because I raised and got lucky enough to bluff out decent players when that particular hand was either 2 or 3 handed.
There were 2 solid players, who were dealers, that lost their buy ins of about 50 or 60 bux in a short amount of time because they were playing Ax off while I myself was the 'loose maniac' or so they thought. They figured out I wasn't soon enough when I showed hands such as AK and QQ to their QT.
The point of this message, and I still haven't figured it out, is that, yes, I got lucky with the live straddle. But my mixing up of my play a few hours ago drove people nuts, and in turn, drove myself nuts eventually to 2am, hence the live straddle.
Okay, in my last attempt to find a meaning to this message...I'm not saying that live straddles are the best plays...it is, in my eyes, a decent move in a passive table [as it was about half an hour ago before everything went crazy] where there were 3 yummy fish who checked and called every single time and only bet or raised w/ nut hands...and i befriended these guys =) so i knew when to fold. "hey, just bet or raise if you have a hand that can't beat you..." and they listen...and so, i stopped bluffing.
and finally, in my last attempt to make this reading any worthwhile, i have learned something from reading your guys' responses on how strongly u despise live straddles. at any rate, thanks for the responses, b/c those were the ones i wanted and expected. it's kinda boring to read a post when one does everything perfectly, and that person knows it, but posted it only to massage his ego. =)
well, have a nice day. and i gotta get more sleep. this is the 2nd straight day that i got caught snoozing. =) luckily for me, my boss is a very nice guy.
later.
-jon
Men and I have studied at the same church.
In late position with AsAc. 2 limpers, I raise, folded to the big blind who calls. Limpers call.
Flop comes Ks 8h 2s. BB bets, limpers fold. Now it's heads up. I raise, he calls.
Turn is the T of spades - 3 spades on board. I have the ace of spades so I have outs even if he has the flush now. He comes out betting, I call.
River is a red king. He bets, I fold.
He flashes AK and takes the pot.
Granted he had the best hand so my fold was good. But should I have folded? I have decided that one of my biggest weaknesses is learning when to let go of big
Should you have folded? Hell, no.
I also think you should have raised the turn. You have a strong hand with a draw. What were you waiting for?
William
On the flop, call in order to trap the bettor on the turn with a raise when the bets double in size. On the turn and the river, call and call. You made a bad fold this time. Better to lose a bet than too lose a pot. The pot on the river justified that you shake your head and hesitatingly pay him off.
he knew he was beat, he laid it down the moment he knew it, well played I say. yes yes I know if you play AA to the river 40000 times on a computer you will show a profit, However this game is not ALL math, its people too. He knew he was beat and laid it down, isn't it how this game is supposed to be played?
I agree, there's no such thing as "you should call due to pot odds" if you KNOW the other player has you beat... but granted you have to know with a reasonable certainty. I know some players who are passive and only bet if they have the nuts or close to it...
Where can I buy discipline like that? Is there a website where I can order discipline in poker from? Also, where can I buy reading skills like that? That's one heck of a laydown.
What else would he bet? Nothing except a king. Another king hits, you fold when bet into.
Good fold.
This guy is as smooth as can b.
[ok, that didn't really make sense but u get the picture.]
okay, have a nice day.
-jon
I think you made a good read on your opponent. It sounds as if your opponent plays a little weak-tight (i.e. not re-raising pre-flop, not check-raising the flop or turn), and this must have factored into your folding on the river. If he was a typical weak-tight player, there's just not too many hands he could have at the end that you would be able to beat with the board the way it was. He is unlikely to be betting with a worse hand than yours.
I think you would have called had not another King fell on the river. Correct?
My personsl philosofy is if there is at least 2 reasonable ways that i am beat i will lay my hand down if bet into after showing strengh.
In this case i would have raised the turn, and most likly he would have check on the river. If he had bet into you again after raising the turn your beat 99% of the time unless he is a mainac, then i would call him anyway.
I think is extremely dangerous to start making laydowns like this in general. There are quite a few times I have made a call where I thought (was almost sure) I was dead and low and behold my hand was good...
The other thing about it is if you start making laydowns liek this and the table picks up on it you are in huge trouble. All kinds of people will start taking shots at you. If this guy is very predictable then your laydown might be right but I think its not worth it to try and save a bet here usually.
Maybe if you raise the turn, and then fold if he bets into you on the river you can fold but not here.
so people start taking more shots at you on the river, you adjust, play the image the cards give you. once you pick a few of them off they will slow down, also they will value bet you less, so its not a bad trade off.
I was not advocating laying down pocket Aces everytime a threatening board appears, and you are bet into. I was only suggesting that considering Smooth B's opponent and the way the hand was played, a fold was a better option than calling in this particular situation.
"In this case i would have raised the turn, and most likly he would have check on the river. If he had bet into you again after raising the turn your beat 99% of the time unless he is a mainac, then i would call him anyway."
How do you justify this call if you are 99% sure you are beat? How is that a profitable call? Just because you have pocket Aces, does not mean you have to call every hand down, no matter how badly beat your opponent has you, simply because you had the best starting hand pre-flop.
My point was that against a normal player i would fold.
Agaist a maniac i never fold a big hand, i just pay him off because he bluffs way to much.
If that was your intended message then I apologize because I do agree with that 100%.
This seems pretty straight forward (looking back, that is). A raise on the turn would have been a good way to find out if he had a spade. That probably would win the pot right there. And you wouldn't question yourself about folding on the river if he reraised (which he wouldn't have) or called. Right?
(This takes into account you having him beat on the turn and not the river.)
Dax.
SmoothB so much of this is player dependent. Against an LOL I would fold like you did but against most anyone else I would have to call on the river. I think you should consider raising on the turn having the nut flush draw as well as your big over pair since your opponent might fold fearing you have a Spade flush.
Tight $20-$40: All players folds I'm on the button with Qs-Js and raise. The SB reraises and I call.
The flop: Ks-Ts-4d SB bets I raise he reraises I raise again and so does he. I stopped raising because there is no limit and he's no dummy.
Turn: Ks-Ts-4h-6s He bets I raise and hope he doesn't reraise he calls.
The river was a Queen and he shows KK. Question did I over play my hand on the flop and should I have raised on the turn?
>>Turn: Ks-Ts-4h-6s He bets I raise and hope he doesn't reraise he calls. <<
Huh?!?! You don't want anymore money?!?!?
Why wouldn't u raise on the turn? You have a flush, and he has three kings...Or am I missing something?
the only hand u would have to worry about is ace spade with x spade...and that x can't be a king,queen,jack, ten...would he play ace-nine spades like that? [raise btf] I doubt it.
if u did put him on three kings by the turn, why would u hope he doesn't reraise?
I'm confused. okay, bye.
-jon
lest count the outs here, any ace(4), any nine(4), any spade(7), (we already counted As and 9s)with this many and the fact that 8 are to the nuts and 7 to the second nuts, and only one player you played it exceptionally well, however so did he, remember while there were a lot of outs for you he played well also. he did flop the nuts and if the board paired it is game over for you. I think you played it well, and so did he. these are just the kind of hands that cause even world class players to have varience. the nature of the beast if you will.
(why is it when I have draws like this its always runner runner diamonds and some idiot with the 24 of diamonds takes it down?)
The Four of Spades is not an out since it gives his opponent a full house. Furthermore, there a ton of redraws the set has to beat a straight or a flush.
I can't find fault with your play. You have 14 outs on the flop making you a slight favorite (the Four of spades will pair the board) but he also has a chance to improve his hand. So it's basically a coin toss and you won.
Bruce
you are right there, my mistake
EVen thought QJs has 14 outs, he can hit one of his outs and still lose (vis the final board is AA K T 4).
P(QJs) wins= P(he hits 2 good cards and wins)+P(he hits only one good card and wins)
(where a good cards is a any spade except 4s, and A's and 9's any other card i refer to as a non good card)
SO P(QJs wins)= 1/(45C2)((14C2)- 2(6)) + P(A or 9 and a non good card which still wins) +P( 2s, 3s,5s, 6s, 7s,8s, and a non good card wihch still wins)=
1/(45C2)[ (91-12)+ 8(24) +6(21) ]= 397/990
So K's are about a 6-4 favorite.
suspicious,
You are about right. I checked it the easy way using Poker Probe and dealing out a million hands. The KK's win 58% of the time and the QsJs wins 42% of the time.
Rick
I'll take the QJs - it may be not be the favorite "hot and cold" but I have a hard time seeing how it's not the $$$ favorite. * Especially if you are capable of laying it down if the board pairs.
chris,
This makes sense, but a lot depends on how much action went in early. On the river you will usually get paid off but really don't have to pay him off if the board pairs.
Rick
the other problem with playing according to poker probe is how do you know your opponent is holding KK, would he play ak that way, maby a smaller set? by running poker probe jq vs kk you are of course going to get KK to be the favorite. KK doesnt need to improve to win JQ does here. However, that is because you have more information than our hero has. If you run poker probe and factor in all POSSIBLE hands our opponent could have and logically play this way I suspect you would find that the math isnt so bad after all.
Mississippi Gambler,
Granted you don't know whether your opponent has KK, it was just a note and someone said that it was even money on the flop which isn't true.
And just bc someone has the best hand at the moment doesn't mean he is fav as AK would be an underdog here against QJs if the A wasn't of spades and maybe even then.
chris, there is no way even an open ended straight flush draw can be a dollar favorite against a set. The set wins when neither player improves and it has 10 redraws to beat a straight or a flush. The tiny fraction of the time the draw makes a straight flush cannot begin to offset the awesome power of a set. Furthermore, I cannot imagine any player worth his salt at the table folding a straight or a flush at the river with all that money in the pot because his opponent might have a full house.
Rick,
I checked it again, I still get QJs wins w/ probability 393/990 (which is less than 40%).
Rick,
I checked it again, I still get QJs wins w/ probability 397/990 (which is jsut a little bigger than 40%).
suspicious, Sounds like a tough computation at the table. If you assume he has flopped a set, you have 13 outs. Given the board, your hand and his two kings, there are 45 unseen cards. 45-13 = his outs. This makes you a 13 to 32 dog.
Sorry but this isn't the way you figure it. Im fairly certain the way I figured it was right though one wouldn't do this at teh table.
I suspect if you wanted a rough approximation at the table and you assumed you had 15 outs, you could approximate via P(you make a straight or flush)=1-P(you don't) =1 -[(32)(31)]/[(47)(46)] = ~ 1- (30/45)^2=5/9. (~ means approximately)
dreamer,
I think you put in about the right amount of action on the flop. In this position he may play an AK (especially with the ace of spades) the same way. Now you would be a small favorite and your last raise (if called rather than reraised) may buy a free card on the turn.
On the turn I don’t understand why you wouldn’t love a reraise (unless you are thinking a reraise means a set for sure and now he is not drawing dead). He can’t have a better flush and now he is still a big underdog to fill up on the river. I would love his reraise when he has trips. I may now lose the pot (if the river pairs) but I will still put in all the money I could while the favorite. If I get beat I get beat. That’s poker, gambling with the best of it but sometimes losing.
BTW, I hope you bet the river. It wasn’t clear in your post.
Regards,
Rick
Giving lots of action like you did should also benefit you in the future. Your more observant opponents will notice that raising doesn't necessarily represent a completed hand so the next time you flop a big hand when there are also multiple draws possible hopefully when you fire away on the flop you will get more action.
Bruce
i've played about 350 hours over the past 3 months - these are my stats thus far, with almost exact equal time split between 20/40 and 40/80 : $38.59 per hour (prorated down to 20/40), $55.24 per hour in real dollars....and a standard deviation of $355 per hour (prorated to a 20/40 limit).
given this information, and assuming the games and players don't change much, and my play doesn't change much (i.e., I don't become a much stronger player, or a much weaker player)...how good of a future forecast is the win/rate and standard deviation based on only 350 hours?
what would your guess be as to what my "true" win rate is in a range of one standard deviation low side, and one standard deviation high side?
A while ago, I found the answer to that question in one of Malmuth's books (I think it was him), and I put it into Excel, but since then I have forgotten where the source actually came from. Anyways, the 1 stdev low from that formula is $19.24, and the 1 stdev high from that formula is $57.95.
However, in reality, I think the range is probably much tighter than that - probably from $30 to $48, because the mathematics in the formula do not take into account information about other good player's average per hour. For example, it doesn't know that a lot of people think that making 1.5 bets per hour is the absolute top limit possible in 20/40 and higher limits.
you sound like you're looking for a precise answer; an answer i can't give w/out more details from you. having offered that dis- claimer, i will say i think you have good reason to feel optimistic. VERY OPTIMISTIC !
You won 1.9 small bets per hour, with a standard deviation of 18 small bets per hour. A 95% confidence interval (1.96 standard deviations) on your result would be 0 to 3.8 small bets per hour. You are likely playing with an edge, but many more hours will be necessary to pin the edge down.
-Abdul
thanks for the feedback Abdul...one question though. You say that the 95% confidence interval on the upside is 3.8 small bets per hour. I agree from a mathematical standpoint, but I disagree from a realistic standpoint....I've got to think it should be lower than that, even at a 95% confidence interval...since very few, if any person can win 2 big bets per hour...since all the 'experts' say that the highest expectancy for an expert is 1.5 big bets per hour or 3 small bets per hour. I think I'm a good player, and maybe I can get or come close to expert status, but even if I do, if I were to be winning 3.8 small bets per hour, then I might be the best in the world (which should be outside the range of 95% confidence interval).
See, I'm saying the mathematics assumes the numbers are generated in a vacuum, without other outside information. But in this case, we do have outside information, particularly about what expert players can make.
Saying that, I'm not sure if the same theory would translate to adjust the lower bound of the confidence interval.
I don't think 3.8 small bets per hour as an upper bound on your expected value is unreasonable, provided that you are a skilled veteran, exercise good game selection, and play mostly 10-20 through 20-40.
What you're saying about taking into account the prior probability distribution of your expected value is correct but I think not pragmatic. By the time you have played enough hours to get a vague idea of your EV, your priors are not of much use, as seems to be the case here. However, I could be wrong.
-Abdul
You should not be "prorating" results between different games like $20-$40 and $40-$80. You need to track these two games separately and compute a standard deviation and hourly earn for each game. In general, 350 hours is not nearly long enough and again if you segregate this into $20-$40 play versus $40-$80 play it will become even more statistically insignificant. Don't quit the day job yet.
too late, I already quit my 7 figure day job back in February...but then again, I don't play poker for the money, I play to find out how good I can get....and the way to keep score is the money and the stats.
by the way, my results in the 40/80 and 20/40 are almost identical, with the 40/80 slighlty lower in expectation and higher in volatility than the 20/40.
Greetings,
Here are 2 hands where I tried to get cute and slow play though I was in worse trouble than I thought.
1) 2 limpers in mid position I call w/KQs to try and get some more players in. 1 calls as does the BB.
The flop comes K T 4 rainbow. Much to my surprise the BB bets 1 calls, I just call intending to raise on 4th and just call next player folds.
The turn is a J, and now I'm also openended. But they all check to me. I bet BB checkraises next player folds I just call. (I suspect now he has two pair, a straight, or trips).
The river is a 9 and he bets, (inreasing the suspicion that he has at least a Q also), I just call. (weak?) He had JJ.
2) 1 early limper, i raise in the cutoff seat w/ KJo. (I suspect this will not get the seal of approval but I can play heads up w/someone who just limped and is pbly weak, and eliminate the blinds, and have position. (comments!?) BB calls as does the limper.
FLop comes K J 8. BB checks limper bets, I call intending to raise on 4th BB calls.
The turn is a T. BB bets and limper raises. Unsure of where I was (did someone make a straight?, does someone have a set!?) I just call, BB calls.
The river is the 9.
BB bets, limper calls, and I fold. (there is no way I can beat BOTH of them). BB shows Q 8s (he had a backdoor straight and flush draw on the flop), limper shows JJ. Limper had me totally confused the way he was playing all night, though he was quite weak.
ALl comments welcome.
Both slow plays were bad decisions. You should always raise if there is any chance that someone can draw out on you.
KJ hand is a great example. Even though in hindsight you were beaten by trip Js and had a draw out against you, you need to make people drawing out against you pay. For instance, a weak flush draw is the type of hand you want to make fold. You should always raise to thin out and/define other hands. After raising, you should have a better idea of what people hold.
The first hand, however, is a clear raising situation. Not raising this pot may allow straight draw to play out on you. This is a very risky maneuver as anyone still in the pot probably has some kind of possibility at gutting a high straight on you.
(n/t)
SOrry put it there by accident!
Without getting specific, both of these hands were not anywhere near strong enough to slowplay. By waiting to raise the turn, you are opening yourself up to all kinds of crapola hands catching miracle cards. Many times these same crapola hands would have folded for two bets on the flop, while most players (at least at low limit) will almost always take one off for a single bet.
My advice is to go back to Theory of Poker and reread the section on slowplaying. There are surprisingly few times when slowplaying is correct, and this chapter explains in detail when and why it is correct to do so. Although I do not follow every book's advice like a bible, I pretty much follow the advice in this chapter of TOP to the letter. I MAY give up some slight edge every now and then, but I'm sure I save far more by getting out the trashy hands when I flop a good but not invulnerable hand.
Slowplay when you flop a monster, otherwise, play your good hands fast. If you get into the habit of trying to get in a raise on the turn, you will lose more $$ than if you just routinely raise the flop. It's true. Do it. Raise!
Dave in Cali
Loose-passive LL hold'em game. Players range from mediocre to ATMs.
PREFLOP
I am in early middle position with Kh Kc. UTG limps, next player folds, I raise. Folded to the cutoff who cold calls. Both blinds call. UTG now raises. I cap. All call.
Both the cutoff and SB are loose fish with occasional manaical tendencies. UTG is relatively new at the table, so I don't have a clear read, but he is fairly aggressive. He's shown down some cheese, but mostly good cards. He has also won a number of pots without a showdown (surprising at this table/limit), so I wonder whether he's had the goods, or has just been a good bully...
At this point, I'm not certain of the holdings UTG would limp reraise with. I'm guessing most likely AA (6), KK (1), QQ (6), AK (8), much less likely AQ (16), JJ (6), AJs (4). I have seen him 3-bet a suited connector a couple of times, but never as a limp reraise.
20 small bets in the pot.
FLOP: 8s 6s Qh
The action is checked to me and I bet. All call except for BB. UTG now raises. I call, as does the rest of the field.
This turn of events confuses me. If he has top pair or better, why doesn't he try to bet into me hoping I'll raise, which might thin the field some? All he succeeds in doing is tying people onto the pot with this strategy. I wonder whether he's flopped the nut spades draw. Or maybe he has the set of Qs? As well, AA (and a faint possibility of AQ or JJ) are still possibilities. I can't see him playing overcards this way at all.
The revised number of ways he can have: AA (6), KK (1), QQ (3), AQ (12) AK, AJ spades (2), JJ (6).
28 small bets = 14 big bets.
TURN: 8d
Checked to UTG who bets. I raise. Cutoff cold-calls, SB folds. UTG just calls.
I raised figuring there's a small chance that my hand is good. I want to charge any draws out there the maximum possible, plus, I figure that if reraised by UTG, I'm probably drawing very thin, and can play accordingly.
The fact that I am not raised seems to suggest that he does not have QQ. (Or an 8 for that matter). This puts me in a sticky situation---if he's a reasonable player, I can't see him having anything but AA (6) or (fingers crossed) AQ (12). Then again, this is LL hold'em, and he is an unknown...
20 big bets in the pot.
RIVER: 8c
UTG checks. I check. Cutoff bets. UTG raises...
...and here I think I blunder horribly. At the time, I'm getting 11.5 to 1 immediate odds on a call. However, I'm a little apprehensive about a 3-bet from the cutoff, so when the dust settles, I'm likely going to have to pay 3 bets for a shot at 26. Is my 4th nut hand going to be good a little more than 10% of the time? Especially since I have shown so much strength up to the river?
A full house is such a pretty thing. I ignore that little voice screaming in the back of my head: "What could they have that you can actually beat?!?"
I call. Cutoff 3-bets. Both UTG and I call.
UTG: Ac Ah
Cutoff: Tc 8h, winning with quads. I did say he was a loose fish, didn't I? ;P
QUESTIONS:
1) How's my play of the hand up to and including the turn?
2) Do you agree with my read of the situation throughout the hand? Have I missed anything?
3) How bad is the river call: A. Bad, B. Really Bad, C. You learned poker in a forest..., D. Horrendous, E. Roseanne in a G-string? ;)
4) How about UTG's play? Do you agree with me that AA's raise was also questionable?
All comments/criticisms/flames/projected rotten fruit welcome,
Dave
Based on the action pre-flop and on the flop, the UTG can only have AA (6 ways),KK (1 way),QQ (3 ways), or AK of Spades (1 way) in my opinion. He would not limp re-raise pre-flop with AJ suited and he would not check-raise on the flop with JJ or a lesser hand given the Queen on the table. On the turn, when the UTG bets out I don't like your raise since he is far more likely to have AA or QQ than AK of Spades or KK. I think you should just call here. At the river, you have a clear fold given the bet and raise to you. The call was bad but understandable given the large pot and the players (Choice A).
I gather the cutoff is a novice since he cold-calls raises pre-flop with Ten-Eight offsuit. I guess the UTG's limp re-raise with pocket rockets really backfired here. Had he raised, then you would have 3 bet with your Kings and I am assuming that the cutoff would fold but who knows?
Jim;
I can't imagine any player in LL hold'em who cold calls 2 raises preflop with J8 offsuit folding to any raise on the small bets. No way. Even in 10-20 they will chase if they think they have a prayer of winning a big pot.
p.s. Jim, did you know they have a sporting event in Canada named after you. It's called the Brier and invloves the sport of Curling.
Greetings,
Here are two hands which I thought were routine though, maybe I went to far in 1).
1) 10/20 game 3 limpers I limp on the button w/ 55. SB folds BB raises. All call.
Flop comes JJ 7. ALl check to me, I bet! BB calls all others fold.
TUrn is a 6. He checks and I bet, he calls.
River is a 4. HE checks and now I realize he isn't going to fold. SO I check. He shows AA!
I saw him later at the cage and said he should raise at some point (that may have been my last trip to that casino and Im moving, and I think it would be better to ask people what they think as Ive been bad many times in figuring it out). He said as soon as he raises I'm going to fold unless i have him beat. So its better to check and call. (this made me wonder do i have an over agressive image!?)
comments!? 2) (this one is similar) 4 limpers I call in the cutoff seat w/ 33, button calls SB folds and BB calls.
FLop comes AA 2. ALl check to me, I bet passive player on the button calls, all fold except player ahead of me.
Turn is A.
Check I bet call call. (I was fairly convinced I had the best hand now).
RIver was 8. Check, I check (who is going to call that I can beat, and what better hand will fold if I bet?)
Player behind me had 44, while the player behind me had A 2! (who also said as soon as he bets everyone is going to fold...)
Have I gone too far!?
3)2 limpers I limp w/ Jh9h in mid position, one player behind me calls as do the blinds.
flop comes
J 9 2 w/ two diamonds. ALl check to the player ahead of me who bets, I raise and 2 cold call as does the initial flop bettor.
Turn is a black K.
ALl check to me I bet and all 3 call.
The river is the distasteful
Td,
1st player bets, second calls I fold (beat in more than 1 place I suspect). Next raises 1stplayer reraises mid player folds last player calls.
One has nut flush other has 2nd nut flush. ANd I'm annoyed bc it seems like the 3rd time in the last 2 hours 2 people made a flush when i t was pretty dead!
All comments appreciated. SOrry if some of the hands I posted this week were "elementary", had a bad day the last time I played and I was trying to think where I went wrong or if I was just unlucky.
Suspicious;
1) your call on the button with a small pocket pair is fine. Your bet on the flop into the pre-flop raiser (who checked) is insane. Do you really believe that representing the J you will get him to fold. What about the possibility that someone is slowplaying the J's? I would take a free card here and if bet into, fold. You have little equity in this hand and are hoping or wishing that no J is out there and the BB holds AK. A high % of time, pre-flop raises from the blinds or UTG usually signal a strong pair so there is no way you will move him off his hand.
2)My same comments above apply to this hand. Why are you investing money in a sinking ship? With 6 way action on the flop do you think someone will catch a piece of this flop? You are getting trapped by slow-playing opponents. Save your money for hands with more equity in it.
3)Your call with J9s is ok provided that the game is not tight which appears to be in case. Your raise on the flop is correct since the bettor may be on a draw and you are charging anyone on a straight draw or flush draw 2 bets to see the turn card. Your bet on the turn is mandatory when checked to. Bad luck when the diamond falls. Your fold is correct with a bettor and caller in front of you with more action to come. I'm curious about why the K high flush draw did not make a move on the turn when the black K fell. As it turns out the nut flush draw was out there but I am curious about where his position was on the table.
On the first hand, your limp with pocket Fives pre-flop is fine since you have 3 limpers ahead of you with at least one blind who will play. When the big blind raises you need to realize that AA,KK,QQ,or AK are his most likely holdings. On the flop despite the fact that all three limpers checked to you a flop bet here is too risky because the big blind will not get off a big pocket pair and one of your other three opponents could easily be slow playing trip Jacks. Many hands players limp in with pre-flop include a Jack so someone could easily be slow playing trip Jacks. The only way for your bet to be correct is for the big blind to have specifically AK and none of the other three limpers can have a Jack. On the other hand there are 10 bets in the pot so maybe your bet is not too bad here but I think it is close. If you get raised, you must fold otherwise you are playing a two outer at best. On the turn, when you are heads up and the big blind checks I think you should plan on checking it down. I realize that you are giving free cards to AK but it cannot be helped since it is too easy for you to be beat by a better hand who is afraid of the open pair of Jacks. His comment to you about how raising would drive you out is correct heads-up but I still think he should have bet the flop with four opponents in the hand. He really does not want to give free cards to this many opponents perhaps allowing one of them to turn a full house (e.g.-as you would if a Five shows up) or catch a straight or a straight draw.
On the second hand, I have learned through expensive experience that whenever two Aces flop and there are a lot of players in the hand (6 in this case) someone usually has trip Aces. Hands headed by an Ace or a King are very common limping hands. Furthermore, players will frequently not bet their trips once the flop comes and wait to pull the trigger on the expensive street. I would check it down and hope my hand was good or I could catch a miracle Trey. If it gets bet I would probably fold. Keep in mind that this is a small,unraised pot so it should be easy to get away here.
On the third hand, your play was fine. Folding at the river is not automatic though unless you know one of the players behind you is going to at least call. However, even if by some remote chance no one has a flush you can still lose to a higher two pair.
1) if the BB will only raise w/ AA KK AK, he is favorite to not have a pair. So I will be value betting most of the time against he preflop raiser! (if he has AK I am a favorite to win). Also note if the action goes call call then there is very good reason to suspect a J, and I can play accordingly (eg fold on the turn unless its a 5). I should note if I had J in this position I would have bet also.
2)Maybe the flop bet is a bit much, but once the turn card comes an A should I really suspect someone has quads?? I should note though there's a 36/47 chance an A was dealt there is still 11/47 chance it wasn't given the flop.
3) I think the fold is pretty clear once there is a bet and call, (someone isn't bluffing!), the previous action indicated drawing hands galore, and any Q or flush beats me, I seriously doubt both are not out, (and there is a player behind me!)
Thanks for the response. Further comments welcome of course!
On the first hand, players who will not raise out of their big blind with QQ after many players limp in will usually not raise pre-flop with AK either. That is why I included QQ as a possible hand. The other problem is that when you are not the favorite you are a huge underdog and when you are the favorite there are still a lot of outs against you with two cards to come.
On the second hand, I have to agree that when a third Ace shows up on the turn the likelihood of someone having the case Ace has gone down but you would be surprised how often someone will have quads. It is much higher than a random probability calculation would indicate. In addition, someone could have a higher pocket pair than yours. Finally, even in those cases where you are the best there are a lot of cards at the river which make your hand second best.
On the third hand, I would fold like you did at the river.
Last night i got pocket QQ's UTG and raised got three callers including the big blind. The flop comes 5 6 7 rainbow big blind (solid player) checks i raise middle position player (bad player) calls ,SP raises i reraise and both players call. The turn is an Ace SP checks i bet BP calls and SP calls. The river brings the 9 completing the straight and a backdoor flush. SP bets i muck and bad player calls. BP wins with the T8 offsuit and SP has 78 and loses to the higher straight. Did i play this hand right on the flop and the turn? Was i to aggressive making the draws pay to draw or should i have backed off on the flop? Do you guys agree with my muck on the flop? All comments appreciated. Thanks in advance. Lar
Your Queens are doomed from the start here.
When the Ace hit, you should have been gone by then at the latest. And when you get reraised with that type of flop against 3 or 4 other people, you are almost certainly beat.
QQ is a good starting hand but when overcards and straight possibilities arise, you must be ready to dump them and wait for a more favorable flop.
ThATS RIGHT..YOUR MISTAKE WAS NOT FOLDING YOUR qUEENS BEFORE THE FLOP
Hi Dan,
I think that this is bad advice... You should definitely bet QQ into a flop of 567r. I agree that the turn A is usually the death of QQ, but you suggest geting out on the flop? No way...
Marc
Sorry, maybe I misread the post... But it seems like the flop betting was:
BB check, QQ bet , someone behind raises, QQ reraises, everyone calls.
I don't think that there was any reraising except by the QQ's on the flop. There could be a made straight out there, but there's no way you can fold for one raise!
Whoops... BB = SP
So it was actually check-raised on the flop... Doesn't change my answer much though. Still no reason to believe that 100% behind. People could checkraise with top pair-top kicker, maybe even stuff like the straight draw with a backdoor nut flush draw. Other hands could reasonably be two-pair, which you have outs against.
You're dead at the river, but I don't think you can fold before then given the action
I think I mis-phrased what I meant.
I don't think you should dump the QQ on flop after raise, but I DO think that reraising might be a little bit of an overplay here, as Jim B suggested.
The QQ very well may still be the best hand, but there are many more deserving occasions for you to play this hand strong. This is not an ideal hand for QQ as there are a great deal of ways to be beaten, esp with so many stragglers.
Pre-flop your raise with pocket Queens is good. On the flop, I assume it was checked to you by the big blind and you bet although your narrative says you raised. Betting is fine despite the coordinated board. You should assume that your hand is good for now. When the middle player calls and the big blind check-raises I think you should just call and not re-raise. You could be looking at not just a straight (which gives you practically no outs) but more likely two pair (which gives you 5 outs). There is an outside chance your hand is still good if the big blind check-raised with something like top pair/top kicker or top pair with a straight draw. When the big blind checks to you after the Ace comes off, I think you should bet because his check tends to deny a straight or even two pair. Of course you dump it on the river since it is obvious between the big blind betting and a third player still in the hand that someone's draw got there.
Don't feel so bad I've seen guys (BPs) play KQ the same way. I probably reluctlently play the hand a similary to the way you played it maybe saving a bet on the turn and mucking the river.
With pocket Queens and a flop of 567 I would proceed very cautiously from the flop on. I certainly would not want to cap the flop with my holding becuase you may be beat on the flop or are an underdog collectively against all of your opponents. You have to learn to get off of big pocket pairs in this type of situation.
Bruce
Is it correct to call a raise from the big blind after a raise in the following two situations?
I view them myself as borderline calls or folds, depending on whether the other players involved are loose or tight. I tend to call in this and similar situations if one of the other players in is loose, figuring the chance of getting paid off if I hit a hand is reasonable.
On the other hand this might be a bit short sighted because "pot stealing equity" will be down.
Anyway, here goes:
Q8 suited; scenario: two players call, one of button raises,small blind folds, it's up to you. You'll probably be getting 7.5 to 1 on the call, supposing the first two players call.
Situation number two: small pair, say 55 or 44, player first in raises, one player in the middle calls, the rest fold to you.
You're getting 5.5 to 1 on a call this time, but implied odds may make up the gap between the odds required to flop a set (roughly 7 to 1) and the odds you're getting.
Regards, Spielmacher
I don't thnk eigther hand is close to a raising hand in the BB - if you don't hit the flop fold it - i'd consider dumping the Q8 a flush is about 20/1 - how do you like your pot odds now.
For Q8s, I would strongly consider folding for a raise, even with 7.5:1 odds. It is really only useful for a flush draw, or perhaps if you flop trip eights. Flopping a queen is likely to get you into trouble.
For any small pair, getting 5.5:1 BTF is enough to call, as long as it will not get raised again. The implied odds should make up for the slightly small pot right now. In general you need at least 5:1 to play a small pair BTF. if the game was really tight and you might not get much action on your set, then I would probably want a slightly higher overlay BTF. otherwise 5:1 is usually enough to play a small pair.
Dave in Cali
I think you should dump Queen-shit suited for a raise here and play any pocket pair out of your big blind. In the former, even when you catch a draw you still have to hit your hand and it has to hold up as the best hand which is a parlay and not worth the initial cost. With the latter, if you flop a set you will usually win a nice pot and you have 10 redraws to an even better hand.
How about the the slightly better JTs in the Q8s scenario Jim?
Would you call with Q8s in the small blind, three calls no raise? The odds are the same as for the raised pot in the BB. I would tend the call with two high-ish suited cards in the SB.
The 7.5 to 1 odds might not be high enough, but there comes a point when it is correct to call with Q8s, maybe at something like 11 or 12 to 1, or translated to the Q8s scenario with four players calling, the last player raising and then calling in the BB, assuming none of the other players in will raise.
Spielmacher
Jack-Ten suited is better than Queen-Eight suited because of the additional straight making possibilities and I would definitely call out of my big blind with Jack-Ten suited.
I think the situation where I would pay money to take a flop with Queen-Eight suited would be in games where the small blind is 2/3 of a bet, the pot is unraised, and there are a few players. This creates some tremendous pot odds situations, typically greater than 10:1. By the way, this is one of the problems with $15-$30 and $30-$60 because in unraised pots you play a lot of hands from your small blind and get thrown into many more marginal situations where you catch a piece of the flop so your outs are few and your opponents are numerous but the pot can get large.
But from the big blind even with lots of players calling a raise with Queen-Eight suited is weak. More players makes it harder for anything less than a flush to stand up and even then it is not the nut flush. In addition, occasionally someone in a large field will decide to limp re-raise forcing to you to pay even more money to take a flop.
The small pair is a clear call to me. It is correct in any game, and to fold it here would be a large mistake, IMO.
The Q8s is close, should be folded in many games, but is still a good call in some. If you continue beyond the flop, it will be with a draw more often than not. Thus, a big factor in your decision is how many bets people tend to put in on the flop. If it's a lot, then folding preflop is clearly correct, as you'll be paying too much for those draws. The more often it is 1 bet postflop, the more likely a call preflop is right. Another big factor is the payoff. Will they pay off your big hands, whether it's straights, flushes, or trips? Will they push their AK postflop, even when you flop a pair that you don't like? For example, will they make it hard to play correctly when the flop comes T83? Or Q92? etc.?
If it were Q7s, a fold is probably always correct, because you've just lost your straight potential. If it were J7s, it would be rare that you should play it out unless all factors are in your favor. If it's unsuited, it again is a pretty clear fold in all games.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I had T9o in the big blind. A pro raised from the button, a very loose player called, and I called.
Flop was 998 with a two flush. The small blind checked, I checked, the pro bet, the small blind folded, I raised, and the pro called.
Turn was an A. I bet, the pro raised, and I called.
All comments are welcome.
William
I think you had to re-riase the turn - I suspect he was on a big Ace and you are still in the lead.
He reraises then call and call the river.
William,
You wrote: “I had T9o in the big blind. A pro raised from the button, a very loose player called, and I called.”
I wonder about this call before the flop against two opponents when you will be caught in the middle post flop. If the small blind folded, I think you should usually defend (more so in a 15/30 structure). But I would rather have the small blinds dead money in there than have him as an active participant in the contest over the pot. Even though the button raised (thus broadening what he could have) and the small blind is loose, you don’t have much high card strength. If you flop a draw you won’t have much of an overlay (if any) and will pay to get there. I would lean toward folding before the flop.
”Flop was 998 with a two flush. The small blind checked, I checked, the pro bet, the small blind folded, I raised, and the pro called.”
I might have led on the flop. Few players will put you on the nine and you will get action anyway. But the checkraise is OK too. You need to get money in now since the pro will often check behind you on the turn if you try to trap him.
”Turn was an A. I bet, the pro raised, and I called.”
I would call here but I would lead again on the river if a blank fell. He is still far more likely to have ace-big then aces, which he would often check on the river. If raised on the river I would make a crying call against most opponents.
I’m home today so I’ll be around enough to fight back the flames ;-).
Regards,
Rick
I think you should have folded BTF. Make the T9 suited and it might be a borderline decision, but offsuit I think it is a fold. If you flop a pair, you are vulnerable to many overcards, and if you get a straight draw the pot is small.
Dave in Cali
I hate the way you played this hand. Ten-Nine offsuit is a clear fold pre-flop against a button raise coupled with a call from the small blind despite him being loose. Make it suited and I remove my objection. Once the flop comes, you should bet your trip Nines into two opponents. Most opponents will not play you for trips and think you just have an Ace. The check-raise is likely to lose customers. On the turn, 3 betting is clear since the pro is simply betting a strong Ace in most cases. You need to strike while the iron is hot.
In general I agree that it is best to bet the flop in early position when you have trips. But this case is an exception because you want to keep the small blind in. If you bet, and the button raises, then the small blind will probably fold overcards. This is especially true when the small blind is loose, and would call the flop with gut-shot draws for a single bet.
The big downside is that he probably will get less action on the expensive streets. Which is what makes this an interesting problem. The big blind showed a lot of strength by check-raising the flop. By raising on the turn, what is the button representing?
I would just call on the turn. If the button has AK or AQ, then he will probably fold to a re-raise. So why not just call? Re-raising is okay if you can confidently fold to another raise by the button. Given that the button is a pro, I would be a little bit uncomortable doing this. I would rather try to induce him to bet again with AK on the river.
What are the chances that the button has a flush-draw? I really don't have a strong opinion on this, but if you think it is fairly high, then you could persuade me that a re-raise on the turn is correct.
Steve
The small blind is probably irrelevant and will fold regardless. Having checked, then you check, and then the button bets it is unlikley that the small blind would have a hand that he would call. If he is the type to call with just over cards then he might call when you bet and the button just calls since he thinks this improves his pot odds for taking a card off. If you bet and get raised even though he folds you still are getting the same amount of money in the pot with one less opponent. If the small blind calls two bets cold you can now re-raise.
I can't believe the things everyone says to fold before the flop, and that it is a clear fold. 98o should be folded when you close the action getting 5 -1? I think even Malmuth says to call here.
How good does your hand have to be too call in the BB? Would QJo do?
Isn't the button in a steal position?
I'd like to hear some arguments why a fold is clearly correct. I suspect you aren't losing that much if you fold here, but I suspect you are losing something.
ALl comments welcome.
My hand was T9o. I did not think my fold/call decision was particularly close, especially given the looseness of the SB.
William
suspicious, believe it or not T9 offsuit is a dog to a random hand which averages something like Q7 in a cold simulation. Now given that a player raised and another player called, the subset of all random hands these players will have are going to be a heavy favorite over T9 offsuit.
The question isn't whether 9 To is the favorite but is he getting the right to continue. He's getting 5-1 (if I recall), and the preflop raiser is in a steal bposition and the SB will call w/anything.
What kind of odds would you need to call w/ T9o? 7-1? 11-1?
Maybe I'll do some math and see how many flops there are where T9o likes (eg flops top pair, two pair, openended or trips). I suspect its at least 20% but ill get back to you if you like on this.
I would guess something on the order of 7:1. But there is another aspect of this. The button will raise with his good hands as well so the likelihood of him having a good hand given that he chose to raise is much higher than a random probability calculation. In a random probability calculation there are 16 ways for a player to have Seven-Deuce and only 6 ways to have JJ. But given the condition that the button volunarily entered the pot and chose to raise the likelihood of him having Seven-Deuce is virtually zero making the likelihood of him having pocket Jacks much higher. When you add a third player to the fray who called a raise then you have another condition which makes the situation for T9 offsuit far worse than if it were playing against two random hands. Random hands like Eight-Three, Seven-Deuce, Jack-Four, etc. would not be considered as part of the subset of hands the button and small blind could have.
I'm confused. The 7-1 figure is the odds is the amount of money that needs to be in the pot for a call to be profitable (or at least break even).
I don' t see that the button has a better chance of having JJ than 2 7 have to do w/it. I would think the 7-1 figure would mean the odds needed for the BB to call a raise and not lose money by making this call, (this is over all the hands his opponents would raise with). (And so you wouldn't be averaging over all hands.)
And one thing is the button is very likely on a steal!
The math I was intending to do was what is the probability T9 will flop top pair, openended, two pair or trips. (IF you like we could do the first two in an unpaired board). And when solving this one doesn't take into account the other people's hands...
But suspicious a typical "stealing hand" that the button might have is probably a better hand than T9 offsuit. T9 offsuit is a dog to any hand that contains a card higher than a Ten. If the button is "stealing" with any Ace or King he is "stealing" with a better hand than yours. Now throw in the presence of a third player and you are a big dog against the other two players. When you are in shorthanded situations like this you really want high cards or pairs. Two unsuited medium connecting cards do not play well at all in shorthanded situations like this. You are getting good odds to take a flop but this is an illusion because you cannot win on high card strength and even if you make a pair you are very vulnerable. What you really need is to catch a draw on the flop, then make a hand, and have it hold up. But this is a parlay usually requiring good implied odds that are normally not present in shorthanded situations like this.
I think the math of determining the likelihood of flopping (A) top pair, or (B) two pair, or (C) trips, or (D) a full house, or (E) an open ended draw would be very informative. However, (A) top pair would be very vulnerable to over cards on the turn or river or to being outkicked by someone else who also had top pair. (E) is the parlay I was talking about and requires additional money on the flop and the turn to pursue. I believe (B) + (C) + (D) is around a 30:1 shot.
Jim,
There is a significant chance you could be a big dog, yes. But so could they! For instance I am pretty sure the SB would have called with 98, or 54 for that matter.
I'll say it again: the preflop decision was not even close.
William
William, do you mean Five-Four suited? I cannot imagine anyone calling a raise in a shorthanded situation like this with Five-Four offsuit. The small blind is far more likely to be paying money to take a flop with a hand that can beat Ten-high then one that cannot.
No, 54o. Trust me, I'd seen him play worse hands in that spot.
But even if he was only loose enough to play 54s, this is a clear call.
Jim,
Ill go look for my calculator and post these number in the next few days!
Just for the record, this is regular holdem, no wild cards, I just liked that title...
But I actually DID have QQ in the SB, 3-6 HE, nine handed, not a kill pot. Somewhat wild game. The entire table is in the pot when it gets to the button, who raises. I reraise, call, call, and someone puts in a pointless limp-reraise from middle position (I do not respect this limp-reraise but I give the button some credit for having a real hand). The raises don't scare anyone out so we take the flop nine handed capped. (note that some of the players were calling three more bets cold!).
Flop is Jh Ts 4d. Not a bad flop but with two cards in the straight zone I am not that happy about my chances of winning the pot. Nevertheless, I have no choice but to bet. I bet and four people call, button raises and I reraise. Same four callers call, button calls, and we see the turn 6 handed.
Turn is an ugly Ah. I hesitate for a minute and watch the table. No one seems to like that card. Mmmmmm.... I make what is probably a less than smart bet and put in my 6$ on the turn. Two fold, two call, button folds! Who knows? I think I may have gotten the button to fold kings....
River is the 4c. I check and it gets checked around. When I show my queens, everyone mucks and I win a fat pot!
The point of this post is that I think I played fine until the turn, where despite my read on the table, I think the bet was incorrect. I had some doubt though, because would I have to call if someone else bet? And if I would call, then I might as well bet.... What about my check on the river?
Comments welcome.
Dave in Cali
Dave,
Preflop all I can say is what a game. There are 36 small bets in pre flop!
Then you wrote: ”Flop is Jh Ts 4d. Not a bad flop but with two cards in the straight zone I am not that happy about my chances of winning the pot. Nevertheless, I have no choice but to bet.”
No choice? I think checking is an option. You can see what happens and maybe get in a pot narrowing checkraise if the button is the lead bettor. But the bet is fine, just not automatic.
“I bet and four people call, button raises and I reraise. Same four callers call, button calls, and we see the turn 6 handed.”
The pot is so huge I don’t have any argument against your reraise. But the button could be leading even though he just called.
Note that there are now 27 BIG BETS in the pot after the flop betting! You must be willing to take big risks now.
”Turn is an ugly Ah. I hesitate for a minute and watch the table. No one seems to like that card. Mmmmmm.... I make what is probably a less than smart bet and put in my 6$ on the turn.”
This bet may be pretty smart. You have to call another bet getting those pot odds even if it is probably to half the pot when a king comes. I don’t think a dry ace can easily raise you.
”Two fold, two call, button folds! Who knows? I think I may have gotten the button to fold kings....
I don’t think so. Kings call in order to spike a queen and make a straight.
River is the 4c. I check and it gets checked around. When I show my queens, everyone mucks and I win a fat pot!
With 30 big bets in the pot, I would bet against two opponents if you thought there was even a slight chance you could get a better hand to lay down.
”The point of this post is that I think I played fine until the turn, where despite my read on the table, I think the bet was incorrect. I had some doubt though, because would I have to call if someone else bet? And if I would call, then I might as well bet.... What about my check on the river? “
Nah, I like your turn bet most of all. Have fun spending the money!
Regards,
Rick
You played fine although the turn bet was tricky. The key point is that it really doesn't matter because when the pot gets this big you are going to play your two outer as well as anyone else. With so much money in the pot after the first two rounds of betting the game has become showdown.
With regard to your thoughts on the flop, you must remember that you are always an underdog against a large collective regardless of your starting hand and there are very few flops you can get that will change this situation.
I count 27BB in the pot which is PLENTY to draw to your gut shot not counting the slim chance a Q may win it for you. You will certainly call if someone bets.
If you are going to call then you should bet out in these big pots unless you are DEAD SURE you are beat AND will get raised.
- Louie
a
This is a hand where I saved many bets due to my re-evaluation of the situation when faced with raises BTF.
3-6 HE, no kill. I am on the button with KsTs. Two limpers and I limp. Seems reasonable enough so far.... SB raises and BB reraises. One folds, one calls. While many players would cold-call the additional two bets, I decided to fold. I think the SB has a real hand, and I am not sure about the BB, but between the two of them, I am probably dominated. Therefore I feel that the correct play is to fold.
Flop is Kd 9s 8s.
Turn is 7d.
River 3c.
There was quite a bit of action on every round, including a turn check-raise by the SB. Had I called the extra two bets BTF, I would have been stuck in that pot all the way to the end. With a flush draw, and then picking up an open-ender, I would have had to call every bet on every round, then probably been forced to call on the end for the size of the pot.
The point of this is not that the results made any difference at all, but is this: SB had AKo and BB had KcQc. I was totally dominated on two fronts. This is the reason that you fold these type of hands for raises BTF. It sure looked pretty, being suited and all, but a fold was the correct move. There was not enough of a multiway pot to justify playing KTs for three bets. (It would be very rare that it would ever be justified to play that for three bets).
Comments welcome.
Dave in Cali
if i knew that flop was coming, against those hands i would have capped preflop.
of course, if i knew i was going to lose the hand, i wouldn't have even called the limp.
one more thing. you'd rather be dominated in two places than one. it is easier to drop a weak K against 2 people who like their hands than just one. also, the flop is less likely to put you into trouble.
scott
Very good thinking - KT is a suckie hand and usually a 2nd place one that costs a lot of money. Of course there are players who cap with hands like this.
I agree with your thinking completely. It is seldom right to call a double raise back to you with a hand you could not raise with yourself. scott makes a key point in his post when he says it is better to be dominated in two spots than in one. You are less likely to catch top pair/weak kicker situations and when you do you can usually get away from the hand easier.
When it came back to you, it was for only 2 bets. There's 11 bets and counting. 5.5-1 with possiblity you may have to call yet another bet.
Your K is certainly dominated. You do have the straight and flush possibilities.
Pre-flop with your position I think it is still a good laydown. If you play well postflop it may not be too bad of a call (I'm thinking implied odds here)
Hmmm....
You take an interesting perspective in that you say you would have lost alot of money if you played this hand. However I can't believe you aren't winning your fair share w/this flop against 2 other players. (Maybe Ill do the math but it seems most aren't that interesting in the math though).
I would have really liked to have been in there had I known the flop would have been that. THough I would have folded also after limping preflop.
Two forumites have mentioned that if they knew what the flop was going to be, they would have wanted to be in the hand. This is true, however, the point was that I was dominated BTF, that is why I folded. This favorable of a flop is not very likely to come up, and more often than not, you will be faced with a situation where you are simply dominated with no draw. The suited aspect of the hand makes only a slight difference BTF since you do not flop flush draws that often.
Dave in Cali
All you say is true, but I was only reacting to the comment you were glad you weren't involved in the hand bc of the way it played later.
I would have been annoyed some idiot reraised w/ KcQc and got me out of the pot which I wish I could have played for one bet.
I have just findished thoroughly perusing my records for this year. At first glance, everything seems copacetic. Up slightly less than 1BB/hr for 765 hrs. (18.63/hr in $10-$20). But I noticed something which I found disturbing...
Over the last 455 hours of play, I am up only $3.10/hr.!! This represents is over half my playing time for the year. What does this mean? Have I developed leaks in my game? Strangely, I haven't noticed anything major in the way of bad runs, bad beats, etc. Maybe a little, but nothing at least out of the ordinary. If anything, it feels as though I'm playing my best hold'em. Is this normal? What I HAVE noticed, is that while I haven't had many terrible stretches, I seem to have had less than my normal amount of good stretches during this time. I'm just wondering if it's unusual for a good player to run completely flat for a 450 hour period, even though the games have been consistently quite good. Thanks for any help.
Don't panic. Running flat for a few hundred hours is not unusual. Be thankful you did not run bad for a few hundred hours which can easily happen. The longer you play the more likely you are to run into a long losing streak. Someone who plays 2000 hours a year can easily have a 400-500 hour losing streak. Assuming a standard deviation of $200 per hour, there is only about a $7 per hour uncertainity in your hourly earn computation so you are definitely beating the game for something greater than one small bet per hour. I only played about 300 hours of $10-$20 and I only averaged about $15 per hour.
POKER How about me? A very short 157 hours (weekends only) and I'm plus 20 cents a hour. And with some big swings. I hope my cut and paste of the file works.
Hourly Hourly Cum
Daily Total Total Hourly Cumulative Variance Std. Dev. Std. Dev.
Time Result Winnings Time Rate r*r/h X/N M*M*H/N Y-Z Sqrt(V) Sqrt(H)*S (N) Date (h) (r) (R) (H) (M) (r*r/h) (X) (Y) (Z) (V) (S) (SD)
1 Apr-00 9.0 ($72) ($72) 9 -$8.00 $576 $576 $576 $576 $0 $0 $0 2 Apr-00 8.5 ($68) ($140) 18 -$8.00 $544 $1,120 $560 $560 $0 $0 $0 3 May-00 14.0 $276 $136 32 $4.32 $5,441 $6,561 $2,187 $196 $1,991 $45 $250 4 May-00 12.0 ($185) ($49) 44 -$1.13 $2,852 $9,413 $2,353 $14 $2,340 $48 $319 5 May-00 7.0 ($688) ($737) 51 -$14.59 $67,621 $77,034 $15,407 $2,151 $13,256 $115 $818 6 May-00 9.0 ($22) ($759) 60 -$12.76 $54 $77,088 $12,848 $1,614 $11,234 $106 $818 7 Jun-00 12.0 ($420) ($1,179) 72 -$16.49 $14,700 $91,788 $13,113 $2,777 $10,335 $102 $860 8 Jun-00 6.0 $50 ($1,129) 78 -$14.57 $417 $92,204 $11,526 $2,056 $9,470 $97 $857 9 Jun-00 3.0 $195 ($934) 81 -$11.60 $12,675 $104,879 $11,653 $1,204 $10,449 $102 $917 10 Jun-00 14.0 $520 ($414) 95 -$4.38 $19,314 $124,194 $12,419 $181 $12,238 $111 $1,075 11 Jul-00 16.0 $300 ($114) 111 -$1.03 $5,625 $129,819 $11,802 $11 $11,791 $109 $1,141 12 Jul-00 9.0 $208 $94 120 $0.79 $4,807 $134,626 $11,219 $6 $11,213 $106 $1,158 13 Jul-00 10.0 ($259) ($165) 130 -$1.27 $6,708 $141,334 $10,872 $16 $10,856 $104 $1,186 14 Jul-00 7.0 $202 $37 137 $0.27 $5,829 $147,163 $10,512 $1 $10,511 $103 $1,198 15 Jul-00 12.0 ($150) ($113) 149 -$0.76 $1,875 $149,038 $9,936 $6 $9,930 $100 $1,214 16 Aug-00 2.0 ($16) ($129) 151 -$0.86 $128 $149,166 $9,323 $7 $9,316 $97 $1,184 17 Aug-00 6.0 $160 $31 157 $0.20 $4,267 $153,433 $9,025 $0 $9,025 $95 $1,188 18 Sep-99 0.0 $0 $31 157 $0.20 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! $0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 19 Sep-99 0.0 $0 $31 157 $0.20 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! $0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 20 Sep-99 0.0 $0 $31 157 $0.20 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! $0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 21 Sep-99 0.0 $0 $31 157 $0.20 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! $0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 22 Sep-99 0.0 $0 $31 157 $0.20 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! $0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 23 Sep-99 0.0 $0 $31 157 $0.20 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! $0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 24 Nov-99 0.0 $0 $31 157 $0.20 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! $0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
Total 157 $31 $0.20 #DIV/0!
Thanks for the response...
You wrote:
"Assuming a standard deviation of $200 per hour, there is only about a $7 per hour uncertainity in your hourly earn computation so you are definitely beating the game for something greater than one small bet per hour."
I thought so too. But 455 hours is a pretty large chunk of time, don't you think? The fact is, if I only take the results from the last 455 out of the 755, I may be LOSING to this game! This is what concerns me the most!
Lig Lury,
If you play against the same group of opponents, it is also possible that they are adjusting to your style faster than you are adjusting to theirs.
Regards,
Rick
It depends on exactly how you are losing. Do you find that you usually have the best hand on the flop against a small number of opponents but that someone usually turns or rivers a card to take a pot away from you? In other words, are you getting sucked out a lot? Suckouts can account for the majority of a good player's losses over a few hundred hours. If this is the case, all you can do is to keep playing solid poker and hope it will pass.
In Holdem for advanced players, it is suggested that you should often be betting good hands on the flop, and then check-raising them on the turn. There are obviously many benefits to this play, with the most obvious being to disguise your semi-bluffs.
Here is my question:
Does it become incorrect to make this play against multiple opponents? Also, when we say to make this play with "good hands," are we talking about something like top pair, big kicker?
Thanks.
Sammy:
I have also been concerned about the message being sent in this particular chapter. Further on it states that one should check hands with outs and bet made hands(few outs). From personal experience I can tell you that I always bet out hands I thought were the best, but have discovered that my oponents could then get a good read on my hand values. I have started in the last three months to change this in my game with favorable results. Oponents no longer bet when I check the turn expecting me to fold. When my check-raise attempt is foiled by a check on the turn, I get calls on the river and induced bluffs I normally would not expect to see. And I also sucessfully get a fair amount of turn checkraises in that I rarely did before.
Specifically, I do not check top pair top kicker since my outs are so few. If I am going to be outdrawn they must pay for the priviledge. A set on the other hand is a likely checkraise candidate. This is my current opinoin on the matter.
Frank Donnelly
Frank You mentioned that sets were likely checkraise candidates. I have found playing against good players that checkraising sets on the turn is a huge mistake since a good player will put you on a very strong holding. I can't tell you how many times i've checkraised the turn and the good player mucked. As a matter of fact i think if you feel the good player doesn't have much you should probably checkraise the turn without to many players in the pot as he's is likely to fold even top pair. Being an excellent player if i checkraised the turn after limping in on the flop and calling your raise on the flop i think you would probably muck when i checkraised because your thinking i must have something i like to call your raise on the flop and then raise the turn. If not the turn you probably muck on the river. What do you think? (Ice) Larry
Frank
I meant to say checkraise with nothing. Lar
3-6 HE game couple of nights ago. I'm doing OK in the game, populated by the usual mix of calling stations and loose aggressive types. Then this hand comes along.
I'm in SB with Kh-Kc. Six limpers, I go ahead and raise out of the SB, even though I know I'm fighting an uphill battle here. I'm sure I've got the best hand at this point, and I want the $$ in there if the KK does hold up. The BB plus all the limpers all call. The two key players in the hand are a weak calling station (WCS) in middle posiiton, and a decent player (DP) in late position.
Flop comes down Qd-9c-5c. Not the worst flop imaginable for my hand. I bet out, four callers, including WCS and DP. Turn is the 8c. Not a great card. Fills out 2 str8's plus the flush. Not being the kind of player who looks for snipers behind every tree in this type of game, I still bet. I figure even if I get raised, my club King might be an out if I spike a river club, or I might still be the best with KK. No free cards. WCS calls, DP raises. Both myself and WCS call, everyone else folds.
River is Kd. Now I'm stuck for sure to call on the river. I check to the DP, he bets, I call, and the WCS overcalls. DP turns over 76o for the str8, I show him my trips(quietly muck instead?)making a comment about having to call with the set given the size of the pot, and the WCS says, "What are you complaining about? I had trip Queen's on the flop." He turns over his pocket Q's and I couldn't believe it.
I mean, this guy gets beat up day after day in this game, and is it any wonder? The sad thing about it, at least for me, is that ifWCS had raised at any one of 3 places - a) pre-flop, b) a limp re-raise after I raise out of the SB, or c) after the flop, the DP would have no doubt folded. I would in all probablility end up sucking out on the guy (go through possible betting sequences, and picture yourself laying down KK in this hand before the river) and taken down the pot instead.
WCS's comment: "I'm not raising any more. I get too many guys sticking around on trash hands and what's the point of building them a bigger pot?"
Played my usual 6 hour set - took my $180 profit and went home, but it could have been a REALLY nice evening.
This sounds like a typical collection of the clueless. How can a decent player (DP) limp in with Seven-Six offsuit? Make it suited from late position and I would understand but unsuited?? Then on the flop he calls with a gutshot when there is a two flush on board which frequently kills one of his outs and creates redraws against him even when he hits one of his miracle cards. I guess the pot size, which is at about 15 small bets, make the flop call only slightly bad. On the turn, he raises apparently not worried about a possible flush.
The "weak calling station" is appropriately named and does not deserve to get good hands like pocket Queens followed by flopping top set.
I guess maybe Decent Player might only be in context with the rest of them, Jim. Usually this guy plays not too bad a game, and I suppose if you are ever going to play 76o, this would have been the spot. He was in the cutoff seat with a big field. His turn raise was aggressive, I will agree. But, as the book says, if you are going to call, consider raising as an alternative. That was certainly not the worst bet (non-bet) on this hand, that's for sure.
Harsh words Jim. 'The weak don't deserve to get good hands followed by flopping a set...'
I think one day you will tell me I'm on way too many drugs but I think the call on the button w/76o in'st that bad if a)the game is passive and b) you can expect to get your big hands paid off. This may be the case in alot of low limit games. I think even Sklansky says to call w/anything (eg any grp 1-8 hand) on the button.
And I think the 76 guy is getting 19-1 on his flop call which is ok even if he think (though he doesn't), he has 3 outs.
Granted the one who played the hand really badly is the QQ. COuld have given himself a better chance to win the pot had he played properly.
Unfortunately for you on this hand, WCS is going to forever be clueless and without any hope. He just doesn't get it and never will. However, your misfortune here will be your fortune later against him, as he is just as likely to let you in cheap to draw out on him. His poor play is something you should capitolize on in the future. Just make sure you don't educate him and explain why he should have raised! You certainly don't want him to play better. Same thing with the supposedly DP. (?)
Dave in Cali
Yes, impossible to imagine not raising with pocket ladies from middle position. He must love to sandbag, which is what he was probably going to do on the turn, but here is a flush card - oh oh, better wait and see what happens. Question - does everyone else bring it in for a raise with Q's except maybe in the blinds?
I almost always raise or reraise BTF with queens from any position. I might not if it is already three bets to me, since I don't like to cap with queens. Depending on the players, I would be worried if I am faced with three bets with queens. Actually, in the games I frequent, I should probably cap with queens, since they raise and reraise with 22, KTo, 56s, and other "premium" hands!
Dave in Cali
Cap it w/Q's. Unless the feild is so predictable that they only 3 bet w/ K's and A's. I would usually do so especially if there is some chance I can get rid of a few people in the process.
I certainly do if I'm first in, and I will almost always 3-bet with them as well. Along the vein of this thread of the truly clueless, let me share another couple of gems from last night.
Two early limpers, similar 3-6 game. Queen Boy from the night before was in the game earlier, donated his $100+ and busted out. I have the red Q's, raise from the cutoff seat, and the button calls cold. SB folds, BB calls, and the two limpers also call. The button is a retired high school principal, and has graduated summa cum laude from the Passive Calling Station School of Hold-'em.
Flop is 9h-8h-2h. All check to me, I bet, button,BB, and 1 limper call. Turn is offsuit 7. They check, I bet again, button and BB call. River is offsuit 6. How much uglier can this get? BB looked like he wanted to bet, but he checked. I check as does button. Button shows down the red King's(!!!!), BB takes it down with 87o. Unlike the earlier hand, I'm never winning this one, but how much worse could the button play it?
VERY next hand - the new button is a young guy who has been running over the game for 2 hours - freely raising on trash and hitting a lot of hands. On this one, he DOESN'T raise on the button with KK against 2 limpers, SB (BB from previous hand, obviously), calls cheaply with a weak Ace, and sure enough, an Ace hits the board to kill the button's Kings.
Gotta love it. They don't make you pay when they have the best of it, and put in the money hand over fist when they don't.
And come November, their votes' ( if they don't get lost on the way to the polling station ) count as much as everyone elses'.
One of the biggest mistakes you can make in poker is to fold incorrectly on the end in a big pot. In this hand, two opponents folded on the end in a situation where you should virtually never fold.
3-6 HE with a kill, Killpot. I limp two off the button with Ad5d after 4 limpers. Button raises and 7 take the flop for 12$ each. I have been losing for a while and my rack is down pretty far.
Flop is Kd 6d 4s. SB bets and everyone calls to me. This is an automatic raise for value for me with my strong draw and this many callers. I raise, button folds, and everyone else calls. The pot is huge: 14+12=26 small bets or 13 big bets in the pot (and it's a kill pot).
Turn is the 7d, giving me the nut flush. Checked to me, I bet. SB and one other call. I am almost out of $$. 16 big bets in the pot.
River is Qc. I only have 2$ left. it is checked to me and I bet 2$ all-in.
Here is where my opponents made a big mistake: Both of my opponents folded to this one final 2$ bet.
Lets evaluate just how certain you have to be that you are beaten in order to make this fold correct:
16*12=192$ in the pot. 2/192=0.0104
This means that you would have to be 98.96% certain that you were beaten in order to make a fold here correct. I do not believe that anyone could ever be THAT certain that they were beaten in this situation.
The converse of this is that you only need a 1.04% chance of having the winning hand to make a call here correct!
There were many hands that I could have played the way that I did. I didn't show my hand (of course) when I won the pot. But I asked the SB "what'd you have?". He told me he had a king.
Even if I had the entire 12$ left in my stack, look at the numbers: 12/192=0.0625
This means that even for one more full bet, you would have to be 93.75% certain that you were beaten in order to fold correctly.
Or, you would need a 6.25% chance of having the winner in order to make a call correct.
If you make these calls, you only have to be right once in a great while in order to make long term profit. Usually you pay off, but once in a while you win a big pot that you didn't expect, and look really cool, all at the same time!
Since I figured out this concept, and really understood what it means, I have started calling on the end more often. I always think about what chance of having the winner I must have in order to break even on the call. Often I lose one more bet, but once in a while I catch someone's bluff or catch them with a worse hand than mine. Then I win a big pot and the reward has more than paid for the risk, and also covers the times I lose one more bet on the end.
Of course you should not take this so far as to make senseless payoffs. Sometimes you are just plain beat and should fold. For instance, if you have AK with top pair, and there are four to a flush on the river, and you don't have the flush, and one bets and two overcall, you are beat and should fold. The concept I am discussing applies more when there is at least SOME doubt as to whether you are beat. Often that doubt only has to be small in order to make calling correct.
Another point: some of you may say that my opponents simply had a PERFECT read on me. Perhaps, but if that were so, they would have folded on the turn knowing that they were drawing dead.
One side note to all this: Seeing that my SB opponent will fold top pair for one more bet on the end makes me more inclined to bet into him on the river, especially if we are heads up.
Comments welcome.
Dave in Cali
The other day in a 10-20 game with a huge pot I saw a guy fold on the end to a $1 bet - I almost fell off my chair.
Go figure.
Only read the 1st half of your post. You are correct. Heck, I'm pretty sure I misread my hand or the board one time in 100. Well, maybe not me but I'm absolutely sure most players do.
- Louie
But wait!!! Maybe the problem is that your play is so predictable that you either have the solid pair+kicker or better, or have the draw and made it. If so, maybe these WEREN'T so terrible folds. Would you have played 5c3c this way?
Louie:
You wrote:
"But wait!!! Maybe the problem is that your play is so predictable that you either have the solid pair+kicker or better, or have the draw and made it. If so, maybe these WEREN'T so terrible folds. Would you have played 5c3c this way? "
If you had read the SECOND half of my post, I addressed the issue of whether I was THAT easy to read!
only read the first half... sheesh!
I certainly hope I am NOT that predictable. But if so, then I guess I will have to start bluffing more on the end! I think you will have to come down and play some 3-6 kill and tell me if I am that predictable. I would go play in your game, but I have a date this weekend and don't want to go broke because of my predictability!
Dave in Cali
Dave,
Just a couple nits.
You wrote: "Another point: some of you may say that my opponents simply had a PERFECT read on me. Perhaps, but if that were so, they would have folded on the turn knowing that they were drawing dead."
They wouldn't have been drawing dead on the turn if they had two pair or trips.
You also wrote: "One side note to all this: Seeing that my SB opponent will fold top pair for one more bet on the end makes me more inclined to bet into him on the river, especially if we are heads up."
Didn't your SB opponent fold top pair for 1/6 of a bet on the end?
I have been trying to improve my play, as always, and one weakness I think I have is not letting go of big overpairs when I know I am beaten.
I have begun making some big laydowns when I know I'm beaten - I have laid down sets on a scary board with reasonable action. I once laid down a straight when I knew a flush was there to beat me.
Out of all of these big laydowns I cannot remember a single time when I have folded the winner when there has been a showdown. I am very confident that my read on these players was good.
However. since I started making big laydowns I have noticed that people are taking more shots at me. I find myself having to call with marginal hands in heads up confrontations to avoid getting run over. In the long run I am not sure if the few bets im saving making big laydowns is paying off because I am leaking it away in other places.
Can anyone give me some good pointers on the frequency of calling when you strongly suspect you are beaten?
SmoothB
How do they know you are making a big laydown - maybe you should not be so obvious - just throw them in and move on - don't show and don't suggest it was a big hand.
So, you make good laydowns in multi-way pots and this encourages players to take shots at you heads-up where you routinely call.
Sounds like a great situation to me. Well done.
While the authors may come up with the "perfect" frequency the rest of us should try this: Make great lay downs against players who won't take shots at you, and do NOT make them against players who will. When you start playing 40/80 then maybe reconsider.
- Louie
It's fairly simple, at least mathematically.
If there are 10 bets in the pot, and it costs you 1 to call, then you need a 10% chance of having the best hand in order to break even on the bet. If you feel you have a 20% chance of having the winner, then you should certainly call as you are getting an overlay. If you are almost certainly beat, you may still fold correctly, but are you 90% certain (in this example)?
The pot odds you are getting on the end dictate whether you should call or fold (at least mathematically). Of course there are some times when you are just plain beat and will always fold regardless of pot odds, but when there is question, look at your odds and figure out what chance you need to have the winner in order to break even.
the formula is the cost of your calling divided by the size of the pot, expressed as a percentage.
so if there are 12 bets in the pot and it costs you 1 to call, then it is 1/12 = 0.083 or 8.3%. You would need an 8.3% chance of having the winner in order to break even. More importantly, you need a 91.7% certainty of being beaten in order to make folding correct! Are you EVER really THAT certain?
See my post (august 10) regarding this subject for more discussion and an example.
Another thing: If you become known for your "great laydowns" then you will almost certainly become the target of observant opponents. Paying off on the end is usually better than making great laydowns. This idea is reinforced by the mathematics. You will also find that the pots you win when you don't lay it down more than make up for those pots you pay off on the end.
Other than not slowplaying, this topic is my favorite personal crusade....
Dave in Cali
Sorry to be nitpicking here but:
"so if there are 12 bets in the pot and it costs you 1 to call, then it is 1/12 = 0.083 or 8.3%. You would need an 8.3% chance of having the winner in order to break even"
If there are 12 bets in the pot and it costs you 1 to call you're getting 12:1 and you need to only be correct 1/13th of the time to break even. That's 1/13 = 7.7%. Look at it this way, if the pot contains 1 bet and it cost you 1 bet, you're getting 1:1, and you need to be right 1/2, not 1/1.
Of course its wrong to never virtually anything in a poker game. I laid down AA just a few days ago when I knew I was beaten and in fact it turned out I was third. As previously mentioned, you just don't make a show of it. I can't remember the last time I showed my cards, but it has certainly been thousands of hands ago.
My guideline on folding big hands is:
do it if I am about to have to put in two bets at once. So if I have a straight and there is a bet and a raise to me with a flush on board, I will probably fold. But if I have already put in one bet and there is a raise, I am likely to pay off the raise as well.
Not perfect, but it has served me pretty well.
William
First let me thank those who have responded to my earlier posts. I got some good insight and believe that you have all helped to improve my game.
Now I have 2 hands that I recently played out of the SB that I hope you will comment on.
Mirage $10/20. I have AK offsuit in the SB. There are 3 limpers in the pot when it comes to me. Although I'm pretty sure that I have the best hand I just call to mix up my play. The BB checks and 5 of us see a flop of JTT with 2 hearts (I have no hearts). I check and a middle position player (a loose player) bets. When it comes back to me 2 players have called (giving me 8:1 odds), I call, and the BB folds. 4 of us see a turn of Q hearts. Although this gives me the nut straight I don't like the board (QJT hearts and a pair) and so I check. This time the button (a solid player) bets. I decide to call (with the intention of check-calling the river). The other 2 players drop. The river card is another little heart. I check and fold when the button bets out.
My first thought was that I played the hand correctly. If the button flopped 2 pair or three tens I'm sure that he would have bet the flop. When he bet the turn I had assumed that he had at least a straight but most probably a flush. However, after some thought, I now think that he could have had as little as 2 pair (Queens & Tens) or even just a big heart. Perhaps I gave up on this hand too easily and should have bet out on the turn; then if the button raises I can make an easy fold. Comments?
Bellagio $8/16. This time I have QQ in the SB. Similar to the other hand there are 3 limpers in before me and I just call (90% of the time I would raise in this spot but I wanted to mix things up). The BB also calls and 5 of us see a flop of AT6 rainbow. This is a pretty loose game and a couple of my opponents would play any Ace (regardless of position) and so I check to get a feeling of where I'm at. It ends up getting checked around. Now I come alive and bet out on both the turn and river. Although I end up losing the hand that is beside the point. Do you think that I should have bet out on the flop?
Hand 1) You completed your hand on the turn although a flush also comes. Bet the turn and play accordingly rather than checking and calling. You have put yourself in a situation where you are guessing what your opponent has and where it becomes easy for him to outplay you.
Hand 2) You have very little invested on the flop in the pot. When the Ace comes I would check and play it accordingly and fold if there is a lot of action.
Why are you not raising from the small blind with your big hands? Your play had you raised would have been more straight forward.
Bruce
Bruce,
I play my big hands pre-flop aggressively (i.e., raising or re-raising) 95% of the time. But I think that you need to disguise them occasionally. My preferred times to do so are when I'm the opener and in the blinds.
While I agree with your course of action on the first hand, I'm not sure I understand your comment "...You have put yourself in a situation where you are guessing what your opponent has and where it becomes easy for him to outplay you." I always try to put my opponents on a hand (as well as guess what they think that I have); I'm sure that you do the same. In this situation, on the turn, I thought the odds that my opponent had a flush or better at greater than 60%. Why? Because this is a scary board and my opponent had played his previous hands conservatively; I was quite sure he was not trying to buy the pot. But there was also the chance that he could have a good draw. Hence my call. If another heart had not come on the river I would have checked the river and called if the button bet.
Thanks for the feedback!
sometimes its better to bet out on the turn to find out where you really at then guessing and throwing the best hand away...test the waters
By checking on the turn you are showing weakness and you are giving the button a chance to bet with various different hands. He may have a real hand, ie. a flush or he have a straight or flush draw, top pair, or nothing. When he bets it is difficult for you to accurately put him on a hand. If you come out betting and he calls than he probably is drawing to beat you and when a heart comes on the end you're beat. Now when the fourth heart comes and you check even if he doesn't have a heart a bet by him will show a profit because you have now shown weakness twice.
Bruce
Here is my take on it.
First hand: I too sometimes just call with big hands in the blinds, but I think you made a mistake in this case. When there are only a few callers you must raise.(I'm assuming you have a solid image)In a short handed pot you have to assume you have the best hand and take control of the hand. If there had been lets say a mid position raiser with 2 callers, or lot's of people seeing the flop, then I like the play of just calling, since it's unlikey to get most of the players out by raising. I think you played the whole hand rest of the hand way too weak. If you are going to play that way, I guess you played the hand well by folding the river. I personally would have either check raised the flop or the turn, depending on the game. If the game was ultra tight, I would of dumped the hand on the flop. I guess I'm trying to say that it all depends on the game....
2nd hand: With 3 limpers you must raise with QQ and bet out on the flop. The rest of the hand depends on your opposition.
One reason to check in the blinds is to keep the pot small so YOU can make easy folds after the flop. If you plan to go to the river with a weak flop you might as well raise pre-flop. If you expect to play paranoid top-pair poker then there is reason to check-and-see.
On hand 2 you checked and got a terrible flop. If you don't want to check-and-fold then you should have raised pre-flop since it looks like you'll be betting out on the flop 80% of the time.
Situations on hand 1 look marginal to me which means you did not play "bad". However, on the river you are heads-up against a solid player on the button who can have LOTS of weak hands. There is just TOO great a chance he has small cards for you to abandon your straight on the end, since I can think of no lagitamate 2-small cards he could bet for value on the end; yet he may be savvy enough to bet T9 hoping you'll fold your small flush. Pay it off unless he's particulary un-aggressive.
- Louie
On hand no.1 i personaly never take one off with 2 over cards on a paired board and a 2 flush if one of my cards is not of that suit. Espicialy if the board contains Js and 10s this is one of the most common 2 card holdings and i have been shown full houses so many times i will not draw against this type of board.
on hand 2 i raise out of the blind against a few opponets and bet the flop and see what happens.
Hand 1: With a J T T flop plus two hearts, I would have folded AK unless I was convinced noone had a Ten. Even here because of the heart draw, your odds are not as great as they seem.
Since you decided to call, when you hit the
turn, you have to bet or check raise. Only when you are reraised can you be convinced a better hand is against you.
I think your fold on the river is ok, but it
is a close call.
Hand 2: If you limp with QQ and an Ace flops, forget
it. Eat your small loss and move on.
It's a $15-$30 table, and have KK in the BB. Late position calls, button raises, I make it three bets, both call. Note that I just sat down at the table, and have never played with either of the other players before.
Flop is (of course) Ace high. I check, LP bets, button calls, I call.
Turn is rag. I check, LP bets, button folds, I call.
River is a 5 making a wheel possible. I check, LP bets, I fold.
Q1: How was my flop play?
Q2: How was my turn play?
Q3: How was my river play?
I suspect I screwed this one up, but I'm not sure. All comments are welcome. Thanks in advance.
Running Bad,
You wrote “Q1: How was my flop play?”
I think you should usually lead here although I wish I knew what the rest of the flop was. If it was an A J 9 two-suited it could hit the other two players in the middle or give them a draw and their calls or raises could mean a lot of things. If it is an A 5 2 rainbow it is much more likely that a raise by an opponent will mean you are up against an ace.
Once you checked and LP bets with the pre-flop raiser only calling, you probably have no idea where you are at. Neither do I ;-).
“Q2: How was my turn play?”
If I checked the flop (which I probably wouldn’t), I might lead here. If raised now you can lay down against most opponents.
Given the fact that you checked, it is a big plus that you are now head up after the button folds. Note that the chance you are up against an ace is reduced, since most late position openers would have raised before the flop.
“Q3: How was my river play?”
Once you called the turn, you have made some kind of decision that you may not be up against an ace. That’s OK. Now a baby card that could make a wheel should not scare you too much. You must call now that you have come this far as nothing has really changed since the flop, including your weak play.
Regards,
Rick
OK so long as its the kind of player that when called semi-bluffing on the turn WILL check the river. Otherwise either fold the turn or pay it off.
I think a problem MAY be in your presumption that a card less than T is a "rag" and not worth remembering. Mayby YOU don't play low cards in these spots but I assure you other people do. A98 2-flush is a MUCH different flop than A72r.
So, you have no information about these players? Well, the button raised without a big pair nor a big Ace. The other guy DIDN'T bring it in with a raise but then proceeded to call a double bet. The fact that he bet into the pre-flop raiser (who is likely to have an Ace) indicates to me that he is likely a loose-aggressive type who likes draw hand a lot and will bet them. If so and the flop presented a couple reasonable draws; then pay it off.
- Louie
LP bet the flop and got two callers but no raise, that indicated that neither pre-flop raiser held an ace. Add to that his bet on the turn and his cold-call of a double raise pre-flop, and I have to conclude he holds an ace. Therefore: jettison the cowboys.
You really need to know the specific flop cards to provide an accurate answer here. In general, I think you should bet the flop when facing only two opponents and see how they handle it. If you get called in one spot and raised in another you are probably playing a two outer and can fold. When you put yourself in a check-calling mode after showing strength pre-flop you are reduced to guessing and gambling on the more expensive streets.
It is illogical for you to call the turn bet and then fold at the river despite another wheel card appearing. Either fold on the turn or stay with the hand all the way.
Like everyone else if i call the turn bet i will call the river bet every single time, provided a 4th flush card or 4 cards to a srtait do not show up. This is also provided that it is heads up on the turn.
This is a lot like one of the special sitations sections in the second half of hpfap. I think they had pocket Q's with an overcard coming on the flop. Their recommendation is to just call to the end. The idea is that it induces bluffing from the bettor if he does not have an Ace, and if he does have an Ace, then you go to the river with minimal cost.
If you are going to check-call the turn and flop, then you should definitely do so on the river. The pre-flop call by LP is weak. Normally, any playable hand in this position is worth a raise if you are the first one in. However, there are more players now who limp in with big hands for deception. Still, I would not assume that this player is playing that way if I did not know him. I would just assume that he is a weak player who does not realize that he should raise with even weaker playable hands.
The big question is whether or not you could have folded sooner. The best approach here would be bet the flop, and re-raise if someone raises. If it is raised and re-raised by the time it gets back to you, then fold. Suppose you bet and LP raised, and button folds. Then you re-raise. If LP raises again, then it's highly likely that you are beat, and you should probably fold. The only way you can call would be if you were confident that you could get 3 big bets out of your opponent when he had top pair. Even here it is close.
The problem with this approach is that there are many weak players who play weak aces pre-flop. If LP has a weak ace then he won't 4-bet the flop. So suppose you bet, he raises, you re-raise, and he calls. Now you are in a bad position to get a free card. What do you do on the turn? I think you would bet and fold if raised.
So getting aggressive on the flop will save you a big bet compared to check-calling at best. At worst you get bluffed out because of your position. This would be my approach. Check-calling is my second favorite approach against an unknown 15-30 player. Agaisnt some players, it would be my favorite approach. Check-calling the flop and turn, then folding on the river is the worst approach.
Steve
Remember dodge-ball ? The exact rules varied slightly according to where you lived ,but basically it was a very simple game; all you needed was a rubber ball about the size of a volleyball ( but a little softer ), a group of anywhere from five or six up to a dozen kids, and an enclosed area - most often the local schoolyard. The rules we played by were pretty much as follows: When it was your turn - meaning you had the ball - you tried to hit an opponent with it ( there were no teams; it was every man for himself ) and if you were successful the "victim" was out and forced to sit out and wait on the sidelines for the next game. If you threw the ball and did not hit anybody with it, the next person would get a turn, and so on and so on until only one person remained. He or she was declared the winner and a new game would begin. But, there was a little more to it than that; if you threw the ball in an attempt to hit another player and the ball was caught by anyone before it touched the ground, YOU were out - regardless of whether or not the player who caught the ball was your intended target. There was one other rule; it didn't happen often but it was still a part of the game. If you did hit an opponent with the ball, but another player caught it before it hit the ground the player you hit was out BUT SO WERE YOU. Every so often a player would throw the ball, hit someone, have the ball carom off the victim and hit some one else and still be caught in the air. The really interesting part of this event was when "A" would hit "B", the ball would then hit "C", only to be caught in the air by "B" who was then considered to be "saved". "A" and "C" were out; "B" was the only one who gained. As silly as it all may sound, there was a great deal of stategy involved. There was always alot of "implicit colusion" involved - ganging up on the strongest player to eliminate him thereby giving all those who remained a better chance of winding up the winner. There was, I can now see in retrospect, many other stategies that could have been employed ( knowing a particular opponent's weakness and exploiting it ) to give you a better chance of winning. But what did we know; we were just kids. If you use a little imagination it's not hard to see how this - in some abstract way resembles a poker game. It's even possible to see one of the most glaring ( and often misunderstood ) aspects of poker. What worked unfailingly under one set of circumstances would often fail in another; and it didn't always have to do with the players involved. Changes in the size of the arena, or even a minor rule change were sometimes enough to alter the balance of power, because as I already stated - we were just kids; what did we know. We couldn't possibly be expected to be clever enough to capitalize on this "trivial" stuff; throw the ball the hardest and the most accurately and you were going to win, right ? For some reason it didn't always work out this way. I will get back to this riveting analogy shortly ( I promise ) but first there are a few points I'd like to make regarding a topic a little more appropriate and probably a little more [ potentially ] luc- rative. I mean, it's really hard to find a dodgeball game with any serious earning potential. Let's face it, even when you can get them to gamble on the outcome of the game, these kids today never seem to have any MONEY ! Just a few of the most overlooked aspects to NO FOLD'EM HOLD'EM . . . 1) EVERY HAND IS A DRAWING HAND. Even when you pick up a big pocket pair, a hand that does not need improvement in order to win ( although I wouldn't mind making a set every once in a while ), you still need to hit the flop ( and the turn, and the river ) if you want to avoid having to say "nice hand" as the dealer is in the process of pushing "your" pot to one of your opponents. You don't necessarily have to "catch the ball" ( see above ) but you are going to have to avoid being hit with it. And make no mistake, you are going to get hit alot, but when you don't get hit first prize is apt to be sizeable even if you don't recieve it as often as you would like As a close friend of mine is fond of saying,"they sure leave alot of chips behind when they forget to run you down". Come on now, do you want them calling two bets with 75s and J8off or would you prefer to have them play correctly and toss them in the muck. If I get a vote in this I want them in. I'll take my chances. I'm going to cut this short, for now, it's already a pretty long post. but I do have some more thoughts I'd like to share. 'Till then, Chris - a/k/a "the dodgeball king"
Chris,
Maybe you would get more responses if you tried putting your ideas into paragraphs ;-).
Rick
Rick, i though i had - i obviously don't know how to work this machine. my PC is seldom available to me so i am reduced to WEBTV. apprecate the suggestion and wil try to learn how to "tame this animal". i travel ALOT, and have found this to be the most convenient traveling companion. am currently looking into this new gadget - i think its called a LAPTOP. i humbly request the indulgence of all until i can correct this situation. regards, chris
clf-NY wrote in one long paragraph as to not lose his train of thought. his stream of conciousness is evident in his writing. it is only excellent writers that possess the ability to write in such a style, let alone in fragments. writers such as the nobel prize winner jose saramago who wrote The History of the Siege of Lisbon wrote in a style similar to his. This is done to force the reader to read in depth, thus understanding the text on a higher level. forging on, this response is pointless, it did, however, buy me a couple minutes. in the end, have a nice day. bye bye.
-jon
Butt Jingles,
I agree but I like to use that style only when writing erotic stuff.
Regards,
Rick
clf-TV,
I've never seen web TV so I can't help you. I do know that when I write most of my responses in MS Word and paste them in, sometimes I lose the paragraphs and sometimes I don't (when I do, I re-insert the paragraphs in the message box). I haven't used a laptop much so can't help you there either.
BTW, didn't mean to nitpick but I was feeling frisky that night ;-).
Regards,
Rick
We played teams usually faced off in a space longer than wide, such as the left and right sides of a basketball court; and we had several balls. Oddly, I was the only one who figured out to throw the ball at rude angles (at distracted opponents) rather than straight away at the closest opponent who was looking right at your but I digress...
Poker and dodgeball games are too dis-similar. If your objective in Dodgeball is to be the "winner" then you want to avoid doing ANYTHING that puts you in danger. This means don't try to catch the ball, stay away from the player with the ball, and always throw the ball low and away so nobody can catch it.
Unlike poker, you gain no "points" if you nail somebody in dodgeball. You should therefore avoid all confrontations (at least early in the game).
Dodgeball would be a lot MORE like poker if you got points for successes. But WAIT!!! You DO get points for successes at Dodgeball: call it ego, prestige, vengence, whatever: it FEELS like a win if you nail 3 opponents before YOU get nailed.
- Louie
Inice analogy try, but you're dodgeball acumen is slightly askew. you said, and I quote,"If you did hit an opponent with the ball, but another player caught it before it hit the ground the player you hit was out BUT SO WERE YOU. Every so often a player would throw the ball, hit someone, have the ball carom off the victim and hit some one else and still be caught in the air. The really interesting part of this event was when "A" would hit "B", the ball would then hit "C", only to be caught in the air by "B" who was then considered to be "saved". "A" and "C" were out; "B" was the only one who gained." First, you explained it correctly the first time, but incorrectly the second. Good luck throwing a ball(A), hitting someone,(B), hitting someone else,(C), then having it bounce back and have b catch it. Never happened in any of my games. just think of the logistics of hitting one guy with the ball, having it hit another uy, then bounce back to the first hittee before hitting the ground. Pretty ludicrous, and well migh impossible to plan. What would occasionally happen is A would hit b, followed by c catching it before it hits the ground. A & B are both out then. C is still in. . No "ganging up" strategy works in any sense in which you are trying to convey as it applies to Hold 'em. Enough aboout dodgeball! Now Wall Ball, that was a game!I remember one time when.............
Aaron, you make a good point re: stategy. But if you plaed this way on a reg basis you would have very little fun and more importantly would have a hard time "finding a game". thanks for the reply,best wishes - chris
Didn't think I made any point about strategy. I was just letting you know that your analogy was incorrect as explained. And I have no problem finding games dodgeball games, thank you. So there.
Touche', Aaron. Touche'.
S&M repeatly state that in HE if you cannot play well after the flop the best perfect play before the flop can hope for is to break even. if a thumbnail of good preflop play involves not playing dominated/mediocre cards out of position, only playing cards that require implied odds in the appropriate games/situations, being aware of differing opponents opening/raising standards in early/mid vrs late position and reacting accordingly, adjusting hand standards for the increased odds you get in the blinds, and ?? what would be the thumbnail for good, basic post flop play? or is that why they write books?
Good thumb-nail post-flop play would sound alot like your thumb-nail pre-flop play description. To which I would add the ability to see the entire hand cohesively (considering current actions vis-a-vis previous actions) in order to accurately predict what the opponent has and what it appears YOU have. I guess I would also add the ability to take advantage when the opponent's are weak, and to recognize this often.
- Louie
jackson,
The best "thumbnail" is to realize is that there is no "thumbnail" for post flop play. Hence the books, the forum, and fortunately the fact tht only a few work on it.
Regards,
Rick
There is no "thumbnail" for accurate post flop play. There are concepts and considerations that have to be identified and then correctly evaluated in the light of a specific hand. The concepts are discussed in books. Some important considerations not adequately covered in books are:
1. The texture of the board.
2. Whether or not the pot was raised pre-flop.
3. How many opponents there are.
4. The current betting action.
5. How well your hand fits the flop.
Hold-em is a very simple game with many concepts that are easily understood in the abstract. But what separates the players from the gamblers is the ability to apply the right concepts based on the particulars of a specific hand. That is why objective hand analyses are more important for most players than theoretical or abstract discussions which in many cases are nothing more than a form of mental masturbation.
Jim,
I take it you don't spend a lot of time on Badger's column.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. This week's column was hilarious so you should read it.
What is interesting about Steve Badger is that when he chooses to do so, he can provide some of the best hand analyses of anyone on this forum. The key is to somehow provoke him into doing so and revealing his thinking to us. The same thing with David Sklansky but it is like pulling teeth. However, in the end it is worth the effort.
10-20 on the internet. The game has suddenly gone from a full table to 6 players. Fold to the cutoff who limps on his posted bet (new player). Button raises. Small blind folds and I call in the big blind with KdQd. Cutoff calls. 3 players.
Flop: 7d 8s 3d
Check, check, button bets. I raise, cutoff calls 2 bets cold and button calls.
Turn: 7d 8s 3d [9s]
Check, check, check.
River: 7d 8s 3d 9s [5d]
I can't decide what to do (fuzzy thinking), so I bet out. Cutoff calls, button folds, I win. My main question is should I have tried for a check-raise on the river.
no way, the turn was checked around. If you bet, you might get a caller who would not otherwise bet - and even then would likely lay down to a river check raise. Result is only one big bet anyway.
Your flush draw is not so disquised. The river card probably didn't help anybody and looks like a BAD card for the two hands who didn't like it enough to bet the turn. Unless you believe CO has a small flush bet it out.
Now if it were the Ad I would be tempted to check-raise.
- Louie
As Ciaffone wrote, if you want something done, do it yourself. Bet. I'd have also bet the turn.
No because players in a shorthanded situation like this will make a lot of "curiosity calls" at the river when they have a pair to make sure they are not being bluffed out. However, these same players are fearful of betting even when checked to after a flush card hits plus four parts to a straight are now on the table.
I am unsure about the check-raise move on the flop. Why do you want to shut out the third player when you are on a drawing hand? With two overcards and a flush draw this could easily be 15 outs with two cards to come which means you are a mathematical favorite to make something. Why not just bet the flop? The cutoff is more likely to call one bet than two and if the button raises your bet you can call and the cutoff might be tied in for another bet.
I need to have someone explain to me why no re-raise BTF. Be gentle, i just woke up and have not had my coffee yet.
Well, you bring up an interesting point that I had overlooked. Normally I don't like raising with King-Queen suited but this is a special situation. You have the cutoff who posted and did not raise so he has random cards. You have the button raising which the button would do on weak cards. Under these circumstances King-Queen suited looks pretty good. A re-raise might fold the cutoff and give you a heads-up situation with the button and you might well have the better hand. The only problem is that you are out of position. I think 3 betting pre-flop might be the right play. Good observation.
I'm looking for a HE video authored by someone with a middle eastern name???
Somebody heard of it?
In the latest issue of Cardplayer (August 18,2000) Roy Cooke discusses the following hand and I have greatly edited it in the interest of brevity:
"I am playing in the $20-$40 side game during the Orleans tournament. I am in the big blind and a terrible tourist posted a big blind right behind the button. Four players fold and a loose, aggressive player opens with a raise to $40. The tourist called the raise for another $20 and the button made it $60. The button is a tight, tough player. The small blind, who was trying to play well, called. I had pocket Nines (but NOT the 9c) and I called for another $40. Everyone else called. There is $310 in the pot and five players in the hand. The flop is: 8c5c2c. It was checked to the button who bet $20. Everyone called. There is $410 in the pot. The turn is: 5s. The small blind checked and I bet $40. Only the button called. There is $490 in the pot and two players. The river is: Qc. I bet $40 and he called. He wins with the TcTs."
Here is what I think of Roy's play. I believe his pre-flop call was a marginal mistake. A tough, tight player on the button rates to have a big over pair to 3 bet and will have no worse than AK. A pair of Nines is a huge dog in this situation and it is costing Roy two bets at least to take a flop providing there is no more raising. I would have folded. But the big mistake Roy made on this hand was calling the flop bet which I believe was horrible poker. His puny over pair is highly suspect and the board has flopped all of one suit with Roy not even having a card in that suit. He could be drawing almost dead and if another card of that suit shows up his hand is instantly dead. I believe he has a clear fold on the flop and his post flop play was pure charity especially his bet on the turn.
What does everyone else think?
P.S: I played in the $20-$40 side game at the Orleans with Roy Cooke at the table and I remember a hand I played against him where I had pocket Tens and he mucked on the river but I did not write it down so I am not sure if this is the same hand.
Jim,
I forgot to pick up my copy on Wednesday. I'm just glad to see that he finally wrote about a hand he lost and maybe didn't play well (I do want to read the original article). Maybe you got to him a bit ;-).
Regards,
Rick
Yes, he definitely overplayed his 9's. Nonetheless, Mr. Cooke's bet on the river is not without merit. Critical question: would the button (you?) have called his bet had he (you?) lacked the 10c?
I agree with you Jim that preflop I think his call is marginal, especially with a player behind him who may re-pop it. But post flop I probably would play it the same.
The pot is large enough that given that I have a "tight tough" player behind me I would bet for info. Given that I was called but not raised I would put him on either an overpair no club, or AK with a club. Either way the bet on the river is automatic.
The question asked in another response is excellent. Would you have laid down 10h 10d? (or Ah Ad?). If your answer is yes, I think Roy played it well.
Jim,
I have played with Roy a fair amount and all I can say is ugggh. I know he must have his rationale and will be interested in reading.
Preflop, I must put the button reraise "tight, tough player" on an overpair. At worse, Big Slick but unlikely. Trying to flop the set and in early position, the price is too high for +EV.
Post flop, board suited w/o one in my hand, I would really expect him to ponder as he does but muck. He must have been caught up with the loose, tourist play.
His turn play is interesting. He may be leading and prepared to muck if raised. But, everyone called the flop? Prime situation for someone who flopped a big flush to slow play. Here, one should check and muck if someone bets.
River, now with only the button calling the turn bet, this is a good move. Without a suited card, an overpair has a difficult call. Again, the player, "tight, tough player." The only play he made I like. I look forward to reading this article. He wrote one that he lost?
I think a better case can be made for checking on the river. If the tight, unimaginative player has an overpair and called the turn, he's going to call the river. If Roy checks, the guy will likely check his overpair and save Roy some money. If he was calling with something like AK with the Ace of Spades, then he won't call a bet, but might possibly bet as a bluff if Roy checks.
I think the best play on the river is probably check-call.
If it was you Jim, I am glad to see that Roy has promoted you from "tight, but unimaginative" to "tight, tough." Thanks for the effort you put into the forum. I always read your post.
... or demoted to "terrible tourist"!
BTW, fold preflop, postflop play OK.
hope i'm never drawing dead,
albert
Jim, I realize that you didn't take notes, but what hand would you have put Roy on when he bets the turn with this board? He wouldn't play A-8, he couldn't be bluffing with a straight draw. The only hand you could beat would be 9-9, or a semi-bluff with the Ac.
Thanks for this post and all the others. I always look forward to your posts.
I am not sure I was the player but if it was me I would definitely call his turn bet with over $400 in the pot. Flopped flushes are hard to come by and I can beat top pair/top kicker type hands plus 99. The pot is too big for me to get away from plus I have 4 outs to a full house with any Ten or Five.
Jim,
In general, all the dead money in the pot made it a correct call preflop. He got 13:2 odds on his money, which is an overlay when you consider the chances of his flopping a set, along with the possibility that he already has the best hand. Of course, this all depends on his read of the three-bettor. If the three-bettor was "tight/unimaginative", then folding would probably be correct, but with a "tight/tough" tree-bettor, there is a definite overlay, as long as Roy can outplay him postflop.
- Andrew
But Andrew no player with an over pair in this situation is going to fold when Roy bets the turn given all that money in the pot. The only way for Roy's turn bet to be right is for: (A) none of the other players still in the hand have a flush or a decent flush draw, AND (B) The 3 bettor does not have an over pair, AND (C) The 3 bettor has AK without a Club. The combined probability of (A) x (B) x (C) is very, very small. There is actually one other scenario which is the 3 bettor has AK with a Club but catches a blank at the river (no Club or Ace or King). But I still think the overall likelihood is too small to make betting profitable. At the river his bet is also bad because a better hand will always call and a worse hand will always fold given the call on the turn. His actual play is a lousy example of "playing well postflop". However, his column discussing this hand is a good example of a top player relying too much on his ability to"outplay his opponents" and ignoring hold-em fundamentals including proper hand evaluation, position, number of opponents, and most importantly the texture of the board.
Jim,
I wasn't talking about the turn or the river. I was talking about the preflop call. As far as folding an overpair to a 4-flush board, I have done it before. And I have regretted before as well.
- Andrew
Sorry Andrew. I was reacting to your closing comment about "outplaying them postflop".
He got 13:2 as it turns out. But his was not the last word pre-flop. It could have gotten re-raised and capped after he called.
Would that really have been so bad?
- Andrew
Only if the 2 limpers now fold rather than call another 2 bets cold. This would leave you (Roy) with the unpleasant choice of calling 2 more cold and face having to play a 3-way pot against the original 2 raisers, at least 1 of who figures to have a higher pair than 99. In other words, reverse implied odds. Of course if the 2 limpers both play, you wouldn't mind playing 99 in a capped pot with 5-way action.
Kevin,
While I agree that what you describe *could* happen, it just isn't very likely. Very few people put money into a pot and then fold after raises. It happens, but not often enough to be an overridding concern. Sure there are situations where 99 is going to be in BIG trouble, but on the whole, given the read that was described, I can only think it's +ev for Roy to be in there.
On the other hand, some of the postflop plays are much more questionable than the preflop call.
- Andrew
n/t
On the flop he gets 19.5 to 1 on his call to have a 22.5 to 1 chance to catch a nine. He could be drawing dead to a nine, be in the lead, be a big dog, or a slight dog. Seems like taking a card off was the correct play on the flop. On the turn he makes a bet to increase his chances of winning the pot by eliminating hands between him and the button. If the button has two overcards with a flush draw Roy’s hand has improved on the turn. If the button has two overcards without a flush draw Roy is a significant favorite, if the button has a flush or an overpair Roy is a big dog but he isn’t drawing dead. The bet on the turn seems well worth the risk to me. Playing the river is a matter of judgment as to the highest EV play. On the river he is going to call anyway. If the button doesn’t have a club but has an overpair he might win the pot with this bet. I’m just guessing that Roy felt that he would make a worse hand fold often enough to make this bet profitable. There is definitely a case for checking on the river though.
But Tom a Nine is not a clean out. If he catches the Nine of Clubs on the turn this will almost certainly give someone a flush and has to continue on at an increased cost. I realize that when this happens he has a good play here but for the purposes of evaluating flop decisions you cannot look at this as even a two outer. It is more like something between 1 and 2 outs. Furthermore, even if the button has AK without a Club Roy is not a big favorite because of the presence of all those other players at that point not to mention the fact that he is being bet into with the possibility of it getting raised. By the way if the button has an over pair or AK there are only 9 hands out of 46 possible hands for the button to have AK without a Club which is only 20% of the time. Even then the button has outs to beat a pair of Nines if he chooses to call given the large pot.
All of your points are valid but I believe (could be wrong though) that the fact that he is actually in the lead occasionally is compensation. Yes I realize that the 9c may help someone more than it helps Roy on the turn. How about the turn?
I think Roy made a good call preflop. First of all, there is a fair chance that 99 is the best hand. The loose aggressive player could have all kinds of things, as could the tourist. The tough button could have an overpair but could also have overcards. Secondly, paying $40 for a chance to flop a set in a $310 pot is a good call. Folding this hand preflop would be a significant mistake.
I agree about the action on the flop. Roy should have folded here. He is probably beat and if he isn't, the button figures to have 15 outs against him. The other players will have some outs as well.
On the turn Roy's hand is too good to bluff with and far too weak to value bet. He should have checked. I think check-calling and check-folding both had merit.
On the river, Roy has a very weak hand. I don't like his bluff much because I still think his hand was still too good for it, but if the button folds a lot (as you seem to), a bluff could be correct.
William
15-30 that's playing like a 3-6. I hold AQo in mid late position. three callers to me and I limp. two of the players behind me weren't going anywhere if they like their hands, and I didn't want the pot so big that calls later were correct.
one more caller behind me and the blinds came also.
flop comes 10-8-3 rainbow. SB bets out. SB is a very aggressive player who will bet anything. some of the players in the game are a little scared of him because of his aggression, and he uses this to pour it on. I'm ready to fold, but call when it comes to me with only one caller. I call (should I have raised?) and the player behind me calls too.
turn is a K off suit. SB bets out again, and the player in front of me mucks. I think SB bets anything here. I've played with him a fair amount, and have played back at his aggression in spots enough that he doesn't tangle with me, but not enough that he knows I'm taking shots at him. I know that he would bet anything here. he likes to checkraise, when he improves on the turn, and he didn't do it here. I raise. late position mucks and SB thinks about it for a while and mucks. I figure that in additon to the jacks, either the aces or kings or both are outs for me. I'm certain that he doesn't have two pair (unless his game has changed since monday) since he hesitated before calling. In fact, I'm almost positive that he doesn't have a king.
river blanks off (deuce) he checks, i fire was I out of line on the flop or turn? should I have raised preflop (pretty sure my call was correct)?
results, as usual, will follow.
SB thought about it, thought about it, looked at me (I smiled back) thought about it some more...and mucked.
The SB mucked his hand twice?
I probably would have raised pre-flop to force out the player behind me and solidify my position a little better and take better conrol of the hand. You shouldn't always assume players will call a raise just because the table is loose.
Whether the semi-bluff was a good play or not depends largely on your opponent. You seemed to have a good read on him and thought it would work.
BTW you state you were planning on folding when bet into on the flop. Why did you change your mind?
sorry, meant that he called the turn. I guess I was thinking ahead.
I first thought that there were going to be lots of callers when SB bet out on the flop. the two three loose callers in between SB and I mucked and the only tightish player called. ironically, the tightish player was UTG, and, in my experience, would not play spotted cards in that position. he also likes raising. he also overvalues paint. (don't you just love playing against the same players all the time. the reads you get are awesome) given that he just called before the flop, I put him on either a pocked underpair or two paint cards, probably QJ (gutshot), but maybe also, AJ, or KQ. he raises with AK, AQ, TT or any higher pair.
when I saw that the bettor was liable to have anything, and that the caller was likely to have a sketchy draw or be dominated my my hand if our card hit, and that I only had one player behind to act, i changed my decision to a call.
I think your call on the flop is marginal. You have one caller and an opponent behind you to act and all you have are two overcards. Your raise on the turn with your read on your opponent is brilliant. By raising on the turn if you do not improve you are mandated to fire again on the river. Your opponent had very little and you outplayed him. Good hand.
Bruce
As I was waiting for a spot at the table this evening, as per my usual custom, I scouted some of the players at the table who are lesser known to me. (I like to stand behind a player at such an angle as to see his hole cards, and then observe how he plays. The info I gather is rather useful at the table...)
At any rate, this particular table is "mediocre-passive." Perhaps this needs explanation---simply put, if there is no raise, there is almost guaranteed to be 5 or 6 handed action. However, raises do get respect, usually clearing the field behind the raiser. If somebody calls---watch out. So not really tight-passive and not really loose-passive, but somewhere in the middle.
PREFLOP
UTG, a weak player who tries to play well, limps in. Folded around to a middle position player (MP) who raises. MP is a reasonably good player with a tight table image. (I've played against him many times.) Only the BB calls. BB is an ultra loose fish with a penchant for inopportune bluffs.
FLOP: J T 5 rainbow
Checked to MP who bets. Both call.
TURN: J
BB bets! UTG raises! MP 3-bets! BB mucks! UTG caps! MP calls.
RIVER: K
UTG bets. MP calls.
I'll post the end result below, but what do you think each player had??
More questions to follow in the post with the results...
UTG: KJo MP: AJo
After the hand, MP muttered something about "nice 3-outer," to which UTG responded, "Well, I didn't put you on AJ 'cause you raised preflop!"
I think we all agree that UTG had badly overplayed her hand from preflop through the turn. As I was watching the explosion of action on the turn, I had put her on JT or TT. So the final hand was a surprise.
I'm a little curious as to your take on the play of MP, though. I talked with him about it later that evening. I think he made some questionable plays as well, although of a bit subtler nature.
Q1) Given the table conditions as described, do you raise preflop AJo or just call?
MPs perspective was that it was a marginal hand which played best heads-up, and the respect his raises were getting allowed him to achieve as close to that as possible with position on his opponents.
While I see his reasoning, I wonder whether calling might be better. In this case, he's facing an UTG limper. Generally speaking, what hands are likely to limp UTG that he isn't dominated by? OK, this particular opponent isn't particularly swift, but in the past she has demonstrated some notion that she needs better cards up front than on the button.
Now true, if he just calls, some or all of the 4 opponents left to act behind him may limp in and run him down. However, if he should catch a flop he likes, he may be bet into allowing him to raise to clear the field and define his hand.
Of course, neither course of action saves him on this particular hand, but in general, which do you guys think is best?
Q2) Do you 3-bet the turn?
I haven't been able to make up my mind on this one, probably because the results are clouding my judgement.
On one hand, MP has top trips, top kicker. Certainly this is strong and should be bet. But faced with considerable action, and this being a table where players (correctly or not) will slowplay 2pr or a set, I wonder whether alarm bells should start going off.
What do you guys think?
I would certainly raise a limper of the type you describe and most others as well if I was going to play the hand. I don't consider this a drawing hand since straights and flushes are remote. Yes, I think it should have occurred to MP that JT might be out there.
oops, I posted my guess below not realizing you'd already posted the results.
Q1) Given the table conditions as described, do you raise preflop AJo or just call?
I think this was a good raise, but limping in with KJo under the gun is a horrible play. AJ dominates many of the hands these players are probably limping with, and raising reduces the implied odds of other non-dominated hands like small pocket pairs and suited connectors.
Q2) Do you 3-bet the turn?
I think that AJ has about a %50-%60 percent chance of being the best hand (about 9 ways he could have a smaller J + some chance he has just a ten or a big pocket pair, and 9 ways he has TT, JT, or the other set). So it's a close call, and a raise is probably the correct play ( I think you need something like a 57% of having best hand to raise).
allan
have not looked at results - BB : AT, took one swing when board paired, a hard sell since he checked the flop UTG: 55, AJ or TT ( in that order ) MP : you say he plays well, so i'm stumped here. what could he check this flop with in shorthanded pot after raising BTF. AQ, maybe suited is my only guess.
MP had TT.
UG had KJs (or maybe JTs).
But since you labelled this was an odd hand, I must be wrong.
Anyone ever played in here? I know games are short-handed, but ever any problems w/ withdrawing money or anything? Otherwise, it seems to have the best perks online. A referral would be appreciated if anyone goes there cuz i mentioned it (www.dragonpokerinn.com)Btw, i have no affiliation withthem save for trying to win $ in there. Also, any other suggestions for sites w/ good rebate programs, perks, etc. for hold'em play would be greatly appreciated.
I had no trouble getting paid from this site.
- Andrew
$30-$60 at the Bellagio- I have a pretty good table image, but have shown some odd hands down in my blinds.. was beating up the table nonetheless...
Middle position (weak player) limps, I raise with AsTs. Button calls 2 cold, BB calls, limper calls. Flop come AcKs8s. BB checks, limper checks, I check, button bets $30. BB check raises, makes it $60. Limper calls 2 cold, I 3 bet. Button folds, BB folds, limper calls. Turn and river comes blanks, I bet both, limper folds on the river and tells me he was on a flush draw. Comments?
Bizarre. Pre-flop everything is normal. I would bet the flop having the nut flush draw and top pair. But if I chose to check, I would not 3 bet once it is bet and raised back to me. Assuming you are playing against sane opponents someone is supposed to have two pair and maybe even a set in this situation especially given the pre-flop action. The button and big blind must have been on drugs to pound the pot so hard and then suddenly collapse without even taking off a card for one more bet.
Do you really think the flop action indicates a set or better?
I thought the button's bet said,"Ill take a shot at this pot since the preflop raiser didn't bet ..." the next raise says ,"you aren't going to steal it, I am." The next call says ,"I'm not going anywhere, yous aint' stealing anything." the three bet says "I really have a hand, and its not just a calling hand!" the button says ,"I was only taking a shot", as does the blind, and limper says again "im not going anywhere."
What do you think? Or am I the one on drugs?
suspicious,
After reading Jim's post, I would have said what you said, but not as well since I just had some mind altering chamomile tea. It is a late night habit I need to break ;-).
Regards,
Rick
I don't know suspicious but this a weird way to play poker. Let us go back to basics. Player A limps, Player B raises, and Player C call two bets cold. According to the Theory of Poker and other basic texts on the subject, Player C is supposed to have a real hand not random cards. Now a new player, the blind, calls along with the other two players. So we have four players who have voluntarily entered a raised pot which means there are supposed to be some good hands out there. Now the flop comes and it has BOTH an Ace AND a King PLUS a two flush. Well hands containing Aces and Kings are the kinds of hands players play in raised pots. This flop could easily have hit one or more players pretty hard. The lack of a bet by the pre-flop raiser could mean QQ,JJ,TT or it could mean a set or two big pair that he is trying to slow play. The button, who called two bets cold, is betting not as bluff but is saying "I have a good hand and that flop fits my hand". This is not a steal situation at all given the betting action and the texture of the board. The big blind now check-raises. Your narrative is wrong when you say the next call says, "..". The check-raise by a player who voluntarily entered a raised pot and now check-raises given that board is saying: "I think I have the best hand and I can beat a pair of Aces".
The actual hand was very unusual and I cannot remember the last time a bettor and raiser suddenly folded on the cheap street when re-raised. In retrospect of course both the blind and button were horsing around but I don't believe you can make this the center piece of your playing strategy when deciding whether or not to 3 bet.
Jim,
I don't think my analysis is that unreasonable, the button could think, " though the preflop raiser checked he might have QQ, JJ, TT and lay down, the blind is pbly weak, as is the limper, lets take a shot!" Seems reasonable, the preflop action wasnt' after all call raise cold call cold call. Granted these guys are supposed to have something, (esp the cold caller, and when he bets the only person he's really afriad of is the preflop raiser so its not that bad of a steal bet especially if the preflop raiser can lay down some hands which are weaker than a pair of A's).
Now the BB may comprehend this and thus raise (and get rid of everyone!). The cold call rains the button and BB parade saying,"im not going anywhere." and the three bet by the preflop raiser says ," I have A's or better how dare you try and steal this from me!"
Granted people are *supposed* to have much better hand values in this situation but with this flop it possible that no one liked it (eg no one has better than A's). It is very easy to contruct reasonalbe examples where this is the case. (eg Limper limps w/ a medium pair, Next player raises w/ QQ, another player calls w/ JJ, and Blind calls w/ 89s etc).
Jim,
We need to know more about the opponents but I think suspicion's evaluation makes sense. The three bet might be a little bit of an overplay, but if you never overplay your hand at this level you may end up as road kill.
Also note that the three-bet put the button in a situation where he had to call two bets cold. I can see hands I may bet that I would release under this pressure.
Regards,
Rick
SLW,
The pre flop action looks routine. I would bet the flop unless the button is the type to over bet when it is checked to him (planning to check raise for value if the others call in between). Note that the nut flush draw almost has as much value as your ace here. It looks like the big blind made some sort of isolation check raise with a weak ace or weak king and decided to give it up when a limper cold called and you made it three bets.
For your three bet to be correct, the button must be way too aggressive but capable of folding after being played back at, the big blind also aggressive, and the limper truly weak. If this is true, I like the way you played it.
Once head up against a weak limper, the turn and river bets appear correct.
Regards,
Rick
Here's my take on the situation:
The Button had a hand on the flop...either bottom two-pair or a set of 8's, and then pinned you on bullets since you raised preflop and were gutsy enough to 3bet on the flop. Thus he figured cold calling two bets was against his best interest...
The BB raise after the flop was a bluf (or maybe on a single 8), and once reraised he got out quickly as his attempt at the pot failed.
We all know what the limper had...
This makes sense to me, any disagreements?
Beefcake
...just my opinion, of course...
Sorry Beefcake, I don't agree. I think the button bet his K on a semi-bluff once the preflop raiser checked. His cold call of 2 bets preflop would indicate some sort of hand value. The raise by the BB could have been an isolation raise with a weak A.
I think that when you have a hand with so much equity in it, you have to decide whether to play the hand strong and bet or play weak and wait to trap if your opponents are aggressive. This is depending on the type of opponent that is to your left. A call of the 2 bet by the BB on the flop and if the BB bets the turn, a raise would really put a lot of pressure on the button and you could have 2 players trapped (limper) with as little as top pair should the flush or straight draw not come for you. If the BB checks on the turn, then you could bet into the button and really have him confused.
Regards, Dugie
I've been beat set over set 5 times in the last 2 months. If I had a set of eights on this hand I would be losing lots of chips if it happened again. I'm three-betting the flop to make the flush draw pay. A set of aces might wait one more round to sandbag.
i dont know why everyone feels your three bet is sketchy. even rick likes it only against specific opponents.
to me the three bet is a routine play. i would not have usually checked in the first place, though. but if i thought the button would bet if i checked, then i would.
according to jim (who plays in the 30-60 bellagio game) and preflop raise after someone who limps (that is a legitimate raise) signals AA, KK, QQ, or AK. if that is the case, your three bet should basically clear out stronger A's, which is great for your hand.
and if you get calls all around it is a value raise even if only your flush outs are good.
and who has really shown strength? the button bet getting 8.5-1 after everyone has checked. i could definitely see him having nothing. perhaps a hand like wired J's. perhaps even 89s. perhaps a weak semibluff with a gutshot to broadway.
and then the bb raises. after you check the bb raises here with any A. maybe any K. maybe even less. the cold caller probably has a flush draw or a gutshot. he doesn't have you beat unless this guy never raises preflop.
also, if someone has A8 you have tons of outs. a spade, a T, K, and some runner runner draws. it is very unlikely that someone has you beat badly.
so your reraise is likely to get some better hands to fold. hands that are drawing slim or dead (eg lower flush draws) are likely to call. you have a reasoable chance at having the best hand. and, if you are chasing, you have at least 8 outs, more likely around 15.
the reraise is a good play. but wouldn't you have been furious if the flop got checked through? i know i would have been.
by the way, JT is noticeably the best gutshot here, because a 9 or 7 on the turn makes it an openeneder allowing it to see the river.
scott
Duh...
HEY, SLW I GOT IT these are the same maniacs I PLAYED against in the 3/6 holdem game a couple nights ago at GARDEN CITY. WHAT more could you ask... you flopped top pair nut flush draw, you to make these unlearned and and doesn't have a clue players pay dearly for their bad. I AGREE ,, THAT THE BB was trying to get you heads up with a weaker Ace
In retrospect, I don't think I should have 3 bet on the flop, and rather raised the turn if bet into on 4th street, where the bets are bigger. I like my hand on the flop, and only checked because I didn't think it would be a catastrophe if it got checked all the way through. Giving up a free card when I had so many outs didn't concern me. I had a pretty good read on the table having played with most of them before. The button was a little loose, and I thought he would try and take a stab at the pot. BB was a pretty solid player, and was capable of making this play with a King or a weak Ace. If the limper was truly on a draw, he wasn't going anywhere anyway.
Thanks for all your input- it's always interesting to see how others would have played the hand.
I NEED Jim Brier to teach me how to write edit my typing on the post two-threads ago sorry about leaving some words out in mid- sentence..... I THOURLY GET A CLASS "A" EDUCATION BY READING THESE POSTS... SO KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK.
Working today with a new program. I show that a pair of 88 is ranked 43 handwise and A9s is ranked only 17 in a 10 handed game. Are players today over ranking pairs today. Why are pairs being ranked so high in todays game. 5handed it is rated 88 is rated 20 and A9s is rated 19. The program is very accurate. It quickly allows you to adjust the percentage amount above average that you wish to play. The program may be available soon. I am just trying to wade through the data.
Hosh,
At least the program changes the rankings based on the number of opponents. In real play, I would prefer the pair of eights most of the time. Against many opponents, it needs to flop a set but this hits the flop hard. The A9 suited is in trouble when it flops a pair against many opponents. Here it makes money when it flops the flush draw.
You can often outplay one opponent with the middle pair. Perhaps against two or three opponents, the A9 suited may have more value.
Computer players have a long way to go IMHO.
Regards,
Rick
What we see here is a relatively close value between the two hands. If you and I are heads up with each holding one of the hands, I believe the 88 is a 11/10 favorite.
When we get to multi players in the hand, it becomes interesting. The 88 or middle pocket pair usually needs to hit a set to win. The A-9s is vulnerable if either pair hit(due to weak kicker or over cards) with the flush being the strength of this hand.
All in all, these two hands are close in value but neither being premium unless you get to see the flop cheaply or are the first one in late position.
It's 20-40 and you are the first of two big blinds (should be BB just got up for a walk). You Pick up: Kh-Js. Mid position player opens for a raise and just the two BB's call. 3 people, $120 in pot. Flop comes: Ac Ad 6s
first two check and preflop raiser bets. you call, other blind folds. $160 in pot.
Turn: 3s
You bet, pre-flop raiser folds.
Do you all think that check-raising the turn would have been a better bluff or is giving a free card too much of a risk?
Rob
You had luck that he didn t have a Ace.. I had fold after the flop
I'm not sure I really like this bluff, since you are only getting 4-1. But if you want to try to pick up the pot, then betting out is probably the better play on the turn. If the original raiser 3-bets your check-raise bluff, then you have to fold, and it cost you 2 big bets instead of one, assuming you will fold if he raises your turn bet.
I'm not sure i like this bluff either.
I think the check-raise will always be a better bluff against a perceptive player. When you bet, he's generally wondering why you didn't check-raise the flop. But against an even more perceptive opponent, he would think you have it when you bet out, because you are trying to fool him. This looks like one of those situations where you have to go at least three levels deep to determine the right bluff.
IF you are going to bluff then I think that betting out is the best, since it looks like you're slow-playing but are afraid he will check behind you on the turn.
Personally, I don't see very much point to a bluff in this scenario. Either you have him beat or he has hand that players have a habit of getting married to (KK QQ JJ). The only time your "bluff" is worthwhile is if he has exactly KQ or maybe a small pocket pair.
One good thing about betting is that you don't give him a free river.
Falcon
The play you made works a good enough portion of the time to make it a profitable one if not used too often. The flop was perfect: the two Aces made it less likely that either opponent had one. The rainbow flop eliminated anyone staying for a flush and the 3rd card being a 6 eliminated an inside straight draw.
I prefer betting out on the turn to trying for a check-raise. It looks like you have slow-played the flop hoping to lure the other BB in. By trying for a check-raise, opponent might check too and then hit a pair on the river with the free card you've given him.
Hello, I am new to the forum, and would like to say in starting that there are more intelligent posters here than anywhere I have seen on the net about poker. I have been reading for about a week or so, and can't get enough, so thanks everyone. I am in the Saint louis area, and the games around here are for the most part really good, but too small. Me and a couple of people I have talked to around the area were talking about playing heads up, no limit where both players "ante" a certain dollar amount, and get a stack of chips and you play until one player is broke, winner takes all.
My question for all you out there, is what you would suggest a starting stack, and blinds would be for a game like this? We were thinking one and two dollars, and a stack of say, one hundred dollars... I would like to hear any feedback anyone would have on that. Also, I would like any advice in playing heads up games, I know raising is a very powerful weapon heads up, even in the limit heads up games I have played, and that once you get a good read on your opponent, and you figure him out, it is almost impossible for him to win. Let me know what ya think, I appreciate it!
What you are describing is called a heads up "freeze out". The higher the buy-in in relation to the blinds, the higher the skill factor but the longer the game may last. The lower the buy-in in relation to the blinds, the higher the luck factor but the game may last shorter. So the factors here are luck level, skill level, and time. If you know that you're definitely a favorite, arrange the game so that the skill factor gets emphasized. If you know you're an underdog or you don't wanna play for longer periods, arrange it so that the luck factor is emphasized. Regarding strategy, heads up holdem boils down to stealing. This is so because both players are liable to have nothing most of the time. Put an emphasis on re-stealing as opposed to just plain stealing. You'll be stealing bigger amounts this way.
I am one off the button with AKo. Fold to the guy on my right (R) who raises, I three bet and the button cold calls. SB folds, BB calls, R calls. I do not know these players but I have seen R get way out of line already so I discount his raise, and the button seems fairly tight.
Flop is A-Q-4 rainbow. Check to me, I bet, button calls, BB calls, R folds.
Turn is a Q. BB checks. I bet, button calls, BB folds. River is a K. I check, button bets, I call.
Button shows AA. Thoughts and questions:
(1) What do you think of the button not capping preflop there? I never do that but it's interesting.
(2) By the turn I was running out of ideas of hands that would call me that I could beat -- maybe AJs? But I think checking the turn there is weaky weak. Would you check the turn? What about the river?
I’ve re-titled my post in order to attract Louie’s attention for (1) below. I think he ignores my posts in general ;-).
”(1) What do you think of the button not capping preflop there? I never do that but it's interesting.”.
I almost always cap with aces but I’m starting to wonder if there is more value in using the deceptive call of a three bet in certain spots. For one, the original raiser can still cap it then the aces will have the full size pot, the best hand, and position to go along with the deception. I do think this play works best against small fields and when acting late. I hope Louie Landale answers your post. He seems to do this quite often.
“(2) By the turn I was running out of ideas of hands that would call me that I could beat -- maybe AJs? But I think checking the turn there is weaky weak. Would you check the turn?”
Generally no, since so many players in California would cold call three bets with AJ, KJ, JT, KT, and medium pairs. Head up I might check to someone who will often bet at the first sign of weakness.
”What about the river?”
Now you are head up and free cards are not an issue. Checking and calling is OK against tricky, aggressive opponents (this one appears tricky). I would bet into a LOL.
Regards,
Rick
1) "Many players in California would cold call three bets with AJ, KJ, JT, KT, and medium pairs." Not in my experience in any game at the 15-30 level or higher. Better to put button on a big hand: A-A, K-K-Q-Q, J-J, A-K(s) or A-Q(s), less likely A-Js or T-T. We rule out (or greatly reduce the likelihood) of J-J and T-T after button calls the flop.
2) Ergo, I think better to check the turn. I agree with poster's comment that there weren't a lot of hands that button could have that would call that he could beat. Possibly A-Js.
3) I think button played perfectly. He has position, the best hand, and, by calling rather than capping pre-flop, deception. I also like his call on the turn, rather than a raise. By calling, he makes it more likely BB will stay in drawing dead. And he still has his hand disguised and can raise a less perceptive opponent than poster on the river if that opponent bets.
Consider your good fortune. You lost the minimum and had the good sense to check the river. That's poker. It's impossible at any point to get off your hand.
Bruce
I think the button should have capped it pre-flop because there are multiple opponents involved and he is is giving up too much pre-flop equity. I would smooth call in a heads-up situation but not 4 way action.
Against an opponent who merely calls, I would continue to bet my strong Ace on the turn. So many players will hang in there with a weak Ace hoping it will hold up or that they can get to a cheap showdown.
I think the button should have popped it on the turn.
I disagee with Jim, I like the cold call by the button on the flop. Any equity lost preflop can be made up postflop. His hand is disguised and he has position.
What is the button waiting for on the turn? He's got 2 players trapped behind him for multiple bets. Any Q and probably any A will call his raise on the turn. If someone does have a Q, maybe it could get popped back.
Regards, Dugie
But Dugie by not capping pre-flop with 3 opponents he lost 3 extra bets. He may not be able to make this up once boardcards start appearing.
AA is a great hand to play against a conservative 3-better since he has either a big Ace (drawing dead) or a big pair (drawing slim). Slow-playing disquises his hand allowing to get multiple bets in later.
Besides, this is how tight players play.
Well played by you both.
- Louie
The button's preflop slowplay does not bother me, but don't you think he should have raised the flop (the pot was already large) and/or the turn? [I would usually favor raising the flop.] It seems to me the button failed to reap the benefits of his slow-play (and risked giving a cheap card to gutshot draws).
Except he can trap in Hero if he doesn't have such a strong hand as AK. If he smooth calls the flop Hero may be tempted to call him down with KQ.
Anyway, this is how conservative players play defensively: make a good hand and hope the opponent bets himself to death. This is not a terrible strategy.
- Louie
I think you played the hand well. I like your 3-bets before the flop against a weak opponent. Even if your opponent was tougher player re-raising is mandatory to thin the field.
I would probably bet it the whole way and make the crying call when I get popped on the river.
I think Bruce makes a good point about losing the minimum on this hand. The guy on the button must have had a brain lapse.
40-80 Holdem
Fairly typical loose game. There are four limpers and I have J7h in the small blind. I call and the BB checks and we see the flop 6 handed.
Flop comes Ah 7h 6
Everyone checks to the last player who bets. I call and 2 other players call.
The turn brings a 2h. I have the 3rd best hand.
I lead and the next player raises. He plays somewhat weak tight and the player on his left who is brand new to the game calls who I have never played with before. The flop better folds. I call. Do I reraise? I don't like the overcall and I feel the weak tight player may have a bigger flush.
On the river comes a 8h.
I now with the overcall on the turn and the weaktight player raising before feel like I am in bad shaped. The whole table checks. My hand wins. I did not see my opponents hands.
Comments appreciated.
Bruce
Are there two 7h in the deck? One is in your hand and the other is on the board. I like your plays here. When the flush card comes on the turn and you get raised I would just call with the third nuts especially when a weak-tight player calls two bets cold on the expensive street. At the river, it was one of the great miracles in hold-em history that your puny flush actually held up.
So lets say the flop was Ah6h5d. I would generally lead at this flop against all these players who seem like the types who want to call on the flop.
Even if checking is sound it is a reality that OTHER people like to bet flush draws, especially nut flush draws, especially after other players have checked. Even tight players. This to me greatly reduces the chances that you are beat on the turn.
But lets compare your risks to your rewards. Lets assume you will pay this off and lets make the questionable assumption you can confidently fold to a 4-bet on the turn. Since you are obviously going to call the raise then 3-betting yourself only costs you 1 bet. But since you plan to pay it off it really doesn't cost you much of anything. By 3-betting you can expect 2 calls now AND one on the river (minus the one you would have gotten by calling the river) so you can win 2 bets at practically no cost what-so-ever. Different assumptions will reduce the benefit but I belive the principle holds well.
Raise it up.
- Louie
I notice that on the river you STILL had the 3rd nuts but I think its obvious THIS 3rd nuts is much worse than the 3rd nuts you had on the turn.
I agree with raising the turn. There is another factor reducing the risk he was beat: if the middle player had a bigger flush, there is a good chance he would have smooth-called to extract extra bets from Bruce and the late position player.
Bruce you have J7h, but the 7h hits the flop?? On the turn you make your flush, but it is the 3rd best hand, but yet win anyways.
Could you re-post your hand?
Assuming that it was the 6h not 7h so you had both a pair and a pretty good flush draw, I would have played the hand much faster. Specifically, I would have check raised on the flop. This makes it very bad for someone to be playing the K or Q of hearts by itself. Also, you have a lot of outs to win the hand if you have both the pair and the flush draw.
Just my thoughts. Since it is unclear what you meant...ie having two 7h in the deck...I just thought this perspective would be of interest.
The problem with checkraising on the flop is I can potentially wind up heads-up with nothing more than a big draw. I want more customers in the pot.
Bruce
I am still physically recovering from last night. I flopped a pair with a flush draw. The flop came:
Ah 7 6h
Sorry for the confusion.
Bruce
i think when you have a flush you shpuld not bee scared about loosing to a biger...
This is a regular 20-40 half game in Iowa that plays very loose and VERY aggressive with at least 7 players who will push the action with almost anything.
Eleven handed 20-40 game and I am in late position. Preflop I have AsKc. There is a raise into me and I reraise. By the time it returns to me it is capped at $80 with 5 players including myself. $420 in the pot. Flop comes 3-7-10 two clubs. It is bet and raised before it gets to me with one caller of the two bets cold. I call and the other player calls. $620 in the pot.
Because of the way the game is played I figured that I have seven outs. Three aces, three kings and then one out of the backdoor flush draw. That is why I make the call.
The turn brings Ac. The actions goes check, bet, fold to me. I raise and only the orginally bettor calls. The river is my dream card....6c. Betting goes check, I bet and he calls. I show my AsKc and take down the pot. I never saw his hand.
Any thoughts on how I played this hand? Particularly the analysis of cold calling two bets after the flop.
Even in a very maniacal game, assuming 7 outs here is going a bit far. KT is a possibility for your opponents, as is AT, A7, A3, and of course a flush draw that makes your Ac (semi) dead. And if these people are really crazy, T7 and K7 could be in play, probably suited.
Not that I might not take one off anyway, but you need to be pretty sure it won't be reraised.
I would reluctantly call in your situation. It's a capped pot and the main reason I would call is because of the backdoor flush and straight possibilities which give you enough equity. Had there not been a two flush or Ten I would not call. An Ace or King may not be a clean out.
I have never played an 11 handed game before. I am not sure if I do either. You may not even want to look at your cards in the first two positions and blindly muck them.
Bruce
You don't have seven outs. A Club is not an out because it does not give you a hand just a draw which involves spending more money to pursue your draw. Your six outs giving you top pair/top kicker are not clean because you have no assurance that you have the best hand against this many opponents. For these reasons, I don't like your cold call on the flop especially since this sounds like a wild game which means that further raising is quite possible. I think you should fold on the flop.
Calling on the flop is crazy!
hope I'm never drawing dead,
albert
I believe you must make this type of call if you are to beat this game. You said yourself that there are 7 players who will push the action with almost anything. The reason most "good" players can't beat this kind of game is that they won't make these calls. They are actually getting outplayed on the flop as their opponents push them off their hands. They think they are playing well by folding, but they are giving up too much as the pot is already far too big.
I would call even without the backdoor flush draw.
William
One of my leaks is that I am WAY overobsessed with stealing "dead" money - posts, kills, etc. I would appreciate some ideas on minimum hand standards for stealing when no one has yet entered the pot.
Thanks,
Falcon
I think you first need to determine how likely the blinds will defend their hands. Against rocks you probably don't even need to look at your cards. Against habitual defenders you need a real hand. You need big cards, a pocket pair, or a relatively big Ace. If you are stealing against players who will defend their blinds a large percentage of the time stealing with junk is going to be a very costly proposition. You are better off passing. Your perceptive opponents will also notice that you are stealing a dispropotionate amount of times and play accordingly.
Bruce
Several sessions ago, I was seated at a 3-6 No Fold'em game at the Commerce Casino and was confronted with a situation which demonstrates how naggingly difficult it can be to optimally negotiate those final obstacles on the river. I had raised from the button before the flop with AKoffsuit and openbet the favorable flop of A 6 2 rainbow; 2 poor players called. The next card was a K, imbalancing the rainbow. Poor Player 1, two seats to my right, bet, I raised, and Poor Player 2 called from the small blind. A 9 fell on the river, making a three-flush on (the) board. Prior to this hand, PP1 had engaged in several raising wars heads up with just a flush draw, and PP2 had been tagging along hand after hand, after having seen almost every flop, with near-oblivious doggedness. After PP1 checked, I reminded myself that PP2 had after all coldcalled my raise on the turn and, then, after noting that the only straight draws possible were gutshots and that PP2, foolhardy as she was, might have backed off from a gutshot draw for two big bets but not from the flush draw, decided that there was a better than 50-50 chance that one or both had caught the dreaded flush. Therefore I checked. When PP2 also checked, I felt both relieved and chagrined (=contorted). PP2 would have called with any pair and PP1 would probably have overcalled with any ace or king. So it is more than likely that I sacrificed at least one big bet by checking (they mucked their cards once my mighty AK was revealed).
No big deal if this were an anomalous occurrence. However, since I'm often in the lead and betting to protect my vulnerable status, I am almost as often forced to decide on the river whether or not to bet for value. And, as in the above situation, I am invariably (or so it's seemed of late) presented with compelling evidence congruently supportive of my two primary options (bet and call any raise; check and call any bet). Because I'm up against boatloads, battalions, legions of players who have never seen a flop they didn't like, there appears to be no rule of thumb to summon up (and no Jim Brier within shouting distance), in short, no escape from the Land of Indeterminancy.
See the Other Topics forum (soon) for reallife parallels and a request for assistance with an astronomical calculation....
I often find myself in that situation. I think you should bet the river and hope for a caller. If raised, you must consider the source. However, your bet on the river may very well result in all folding. Tough call here. Check call, bet call whatever.
9 handed extremely loose N. Ca. 6-12, not much raising preflop (30%), but much loose and maniacal play post flop. 6 see the unraised pot for a flop of Tc-5s-4s. SB checks to me in BB, I bet my 7s-2s. I get raised by decent player (DP), 3 cold call 2 bets, I call. Turn is 9s. I bet my flush, DP folds, wild player 1 raises, wild player 2 calls, 2 fold, I call. River is Kc. I check, wild player 1 bets, wild player 2 raises, I fold. Wild player 1 calls. Wild player 2 had QQ and Wild player 1 scooped with 94o.
My questions:
0. If the pot were raised pre-flop should I call from the BB if I don't fear another raise? (I would fold, but I'm curious if better players think that in this sort of game that they can make a call profitable with 7-2 , or any 2, suited.)
1. Should I reraise on the flop?
2. Should I reraise on the turn (assuming the flop played as it did)?
3. Should I bet the river (assuming the flop and turn played as they did)?
4. Should I reraise on the river (assuming same as above)? (I assume that folding is absurd in this sort of game and nearly always wrong in other games even without such a large pot.)
Anticipating your questions:
0. How do people see you? Weak-Tight (ie accurately for this hand).
1. Were you really in the BB in an unraised pot? Yes dammit. I think the fact it was 72 somehow bizzarely affected my play.
2. Why did you bet the flop? I wanted to get raised and see what would happen -- as distinct from betting for value, but a little bit of that too.
3. Why did you not reraise the flop? I figured that the only possible flush draw that I beat was 3-6 which would have given someone a straight flush draw and would have resulted in much pot pounding. Obviously, the DP didn't enter the pot with 3-6 utg and no once else raised. Hence, I had the worse possible flush in a field where nearly everyone plays all suited cards regardless of position. When 3 players called 2 cold on the flop, I thought it likely 1 of them had a draw because they wouldn't necessarily 3 bet with a weak but better flush draw. Also, I was tired, stuck (eventually cashing out -$200, that is, roughly what I gave up on this single hand) and on tilt and had simply lost my nerve. This last reason is most important, but comments are solicited on the relevance of the other reasoning. In retrospect, a reraise actually would have gotten me through the hand cheaply -- which is what I wanted, but probably wrongly so. I guess I'm having a hard time seeing pounding the pot with such a weak flush draw as betting for value and want a stronger one to do it with... on the other hand i did have some back door straight draw potential... and a pretty big overlay with 5 callers.
4. Why bet the turn? I frankly didn't have the nerve to check raise, despite certain of a bet from any of 3 players. I figured that it was the cheapest way to the river to see if I had the best hand -- that basically, they'd all figure I had a flush but call me down anyway hoping for a straight to fill or that their pair might somehow be good -- or holding a singleton spade. I assumed that only a flush would raise me.
5. Why not reraise the turn? I think 3 answers that well enough.
6. Why not raise the river? It never occurred to me at the time.
7. Why not call the river? I was on complete tilt, figured that likely I was beat, feared that WP 1 would reraise the river and being confident that WP 2 would make it four bets if given the opportunity, etc -- and didn't like my hand enough to hang on. Basically I lost my nerve on this hand because of how much I was losing. Even though I had a clear call, I just felt beat, or unwilling to pay the price I thought it took to win.
The rest of the story is even worse, and I don't know why I relate it other than to invite more contempt and derision from people who play poker well. Perhaps I'm trying to wear a hair shirt for penance to the poker gods...
Here goes:
When WP2 raised WP1 on the river I said to the table, frantically:
"This is absolute f****in lunacy. I'm the guy with the flush here. This guy [pointing to WP1] probably made his two pair, and who knows what this other goofball is trying to buy the pot with, probably a busted straight draw... maybe he paired up. Here I go, folding the best hand" -- which I threw face down in the muck. It's an odd thing to say and do, possibly after years of counselling I could figure out if I really meant what I said and wanted to lose the hand. (To punish my father? -- we get along fine, really.) In truth I was about 50/50 on my read of him (while getting 9/1 from the pot, or in case of the river getting capped, 5/1). If I would have really thought about the words coming out of my mouth I would have called... whew. To say that aloud and be right. Sheesh. I wish I could say I was drunk. In the future, if I tell this story I'm going to either 1) say I was drunk, or 2) omit the mucking part, and say "so then I looked at WP1, and said "Now its time for me to pitch and you to catch -- Raise!'"
My comments to preempt others:
1. Yes I shouldn't advertise my laydowns. I do (occasionally, not often) and it is just plain stupid (in my opinion). I sometimes don't resist the temptation to analyze play at the table -- I'll work on that.
2. I actually think that stating that I had a flush before calling (or raising) would have been okay as a sort of negotiation tactic in that these players would have been less likely to reraise me without a flush. Ironically, if they had of raised me, I would have felt compelled to call. Similarly, I think that raising the river would have ensured that the river didn't get 4 bet or capped. In retrospect, I'm pretty sure that WP1 hadn't seen the flush possibility until I told him that I was folding a flush. He just saw the two pair and his mind exploded.
Boy, that's a mouthful. First of all you need to learn how to control your emotions. If you can't you have no chance to becoming a winning player. When your emotions are out of control you simply don't think logically and are not playing at your best. If you are not at your best quit and come back again.
Secondly when you are playing with a bunch of maniacs the values of hands change. A maniac can have just about anything but he is more likely to have garbage and to play it like its the Worlds Fair. True, maniacs do get big hands. It happens and you need to learn how to absorb your bruises when they do. Since they play every hand and play them strongly its more than likely that they have a weak holding. So now back to your hand, you are up against 2 maniacs. On the turn you have a baby flush. Relatively speaking a flush is a STRONG hand. The maniacs can have just about ANYTHING. Trying to put a maniac on a hand is next to impossible. There is no way you should fold your hand when you have a flush. You can not apply logic with a maniac. The maniacs are simply going to have to show a better hand. On the turn play your hand aggressively and be more willing to gamble with the maniacs. Reraising them is perfectly appropriate. Lead on the river. But in a situation like this NEVER fold your hand again. You very well may wind up against a higher flush in similar situations but that will be more of the exception than the norm and you will clearly show a profit by playing your hands strongly and gambling with the maniacs in future situations.
Bruce
No pun intended, shemp, but I think you played this one like a schlemp.
I've played in my share of goofy LL games, and if I decide to hang in there, you have to expect big swings, and some big pots are the rewards. Nothing wrong with betting your weak flush draw on the flop. You're going to call any single bet anyway, so might as well bet out and see what happens. When you make the flush on the turn and your bet gets raised, I think your choice of action now is: re-raise, call, and fold, in that order. And fold is so far a destant third as to not be a consideration.Put yourself in the guy's shoes for a minute who makes 2-pair on the turn. He's just made his hand about as best as he could hope for. He raises to put as much pressure on the other players if they have a single high spade card or something like QQ. (What happened to the pre-flop raise from this hand?) He's trying to see if someone actually has a flush at this point, or if you are possibly just betting something like A-T out of the BB. Well, let him know you have the flush. Re-raise! If you get popped again, now you turn into a calling station.
I'm not releasing this baby in this type of game unless a fourth spade hits, and even then only in the face of action. I think your emotional state got the best of you on this one, and you should have been long gone from this game prior to this hand. Not playing your best at all times cost you big-time on this session.
If I read it correctly...don't fold your flush in a hand with maniacs. You should be so happy they're betting and raising. I thought your check on the river then a maniac bet was awesome as you were going to check-raise...instead you folded, than my jaw dropped.
Ok, later.
-jon
and btw, your long ass post suggests that you are one tired cat...rest up and play healthy--sleep, eat, and take a crap.
Thanks all. Yes I was tired and hysterical, and the long post gives evidence of that. In retrospect, I think that playing the hand as I did then check-raising the river would have been an excellent/creative play. If that had been a loser it still would have been good poker.
My questions:
0. If the pot were raised pre-flop should I call from the BB if I don't fear another raise? (I would fold, but I'm curious if better players think that in this sort of game that they can make a call profitable with 7-2 , or any 2, suited.)
I would fold 72s for ANY raise.
1. Should I reraise on the flop?
No, you have a draw, play it as cheap as possible.
2. Should I reraise on the turn (assuming the flop played as it did)?
Yes, a 3 bet on the turn is a good move. You may
get a slightly bigger flush to fold and whoever
has the ace of spades has to pay to draw out.
3. Should I bet the river (assuming the flop and turn played as they did)?
Yes, the only thing stopping me would be a fourth
spade or the board pairing.
4. Should I reraise on the river (assuming same as above)? (I assume that folding is absurd in this sort of game and nearly always wrong in other games even without such a large pot.)
Just call the raise, but you can't fold.
Calling down a maniac...
3-6 Kill holdem. Fairly loose aggressive game. Semi-maniac (SM) two to my right has been raising with trashy hands BTF. Full-on maniac (FOM) on my right plays fairly well BTF, but tries to bully everyone out of almost every pot after the flop. Rest of the table is calling stations and two weak playing rocks. Obviously I have the best seat at the table....
I have AJo and limp 3rd in. (for some reason neither maniac raised). 6 take the flop for one bet each.
Flop is Jh 6d 2d. SB bets, FOM raises. I know FOM may not have squat, so I make it three bets to try and increase my chance of winning the pot. A couple drop and SB cold calls. FOM caps. Maybe he actually has something, but I am calling him down!
Turn is 3c. SB checks, FOM bets, I call, SB calls.
River 2s. SB checks, FOM bets, I call, SB calls.
FOM shows QJo for one pair. I show my AJ and SB mucks.
Helluva call on the river...
Same game. Same players. I am in middle position with AQo. two limp and SM raises. He's been raising with trashola so I reraise him. I buy the button as everyone folds to the SB who cold calls. BB calls and limpers call. SM calls and we take the flop 6 handed for 3 bets each.
Flop is Qd 6c 9d. SB bets, BB calls, limpers fold, SM raises. I three bet again. SB cold calls 2 more and BB folds. SM caps. 3 players see the turn for four bets each.
Turn is 5s. SB checks, SM bets, I call, SB calls.
River is As. SB bets, SM raises. I have a tough decision here, but I decide that if SM has QQ or AA that I will just pay him off. I cold call two and SB calls.
Comments?
Result is surprising...SM tosses his cards in the muck before ever even seeing my hand! He said he was on a draw! The only draw I can see him having was JT. I turn over two pair and SB mucks!
If i have top pair against a maniac i call him down every time, i do not even care what my kicker is if it is heads up. With 1 other player in there i want at least a fair kicker, b/c the other player could be just calling the maniac down to.
Let's say you are a 20/40 to 30/60 player who averages 1 BB per hour. Let's say that in the place that you play, you know just about every one of the players, at least 5 other players (out of a 9 handed table) every time you first sit down. So obviously, you have a good handle on the majority of the table already, even before you sit down, and you know that they know you are a good solid player.
Now you go to another casino, and let's say that the competition, rake, environment, etc., are identical as you "home casino". However, when you sit down, you don't know anyone at all. You play for 4 hours. What is your expected win rate during this 4 hours - what is it in each of the four hours?
My guess is that is would be .6BB for the first hour, .8BB for the second, .9BB for the third and .95BB for the fourth hour (again, we are assuming you have a win rate of 1BB per hour in your home casino). What do you think?
Interesting questions. I would think that your win rate would be higher in a new club assuming all other things being equal. Your opponents would not realize how skillful you are and would attempt some bonehead plays and literally give their money away before adjusting their play.
Bruce
that's interesting, exactly opposite of what I think. I guess one of the main things is that I would miss some value bets and miss some clear folds. For example, there are many opponents in my local club that I know with 95% certainty that if I have QQ (with a preflop raise), and they call, and if a A or K hits the flop, and they bet on the turn or river, I know I'm beat....with 95% certainty, it's just so obvious with their style of play, and their fear. On the other hand, there are also numerous guys that I know when they check-raise on the flop with a A or K on the flop, that it doesn't necessarily mean they have an A or K, because they are just crazy maniacs if they have gotten into that mode (usually when they are losing). But it would take a while of playing for me to put a label on someone like that that I have not met yet.
This might be a poor analogy but here goes anyway. A rookie pitcher in baseball the first month or two of the season typically is more successful than the rest of the season. By the All Star break he has faced most of the teams at least once and when he pitches against a team the second time around they are better prepared and know what to expect and have made proper asjustments.
Bruce
I think it's a poor analogy - mainly because the rookie pitcher has a catcher, a pitching coach, a manager, and huge scouting reports on each one of the hitters to go by, so he's already go all the info...but the other team has little info on him.
Now, if I go to another casino, and someone gave me a scouting report, sure, I'd do better than I'd do at home...but I don't think I can get that scouting report from anyone.
When a new guy walks into the club who I don't recognize I wrongly assume he can't play. Most of the time that's the case but not always. I assume that I know most of the successful higher mid-limit players. If I feel a player can't play but he really can my stack is usually the one that suffers until I adjust my play.
Bruce
A friend of mine was playing in a $30-$60 game tonight at the Bellagio. Sitting in Seat #1 is former world champion Tom McEvoy. Mason Malmuth, Dave Roemer, and "Ben" (former blackjack counter turned poker pro and mentioned in Roy Cooke's column) were all in the game. The big blind was in Seat #6. Everyone folds to McEvoy who limps in for $30. Only the big blind calls. There is $80 in the pot and two players.
The flop is: AcJh8d
The big blind bets $30. McEvoy raises to $60. The big blind calls. There is $200 in the pot.
The turn is: 7s
The big blind checks. McEvoy checks.
The river is: 6h
The big blind checks. McEvoy checks.
McEvoy shows the JcTd and wins as his opponent mucks.
I would like to know what you guys think regarding the play on this hand.
Was McEvoy wearing a dress? Preflop play very weak. Either raise BTF or pass. Play on the flop O.K. Turn play very weak. Bet the damn hand and either check the river or if you suspect real weakness bet again. McEvoy's play on this hand really doesn't suprise me. He is an average limit hold-em player at best on a good day.
Bruce
I disagree with you analysis. The raise on the flop is solid, but after he calls the raise you have to be concerned about a weak Ace. I like the check on the turn because it accomplishes two things:
1. It gets you a free card if he does indeed have a weak ace (when you scream bet, your assuming McEvoy had the best hand)
2. If you do have him beat, you can induce a river bluff with a check on the turn, where he probably wouldn't have called a bet on the turn if he had a had the McEvoy could beat.
As far as betting the river goes, what for? Your only going to get called if your beat, so why bet. Calling a bet if the opponent checks is ok, since you checked the turn to induce him to bluff, but betting the river is a bad idea with hand that weak...just my opinion
Nothing sounds unusual about this hand. Raising j-10 off from this position before the flop isn't that terrific. Bruce suggested that he bet the river, but why? Which hand that the opponents holds when he calls are we supposed to beat?
The 7 may not be a blank on the turn, and why not take the free card? Is it impossible that the blind has a weak ace?
With real players to your left before the flop, if you start raising hands like j-10 from that position, you're going to be swimming upstream.
Jim,
His preflop call was the worst of the three options. Folding is best move by far, raising (perhaps if you haven’t been in a pot in six rounds) would be a distant second, but calling is just pathetic. I would be shocked to see anyone approve of his call.
Now if I were the blind I’d be betting at McEvoy quite often. You have got to eliminate the ace in his hand and he tends not to be that tenacious these days. But if McEvoy knows his opponent is thinking this, his flop raise is not that bad. I like it a lot more than calling and folding head up is weak.
On the turn he picks up the inside straight draw to go with his pair and his lone opponent checks to him. His opponent could easily have a hand like KQ, KT, K8, Q8 and so on. McEvoy’s hand is vulnerable to most hands he has beat but has outs on the hands that beat him (e.g., a weak ace). IMHO, a bet is mandatory. I don’t think it is close.
On the river a semi-blank comes and his opponent checks again. Had McEvoy bet the turn and been called he should check behind his opponent on the river in this spot. But after showing so much weakness all throughout the hand (except the flop), it is close as to whether or not he should have bet the river. I would think that king high or a middle pair would call him and the ace would have bet the river. He loses to better jacks or freak hands.
Regards,
Rick
If I figured the seat positions correctly, hero was 3 off the button (I think it would be better to describe position in this manner rather than by seat #). TJo is generally not strong enough to open with from this position. I would have no problem with open-limping with TJo from the button against loose blind defenders.
I like hero's raise on the flop. I would also favor betting the turn against most opponents, though checking is not necessarily a big error IMO. If the BB is reasonably aggressive, he could hold virtually any two cards; therefore, giving a free turn card would not be particularly dangerous and might induce a bluff on the river.
After checking the turn, I would favor betting the river for value. Had hero bet the turn, he should check the river IMO.
I count a few mistakes (and one mistake is one too many at that table):
1. Opening in the middle with JTo.
2. OK, so he likes his hand (de gustibus non est disputandum), but why by-Allah-for-Pete's-sakes-by-golly-geez does he fancy open-limping? This man is a walking enigma or has a random number generator running his brain.
3. Checking the turn. What the hell was he raising the flop for then? He's headsup against a random hand, isn't he? Am I missing something here?
4. Given they both checked the turn, he could bet the river, but I'm not holding this against him.
5. Him sitting at that table. It's the mother of negative EV's.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
From everything I have read, and the couple of times I played live with him, he doesn't seem to play very sharp or even especially solid. If that is indeed the case, how does he survive? I thought mediocre players had to go broke. Maybe he isn't as mediocre as most think? Or is something else going on here?
Far be it from me to criticize someone with the resume of Tom McEvoy, but if someone in the LL games in which I play played the hand like that, I would cringe. Not having ever played at the 30-60 level, Jim, maybe the thought processes differ, but why would someone limp on the button with JTo with no previous callers? If you're going to try to steal, it is virtually as a bluff steal, IMO. Why not just dump the hand and get on with business?
As far as the betting pattern goes, I suppose that once he limps in, the BB would be inclined to take a shot at that flop figuring Tom wouldn't have any sort of Ace. On the other hand, if I was the BB in this level of game, I would be possibly inclined to worry about Tom having a really big hand on this flop.The BB must have had an 8 or some sort of pocket pair, I suppose. On the turn, Tom's check seems pretty automatic, as does the river showdown.
Was this some sort of advanced level 30-60 thinking on this hand, or did Tom 3-putt from 2 feet on this one?
I've got to read these posts a little closer. At first I thought Tom limped on the button with this mess. On second reading, he was 3 off the button, and that's even worse, IMO. He could easily get popped, and now HE's out of position with a weakish drawing hand facing someone with a good hand. Boo.
hey, I three putted from six feet today. I swear it was the mother of all greens.
McEvoy's play was idiotic preflop, good raise on the flop (he can't put his opponent on an A, and probably has the best hand), good check on the turn (his opponent called his raise, if the opponent is any good, he may have an A)...and then the turn should be a call if the opponent bets or a check if he bets (unless the opponent is a really tight-passive, in which case, the fact that the opponent called on the flop raise may mean he still has a A or has J with a Q or K kicker...or even two paired, if the opponent is tight-passive then a check/bet is marginal once he checks).
But what I would like to know is if there was any verbal jabbering between Malmuth and McEvoy or any interesting hands between them.
By the way, I've played with 5 guys/gals now who are considered big tourney winners, and I have been completely unimpressed with 4 of them. The only one I've been impressed with was Dan Harrington. So, I would not put too much emphasis on McEvoy's resume.
I don't like the limp preflop. I like the play postflop.
hope i'm never drawing dead,
albert
Thanks for all the responses. For what it is worth here is my assessment:
Pre-flop, limping in with a piece of cheese like Jack-Ten offsuit is weak poker from middle position when no one else has entered the pot. This is a hand you want to play from late position after several players have limped in. The last thing you want is for one of your numerous opponents to raise making the pot shorthanded with you being out of position in many cases. I would have folded pre-flop.
Once the flop comes, you need to realize a few things. First of all this is a PUNY POT. There is less than 3 bets in the pot. If the blind is betting an Ace you have 5 outs which is an 8:1 shot and your current pot odds are only 4:1. If the blind is betting a better Jack (like Queen-Jack or King-Jack) you are playing 3 outs which is a 15:1 shot. So if the blind is betting a better hand here you have way the worst of it. Why get involved here when there is no money at stake? I think I would let this tiny pot go by. There may be other considerations like image or whatever that might argue for taking off a card. Raising has the advantage of winning the pot outright or perhaps getting free cards later. But again why are we committing so much money for so little reward?
Now having said all that, given that we chose to be so aggressive, I think it is ridiculous not to follow through with a bet on the turn. We could win the pot outright plus any Jack, Ten, or Nine might be an out (this is 9 outs!). I think checking is a bad play.
I have no feeling about the river. But it seems that McEvoy had no plan when he got involved in this hand. He plays loose-passive pre-flop, then switches to aggressive on the flop, and reverts to wimpy poker on the turn.
I haven't waded through the other replies, so this is a fresh take. It seems to me that, aside from the queer pre-flop call, McEvoy played the hand smartly. His raise on the flop stated: "you ain't fooling me, you ain't got no ace." But when the big blind called, it meant one of three things: A) the big blind figured his raise was a pure bluff and would call him down with J/weak kicker, Kx, little pair. This was highly unlikely; McEvoy knew that the big blind knew that since McEvoy open-called pre-flop from middle position, he was likely holding two big cards. B) big blind had a powerhouse and was waiting till the turn to pop him (heads up most people would frequently open-bet a powehouse on the flop, especially into a high-octane player) C) big blind had a legitimate hand Ax, JQ or JK, and would call McEvoy all the way. By checking the turn, McEvoy avoided scenario B and also saved a bet in case of C. Had the big blind bet the river, McEvoy would have called. When big blind checked, McEvoy figured that there were more calling hands that would beat him than not (Ax + JQ, JK) and he again avoided the dilemma of the check-raise. That's mucho work for a small pot, but he did have the best hand and made it stick with minimal risk and no more invested than it was worth.
I've never played $30-$60, but I don't see what's wrong with limping in with JTo in middle position after several people have already passed. I think JTo is too good to fold and see nothing wrong with wanting to see the flop cheaply with it, although I prefer to raise with it most of the time.
The rest of the hand seemed like normal play at a $10-$20 game. Would any of you have had differing opinions had McEvoy not been mentioned?
The other night I was playing 20-40 HE at the Mirage when an interesting hand came up. The game was lively with many action players. Two people limp and I raise on the button with AKo. SB and both limpers call. Flop is AJ3 rainbow. All check to me and I bet $20. The SB, one of the aforementioned action players, makes the comment "let's get rid of these other guys" and raises. Both limpers fold and I reraise. After our hero calls, the dealer burns and turns a 4 (no flush draw). My opponent looks at me, waves his arm and says "go ahead". I grab a stack of red chips, head toward the pot with them and respond "alright". Before my money is in the pot the dealer burns and turns a deuce. I immediately shout that I was in the middle of betting but the dealer says that he took my statement "alright" to mean check. A floorman is called and he informs me that verbal statements are binding so my bet will not be allowed. When I tell him that I meant "alright" as in "alright I will bet" he says that if the money had been in the pot before the river was turned he would allow the bet to stand. My arguement is, had the dealer been watching me he clearly would have seen my intention was to bet. Also, since when does alright mean check? When he says "go ahead" I take that to mean "go ahead and bet". I answer "alright" as in "alright I will". I understand the "verbal bets are binding" rule, but what about this instance where the word used could mean two things. I think the dealer is at fault here for not watching the game closely enough. By the way, after the river was allowed to stand our hero proceeded tro bet and yours truly made a crying call to look at A5. I was forced to call because he could have construed my displeasure with the decision to be a displeasure with the 2 ball. I feel a bad decision cost me this pot but interestingly had none of the confusion happened I would have lost an additional $40!! I would appreciate all thoughts and comments. Mike Minetti
I have seen people say alright and wave there hand with chips in it and mean a check. wheather i would take this as a check all the time is up for debate, the floor is just backing the dealer in what he thought was a check.
If you had made a clear forward motion with chips in your hand PRIOR to saying "alright," that would be considered a bet in many (most?) venues. If your verbal response preceded the forward motion, your case is weak IMO. For our own protection, we should be careful not to make statements or movements which could be construed as a check.
I would guess that *most* dealers would consider the "alright" statement to be a check. Most players when saying "alright" are saying saying this as a check. The situation you describe is certainly debatable, but I would side with the floor here based on how the term "alright" is normally used.
You probably saved yourself the $40 anyway as you describe the SB as an action player and I dont see him folding his hand anytime soon.
-Rob
PS- Is this the Mike playing the 20-40 all night last Saturday night before my flight home? I enjoyed playing with you guys out there and hope to be back soon. Please let me know when Jackie is back and I will catch the first flight out there. LOL!!!
Your actions can be interpreted either way although I tend to agree with you. The bottum line is you need to be more clear in a situation like this in the future so your actions will not be misconstrued.
Bruce
I think the dealer in his rush to hastily burn and turn the river card, is clearly at fault here. "Alright" is NOT a verbal action! Of all the verbal statements that can be made in a limit hold'em game, the only ones that really matter if you think about it, are "check" and "raise". "Call" doesn't matter since the action cannot go past you until you've acted. Likewise, with "bet" and "fold".
I often check behind an opponent by saying "alright". But I will always accompany this with a checking motion even if I have chips in my hands, which I usually do. But since you were in the process of betting, I think the dealer should have picked up on this and waited until your intentions were clear.
On a side note: Once when playing in Tunica, I checked behind an opponent by saying "alright" and reaching out and tapping on the table. The problem was I had chips in my hand and the dealer ruled this a bet. So I had to put $40 in. I was called and lost. Even though this was unfortunate and NOT a rule where I normaly play, I understood the reason for the rule, so I didn't argue. The house many times will justify a dealer's mistake by saying that you should more clearly verbalized your intentions. I don't agree with this. I think you should be able to play poker without a voice box.
Why place yourself in a position where you may appear ambiguous?
Bruce
Of course you are right..
In the absence of any other information, "All Right" normally means check. However, in the situation you describe where your opponent says "Go Ahead" and you say "All Right" with chips in your hand ready to bet, the dealer was in error not you. The dealer was not paying attention and the floor should have ruled that you can bet. This is a common problem with many dealers in that they fail to watch the person whom the action is on. I think it is because dealing is basically a boring job and many of them have trouble keeping their mind on the game.
You should have been allowed to complete your bet,after all you were in the prosess of putting your chips into the pot when you said "allright". The other day, I flop two pair offsuit and on the turn the third card for a flush came. I was checked to by the only player in the hand and I reached out with a stack of chips and said call. The other player assumed that since I had a stack of chips in my hand that I was raising and threw his cards out into the pot face up. The dealer tried to tell him that I was just calling but he would not listen. His hand was 7-5 offsuit the same two pair I had, so if he had only paid attention to what was go on, he may gotten half the pot.
You should always say bet or throw your chips in the pot FIRST before engaging in a conversation with your opponent. The dealer is also at fault a little bit. The dealer has to pay attention to many things and can not also be expected to listen to conversations as well.
Fox
Foxwoods 10&20/15&30- half-kill holdem. Kill Pot. I am the button.
The kill is in the 3-hole (seat 3rd after blinds). He raises. He is a pretty decent player but he does not need a big hand to do this. A reasonably solid player calls immediately after him. The knucklehead player on my right calls. I look down and see the Jd 9d. I normally don't play this for a raise but I am enticed by the fact that the goofy player on my right came in, and I don't expect a reraise from the tight blinds on my left. I feel it is -EV on a strict math basis but these guys rate me as very solid and I feel like it might be time to throw a curveball. I suppose that's as good an excuse as any. I call. Little blind calls. 5-way pot.
Flop is Ah 8s 7s. Preflop raiser leads, both call to me. There are now 13.5 small bets in the pot. I know my hand is greatly devalued by the flush draw on board, but again, I am the button and I feel like the Blind will just call. I would love to pop everyone on the Turn. I call but know I am on very shaky ground.
The Turn is the 10h. I hold the nuts, but there are now two flush draws on board. The preflop raiser bets, both call to me, I pop it. All call to the lunatic on my right and he reraises. I cap it, it is still 5-way but the Blind and the Lunatic have gone all-in.
The River is the Ks and I get beat in both spots by the Blind who holds As 6s and the lunatic who holds Qs 3s. He thought he was backraising for value on the Turn. I almost expected it. I got the action I was looking for and got punished for playing a weak draw against a good draw, and for calling somewhat off-value before the flop.
The question is, how wrong was I?
*
You have 3 clean outs with any Ten that is not a Spade. This is 15:1 and you are only getting 13.5:1 so it is close. However, there will be a certain percentage of the time when the Ts is an out. When that it is the case you are a 10.5:1 dog with pot odds of 13.5:1 which is enough overlay to cover the times that another Spade comes on the river to beat you. Bottom line: if you were wrong you were not wrong by much.
We're all allowed a favorite hand, right ?
Well, Jack - Nine ( diamonds ) has been mine for as long as I can remember. And it has treated me very well, including two gut-shot straight flushes ( on the river, of course ) and both times I was [ unknowingly ] drawing dead to one card.
Ergo, there is no way anyone can convince me you played it badly. Tough hand, beat in TWO places by backdoor flushes.
Let me guess, Q3 probably moaned the loudest, right ?
Now to be serious, I think the only thing you did wrong was lose.
I guess it's not much, but at least being all in they couldn't get a bet out of you on the river - they didn't deserve one.
- Chris
I have made much worse plays in my time. Preflop your call can be second guessed but nevertheless you got 5 way action with a speculative hand. What's so wrong with that? Taking a card off with a gutshot seems appropriate to me esp. with good implied odds. Unfortunately they got there on the end. Not a whole lot you can do.
Bruce
Mark,
I don't think you're wrong, especially given the raise from the kill and the call by the knucklehead. In fact, the Foxwoods style seems to call for an almost mandatory raise from the kill in early position with even the most marginal of hands. I'm sure you've noticed this, and I think this surely affected your thinking. Normally, when I'm thinking right, I tend to throw away the gutshot str8 draw with the flush board and this many callers, but with the odds you're getting, this can't be a bad play either.
John
PS.
What do you think of the changes at lower limits? I'm forced now to either play 4-8 or 8-16 since the 5-10 with the kill has disappeared. Played 4-8 today, and my head is still hurting. 15 people on an "interest" list for 6-12, but they won't spread it because there's too many games already close to that limit, or so I was told. Huh?
I'm off to FW now. I will check out the limit changes. I didn't know they did away with the 5-10 w/ full kill. Mark
John,
You wrote: "...15 people on an "interest" list for 6-12, but they won't spread it because there's too many games already close to that limit, or so I was told. Huh?"
Sometimes games close in limit help the games. At Hollywood Park 15/30 and 20/40 co-exist side by side, and the card club often has as many as six combined. In my records I just call it 15/40 when I switch back and forth ;-).
At Hawaiian Gardens they do very well with 3/6 and 4/8 played side by side. The other day there were about four or five games at each limit. It was midweek.
Good luck getting through to management.
Regards,
Rick
M,
Hindsight is 20-20 but I think you were a little wrong. Before the flop I would want at least one more caller to justify playing medium suited connectors/one-gappers against a raise. With smaller suited connectors I would want two more callers.
On the flop it is close. I like Jim Brier’s logic.
On the turn you capped with the nuts. If there were unlimited raises, I would stop after about five raises due to tied hands having redraws to the flush.
Don’t lose sleep over this one.
Regards,
Rick
10/20 home game, tight agressive, 10 good players. I am probably the least expierenced player at the table. I am the small blind with Qd/9d. The deck has been hitting me pretty good the last 1/2 hour. 5 limp to seat 8 (very very rare for this game); he raises, 9 folds 10 raises. I would not consider playing this but it seemed like I was on some magical lucky streak. (I have a MBA with about 5 statistics courses under my belt but........) I call,BB folds, 2 limpers drop 8 caps it. summary:24 small bets in pot
Flop is Ks Qh 10d
checked to 8 he bets, 10 raises, I call limpers drop 8 calls. summary: 18 big bets in pot
turn 4d
Checked to 10 who bets. Me and 8 call.
river Jc Checked around. 8 had a set of 10s, 10 had a set of kings. I really felt stupid winning this with the sucker end of a straight.I never had the proper odds to call but sometimes you just tell yourself go for it.
Preflop your call is weak. Playing a piece of cheese for 4 bets when you have the worst possible position is bad poker. Even though you are on a rush how based on past events can you predict the future? You played the hand well on the flop and turn. On the river with a straight you missed a bet.
Bruce
I don't believe in rushes.
You did the wrong thing at the right time. If I were you I wouldn't get in the habit of playing Q9 for a cap. It'll cost you a lot of money.
You played preflop crap, and got lucky. But, you already know this.:). Once you make your hand, rather it was because "you felt it" or cause you didnt know doesnt matter. It was a done deal, don't make it worse by not playin the hand for all its worth once you make it. I'm guilty of playin crap hands once in awhile, maybe more then most? But, once the hand is made, play it for every chip you can get.
Buck
"The deck has been hitting me pretty good the last 1/2 hour."
I can't put my finger on it, but there is something wrong with that statement.
It means i got pocket kings, jacks, and 10's, and 2 AQo,s that held up against 1, 2 or 3 callers to the showdown. We all know this is a rush or getting hit by the deck.
n/t
What do you call it?........or else what is your point
>>"The deck has been hitting me pretty good the last 1/2 hour."
>>I can't put my finger on it, but there is something wrong with that statement.
the present perfect continous tense (has been hitting) normally implies that the action started in the past and is continuing and still going on in the present. of course we know that rushes cannot be looked at as something that will continue or still be going on, at least from a mathematical point of view, so this is probably what you find wrong about the statement:)
for more info than you would ever want, http://www.uazone.org/friends/esl4rus/presentperf.html
brad
I don't believe in rushes. But my opponents often do, magnifying the effect of aggressive moves and giving me an edge.
You lucked out here, but I'm surprised that you didn't really luck out by betting or raising on 4th st. On 5th street, were you sure that 8 or 10 had big slick? Were you check raising with the 9?
At my "new" club in Aurora there seems to be a couple of older guys possibly angle shooting. Seems they never know if there is a raise in or not and put a call bet in after watching the guys fold behind him and the dealer reminding them of the raise they make their mind up weather to continue in the hand.
I have objected that there was action behind but to no avail. I maintain if they put money in the pot and there is action behind it is a done deal they are in for the raise.
Rounder- Just curious, is this the 5-10 or the 10-20 game?
There IS one elderly chap who now plays mostly 5-10, who used to always try the following play in the 10-20 game... He would bet out of turn on 4th street hoping to get checked to. Of course, this rarely worked, but maybe he IS having some slight success with this at 5-10.
Otherwise, if it's the same players you metioned that called your raise with J9o, it's a safe bet they are clueless rather than crafty.
Rounder I think I know who you are talking about, and yes they do it quite often. The manager will do nothing. These same people allow players to walk away for over 1.5 hours, and after people even say that he is down playing blackjack they let it go....crazy when there is a 15 person line.
Kevin
How about the ones who will go play blackjack for an hour, come back, pick up their chips and LEAVE! The irony is that these same people think nothing of dropping 2-3G's at a balckjack or craps table. But heaven forbid they get bad beated out of a $200 hold'em pot, and they go berserk!
Yeah we had a guy leave for 2 hours - and a long board. What he did was come back for one hand and leave again - I objected but floor said he was entitled to his time - I disagree.
I don't now the exact rule, though I'm sure you will be informed of it very soon by someone who reads your post ( I'm surprised it hasn't occured yet ). If it helps I can tell you the only common sense ruling. You can't force these "kindly older gentlemen", - or anyone else for that matter - to add chips to the pot after the action has passed them; even if your club has a rule stating, "verbal statements are binding", no cardroom can ever physically remove chips from a player's stack against his/her will, BUT a well run club can and will enforce the rule, "once chips are placed in the pot THEY STAY THERE". Ergo, you may not be able to force the offenders to call the raise, but you can keep them from removing their "call" once there has been action behind them.
TRANSLATION: "A" bets, "B" calls, "C" raises, "D" (the suspect) puts in enough to call the original bettor but not the raise (waiting to see what action occurs to his left). If after seeing events that might make him not want to call "C's" raise you not only can't force him to, YOU CAN"T PERMIT HIM TO - - HIS HAND IS DEAD, and any $$ he placed in the pot stays there.
One suggestion; be sure this is not an honest mistake by this "angle shooter". We are all going to get old some day (at least I hope we all are). The elderly are a little more prone to "vapor lock" than we young whippersnappers are. If you doubt the truth of this statement, get back to me in thirty or forty years.
My age; the first [baseball] world series I have vivid memories of was between the Yankees and the Dodgers. The Dodgers played in L.A. at the time. For those who are not avid fans, this first occured in '63; it last occured in '78. I was 14 at the time.
Regards to all,
Chris
.
"If after seeing events that might make him not want to call "C's" raise you not only can't force him to, YOU CAN"T PERMIT HIM TO - - HIS HAND IS DEAD, and any $$ he placed in the pot stays there."
I don't know about this. How can his hand be dead? He hasn't even fully acted yet! I think most floors would rule that he's entitled to call the raise if he claims he did not know there was one. Actually, it's the players who acted AFTER him who are the ones at fault! They should hold their cards and intentions until it is there turn to act. It is NOT yet their turn to act when a player in front of them only puts in enough money to call the blind and not the raise.
Also, while it may be true that the floor cannot physically take chips from a person's stack, they can certainly enforce ANY rule by simply barring the offender after an appropiate number of warnings.
I do agree with you that discretion is very important. There are many older players who enjoy playing (and are a joy to play with) who may need and deserve some leeway. I sure hope I'm afforded some leeway in my golden years. Especially if I'm still the guppy at the table...
The difference between "sly" and "unobservantly slow" is where they focus their attention. Watch where they pay attention. If its the players behind them then quitely inform each floor person you see that these guys are shooting angles.
- Louie
Rounder:
I play at Aurora and introduced myself to you on Friday afternoon. The cardroom manager, Bob, will not tolerate angle players and will ask him to leave if he has sufficent information. Notify Bob of your complaints, and if others do the same Bob is experienced enough to handle the problem professionally. Do not expect immediate action from Bob if yours is the lone complaint because Bob is fairminded and requires substantial evidence before taking any measures.
Frank Donnelly
This may sound weak but try to get to his left and sit on him. If he doesn't put the right amount for the bet or raise sit like a stone. If it's an angle you'll know because the angle will stop.
I believe once the money is in the pot and there is action behind it should stay there I don't care if it is an angle shooter or incompetant senile old man - of course he has the right to call the raise or reraise but the bet should stand.
They only let fish & pidgens get away with this, not foxes.
let's say you are in late position, and there is a limper...you raise with AK...and only the limper calls.
The flop is 3 low cards, like 752 rainbow....the limper bets. He's an opponent who could have 87, 88, 66, 44, 33, A7, AJ or something like and bet.
Is it a good idea to raise to get a free river? When you raise, you're trying to tell him that you've got a big pair.
Pros - you will probably get a free card, and it is also possible that you have the best hand. If a A or K hits on the turn, and your opponent makes a pair, he may think he just hit an overpair to your pair and may bet or checkraise you (the only problem is you may be get killed if a A turns if he has A7 or A5).
Cons - what do you do on the turn if you miss again, and your opponent checks? also, if your opponent is a thinking opponent, if you miss on the turn and check, he may bet with absolutely anything on the river, thus you may have to lay it down to a weaker A.
whaddya think?
If you suspect you still may have the better hand than we should NOT be talking about taking "free" cards: you may be GIVING them.
If you fear he may bet a weaker Ace on the river after you induce a bluff by checking the turn, then pay it off.
This flop bet looks suspicious since its obvious hero is going to bet if limper checks. There is plenty of doubt about you having the better hand. So I would find a way to show this hand down maximizing the amount of money the opponent will put in with a worse hand; which usually means get him to bluff the river.
Calling this player down is sound. Raising, checking, then calling is sound also. So is raising, betting, and checking. So is calling, raising, and checking. Raising, checking, and folding is reserved for players too conservative either to bet no-pair on the flop or to bluff the river.
Another factor is how many hands does your opponent think hero will raise with in that spot. If its lots then he should not fear an overpair but should strongly suspect two over-cards. If so, hero should be tempted to play his over-pairs on the flop just the same way he would his over-cards.
- Louie
i played 10/20 holdem for a while with a few players in particular who always (almost) raised the flop with overcards against 1 or two players when they had position. against them i would lead out on the flop and three bet if raised when conditions were right.(say i was big blind and had top pair on rag board)
just something to think about, brad
This hand occurred in a 6 handed $10-$20 game which was playing fairly tight at the time.
Player A raised from early, all folded to the sb (a solid and somewhat cautious player) who made it 3 bets. I called in the BB with AA, Player A called. 3-way.
The flop came 744r. sb bet, I called, Player A called. The turn was an ace. sb checked, I checked, Player A checked. The river was an ace. sb checked, I bet, Player A called, sb called.
I'll go get some marshmallows in preparation for the flames...
I wish I had a nickel for every bet you missed on this hand. Raise preflop. Raise the flop. Bet out on the turn and bet the river. Playing cute and going for checkraises with a flop that has probably missed everyone is just silly.
Slowplaying the boat on the turn also cost you money. You want them to pay to see the river. If they have no draw they aren't betting anyway, If they have a draw they'll gladly take a free card. Just bet and raise when you have the best of it. It's hard to argue with straight forward poker.
Folks:
I was seated at the table for the play of this hand. I will not comment on the before the flop and on the flop play of the hand, but I guarantee that the only way Kevin gets two calls with these players on the river is by checking the turn. If Kevin bets the turn both players fold without even thinking. From the turn on, well played Kevin.
Frank Donnelly
Obviously, I knew this was coming... I may have played this very poorly. I was just wondering if anyone could find merit in the way I chose to play it.
It's certainly possible I lost $20 pre-flop. It's also possible that I only lost $10 if the original raiser was capable of laying down his hand for 2 more bets. And if he wasn't capable of this play, then the question is can the loss of his $10 and the sb's, be made up for in deception on later streets?
I fully intended to raise the sb on any flop with some texture to it. But 744r? Extremely unlikely for either of them to hold 77,65 or a 4. They must be drawing very thin. In hindsight, I get action from sb by raising the flop. But I lose Player A who can't/doesn't call $20 cold with overcards given the pre-flop action.
When the ace turned and the sb checked, there was still no likely draw out. I put sb on a pocket pair (KK thru TT). So I thought why bet? If Player A has an ace he will bet. If he doesn't he may still take a stab at it. On the other hand, if I bet it, who could call? Again this may have been a terrible check. My thinking was that these weren't low limit players. It's hard to get a call from a non-ace here.
The one good thing from the way this hand played out, was that it got me an overcall from the sb on the river which is VERY rare for him. So all in all, I'm not sure if I maxed this hand out or cost myself. Which was the reason for the post.
Also, I had position on the player I wanted to have position on (the sb who made it 3 bets). This played an important roll in my decision pre-flop. Another benefit to not raising, was to see if Player A had enough of a hand to cap it. If so, I play this very differently from the flop on.
There was a similar post on Friday which I agreed with the poster his preflop slowplay of the pocket A's only because he was in last position to the 2 preflop raisers. I think in this instance, you have to put the bets in preflop.
Your play on the flop is confusing to me. Here you hit a perfect flop for your deceptive move preflop. I think a raise of the SB would invoke a call from raiser A and maybe even a reraise by the SB. If the SB does not reraise on the flop, I would bet out on the turn once the A hits and see what happens from there. Once you have the bets in the pot, some players get tied into the pot and will call you down.
Regards, Dugie
The more I think, talk and listen about this hand, I agree it was a poor non-raise on the flop. However, I still do think there may be some merit to my pre-flop and turn play. Thanks for your input Dugie.
I'm all for flailing away. Except when you have AA in a short handed pot, can disguise your hand by calling, you're probably not going to narrow the field (and you WANT to play AA vrs an early raiser anyway). I would 3-bet but would flat call 3-bets, hehehe.
Perfect flop. If you raise now you are disguising your hand some more (looks like a middle pair, yes?). This is consistent with your call pre-flop. You can get multiple bets in later: SB 3-bets, you call and raise the turn.
Now had you 4-bet pre-flop they would probably just call you down.
Darn it, made top full house. You've got all the good cards and you cannot expect them to have much. They also aren't likely to MAKE much with the 2-card outs. You should only check if UTG is going to bet. Bet, hope one has the case Ace and raises. Expect JJ to call at least once.
- Louie
Kevin don't take this wrong but I see a lot of players at (aurora) missing out on making a few more bb by playing "cute" now slow playing is OK but when you know you have real hands or big draws in against your made monster it is quite correct to play it to the max.
Rounder-
I don't take it the wrong way. You are 100% right and I totally aree. Some of the best action I receive is by playing big hands fast against good/aggressive players. I fully intended to get bets in on the flop, but for some reason I developed brain freeze when I saw a flop of 744. I need to figure out why this happened.
Perhaps it's because in the short time between seeing this benign flop and being faced with a bet from the sb, I reasoned Player A (an aggressive player), would raise to test his hand. I also figured a good turn card would allow me to get extra bets in on 4th. I'm NEVER concerned with getting cute, but ALWAYS concerned with maxing out my hand. In this case, I made a hasty mental error. Thanks for your response Rounder.
Hey Kevin:
I think this is a great topic to discuss. If any player is truly after 1 or 1.5 big bets per hour, any missed bet on a winning hand can adversely affect that rate. That being said, I believe that you are able to maximize your wins more often than not.
We all will miss bets. I like to believe that maximizing the number of bets with a winning hand is a strength in my game. (Although it may be more likely that most players wonder where I have been lately because they were looking to buy a big screen TV and hoped I would help finance it).:-)
The situation in the above hand is not a big error. I believe that you already know I like the way you played the turn and river. The only way you were going to get another bet from either player was to either induce a bluff on the river(or a bet by player A on the turn) or hope for an overcall.
How do I believe you maximize betting on a given hand? More often than not it is by betting or raising when you believe you have the best of it or when your draw is large enough to value bet(i.e. nut-flush draw with addtional outs to a straight). I know that this sounds simplistic, and I do not believe poker to be a simplistic game, but there are very few "cute" plays that maximize your profit in a hand. Most of these plays would be more likely to help profit if it is against a player you know extremely well.
As I said at the beginning I believe you are very good at maximizing your profit. I just wanted to share some quick thoughts on what I thought was the best way to do this. All comments appreciated.
Matt
Not the wildest 20-40 game in San Jose 3 people pass i raise with 88 next guy calls, pretty tight button 3 bets, big blind calls we all call. flop comes 10,J,x Rainbow. I check, next guy checks button bets big blind folds, I check raise next guy folds, button three bets I call with the intention of folding if an Ace,King or Queen comes and betting out otherwise????? How badly do I play???
Thanks,
And Please Don't Be Gentle
Unless the game is extremely tight, I think I would just call with pocket 8's from middle position. The equity in this hand is usually in floping trips and will not hold up unimproved. Your check raise of the button is totally out of line especially with 2 other caller. Heads up, I may see some merit if you know the other player well. I think with this flop that contains 2 overcards and a bet from the button, I would fold on the flop.
Regards, Dugie.
You should be more inclined to raise before the flop if the remaining players tend to be tight, especially the blinds. But I suspect that calling would be best in the situation that you describe, especially since you got two callers behind you (plaus the reraise).
As for your check raise, there is no question that it is a high risk play, but it may be correct. It should increase your chances of winning the pot by a little bit, and even though you don't like the situation, there is a small chance that your hand is currently best. In addition, your check raise might make a hand like KT fold (which has you beat) and you find yourself heads up agains a holding like AK or AQ.
"And Please Don't Be Gentle". OK, just this once.
Your 88 is REAL marginal in middle position. Tough hand to play.
So, now you're up against 3 players with over cards and one probably has an overpair. You paid 3-bets getting a paltry 3:1 to make your set. Pre-flop couldn't have gone much worse. How do you like it so far?
So, which overcard hand DIDN'T hit a JTx flop? A9? SOMEBODY hit that flop if they didn't already have a pair and it wasn't you. You must know you are just a slight favorite heads-up against two-over-card gut shot, and are an underdog to KQ; and a real serious underdog vrs AA or KT.
There is only 13sb in the pot and you are a 22:1 dog to snag an 8, and even if you DO snag that 8 you still need to avoid a number of bad cards on the river to win.
Sure, go ahead and gamble marginally against the maniac. You've got to be REAL sure he's got AK before you can gamble with the tight player.
I don't think your raise is going to help you win since if the guy behind you HAS 2 overcards he's going to the river; unless he'll fold KT.
Flailing away makes sense when (1) you have a good hand (2) the opponents have bad hands. Neither of those applies to this hand.
- Louie
OK, so the actual flop betting showed that the BB didn't have two overcards, and it sure looks like the other guy didn't as well.
Badly
I have a question about whether to raise or just call before the flop when no one has bet before you. I play in a 2-4 HE game and basically none of the players just call before the flop but always raise. Is this normal? What hands would you just call rather than raise preflop before anyone bets? I find myself raising just to prevent the bb from getting a free look at the flop. I know this is a pretty basic question, but I just started playing. Thanks a lot.
JC
If you are the first one in from late position you should raise.
Most low limit games people do not do this , if they do you might be in a very aggrissive game and you should look for a easyer game where they do not always raise so much.
Sound poker against other sound players SHOULD always raise as the first one in. This applies, as far as I can tell, to all casino poker games. The corelary to this is if your hand isn't worth a raise then fold.
But who plays against a table of sound players??? In real life you often play against loose types. This means you can expect lots of players in which increases the value of some hands. In holdem these would be small pairs and small suited connectors. Therefore, in loose games where you expect few raises its ok to limp (just call) with this sort of hand early.
There are some other times its OK to limp but these would be vrs very pecular individuals in the blinds.
- Louie
But start with the corelary as your basic philosophy.
Louie,
I usually limp in early with T9s or the like (if I'm going to play) because I want a lot of callers, don't I? Do you usually raise with these early? Even against sound players if the next guy limps you may find 6 or 7 seeing the flop, in my limited experience, and that's what I'm looking for. Comment?
Right. But in the tight aggressive games you will end up finding yourself in a 3-way raised pot out of position.
When can you play Poker Legal in Vegas,LA and other states in USA?? ( is it 21 ore 18,?? years old )
21 everywhere I know.
Its 21, but indian casinos are 18 I think.
In Oregon and Washington at the Indian Casinos it is 18. In La Center, Washington (just north of Portland), there are a few small rooms, and they are 18 also. Don't know about the Seattle area. Enjoy! Tim
is it any one how nows where i can get the Wilson software: Turbo Texas Holdem/Tournament/7-stud fOR free
any one how has it can i download it from you with Mirc ore somthing ??
They have a demo program.
Johan - Don't be so cheap! This software, though not perfect by any stretch, is a great value for your money. If all you play is 3-6, you should improve enough to recover the $90 in 20 or so hours of play.
They now everything about you when you Cash in on Paradise ....so why not let some good player win mutch so they can say its beatable.
Two hands to consider please:
I: AA:
I enter an average/tough (not California, not maniacs) LL game one or two right of the button and post. I look down and see two nice red Aces. No callers to me, I raise.
One caller, big blind. This caller has a lot of chips, no other clues.
Flop comes Qxx all Diamonds. I have top pair, nut diamond draw. He checks, I bet.
Turn is a blank, I bet he check-raises. What should I do? (I might wait to checkraise a powerhouse til the river, so I think about it and hope he has AQ)....
..and thus I called. River is another blank. He bets. Do I pay off? Results to follow.
B. 33:
I am in late position (2 people left to act) no callers, and I limp with 33.
Button raises, and then one of the blinds re-raises. No one else in. What do I do? I know that I am not getting odds for my 3 on the flop, I just wonder about implied odds when a 3 hits. (I folded my one bet, 3 hit of course).
thank you.
Mark
PS I like to post losing hands or possible mistakes to learn (it is too easy to post winners like the huge pot I won with AA, when I couldn't even bet -- the raises all came before me til the river (then *I* bet)when the second pair on the river crushed them all).
I hat the exact thing happen the other day Except I had KK the the other guy had AQ - he overplayed his hands a lot I got away with check raising him on the turn AND river. He said what could I POSSIBLY have to beat his top pair and top kicker. You HAVE to call the river.
On the 33 - if 2 or 3 in with a raise (but not 3 bet) or not I'll usually play any pair cuz when you hit the set you get the pot you needed in the 1st place and they never put you on a set. Heck if you can get it heads up the 33 might stand up on their own.
On the first hand, you do not have top pair you have an over pair which is much stronger. You should re-raise on the turn when check-raised. You could easily have the best hand and you have a lot of outs to the nut flush when you don't. However, just calling is not bad. At the river, you must call in a heads-up situation like this and make him show you a better hand.
On the second hand, you should fold pocket Threes when everyone folds to you pre-flop. You do not want to be the first player to enter a pot with a baby pocket pair like this. This hand needs several limpers and an unraised pot to be profitable. Of course you fold when it is raised and re-raised back to you and this is precisely why you should not have entered the pot in the first place.
Jim and Rounder,
thanks for the answers, I appreciate it.
A. AA:
Ok, thanks, I think I did ok then. I almost re-raised on the turn, but in this game a CR on the turn is the kill of death. The guy had two baby Diamonds, so I was drawing to a 7 (I think) outer. I called on the river and lost to his flopped flush.
B. 33:
I think Rounder says don't call a three bet. Jim says the same. I didn't, but what a drag. I also didn't call on the button against 4 guys today with T7 offsuit, and of course 986 hit.. hehe, and I got rivered about 20 times, and I am now up to 23 pocket pairs in a row without a set. Whine whine (G).
But I am *up* a bunch anyway playing tight and agressive.
Mark
Hi,
The Pocket Threes scenario : Guys, can't we be a little more creative here? I agree with no implied odds limping in isn't a great move here and by doing so you've lost all power. With loose players at the blind perhaps it's worth folding.
My experience tells me that when the runners are many then the best hand wins the majority of the time, but when they are few the bet or the best represented hand wins. It depends largely on who follows you but if you raise you're probably odds on to win the pot. You are with the threes head to head anyway, but obviously you cant call a threatening flop. In head to head the small blind often raises with rubbish - the BB calls often for value - if the ace comes the bet wins the vast majority of time for the small blind. With the threes raised you are now looking for the set or a very threatening flop - with the call - only the set.
In games with large callers having the power (from raising early) is not that great - but with 2 or three its massive as the chances of someone connecting with the flop are, relatively, low.
In this scenario its arguable as the BB clearly hand a decent hand. If the blind bet calls the raise and doesnt connect - his odds and implied odds are now very poor to justify the call of a bet from the threes.
I believe that if you are thinking of calling in this given scenario you should raise (if the blinds are tight) and fold if they are loose. If you are checked to a threatening flop then bet.
Thanks
Steve
Hand 1:
On the turn, you MUST call the raise because your
draw is to the nuts and your initial read may be correct (AQ).
I would probably call here too because I'm heads up and no one can raise behind me.
Hand 2:
I would have raised with 33 to steal. However, your fold was correct and you only lost one bet.
Maniac is 2 to my right - he is playing EVERY hand and seeing the river 75% of the time. He fits the classic ID of a maniac. Calling 3 bets UTG with J7o - you know real HEFAP stuff :-)
I have black QQ - there are 5 in the hand I raise flop is 9 - j - 2 rainbow. Maniac bets I raise we are heads up now (just the way I want it) knowing he will surely call. Turn is Qd giving me a set but also making a d flush draw. He checks I bet he calls. River is a Ad.
He bets - I cry calling.
He shows 8d5d for a flush.
Some times we get what we ask for and are disappointed. This guy lost a lot of money that night and deserved to lose every cent of it. Unfortunately it wasn't ALL to me.
Rounder:
I CANNOT find a mistake in your play here. You made the player pay the absolute maximum to draw to his hand.
It's these players that seem to serve a dual purpose in the card room. Yes they do keep me coming back and are able to quite often positively spike my hourly win rate. However it is these statitical cleansing moments that make me wonder if I really understand the game at all. (Yes, I understand that people can't outdraw you all day long, but it still doesn't make me always feel warm and fuzzy inside to say "Nicely played sir" knowing that he will eventually empty the 4 racks in front of him to someone else). :-)
Having sat with you in a couple tournaments and seen your play at Aurora, I'm sure that some of this money came back to you.
See ya,
Matt.
I think you played correctly. That is why they call this gambling. Now imagine these kinds of suckouts happening to you several times a session over dozens of sessions and you will understand why many people quit poker.
Played at the Mirage the other day and there was a player in the game that saw ever flop but two. There was one player who lost to this player every time he was involved with him. After five hours the maniac was out of chips and out of game, which was to bad for just about everyone at the table. A player like this is just in the game to redistrubite the chips around the table because very rarely do they keep their wins.
I agree with all of you. We need guys like this in poker THEY are what makes it is what makes it profitable for the more thoughtful players.
Sure I made some money that night but I thought it was fun to share these hands with you.
I was in a 20-40 game one night in Vancouver where this one fella played every hand without ever looking at his cards! I mean this is Ripley's material but he kept doing it for several hours. After calling all bets and raises on every round including the river, he would just flip open his cards and hope for the best. He blew several thousand. Back then, the games started at 6 pm and ended at 1 am. Generally, the crew that started the game finished the game. For sure, no one was going to leave that day with this lunatic at the table. He rode it out till closing time. There were 9 winners at the table. I still get juiced by some of the other guys in the game that night as I think I took a paltry win of a $100 or something like that.
BTW, did you guys read Badger's latest article in Card player. It has a great story about a live one putting in several raises on the turn when he had no cards (this chap had gone to the little boys room when the cards were dealt out and had come back after the turn card was dealt) - it's a great story and one that will be difficult to top.
I am on button with AA - tight passive guy raises maniac calls I reriase sb calls tp caps I put him on KK for sure with a possibility of the other AA but I am pretty sure he has KK.
Flop comes 9 7 xr. check, TP bets, call, I raise, call reraise call I cap all call.
Turn is a J - sb bets. We all call. river is a q we all check.
I was right about the KK and the other two have J9. and chopped up MY pot.
I couldn't believe they took all the heat but you never know. SB was a good player and played it out for probably the right reasons the maniac just had a pair and was looking for anything to keep him in the hand.
You say the SB is a good player? Would you cold call 2 1/2 bets with J9 with the possibility of another raise in a short-handed pot with no position? They got lucky on their 4 outer. This are the type of players you want in a game and will make money off them in the long run. I think your play of the hand was fine and just say "nice hand" to them.
Regards, Dugie
Rounder you did better on this hand than I would have. On the turn when the small blind bets I would have raised with my pocket rockets. Furthermore, I would have bet the river when they all check to me.
I knew I was beat. AA cracked again.
Maniac has top pair with an overcard kicker. You and the other player probably could have shown him your overpairs and he would have taken the heat. In small blind's defense, he did have a backdoor striaght draw in addition to his top pair with overcard kicker. His bad play was before the flop.
Turn and river were dangerous looking cards and you were certainly right not to bet the river,IMHO. And when sb bet into you when the J came on the turn, I certainly wouldn't have raised and (here comes the criticism) might have folded. By the way, anyone think calling on the flop with the intention of raising TP on the turn would have been OK?
Here's to better luck next time you have A-A against K-K.
i have been playing low lime holdem for 4 years and have been very sucessful. i constantly read and study and consider my self a student of the low stakes game. my problem is that that i have hit a losing streak for the last 5 months that i cant seem to shake. i play a select agg game and don't play garbage and for my level of play i believe i am better than most i play with. but this losing streak is killing me. its follows a pattern of hours of looking at k2 q2 or j2- invariably when i finally catch a hand like hit my AK, trips, flush, st i will be crushed, usually on the river, by someone playing garbarge. yesterday it was a joke at the table because i was rivered so many times. my question is does this kind of thing happen to really good players and how do you handle it? comments appreciated.
Yes, losing streaks are very common in poker because poker above all else is still very much a gambling game. I don't know if this helps but I can give you the following facts:
1. In his book, "Gambling Theory and Other Topics", Mason Malmuth shows how a good player capable of beating a $30-$60 low ball game for $30 per hour can have a 4000 hour losing streak which is equivalent to about 2 years of full time play.
2. A very good friend of mine and John Feeney's started playing low limit poker last October. He read all the books, has patience, discipline, plays tight-aggressive poker, and is usually the best player at the table. He has played about 800 hours of $3-$6, $4-$8, and $5-$10 and lost over $4000. He played about 100 hours of $10-$20 and $15-$30 and lost over $5000. His problem is that he cannot get his fair share of cards and he cannot get a hand to hold up. He has given up poker altogether.
3. There are two prominent posters on this forum who have played several thousand hours of low limit hold-em but they are losing players. Keep in mind that these posters have studied and play much better than their low limit opposition.
4. I once had a week where I lost $5000 playing $20-$40 and I once had a month where I lost $8500 playing $15-$30 and $20-$40. My first two months here in Vegas I played about 300 hours of $30-$60 and I lost about $8000. It took me the entire month of June and July to make this up by playing $10-$20, $15-$30, and $20-$40. I have started playing $30-$60 again this month and I am on a winning streak.
5. Another friend of mine who plays only $20-$40 on the Gulf Coast averages about $20 per hour but over the last 800 hours he has lost almost $13,000.
If you play enough poker you will go through long periods of time (400 hours or more) where you will be losing money because of suckouts and holdovers. Suckouts are the biggest reason good players have losing streaks.
Jim,
I really appreciate your thoughts on this topic, since it seems to visit each of us occasionally. I would like your thoughts on one aspect of this though.
I think it is very dangerous to carry around the notion that losing streaks are normal and to be expected. I believe that this can lead to a player "believing in the streak" so to speak and not honestly assessing his game. I have never had a losing streak of any real length, so I know that I am due, statistically speaking. When I lose, either a hand or a session, I can generally identify errors that I made, or information that I overlooked that may have altered the way I played a hand, or an opponent. Many times the opponent should have folded, and did not, thus sucking out on me. But there are also cases where I have bet into the suckout, only to be raised. In my case, I was excited, and ignored the danger when a really ugly straight or runner runner flush comes.
So I guess my question is, do you really believe that you had a "bad streak" to loose 8k (which is only $26 an hour, or less that a half BB). Or did you need to learn how your new opponents played, and figure out how to exploit their weeknesses?
I would think that the better you know your opponents, the easier it is to play with them, and your EV may rise significantly.
Thanks for all of your excellent posts
todd
Well, todd it is true that having losing streaks forces you to examine your game more and frequently you can spot errors or mistakes that you have made. Mason Malmuth once wrote an article about losing streaks and what to do about them. I believe it is "Poker Essays Volume I or Volume II". But I heard that even Mike Caro has stated that most every professional poker player who has played poker for many years has had a 1000 hour losing streak.
ray zee said a little while ago that he has never had a losing month. never left a major tournament a loser if he played more than three days. and never brushed his teeth.
but maybe that's just ray.
scott
That is just Ray. Tom McEvoy, the 1983 World Series Champion, has stated in his articles in Cardplayer that he has had two losing years playing middle limit poker ($15-$30 and $20-$40). Someone who never has a losing streak is not only a great player but a statistical deviate (No offense to Ray Zee).
I've heard from more than one person that McEvoy is not that great a player. I've never played with him, so I personally have no idea.
If Ray has truly never had a losing month then he's a statistical fluke. Losing months should happen to everyone on occasion. I've had a handful of losing months in the last 5 years. I lost two months in a row once. Never had three losing months in a row, although I've had some very long stretches where the win rate was way, way off (just last year, I dropped from 2 BB/hr to almost zero for the last five months. The first month of the five was a largish loss, and the next four had a win rate so small that I just barely recovered the loss and maybe a couple of grand over it).
Gee, I wonder why McEvoy had two straight losing years. He played his JTo like a real genius from Jim Brier's previous post.
Bruce
"A very good friend of mine and John Feeney's..."
Just for the record, while I do of course know who Jim is talking about, I have never seem him play and have only discussed a bit of poker with him. So I really can't say much about his specific experience.
At any rate, I think one of the most useful measurements to apply to your results is the little formula whereby you divide your one hour standard deviation by the square root of the number of hours you've played, to obtain your hourly rate standard deviation. Then, if you understand what is meant by one or two or three standard deviations, you can see how far off your obtained results may conceivably be from where you "should" be based on how well you play.
With regard to our mutual friend he has played 882 hours of low limit poker ($2-$4 through $6-$12) and he has lost $3,739 for a loss of $4.24 per hour. His standard deviation is $97 per hour so using your formula his hourly rate standard deviation would be $3.27. If he were just a break-even player in these low limit games he is about 1.3 standard deviations off his expectation. If we assume that he should be able to beat these games for at least $4 per hour which is about one small bet per hour then he is about 2.5 standard deviations off his expectation. If he should beat these games for 1 big bet per hour than he is 3.7 standard deviations off his expectation.
Okay, then what can we conclude? It's a bit messy given the combined limits, but let's just treat it as we would one limit and go with your findings. I think we have to conclude that it's quite possible he's about break-even, and has just run this badly over those hours. There's also a chance, though we have to conclude that it's pretty small (around 2%), that he's around a $4/hour winner who's just run this badly. There's only an increadibly tiny chance that he's a 1 big bet/hour winner who's run this badly.
Since he's done his reading, studied the game, etc., It may well be that he should be a small winner by now, but has just had a bad run. But it looks highly likely that there's room for some solid improvement, which could boost his hourly rate and, in all likelyhood, finally pull him up out of this hole.
Since most studious players tend to learn all the preflop stuff in detail to start with, it may be that he's been making mistakes postflop. If I were he I'd contact David, cough up the dinero, and do about 3 sessions. In the first I'd shore up any major lingering preflop questions. In the next two I'd look at a lot of postflop stuff. Before any of it I'd figure out how to identify what postflop areas I needed to examine. That could be by posting some hands here for discussion. Or maybe David could ask him some questions that would hone in on the problem areas; I'm not sure. But if he can figure out where the weak spots are, I think he can firm them up.
1) avoid tables with lots of raising; seek out loose passive games. Lots of passive players are reluctant to raise, even when they the hold the nuts!
2) against weak tables, allow yourself enough time to stage a comeback. the last four times out I was down $150-200 after 6 hours but persisted and wound up ahead or even each time.
3) if your stacks are dwindling, call instead of raise if you hold high cards in late position against many limpers; this will help you extend the session. remember, against weak players, time is on your side.
4) raise all the time in late position and in the blinds with AKsuited and AQsuited against few or many limpers
5) consider limping in for one bet from late position with hands like K3suited and Q8suited against many limpers. If you hold K3suited and the flop comes K 10 5, since many passive players will not bet their flush or straight draws and most will not checkraise, then unless someone holds a king, the flop will frequently be checked around. you can then bet top pair/poor kicker with a fair measure of security.
6) if you are last to act and the flop yields you a flush draw, and the flop is bet with several callers, raise. make those with backdoor flush and inside straight draws pay through the nose. 90+% of the time an apparent rag on the turn will be checked around and you can check right along. this allows you to save one small bet if the flush doesn't come. when the flush does come on the turn, you've already surcharged all the chasers. then just pray that those with straight draws keep on coming.
7) when running bad, be less inclined to play 54suited, 65suited, 76suited, 87suited, 98suited, and maybe even T9suited in low-limit games, especially in raised pots. in low-limit Hold'em, there are many players who'll play every or nearly every suited hand. the last thing you want when running bad is to catch a flush and lose to T5suited or J2suited. Also, if you catch your flush on the turn, you want a high enough flush to at least sometimes thwart those backdoor-lovers.
8) without good position, be less inclined to bet your top pair/excellent kicker hands for value on the river. there is no such thing as a rag in No Fold'em.
9) some players will seldom raise unless they are bluffing. needless to say, make them pay by calling with only fair hands.
This is good advice regardless of your results. The model of a competent, sane texas hold em player.
One way to keep your sanity is to treat your losing streaks as on-the-job training. Most people don't analyze their game very well when they are winning. If you make a hopeless bluff into five people and it just happens that this was the one time in 500 when they were all on a draw and you win the pot, you look like a genius. Making a bad call for a gutshot and hitting it can mask the fact that it was a bad call.
When you're running bad, use that opportunity to look for leaks in your game. When you're getting an endless run of bad cards, use that opportunity to examine the play of others at the table. Play 'spot the errors' to keep yourself alert. Try to put people on hands, and see if your judgement is correct.
Remember that losing streaks can throw you off your game, and can inspire your opponents to play better against you. Resist the temptation to wallow in misery, which can cause you to stop paying attention to the game. NOW is the time to bring out your 'A' game and make every hand count.
Another thing you can improve during losing streaks is your character. Make it a matter of pride that you never lose control, never go on tilt, never blow up at other players or the dealers.
The mark of a winning player isn't how many chips he stacks up when he's running well, but how little he loses when he's running bad.
Excellent post. Remember when you save a bet it's a plus in your wallet. The better players not only win more when they win but they lose less when they lose.
Sometimes it helps psychologically to take a small win and quit early to break the streak. Set up a stop-loss system in your mind and stick to it. I'm not sure what stakes you play, but if, for example, you get up $60, make up your mind that if you get down to plus $30 you leave. This is against much expert advice to continue to play when you have the best of it, but I think it can help you overcome the frustration of continued losses by at least going home with a small profit.
Here's hoping the streak ends soon.
(n/t)
Though I have never experienced a losing streak lasting several months, I have experienced periods of one to three days (6-10 hrs per day) in which EVERY hand that I played to the river ended in a bad beat. It is particularly character-building to flop monster hands (e.g., a flush, a full house) in HEADS-UP pots and repeatedly lose to runner-runner miracles. At such times, I am reminded it is within the realm of possibility that I will never win another pot for the rest of my life!
In the face of such dire possibilities, it can be a struggle to maintain one's faith in "long run" probabilities. But what is the alternative? Professional gamblers must cling tenaciously to faith in their god: randomness. I surrender myself to this god, accepting my powerlessness against its whims. And in doing so, I gain the serenity to focus on what is most important: making good decisions.
Keep the faith!
MJS
MJS, this sure sounds like a religion. You ask what the alternative is. The alternative is to give up poker if this goes on over a very long period of time.
When on a losing streak you have try to conserve money. Now how is this done. On zero odds play that you normally play you start to dump. You adjust the hands that you normally play and you reaccess the game that you are playing. Eventually when the poker gods say you have had enough you may get a reprieve. Remember you are dealing with the law of large numbers and some players go bad for over a year.
This is a situation that happened with my friend yesterday at the casino. Its the end of the hand and he wins with two pair on the board with high kicker. Dealer awards him the pot and mucks all the cards. A player at the table brings to attention that there was a J kicker on the board and that the pot should have been a split pot. After some discussion the floor manager ruled that the pot has to be split. My question, without looking at the moral aspect is should the money have been split after the dealer called a winner and mucked the cards with no objection from any of the other players.
All responses appreciated.
Thanks
Once the cards are in the muck, the hand is dead. Your friend, according to the rules, should get to keep the whole pot.
The floor manager was completely wrong and your friend should have kept all the money since the hand was over. Let me give you another example which I think will illustrate my point. About 3 years ago I played in a $3-$6 game where an Ace-high straight was on the table once all the board cards were out and there was no flush possibility. Therefore, the nuts was on the table. I bet, another played raised, a third player folded, a fourth player folded, and I called. I split the pot with the raiser. Now since the other two players clearly had the best hand as well should they have each been awarded a fourth of the pot?
Jim, I don't think the two situations are the same. In the example you give, the two players folded and therefore could not win a portion of the pot. Poster doesn't specify exactly what happened, but I assume both players turned over their cards; neither folded. Therefore this was a case of the pot being awarded wrongly.
The other player clearly was entitled to half of the pot. He showed down (apparently) a hand which won half the pot. He should get it. It's unclear exactly how much time went by and if the cards were turned over, or if the next hand was starting to be dealt, etc. But since cards "speak" in a public card room, the house is saying that it's dealers will award the pot to the player (or players) with the best hand and it should do so.
By the way, why didn't you re-raise the raiser? :-)
Andy you are correct if the players turned their cards face up but I guess I assumed that they kept them face down and the dealer simply mucked them. If that is not the case then you are correct.
i think that until everyone agrees that until you
a) are shown a better hand, or
b) are pushed the pot
you keep your cards. once you have the pot you just say, i dont remember, deal. or if you want to be a tough guy, you say its my pot now.
unless its a friendly game, then you say, show me, and if the floorman wants to go to the trouble to get the tape (and reconstruct betting for size of pot), then id split it.
brad
Hello Everyone,
I´ve read and studied HFAP many times and I´ve got a pretty good understanding of how to play in 2- and 3-handed games as well as in 8-to-10-handed games. Where I feel insecure when it comes to hand selection of suited and unsuited hands is when it´s 4-to-7-handed, because that´s in between (pocket pairs I know when to play). I also know that when the numbers dwindle the value of suited hands goes down and the value of high unsuited hands goes up.
My questions:
1) When can I start to play KJo and QJo?
2) When can I start to play ATo, KTo, QTo, JTo?
3) When can I start to play A9o, K9s/o, Q9s/o, J9s/o?
4) Should I play any more hands than those above when it´s 4-handed?
5) When should I no longer play suited connectors? (For Axs it´s 7-handed or better)
Thank you very much in advance.
Actually, if you know how to play in a full game (say, 9 or 10 handed), you know how to play in a 4 to 7 handed game. Say it's 6 handed. Basically, you play as you would in a 9 handed game where the first 3 players have folded.
Since 4 fewer hands are being dealt, this decreases the odds of a lot of situations throughout the hand, and the blinds come around much faster, so it seems there must be a few hands you would play UTG 6-handed that you would fold 4th position 10-handed. Perhaps something like or QJo, KJo, or ATo?
As long as everyone had folded up to you before you acted in the ten handed situation, it should be about the same. I'd open with the same hands. The "bunching factor" (better cards in the remaining hands once several people have folded) is very weak, almost insignificant in hold'em anyway, and should be especially so in this six handed situation.
You might open-raise with any of the hands you listed, but might do so in *either the 10 handed situation (after four have folded) or the 6 handed one. (Depends on who's behind you, chance of winning blinds, etc.)
The "psychology" of the players does change a little. That has to be considered. I discuss that a bit in the short handed essay in my book.
"The "psychology" of the players does change a little"
Somehow it doesn´t surprise me that you´d cover the psychological aspects of short-handed hold´em :-)
Anyway, thanks for telling me about the bunching effect and how it works, that´s an aspect I was not consciously aware of before and I feel this is going to get me one big step ahead.
To make this post not completely worthless for the other readers :-) a question:
Is there an adjective that´s used solely for describing how many players are sitting at the table? (..-handed is a good one, but it is used interchangeably for "all the players" and "all the players still in a hand", isn´t it?)
No, I don't think there's a special adjective for what you're talking about. Usually you would specify the specifics by saying, e.g., the game was being played 5-handed", or "It was a full 9-handed game, 4 players folded and the pot was contested 5-handed."
Do realize that the bunching factor is small enough in hold'em that you can just about ignore it. Abdul and some others have examined it and concluded it may have some modest significance. As I recall he found some increased number of aces in remaining hands in loose games (games in which many players will play Ax)after most of the players had folded. In some games, though, I think it will be negligible.
I put psychology in quotes because I don't really think it's the best term for the changes in players' frames of mind that take place as a game gets shorter handed. But I don't know a better one. Maybe "mind set". It's not really psychology in the typical sense of the word. It's narrower, maybe perception. It's just players' perception that they have to start loosening way up, even beyond the large degree to which they do indeed need to.
5-handed game: small blind = seat 1, button = seat 5
3-handed game: small blind = seat 1, button = seat 3 note that the big blind has closed in on the button by two positions
2-handed game: small blind = seat 1 = button?????
For quite some time I´ve wondered why the button has to post the small and not the big-blind in 2-handed games as I find it somewhat illogical that it´s not the other way round. Would someone care to explain to a curious guy like me?
Thanks
This is so that the betting action is consistent with full table play. The big blind acts last on the first round but first on the other rounds. Also, the positional advantage becomes gigantic if the big blind is posted on the button.
Mr.Conly,
I have never played head-up for serious stakes in my life, and am not likely to in the future, but I appreciate your taking the time to explain a rule that to me always seemed a little unusual. I to am a "curious guy" and like to understand why certain things are the way they are.
Thanks also to Greg for his inquiry.
I will go to sleep tonight knowing something i didn't know this morning.
Regards,
Chris
My wife, while looking over my shoulder, correctly pointed out that the sentence should read -
"I ( too, not to ) am a curious guy".
All fold to you in middle position with 22,33,44,55,66,77,88. What's the best action to take assuming the blinds will defend?
Depends on the nature of the opponents behind you. In most games, I would generally call as my call may attract other calls. Even if no one calls and I am up against just the blinds, the situation is not all that bad. You have position and ironically by not raising preflop, you can represent a wider range of hands on the flop. So, generally, you should bet on the flop no matter what it is if the blinds check to you.
Now, there are some games where you are unlikely to get any calls behind you - just folds or raises. In those games, you are probably better off mucking 22-66 and open raising with 77 and 88.
You should dump 22,33,44,55 because these pairs can never be an over pair to the flop. Play these after several players have limped in and you think the pot will be unraised. At least then you are getting good implied odds to go for a set.
With 66 I would limp and hope no one raised. With 77 and 88 I used to always limp but sometimes I open with a raise from middle position if my image is good and I have been dragging pots and I think I have good control over the remainng players. These are not raise or fold situations at all.
The other day I’m in a 15/30 game that was very good and I was winning quite a bit. I had the tight, aggressive, confident image that Mason advocates for holdem.
I’m in the big blind. A weak player with loads of tells limps in two to my left. A somewhat tight and not too tricky player calls on the button. The small blind folds (note that this is unusual in 15/30 holdem with a $10 small blind). I check my 32 offsuit. This was the smallest pot of the evening.
The flop comes an ace-queen-jack rainbow. I do my standard just under two second pause when the flop hits and check (after all, I need to cover for the times I need to think). The early limper gives a genuine look of disinterest and checks along with the player on the button, who really doesn’t have any tells I can see.
Before the turn comes down I’m already thinking two things. First, watch the limper for tells when the turn hits. Second, this pot probably didn’t hit the button since he would bet most hands that would hit him (except the king ten nut) AND raise most high card hands against one limper before the flop. My guess is that he had a middle pair that he didn’t want to bet against three overcards.
The turn comes an offsuit four. As it hits I glance at the limper and once again he shows genuine disinterest. I wait for one second (my standard pause when the turn hits) and bet $30 into this $55 pot. Both opponents quickly muck.
Now $55 was by far the smallest pot of the night but it was worth thinking about and taking a stab at. In my estimation, I was going to win that pot about 60% of the time NO MATTER WHAT I HELD. And that is money in the bank.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I don’t expect much comment on this except maybe some of you have better examples of small pots you can win with nothing. I wrote it to bore myself back to sleep after getting up in the middle of the night again. Sorry if I put any of you guys to sleep ;-).
i think the main thing here is being in the pot with weak/predictable players. once the 'checking war of nerves' breaks out, a strong player in there makes it a whole new ballgame.
interesting about the standard delays. i assume thats only when youre first to act.
brad
Brad,
I *almost* always act very quickly and in rhythm with the game, especially before the flop (when UTG, my hand is often in the muck before the deal is finished). But when first to act when the flop hits I feel all players deserve about two seconds to decide what to do. So I take my “just under two seconds” whether I need it or not in order to provide cover for the times that I really need to think about it. I also think this applies to the turn and river when first.
It is odd that most people act so quickly when first to act, yet agonize over a river call when head up. The first to act decision is far more complex and should be thought through. I think El Supremo (Sklansky) filled half a page in an essay book with this observation.
Yesterday I spoke with an old acquaintance who mostly plays 30/60 at the Bellagio or 20/40 at the Mirage these days. We discussed a few players from old times and I asked about the Bellagio crowd (I haven’t been to the Bellagio yet but I’ve played with a few at the Mirage a few years back). One noted author was notorious for long pauses completely out of rhythm with the game but I had heard he improved. My acquaintance indicated that in fact he was still very annoying in this regard, often doing an “Oscar” almost every betting round. I guess I’ll have to see for myself.
Regards,
Rick
PS: By *almost* I just wanted to mention how many times the waitress or porter taps me on the shoulder when I’m in the middle of a capped pot on the turn. I am not easily annoyed but that….
And who might this author be?
bruce,
One hint: If it is true Jim Brier would know ;-).
Rick
That's who I thought you were referring to. The "Hollywood Oscar performance" is most annoying to say the least. I personally find it quite irritating and all it does is slow the game down. Why take 5 minutes to lay a hand down. We can all see through the bullshit. Are you really gaining anything by doing this.
Bruce
nt
I think your example is important especially for the mid limit games. Not only does it win you pots, it also (I believe) improves your image of tight arggressive. Often, it is nice to be able to play your game 1 on 1 or 1 on 2. Looking for tells (certainly a Caro ploy, and an effective one at that) is teriffic and profitable against a small # of callers. Good example and easy to understand.
Rick,
Seems a pretty routine tactic.
Depending on the player mix I may just bet this hand out on the flop - of wait for the turn - like you did.
My rate is better than 60% playing this way - I don't do it much but whan I do it is with players who are predictable and I have a tell on .
Rick,
Sixty per cent is a tremoundous overlay for your turn bet. 30 % is probably enough, considering you have four outs if called ( the 5's ). After all, you always have the OPTION of firing another barrel if you get just one caller; a caller who might want to pay $30 to play sheriff, but not $60.
Good point as always,
Chris
P.S. How do you like the paragraphs ?
I looked at some of my earlier posts
and they were atrocious. They even
hurt MY eyes.
I think picking up these pots is crucial to getting to the 1BB/hr stage. I have been getting much better at it and I call the principle involved 7-of-9, which simply means being in the n-2 position as the clearest steal opportunity. If 5 people check the flop and the 1st two check when a blank falls on the turn (not a big card) then 3rd position should be able to steal the pot with a bet. If the flop were KT6r, for example, and the turn is an offsuit 3, then anyone with a king OR a ten would have bet by now, so nobody got nothin. If you bet and get called by a six or straight draw that hits? That's why its not 100%. But I think it is at least 60%, and more like 75%.
KingCR,
I think the above concept is worth a lead post with a little more detail.
Regards,
Rick
Interesting post. I haven't read the other responses, but in similar situations I like to fire on the flop. It costs less on the flop than on the turn. You know the button doesn't have anything, he would have raised preflop. So its mainly a two man pot, you and the weak player. By betting on the flop he may fold bottom pair. By checking on the flop and then betting on the turn he may call your turn bet or even raise with bottum pair. Your investing half as much money by bluffing on the flop when no one probably has anything so why wait till the betting gets more expensive. Also when I have this great type of image when I bet on the flop I get added respect where these plays become even more profitable.
Bruce
A good example of stealing your fair share of small pots to keep your head above water until you get a real hand. The situation screams for a bet since you have a small number of opponents, no one has shown any interest in the pot, you have some outs if you are called with any Five, and you have "the right of first steal" since you are the first to act. There will be times when your opponents will do the same thing to you over the course of the year so I believe this all evens out. Now my question is this: What do you if you get called and a blank comes on the river?
Jim,
You wrote: ““What do you if you get called and a blank comes on the river?”
If the button called I would give it up unless I made my straight (which BTW was not essential to my bluff – I should have changed the turn card to a six for the post). I would assume he hit it big and was trying to trap me. This guy was not a lose caller by any means.
If the limper had called I would assume he hit his pair if there was no two flush or picked up a flush draw if a two flush came. In the first case I would look for tells again (this guy was a walking billboard) and maybe fire one more barrel. In the second case fire again if the running flush did not come. Even here I would be looking for tells.
Jim, you just can’t believe how many players reveal their actions on your left out here. In this game both players on my left telegraphed their actions almost every hand and I made a lot of extra money with it.
Regards,
Rick
PS: Check out my response to Brad above. You get one guess as to which author I am talking about. But don’t post it here ;-).
Bruce,
Out of the blinds I too tend to go for the flop steal bet (and I also bet my good hands as cover). But I didn’t like this spot. I thought the button could have quite a few hands he could call before the flop that would hit this flop hard enough that I would be called down or even raised right there (and of course I would be done with it).
I should have stressed that the button had been tight and very un-aggressive and rarely raised before the flop in the several hours he had played with me. So hands he would call before the flop and call or raise me on the flop include Axs, QJ, KQ, AT, KJ, AJ, and maybe even JT. It was only after he checked the flop that I thought it probably missed him and he was more likely to be playing a middle pair.
Regards,
Rick
Couldn't then agree with you more. Picking up small pots out of the blind and hopefully winning a big one with junk from the blind is the difference between an average session or a big one often times.
Bruce
...posted the above under my original post rather than under Bruce. Sorry about that.
Rick
Rick,
IMO, to be a winning player, you must constantly be on the lookout to steal small pots. While it is a coup to steal a large pot, that rarely happens. Most outright bluffs can and generally should only be made when the pot is small.
I can't rememer the last session I played where I did not steal at least a couple of small pots. So, not only do I not give up on small pots but I try to win way more than my share of those small pots.
Incidentally, IME, most outright steals occur either on the flop from late position or on the turn from early position.
skp,
I actually made a mistake in my post in that the turn card actually was a six or seven so this was a pure steal rather than a semi-bluff of any sort. In the past I was remiss in not doing this often enough (i.e., I believe I was overly influenced by S&M's advice that your bluffs on early streets should mostly be semi-bluffs). In the last year or so I've been making pure steals a lot more.
Regards,
Rick
"P.S. I don’t expect much comment on this..."
Hah! You got comments all the way down to here and - I bet - then some.
This is a good hand for small limit players to read because this kind of stuff accounts for an increasing portion of your profit as you move up the limits.
i have nothing really to add. but i'd hate for john to lose a bet. so, here's another comment.
scott
scott,
that's good because i get 10% of his action - rick
6/12 holdem
i raise from 1 or 2 away from utg with QQ and get 1 caller young oriental male, button i think.
flop AK9 rain.
i bet he raises, i muck.
he asked me if i have queens again (ive shown down QQ two or three times in last 2 dealers), i say ja, he flashes JJ and we laugh. i think he made a bad play based on a kind of superstitious feeling (you know what i mean). what do you think?
brad
The answer is definitely not obvious. For example, here is a scenario : suppose you raise only with TT,JJ,QQ,KK,AA,QKs,JAs,AQ and AK. Suppose the player will not invest any more money than the flop raise. If you stay in the pot with any Ace and fold with any underpair, then If you call with QKs, the other player EV is -0.13. If you fold with QKs, the other player EV is 2.60.
Notice that if he knows you will check with AK, KK, AA as some bad players do, then the EV is now huge. To sum up, it is at worse a slightly negative play that might convey some useful table image.
I forgot to take the blinds into account THE EVs become EV1=2.4 EV2=5.7
Overall, I think he made a bad play, but he won with it so how bad could it really be. I have had similar experiences, and I have mucked as did yoy. I think when 2 overcards flop, the QQ in early position is quite vulnerable. If you have to fold the QQ, that is the time to to it against 1 player. I am not too experienced at HE, but it seams reasonable to me.
Ratso in a very wet, flooded and cold Atlantic City
You played correctly. When two big playable over cards flop after your lone opponent cold-calls your pre-flop raise, I think you should fold when your flop bet is raised. But you must never tell the enemy what you had! I would have lied and said I had pocket Tens.
Jim,
If you are going to lie get full value. Tell him you had pocket sevens ;-).
Regards,
Rick
But a good lie has to be credible. Now which is more credible, raising in early position with pocket Tens or pocket Sevens?
Jim,
In California, few would notice the difference ;-).
Rick
well, its not like i showed him my cards ( no way!). i just agreed with him. he probably didnt know it (although he might have) but thats what i always do. if someone asks what i had i tell them i dont remember, but if they say, did you have xx, then i say yes. ive found if you disagree they might not believe you, but if you agree, they just cant help but believe. of course sometimes theyre right, but, oh well.
is this bad?
brad
Heads up I would checkraise this flop, with QQ, JJ, or TT.
If reraised it is an easy fold, if called I then usually check fold. It is an attempt to get away from this hand reasonably cheaply, by representing one or 2 big pairs.
This also works with KK with ace flops. Weak opponents will surprise you by how often they will check the turn and river behind you, if you chose to check it down. Occasionally you give them a free shot at a gut shot or back door, but overall this play reduces fluctuations and is (for me, so far) profitable.
Vary things though, this is quite easy for others to pick up on.
Note also, as always, that with specific opponents, whom you know well, this may be quite wrong.
A9s
brad,
My only comment is not to give away this information for free (or give away false information if you feel you must say something). It will only encourage him to take more shots at you or play you more correctly in the future.
Regard,
Rick
Personally, I thought he made a nice play.
If you re-raise, he knows he's in trouble and can muck. If you call, he gets to see another card and can probably get a read that you at least don't have an A, so he can represent as such.
Mark
Was it germaine to the analysis of the hand to point out the opponents race?
yes, as some people think asian player means crazy asian player. this player wasnt a maniac, but this one play was a bit, well, umm...
... wait just a minute. germaine? how dair you!
brad
I'm in research mode this week, running sims and chasing answers. Can you help?
1. It's a fairly tight $20-40 game. Everybody folds to the button where I, Izmet Sheepnailer Fekali, open for a raise. You are in the sb and have an itch.
a. What do you flat call me with?
b. What do you pop me with?
c. What is your plan?
2. A hand after that one, same action, same questions.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
1. K9+
2. AT+
3. Probe bet and re-raise to determine how strong you are on the flop.
I play both about the same.
1. KQ or better 2. A9 or better
(Sometimes 89s or T9s if I think the players is weak
post flop or on a "Lazy" steal) 3. Hit a piece of the flop lead bet.
Miss the flop check.
Assuming I don't know your play...
a). very little. possibly suited connectors or big pair. Depends how the BB plays.
b). Almost anything I would play. Including big pair and possibly any pocket pair.
c). To run through you like poop through a goose. Occasionally backing off and playing passive.
2). I would tighten up some.
Call with any A, K, Q (maybe even a Jack) if I have a 5 or higher kicker.
Call with 2,2 up to 7,7
Call with any 2 suited and any conectors.
Raise with any pair >7,7, any type 1 or 2 hand.
Any improvement on the flop, I would check-raise.
Depending on the help, I would call or reraise with pair
The rest I would have to decide from the other player's actions and cards.
There's no hand I'd Call you with.
From your posts here I assume you are fairly agressive.
1 a Any two playable cards: any A,K; any pair; most suited 1 gappers; J-8,
b Any good hand
c Bet or check raise, depending whether I want you in or out.
2 Depends how the first hand went (if I played it). Probably pretty much the same.
SMALL BLIND DEFENSE: Depends on what I know about you and the BB, but assuming both of you are solid/aggressive: Raise with 66/AJs/KQs/AQo or better. Call with ATs/KJs/QJs/AJo or better.
BIG BLIND DEFENSE: Depends on whether or not the SB called or folded. Assuming he mucked: Raise with 66/AJs/AQo or better. Call with 22/A2s/K7s/Q9s/76s/86s and A8/KJ/T9 or better.
POST FLOP PLAN: If I raised preflop, I will usually bet on the flop. If I just called, I will usually check-raise, check-call, or check-fold.
I would reraise or fold, playing a minimum of 44, A3s, A9, K9s, KJ, Q9s, QJ, 76s, 97s. I'm sure the little suited connectors will raise some eyebrows; you can only get away with that if the big blind is properly (or overly) tight.
I didn't understand what you meant by one hand later.
-Abdul
By one hand later I meant the shift in position. You are in sb now and I'm opening on the button. What do you play now?
BTW, suited connectors do poorly reraising me on the button (which surprizes me to no end). I suspected I botched the sims, but they seem ok to me. I'm opening roughly per your openers and 87s reraising yields -EV. Maybe the reason is too loose BB (it's Connan with toughness flags on, adjusting to the number of opponnents), I'll check some more. If I open a bit looser, 87s jumps decidedly ahead (and 65s breaks just above even with no rake). It's a fine line, but it looks one can do this profitably (resteal with 87s) against too loose openers only.
It looks like I found a leak in my play (restealing against properly tight openers), I'm not sure yet. Can you verify this with a sim of your own, siddhi Jalib?
---
Izmet Fekali
Caterin the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Izmet,
You wrote: "By one hand later I meant the shift in position. You are in sb now and I'm opening on the button."
This was the original position. Do you mean we are on the button and you are opening for a raise in the cutoff? My guess is that you are interested in what to do when you raise in the small blind and we have the big blind. Or maybe thinking about those sheep has you delirious ;-).
Regards,
Rick
Damn, yes, I got it backwards. That's what I'm interested in, reraising a properly tight stealer 1. when he is in the cutoff and 2. when he is on the button. So the next hand is Izmet in the cutoff and a restealer on the button, yes.
Sorry for the confusion, it's like that in my head on constant basis. Please understand the struggle I have with ordinary life (lost interest in sheep, been looking at home appliances a lot lately, I'm could be in big trouble, dunno...).
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Izmet,
Watch out with the home appliances. The Straight Dope (Dan Hanson's favorite) has some interesting stuff about vacuum injuries to the male sexual organ. You may want to check out the link below.
Link to “Vacuum Cleaner Wounds to the P*n*s”
I'll try to answer the above holdem situations tonight but am just leaving right now.
Regards,
Rick
Turns out Abdul is right (again, duh!). According to my sims, middle suited connectors in the sb (!) can profitably reraise a properly tight open-steal coming from late position, but NOT when they have the button. The reason for this is that while in the small blind they have a little chunk of the pot already invested in there, while they have to throw in full three bets on the button to do it. However, against too loose headbangers (I see people trying to steal with T2s and such nonsense), 76s will do good restealing on the button even (as long as they can keep it headsup).
---
Izmet Fekali (No rake!)
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
. Izmet,
I wanted to answer this the other day but I went without a shower for a while so I now have an itch. I hope this makes my answers more precise.
I’ll assume the big blind is typical for 20/40 holdem.
a) I flat call you with AA and KK about half the time, AT suited or worse, KQs, QJs, KJs, QTs and KTs. I flat call with all suited middle connectors or one- gappers (JTs and J9s thru 76s and 75s) about half the time.
b) I reraise with AA and KK about half the time. I reraise with all pairs from QQ down to 66. My actions with 55 and 44 would depend on whether I thought I could get the big blind out more often than not. I fold 33 and 22. I reraise with all suited middle connectors or one-gappers JTs and J9s thru 76s and 75s about half the time. I reraise with all offsuit paints QJ and better. I also reraise with A8 or better.
c) I’ll assume I am heads up with my sheepnailer friend. My plan is to check raise about half my draws, and check call my monsters and my weak but not to vulnerable big hands (e.g., Ax when an ace flops). I’ll bet some monsters and draws along with middle pairs. I would be reluctant to fold all but the most hopeless plans.
I don’t know what you mean by next hand. Hope this helps.
Rick
It helps a lot, Rick. Thank you and the other posters, I do appreciate it. I'm checking the suggested hands with Turbo, see what comes out of it.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
I am relatively new to holdem and would like comments on my play of this hand.
I am on the button and dealt KK player in middle position raises, player next to him reraises, everyone between us folds and I reraise.
Flop is Q x x.
first raiser bets second calls and I raise.
Turn card is X first player bets and second calls as do I.
River card is an Ace, first player bets second folds and I call. I lose to 3 queens. in retrospect it seems to me that assuming everyone was playing pairs (2nd player, who folded said he had jacks) because if he had Aces I was beat Kings we were tied and queens I was beat.
The question is should I have made the last bet? Should I have known I was in trouble earlier?
As I said I am new to the game and interested in your feedback.
I think you should raise on the turn with your big over pair. Sets are hard to come by and many players will play AQ, KQ, or even QJ the same way. Players don't just raise pre-flop with pocket pairs but with AK, AQ, KQ suited, and some with even lesser holdings like KQ offsuit and QJ suited.
I think you played the hand fine. Capping before the flop is a good play. The only hand that has you beat is AA and the chances of this are pretty slim.
Flop is Q,x,x, and first player bets, you must raise like you did. You have an overpair, he is just as likely betting AQ or KQ as opposed to QQ. You don't say if he simply called your raise or if he re-raised you. He should have re-raised you and if he does then you should slow down and just call the rest of the way.
Turn is X and first palayer comes out betting. Again if he re-raised your flop raise I would simply call, if he did not I may consider raising but a call is not bad either because he is betting so strong.
River is an ace. First player bets and you call. Obviously this is not a good card for you and it hasn't slowed down the first player but you absolutely must call this bet even though you may be beat. The pot is too big at this point to give it up for one more bet.
You played the hand fine. You must remember that you will lose with hands like AA, KK, QQ, more time than you win with them so don't be to upset when you lose. The times you do win you will make more money than the times you lose.
thanks for your comments, it helps to no I didn't make a huge mistake even though I lost a big pot. And yes he did reraise.
6-12, semi-loose, pretty passive.
Preflop: 3 limpers, I call w/pocket 6s on the button. SB raises - he's tight, aggressive, solid for this level, anyway. BB folds, we see flop 5 handed.
Flop: QH 9H 6C. SB bets, one fold, two calls, I raise, SB re-raises, other 2 call, I call. Often I would cap here, but my thinking is that if SB has pocket Ks or As and I cap, he may not lead the turn, which is what I want. I put the other two players on flush or straight draws - they aren't going anywhere on the flop, and I want to apply max. pressure on the turn if a heart doesn't show. Also, if SB leads the turn, and I raise, and he re-raises, then I feel like I can slow down because his body language when the flop came down screamed, "Monster" (I'm worried about a set of Qs or possibly 9s, but could be just pocket Ks or As).
Turn: JS. SB checks, other 2 players check, I bet, SB raises, other 2 call, I call. I strongly considered re-raising, but at this point my gut tells me SB has me beat.
River: 2D. SB bets, other 2 fold, I call. SB shows pocket Qs, another player involved asks to see my hand. He says he had nut flush draw, other says he had J-10 for open-ended straight draw.
Talking about hand afterwards, SB tells me I should have re-raised after he check-raised me on the turn. He says he would have re-raised had our situations been reversed. He may have a point, but I felt like I was beat and that this wasn't the time to raise with the 2nd best hand since I only had 1 clean out. Opinions?
Also, I didn't say so but I feel he made a mistake going for the checkraise on the turn. I would likely have played a flush draw the same way on the flop, in which case I would have checked the turn and taken the free card. In addition, had he bet out on the turn, I would have given him the chance to make it 3 bets. Opinions?
Thanks, Caddy
Caddy, whenever you flop an underset you rate to lose a lot of money. I think you should cap it on the flop because you never know what the turn will bring and what the betting action will be. At this point you have to figure you have the best hand, you have a lot of opponents, you have a great re-draw if a flush card comes, and a scare card could come on the turn which stifles future betting. Note that when the turn card came, the small blind did not bet as you had planned so if you had the best hand you cost yourself an extra round of bets on the flop by not capping.
On the turn, when check-raised by the small blind after the Jack comes off I would also be worried about a bigger set and just call not re-raise. When a good player raises out of his blind after several players limp in, this usually denotes a premium hand like AA,KK,QQ,AK, and sometimes JJ and AQ suited. Now based on the subsequent betting action coupled with what is on the board, I like your play on just calling when check-raised on the expensive street.
Well played.
If the sb knows you would 2-bet and then 4-bet with a draw due to the odds and trying for a check-raise, then go ahead and 4-bet with your set. He'll probably lead the turn anyway.
You are correct he made a bad check-raise on the turn for the reasons you gave.
- Louie
If his body language suggests "monster" then believe it. In this case you probably would want to just call him down.
Louie and Jim,
Thanks for the outstanding analysis. You guys both make an excellent case for capping the flop.
Caddy
Hi,
A situation that I often find difficult to judge is playing heads-up after the flop. My main problem is figuring out when I am bluffed, when to bluff myself, and when to fold. Here are two similar hands, one of which I think I played terribly, the other I am not sure of.
First hand: tight-aggressive player limps(!) in from middle position. Since he had had no hesitations to raise and reraise stronger hands before, I was pretty sure he had a drawing hand. I had 88 in the seat next to him, and raised in order to eliminate the blinds and buy the button. Somewhat uncharacteristically, this actually worked. Anyone disagrees with this raise?
The flop came pretty good for me: 652 rainbow.
He checks, I bet, he calls.
The turn is an ace.
He bets. Now I figured this could be a bluff: the ace could be a scary card for me, and so presents a prefect situation for a bluff. I called. Should I have raised here? Should I fold?
Turn is a K. He bets again, and now there's no way I'm gonna fold, and call. I win the pot (he had JTs).
Second hand (the one I misplayed): everyone folds to the button (this player seemed on the loose side to me, but had won a few big pots) who raises. SB folds and I hold 87s in the BB. I called here. I immediately wasn't too happy about that call, which influenced my subsequent play (yep, one should never do that!). Should I fold or reraise?
Flop comes A84 rainbow, with one of my suit. Here, still unhappy with my play, I check. He bets, and I fold. I immediately start cursing myself, thinking that I should have bet out in the first place, and second that now I should have raised, or at least called and see the turn (and perhaps bet out then).
What do the experts think?
On the first hand your pre-flop raise is not a bad play but you need to realize that you have about half the table still to be heard from and you could get called in several spots or even 3 bet. Your pocket Eights would not play well in this situation. The rest of your plays are fine although hands headed by an Ace or a King are very common limping hands.
On the second hand, pre-flop of course you call the possible steal-raise by the button with Eight-Seven suited out of your big blind. You are getting 3.5:1 on your call to see three cards. I think you should bet the flop in this situation since the pre-flop raiser could have almost anything and you can represent an Ace. You might win the pot outright and you have outs if you are called or raised by a better hand. I think check-folding was wimpy poker.
Hand 1) Good raise BTF. I prefer raising on the turn. It just doesn't seem like your opponent has an Ace by the play of the hand. I would like to win the pot on the turn right then and there because you have a marginal hand and you don't know where you are.
Hand 2) Why play a speculative hand if you are basically giving up on the flop when you may have the best hand. Either lead on the flop or checkraise and play accordingly.
Bruce
Should one ever show down a successful bluff? Sometimes I find myself in very tight games, and don't get the calls I would in loose games. Though it's a lot easier to bluff in tight games, should one show it down on purpose to not only piss the other guy off, or for advertisement purposes?
Or should one just never show his cards, let alone tell the truth about one's card when another player asks?
Ok, what are your guys' reasons for showing a bluff, if ever?
Some people maintain that you should never show your cards. Generally, I don't like advice with the words "always" or "never" in them.
I think one issue here is how often you play with these particular opponents. If you play often enough they'll figure out your general bluffing rate---and when they do, you'll have to adjust. But if the table is full of new folks it may work to your advantage later to do a little advertising and let 'em that 8,3o.
No, I don't think you should usually show your bluffs. On a loose table, people will call you if they have anything at all: you don't have to encourage them. if you successfully bluff here, you probably succeeded in getting a smaller no pair hand to muck, if anything.
on a tight table, you should similarly not bluff unless the players are weak tight and generally not that good. usually, though, tighter tables are tougher tables. if you bluff at the correct frequency, the players will soon figure out what you are doing and start calling you down more. this is, of course, because they are thinking players and will adjust their games.
as a side note, I think showing your bluff can sometimes cut down your action on future hands. against some opponents, showing a bluff can be seen as an attempt to buy action on future hands. these suspicious characters will tend not to call later because they suspect that you've set them up.
"if you bluff at the correct frequency, the players will soon figure out what you are doing and start calling you down more"
If you bluff at the correct frequency it won't matter if the players call you or not. I suspect that you have confused concepts. You probably want to say something like "If you bluff in profitable spots where your opponents are not calling enough given the size of the pot they will eventually adjust to you and begin to call more."
Buttjingles,
In a tight game why show your successful bluffs? You will make money (assuming the states are big enough to overcome collection and drop) on your bluffs. So continue to rob the lay down artist’s blind.
In a loose game you shouldn’t be bluffing much. If you do and get caught, I would quietly muck. If someone asks to see the hand, fine. But showing your bluffs on purpose makes you look like an a-hole and gets your opponents to play you harder IMHO.
Regards,
Rick
Why on earth would you SHOW a bluff in a real tight game? In these games your bluffs are FAR MORE profitable than your rare good hands. Heck, if anything you should show your top-pair-top-kicker-two-pair-on-the-end hands for "advertising".
Real tight games are the easiest games to play and offer the best High EV-Low Varience combination by a long shot due to the regular opportunities to steal.
You need to be SURE about how you are manipulating the opponents before you can even THINK about showing a hand. Beginers who do this will be easy prey to the experienced players, even the bad ones, since they will understand what it really means.
What to do when they ask what you hand? I routinely tell them some unlikely split two-pair like "Tens and Fours". They know its not true but they waste energy trying to figure out what it means; and if they DO figure out what it means they are wrong since it doesn't mean anything.
OK, so if I ever DO make "Tens and Fours" I MAY be tempted to show them that.
- Louie
If I really MUST show a non-called hand I like to ricoche the cards off the dealers hand as she pushes me the pot, and let my hand be exposed "accidentally". If I time it right I can pick something off the floor and pretend not to notice that THEY all saw my hand. Yes, poker is a game if "skill".
Ditto Louie. My theory is show your next bluff never the one you just did (get it?). there will be a time when you have to show down and then your bluff will be exposed.
I am in total alignment with Mason Malmuth on this subject (as if THAT matters).
In Texas Hold'em you'll miss more flops than you hit. So it becomes paramount to your success as a hold'em player, to be able to win with some of your not so good hands as well. Why show your bluffs, ESPECIALLY in a tight game?
I say let others have that "loose and crazy" image. I much prefer the "it's possible he doesn't have that hand, but if he does this could get expensive" type image.
Kevin
hell I get enough bluffs exposed when they are called to even THINK of exposing them when they aren't. I never show a bluff unnecessarily
Foxwoods, 4-8 (and actually not minding the new lo-limit spreads). Good mix of retiree regulars and tourists.
Sitting four off the button, and a tight old retiree limps in seven off the button. I limp in with A5d, and the button and the big blind call (both these two are playing too many hands for much too long).
Flop comes K92, all diamonds. To my surprise, old guy bets out. He hasn't bet out without quality hands. I call (in tempo), and the two others call behind me.
Turn comes an offsuit T, and he leads again. This time, I raise. One caller behind me, another folds, and original bettor calls.
River is an offsuit 6, and it's a check to me. I bet out, and only the original bettor calls. His QTd loses to my A5.
I'm nearly positive that had I just called on the turn, the two behind me would've both stayed in, but uncertain how they'd react to a turn raise. Since I can really only lose if the board pairs, and someone's been playing a set, should I save the raise for the river? Or, did I get the most for my money here?
I think you got the most bang for your buck by pulling the trigger on the turn. If one guy folds because you raised you got more money because you collect extra bets from the other player plus the bettor. If there were only three of you seeing the turn then your raise might cost one bet from the third player but you gain an extra bet from the bettor who will usually call so the money is the same. The problem with not raising on the turn is that you never know what will show up at the river and you might lose your market.
Lets peak at the tight players cards, hehehe, as he bets the flop. He has the 2nd nuts. NOW how would you play the hand?
Had you raised the flop you would either have gotton 3 flop bets and 2 turn bets (if he 3-bets) or 2 flop bets and 3 turn bets (if he calls and check-raises the turn). You would not have lost that blind hand.
This is the problem with this sort of slow-play: it looks like a slow-play.
- Louie
The example on page 70 discusses raising without the best hand in order to masimize your chances of winning a big pot. This I understand, but the situation is as follows:
5 players put in 3 bets each BTF, you're in last position with QJs. Because the pot didn't get capped, S&M disregard the possibility of AA or KK being out.
The flop comes T 7 3 rainbow with one of your suit, and it's checked to the player on your right, who bets. Here S&M advise raising even if you're sure you're against a pair of tens. I'm not sure about this. I'd agree if you had KQ, but with QJs you have to wonder what hand would hit a pair of tens after seeing three bets before the flop. JTs would be my best guess, and if that's true you only have 3 outs. I'd fold here. Thoughts?
Niels:
I fully agree with your analysis. The hand is too weak to call in this situation with an apparrent chance of a checkraise behind you, after all, these people called three bets so they have something. But I also think that if you decide to play the hand you must raise to drive out other draws such as your own.
Frank Donnelly
I really don't think you can accurately draw any conclusions about AA or KK being out there because the pot wasn't capped BTF. Why cap BTF and give away your hand. A lot of players including myself don't cap for that very reason. I do sometimes but I always don't to vary my play. I don't want my opponents to know precisely what I have. Secondly on the flop I would either fold or reluctantly call trying to pick up a draw. I really don't think making a pair of Jacks or Queens no matter how agressively you play your hand is going to win the pot for you. If you raise and it is reraised now how do you like your play. There are examples where raising when you don't have the best hand are correct, but not here. If I had two to my suit on the flop I would raise esp. if I felt I might be up against AJ, AQ, or KQ.
Bruce
The point of my post wasn't to quibble about the chance of AA or KK being out there (and with 5 players, I think not capping with the AA or KK is a big mistake). And I think that if you know your opponent with the tens doesn't have JT or QT, raising is unquestionably the right play because that's the only way you're going to win with jacks or queens. (Remember this is a really big pot, which was the whole point of the passage.)
The only thing I'm asking is, isn't the chance of your opponent having JT big enough that you should fold your QJ?
First of all with 5 players how do you know your not up against pocket Tens thru Aces? I really didn't intend to open up a debate about whether you should cap or not with KK or AA. All I meant to say was not everyone does in that spot, and to conclude because the pot wasn't, that your not up against them is wrong. In this spot where 5 players have put in 3 bets I would be more concerned about an overpair, a set of Tens, and also JT. I would want to take a card off as cheaply as possible and on the turn I would hopefully pick up a straight or flush draw. I just don't think making a pair of Jacks or Queens is going to win the pot for me in most situations.
Bruce
call. not raise like S&M suggest, or fold, like niels suggests. you say call to try and find a draw on the turn (even when almost certainly up against a pair of T's or better) because the pot is large (7.5 big bets). and then if your J or Q hits on the turn, you fold?
Joe
Assuming you are in fact up against JT and NOT ATs, KTs, T9s, etc. which are the kind of hands many players get involved in big pots with.. Your runner-runner flush and straight potential figures to give you more than 3 outs.
So folding is not necessarily automatic, which I think is the point of this passage from the book. If you're not going to fold it becomes imperative get out hands like AQ, AJ, KQ, and higher runner-runner draws than yours to increase your chances of winning this thing, even if it costs you a few more bets... (you may even get out hands behind you that have you beat, such as JT, T9, and 2nd or 3rd pairs).
This is only my interpretation, so I could be wrong.
Kevin
There are, IMHO, several problems with the section. Note that the section says that you put in the last raise. How often are you going to make it 3 bets with Q-Js? I agree with you that the early position players may well have just called your pre-flop 3 bet with an overpair, so you cannot be "sure that no one has aces or kinds since you put in the last raise."
And since you did put in that last raise, the early position players are probably going to check to you no matter what they have, so you may indeed be in peril. And I think you are correct in saying your opponent may well have J-Ts (or Q-Ts).
On page 71 the authors say that the back-door flush and straight chances make it wrong to fold. And if you don't fold, it is better to raise. I agree that if you don't fold it is better to raise. But I think that this is one case where the backdoor potential doesn't justify playing. I too prefer the fold to the raise.
I'm in late middle position with KhKs. UTG calls, early middle calls, I raise. I'm called by the BB and both limpers.
Flop is Th Jh 3s. BB bets, limpers call, I raise, BB 3-bets, limpers call, I call.
Turn is the 3d, pairing the board. UTG bets and the limpers call. I raised. Do you agree? Everyone calls.
River is the 9c. It's checked to me and I check.
I'd like your comments, mostly on my turn and river play. In retrospect, I think I should have either called the turn and raised the river if no heart fell, or just called on both.
Niels:
I think you played the hand very well. I would have capped the flop because you most likely have the best hand. If you are beaten on the flop it is most likely by two pair, jacks and tens, for which you have a strong chance to out draw that hand. Your raise on the turn was appropriate to define your hand. If you are reraise you muck. Since you are not reraised you have the best hand. This strategy costs two big bets, the same as the turn call, river call strategy but allows you to make even more money on the river if a card you like hits. The extra equity to this move is that it puts maximum pressure on the two drawing hands who are more likely to call two turn bets than a turn and a river bet should you win the hand. Your check on the river is appropriate since there are at least two drawing hands on board and it is likely a made strait would go for a checkraise.
Frank Donnelly
I thinks it is always a good idea to have clean underpants
Frank,
I agreed with the first part of your response. Then you wrote: ”Your raise on the turn was appropriate to define your hand. If you are reraise you muck.”
You can’t muck (even if you think you are up against a full or a three) because the pot has become so big it is worth drawing to two outs. There are 10 big bets in the pot after the flop betting (I’ll drop the small blind for rake or tip). If the turn action is BB bets, call, call, Niels raises, BB reraises, and even one limper calls the extra two bets, you are getting 19 to 1 to take one off. If both limpers call you are getting 21 to 1. Now figure that you will get at least two big bets on the river (more if someone is full), so it is well worth it to call on your 22 to 1 shot.
You also wrote: “Your check on the river is appropriate since there are at least two drawing hands on board and it is likely a made strait would go for a checkraise.”
I think a made straight would probably bet out since his checkraise could cost him three if Niels is full or cost him all value if Niels checks behind.
Regards,
Rick
Rick:
I disagree. I still muck the turn if I get reraised even at 21-1 odds. If UTG reraises he likely has a three, or most likely quad threes. If small blind reraises he made a full boat of at least jacks or tens full. My only outs are a king, maybe(quad threes). The board is textured such that the drawing hands could have a king. I need 50-1 to draw to the kings fullhouse.
Frank Donnelly
Frank,
I'm not overly concerned about the quad 3's but it is certainly possible. Your comment a king could be already gone in a drawing hand makes sense. Let me rethink this one a bit.
Regards,
Rick
I like your raise on the turn. I would have bet the river though. You didnt say what the style of play was of your opponents...but I would have put the BB on 10/J.
Well played although I probably would have bet the river. Notice that if someone made a straight, they are way more likely to either bet or check-call rather than checkraise. I mean, if I made a straight there, I wouldn't go for the checkraise in case you had JJ or TT which you easily could have given the way you played the flop and turn.
I think you played the hand fairly well. I definitely do not think you should have called the turn and raised the river. You should raise on the turn and make the drawing hands pay the maiximum amount for their draw. If you raise the river you will only be called by someone who has made their draw, if they missed they will simply fold and you wouldn't pick up anything from them.
The check on the river is not a bad play, I probably would have done the same. It depends on what you think of the BB, whether he would 3 bet an open ender or not. Most players would not, especially in poor position, but of course we have all played against players that will even cap with an open ender. The BB likely had T-J and would have called your river bet but you never know.
I think the key here is you recognized that pairing the 3 was GOOD for your hand.
Niels,
Always wear clean underwear! Didn’t your mother tell you that? I would rather be dead then have some ER nurse see skid marks on me. Anyway, I’ll post my ideas independently before reading what the brighter light bulbs have to say about this matter ;-).
On the flop I would have capped it since it shows more strength than you really have, it costs only one more bet (and may save you bets later), you have outs if beat, and will indicate that you need to improve if you are led at again on the turn. But a lot depends on the style of the big blind.
When the turn pairs the board small, it should be good for you as now you can beat JT. But you said UTG bets. From the way you wrote your post, I’m guessing that you meant BB bet. Since limpers are probably on a draw and called, I would raise again. If three bet by a sane big blind, you would know you probably have to improve to win. You would have to take one off then.
Since your raise slowed down the big blind and it has been checked to you, it is close between betting for value and checking it down. I wouldn’t worry about the limpers having you beat. The real issue is does the big blind have a three. My guess is no if he is semi-solid. I bet the river for value and would expect to be called by a JT in the blind.
Regards,
Rick
Niels,
I am curious to know what the limit was and how the game was playing, but I probably would have done a couple of things different.
Given that I am putting the BB on AJ or J10, I would have probably capped the flop to see if I am led into on the turn or if BB check raises me again. If the A hits, I can hopefully check for the free card if I believe BB actually has AJ and may be going for the check raise again on the turn. I think capping the flop might help define the hand a little more as well as punish the draws even more so.
I would have probably also put a value bet in on the river if checked to - I just cannot imagine that I am beat here and with the size of the post, I expect to get paid off by AJ or J10.
Just some thoughts.
Michael D (soccer/sucker Mike D)
Strangly played hand. I'd raise the turn and bet the river most of the time - I don't like the 9 might just show it down depending on if I think someone hit straight. The 3's help you with 2 pair but the bb might be holding one. I'd give you a 50% chance of winning this one.
Since Rick suggested that I make this a lead post I will try it. In repsonse to his post about small pots I said I think picking up these pots is crucial to getting to the 1BB/hr stage. I have been getting much better at it and I call the principle involved 7-of-9 (yes, in honor of the Borg, who adapt quickly), which simply means being in the n-2 position as the clearest steal opportunity. If 5 people check the flop and the 1st two check when a blank falls on the turn (not a big card) then 3rd position (5-2) should be able to steal the pot with a bet. The 1st two positions have had 2 opportunities to bet and have failed to do so. The last 2 players would normally bet 1st or second pair on the flop if they had it to try to knock people out. If the flop were KT6r, for example, and the turn is an offsuit 3, then anyone else with a king OR a ten would have bet by now, so nobody has anything. Also, you are the last position that could have a pair of tens and not have bet the flop. If you bet and get called by a six or straight draw that hits? Someone could still be sandbagging a set. That's why its not 100%. But I think it is at least 60%, and more like 75%, that the pot will be yours.
I hadn't read your response below before replying to Rick's post.
Anyway, very good observation.
And of course if you think someone is doing this, then it might behoove you to raise them with something like Ace high or bottom pair if you are in last position.
I posted a few months ago where I did exactly what you suggest. I was reasonably sure that the guy to my left was bluffing because he did it often. I was the BB, he was UTG and 3rd of 5. I was going to muck because the pot was unraised pre-flop and I had real junk, but I recognized the situation and check-raised, winning the pot right there. That was fun.
I'm confused. You seem to be putting too much thought into this. I suggest something like the "First Chip Principle", as in when the flop checks through, whoever puts the first chip in gets it.
If there were 5 people seeing the flop then you are getting 2.5:1 for a turn steal attempt meaning you need to succeed as a pure bluff only 29% of the time to break even; less if semi-bluffing and may win when called.
If you are waiting to win 60% of the time then you are not stealing NEARLY often enough.
A more reasonable steal would be if there were 2 reasonably aggressive players who just called before the flop which was A high, and you lead steal from the BB.
- Louie
Louie, I probably don't wait often enough to try to steal, but I just think this one is particularly effective.
KingCR,
After suggesting this you would think I would be polite enough to put in my two cents earlier. I didn’t get the “7 of 9” part since I haven’t kept up with Star Trek lately. And this N-2 stuff has too much math in it for me ;-).
I think you have hit on the fact that leading into two remaining opponents is about optimum for bluffing. One opponent generally suspects a bluff and will likely keep you honest and three or more will often have a hand (collectively). The early position checkers might be trapping but the extra money they put in more than makes up for it.
The key is that since you are talking about a turn bluff, the texture of the board and the nature of the turn card are essential. I think you can afford to bluff with a two flush on board (and you don’t have it) as long as the turn card is otherwise a complete blank.
Another good turn card is when the board pairs the middle or bottom pair. The players behind you would be likely to bet on the previous round but they can’t be sure you would. Like Louie, I also like an ace on the flop when betting out of the blinds into a couple of sane but not tough opponents who did not raise before the flop.
I’d try to think up more good ones but my medication is kicking in. Good night!
Regards,
Rick
3-6 Hold-em. Bay 101.
I am in the SB with AcKs. New player(NP) UTG opens for a raise. All pass to a fairly solid player(SP) who 3-bets. I put SP on large overpairs. All pass to me and I just call. BB mucks and UTG calls.
Flop is KhJd8d. I check, UTG checks, and SP bets. I check-raise, UTG cold calls, and SP just calls. Turn is As. I bet, UTG goes all-in, and SP raises. I call. River is 4d. I check and SP bets. I call.
What are the odds that I held the best hand? And did I miss a re-raise on the turn? I have a hard time doing mental calculations in real life, much less during the middle of the hand.
I can post the results later, but I think whether I won the hand or not is irrelevant. I would really like to know if I missed any bets.
All comments appreciated.
I KNOW I'm in the minority on this, but I don't take a flop from the sb in the situation you described. But if I did...
I don't like the diamonds here. Take away the diamonds and I probably make it 3 bets. It's highly unlikely sp has QT and I'm always a little slow to put someone on a set. But given the 2 diamonds out, I slow down here. The last thing I'd want, is to have him to cap the turn and show me the Ad Kd.
You're position makes it a little hard to play this hand and there are arguments for folding preflop, but I personally would make this call at least some of the time.
I think you definitely could've re-raised the turn. SP only thinks that you have a K - he's trying to represent having an Ace, and there's no reason to believe he has any better than that - the odds of AA or KK here are very low and QT is more likely, but that's all pretty irrelevant. His flop play isn't very indicative of AA or KK and his preflop play doesn't work with QT.
If he just calls your re-raise on the turn, you can still bet out on the river even though the flush comes, because its not likely he's on that draw either.
~DjTj
Lets pretend I'm the SP: the tight-wad in the SB called 2.5 bets cold and is SURE to have some sort of premium hand. I hate it when that happens. When he check-raises KJ8 it sure looks like either AA, AK or JJ: KQs would have been a pretty bad call before the flop, at least when I, the Solid Player, 3-bet an UTG 2-better. So when the turn is an Ace and he bets, what's he got? ... hey, this isn't rocket science.
OK, back to you. So the central issue here is what sorts of hands SP thinks YOU may call before the flop. If he's not really thinking or is really aggressive then there is a case for 3-betting the turn. If he IS and you are selective then you are in some dodo and you played it just fine.
- Louie
BTW, no shame in folding AK against a real tight 3-better.
Thanks Louie. Next time try not to use so much sarcasm, it really takes the bite out of the condescending tone. (Ha! Ha! just kidding).
I really appreciate your comments, as well as everyone elses'.
You were right on the money. SP had AA and turns out UTG was a moron for calling all those bets with KQs.
If you think THIS response is "sarcastic and condescending" then you haven't read many of my posts. (I recal one particularly interesting response I made to someone claiming to consistently be able to manipulate his luck by cleverly changing seats...)
Really, all I was trying to do was show that play of THIS hand depends critically on what the opponent thinks you have. To do that I decided to look at it from the opponents perspective. Perhaps that wasn't a good choice, but HEY!, there's more than one way to skin a cat. :)
- Louie
I am in late position with QJd. The seat before me calls, I call, the new player after me checks, the button calls, the small blind calls, and the big blind raises. Now, I didn't realize it at the time, but he was a new player also. I think I was confusing him with the tight player who used to be sitting in his seat, so I had him pretty strongly on a big pocket pair. Everyone calls and the flop comes
Ts5d9s
giving me an outside straight draw and a backdoor flush. Big blind bets and the player before me folds. I think about semibluff raising, but I'm pretty sure I will get re-raised, so I just call. The button calls and the small blind calls. The turn comes
6d
giving me a four-flush with my outside straight draw. Big blind bets again and I call again - do the additional outs here make it better to raise here, even if I'm pretty sure I'll get re-raised? Should I cap it if he re-raises? Button and small blind also call. The river is
Td
making my flush, but pairing the board. Big blind checks now so I bet out. Button raises, but I'm not too worried because I'm pretty sure he has trips. Small blind folds, and Big blind re-raises. This river check-raise makes me afraid of a full house, so I just call - so does the Button.
Looking back on the hand, it seems like I played it really weak tight, but because of Big Blind's over-aggressive play, I don't think I really lost any money. My flush stood up against the Button's trips and Big Blind's pocket Aces.
~DjTj
I hate it when someone new is in a seat and I don't notice it for a while. Must be time to go home; at least for me.
As to semi-bluffing: if you know you don't have the better hand AND you know the better hand won't fold, you cannot "semi-bluff". However, there are certainly times where you should raise for value, so long as you will actually win the pot more often than the number of callers (such as when you have a big flush draw vrs 4 players) but I digress...
You forgot to mention that you have a 2-OVERCARD straight draw. You are the FAVORITE heads-up against AT since you have 6 additional outs to make a pair. This is a mindless raise against an aggressive pre-flop raiser since its obvious you have a better hand than his big no-pair AND he may fold on the turn when you bet. Only "just" call if its extremely likely he has a big pair.
If there were no pre-flop raise I would often to cap it on the flop.
On the turn you pick up 7 additional outs making a total of 21, but your 6 pair outs are starting to look pretty shakey. Raise if there is a reasonable chance (20%?) you can win the pot now or with a river bluff. It doesn't look like it in your situation so call and hope others call behind you.
You are supposed to just call with a draw when the better is on your right and potential callers on your left.
"Weak Tight" refers to players who only assert themselves when they CLEARLY have the advantage. It CERTAINLY does not apply to players just because they call.
- Louie
I was playing 5-10 online and held AsJs in early middle position. All fold to me I opened with a raise and was joined for two bets by 5 others.
12 small bets in.
Flop is Ks Td 8h. I check. Player to my left bets and we all call.
18 small bets in.
Turn is 7s. I check Player to my left bets, sb calls as do I.
12 big bets in.
River is the 9h. I bet, player to my left calls sb folds.
When my hand is shown, player to my left takes 10 seconds and shows me KhTs. And then he bitterly complains how he keeps getting beat by people who have no right calling a flop bet much less staying to catch on the river.
It just goes to show that players who are ignorant of things like pot odds and implied odds might think my hanging around was chasing. Perhaps much of the complaining we here about the suckouts on the lower levels are not really suckouts just people playing the odds, properly.
Should have raised the turn and really made him mad. After all you had 15 outs to his 2 pair (any spade, any queen, any 9).
Player on your left is lucky you did not raise on the turn. The 7s was a nice card for you, giving you a double belly-buster straight draw and the nut flush draw. He was frustrated because he flopped top two pair and you caught runner-runner.
The biggest mistake was made by the player on your left calling your raise pre-flop with K-T.
Yes, most suck-outs are justifiable. Unjustified ones are called "bad beats". Most reported "bad beats" are really just suck-outs that made hero feel bad; such as your example.
What do you expect from a guy who cold-calls the tight-wad's raise with KT?
- Louie
Yeah that always cracks me up when a guy who shouln't have called in the first place gets drawn out on. I did it to someone recently online and you could practically hear the screaming.
In similar manner: I got 8 bets in heads-up before the flop; flop was rags, got 6 bets in ON the flop; turn was a King; check-check; river was an Ace and got 5 more bets in.
The guy with pocket Kings hit the roof because I sucked out on him so badly. Go figure.
- Louie
PS. I uncharacteristically laughed outloud. Go figure.
The same posters here that jusify sucking out that claim they had reasons to be in any pot; pot odds or no pot odds. The analysis is poor in general. The top two usually is a made hand, and doesn't need to suck out. Holdem is a crap soot, showdown game at most limits. The theory of HPFAP doesn't hold often enough to make the strategy scientifically sound. It seems as one moves up in limits, then the number of people that suck out should fall. In practice, I don't think it works that way. People at higher limits just have more money to blow. Blackjack is probably a better bet for most players.
The real question is, why would the player to your left call a raise with KT offsuit? That is stupid and this guy must lose on a regular basis.
-SmoothB-
It was low limit online. What other explanantion could there be?
Here's a real suckout... player with maniacal tendencies to my right raises preflop and I call with AQo, one caller behind me.
Flop comes AQT two suited. Maniac bets, I raise, call, raise, call, call.
Turn a rag. Maniac checks, I bet, fold, call. River a 2, board shows no flush. Manic bets, I check. He turns over 22!
Another time, I call with AQ. Manic (different maniac) raises. I call.
Flop comes AT8. I check, maniac bets, I raise, maniac re-raises, I call.
Turn comes AT87. I check, maniac checks. River comes a 6. I check, maniac bets, I call. Maniac turns over 94offsuit.
I am aware that betting rounds are capped at three or four bets to minimise cheating between players that might try to trap people in between infiniate raises. My question is; is it still possible (and if, probable) that people would still do it with only three or four maximum bets?
Possible, probable, and actual.
Great, now tell me how to do it!!!
I mean properly, without getting caught.
That's a secret.
You have to start with a friend and you sit at opposite ends of a table. When one of you has AA or KK you give the other a sign like, I don't know, maybe a tarzan yell like Carol Burnett used to do. then the guy with AA or KK bets and you hope to get some one between you so they never have to call two raises and the the other one raises and back and forth on every street. It's easy.
Oh, by the way be sure to wear knee pads like football players wear to protect your legs from baseball bats and other such objects.
Thanx. I really don't plan on cheating, but I do want to be sure that I know when I'm being cheated. Any thoughts?
the reason raising is capped is because the house doesnt want to let players go broke on one hand. also they dont want to have to explain that the player wasnt cheated because of alot of raising. years ago lowball in cal. there was no raise limit and of course there were some instances of putting someone in the middle. but the down side was that a bad player might get broke in one hand. cal. paid time charges so they didnt care as much as nevada which mostly raked the pots and the house made more (all) by keeping the game going longer. cheats make more by the hands they dont play than by jamming one player. most times when someone thinks that they are being cheated because of a raising war they just are not aware of the situation between the raisers.
I'm two off the button with KJs. 5 limpers to me, I call and two players behind call. Mainly tight passive players. Flop comes Q73 rainbow, is checked to me, guy beside me is going to bet, so I do it for him. Everyone calls. Turn card is As, now two spades on board(not my suit). Checked all the way around and river comes 10s, first to act bets all fold too me and I call, two players behind call. Player UTG won with a flush.
My question is should I have gone in the hand, was my bet on the flop good, my check on the turn, and my call on the river? I know KJ is not that great of a hand, but how about when it is suited and in situations like this?
All posts appreciated, thanks
Pre-flop your limp was fine. But when the flop comes your bet was horrid. The flop has missed you completely and all you have are some remote runner-runner possibilities which do not justify staying after the flop. You should check and fold if the flop gets bet. At the river, of course you call having made a straight and you simply pay out to the flush. But your error was getting involved after the flop.
Thanks, I was pretty sure that I had made the wrong move. Just wanted to clarify.
I would have folded on the flop. Simply because even if you hit your K you still might not be good. QK is a definite possibility especially in a game with tight passive players. Given that you had already called the flop I would have definitly checked the turn with 3 other players in the hand. Your dream card hit on the river but it was the wrong suit, your best card was your worst and your call was warrented but you can be pretty sure someone has a flush, especially since UTG bet out first.
Remoh,
I am not sure what limit you are playing here and that would have an effect on my decisions, but I guess I would offer the following thoughts.
With 5 limpers and you being 2 off the button, I would consider raising pre-flop. This may buy you the button and it also provides some variance in play without putting a bankroll in too much jeopardy. Hopefully you get position and then take it from there.
Given the way you played the hand by betting the flop, I am not really sure what you were hoping for other than the runner-runner straight you got. If a K hits, you may be beat by 2 pair as KQ is an extremely likely hand so I am not confident a K is an out. The free turn card was nice but unfortunately it trapped you. You were stuck paying off on the river.
With 5 limpers, 2 blinds, and yourself (9 players unless I am misreading this)seeing the flop, this is most likely a protected pot so stealing is not really an option. It is also pretty likely someone has a Q. Given your hand and this scenario, I simply would have checked and folded the flop.
Just some thoughts.
Michael D (Soccer/Sucker Mike)
Remoh,
I concur with what the other posters have written but one thing stands out that they seem to have missed.
You wrote: “Flop comes Q73 rainbow, is checked to me, guy beside me is going to bet, so I do it for him.”
When someone on your left is going to bet for you, you should almost always let him. The only exception would be if you were on a pure steal or semi-bluff, which would never happen with what appears to be nine opponents.
Regards,
Rick
4 8 holdem, fun loose game.
ive got AA on 2 from button and raise. button and BB calls.
flop Kxx (like K96 rainbow) check i bet call call.
turn K. checked to me and button is weak player i dont read for a king so i bet. button calls , BB raises and i muck.
now BB is a good(for 4/8, ie, weak/tight) player and after he raised i knew he had a king, but how stupid was it to bet the turn even though i was almost sure button had nothing (maybe TT or JJ) ? i was way too quick to put BB on something like pair runner runner 98, just something to take one off with.
i know that checking the turn was the right play, but i think i was lulled because it was such a weak table, and people were paying off the whole way with incredibly weak hands.
of course button called him down, BB showed Kx for winner(3 kings only).
of course the river was an A.
brad
Betting the turn when the top card pairs given your over pair is good poker when it is checked to you. You should assume your hand is good and not give out free cards on the expensive street. Now when you get check-raised, it depends upon your opponent, but in general you can assume you are playing two outs and should therefore fold. You played the hand correctly.
20 40 holdem, 5 handed short game.
im in the big blind and have crap like 9T.
button raises, fold , i call.
flop 885. i know my opponent well and am ready to spring a trap in the greatest display of guts and stamina in the history of the ring...
i check and call. turn is the perfect total blank, 2.
board 8d8c5d 2s. i check and ... raise!!
i guarantee no way he can call. no way.
he three bets!!! i sit there and curse the fate which has brought me to this end. ha ha.
the funny thing is he was actually a little worried (he was going for compassionate but i saw through that) and said , throw away your 6d7d or whatever you have, and flashed (no not flashed, he made darn well i saw it) 88.
adrian!
brad
You are investing too much money for too little reward unless you know your opponent very well and can assume he will fold a high percentage of the time when you check-raise him on the turn. You need to have some outs in these situations and pure bluffs in a limit game like this are not a good idea.
yes i know, id never played even somewhat similiarly to this before (nor after) , but against this player at this time it was a lock that he would fold without an 8 in his hand. it was like a unique moment in history when all the conditions were right for a decisive blow.(a lot of history and short term history between the two of us here if you know what i mean). if you take that on faith then this hand is really tragi-comic. not much analysis for this hand, it just goes to show the luck factor in the game.
brad
it is a thin line between bravity and stupidity...
Bravity? Is that like depravity?
I kinda disagree.
Jim is right that you have to know your opponent, but if you've been playing 5-handed for an hour or more, you should know him well enough by now. In a short-handed game, I think you need to make some plays like this occasionally. You should not have the goods every time you check-raise the turn, nor do you have to have 9 or more outs.
I'd love to hear from Zee on this.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Short handed play is much more of an art. It just plays differently than a ring game. Making a move or putting a play on an opponent is a necessary skill which all good short handed players acquire. Often these moves reflect more of what you think your opponent doesn't have rather than what you have. So checkraising on the turn with nothing or playing a hand deceptively in a similar situation against the right player becomes an important arsenal in your play and is perfectly correct.
Bruce
Nice of the guy to softplay you with quad's. Be thankful he didn't go for the jugular and smooth-call you on the turn and drag another big bet out of you on the river.
I know that shorthanded you have to defend your blinds with more frequency than in a full game, or else they will literally steal you 'blind'. Nice try, bad timing.
Had the pleasure of a California wild game recently - this game at 20-40 was wilder than some 3-6 games.
Typically at least 3 bets preflop and often 2-3 bets on the flop. At least two players who will call down to the river with anypair and occaisonally with Ace high - and apply pressure with little. Got into a discussion with a local pro on preflop strategy in these games. Her take, must loosen up and play some marginal hands. HEFAP recommendation wait for ultra premium hands (atleast JJ, AJs or better).
The problem as I see it is that the swings will be wild anyway. With the few times you have AA the callers to rivers may make two pair or a set if you are a bit unlucky and the drawing hands J-10s are not offering enough by the way of implied odds, as I have to pony up 3 bets to see the flop!
I came out even after winning a giant pot by calling three bets cold on the flop (and was mathematically correct to do so - without counting implied odds!!) with an inside straight draw on a hand I would normally never even touch.
Any thoughts from others who play these games. There are fortunately plenty of loose passive games in CA.
Fasten your seatbelts and hang on tightly. The variance in these type of games is going to be very high. If you can't handle variance find another game. In these type of games certain hands go up in value and certain hands go down in value. Playing like your opponents and playing marginal hands is a poor strategy. Big pocket pairs and big suited cards are strong hands. Big unsuited cards go down in value and in certain situations probably shouldn't even be played. Smaller pocket pairs and suited connectors and suited one gap connectors go up in value with large multiway pots. I think it is a mistake to start playing hands like 78o and J9o because you see everyone else play these type of hands.
Bruce
Hello.
This is a hand that occured a while back that I'm not sure if I played correctly, the game is 1-10 spread limit 1 and 2 blinds. The game is fairly loose/agressive (thou not at a maniac level), with lots of preflop limping. This is a regular home game and i know the opposition fairly well. I have a fairly agressive table image (maybe even a bit overagressive.)
I'm in the BB and pick up KhKc.
Player in the #2 seat limps.
Player in #4 seat also limp.
It's folded to me and I make a medium size raise of 4. Both players call.
Flop:
9h 4s 2s
I bet out a medium bet of 4.
Player #2 raises me 6.
Player #4 raises another 10.
Now, I start thinking, The player in the #2 seat would raise me with any piece of the flop and he doesn't have to put me on a big hand since I frequently bet out with overcards and draws, and the player in the #4 seat could be raising any overpair or a set and that's my big fear at this point. I decide to raise another 10.
Player #2 calls both raises.
Player #4 raises 10.
Now I'm pretty sure I'm beat by the #4 player so I fold figuring that 2 outs aren't enough to draw.
Anyway, #2 had some shit like 9s 7s for toppair and flush draw, and #4 had AA, so I feel pretty good about my fold.
But I'm not sure that i played it well anyway, maybee i should have raised more both preflop and on the flop. A 10 raise preflop with the hope of winning it right there might have been better, but it's only 7 in the pot at that point.
A lead bet of 10 might have been better and fold to a reraise?
Any comments appreciated.
- Andreas
With that flop, the AA wasn't going anywhere. A case can be made for folding once #4 reraised on the flop. After your raise, he should have backed off and just called. By reraising he let you off lightly.
15-30 hand at the Taj...
I am on the button with Ah,9h I call behind 3limpers and both blinds call.
Flop 6h,9s,10c
sb checks, bb checks, semi-maniac (my read til this hand)bets, folded to me I raise thinking that my 9 is probably good and that even if it is not I still have outs. Both blinds fold and the maniac three bets. I call but assume I need to catch up on the turn to continue with the hand.
Turn 5h
Maniac bets and I call.
River 7h
Maniac bets... I raise with the big flush. Maniac 3 bets and I look at the board see the potential str8 flush and just call.
Anyway how many bets would you have gone with this hand on the end?
I'll post results of this hand later.
Sean
what would the maniac have three bet you with on the flop? 78 for a straight, top two, set, A10, over pair...not much else. would the maniac have three bet a 89h, 84h, or 34h? I don't think even a maniac would do this. I would have to face a couple more raises in this hand before I thought about slowing down. maniac probably had a straight (if he is a maniac, or an overpair. he probably had a hard time putting you on a backdoor flush. Also, a flush with the 10h is possible. however, i don't think the straight flush is very likely.
I would raise at least once, probably twice more. You're dealing with a maniac after all. He doesn't put you on a flush. His hand is probably something like QhJh, and he puts you on a straight. Since the only ways he can make a straight flush are with 3h4h and 4h8h, it seems very unlikely he has either of those holdings. Of course you never know. But if you look at the betting history of the hand, his holdings could very well be something like Jh8h or QhJh I figure. You should have re-raised at least once, and if he comes over the top once more I'd be tempted to re-raise again. Maniacs don't read other people's hands much, just their own. Of course if he keeps on raising at some point you have to stop since his holdings could be anything including the straight flush hands.
Your hand was definitely worth several more raises, mostly due to the fact that you were holding the 9h. This means your opponent would have to have been 3-betting the flop with either 34h, which I think is extremely unlikely, or the 84h which I also think is unlikely (unless he was a true maniac).
Sean,
With second pair and the nut flush draw I raise against the semi-maniac on the turn. The pot is big and you want him to lay down overcards or at least slow down with a weak pair (which even a maniac might do). If he three bets you call and probably call the river unless you improve (then you raise).
On the river you improve to an ace high flush and raise and now face a three bet. The hand to be concerted about is a 9h 8h. I would call it possible but not very likely. The 8h 5h also makes a straight flush but a mere semi-maniac wouldn’t be in there with it. Note that you showed weakness on the turn and your flush came runner-runner. He could be three betting with a set or straight. I would put in at least one more raise and maybe two depending on how big a maniac he was.
Regards,
Rick
Rick you didn't notice that our hero holds the 9h. Bet for ever on the end you have the nuts.
Your right. The only straight flush possible is the 3h 4h or the 4h 8h. I made a mistake on my notes. Both hands are so unlikely (based on the action from a semi-maniac) that I think I would put in at least six or seven raises. A semi-maniac might but that much in on a straight (when the flush comes runner runner) or the second nut flush (e.g., Kh 8h).
Regards,
Rick
Howdy Rick,
I disagree with raising on the turn. The semi-maniac is unlikely to be holding two overcards. He may have AT, but two pair or a set seem more likely; he could also have flopped a straight. He will not fold any of these hands to a raise, but he may reraise.
I would consider reraising on the flop (assuming 4-bets is the cap); this might buy a free river card or help define SM's hand.
MJS
You missed a few bets on the end. Against a maniac you have to be prepared to give extra action. Maniacs play differently than sane rational players. A rational player sees the possibitly of a flush and after a few bets when he doesn't have the Ace high flush he stops raising. The maniac after 6 or 7 raises may finally come to the same conclusion. Maniacs do get real hands, but that's the breaks of the game, and when they do they are well rewarded. With a big hand against a maniac even if it's not the nuts you need to be more willing to gamble and give extra action.
Bruce
There is no way he has a straight flush with you holding the nine of hearts and him three betting the flop. You need only follow his hand back to know as close as he could get to the st flush would be 10h 8h and play that way. not even a mainiac three bets 3h 4h on that flop. This is an excellent opprtunity for you to review your hand reading skills.
you need to pop him again.
I PUT HIM AT J,10 hearts or 10,9 suited or a set of "sixes". I HOPED HE HAD J,10 HEARTS AND BACKDOORED INTO YOUR monster... I personally don't care for maniacs.
I WOULD haved "5" bet it and make a crying if he raised back
You have to raise at least one more time. I think his most likely hand is Jh-8h. He might also have 8-7, but I don't think it's likely he would have 3-bet with the cards he needed for a straight flush, namely 8h-4h or 4h-3h. Even so, I probably would just call if he 5-bets it; as unlikely as it is that he has the straight flush, I don't like raising again when I've been raised twice and don't have the stone nuts.
Sean,
I would definitely consider raising the turn here. Unless he has flopped the straight - which I find somwhat hard to believe because I am inclined to think he would probably go for the check raise on the turn instead of 3 betting the flop - I would put him on one of three hands: 2 pair, open ended straight with a possible redraw, or maybe a set. I would raise on the turn with the nut heart redraw also hoping any A is an out. When the heart hits the river, he is going to be hard pressed given my play to put me on hearts and I raise at least 3 times before I slow down. If he has the straight flush he will get paid quite a lot from me. All in all I think you definitely should have raised the river at least 2 more times.
Just some thoughts.
Michael D (Soccer/Sucker Mike)
trips 6
I realize that what truly matters in the long run is net profit and hourly win rate. Let's say you play in 500 sessions over the course of two years. Should a expert player expect to wind up on the plus side 60% of the time? 70% of the time? Or is more a matter of 220 plus results, 220 minus results, 60 breakevens, with the profit stemming from relatively larger wins than losses? Over my last 6 sessions playing 3-6 Hold'em (I took a year off), my results are +550, +5, +180, +12, +29, +201, with an hourly win rate of 2.5 big bets per hour. Aside from that first extraordinary outing, I don't feel I've been particularly lucky. For instance, I lost a monster pot (approx. $200) with AAATT to TTTT (bad beat jackpot requires quads falling to quads). And Sunday night I played for 12 hours without catching a flush or drawing for a straight (flopped a straight once)!
Just wondering....
I calculated that your 5 sessions covered 65 or so hours of playing time. It is impossible to draw any kind of statistical information from such a small span of time.
Just the other day, I saw something amazing. A very bad, wealthy regular in one of the games I play in (20-40) won 170 BB (6800 dollars) in just five hours! He played every hand and won, it seemed, 4 out of 5 pots. It was crazy. Now, even though he is a really bad player and he loses consistently, I am sure that he has been significantly ahead for his last 65 hours of play, pretty much entirely because of this one 5 hour stint.
Once you have data for about 1000 hours you can draw some good conclusions. But don't sell your house and move to Vegas based on these 65 hours.
-SmoothB-
evidently you overlooked my qualifying remarks. I was not implying that this 65 hours was statistically significant. I was merely wondering if this was this was the type of sequence typical for other winning players. and, as a matter of fact, I moved to Vegas and supported myself for six months playing low-limit poker...
I win as often as I lose, but the wins are larger. I am also confident I play with considerably higher varience than most good players ("Tally HO!"). I therefore conclude that more reasonable good players will win about 60% of the time.
- Louie
15/30 Bellagio,another great game,1st one in is a terrible tourist (TT) that plays any possible hand that can connect in any way,any suited two,any two paints for any preflop price ,plays about 70/80% preflop,limps in from middle position,a solid aggressive sharp player(ASP) raises,I felt strongly he would raise with lesser hands than normal to try to isolate.I looked down at AKoff,(heart, spade) and immediatly 3 bet.TT calls 2 cold and ASP calls but I feel he does not like it.I inherit the button and we 3 see the flop.5D,6D,8H,yuck,TT checks,ASP bets,when I play overcards I tend to shy away from calling and prefer to raise,which I did ,staying with my first instinct that ASP was out of line.I thought he might know I thought this and try to bet to throw me off.TT calls 2 cold with a truly sick look on his face .ASP calls.Turn is black 7,TT checks ASP checks ,I check,the river was a 9h,TT checks,ASP checks and I checked.Ill add that I was going to muck if TT bet and raise if ASP bet.Was I supposed to bet the river?
Sorry,It was a 3 way chop TT had K7 off,ASP had JQ off.
Your flop call was bad. There are three cards in a straight zone and a two flush on board. You have no pair, no draw, and really no hand. Agreed there are about 11 bets in pot but you have 6 outs at the very best and 2 of your outs could be killed or at least have redraws against them. You are being bet into by a solid player with the possibility of the terrible tourist deciding to check-raise. Your opponents had about the weakest holdings they could have against you and you still only tied. Instead of K7 off give the terrible tourist K8 off or K6 off or K5 off. Now how do you like your chances? Suppose one of the terrible tourists cards happens to be a Diamond as well?
As an aside, the ASP should not be trying to isolate someone with a piece of cheese like Queen-Jack offsuit. You need to have some semblance of a hand in addition to having position to make this play.
"As an aside, the ASP should not be trying to isolate someone with a piece of cheese like Queen-Jack offsuit. You need to have some semblance of a hand in addition to having position to make this play."
I don't think I agree with this. You have a hand that is most likely better than the average hand that the egregiously bad fish plays. If you have any kind of read on him, you probably can profitably isolate with QJo.
What do people think? When someone is playing almost every hand, what do you need in terms of cards to try and isolate against them?
- target
But target even a maniac will not play Nine-Trey offsuit or Eight-Deuce offsuit or just any random hand. He will still only play a subset of all the 169 possible hands. He may play a much wider range of hands than a normal player but even then against any reasonable subset, Queen-Jack offsuit is not worth two bets.
Ok, that seems reasonable to me. Well, most of the time -- I have seen people play literally any two cards in the 20-40 garden city, san jose game.
But in a more normal case for a maniac, where someone is playing on the order of 75% of his hands, what do you need to have to raise with?
Something like AT, A8s, KQ, KTs, 77? Weaker, stronger?
- target
What you listed is about right. You want a medium pair or a hand with an Ace or a King that is suited or connected with another big card.
QJ isn't good enough to isolate raise here, but it's because there are too many players behind.
If the guy plays 80% (as stated in the original post), then QJ is better than most of his hands. Plus, you'd have position on him, and he's weak.
But, with so many people behind you, QJ isn't enough, since some of them will sometimes 3 (or even 4) bet you. In those cases, QJ needs to flop more than top pair most of the time to be ahead postflop.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I agree with Jim in this situation also. Isolating in middle position with QJ is bordering on suicide. There are too many players yet to act. Hell, he with his QJ can't even out high card the limper. Let's say he miraculously gets the pot heads-up and he flops nothing, which will happen more times then not, now how does he like his hand? A better question to ask is how does he play the hand? The limper is almost always going to take one off and the agressor will have no clue where he is.
Bruce
Greg (and Bruce),
When I wrote my reply under target’s first post re-titled “raising to isolate the fish” I deliberately avoided reading your (and Bruce’s) response first. I do this to see if my independent thinking is on the same planet. I’m not sure anything worthwhile is added when I do this but it is nice to know that I am on the same page as you two guys (along with Jim), all of whom I respect.
Regards.
Rick
I've read part of this thread so far and have a bunch or thoughts, which I'll try to put in appropriate places if I have time (I don’t know if I can keep away from those DNC speeches). I haven't read Greg's "Jim's Right For the Wrong Reasons" post by Greg yet. So keep this in mind when you read my post (in case I repeat).
From your lead post it is apparent that ASP has at least two opponents behind him when he made his pre flop raise. They can reraise or flat call and prevent him from isolating. This is one reason that making an “isolation raise” with a hand as weak as QJ is wrong. Now if he had the button and the blinds were tight this would be a borderline play at best.
IMO an isolation raise is one that you are willing to go to the river with even when you miss against loose but tenacious callers (terrible tourists fall in this category). Now QJ will hit some flops but when it misses it is not something that you want to go to the river with. If I were ASP it would be almost worth a call and maybe not even that if the two or three behind are aggressive and threatening.
For ASP’s isolation raise to be right in this spot, he needs a medium pair (about 77) or better, an AJ or better, or a KQ or better. If it is suited he can go down one or two on his kicker.
Regards,
Rick
.
Sorry, I misread your post. That makes it even worse. I guess we are playing our position, image, mind-reading abilities, etc. and not our cards.
I like the raise on the flop...he read both players perfectly. He picked up that TT "had a sick look on his face" and that the other player was out of line. Poker, as you know, is not just a mechanical process of always playing cards in a certain by the book way. The only thing I would have done differently is bet the river. Your comment that a raise makes it even worse is off base, IMO.
I agree with AL. Sometimes AK is even the best hand and in the lead in this situation.
Al,
I agree with your analysis here. I also agree with your bet on the river but since you didn’t say way I’ll provide my reason.
A river bet will often enough get the terrible tourist to fold or the ASP to not overcall that it just has to be right (of course you would prefer that ASP not overcall in order to not offend the tourist). I think there is little chance that either would check a ten with this board.
Regards,
Rick
I think the worst play of all made in this hand was when the person whom you consider to be solid and sharp bet that flop. That was dumb. He knew the calling station wasn't going anywhere and all he had was a queen high. I don't see a big problem with your raise - you figured the ASP for a hand worse than yours, and you were right, although since you probably wouldn't knock out TT with this play I don't see any real merit. I think a call or fold would be better. Like I said, you don't have anything and no one will fold for this bet.
-SmoothB-
(1) You are in the BB. A tightish player limps from middle position, all fold to the SB who calls. You check your Q-10off. The flop is A-3-7 rainbow. SB checks. How much do you need to know about the limper to make a bet worthwhile? How tight does he have to be?
(2) You are in the BB and a loose aggressive type raises from the button after all others fold. SB folds and you call with A-10o. The flop comes 4-4-6 rainbow. What is likely to be the most profitable play against a loose aggressive but non-maniacal button?
I am definitely making money by betting in scenario #1 above but I am having a very hard time with scenario #2. Advice welcomed.
Thanks. SW
Hand #1 I will bet on the flop a fair amount of time. I will not do this automatically because the better players will begin playing accordingly and will start bluffing at your bluff. Since the SB checked I will assume most of the time he is weak. Most tight players when they are first to enter from the middle will probably raise with an Ace so most of the time he will not have a pair of Aces so bluffing on the flop should show a profit.
Your second hand is not so straight forward. Reraising with your hand BTF and playing strongly by leading on the flop would be very appropriate. If I call the raise with that flop I would certainly not give up. I will either lead on the flop and play accordingly or check-raise on the flop and lead on the turn, or and that is my favorite way to play is to check and call on the flop and lead on the turn. By playing this way you are comitting the fewest chips and most players if they have nothing will abandon their hand on the turn if you show strength.
Bruce
Scott,
Regarding 1), I think you should bet against most moderately tight and somewhat predictable players, especially if they come in for a raise with most playable aces from the middle (as they should). But the small blind must be capable of folding a fair amount also. Note that limping first in from the middle is one of the weakest plays in poker. Good players will take you off the best hand from the blind with impunity (in addition to your other problems such as a raise behind).
Regarding 2), at least you are head up with an ace high and an OK kicker. Certainly the buttons average hand is not as good but it is not a lot worse. I would consider a check-call on the flop (he will bet most hands) and a checkraise on the turn unless a king, queen or jack hits. Here I would check and call since these cards are the most likely to hit him. The two 4s on board should be scary to him. I might also check and call when the ace hits and let him bet off worse hands. Of course if he doesn’t bet the turn I might value bet the river unless it comes two paints. Then I check and call. But I don’t think you give up ace high head up against an aggressive button raise.
Regards,
Rick
(1) I can think of no profile that is 40% LIKELY to have an ace when they open-call from middle position. Well, maybe the hopelessly weak-tight. This is an excellent steal opportunity but as Bruce pointed out don't do it all the time.
(2) AT is a big hand against a solid button stealer. Its only a dog against the weak-tight. Your hand is strong enough to show-down unimproved, so play accordingly.
- Louie
1) A good player would have raised with any playable Ace from middle position. A weaker player might call with A-xs or something like A-T; but he also would call with a middle/low pair or something like Q-J. So I think since sb has checked you can win enough by betting to make it worthwhile most of the time.
2) Option A: Let him bet the flop and then raise and bet out on the turn; Option B: Let him bet the flop; call and then bet out on the turn. I prefer Option B.
2) Option C: Bet the flop. If called, bet the turn. If raised...call, check the turn, fold to a bet, bet the river if given a free card. (I am also fond of Option B, however).
Question. HOW BADLY DID I OVERPLAY THIS?
Utg calls, pass, pass, call, I raise with AK, button calls, both blinds call, UTG makes it 3 bets, everybody calls.
Flop: K T 7 rainbow. UTg bets, limper calls, I call, button calls, blinds fold.
Turn: another 7. UtG bets, limper calls (don't put him on a hand that beats me yet), I decide to raise because I think the button has a gutshot and is getting odds to call. Button folds and UTG makes it 3 bets. I call twice more.
Comments please.
Preflop you played the hand well. Of course an alarm bell should go off with the limp raise. Questions to ask yourself, "What kind of player is he? Would he limp raise with garbage?"
On the flop with top pair top kicker and players yet to act raise. Hopefully you will get the button and knock out the blinds. If UTG reraises call and realize your in bad shape. On the turn when he leads out it's decision time. A lot has to do with your overall impression of your opponent. He more than likely has AA or KK. On a good day he may have you tied. I would probably pay him off. I have a difficult time laying down top pair top kicker in limit hold-em. In general I see too much garbage even from so called good players.
Bruce
This is an interesting hand. I think the question is how does the button's draw to a gutshot (if that's what he had) effect the EV of your hand?
I don't have time to figure this out right now, but off the top of my head I'd say that he doesn't impact your EV all that much. Certainly not enough to raise the turn with a hand that may be drawing dead (to KK) and if not, has only 2 outs (to AA, TT, X7). Or is playing for only 1/2 the pot anyway. And consider if you do HAVE the best hand, it's pretty hard for them to catch up.
I think the bottom line is if you're going to make strong raises on the turn, you have to be prepared to make stong laydowns as well. Even in large pots where you're getting 17:1 to hit, and 9:1 to call the hand down as you were in this case.
I just got home and realized that I put a flop of K T 7 the flop was A T 7.
My apologies.
You really only over-played it if UTG is SURE to have a solid hand when he 3-bets, AND isn't going to get clever with KK when the flop is A high. Even so, he can easily have AQ or AJs.
You'd probably be better off nailing button's gut-shot by raising on the flop.
How bad can it be if you raised once with top-pair top-kicker?
- Louie
YOU SHOULD HAVED RAISED to find out if he really is comfortable with "Ace" or if his gut-shot is really worth his money....NOW.... is the time to get information before it gets expensive........ I LEARNED THIS LESSON THE HARD WAY... save some big bets down the line....waiting for the expensive streets to find out where you stand can put a nasty dent in your bankroll....................
"save some big bets down the line"
I don't think I can save any big bets down the line here because of the possibility that he might easily have AK here and play it the same way.
(Taking into account that the flop was actually AT7).
Berya:
Ignoring for a moment the possibility of AK vs. AK (say two kings were flashed on the deal), your opponent either has a highly improbable hand that beats you or is very out of line with a hand you beat. I think the rule of thumb here is that you pay him off until you know enough about the opponent to make a safe laydown. The laydown only becomes "safe" if you take into account not only the size of the pot but the chance of inducing the opponent and others at the table to change their behavior and make expenseive, successful plays at you. Note that there's certain dynamic futility here, in that the more of these good laydowns you make, the more difficult it becomes in the future to think them "good." In other words, the decision becomes harder.
In this particular case, I think you'd have to be virtually certain (95%+) that your opponent either (1) limp-raises only with pocket aces or (2) won't try to 3-bet on the turn with less than AA or TT.
While it's true that a lot of players only limp-raise utg with AA and KK, a lot of others will with KQs and QJs in the circumstances you describe. A lot of the latter might well 3-bet you on the turn after you failed to show strength on the flop.
If youy analyze it that way, and also take into account the chance that he might have AK, I think your calling on the turn and river are fairly automatic.
I like your decision to wait for the turn to raise. In every scenario where you are ahead this is the most profitable play by far.
I'm thinking that I should have just called him down from flop on without raising at any point in the hand. He either has me beat or tied (AQ possible of course but it's not that common in my experience for a limp reraiser to have AQ). Also the other players might have me beat. I think it was call call call.
Maybe a few more can comment
Thanks
I know that strategies vary with position such as early, middle and late. Also having the button, being the big or little blind changes the strategy. So I want to make sure that I fully understand the meaning of early, middle and late positions. Assume a 10 handed game.
If I recall correctly the earliest position is to the left of the BB pre flop. Correct? After the flop does this change? What I mean is if both big and small blinds stay in the hand are they now technically considered the early positions since they are now the first to act? If so is the person to the left of the BB now considered middle, or late early?
I would appreciate any assistance with this and ideas on how experienced players view this issue.
Rich
The early, middle, and late positions refer to pre-flop calling positions. In a 10 handed ring game, early position is 3 to the left of the big blind, middle position is next 3 positions, and the cutoff and button are late positions.
Regards, Dugie
The concepts of early, middle, and late are really only applicable before the flop. On later rounds, it depends on how many players are left in the pot and your position relative to them. You could have been UTG (under the gun, the seat immediately after the blinds) before the flop, but be last to act on later rounds if everyone behind you folded. Being last to act on the later rounds is a huge advantage in flop games, regardless of what "position" you were in before the flop.
The early/middle/late positions terms are generally used to refer to preflop positions. Your description of them is accurate as far as that goes.
After the flop, you are correct in that the blinds are now in the worst position. So just keep that in mind. Position only matters relative to the other players. If you were under the gun, worst position preflop, but everyone but the blinds folded, then you have the best position for the rest of the hand.
So it's not that useful to think of your position in relation to the button or the blinds after the flop. Just think about how many people act before and after you.
- target
I thought you guys might find this amusing. Bob "The Phantom" Morgan is a friend of mine who flies around the country playing in medium to high limit hold-em games ($20-$40 to $80-$160). He has posted on this forum and is a friend of John Feeney, Abdul Jalib, and Bob Ciaffone. "The Phantom" as his friends call him usually wears a black athletic suit, a black cap, and dark mirrored sunglasses. He is a colorful player who never abuses anyone, is a good sport when he loses, and he will make you gamble when you play against him otherwise he will run over you like a bulldozer. Now Bob's priorities are different than most. He plays to have fun and loves to play against top players like Roy Cooke. When in Vegas, Bob told me he pretends to be a shark searching for his prey with a "seek and destroy" mission. Well, last Saturday night he sees Roy Cooke sitting in Seat #10 at one of the $30-$60 tables at the Bellagio. Now that he has spotted his "prey" he gets into the game in Seat #7. The "Phantom" with his shark instinct is now ready for battle. During the evening when I took a break from the other $30-$60 game I was in, I noticed that Bob and Roy were frequently in pots together. At a midnight food break, I asked Bob to discuss some of the hands he was in against Roy and you guys might be amused at the following 5 hands:
Round 1: Roy is in the big blind and Bob is in the cutoff. Bob opens with a steal-raise and Roy 3 bets him. They play heads-up and Roy wins on the flop when Bob folds. Roy wins a $200 pot.
Round 2: Same scenario except Roy bets Bob out on the turn. Roy wins a $260 pot.
Round 3: Bob opens with a raise from the cutoff having Ace-Seven offsuit. Both the button and small blind fold. Roy 3 bets, Bob calls, and the flop is: A,K,3. Roy bets and Bob calls. The turn is: 7. Roy bets, Bob raises, and Roy calls. The river is: 6. Roy checks, Bob bets, and Roy calls. Bob wins a $620 pot as Roy mucks. Bob jokingly proclaims: "I just sucked out on Roy Cooke!". My table hears this and roars with laughter. Ben, a good friend of Roy's was sitting at my table and he asked out loud: "Who did you suck out on?" Bob says: "Roy Cooke". THE SHARK FINALLY INFLICTS HIS FIRST WOUND. HE SMELLS BLOOD AND IS WORKING HIMSELF INTO A FEEDING FRENZY.
Round 4: Bob goes after Roy's blind like a tiger shark attacking with a raise having the 8d5d. Roy retaliates by 3 betting again. Now heads-up they take the following flop: Ad4h3c. Roy checks, Bob bets, and Roy calls. The turn is:7d. Roy checks, Bob bets, and Roy calls. The river is: Td. Roy checks, Bob bets, and Roy calls. Roy mucks when he sees Bob's runner-runner Diamond flush. Bob wins a $500 pot. THE SHARK IS NOW OUT OF CONTROL.
Round 5: This time it is 5 handed. Roy limps in under the gun and two other players limp in from middle position. Bob limps in with Tc8c. The flop is: Ah7c5c. The big blind checks and Roy leads out. the limpers call and Bob raises. The big blind folds. Roy 3 bets and everyone calls. The turn is: 6h. Roy bets and both other players call. Bob raises and everyone calls. The river is: 2c. Roy and the other two players check. Bob bets, Roy calls, and the other players fold. Bob shows his flush and wins an $1130 pot while Roy mucks and takes a walk after having lost almost $2000 worth of pots to Bob.
Shortly afterwards, Roy decides it is time to call it a night and he heads for the door. Bob decides "mission accomplished" and heads for cage with 5 racks of $10 chips.
P.S: Think we will read about any of this in Roy's column?
GREAT suck out story Jim Brier... I GUESS this is slap at Roy Cooke for writing articles only on his winnings hands. And just maybe he will get respect on this forum analyzing his loosing hands in the CARD PLAYER MAGAZINE ... AND ON THIS FORUM IF HE IS NOT TO GOOD FOR US MORTALS.
Jim, maybe I'm dense, but I fail to see the humor. I guess you and Roy have had some run-ins, but I find Roy's columns usually pretty educational. I haven't kept a urningcount, but I can remember many columns in which Roy wrote about hands he lost. So your friend caught a second pair on the turn in one hand and made two flushes in pots Roy happened to be in. So what? Does Roy laugh when you get sucked out on? Am I missing an inside joke?
.
Andy, I think Roy is a great player and a marvelous asset to the world of poker and I meant this to be a humorous post not anything critical of Roy. Had you been in the card room that night you would know what I mean. Roy being a top player and a noted columnist is a natural target for a lot of guys with money who come to Vegas. They want to be able to go back home and say how they played and won against Roy Cooke. Over the course of a year Roy makes a lot of money off many of these guys so I am sure he is indifferent.
I think Roy's columns are great and I agree with you that he writes a lot of columns where he loses and is sometimes even critical of his own play. The last column he wrote I think falls in this category.
Jim, I read Bob Morgan's posts below and I now see how him sucking out on Roy, in the context of how Bob plays and thinks, and his personality, could have been a funny thing for the other players to watch.
Humerous post. I am not exactly sure what your point is but I good a real good chuckle. I have a couple of points to make. When you get emotional in the heat of battle you are often doomed for failure. I find it real interesting that Cooke 3 bet Morgan 4 times from the big blind. Either Morgan has a big time tell or Cooke has a huge ego. Now looking at it from Cooke's perspective from the tone of Jim's post it seems like Morgan was out to get Cooke. How intelligent is it to target a top pro. I can certainly find softer targets. Hands 1, 2, and 3 seem to be pretty routine. The way Cooke played hand 4 is odd at best. He 3 bets it before the flop and then proceeded to play the hand like a girl. He would have lost no matter how he played the hand, but still, that's not the point. Hand 5 when Morgan raises on the turn is certainly a gutsy move. He picks up 4 more outs and that to me really doesn't warrant a raise with a medium flush draw and a gut shot. Still I enjoyed the post and I would love to see Cooke's commentary in the Card Player about this but I am not holding my breath.
Bruce
bruce, a lot of gamblers like to come to Vegas and square off against top players like Roy Cooke and some even like to get into really big games with guys like Doyle Brunson. Not everyone plays poker to maximize their hourly rate or even win money since to many of them the money is not that important. They enjoy the competition and stimulation that comes from gambling with top players.
Jim,
A hypothetical if you don't mind.
Does an excellent mid limit hold em player, unknown to Roy Cooke, who has read and studied all of Roy Cooke's articles hold any advantage by being thoroughly prepared to play Roy Cooke?
Not really. Roy Cooke will adjust his play based on who he is playing against and he can size up a player pretty quickly.
Jim, I have a great deal of respect for your posts and responses. They usually have a great deal of poker knowledge and plain common sense. And I think a lot of other people who log on to this site feel the same way. However, having said that I feel that your post today is somewhat disturbing. I feel your using 2+2 to single out a particular player and ridiculing them for having a bad night is both inappropriate and just plain mean.
I have read your response to Andy Fox's post, saying that you had a lot of respect for Roy Cooke and the post was meant to be humorous. I have read your post 3 times and I don't see it being respectful or humorous.
Instead, why couldn't you post the hands individually and get reactions from the 2+2 posters, without having any names involved, as you usually do.
Just my 2 cents.
Many rimes when I read these stories of "the greats" playing in green-chip games, I see that they're playing some crap starting hands. This one is no exception, with Bob paying to see the flop with A7o and 85s. Is there a reason why it would be "good poker" for them to do this but not someone like me? Does the higher limit allow them to do maneuvering with these when the flop does hit that makes it profitable to stay in? Or is it because they can get people to drop? Or is this guy playing loose poke and just happenned to do well in this example?
Some of you guys are much too serious about this post and don't have enough knowledge of the past to appreciate it, allow me to give you some past history.
First of all Jim Brier is one of the nicest guys you will ever meet and not "mean spirted". He spends a minimum of two hours everyday posting answers to various questions. Jim has helped a lot of people on this forum and is highly respected.
Maybe the following will give you a better understanding:
(1) Roy is a great player (far better than I will ever be) and I read his articles and books. I have the highest *respect* for him and he knows that.
(2) I've played with Roy for years and can only remember beating him *one* pot prior to this weekend and yes I sucked out on him with QT from middle position and won a $1800 pot.
When I sucked out on him Saturday with A7o and jokingly said "I finally sucked out on Roy Cooke" - Now I can go back to Dallas and tell the boys I finally beat Roy. He just *smiled* and says yeah, that makes two hands in the last 3 years, right?
And he was exactly right (only two hands) - what a memory!!
(3) There is an important part that seems to be overlooked by almost everyone. Roy knows that he can outplay me - that's why he 3 bet me 4 times in a row from his big blind. That's a very *interesting* defensive strategy heads-up. (Jim thought that would be a good point)
(4) If all games only had players like Mason Malmuth, (which I also played against for two days) Roy Cooke, Jim Brier, and other good players, how much fun would that be? Without the fish and weak players, there would be no poker games. And if the fish and weak players don't win sometimes, they won't be back.
(5) Remember many players don't need the money, they are there for pure entertainment. They do not want to play in a game where everyone is dead serious. So *please* allow them to have their fun; it may be very profitable!!
Bob,
Are you a player or just another live one? Are you trying to win money or just beat Roy Cooke? There is nothing wrong with raising Roy Cooke's blind but if he seems to be dominating you because of better play and also for psychological reasons I would be real selective about entering a pot against him. If this was coming up frequently where you are in a steal position and it's only Roy I would find a better seat. I have a lot of confidence in my playing ability but I try to avoid situations where I may be heads-up against a better player unless I have a real big hand.
Bruce
Both - I mix it up. I just like to have fun. If I had to sit there and wait for AA KK QQ AK before I played a hand, I would go nuts. What most people don't understand is when they see me playing wild like this, it makes them want to gamble with me; then they start looking for an excuse to get in my pots.
All of a sudden the pots start getting bigger because more players are starting to gamble. Now I change gears and just start raising on proper hands (I do know the difference!). Don't think I play this way all the time, I do it for a reason. Just one "live one" can make a game - sometimes I volunter!
Now the next time I play Roy, I know that when I try a steal raise he's most likely going to 3 bet me with almost any hand. Maybe then I will only raise with AK, AQ or pairs. Then he will pay me off because he doesn't give me any respect, he knows I will gamble. However, this type of playing makes me dangerous because he can't put me on a hand; because I play the garbage and good hands *exactly* the same. I will hit a certain amount of garbage hands and he won't have a clue as to what hit him (as shown in Jim's post) This style of play makes it impossible for a good player like Roy to have any clue of my hand! Now do you get the picture?
WARNING: NEW PLAYERS DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME...OR IN CASINOS!!!
It's always more enjoyable and usually more profitable to play in games where people are gambling, telling jokes, and having a few drinks.
The most enjoyable game I ever played in was in Calif. two years ago and I lost $2000 in a 15/30 game. Many of the players were drinking and laughing and having a good time. Enjoyment is my first priority - winning is second and yes I do end up a few bucks ahead but I certainly don't play for a living and nor would I want to, I think it would take the fun out of it. Hope this answers your questions.
You make 100% sense and I certainly can't argue with your approach to the game. We all play poker for different reasons and we all have different playing styles. Whatever works best for you and as long as you're comfortable with it, go for it, and have fun and try to make some money while your at it. Bruce
Roy is likely 3-betting you liberally from the big blind because he knows you sometimes raise with questionable hands.
Another possible explanation is that he knows you lay down too many hands when he 3-bets from the big blind and then leads out on the flop. You're getting such big odds there that you really need to peel off a card with any hand with potential, even most "pair draws," unless of course he is only 3-betting you with premium hands.
When you raise with too many hands preflop and fold with too many hands postflop, Roy is getting the best of both worlds by 3-betting you from the big blind. His raise could be both for value and to manipulate the pot to make your postflop folds bigger mistakes.
Yet another possible explanation is that he simply had a few good hands there: 66, AQ, QJs, and ATs would all make for reasonable 3-bets there versus a steal raise. It's easy to take things personally when in fact the plays are just due to the cards.
Roy Cooke is indeed a very good loser.
I keep trying to encourage you to play for money, rather than for fun, because it's no fun to lose money. However, if you want to play for ego and fun, then why not concentrate on tournaments? After a bit of experience in no limit tournaments, there's no reason you couldn't win the Big One.
-Abdul
BTW, "Roy Cooke is indeed a very good loser" was just a cute way of saying that Roy is a real gentleman about losing.
-Abdul
RC ALWAYS wants to walk with the money. It's why he's there. But when he looks at any given hand, sit, week, month or year he doesn't even THINK about the dollars. He cares about whether he added numbers into his positive expectation field and made the correct decisions. He hasn't the slightest doubt that so long as he does that results will favor him. Although he would certainly rather have taken the money from "The Phantom" he's delighted to have anyone chase slim odds, knowing full well that sometimes they just get there. It doesn't bother him a bit.
Trust me on this. I'm definitely the expert on Roy Cooke.
Please accept my apology in advance if advertising for games are not acceptable in this forum.
I am looking for a 5-10 or 10-20 texas hold-em game in the Orlando area. Please reply or e-mail me @ mrgo22@mindspring.com
Thanks.
Bill
9-18 he. first time ive played holdem after weeks of stud.
middle position with AQ. raise , cutoff and BB call.
flop 459 rainbow. BB bets out, i raise !? both call.
turn a deuce. 459 2. ive got 10 outs that i think are good. bet i call, call.
river comes a trey and i am roundly critized by BB , who had JJ overpair.
i checked the river and it was checked down. i really couldnt not put cutoff (weak player) on a hand like 56.
so how bad was my flop raise? i think my river check was pretty bad, but what could cutoff have had?(he didnt show)
brad
just read "am i supposed to bet" thread. sorry if mine is kind of similiar. ill have to keep up.
brad
Your pre-flop raise is good. Your flop raise is bad because when the big blind bets into you when you were the pre-flop raiser it usually means he has a piece of the flop. This flop has missed you so in most cases you are looking at 6 outs at best. There are 7 bets in the pot. I would call for one bet but raising is just charging yourself more money to pursue want has become in all likelihood a drawing hand. On the turn, of course you call having picked up 4 more outs with any Trey but you must realize that one of your opponents could easily have a Six so your outs are not clean. I think you should have bet the river but will a worse hand call? The only legitimate pre-flop raising hand a pair of Jacks can beat is TT and KQ suited.
Average 10-20 game, I am in middle position with JTd. Weak player (WP)limps under the gun, agressive player (AP)limps behind him, SB calls, BB checks.
Flop is 6h Tc Kd
Blinds and WP check, AP bets, and I raise. Blinds fold, WP and AP call. Was this a good bet? I figure AP will bet just about any pair here, as well as QJ, (he would play it up front) and maybe even a 78 or 89 (he'd play them suited). Still, I figure there's a good chance I'm drawing for trips or two pair, but expect a free card on the turn, and if the board isn't too scary on the river, I'll call his possible bluff. If I've improved, perhaps I'll raise. btw, I don't like WP's cold call much, but who can put a weak player on a hand?
Turn is Ad for 6h Tc Kd Ad
So I picked up a flush draw, and a gutshot, but now there's an ace on board. Checked to me, and I check along. If I'd had this draw on the flop, I might have raised for a free card. Now I have a strong draw, and take the free card.
River is Qc for 6h Tc Kd Ad Qc
WP bets, AP calls, I raise with my nut straight. WP folds, AP makes it 3 bets, and I cap it at 4. AP shows Kc Js, and we split the pot.
The hand plays itself on the river, and my call preflop may be marginal, but I think its good. How do you think I played the flop and turn? Should I have folded or smooth called on the flop? bet the turn?
All comments welcome
Thanks, Big $lick
Preflop in middle position with two limpers JTs is a playable hand. Raising on the flop with your hand is agressive poker, but fine. If you bet the turn the WP will probably call. The AP may have folded. I'm pretty sure the WP had two pair with Aces or just a pair of Aces so he wasn't going anywhere on the turn. If you bet the turn you have 14 outs ( a Jack is not an out) with one card to come making you roughly a 2.7/1 dog. The pot has $110 at this point so betting the turn would be OK. I like betting in this situation for two reasons. Firstly I might win the pot right then and there although I have my doubts about that. Secondly and more importantly betting in this situation is good for your image for future plays. Your observant opponents will see when you bet on the turn you don't necessarily have a completed hand.
Bruce
bruce,
A big reason for checking here that I left out above is the fear of a check-raise. Based on the prior action, it would be easy for one of my opponents to have QJ. Perhaps by betting I could have represented a broadway, but I'd expect at least crying calls from the weak player even if he believes me.
In some book (HEPFAP?), the author talks about checking your hands that have outs, and betting your hands that don't. If you have outs and get raised, you'll have to call, and wish you hadn't bet. If you have no outs, you can fold comfortably, and lose the same bet you would lose by checking and calling, either this round or next.
Do you think this concept applies here? I feel like often I'm not getting maximum value when I have a mediocre hand with redraws, and play it passively. But perhaps there really just isn't that much money to be made in these situations.
B$
Pre-flop your limp is fine. I don't like your flop raise with this many opponents and having only middle pair with a weak kicker. Hands headed by an Ace or a King are very common limping hands and it is too easy for you to be up against a top pair of Kings. When another calls 2 bets cold, you should be highly concerned. On the turn you have 9 outs to a flush, 3 more outs to straight but yours is a one card straight draw so you could easily be splitting the pot here. A Ten may be an out and a Jack probably isn't but who knows. The problem is that given this coordinated board it is highly unlikely you will win the pot outright by betting here since even two pair becomes a strong possibility. I would check just like you did.
Jim, do you call on the flop, or fold? With the bettor on my immediate right, raising seems like the play. A weak king, ten with a kicker, or gutshot draw will likely fold here for 2 bets. Also, I don't automatically put the bettor on a king, although he is better than even money to have one. I may have the best hand, or I may suck out.
My point is, calling on the flop sounds weak to me. Folding may be a better play than raising, and that's one of the reasons this seemed like a good hand to post. I've been in many similar situations recently, with mixed results, and I'm only guessing at what the correct play is.
B$
Well I have been accused of being "weak-tight" in these situations but to my way of thinking I have an interest in the hand because I caught a piece of the flop and I have outs if I don't have the best hand. The problem with raising is that while you drive out other hands that might beat you, you are really helping the guy with the best hand at your own expense. This would include anyone with a King which is frequently the bettor. You could also get re-raised further increasing your cost to take off a card.
Calling on the flop may seem weak but in those situations where there is real doubt as to where you stand I see folding as an irreversible action which can easily be very wrong and I see raising as an expensive option. My compromise is to simply call and take a card off cheaply.
I think it is a mistake to view all these flop situations as raise or fold decisions.
Thanks Jim... perhaps I'll try it your way next time and see how it feels. B$
Tight, passive low limit game.
I raise early, first in with:
I do this because it is a tight game, so I am able to reduce it to few opponents.
BB only calls.
Flop:
BB checks, I bet, BB calls.
I probably have the best hand, so I bet not wanting to give free cards.
Turn:
BB checks.
This is the worst possible card for me. I don`t know BB, but most non regulars are usually passive callers, although some do play faster. The play so far seems to indicate passive caller.
Should I bet or check? I choose to bet for 3 reasons: 1.I may have the best hand, lots of fish call the flop with practically nothing especially against 1 opp.
2.He may fold a Q. Here I was lying to myself, no way was this going to happen. Interestingly though JJ is the only legitimate raising hand he can now beat.
3.If I check here a 5th street bet from BB is going to be unpleasent. He could bluff or bet an 8 or smaller pair and I have to guess.
I now think this bet is a mistake as there are many hands that can beat me Ax normally calls the BB, as does QT, QJ, QK etc. Also since I have JJ, only a K can come as an overcard so giving a free card is not that dangerous.
Ok - what would YOU do?
1. Bet or check 4th?
2. If you do check do you call a bet on 5th? Pot is 2 1/4 big bets so you have 3 1/4 to 1 odds.
My own answer now is:
1. Check
2. Fold I don`t think this player will show you a bluff/ weak hand on the end enougth times for a call to be worth it.
Pre-flop you are raising in early position with pocket Jacks because you probably have the best hand and you want to make others with weaker hands pay double to chase you and take a flop.
On the flop, when the big blind merely checks and calls I think you should assume your hand is good. With a Queen he might have bet or check-raised you.
On the turn, when he checks again I would assume that he has neither an Ace or a Queen. I would bet. You are the pre-flop raiser and these cards can be more scary for him than they are for you. Trying to check it down here is an open invitation for him to bet the river and put you in a guessing mode.
If you erroneously chose to check the turn then when he bets whether or not you call depends upon what the river card is and how well you know him. There is no clear answer here. This is why you should bet the turn.
I would also bet the turn. You as the raiser are supposed to have an Ace. You still may have the best hand or you may get him to fold a Queen. By checking when he bets on the river you are now in a position where you are left guessing plus you may have allowed him to catch up when he would have folded for a bet.
Bruce
it seems to me in low limit games people with like Q5s will call before the flop and then call you all the way down without raising because they dont know if their kicker is good(same for 85s, except now theyre not sure their pair is good). remember the play is totally different from a mid limit game. with this in mind i would check the turn and call a bet on the river(preferably check it down). the advantage is that it will cost you the same or less , and while giving the free card would be of paramount consideration in a mid limit game, here i dont think its as important since you really cant put him on (really any range hands) a hand, plus always remember that the low limit players best friend is the check raise.
brad
I run into this sitation all the time in my low limit game, what i do is bet the flop, bet the turn, then check the river, and yes most of the time i will be shown the top pair no kicker.
I still feel that this is better than possable loosing the hand because i let him see the river for free.
Loose 10/20 except for UTG who’s fairly sound.
UTG opens with a Raise.
All Fold to you.
You’re one off the Button with As Qs.
Let’s say you ReRaise. Agree or Not?
Button and BB Call and UTG Calls.
Flop: Ts 9h 2c
UTG leads and you Raise. You have about a 20% chance vs one Opp with a Group I hand.
Agree or Not?
Button and BB Fold. UTG Calls.
Turn: Ks Gives you a four flush and gut shot
You now have about a 28% chance vs one Opp with a Group I hand.
Would you Bet with the intention of Betting again on the River or take the Free Card?
Pre-flop a sound player who opens under the gun will have AA,KK,QQ,JJ,AK, or AQ. Sometimes he might have AJ suited or even KQ suited. I don't believe AQ suited is a 3 bet hand in a heads-up situation against a player with these raising standards since it is too easy for you to be badly dominated. I would just call. I think an argument could be made for 3 betting if you had more players in the hand due to your position and the suited aspect of your hand but even then I am not sure. Note that if your AQ were unsuited, John Feeney would argue that you should fold based on his excellent book "Inside the Poker Mind". Now against a loose goose 3 betting may well be right in order to isolate him with position.
On the flop, all you have are two vulnerable over cards and some backdoor possibilities. You have made the pot big by 3 betting pre-flop and getting three opponents. This means there are 13 small bets in the pot. Given that you are being bet into by the solid UTG pre-flop raiser despite your 3 bet this means an Ace or a Queen may not even be an out for your hand unless he is betting specifically JJ. Because of the pot size and your runner-runner possibilities I think you have a marginal call and should not raise.
On the turn there are 17 small bets in the pot. If the UTG checks, I think you should check and take the free card because I don't believe you have any chance of winning the pot outright and you will have to hit something to win. If you bet the turn after he checks to you, then you frequently will feel compelled to bet the river when a blank comes since you don't have a hand to showdown (as an aside, I don't believe David Sklansky agrees with this).
With your outs, if there is a chance he has AK or AQ, and you think there is a chance he'll fold AK or AQ, you must bet the turn. It only costs you $20, and gives you another way to take the $170.
You sure look like a big pair to him.
However, I think betting the river, if he calls the turn and you don't improve, would probably be a waste of $20, against most good players.
Gabe
What sane person will lay down AK on the turn? If he has AQ he may pass but based on his flop bet that is unlikely. Checking is the best play.
Bruce
Sorry, I forgot the spade on the turn was a king.
Gabe
While I agree with most of what Jim has written, I would disagree with his suggestion that you must bet the river if you miss. In most cases, I would check on the end with my nut nothing as it's unlikely that I can get a better hand to fold or a worse hand to call. I suppose that AQ may fold but the chances of my opponent also having AQ given this betting pattern are slim.
Against a solid UTG player you can certainly build a case for mucking AQs in your situation. UTG either has a big pocket pair or he may have you badly dominated with big slick.
Bruce
1) Depends on the player. If its a good, tight player, fold. If it's a really bad player, call or fold. If it's a maniac who is raising every hand, reraise.
2) Why on earth would you raise on the flop here? I guess I would only do it if I were sure that UTG didn't have AA, KK, or AK.
3) Ok, since you are in this deep I might actually bet the river since you have a lot of outs.
-SmoothB-
This is kind of a weird situation. A rule of thumb I use is that if I can reasonably 3-bet semi-bluff on the turn, like with a straight-flush draw and overcards against an opponent who might hold less than top pair, then I'm going to bet instead of taking a free card. Also, if there is some chance I have the best hand and I can reasonably check it down on the river if I bet the turn, like with AQ or AK high, then I'm going to bet the turn, even if I'm a slight dog on that bet, for the privilege of checking it down on the river.
Your situation seems to match these rules of thumbs, but not quite. The problem is that it's almost impossible for your sound opponent to hold less than an underpair plus a gutshot. It's not easy to push your opponent off JJ here, for example, because he will figure any J or Q are outs for him. I can't think of a single hand he could plausibly hold that you could push him off of or beat without improving. Well, maybe a single one: 88. Take the free card and usually fold to a bet on the river, though you may be able to pull off a bluff raise there with certain boards and opponents.
-Abdul
Very good.
JJ is exactly what he had.
I Checked both the Turn and River and gave up.
The hand bothered me on the drive home because I kept thinking that there must have been enough pot odds for a semi-bluff on the Turn.
But the 9 on the Flop, as you just pointed out, was the key card.
BTW, would you have Raised on the Flop?
Under what circumstances should you play a small pair (22 to 66) for more than one bet on the button in an average 5-10/10-20 limit game? I usually fold these hand for more than one bet unless I anticipate 5 or more players seeing the flop. Is this correct?
Depending on the limit of the game and how well I know my players, I usually see the flop when I have pocket 2's through 7's. If I am sure that at least 4 players will see the flop, I am in there.
If there are 2 or more raises behind me, then I would most likely fold the pair. Even if the flop would of completed my set, I stuck with the probability of the game, thus leading to a successful Texas player.
Bill
In general your approach is sound. Small pocket pairs (lower than Sixes) usually have to flop a set to win since they can never be an over pair to the board. This means you want multi-handed action and an unraised pot so your implied odds are there when you make your hand. In addition, when you call two bets cold with these hands you run the risk of the pot getting raised again costing you even more money to take a flop thereby damaging your implied odds even further.
I've seen plenty of lists of hand rankings for play in ring games, but I was curious about where I could find a list for:
A) No-limit games B) Heads-up play
I would imagine that they would be fairly similar. Are there any lists on the internet? Any books with this info? Thanks.
I have never read rankings for either of the games you mention. No Limit is heavily dependent on implied odds so the hands behave differently than in limit play and are fruitless to rank (outside of what you know for limit poker) for this reason. Read "super system" for concepts that go into no limit play. Head's up in showdowns(and often for NL tournament play) hands can be ranked by simulations. Generally speaking the hand with the highest card is the favorite head's up. If you are interested in Head's up play. Read HPFAP 21st century edition for some key concepts.
3-6 weekday, not too tight/loose...
i'm in sb w/ AK off
one player from middle position calls, button raises, i 3 bet, middle position fold, button calls.
flop: A-J-6 rainbow.
I check [?] button bets, i raise, button calls. [i put him on an ace, mediocre kicker.
turn: 2 spade
i bet, button calls.
river: T
i bet, button calls.
[i guess he put me on pocket aces from my sb raise...]
he turned over AJ suited.
Questions: 3 bet from sb reasonable 3 handed? Checkraise? Bet out...
I don't like your 3 bet with slick from the small blind when the button raises given the presence of another limper. The button raise is not necessarily a steal raise in this situation with another player voluntarily entering the pot so the button could easily have a real hand. The problem is you are out of position. However, your 3 bet is not bad and it is close between calling and re-raising.
I like betting the flop with top pair/top kicker especially since you chose to 3 bet and have made the pot big. It is dangerous to check here because the button may not bet given your pre-flop re-raise.
The rest of your plays are fine however, I think the button should have popped you on the turn with the top two pair.
You lost the minimum on the hand. The button should have raised you with top two. Three betting in the small blind with big slick is fine. When I three bet I usually like to lead at the flop and play accordingly.
bruce
I have done some reconsidering regarding my play of AK offsuit in the blinds. In general, I will often put in the first raise with them but I will never reraise with them from the blinds. Ok, unless the game is shorthanded because people will raise with AT offsuit and the like. Or if it looks like a steal. Otherwise I'll just smooth call.
Otherwise I think you played the hand fine. Checkraise was in order. I think if I were the player on the button I might have raised on the turn. I am sure you would have just called and check and called the river in this case, correct?
Anyway, I think your play was exactly what I would have done. With the possible exception of the preflop 3 bet.
-SmoothB-
Questions: 3 bet from sb reasonable 3 handed? Checkraise? Bet out...
I usually prefer to call raises in the blinds with AK vice reraising because of the positional disadvantage. Also, this sets up a checkraise on the flop if an Ace or King hits the board.
The bigger mistake was by the button, he should of raised again on the flop or raised on the turn.
I've read lots of posts regarding showing bluffs, but what about showing real good hands when they win pre-showdown? Example you have 99 and see the flop with 3 people. Flop is 689 2 suited. You bet and everyone happens to fold. Do you show your hand?
Everytime I show my nuts at the table they kick me out of the Casino.
CV (Big John made me do it)
HAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH
i had to stop and pause for a second, then i finally got it.
oh my goodness, i'm laughing my ass off right now...
hahahahahahhahaha, sheeshish...ok ok, i'm gonna calm down now....later
-jon
As a general rule, you wanna be showing your good hands when you wanna be perceived as being tight - in order to be able to successfully steal more frequently. And you wanna be showing your bluffs if you wanna be perceived as loose - in order to be able to trap someone for more money. Do the former against rocks and do the latter against maniacs and idiots.
A few weeks ago I was sitting at a 10-20 table when a new guy nobody knew sat down to my left. I raised from early position. He mucked and his cards "accidentally" turned over to show KQ suited. Everyone commented on his tight play. Instant table image. From then on he played selectively and backed his hands hard. I think he was stealing us blind. Interesting move.
Poker has not progressed much in the last decade and most people think that expected return is the only way to play the game. New theories a now comming forth about expected matchups. Dictated by raising in early position. Creating the matchups of players you want to play against is becoming more important then just pure do I have the edge or do I not. Raising in early position allows you dictate the type of players you play against. An early postition can knock out all tight players and leave you playing against the loose callers. When tight players call behind your raise they give away their hands and you can easily play your hand. In a tight game it can steal the blinds or give you deception. Early position has a lot more value then just playing tight. It is now becoming a dictation of the game point. Expected return play decreases in value due to the dictation of how the game is played.
This seems more a matter of game selection than a new theoretical outlook.
Huh?
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
ahhahahahaha--'huh'
later.
hehehehehe--'ahhahahahaha'--'huh'?
The only problem with your theory is that the good players will adapt to your strategy and open up with there starting standards against you. There position would give them the edge and maybe isolate you in a tight game. I'm not saying that you can't do this some of the time, just don't get into the habit on doing the same thing all the time. I do agree with your conclusion that weak players do coldcall raises with less than adequate starting standards. The edge you have is folding gainst a raise when your hand is dominated which the weaker players totally ignore. My conclusion is that it "depends". If the player structure is such that you have a few tight/weak players, a couple typical players, and a few loose types, then I think your strategy is sound. But throw a couple tight/tough players into the mix and it may backfire. No doubt deception is part of the game but it should a changing deception. IMO
Regards, Dugie
I know what this guy is trying to say. He is trying to say that, if you raise from early position, you will knock out all of the good, tight players, and get left with the loose callers who will pay you off. Fine. But there are a couple of problems with this.
1) If I am in the game I will notice how you play and what you raise with. So, next time you raise first in, I am going to reraise you with my AQ offsuit (or better) and isolate me, you, AND the fish with all of your garbage.
2) Any good, tight player will notice how you play and isolate you.
3) Those good, tight players will sometimes get AA KK and AK and then you will be stuck playing your 86 suited against them heads up and out of position.
This kind of nonsense sounds a lot like 'bunching theory' and other nonsense that some people buy into. They might sound reasonable at a glance but they don't hold up to scrutiny.
-SmoothB-
I have mentioned this before as one of the reasons I think it makes sense to 100% raise or fold when opening early (never open-calling) in most middle and upper limit games. Your raise gets the pros out, and you wind up playing against only a fish or two, which is just fine by you. Just how loose to play is another matter.
-Abdul
Two plus two'ers advocate limping a lot more than you in loose games. But I think they underestimate the value of eliminating the competition, which I think is what Hosh is trying to emphasize. True, in a loose game your raise will not force out as many players as it will in a tight game, but if it gets out the one player that would have beaten you or outplayed you post-flop, then you missed an opportunity by not raising with, for example, A-Q offsuit, which S & M advise to not raise with most of the time in a loose game.
This kind of nonsense sounds a lot like 'bunching theory' and other nonsense that some people buy into. They might sound reasonable at a glance but they don't hold up to scrutiny.
What's "bunching theory"? It sounds like my underware.
Fat-Charlie
The problem with this advice is that you're gonna have positional disadvantage all hand long, everytime!!!!
z
Here is where the new theory works. The tight players fold to the raise in almost all cases when they call and 3 bet you can release my hand for the minimum and they pay the maximum if you get a flop you like. They are in a no win situation. It cost me three small bets if they raise and only 2 if they don't. The tight player may adjust but then becomes like any other loose player. Trying to catch hands with weak cards. Most good players do not like this position. So the hands they have to gamble with are becoming few and far between. They may call or raise with AA kk qq jj tt Ak Aq a lot won't even call with 99 as it does not play well multi handed. Maybe Aj suited and maybe Ak suited. Pretty limited. The tight player just does not play enough hands to win in this situation. So they give up the fight after being stung a few times and become defenseless. Leaving you to play against the loose players who call you to the river with weaker hands.. You have dictated how the game is going to be played. Now there is a way to beat a tight game as well and the heads up raises. Using a slightly different strategy.
Oh Yah one other thing position is not as important when you are only playing against people who will call you to the river anyway with gut shot draws and whatever else they may have.
have you tried it? if yes, post some hands , if not, try it and post some hands. id be interested in your results, the way the table responded to your play, etc.
brad
What is the minimum offsuit connected hand that you should consider to call with pre-flop in these situations? My take follows for a low limit game with a few weak players:
1. From early position? KQo open with a call KQo with limpers or against one loose raiser.
2. Middle position? T9o against two limpers
3. Late position? 56o against 3 limpers 89o against 1 raiser with 2 callers after
I know this is too loose, but what should it be at? Thanks!
Your way too loose. If you never played 56o or 89o and similar garbage again the rest of your life you would be way ahead. Perhaps if I'm in a gambling mood I might play 78o or similar junk on the button when it's a family pot and I do not feer a raise from the blinds.
Bruce
You are playing far, far too loose. The only way you could make money playing this way would be if you were playing in an almost infinitely loose and passive game where everyone called every bet but never bet or raised.
1) KQ offsuit is the lowest offsuit hand I'll play in early position. I will never play KQ offsuit in a raised pot. What can you do with it? Not a whole lot. KQ offsuit, though prized by weak players who will raise with it in any position, is a marginal hand, and barely playable in early position. In fact, if you never played it at all from early position, you probably wouldn't be any worse off.
2) I would never play anything worse than QJ offsuit here. And I would NEVER EVER even consider playing it in a raised pot.
3) Same here - sometimes if I am feeling really loose I will play JT offsuit on the button - but only if there are a couple of callers who will call all the way to the river with anything if I get lucky. And even then only one time in 10 at most. I will never call a raise with it here. I won't even play KQ offsuit in a raised pot - ok maybe one time in 20.
However, if it's checked all the way around to me, I'll raise with everything down to JT offsuit. But that is a different story.
All this coming from a consistent winner.
-SmoothB-
Goodness gracious...and to think that KQ off was a good hand, even to raise with...[speaking of 3-6 in mild games [[not too loose/tight]] where everyone plays everything]
i'm trying to get my stack of chips to not go so up and down each session. it seems like they're riding magic mountain's latest ride: Goliath.
and i can recall getting into trouble with KQ when i cold call 2 or sometimes 3 bets because it's king queen! [always hoping for the suckout because it seems like in this limit, suckouts are the money makers]
i have A LOT of tweaking to do after losing 300 yesterday and being up 200...in a table full of locals...[i started getting waaaay too loose in my 5-6 hours...and they started to read my like a book, calling me down when it was heads up when they hell 2-2 and the board contained scary cards, and i bet out, and this guy who i knew was reading me like a book called me down. and it happened twice w/ another guy holding 4-4!
sheeshish...there must've been a sign on my head when i was bluffing.
in any case, a prop who was to my left characterized me as loose-agressive. [i asked him what he thought of me just before i got up]
i never thought that i was that loose playing hands like 8-9 late position, or under the gun for one bet, and other hands mentioned in the original post.
to me, it appears as though the locals who are playing 'tight' look like beatable rocks.
but that's not the case by any means.
okay, that's enough venting. have a nice day. bye bye.
-jon
They were calling you down because you seemed like a maniac to them. You are playing too loose if you can have swings that big in such a short time in a 3-6 game.
It's not that they could read you like a book - they just became accustomed to seeing you bluff and decided to call you with some marginal hands.
I'll give you one tip for playing in these games - it is almost pointless to bluff in these games. If you are in a game that has at least a couple of calling stations, never bluff. They will call you down with any pair. Also, these games are often so profitable that you can win plenty by just waiting for legitimate hands. You don't need to try to supplement your income by taking shots at small pots.
-SmoothB-
Your game has a lot of leaks. Get them fixed. If you are having $500 swings in a session you are doing something wrong. You are playing way too many hands and playing hands without regard for position. Bluffing in a 3-6 game is almost impossible. You are waisting your money. KQo and QJo are among the two biggest sucker hands. They should almost never be played for a raise and if you passed UTG with them you would be doing your bankroll a big favor.
Bruce
The posters are right but if your game is loose passive enough you can come in with 9-10 or even 8-9 here and there in late position and make it pay. I had 8-9o the other day in the cutoff and there were 5 limpers to me so I punted and won a PHAT pot. But the guidelines bruce and SB gave are solid and probably better for non-experts than anything looser. I think Sklansky would tell you to play a few more hands than the posters would if you think you are one of the better players at the table. To never or almost never play 10-Jo on the button seems a tad too tight to me, but you probably aren't giving up much if you always pass on those types of hands.
QJo in early position is a classic mistake hand, and so is KQo for a raise.
Thanks for all the comments. I usually don't play this loose, but this is talking about a loose table where I see players drag down pots with 75o and Kxo. This table has about 1/3 weak/loose players. And players calling down with 3rd pair. I'm disciplined enough to fold on the flop if it misses me. My thinking is that if I play looser pre-flop, if the flop hits me I'll get paid.
Could you please tell me where and when you play?
Tony, The best information I have read on pre-flop play comes from this article: http://www.posev.com/poker/holdem/strategy/preflop-abdul.html I recommend looking it over.
Rob
I consider the raising standards of my opponents before making a decision to play K-Qo. It might seem an obvious point, but routinely playing K-Qo when your opponents standards are to raise only with bigger hands is just asking for trouble.
1. From early position? KQo open with a call KQo with limpers or against one loose raise
(only in a short handed game 6 or less,NEVER in a full ring)
2. Middle position? T9o against two limpers
My mimimum for this is QJs maybe KQo.
3. Late position? 56o against 3 limpers 89o against 1 raiser with 2 callers after
against 3 limps, 98o is OK, against a raise with
two callers, I prefer at least QJ
How do you know when it's time to move on from playing $3-6, 1-4-4-8 or 5-10 and start playing $10-20. Is there certain stats/hours/win ratio that you look at before moving on to a bigger game???
Ok, take the following quiz:
1) Do I keep accurate records of my wins and losses? (This indicates that you play a disciplined game.)
2) Am I a consistent winner? Many people think that they can't win at low limit because the other players 'don't know what they're doing.' They believe that mid limit players play better and somehow this means that they will be able to win. That's nonsense. If you can't win at the easy low limit games you will get torn up in mid limit games.
3) Have I played at least 1000 hours of lower limit poker? You can't come to the conclusion that you are a winning player until you've played at least 1000 hours. You need this much time to let those days when you went on a heater or, conversely, didn't win a hand for 8 hours, fall into the baseline.
4) Do I have a large enough bankroll to cover the game? Many state that you need at least 300 BB bankroll for any given level. This seems a bit low to me but what do I know.
5) Have I done a lot of reading and thinking about poker? Do I read the advice on this forum, and does it often agree with my analysis?
6) Do I no longer have sessions where I go on tilt, know I am on tilt, and continue to play until I 'get even'?
If the answer to any of these questions is no, it is probably better to hold off 10-20 until you can answer yes to all of them. UNLESS you answer yes to this one:
1) Do I have a lot of money to burn and not mind if I lose a few thousand playing poker?
If the answer to this question is yes, none of the others matter and you can feel free to plunge headlong into the world of mid limit poker.
-SmoothB-
You'll know. If you have to ask, you're not ready.
Grind it out at low limit until you're up $4000. Then take that money and play 10-20 with it. If you can't grind out this amount at 5-10, then it's a sign that you're not ready for 10-20. If you lose this at 10-20, then that's yet another sign that you're not ready for 10-20 and should therefore go back down there at the low limits and grind it out all over again until your results finally tell you that you're finally ready. Get it?
if youre not broke then take a shot and see how it goes. personally , i would bring only a fixed amount of money (say 500), get in a good game (if theres not a game you or someone you trust view as good then just play your regular game) , and play tighter than youve ever played before and see what happens. also if you can sweat someone whos in 10/20 or higher game that would probably help you see how it goes (and be able to drink too).
brad
I think playng 5-10 or below is wasting your time, particularly if you have a good grasp of the game. Due to the rake, you stand to lose a higher percentage of the time, and due to the loosish nature of the games, your deviation will be high. Further, you aren't going to be learning any advanced techniques, rather you will be learning how to beat 5-10 players. Seems like a losing proposition.
I am not so sure about that. I remember when I began playing about 10 years ago. I used to play 3-6 HE in Oceanside and I felt like I was getting pretty good. I also used to play 6-12 when they would spread the game. I probably beat the game about 90 percent of the time. I started getting cocky and would go up to L.A. and play 10-20 at the Bicycle. I used to get beat like a drum. I just could not beat the game for the life of me. I'd go back down to Oceanside and beat up the smaller games and venture back up to L.A. This pattern when on for several years. It took me about 2 years until I finally became a break even player at 10-20 or 15-30. Smaller games just play differently than the bigger games. You can beat a smaller game consistently just by playing good starting hands. As you move up you need to learn how to really play. Reading your opponents, psychology, mixing up your play, and how you play from the flop on become very important.
Bruce
I'm not even sure why I'm posting this one. Maybe it's to cleanse myself of this awful play.
$10-$20, I limp in the cutoff after 3 callers with Qd 8d. (mistake #1 and the costliest). Button and sb both call.
Flop is Ad,Jd,2c. There is a bet, I call, button calls. Turn is 5d. Checked to me, I bet, button calls, 1st player raises, I call, button folds. River is a Ts. 1st player bets, I raise, he re-raises, and I #!@%ing call! Here's my question:
In this situation where you KNOW you are beat, how important is it to muck quickly? I felt that I hesitated too long over the call. I didn't want the table to know I would lay down a flush here, even though it was obvious I was beat. So I called because a). My hesitation made it obvious I was folding a flush b). By now it was a big pot. and c). He did afterall have to have precisely the Kd Xd to beat me. Of course he showed me exactly that and I was about as upset with myself as I have been in a long time... Comments?
Okay your limp in was not great but it didn't get raised behind you. You flop a flush draw and then complete your hand on the turn. When you get raised on the turn I think you should reraise with the second nut flush. If he caps it, then you just call the river bet. You cannot fold here.
Sammy-
Thanks for the response. You're right about the turn and the river. Heads up I re-raise. But because of the player behind me, I didn't think re-raising was necessary because a). Someone could have a bigger draw (set or a lone Kd). b). I could already be beat. and c). if I pick up the buttons call, I make the same $$$ on the turn.
On the river when no other draw got there, he not only needs 2 diamonds, but 2 diamonds that beat my 2nd nuts. I'm not as upset with my raise here, but I think if you're going to make that play, you gotta be able to fold for 3 bets which I didn't do. That was very weak of me...
You have to understand that your failure to fold after the reraise on the river was NOT as big a mistake as giving your opponent a chance to raise in the first place. If you had raised the turn and (I don't mean to belabor the point but I feel this is crucial) were reraised on the turn then you could be pretty certain that your opponent had made a flush. When he bets out on the river you can be pretty sure he has the nuts, but unless you've seen his hole cards you must call the bet. Only if the board was paired and there were a couple of raises on the turn and river would you have a clear fold.
Your raise on the river was not good. You chose to just call the raise on the turn when you made the second nut flush when, if you were going to re-raise, should have been on the turn. The reason is because if the third player happens to be hanging around with the singleton King of Diamonds you want him to pay the maximum to see the river so 3 betting might make some sense on the turn. But raising on the river is bad. The reason is because you do not have the nuts and your opponent when he has the nuts will know he has the nuts and will always correctly re-raise. Since you can never fold, you are risking two bets to win one bet. How fast you muck after seeing his hand is not important.
Thanks for responding Jim.
See my response to SAMMY B. for my reasoning for the turn and river play. Please respond if you have anything to ad. Even if you do not see any merit to my reasons, are you of the opinion that my call on the river was correct? btw- I did not hesitate mucking AFTER seeing his cards, but before, when faced with the re-raise on the river. Thanks again.
Kevin
I don't think limping in with Qd-8d in the cutoff behind 3 limpers is as bad an idea as you think it was. This hand can be profitable in a loose game in late position with a bunch of limpers in front of you.
I would have raised the turn for the reasons Jim Brier gave above. I read your response to Sammy B about why you didn't and about why you raised the river, but I believe Jim's reasoning has more going for it.
As for saving the last $20, it is usually correct to make the last call after there's been a lot of action. I count $280 in the pot at that point, so you're getting 14:1. But in this case, with the Jd on board, he would have had to have been re-raising you with the 3rd nut flush, which is very unlikely. You should probably have saved the $20, but the decision to call is understandable and you should not be upset about it.
As for not wanting the table to know you folded with a flush, no one would have known anything. You could have made a straight or had two pair or anything.
There are a number os correct ways to play or not play this hand. I am most concerned with your thinking about what the table will think if you muck after a long pause. Who cares! - it would take a really good player to muck the flush after a great read - most wouldn't have a clue.
Remember the laydown of the century in the TOC last year AA vs KK - KK got layed down preflop heads up at the final table.
It takes a good player to lay down a good hand.
Andy, thanks for your input. One last question: Had you raised the turn and got re-raised and bet into on 5th st... Do you consider this a clear call? If so, I guess we lose the same (5 bets from the turn on).
For the record, I think he made a poor check/raise with the nuts. 1). He can't be sure anyone will bet. 2). He can't be sure his check/raise will get called. and 3). If he bets out, I raise and he can re-raise. Since he was a thinking player, this is one reason why I played it the way I did. Guess I got out thunked.
Thanks again Andy.
Yes, I think I call him down on both the turn and the river. The only exception would be if I absolutely knew that he would not put in this much action without the nuts.
I remember once (about a hundred years ago) in a draw game (Jacks or better to open) the pot was opened by a very tight player; it was raised and then I made it 3 bets with a straight. The pot was cold called behind me and then the opener made it 4 bets. All three of us folded. It turns out we all had straights but we knew that this particular player would not make it 4 bets without a monster; he had a full house. But you rarely "know" these things. Some guys cap with a set even though there's a possible straight or flush on board. You make the 2nd nut flush and someone else has the nuts, you're going to lose a bunch of money.
Never mind saving $20. You have to call the river.
I question question the logic in calling on the turn, then raising on the river. So you went from WEAK (turn), to STRONG (river), and the river card changed nothing.
You made the second nut flush and someone else made the nut, and board isn't paired, only 3 suited card...GUESS WHAT? You are GOING to lose a few BBs. Not much you can do about that.
15-30 Holdem. 10 and 15 blinds. You post 15 to the right of the button. You are dealt a pair of eights. UTG tightish player puts his last 25 in the pot. Everyone folds to you. You see player on the button ready to throw his hand away. You can call 10 or raise to 40. Which of the following four statements is correct?
(A) I would call but it's close
(B) I would call and it's not close
(C) I would raise but it's close
(D) I would raise and it's not close.
D) I want the blinds out of the hand and I'll take my chances heads up with all in UTG. I don't want the overcards to my 88 in the blinds' hands in play.
I would raise and it is not close. My choice is (D). There is $65 in the pot and for another $25 you can probably get the blinds outs with you having what is most likely the best hand. Even though the UTG is a tight player his raise does not necessarily mean a bigger pair but could mean AK or AQ. Even if he has a bigger pair you don't have to worry about being dominated since he cannot bet anymore money. You are a big favorite over the blinds who could have random hands plus you have position.
Good reasoning except the part that makes it 'not even close'.
After the blinds fold, you will get back $15; therefore, you are truely betting $10 to win $65.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say C.
Without UTG in the hand, there is $45 in dead money out there. Raising is not even close. But now, only $25 of the pot is dead. If UTG has you beat, you don't mind the blinds playing. It's close...
(D) I would raise and it's not close.
raise, it's not close
"D" as per my earlier post on Other Topics Forum.
without looking (god, i hope i dont look stupid), in the absence of at table info, i would have to choose
(D) I would raise and it's not close.
because im about 50/50 versus overcards and getting (way) better pot odds, but i need to be heads up.
brad
D: Since UTG is down to the green, the fact that he is tightish is not as relevant as it normally would be. By raising to $40, sb has to call 2 big bets and BB has to call almost two big bets, so you're going to lose them most of the time. So you're putting in $25 to try to win the $65 already in the pot. Are pockets 8s going to win more than 25 times in 90 head-up with your opponent all in? I would think so.
Without looking at others' responses yet, D.
D is the right answer, but I am too chicken to play 15-30. hehe
Mark
D - No question. The 2nd raise may be enough to get me heads up with all in player. He only had enough to cover his blinds so he could go all in w/any almost playabe cards. Either that or blind into the felt. He is either leaving or made a big mistake not making a rebuy. If this were a tourney, I would call, no question. Now I want to bust out UTG more than I want to win a small pot.
D.
(D)I would raise and it's not close.
I'm somewhat inexperienced but option (D) makes sense to me in this senario.
If you raise and both blinds fold you have created 6.5:1 odds for yourself. If you just call, you will often get 7.0:1 on your initial bet. An additional consideration is that you would prefer not to play the hand on a flop with over-cards where you miss your set. Head's up against the tightish player (assume he'll raise with aq,ak,aa,kk,qq,jj,1010), you are gauranteed a profit if both blinds fold. This math is straight-forward and easy to prove.
The play of the hand becomes less clear if you just call and take a flop with the two blinds. Even though your odds may improve slightly if you just call, your implied odds are poor and your hand may become difficult to play against 2 random hands where overcards will fall ~85% of the time.
ANS: Raise and it's not close.
I vote C. - I raise but it is close.
Frank Donnelly
youre in the minority it seems. explain your reasoning if you dont mind.
brad
Brad:
I see the raise as correct but close because this hand becomes a significant underdog if either of the blinds call, and if they fail to call, the hand is just so so against UTG. Part of the value of middle pairs are in their implied odds aspect. Since the UTG is all in there are only the pot odds, which are good, but already available for a mere call. I may be able to be talked out of my position.
Frank Donnelly
What about the fact that it was noted that the button looked apt to fold? I understand the $65 for $10 part (you get your $15 back if the blinds fold), but you may not want them to fold! If UTG has you beat, the blinds are the only pot odds you've got going for you. Otherwise your putting $10 in to win $65, but with only 2 likely outs.
well i think the point of the D) crowd is that:
1) youre going to have to play because youre (more than) half in and have position. this is taken as a given.
2) if the blinds fold youre getting 6.5 to 1 odds. but wait! you cant fold!(see 1) ) so EFFECTIVELY youre getting INFINITE ODDS (75 to 0).
3) so if the blinds will fold often enough (remember we can still flop a set so it doesnt have to be a certainty) to get us to 2) then it is a no brainer and D) is the only choice.
4) (lots math goes here to prove EV for 3) given the chance of being called just calling, chance of being called when raising, flopping a set when called, etc.)
brad
Raise, and it's not close. If the blinds were extremely weak players that would never check-raise, and would never bet unless they had a pair bigger than 8's, it would be closer. But with other players in the hand, you're going to lose all the times that someone hits their overcard pair, AND the times when you are forced to fold the best hand. Against typical players, that means you're almost never going to win with your pair of 8's unless you hit a set.
If you're heads-up against an all-in player, your implied odds problem goes away, you have no problems playing the hand, and you also pick up those wins where you are beat on the flop but go on to hit a set on the turn or river, when you would otherwise have had to fold on the flop to a bet.
Dan, you wrote:
"Against typical players, that means you're almost never going to win with your pair of 8's unless you hit a set."
I don't understand that statement. There are many flops that pocket 8's can go on to win against 1 or 2 players, let alone blind hands.
"If you're heads-up against an all-in player, your implied odds problem goes away"
My math is nowhere near as proficient as yours. But isn't it possible that your implied odds problem might just be beginning? If UTG has a larger pocket pair, NOW you are almost never going to win. If the blinds play on the other hand, your implied odds go up if you flop a set or your 8's hold up. Where am I going wrong with my thinking here? Thanks.
Kevin
Assuming your raise always gets it head up and a call always makes it four ways the situation is this: Head up you will win the $65 pot almost half of the time. EV from that point- about $30. Four way pot you will rarely win without a set. If you hit a set on the flop you will win that $65 + $25 + an average of about $90 more. Thats $180 times about 1/9. That's an EV of about $20. However you will occasionally win without hitting the set even if you won't gamble without one. That adds $65 times perhaps 10% or $6.50. You will also sometimes see fouth st. for free, spike an eight and win more. Thats about 4% times the probability of a free card (1/2 ?)times at least at least $100 which is $2. We are up to $28.50 and not counting spiking on the end. Bottom line: I was right when I told Vince that almost everyone would say it was a clear fold. On the other hand he was right when he said he thought we all might be wrong. Surprise.
Bottom line: I was right when I told Vince that almost everyone would say it was a clear fold. On the other hand he was right when he said he thought we all might be wrong. Surprise.
Was this a typo? You said that you were right when you thought everyone would say it was a clear fold? I didn't see anyone recommending a fold.
Figuring the EV here is largely dependent on what kinds of players are in the blinds. The numbers you are using for EV make some big assumptions about how much you will win if you hit a set, how often you'll get a free card on the flop, how often the blinds will fold if you re-raise, etc.
sorry
Let's say I offer you $1.50 for free. What is so unclear as to whether you should take it?
D
"Against typical players, that means you're almost never going to win with your pair of 8's unless you hit a set."
Pocket eights wins 62% of the time in a cold simulation against two random opponents, but will make a set (or better) by the river only about 20% of the time. You have to be placing undue emphasis on the likelihood of eights folding the best hand.
That's why I made the qualifier about opponents who will check to you unless they hit a pair. If you don't raise, then it's almost certain that the blinds are going to play fairly agressively against what looks like an all-in player and two random cards. If you are good enough to play your 8's well when the flop comes up KT7 and there is a bet and a call in front of you, then sure you'll win more pots. Most mortals are going to have to give up a lot of the time.
If you DO play them through, you have poor implied odds. It's going to cost you a lot when you're wrong. If you are always going to call to the river regardless of what the board is then your numbers might be correct (but do your calculations for three opponents - the small blind is virtually guaranteed to call the extra $5), but then your real investment is going to be $45, assuming the blinds don't raise each other.
xx
Flop was Q,x,x, UTG had Ac,4c.
Vince
"C" I would raise, but I think it may be close because medium pairs are robust hands IMO which play well head-up or against a few opponents; it also depends on the playing characteristics of the blinds. If I held AQ or AK instead, it would be a clear raise.
(B) Call and it's not close.
The utg's raise has largely forfetited your blind stealing power, so you win the most by inducing the blinds to gamble against your likely better hand.
After looking at some of the other answers I'll change mine to "raise but it's close." Your EV for raising is about $20, assuming that 88 beats AA-TT, AK-AQ about 40% of the time. Your EV for calling is also almost certainly positive, given that you're getting 6.5-1 and you generally don't have to flop a set to beat two random hands. But it's probably less than $20.
David,
Since this is a poll, I’ll respond without looking at the other ballots. I was involved in the original thread and at first didn’t realize the UTG player was all-in. When I found that out, I thought raising was still better, but there was merit in calling. A lot depends on the blinds. If they defend and are tenacious post flop, then calling protects the pot and you can be pretty sure if they bet they have a legitimate hand and play accordingly. So my answer is:
(C) I would raise but it's close
Regards,
Rick
David,
Since this is a poll, I’ll respond without looking at the other ballots. I was involved in the original thread and at first didn’t realize the UTG player was all-in. When I found that out, I thought raising was still better, but there was merit in calling. A lot depends on the blinds. If they defend and are tenacious post flop, then calling protects the pot and you can be pretty sure if they bet they have a legitimate hand and play accordingly. So my answer is:
(C) I would raise but it's close
Regards,
Rick
I've had this happen a lot lately. I thought it posted then realized it didn't after I refreshed. So I posted again (most of my posts are written in Word and pasted in) and then I noticed that the other one showed up late. Strange. - Rick
I'd expect to get the raise back. I'd just be giving the blinds a nudge in case they had any ideas.
(D) I would raise and it's not close.
With any pair and a whole bunch of other hands.
I have to raise to dump the blinds. If I can get heads up, then I feel comfortable. If the blinds do stay, I might still be OK. My position sucks, so I think I would be very dependent on the flop to see what to do next.
My answer is D, but it could be C if I think I cannot dump the blinds with a raise.
What do you mean your position sucks? Assuming the button is dumping no matter what you do (implied in the original question), then you have the best position.
D
(D) I would raise and it's not close
D
D) raise, not close
( havent read the others yet )
D. You do not want the BB having a cheap overcard draw, and if UTG was not all-in and facing blinds next hand the decision would be different. (Then I would call, hoping the BB calls, as now I am looking to flop a set or proceed very cautiously.)
A9
I quite frankly did not know the answer to this poll when I played this hand. After I posed it to David I had to think about it a lot. I thought about it only in respect to if it pointed to a fundamental discrepancy in my approach to playing poker. It may. I am a gambler. I know that. I play poker because I want to gamble when I have the edge. I want to be in the lead. My first thoughts about this hand focused on what my EV of the hand would be if I raised and got it heads up. I believe that it is positive. David has explained that in a previous thread. I then wondered just what my EV would be if I just called. I don't know how to definitevely determine that. David explained it and showed that I could obtain a +EV by just calling. When I played the had It was instinct more than anything that influenced me to just call. Both blinds called. Q high flop. checked to me and I bet and won the pot. If 8,8 rarely wins in a four way pot as described and as someone claims then what a coincidence. I am only posting to add insight into what happened. I am not recommending playing the hand as I did. I am still of the mind that nothing and I mean nothing in poker is an absolute. All hands and I mean all hands can be played in different ways. Poker can not be played by rote. I am still learning and you all are helping me. More important than learning poker I am learning about me and hopefully improving even at this advanced age. Let's all thank David (again) for stimulating our thinking with this poll.
Vince.
Something that wasn't mentioned in the answer given was that the EV facing only the all-in player (by raising) has a lower standard deviation than the call. In addition, I feel as if the estimated additional profit of $90 (after the flop) when you flop a set with the eights might be too high. Many times (relatively speaking) the 8's will flop a set and make no additional money. Occasionally, you will flop a set of 8's and lose! Although, if David thought it out, I'd be willing to go along with him that the # is close to this.
But, to lobby for the "not close" choice 'd', I would say that a $30 EV with low standard deviation (though the "tightish" term, when used to describe the UTG player may be a bit too subjective to delineate the player) is clearly a better choice than a $28.50 EV with a larger standard deviation.
P.S. I love this type of question.
C
Wow....there has been a LOT of responses to this. I haven't read any of them yet, but I'm going to go for answer D before I read them. Yes Regis, that's my final answer....I think....
nt
Maybe it's the way I play, but if I am in early to middle position and I am dealt pocket K's or A's, I am not going to raise. Is this the correct play? I know lots of people say ALWAYS raise on JJ-AA, but I feel if I raise in an early position, the other players essentially know what I am holding.
Feedback please
If you only raise with big pairs, then many people will know what you hold. You need to have a balanced raising attack so that your opponents don't know for sure. Read Hold'em Poker for Advanced Players.
What happens when you raise early? does everyone fold? Or do the blinds call and then meekly fold on the flop? Then start raising w/more hands.
You should raise w/other hands early, to throw your more observant opponents off, (assumign there are observant opponents in the game).
Even if it seems to give away your hand you should still raise, by limping you let alot of people in cheaply who you want out. ALot of these hands can correctly play for one bet but not for two.
I confess that I would rather raise in early position with A-A or K-K. However, there are a few situations where I will not. One, if the button or cutoff is an aggressive player and likely to make it 2 bets, then I will play it as in NL -- I'll limp-reraise. This usually succeeds in blowing out the weak hands. The second situation is where I'm in a game that raises before the flop "invite" people to call. If I'm going to get a full field anyway, I may limp and play the flop as if I held a smaller pair -- non-threatening flops I'll bet/raise; threatening flops, I may "peel one off" looking for a set. This situation takes good judgment, but poker can't be played by rote. All-in-all though, raise most of the time with A-A and K-K.
p.s. This is being posted from El Paso, Texas. Speaking Rock casino is home to the loosest, weakest 15-30 game in the nation.
If you only raise with big pairs in early position then your observant opponents will know exactly where you are. You need to start raising with a wider range of hands early so your play will not be so predictable. Most successful players will raise about 90 percent of the time or higher with pocket Kings and Aces in very early position. If you are an inexperienced player I suggest you raise everytime you get Aces and Kings regardless of your position until you get a better feel for playing. While learning the game don't get cute and fancy. Learn to play smart, solid poker and concentrate on the basics.
Bruce
Bill,
I would raise with AA or KK between 90-95% of the time pre-flop from any position other than the blinds. If I am in the blinds, it really just depends on the players in the game and the type of game it is.
If you find yourself getting little or no action when you raise from early or middle position, then you may want to consider varying your play to throw off more observant opponents.
Just some thoughts,
Michael D (soccer/sucker Mike)
After BB hits the flop and cracks your pocket AA with crap like 83o a few times you'll learn...
So what? If your game is populated by weak calling stations like most of mine are, they are going to call raises with hands like JTo, small pairs with few players, K9, etc. etc. Make these players pay for their mistakes! Sure, you are going to get run over on occasion, but think of the big picture.
As far as 'deception' goes, I was discussing this very topic with a buddy who is fairly new to HE. I told him, " I don't always raise with Ace's, but I always raise with Ace's." It took him a couple of seconds to get my drift, but he then saw what I meant. As others have said, you need to throw in the odd curve with an early position raise with something like 88, just to keep them guessing a little bit, but IMO to not raise with premium hands like AA or KK in low limit games is a capital offence.
You also raise first in in late position as well. Trying to sucker people in won't work for as much money as the times you get called or even raised by the blinds. Players tend to tread carefully when a late position player limps in with the 1st call. I recently went through a streak where 3 consecutive times that I held aces I was on the button. I raised every time. If I win right there I wouldn't be happy, but better that than to be out flopped by 73o. Twice the BB called and once the SB called and the BB raised. I won all 3 pots for a lot more than I would have by just calling.
AKA bet your big hands!!!
15-30 tonight. I'm in the BB with Q9 offsuit. an early position maniac raises by the time it gets to me there has only been one players who dropped, and no further raising. I figure eight players paying 2 bets apiece gives me 15-1 odds, so I call. the remaining players just call, as expected, and we see the flop of KJ10r.
I bet when SB checks. we get about 4 callers and the SB check raises. I three bet him and he caps. We see the turn five handed.
turn is 7 and brings two hearts on board. SB bets out, I raise, one caller and... SB calls. Cool. no AQ.
River is a black 5. SB checks I bet, only SB calls and my flopped straight holds up.
SB later tells me that he had a set of kings. he also asks me if I would have called if he three bet the before the flop. I mumbled something about Q9 being my lucky hand and that of course I would have.
For the record, no I wouldn't have.
was my pre flop call correct? I think the hand pretty much played itself from then on: jam it up until someone tells you you're beat.
I would play the hand exactly like you. For one more bet in the BB I most definetely would play Q9o. The implied odds are sky high. The key to playing your hand is being able to get off of it early if you only have a pair of Nines or Queens if you sense trouble. Hopefully you will get lucky and flop a straight, two pair, or triplicate Nines and play the hand accordingly. The SB obviously needs to get his game fixed.
Bruce
in early postion. Lets say you call with a pair of deuces in early position. The worst odds you are going to get is 2 to 1 on your money. If called in two spots the worst the odds that you will get is 4 to 1. If three bet you can throw it away for 1 bet. All but one other combination you will only add to your odds in a typical game. Pairs in this situation can only make money as the implied odds are higher then 7.5 to 1 in almost all cases. When you hit a set you will easily make up th 3 bets after the flop. Pairs can only be considered with implied odds.
the worst odds you will get will be 1.25:1 when all fold to BB who raises.
i can see you havent tried out this theory yet:)
brad
Malmuth suggests you target implied odds of 10:1 to cover the times you flop the set and lose. So if 4 others take the flop you have to be VERY confident you can get an additional 6sb in the pot.
Well you can always do what I did about 2 months ago. I played just about every pair I was dealt. I would either try for heads up or a calling frenzy depending on the situation. I wanted to learn about pairs. I learned and now I play them much better. My current experiment is limping with big slick. I also usually have a hand-of-the-month, but that's another story.
Aha! So you are the guy on Paradise's 5-10 game who is constantly limping in with AK.
I have only played 5-10 for about 1/2 hour in the last 3 months and that was this past weekend. But I'm sure I did it once I may have done it twice.
sounds interesting... would you care to elaborate?
How come you dont tell us about your "hand of the month", perhaps in a new thread? Or maybe last month's hand, we want the final verdict, not 2 weeks worth :)
B$
True statement, which is why in a loose/passive game you can play any pair from any seat on the table.
I think everyone knows that small pairs early play well in loose passive games, but unless the table is at least pretty loose I don't see how they're profitable. When you don't flop a set and you're heads-up against a typical raiser, you're probably a 3-1 dog or worse out of position. And when aggressive players realize you limp early with most small pairs they'll raise you a lot.
$40-$80 HWP:
I do a lot of studying and read this forum daily and it has helped my game. I usually play $10-$20 thru $20-$40 daily. I jumped into this $40-$80 game because there were some very loose players, but I'm not use to playing at this level. I got complete lost in this hand and that rarely happens at the lower limits. This is why I'm posting this hand so if I play at the larger limits I'll be more prepared. ( I don't think I ready for games higher then $20-$40)
It's a very loose game and I didn't play a hand in the first hour. I'm UTG with Ac-Qc and raise. It's call, call and reraise by the button. The big blind caps the pot. (5 Players)
The flop: As-Kc-Qh: The BB bets I raise. This is not the greatest flop for my hand, but I still might have the best hand and the pot is on the large side so I have to do everything to try to win it. Everyone folds and the button reraises and the BB caps the pot. The BB is a LAP and so is the button. I saw them Capp pot on very slim draws and play hands like 87 in capped pots so it's hard to put them on a hand.
The turn: As-Kc-Qh-9s: The BB bets out I just call and the button raises. The BB reraises so now it's two bets to me. (The bb will most likely capp the pot) The pot is huge what do you do? I'll post later. When the pot is this big and there is this much raising how do you adjust when the player are very loose, but not stupid.
You should have probably folded before the flop.
They were suited. HAHAHA It's hard to fold that hand. I would fold A-Q sometimes A-K. There were 5 callers and they were loose callers. I like my hand before the flop. What am I missing?
Perhaps David, in his haste to let others elaborate, is making a point about playing above your comfort level. If this was a $10-$20 game and the action and personalities are identical what do you do?
What you are missing is, exactly what David is recommending. To get the best of it you have to have superior cards or be able to outplay your opponents. You could not be sure of either in this situation. Fold before the flop. Wait for a better opportunity. What is the harm in that?
David,
This was a Hollywood 40/80. A fold would be insane.
Regards,
Rick
Maybe Sklansky was being polite and meant that the game was tougher than Dreamer thought.
why? just because it was a loose/aggressive game at HP does not mean the 3 better and the 4 better don't have AA/KK.
What is AQs drawing to against any combination of two hands with AA/KK/QQ/AKo/AKs? (I think you've got to put these guys on that, at worst JJ) It's drawing to either a straight or a flush...which means its just as good as 87s or JTs. Would you call 2 more bets with 87s or JTs?
To tell you the truth, if I was in the guy's position with AQs, I would have called also...but the more I think about it, I agree with Sklansky, its correct to fold, just because your hand is likely dominated. Hopefully I will do so if I get involved in that kind of situation, but frankly I am not sure I can get away from that hand.
In a loose game you fold AQs for 2 bets with no re-raise with 5 players in? I think you must call with 10-1 in the pot already (regardless of position).
OR
In a loose game you fold AQs UTG? I have trouble believing that.
With the preflop betting KK, AK, are strong possiblities. QQ and AA are possible as well.
If KK and AK are there then you're drawing dead to Q's running. Either fold now OR ride out the storm expecting that they are overplaying their hands.
I raised the turn hoping to get checked at the river. I believed that the button would raise so why not raise? I couldn't fold the pot was too big. This is a major weakness in my game. These players play like maniacs, but they play at this limit everyday and I don't. I didn't even consider folding before the flop. It was not even a thought. I've been studying a long time and I never thought of folding that hand before the flop in that situation. If it was three bets too me or capped too me BTF then I would through it away. I need to work on my game more.
The River: As-Kc-Qh-9s-6c: The BB checked I called time knowing that I would check. I checked and the Button checked. The BB had Kd-Qd I put him on AA-KK-AK at least. The button had Ks-Js. I feel like I won the hand by default and left afterwards. I was in shock, because I thought I was just giving away money. I'm still not comfortable playing at 40/80. I think that I should have folded this hand on the flop, but got caught up at the size of the pot.
Good post. Very interesting results. Having played a lot of 40-80 HE at HWP nothing really surprises me. I get the impression that the 2 raisers were trying to runover you, esp. the BB. They knew you were relatively inexperienced at this level and they probably sensed weakness on your part and felt like you were uncomfortable playing in a bigger game. As you move up psychology becomes an increasingly more important factor. Their play borders closely to a maniacs. The button put in an awful lot of action on a weak hand. He did pick up a big draw on the turn, but on the flop he was weak.
Bruce
I think you played this hand fine; your discomfort with the hand comes from your discomfort at this level of play.
We all know that being results oriented is wrong, but can you really look at the pot you won and the hands that were giving you action and think that folding on the flop was correct? Your read of these players was right on.
Mr. Sklansky,
Could you elaborate on this response? I am currently playing in $15-$30 game, two or three times a week, that is extremely loose and aggressive. It is not unusual for 4 to 6 players to see the flop with the betting capped. The raisers could have nearly anything (last night, a guy capped it 6 handed with 85o, and won on the river against AA when the second 8 hit the board), and $1000 pots are not unusual. Many of the regular players (but not all of them) are really quite solid after the flop, but putting them on a hand is difficult at best. Are you suggesting that you should routinely fold AQs UTG in a game of this sort? If so, what would you come in with: AA, KK and AKs only? Or, I suspect, are you saying that you should muck it UTG when it comes back to you capped (although, in this game it would really be the same thing since I would ALWAYS expect it to come back capped)?
I've only been playing in this game for a few weeks and, while I am doing okay so far, the tremendous standard deviation in this game worries me some (e.g. -Win $3300 one night, Lose $1700 the next, Win $600 the next, Lose $1500, etc.). My bankroll really isn't big enough for these kind of swings, but the game seems very beatable. Just playing tight alone won't do it though, since these players are aware enough to not pay off a tight player suddenly showing aggression (or just refusing to get bullied out), so I get in and mix it up with them on more marginal hands than I would in other games.....hence the big SD.
If you (or anyone else) could offer any practical advice on adjustments for a game like this, I would really appreciate it, since I'm trying to decide if I am going to continue to play in this particular game.
Thanks in Advance,
Steve
I think the best you can do is you have one of them tied and the other one has something like AJ or AT unless both these morons have AJ or AT (fat chance though I think but not impossible). I think you should fold. However if I was in your shoes I probably call them down but this is my drawback. I can't lay a decent hand down most of the time. Since you believed the button was going to cap it I say fold.
I think you should fold. Actually I think you should have folded on the flop after you raised and it came back to you capped. Unless these 2 players are complete maniacs at this point at least one of them is supposed to have AK or a set. You're drawing very slim and possibly drawing dead. I think your pre-flop call is fine due to the multi-way action and your hand being suited. Your flop raise is fine too to find out where you're at. But both these actions are only fine as long as you use the info well. Otherwise don't call with AQs if your speculative drawing hand doesn't get there and can't let go of it once you're very likely beat and are drawing thin. And don't raise to get info if you then ignore the info you got. I would have mucked to the re-raise and cap on the flop.
There is a small case you can make for calling the cap on the flop due to the backdoor flush draw. But I wouldn't play it cause I know I would have to pay through the roof for it and to me it's not worth it. Maybe for others it is.
Preflop at HWP your call is fine after raising. Keep in mind you are caught in the middle of two aggessive players and you really need to catch a big flop. The flop really isn't that good. There is a good possibilty that you are drawing dead or real skinny. You very well may be up against AA, KK, QQ, or even JT (this is afterall HWP). When you raise on the flop and it comes back to you capped now is the time to get off of your hand. There is the remote possibility that you do have the best hand or you might make the best hand, but I prefer leaving the heroics to someone else.
Bruce
Hey, I am a low limit player, but some things transcend all limits. One mistake I have recently overcome is chasing hands that have a reasonable chance of being beaten. I now ask my self this question: Is it worth putting in another stack or more of chips to chase this hand? In your hand in question, I would say no. You have two players who by their betting are saying they have you beaten. Unless you know the players well, you should respect that. Are two of them trying to buy the pot? Doubtful. They are looking at the same board you are. Rick says in the HWP game you should not fold this. I say, it depends on who the players are. If you don't know their playing habits, lay it down. I would have laid it down sooner.
Tyro,
I was referring to folding before the flop, since my post was directly under David Sklansky's comment. So pre flop, the UTG raise was correct, as was the call or two more bets once it was capped with so many opponents.
Whether to fold later in the hand is very player dependent, and we have little information right now.
Regards,
Rick
These guys saw your play before this hand came up. They also assuredly know you moved up to come to this game. You yourself said they are agressive but not stupid. If you can't see this flop you can't play this level. When the flop hits I would just call BB but when it comes back capped I would then have to let it go. The button could very well have JTs; BB probablly has AA,KK. I am a beginner but can look at this objectively. Unless they are in collusion you are creamed right now.
After reading how your opponents played this hand, if I had your hand, they would just have to show me something that could beat my two pair on a flop and turn like this.
Two things i've never done:
Played above 20 - 40, and
Opened for raise in early position then folded for an additional 2 bets.
Until I can find the strength to do the latter, you will not see me doing the former.
Having said all that, AQs requires delicate handling in a jammed pot when you are out of position. With a flop of A,K,Q and two "maniacs" in the hand, I don't know exactly how I would have handled it but I am fairly certain I would not have made it to the river.
Their attempt(s) to "bully me" would have been resoundingly successful.
Regards,
Chris
so Q7 is nicknamed "the computer hand" right? Someone at my table tonight claimed that it got the name when, in computer simulations, it was the most profitable hand in "showdown" poker.
I didn't argue with him, but it made me curious... how did it really get the name?
B$
No it's a hand you play on the train while you are "comuting" to work. LOL
Actually you are partially correct it did very well in computer simulations-goes to show you how valid computer sims are.
I heard it was the mean hand in a silly simulation 13 or so years ago.
I have heard on the internet that if you gave two players hands, and let them go to the river, the Q7 won half and lost half. That doesn't mean its a profitable hand because it would normally only be played against hands that are better than it.
So, basically what Louie said.
mth
I think it's possible that someone ran a simulation in which both the Q and the 7 (separately) were involved in the most WINNING hands.
Some yo-yo concluded that if you put them together, it must be the best starting hand... Hence, the computer hand.
The TRUTH about the Computer Hand:
If you get it in a no-limit game, you should raise $200 preflop. In exchange, you receive the secret recipe to Mrs. Field's cookies.
On the flop, pass the Computer Hand around the table. In return, Bill Gates will send you $1000 and a free copy of Windows 98. In addition, Disney will send you a free trip to Disney World.
On the turn, mail a xerox of Computer Hand to Sydney Hashimoto, a young leukemia patient who is trying to be placed in the Guiness Book of World Records category, "Largest Collection of Genuine Photocopied Computer Hands."
Finally, on the river, DO NOT FOLD. Otherwise you will lose consciousness and wake up in a bathtub full of ice. That nice female dealer harvested your kidneys!
While I liked your response the best (Rounder gets the silver medal), the mean seems to make alot of sense. Not that that information is actually usefull or anything, but now at least I've got my trivia straight.
B$
An early computer simulation (probably with a drastically inadequate sample size) found Q7 to be positive expectation. Q7s on the button against overly loose-passive computer opponents won't do *that* badly, and in the very short-run might appear profitable, especially if the computer opponents don't check-raise. If ten players see the flop every hand, I wouldn't be suprised if Q7s turned a profit in late position if it only plays for one bet preflop and those opponents also take their hands too far.
Well, I didn't ask about the hand because I'm fond of playing it, but I've played this, and even worse suited queens when 5 or 6 players have limped in and I am on the button.... even the cutoff if the players behind me won't raise. I think in some of the games I've played, I could show a profit with any two suited cards in this spot, but I think Q4 is about the furthest I've pushed it.
Took down a monster pot with 34s (button or cutoff, can't remember) the other day, when my straight flush draw turned into a nut straight in an 8 way action pot. The same players who fear me/don't notice me/make fun of me for playing too tight, most days, couldn't stop talking about what a fish I was. It was profitable, fun, and healthy!!
B$
I kind of like what you call it in the subject line best. We should rename this hand the "Commuter Hand", because if you keep playing it, you will be riding a bus after you have to sell your car. :-)
Get Heads Up!
What a shame, Empress Joliet closed it's card tables down. No more poker. This will just cause more and more people to go to the only other boat with poker around that being Hollywood aurora. This room is crowded as it is...what a waste..
Kevin
Yes, Bishop I agree it's a shame. And I don't understand it.
The Empress Casino in Hammond, IN and the Empress in Joliet, IL - both poker rooms closed their doors in the last 7 months. Who owns these boats? Jack Binion - who touts himself as someone who PROMOTES poker. Ha! Jack is promoting the DEMISE of casino poker in our area.
I went down for the World Poker Open in January, and when I got back home, the poker room at Empress Hammond had been closed. So Jack was holding a poker tournament to "promote poker" at the same time he was closing a poker room. That ain't right man.
The only poker Jack Binion promotes is his own poker tournament, and I challenge him to prove otherwise.
I would not be so hard on the management of IL boats. IL law restricts each boat to "1200 gaming positions", which means that having a poker room costs them even more in forgone profits than it would in a regular casino. If the poker room is open, then most boats cannot have all of the slot machines and other table games going at the same time without exceeding this limit.
In other words, the 1200 gaming position law requires that IL casinos waste floorspace. I would put more blame on the IL legislature than I would on Jack Binion.
Ya, it isn't Binions fault that the rooms are closing. The Legislature has the rules limiting them to certian seats. The problem is business. They make a ton more cash on a slot machine or a blackjack table than they ever will on a poker room. And until they remove the restrictions or reformat them to not include certian games where the house does not have a play we will continue to lose places to play.
Kevin
I understand that there are a limited number of "gaming positons" on Illinois boats. But the first poker room that closed was in Indiana, not Illinois.
I think that it is more than just coincidence that the poker rooms on those two boats closed AFTER being purchased by Jack Binion.
My challenge to Jack Binion stands.
xx
Bishop-
I'm not so sure this will be good for Hollywood. The more poker rooms that close, the worse it is for the overall poker market in general. It also gives existing rooms less incentive to remain competitive. All in all, a serious blow to all area players.
So I have something to do while waiting for my seat.
:-)
Thank God we have freedom of travel in this country I'm gonna exercise it really soon.
I am starting my home game this weekend, anyone interested, we have a few seats open to make it a full table. Please drop me an email at IHLFAN@MEDIAONE.NET if you want to play. Only game in chicago area without a rake or wait.
Kevin
I've been on the road, far from an internet connection so please forgive me if I'm opening a stale can of worms. The most recent issue of 'Poker Digest' sports an article by Mason Malmuth decsribing a recent hand he played at 30-60 hold'em. Briefly, the action pre-flop is open raise, cold call, Mason 3-bets with AA (a fine play IMHO), button cold calls, big blind calls and others just call. 5 see a flop of K 6 4 rainbow. Flop action goes check, check, check and it's on Mason who checks!?! I was stunned. This was so far out there that I couldn't believe he wants to share this powerful poker secret with all of America.
Let's just free card the field with our over pair. What's to worry about? No reason to fear one of your four opponents picking up a backdoor draw or spiking a set. I'm still shaking my head and so are other well respected experts.
-NJ Fred- (In Commerce, ugh)
There is a similar situation on page 171 of HPFAP (21st C.). The theory behind it is that since the pot is big, you must do everything you can to win it. If Mason bets the flop, everyone will call and then check again to him on the turn.
By checking the flop, two things can happen:
1) Button will bet and everyone will call including, I assume, Mason. On the turn he can then either let the button bet again and trap in everyone who calls for two bets or, depending on the turn card, bet out, using button's possible raise to eliminate the compeitition.
2) Button checks as well and then someone else will be the turn, where Mason can then raise and keep them from drawing out on him on the river.
I think the point is that they're going to call his bet on the flop anyway, and they'll be correct to do so given the amount of money in the pot. By checking he makes it more likely he'll get bet into on the turn and he can then administer the Fekali enema.
I haven't seen the article and the presence of a player behind him on the button is different from the the example in HPFAP. HPFAP does point out that there are dangers with this type of play, but that the positives outweight the negatives.
If the button bets, Mason's "plan" is essenially ruined in which case he may as well come out firing with a raise on the flop and hope that the button 3 bets. In any case, the checkraise on the flop will make it look like he slowplayed a set of Kings.
I understand the idea, I just think it's often very wrong. In this specific case a bet by Mason would almost certainly get a check-raise from the big blind, holding AK. This is exactly what is needed to win the pot.
Addressing another issue, charging everyone one bet on the flop isn't a mistake. Most or all of the opponents will have less than 1/22 pot equity, some drawing stone dead. That difference in equity is mostly transfered to the AA hand. In any situation a free card just can't be correct here. I'd imagine that maybe 6 cards in the deck beat you and force you to pay off (spiking a set for example) and another twenty or more will give someone a draw with decent pot equity. If you bet the flop not everyone will always call. You may eliminate a back door draw that would fold.
In that actual hand the big blind bets the turn and if anyone has picked up any type of draw they are now in there to stay even if Mason raises.
-Fred-
"I think the point is that they're going to call his bet on the flop anyway, and they'll be correct to do so given the amount of money in the pot. By checking he makes it more likely he'll get bet into on the turn and he can then administer the Fekali enema." --Andy Fox
"Addressing another issue, charging everyone one bet on the flop isn't a mistake. Most or all of the opponents will have less than 1/22 pot equity, some drawing stone dead." --skp
Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but it seems to me there is a hint of misconception of the FTOP->It is correct for my opponent to call, therefore it is correct for me not to bet. This is, of course, absolutely wrong. Charging one bet on the flop would not be a mistake, even if all of the opponents had enough outs to call. The real question is, will Mason's expectation be higher by checking the flop? Against this many opponents, I can't imagine that it would be. I didn't read the article though, so I don't know the exact situation.
Suppose there were 7bb in the pot on the flop. You had 3 opponents who each have 4 outs, for a total of 12 outs against you. If you bet the turn and they all call, it would also be correct for them to take another card off on the turn. Therefore, you decide to check the flop and bet the turn. Now, if they miss the turn, it is incorrect for them to call for the river. Here are may EV calculations for three different scenarios.
You bet the flop, all call. You bet the turn, all call. If an opponent hits their draw, they bet the turn (or river) and you call them down. Costing you a total of 2.5bb.
EV = +5.9bb
You check the flop. If an opponent hits their draw they bet the turn and you call them down. Costing you a total of 2.0bb. If not, you bet the turn and all fold.
EV = +4.7bb
You check the flop. If all opponents miss their draw: one of them bluffs, you raise, and the remaing players fold. If an opponent hits their draw, they bet the turn and you raise them. Costing you a total of 3.0bb.
EV = +5.1bb
I know this is way over simplified, but I its not easy (for me at least) to do this kind of analysis any other way.
I do not think there is any basis behind the pot size manipulating passiveness suggested by S&M. The primary reason to raise is to get money in the pot when you have the best of it. If you do this early, and it ties your opponents on to a larger pot, you will not win as often. However, I haven't seen the math to prove that that expectation is increased by playing passively early on.
oops second quote was from NJ Fred not skp
I still haven't seen the article, and it certainly is presumptuous of me to speak for Mason, but I'll give it a shot.
The key points I believe Mason would mention are:
1) Everyone will call on the flop; therefore you can't prevent them from drawing out on you on the turn.
2) By checking, someone will likely bet out on the turn. You then raise to keep people from drawing out on you on the river.
3) I believe Mason is playing his hand so that no one draws out on him on the end. This edge, he believes, more than makes up for any missed bets on the flop and the dangers of allowing someone to get a free card on the turn which could either give him a draw or spike a set.
Now, having said this, I think that the situation in this case if different from the example given in HPFAP because now, when Mason checks, the most likely place a bet will come from is the player who cold called the 3 bets behind him, not from in front. However, the K-6-4 rainbow flop is a non-dangerous one, compared to what it might have been and, therefore, risking the free card despite presence of a player behind him was still, on balance, correct.
I hope Mason contributes here.
By the way, what do you mean Commerce (ugh!)? Some parts of Jersey ain't so great either. :-)
Remember, the case is a LIMIT hold em game. Mason knows the odds are too big to get people out by leading. The only way to win is check raise on the flop and/or induce a turn bet where Mason can raise and hopefully eliminate the field. In no-limit, I think Mason would have moved his stack either BTF or on the flop.
I didn't read the article, but from your description I'd say that Mason is probably looking at more than one pocket pair from 88 through QQ. These hands are hard-pressed to call bets on the turn and river if anyone bets the K64 flop, but will be somewhat hard-pressed to fold if no one bets the flop. He might also induce a big king to overplay. Although the free card threat is real, it's less so when the pocket pairs will probably call on the flop but correctly fold when they miss later. Although it looks like he's sacrificing several small bets on the flop for a big bet or two later, he's more likely sacrificing fractions of small bets on the flop -- given his marginal advantage -- in exchange for several nearly entire big bets later.
2 + 2 staff: Please don't separate hold 'em categories for 2 reasons: 1) It already takes plenty of time to navigate all the categories. 2) The hold 'em forum already functions great. Low limit players (Dave in Cali), mid (SKP, Jim Brier, Louie) and high (DS, Ray Zee) are all very intelligent and the array of limits they play adds incredible dynamics to a single thread.
If 2+2 is interested in feedback on this, I agree with Dan S. I have not seen nor heard any complaints so why fix something that's not broke?
Also, it's nice for the mid and lower limit players to be able to peruse and recieve advice from the better higher limit players. This move may have an effect on the quality of advice in the lower limit forums. Just my opinion...
bad idea
I agree. Keep it simple. Everyone one can be slective with the titles they want to read anyway.
nt
Traffic on this thread will undoubtedly be on the increase because MSN's ReMarq thread is attempting to charge a fee of $13.95 per month MSN ReMarq is the way to get to rec.gambling.poker.
ReMarq is the way to get to rec.gambling.poker.
It's one way, but all you need to read r.g.p. is access to any old news server. I promise you, 99% of the people who read r.p.g. do not use ReMarq.
I'd at least like to split out PL/NL. That's really a whole different game.
I don't care for the new format either.
I agree
Dan:
Your point is well made and we will be watching closely. The reason we are trying this change is to improve the quality of these forums. If it appears that this change is not for the best, we can always switch back.
Thanks for the support, and let us know in about a week how you think the change is working.
Best wishes, Mason
Mason,
I am an avid reader of this forum and try to post on a pretty consistent basis. It is absolutely the best poker forum I have come across and I read it nightly. I mean this sincerely and without patronization.
I am somewhat inclined to agree with the others as I like the forum the way it is. The one thing that I do think makes hand analysis somewhat difficult is when posters do not include the limit they are playing. Obviously a 3-6 game plays differently than a 30-60 game and this affects how hands are played. I am guessing this may be one of your goals by separating the limits. I will be watching closely and see how the new structure works out. Either way, I am confident that any changes you and David make are always with the best interest of poker and poker players in mind. Thanks again.
Just some thoughts.
Michael D. (soccer/sucker Mike)
Mason,
For what its worth, I support the new forum breakdown. I like to read posts specifically about the middle and upper limits (since I play middle limits but hope to move to the upper limits). Another poster already noted how much different a $3-6 game plays from a $20-40.
Of course, from a $3-6 players perspective, I can see why they wouldn't like it. If all the solid mid-limit players only post on the medium stakes forum, it will be hard to get good quality advice on their hands.
Puggy
It's nice to see that a thread you contribute to on Monday morning isn't 2/3 of the way down the list when you come back to read it when you get off work Tuesday evening, long and forgotten by all but the topic starter.
I also like the new format.
It is very easy for me to switch between the sub-forums and peruse threads from all of them, and I agree that following threads is easier this way. I am a low limit player, but I still browse the higher stakes forums to glean what I can.
Mason,
I would hope it would bring more High Limit players into the forum to discuss there strategy.
Paul
n
I see some potential benefit to dividing the Hold'em Forum (primarily so the threads won't get burried so quickly). However, I think a more useful breakdown of the holdem forum might be something like: Preflop Questions, Multiway Situations, Head-up Situations, and Pot Limit/No Limit.
.
I think another way to break out Hold'em would be to have one forum for limit and another forum for potlimit/nolimit.
I think these 2 forms of holdem are so different that a lot strategies that apply to one may not apply to the other. The fact that nolimit is played shorthanded more often also skews the way you would play hands.
A tight 6-12 game will play a lot more like a typical 15-30 game than a 4 way potlimit.
Lucky2BeOn
nt
NT
I agree. Leave it as one forum. I can always skip articles that don't interest me.
If 2+2 MUST split the HE forum, I suggest only two subelements: 1)PL/NL, and 2) everything else. As a currently struggling low limit player, I don't want to hunt through several HE subunits to find Jim Brier's cogent analyses.
Since they have broken up the Hold Em sections into different stakes forums, to me this begs the question-do you change your style of play and basic strategy based on the tables stakes? I have a basic strategy/style of play I use that is the same whether I am playing low limit or higher limits. Of course, adjustments are made based on the players, the texture of the game at that specific table, etc., but my basic style/strategy stays essentially the same. What I am saying in a nutshell is I dont play like a maniac one day then a total rock the next. I think we all have basic strategies we adhere to. So....does this get changed because the table stakes are higher?
yes, a lot, but not really because it depends on your players, however since you find most of your maniacs, social players, people who never look up from thier hand, calling stations, old men trying to get a cheap buffet comp, etc etc in low limit games and the stakes are not enough in terms of real world money per hand to scare people off, you MUST play different, you MUST get a good chunk of the flop in a lot of these, and you can almost never bluff because someone will call you. so you MUST show the best hand to get the pot. at least down here almost every flop is seen by 5 players or so depending on the game, easy to beat-- yes but if you have fancy play syndrome then you are in trouble as no one here will notice. low limit games probably play closer to cold simulations than any other, and you will take more bad beats here than anywhere else. to top it all off the rake cuts deeper here than anywhere else in terms of dollar value. so you must adjust for the stakes
at least that is what the games are like here. they may be different elsewhere.
While there are undoubtedly differences among TYPICAL games at different stakes, I have played in 15-30 games which play like 3-6, and visa versa. Even in typical games, you may find yourself in hands with loose-fishy 15-30 players, or 3-6 toughies. You must adjust to the number of players and their playing characteristics; the color of the chips do not matter.
There is a theoretical "optimum" way to play in all poker situations and this is independant of the opposing player's tendancies. This is the "perfect" way to play.
Two problems with this "perfect" way come to mind: (1) Who the heck knows the perfect way to play in more than a few situations, let alone ALL situations, and (2) this perfect way is NEVER the "best" way to play except when against other perfect players: So the perfect bluffing frequeny in a particular situation is x% of the time? You should so bluff only against someone who correctly calls y% of the time or you have no idea how they call. It would be "better" if you would rarely if ever bluff someone who calls too much and often or always bluff someone who calls to little.
The "perfect" strategy guarantees you cannot lose (discounting rake and toke) but does NOT guarantee much of a win.
It is therefore a reality that it is "best" to adjust your play to the current lineup of players individually and to the table as a whole. My minority opinion is that this adjustment is much larger than most others would advise.
Having said all that, one must also strive to understand what the "perfect" play is in a given situation, if for no other reason than to determine how to adjust from it.
"Yes"
- Louie
I believe a theoretically perfect strategy (which does not adjust to player characteristics) would guarantee a win in heads-up play, but not when facing two or more opponents.
A perfect strategy CANNOT guarantee a win since of course the opponent may be employing this same perfect strategy. But if he does not, then your perfect strategy will guarantee a win (no counting rake and tokes). I suggest that this win may not be very much except against terrible players.
Well, the the two or more opponents are cheating it'd be very difficult to beat them. But if they are playing square then there IS a perfect strategy that guarantees you cannot lose; its just not the same one as when head's-up.
- Louie
"Guarantee" really means you have +EV in the long run.
i think so. bruce put up a question on the high stakes forum under confused. those kind of hands come up regularly in the big games and you have to beable to play them well. you dont change your starting hands so much as your play into the later streets.
Those kind of hands also occur in short-handed mid-limit games (and occasionally in smaller games). I think they would fit nicely in a "Heads-Up Play" forum.
Al,in Mason's Poker Essay's he lists strategy points and how they change as the limit increases.Example....in 3/6 starting hand selection may be the most important while position may be 2nd or 3rd and game selection is meaningless because all 3/6 games are shootouts.At 30/60 knowing your players,game selection and position are far more important than starting hand selection which is dictated by the above mentioned..Check out Poker Essays.
I would like to see pot limit and no limit seperate from high stakes. There are several low limit "big bet" games around (blinds $1-$2), and they're a fun way to learn about "big bet" poker without losing the house.
A post about a 1-2 blind game just doesn't look like it belongs next to a thread on the Belagio $1,500-$3,000 game. Pot limit and no limit are more of a game type rather than a stake. Granted, they're usually played for the big bucks, but I'd like to see them in a seperate forum. It would give us newbies a place to read about and ask questions of the experts at these forms.
Ok, flame away, but remember: I'm bigger!
Fat-Charlie
Yes. A Big Bet (NL/PL) forum makes more sense than a High Stakes forum IMO. I also think that "General", "Preflop Play", and "Head-Up Play" forums would be better than the small, medium, and high stakes forums.
I agree. I'd rather have NL/PL in its own forum and just split the rest between low (up to 5-10) and higher (10-20 and up). I think 40-80 has more in common with 10-20 than with NL or PL
Imagine for a moment a hypothetical player who never raised preflop. Assume otherwise he plays a perfect strategy.
How far does this stray from a theoretical perfect strategy? How much potential profit does this lose? If you state that a no raise preflop strategy is flawed, then it follows that there must be a perfect defense to it. What is it?
What general theory supports that this idea is wrong? If one of the fundamentals of poker is deception, then is not such a strategy inherently correct?
I have left out limits, specific players, and other details thus illicting general theory type reponses if any.
I am not advocating this as a strategy, merely posing a question and asking that it be supported with a fundamental theory.
I am not as immersed in theory as many of the notables here but I dfo have a thought on this.
If you have a premium hand that can win unimproved then you would want to get as much money in the pot as possible BEFORE your opponents get to see that the flop has missed them. Since everyone has a reason to play their first two cards, "any two cards can win", they are more willing to call and raise and call reraises on the hope of flopping the nuts. Letting everyone in for one bet is just asking for a lot of suckouts.
A hand of hold'em is a fight over a piece of the blinds. Never attacking them would be giving up too much. Also, the essence of poker moneymaking is charging a fee for the priviledge of sucking out and/or forcing a better hand to fold. Any strategy that doesn't even try to do either must be flawed.
If you state that a no raise preflop strategy is flawed, then it follows that there must be a perfect defense to it.
Nope, it does not follow. Maybe I should put this better: Defense against such a strategy is not needed. As the strategy is suboptimal, it will lose to any closer-to-optimal strategy. However, if you are asking about exploiting such a strategy, that's a whole new can of worms.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Mr. Fekali, using a counter strategy that is "closer to optimal" is a defense by definition (so is exploiting it). But this is semantics and is of no consequence, I understand your point.
To play devils advocate, I can think of many good reasons to not raise preflop: to keep the pot out of the "Morton" zone. Sklanksy uses a similar agrument regarding AQo against a few limpers, I recall. To fool people after you into calling with dominated hands, for example AJ calling, perhaps even raising, AA, AK,AQ,JJ. I believe Abdul Jalib uses a limp reraise strategy to exploit this.
Anyway thankyou for your response, what I am looking for here is a good sound theoretical reason that I can ponder. I suspect when one gets the general theory, the specifics fall into place.
Again, I am not advocating this position, just looking to have it disproven with evidence.
Let's strip the game to bare essentials:
Imagine a headsup hold'em game with no betting after the flop and a single big blind. Let's consider two strategies:
1. You always open with a limp on the button.
2. You only open-raise with AA, open-limp with other hands.
It comes down to the AA hand now, if we can prove open-raising with AA is a superior strategy, it follows that strategy No.2 must be the better one, right?
If we open-raise with AA, opponent is getting 3 to 1 to suck out. I we open-limp, can you grasp the odds he is getting with the free play? Which strategy is better then?
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
In case number 2, a thinking opponent would never call your raise unless he held aces also. This headsup situation also discounts the possbility of dominated hands calling for one bet a hand they would not call for two such as my example above. Secondly proving something headsup does not necessarily hold true for multi way, as even, as gifted thinkers have pointed out, the fundamental theory of poker breaks down somewhat multi way.
Third, by allowing a blind in free, he may make mistakes on later streets that are more than worth the drawing out. Abdul suggests Aces are worth 4 times the blinds (this is off the top of my head) By the way, I appreciate all responses and the effort. How about always raising? Your theory above could prove that always raising is correct. Is it?
Thank you all.
The only general theory here is that there is not much to say here. You can easily construct a game where it is correct to never raise preflop. Even just in hold'em, you could set up the blinds, bring in, minimum raise, and later round limits to force this.
If we're talking limit hold'em with normal betting structures, then there is no easy way to prove the proper strategy, but I believe never raising preflop would be a big sacrifice. With AA and a few players in the pot, you are giving up about 50% of a small bet from each of them by not raising. Since you can also profitably raise there with hands like JTs and ATs, your opponents can't easily put you on a hand when you raise. Also, when opening the pot, there is a lot of equity in stealing the blinds, and you give that up if you never raise.
I don't follow Izmet's logic.
-Abdul
My logic was this:
If we prove raising is best for one particular hand in a headsup game, couldn't we then prove it for a range of hands in a headsup game? If we prove it for a headsup game, couldn't we then prove it for a full ring game?
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
No, everything depends on everything else. Whether raising is the best play for one hand depends on how all the other hands are played, and how all the other hands should be played depends on whether or not you raise with that one hand.
-Abdul
Personally I believe there are a few underlying principles that govern the correctness of strategies both in a general sense and in specific cases. I believe raising or not preflop is inextricably linked to these principles. It must be said that all strategies are governed by these principles, I chose preflop as a starting point because post flop play is much more complex.
At present time I am preparing a brief discussion, if you will, to delve into this area. It is not presently polished enough to withstand close scrutiny. It remains to be seen whether these ideas are practical or even correct.
Again I thank all posters for their time and effort. I can say that the responses touched on at least two of these so called underlying principles.
I believe the primary theoretical principle behind most preflop raising is simply that you should build the pot when you have the best of it. I suppose this falls under Roy Cooke's "edge" principle. In order to maximize your poker profits, you must capitalize on small edges.
Other reasons for raising include thinning the field with hands which are prone to be in a reverse implied odds situation after the flop (i.e., big offsuit cards), taking control of the betting to increase your bluffing equity (in short-handed situations), and attempting to steal the blinds with hands which would normally be worth less than the blinds when you see a flop (as Abdul has explained).
Backdoor,
"How much potential profit does this lose?"
I would say it would be pretty close to neglible over time for pre-flop play. People would raise more into you offsetting you not raising.
Paul
Preflop raising is supported by the "fundamental theory of poker" per D.S. Pre flop raising allows people to make mistakes (calling) which makes you money.
Your statement:
“Imagine for a moment a hypothetical player who never raised preflop. Assume otherwise he plays a perfect strategy.”
It must be concluded from your statement that never raising is a deviation from perfect strategy. If that is not a correct conclusion, then the statement is untrue.
If not raising IS a deviation from perfect strategy, then it is an inferior strategy.
If perfect play involves multiple conditions and decisions, then the measure of the cost of this deviation must be how much it is less profitable than perfect play.
I know of no simulations yet, or mathematical model that can achieve perfect play. So, the cost of this strategy as a deviation from perfect play is presently incalculable.
In your scenario, running simulations with one million deals may produce a measured result of profitability, but only as to random hands. This simulation will not produce otherwise perfect play or even measure play against smart play by opponents, unless the simulation involved other conditions.
Assume a million simulations were done to contrast not raisings preflop, vs. raising preflop. This would presume some kind of pre determined defined two card holdings (perhaps many but at least defined). The result of this simulation is far less than perfect play but should result in a clear measure of profitability. Raising IS more profitable.
I leave it to others to prove mathematically that this is so, from some defined structure of play and holdings, but it is not perfect play.
IMO raising even every OTHER time with defined valid holdings in a simulation is probably superior to only calling.
Your hypothesis is an admitted deviation from perfect play.
We have not been able to absolutely define perfect play!
The effect of the deviation is impossible to measure.
If we can measure some effect from simulations that surely show a sizeable profit, from a base set of conditions of moderate good holdings against random play, then surely more perfect play will produce even more profitability.
Raise and make ‘em pay!
In the past two years, my play has improved alot (at least in my opinion it has). And most of my opponents throughout that time have stayed stagnant - no improvement. However there has been one player that I have noticed who has improved a lot as well....he used to only play 20/40 (max) and play a lot of hands and you could count on him calling you down with 2nd pair every single time (no matter how many people were in the pot, how much strength was shown, etc). However, in the past 2 years, its clear he's starting to get tighter and play much more cleverly...to the point that he's now probably one of the better 40/80 players and probably a winner in the 80/160 as well (although that's hard to say because the 80/160 doesn't go that often here).
So, all that leads me to is this question : how unusual is this? that you see a player improve so much throughout a 2 year period?
I'd say about 1% of the players in the game can do this.
It is a rare thing but does happen.
I've seen it a very few times.
Once you become a serious student of the game, I would think that in a 2 year period your ability would raise eaisly that much. I submit: scott, Niels, and DjTj. Two years ago, they weren't more than casual players, if that, but now I would pit them against anyone in that 40/80 game. Well, Scott at least, Niels and Ted might still regard it as money, not bets. Though I could be wrong, I haven't sat with any of them in a while.
Joe
Who are Scott, Niels and Ted? Where do they play?
i am scott.
scott
They were at one point fairly regular posters, I just assumed that people knew who they were. Scott posts as scott, Niels Niels, and Ted DjTj. At the end of our collective senior year in high school, we put together a little home game that has since churned out those three as players. I believe scott has sat at the Diamond Club, and I know Niels and Ted play online at Paradise. Due their age, they don't play regualarly at poker rooms, but expect them at the WSOP 2003.
Joe
I would say it is rare but definitely can happen. Obviously it depends on the person. I think whenever any of us start playing we are poor players, however, if you take it serious and study the game and learn then you can improve dramatically in two years. Fortunately for us the vast majority of players do not take the game serious and do not study and learn it.
Anyone can improve their play. If you read about the game, practice it on a regular basis, observe what the better players are doing and ask yourself why they are doing it (i.e. raising, calling, folding...), exercise discipline while playing, etc. It's not fun to do all these things but if you wish to improve your game that's what you need to do. Do you think Marc McGwire hit 60 HR's in his first few seasons as a ball player? He took extra batting practice, studied video tapes on the different pitchers, probably goes to the gym everyday... If you want to improve you can, you just need the will and desire. Good luck!
Why does it surprise you? It surprises me how bad people can play for a long time.
Why do you think you can improve a great deal in 2 years and this other player cannot?
I haven't played w/any players for any real long stretch of time but I have seen several players who 1 year ago did not know the rules of any of the casino poker games and now beat the casino poker games consistently at mid limits.
I'm not exactly sure that it happens often or not, but improving your game does not seem to be all that difficult. By saying it's rare, that's seems to imply that only a select few can improve there game. I think almost anyone can improve with experience and study.
At least I hope so or I'm wasting my time.
Hi All.
Me and my friend was wondering, if there is any strategy for teamplay in seven card stud?? Like there is in Bjackjack. Is it possible to get a greater egde over your oppenents, if you are playing as a team. Instead of playing by yourself???
Is there any books written on such subjects?
Thanks, Daniel
Go to ParadisePoker.com and download the software. Get onto a seven stud table and pose this question over the chat. I'm sure you will get interesting responses.
yes and you can make a lot of money, doing this. However you should be aware that it is CHEATING to do so. if you are caught the best you can hope for is to be blacklisted and never play in a public cardroom ever again.
Many BJ teams operate simply by pooling bankrolls and dividing up winnings, but otherwise the team members play independently. This allows each player to bet as though he had the whole bankroll thus winning more while reducing the effect of flucuations and reaching the long run faster. This type of teamplay could be legally applied to poker.
Another BJ team ploy is to have team members act as scouts to signal other players to join games at advantageous times. I believe this would be legal in poker as well.
But any team play involving cooperation between team members playing in the same game is formally known as "cheating".
It seems to me that there might sometimes be a fine line between collusion and smart play. An example can be seen in the movie "Rounders" when the tourists naively join the game with the experts. The comment was that the experts didn't play together, but they didn't exactly play against each other either.
So say you and 5 of your poker expert buddies decide to go out for a night of poker at your local casino and join a table of fish. You each decide not to contest many pots with each other but to mainly play against the fish. Cheating or just smart poker? Isn't this more or less how you're supposed to play when there are a mix of fish and tough players in the game?
Is it possible to buy some books, that explains how to play seven card stud as a team ??
best, John
Thankfully, I do not believe there are any instruction manuals available for poker cheats. ...At least not yet.
I would say this is cheating, and I'm pretty sure I have read this same scenario dissected by several authors in poker books I have read...they come to the same conclusion. Poker is not, or at least should not, in any way, be a team competition. Laying off your friends when you have them beat is not a "smart play"...it is a subtle and innocuous form of collusion....even if it seems harmless and courteous, it is neither.
I agree it would be cheating in poker but would it be cheating in blackjack? I don't think so.
I was refering to poker with the last sentence. In blackjack you can show your hand to other players, but the only advantage it gives them is a more accurate count with which to make playing decisions. You cannot help other players by the way you play your own hand (despite all the bonehead players out there who think to the contrary) except by sophisticated card steering techniques.
Now if you gain some information such as the dealer's hole card, and you telegraph that to other players, you walk a fine line. I understand that a court once ruled that this is not cheating as long as the information was obtained by legal means.
Try "The Elements of Style" by Strunk and White.
That would be an excellent place to start.
David
nt
Kudos to 2+2 management for reorgainzing your Forum, namely delineating among different hold'em stakes. All of us know well that different hold'em stakes represents quite different game. As your frequent Forum visitor, I do thank you for this timely and important move.
Moreover, I hope that soon you will do the same among, Omaha/8, 7CS and 7CS/8. That way you'll satisfy the variety of poker appetites.
Good job!
I have been getting a lot of Ace little hands in the SB lately and wonder how many people would call if it is only a half of bet.
How many players do you want? Mostly i am talking about A6,A7,A8 unsuited.
Do you want 1 or 2 callers or 4 or 5? Or never call because it is so easy to get trapped.
I would only call with 1 or 2 other callers. Even then you may not want to call depending on who the players are. If an ace flops I bet out and see what happens.
If there are 4 or 5 players I wouldn't bother. The likelihood that someone has an ace is high and you will often be out kicked.
Hi All.
I was wondering, if it's safe to play poker at Paradisepoker.com?? Is it possible to make money at these games at paradisepoker.com??
Are any of you guys making some money at paradisepoker.com?
Best, John
Check out the forum dedicated to Internet poker, which you will find a link for to the left, titled Internet Poker.
Liquid Swords
some are, most arent making money, it depends on how well you play. the real eye opener for most will be the fact that at casino poker they can justify away their bad playing and fluctuation loses and believe they are winners. but at internet poker its in black and white how well you do.
Made $1,200 over a one night session. Know when to quit and you'll be successful.
Bill
Some history q's which I've had trouble with:
1. When did 7cs first appear? I suspect it's late 19th c. but have no evidence. If anyone has access to old copies of Hoyle, such as would be held in the Library of Congress or other major collection, it would be an easy question to answer, but I've asked this question before and no one seems to have any real idea. Also, when did 6cs appear? I presume it was before 7cs, but again, no evidence.
2. How popular was holdem in the 1960's? I understandthat it was played at times in Vegas, and was a big-bet game in the south-west USA for twenty or so years before that, but overall it would have been about say 1/100th as popular as 7cs when it was made WSOP championship game?
3. About when did holdem overtake 7cs in popularity? About 1987? earlier? Later? Also, when did omaha overtake 7cs in popularity? 1995? Later?
4. What year was holdem made top wsop game? Was it in 1971, or after that? I know in 1970 they voted on who would be champion, and in 1971 it was decided by freeze-out, but I don't know what game(s) were used.
5. when was the name changed from hold-me to hold'em?
Any informed input appreciated.
David Zanetti.
http://www.neo-tech.com/poker/appendixa.html
Good luck,
SammyB
At the time of Edmund Hoyle, 7cs did not exist (at least as we know it today). See Anthony Holden's book "Big Deal" for more.
The first year of the WSOP freezeout, the game was NL hold-em and has been ever since. Eric Drache was tournament director in the early years.
If based on number of games spread throughout the U.S., Omaha has never passed 7cs in popularity, and most likely never will.
,
You find yourself a 15/30 hold'em table with nine players you've never seen. In 2+ hours you have seen alot of loose play but none of your opponents ( as best you can tell ) is playing trash. There hasn't been much raising; so far AJs is the worst hand you've seen raised, but AA, KK QQ, and AKs have never limped in. Nobody has done anything fancy - pretty much a straight-forward bunch. The few check- raises that have occurred were to get more $$ into the pot; none were to try to thin the field. While nobody has appointed themself sherriff, this is not a group you would want to have to make a living off by stealing pots.
On avg. 5 or 6 ( blinds incl.) are seeing the flop; an early raise has been getting some respect, but in general if they like their hand they will pay the extra bet to play. So far no pot has been 3-bet BTF.
THE QUESTION(S) THEN -
6 limp in; you're in the SB. Nobody has yet raised from either blind and it's not likely to happen here. Clearly you would play all of the following hands, but if you had a choice would you prefer...
AK (off), JT (suited), or pocket deuces ?
.........................................
Same choice of hands, 4 limpers but your on the button?
.........................................
In the second case with which, if any, would you raise, bearing in mind that this group will likely "check to the raiser" unless the flop lands on top of them, but you will have to show the best hand to get the money - someone is likely to call you down all the way with as little as third pair. Ergo if you raise you are doing so primarilly for value and to tie them on to the pot, not to set up a steal on the turn or river.
.........................................
Please list in order of prefernce; i.e. AK, 22, JTs and not just your first choice, as well as your reasoning.
I look forward to any and all responses.
Thanks in advance for your oppinions.
Regards,
Chris
P.S. I think I have covered most of the important variables; shame on anyone who starts their answer with, "well, it depends on..." Assume you are up against nine robots. Better yet let this be online poker ( except you have a stone-cold guarantee that it is on the level ).
"6 limp in; you're in the SB. Nobody has yet raised from either blind and it's not likely to happen here. Clearly you would play all of the following hands, but if you had a choice would you prefer... AK (off), JT (suited), or pocket deuces ? "
With 6 limpers and the BB to follow, I'll take JTs as my first choice, and it's really a toss-up for second place. Good implied odds on the deuces, but Big Slick will probably stand up about the same amount of the time as the deuces do.
"Same choice of hands, 4 limpers but your on the button? "
With 4 limpers, I'll raise Big Slick and try and boot the blinds. If they'll check to the raiser, you have 4 cards to look at before you even have to think about folding. JTs is good here too, as you'll have great position and probably 6 other players (no raise, sorry Izmet). The deuces are a close third.
GB
I posted this once and it did not show up.
Another poor call by a floor person. 3-6 game. Two players left at the river. Player A bets, Player B calls. Player A turns over one card, a deuce, which pairs the board and moves the face down card about six inches towards the dealer. Dealer says to Player A, "You need to show both cards" and points to the down card. Player A pushes the down card a few inches closer to the dealer. (I think player A thought the dealer was asking for the card) Dealer picks up the card, without showing it, and places it in the muck. Player B, who has never shown his hand, mucks it. The dealer then calls the floor person.
The question is, who gets the pot. The floor person listens and then says "I am not sure what to do". Neither player speaks very good English and neither argues for the pot. Everyone kind of scratches their head. The floor person, the dealer and all players at the table remained silent. The pot had about 20 chips, so it was small for this game. I had my opinion about how to handle it, but did not want to disclose my knowledge. I suggested that if neither player objected, just split the chips. They did not say anything. With the floor person watching, the dealer split the pot, the players accepted the chips, no one seemed unhappy, and the game went on.
This should have been an easy call. First it needs to be decided if Player A's hand was live or dead. If it is live, Player A wins because Player B mucked without showing his hand. If it is dead, then Player B's muck came after Player A's hand became dead and Player B takes the pot. Given the action of Player A twice pushing his down card towards the dealer, his hand was dead and Player B should have been awarded the pot.
Do you think I should have spoken up about the proper way to resolve the problem, or was what I did O.K.? I think if the pot had been large, I probably would have given my opinion. Do you think the size of the pot should influence what I do or do not say?
erection
Personally, I wouldn't say anything if I wasn't involved in the hand. It sounds like you had to speak up if you wanted to play another hand.
Poker is war! Or at least Mike Caro would have you believe that. No poker is not war. Poker is a game. But so is football. So is boxing. So is chess. Yes poker is as much a game or sport as any of those more traditional endeavors that come to mind. It is not war but if you are inclined to participate in it as if it is a war then you can do that also. Regardless of what your feelings are about poker or how you approach playing "the game" you must understand that it is fundamentally a competition. I believe it was our illustrious Hosts Malmuth and Sklansky that first enlightend me to the fact that poker is a competition for the "ante's" (Blinds to you Holdem purists). Well they didn't say competition they said "struggle" but that's what they meant. Well if not that's what they should have meant. I think.
Competition is a struggle to gain that for which you are competing. It is a fight! Maybe not quite a war but at least a battle. And as in any battle you must fight to win! Yes, you must fight! You must fight each of your opponents! Maybe more importantly you must fight yourself. If you want to watch a movie that will inspire you to prepare to play poker, don't watch "Rounders". Watch "Rudy"! Rudy is the (true) story of Rudy something or other. It is a story of perseverance and personal struggle. It is about dreaming and accomplishing that dream through hard work. Rudy Ruttenger (spelling) dreamed of playing football for the fighting Irish of Notre Dame. As a character in the movie stated "He was 5 feet nothing a hundred and nothing" and he lasted two years on the Notre Dame football squad. He dreamed, he fought and he won. That same type of fighting spirit is needed if you want to win at poker. You gotta mix it up! You gotta get in there and fight or you will be "run over". So the next time you get ready to join your favorite game do not recite any vows or "I will's". Yell out loud! No you better just do it in your head. Else they may toss you in the looney bin. No the hell with it, yell it out loud in the poker room. Let them know you are there. Let them know you came to play! Let them know they are in for a fight! Yell it out loud, "Rudy, Rudy, Rudy" and then get in there and fight.
Let's win one for the gipper!
Vince.
All along I thought you were referring to Rudy, the old navy seal in the show Survivors. My money is on Rudy to win the whole million bucks. It will probably be heads up between he and that Machiavellian guy Richard. And the jury, most of whom have been manipulated by Richard, will boot Richard out thus making Rudy the Survivor millionaire.
lol,
I also thought it was a 'Survivor' post.
Rudy Rudenheimer (from the movie) got his ass handed to him for a couple months a year for two years. In return, he played 2 or three plays in a game for Notre Dame.
In poker terms, the dude was on a two year losing streak with one winning session at the end.
Rudy was a fish!
Just kidding. Get inspiration whereever you can.
I knew what you ment right away Vince.when i saw that movie i also thought of poker .But i think of poker no matter what movie i watch.How about when he asked the priest if there was anything he hasnt done ..to get into ND.The guys that sell their pokerbooks (all three of them)on ebay,after a few losses , could take a few lessons from rudy.I guess they thought they would read a few books and win.one guy on rgp said moma(his wife)says they got to go.your right vince Rudy dumps the girlfriend rudy rudy quits the job rudy prays gets his ass kicked JUDY JUDY JUDY(OPPS WRONG MOVIE)RUDY HAD HEART AND GOT TO PLAY POKER, I MEAN FOOTBALL.FOR THE Irish.I LIKED YOUR POST VINCE........
Lately I've notice players asking their opponents questions during the hand. "You have a spade?" You have a nine?", You want me to call or you want action?" This appears to be a new phenom. Is this a published tip in some book? What should you do if someone asks you one of these questions.
Now I just ignore them. I also try to see what type of hand they have when they are talking to gain info from them. Does any answer someone gives them help them to read the player?
I've noticed this too. There really seems to be a "monkey-see monkey-do" attitude about it as I also see more and more players doing it.
I used to reply with a smart-assed response, but I found that can encourage some of the more hard-headed questioners. Now I just ignore it or give them a "Your move" look and they usually stop.
I have also noticed that if they continue to stop the game and do this, players who are not in the hand will admonish the player to stop slowing the game down for his silliness.
I think you're noticing the 'Rounders' effect. If it's cool for Matt Damon to yap through a game, it must be the right thing to do. Frankly, I think it's poor etiquette. Don't hassle the weaker players. They are there to have fun, you're there to get the money. You don't have to make their night miserable to get it.
I should point out that I'm not talking about good-natured verbal sparring, but serious attempts to badger an opponent to get them to reveal information.
I totally agree, that is why I stopped actively trying to discourage them.
It's only the ones that bring the game to a grinding halt EVERY time they have to make a call on the turn or river that I tend get annoyed with.
I have a buddy of mine that does this all the time as a imtimidation move, some times the person will actualy tell him if they made there hand and he gets to save a bet.
It actualy works quite well for him, except it tends to piss people off after awile, and he his not very well liked. This is also in home games not a casino where the players might change every day.
I have seen him have mixed results in a public card room. But in our home game he ends up saving a lot of bets.
In previous posts, Mason Malmuth indicated that small pairs will win multiway pots with a flopped set (or better) about 10% of the time. Therefore, it is correct to call before the flop with implied odds of at least 9:1. [Mason, please correct me or elaborate if necessary.] Of course, the likelihood of winning with a set varies with the number of opponents and the rank of your pair (as well as the playing habits of the combatants), but I suspect this variation is not sufficient to significantly impair the utility of Mason's rule of thumb. Any dissent? For what conditions (i.e., pair rank, number of opponents) is the 10% win estimate most accurate? [All this presumes you play well post-flop.]
Mason's rule seems to conflict with the often expressed belief that it is incorrect to cold-call 3+ bets with small pairs in multiway pots. Suppose you call 4 preflop bets with 5 opponents. If the SB folded and the BB called, you can win 20.5 preflop bets (not including your own contribution). According to Mason's rule of thumb, your call will be profitable if you expect to collect 16 or more additional small bets after flopping a set; this seems like a reasonable expectation in most cases.
So is it correct to routinely call 4-bets with small pairs when you expect at least 5 opponents? Under favorable conditions (i.e., good position, loose-aggressive opponents), the following guideline may satisfy Mason's rule: You can contribute n preflop bets when you expect at least n+1 opponents, provided n is in the range of 2 to 5. Comments welcome.
Is it necessary to adjust the guideline of 9:1 implied odds on preflop contributions for situations in which you are apt to have sufficient odds to call on the flop with a two outer? [If there is a 15% chance of losing with a set or better, I calculate 6.35:1 implied odds required on your preflop AND on the flop contributions.]
MJS
I don't believe it is correct to call more than 2 bets cold with small pairs regardless of the number of opponents. As your upfront investment increases to 3, 4, and 5 bets your implied odds get badly damaged and the likelihood of running into set over set increases. Players will 3 bet, 4 bet, and cap with AA,KK, and QQ so you have the set over set phenomnenon to worry about as well as straight and flush draws. If you have a pocket pair the probability of flopping a set, a full house, or quads is about 11.8% of which about 10.8% is flopping a set alone. But the set will not hold up 100% of the time especially in pots that are 3,4, and 5 bet the likelihood of players having over pairs rises substantially.
First, there are some wild games in which multiple preflop raises do not indicate a likelihood of big pairs. I agree that the presence of big pairs clearly increases the risk of losing to a bigger set. However, the big pairs may also increase your implied odds due to the action they are likely to give you when you flop a set and they do not. The same cannot be said for those backdoor flush and straight draws, however.
The critical variable in these small pair guidelines is how often your set (or full house) can be expected to lose under various conditions. I based my 15% estimate on Mason's 9:1 implied odds guideline; perhaps someone can provide more accurate and specific estimates based on computer simulations.
Upon reflection, I suspect that 15% loss estimate may be way too low under many conditions--especially when many opponents each contribute several bets to see the flop.
Here are a few comments:
1. When opponents hold hands like aces or kings and you flop a set, you will usually get many bets out of them.
2. For there to be set over set, a parlay must occur. That is you flop a set and your opponent flops a bigger set. Also notice that when you flop a set, he only has a two card flop to work with. My experience is that set over set occurs much less often than many players think.
3. When an opponent holds a big pair pair and you flop a set, it is more difficult for him to make a straight of a flush. This should effectly counter the fear of set over set.
4. It is my experience that the biggest pots are won when someone flops a set, someone makes top pair, and someone has an overpair.
The conclusion of all of this is that it can be correct to call several bets cold in a multiway pot, especially against loose/action players.
Now, now class, all together:
"it can be correct to call several bets cold in a multiway pot, especially against loose/action players."
again "....especially against loose/action players."
Vince.
MM has, I think, got this perfectly right.
And you’ll get good results not even waiting for the loose action players.
HI All.
I was wondering, how much money you need to play poker?? Is there a rule of thumb, like there is in BJ?? In BJ the rule of thumb say to have at least a 1000 units to start with. How much do you need in poker?? I've also heard that in poker you don't have so big ups and downs swings.....is that true?? I've played BJ for many month's now, and I have experienced some very big ups and downs. Is that the same in poker???
Thanks, Daniel
Bankroll depends upon your hourly earn and your hourly standard deviation. The conventional wisdom is around 300 big bets. In $3-$6 hold-em, assuming your are a winning player, you need a total playing bankroll of around $1800. You may be able to get by with less if the game is passive with hardly any pre-flop raising. In a $10-$20 game, your playing bankroll should be at least $6000.
HI All.
I was wondering, how much money you need to play poker?? Is there a rule of thumb, like there is in BJ?? In BJ the rule of thumb say to have at least a 1000 units to start with. How much do you need in poker?? I've also heard that in poker you don't have so big ups and downs swings.....is that true?? I've played BJ for many month's now, and I have experienced some very big ups and downs. Is that the same in poker???
Thanks, John
I have been doing a lot of thinking about a good strategy for playing in wild games. IE games where it is often capped preflop, with at least 7 people seeing the flop.
I have read that you can win in these games by playing only AA, KK, QQ, and perhaps AK suited. I suppose you are obligated to stay in to the end no matter what. Of course, you can muck AK suited if the flop is particularly unfriendly.
This may be true, but this strategy troubles me. For one thing, with these big pocket pairs, you are playing completely in the dark. Your opponents could be capping it with anything from gutshots (and they would be correct to do so against 9 opponents!) to 2 pair. Many times you must just ride it out and hope for the best.
Meanwhile, this strategy is very boring and you may find yourself getting crushed by the blinds.
I believe that playing all pocket pairs (perhaps down to 66 or 55) and all suited connectors down to 76 suited could be a winning strategy against 9 opponents, even when you know that the pot is going to be capped. In fact, you can cap raise and cap it yourself.
With the pocket pairs, you have 8:5 to 1 odds against for flopping a set. But if you do flop a set, your implied odds are HUGE because everyone is tied to that pot. All pairs and draws, including gutshots, will come calling. Most of them will be drawing completely dead (or almost dead) to your set.
As for suited connectors, the following will happen:
Odds of flopping straight - 1%
Odds of flopping flush - 1%
Odds of flopping trips - 1 %
odds of flopping 2 pair - 2 %
odds of flopping straight draw (open ender) 10%
odds of flopping 4 flush 10%
3 % of the time you will get a very good flop where you stand a great chance of winning. 2% of the time you will flop 2 pair - vulnerable, but this will win it's fair share of the time. But 20% of the time you will flop a great draw - open ender or 4 flush - and with such a big field you can profitably raise and reraise this draw on both the flop AND turn.
As for large pocket pairs, rather than just riding them out and effectively playing them in the dark, cut them loose if you don't flop a set and a lot of heat is applied. Wait for the other hands I mentioned so you can actually PLAY poker with them.
Furthermore, I think with this strategy you are less likely to make yourself a target. Since you will be jamming with everything from suited connectors to AA preflop, and then jamming everything from top set down to gutshots (if enough people are in) after the flop, you will always be betting for value, and should always get lots of action! YOU might even seem like one of the maniacs!
Have I stumbled onto something here? Is there any merit to this?
-SmoothB-
In other words, this might be the correct strategy for playing in games where it is impossible to knock players out. Therefore, you only play hands where you can get flops where you WANT everyone in, paying you off when you hit.
Would you play AK offsuit in a game like this? Frankly I would not play any offsuit hands in a game like this (except the pocket pairs.)
I like this strategy also because your hand is disguised. When you raise and reraise preflop, no one knows that you actually have 88 or JT suited.
-SmoothB-
This sounds like the "if you can't beat em join em" theory. It's more fun but can it be profitable? I think your chances of winning $ is reduced to 1/no. of players.
I play planet poker 3-6 free table and that is how everyone plays except me and a few others. I am up over $3000 in just about 30 hrs of play by playing by the book so to speak.
Try the free tables at planet poker to get expierence in this type of game with your theory.
Hold on and good luck
I play at paradise poker NOT planet poker free tables in above post.
SmoothB, the problem with your strategy is that it looks like everyone else's. If you could peek into the hands of all these players who are taking flops in capped pots you would observe a scattering of suited connecting cards, small and medium pocket pairs, some big unsuited cards, etc. So you would be playing just like everyone else. But where is your edge? Answer: You don't have any. You are just gambling like everyone else.
In full tabled limit hold-em you usually have to showdown the best hand to win especially in large pots with lots of players. These pots are said to be "protected" meaning that a player will not be able to bluff everyone out and steal a big pot. In general, the guy who starts out with the best hand has the best individual chance of ending up with the best hand in most cases. Having a good starting hand, or at least, a better one that the rest of the field is where most of your edge comes from in capped pots with lots of players.
I agree with you to a point. I know that the principle 'crap in crap out' applies.
However, I know that, when 10 people see a flop, not ALL of them have a pocket pair or suited connectors. Some of them have trash hands like T 6 offsuit. One might have AA or KK. But I would take JT suited up against AA if there were 8 others in the pot because even though I'm an underdog, I have other underdogs paying me off if I hit.
Here is another thing - let's say you play JT suited in a capped pot with 10 way action. If the flop comes A T 5 you supposedly have odds to call with 2nd pair. But you really don't, and I know this, but the others do not know this. I will make these folds that APPEAR correct. The opposition, who know a little too much for their own good, do not, and they will call. Likewise, they will call with 2nd pair when I flop a set or an open ended straight flush draw.
I won't let myself get trapped with these hands. I know that many believe that the pot is so huge that you have odds to call with 2nd pair weak kicker. I do not believe this. I look at 10 way action holdem as being like omaha - I don't call with 2nd pair and few outs in that game either.
Anyway, I value your response. Maybe you can tell me - how do you play AA and the like in these games?? Do you just jam the flop and check call the rest of the way to the river? Is it, in general, correct to ALWAYS call to the river with AA?
What if you have 2 black aces and the board is JT98 of hearts on the turn?
How do you play KK in these games when an ace comes?
Just seems like putting good cards in and then just riding it out and hoping you emerge on top even when you don't improve is a good recipe for heart disease. :)
Another thing - would you play AK offsuit in a game like this?
Thanks again.
-SmoothB-
You didn't ask me, but...
...how do you play AA and the like in these games??
Jam preflop. You have the best of it. "It depends" postflop.
Do you just jam the flop and check call the rest of the way to the river?
"It depends" on whether you probably have the best of it. Did you flop a set of A's? Jam it! Flop J52 rainbow and you're bet into? Raise! Flop KKJ? Be careful.
Is it, in general, correct to ALWAYS call to the river with AA?
The advice, "Play only AA, KK, QQ and perhaps AK suited in wild games," does not mean "Call all bets to the river." The advice applies to preflop play.
What if you have 2 black aces and the board is JT98 of hearts on the turn?
A bet or raise to you? It's probably best to muck 'em.
How do you play KK in these games when an ace comes?
Action with players known to hold A-anything? It's probably best to muck 'em.
Just seems like putting good cards in and then just riding it out and hoping you emerge on top even when you don't improve is a good recipe for heart disease. :)
You misunderstand. "The advice" is for preflop. But your questions imply that you are beginning to understand this. You don't ride it out with a g00t preflop hand that's turned into a likely loser.
Another thing - would you play AK offsuit in a game like this?
Probably, but I would be very cautious.
(n/t)
"Here is another thing - let's say you play JT suited in a capped pot with 10 way action. If the flop comes A T 5 you supposedly have odds to call with 2nd pair. But you really don't, and I know this, but the others do not know this. I will make these folds that APPEAR correct. The opposition, who know a little too much for their own good, do not, and they will call. Likewise, they will call with 2nd pair when I flop a set or an open ended straight flush draw."
If there were only one or two people calling incorrectly, your theory might be sound, but you have to realize that there may be as many as seven or eight people chasing their respective hands. While it may be incorrect for them individually to chase their runner runner straight when you've made your set, the fact that there are seven hands being played against you means that one of them is more likely than not to end up beating you.
You can make all the great pot-odds-influenced laydowns you want. No one will know, no one will care, and no one will do likewise. You'll save yourself a few bucks over the long run, but the biggest problem in these games is playing hands that don't have the potential to be the best after the flop. In other words, AA, KK, and the like have the potential to be the very best, while 98s has the potential to be second best a whole lot more.
GB
Preflop stategy in such games is pretty easy IMO.
I don't subscribe to the "play only AA, KK, QQ, AKs" theory. I have got more interesting things to do with my time than waiting for these puppies.
I generally play all pairs and Axs from any position. I play AK from any position often by just limping (if it's going to get capped, I may as well have some deception going for me).
I play suited connectors in late position. Sometimes, I will add Kxs to my late position play.
I don't play offsuit high cards in any position (other than AK).
Flop and turn play is where things get tricky. When I speak of wild games, I generally envision games where there is a lot of raising preflop and on the flop. Even the wildies tend to slow down a little on the turn. To me, the key in such games is the turn. You must constantly be manipulating things such that you maximize your chances of getting what you want on the turn. That is, you need to manipulate the betting on the flop such that the bet on the turn comes from a particular area of the table (i.e. to your right or left depending on the nature of your hand and the board) so that you can either raise to limit the field or raise to trap the field in for extra bets. Of course, if you are in a game where even the turn is constantly capped, you ain't gonna be able to manipulate dooodoo.
So, in any event, I think that you may be overvaluing suited connectors in such games. I add them to my play (late position only) not because I think that they are big money makers but because otherwise I would be bored out of my tree and that boredom may cause me to lose even more as I begin to play JT or something just because I have been picking up Red Dog hands all day. Plus, I figure that I can play them well enough to at least make them just a slightly losing proposition.
Thanks for the info. I am not so sure I like playing Ax suited in these games. The only thing you can do with them is flop a flush or flush draw, and that is going to happen just about exactly 10% of the time. Add 1% for the times you flop trips with the little card. This seems to be about a break even hand, maybe even not very profitable against 9 people.
I don't like suited connectors very much - never have. But against 9 opponents they play great. Better than Axs I think, because you have a whopping extra 10% chance of flopping the straight or open ender. I think it is worth giving up a little bit in losing with non nut flushes for that extra equity you get with the straight draw bonus.
A2-A5 suited is a little better than A7 suited because you do flop straights and gutshots sometimes, and you can make money from those.
I am afraid of getting trapped with that ace in a huge multiway pot, though.
Thanks again for the reply.
You can also profit from AXs hands when you make aces-up. The trick is being able to get away from your hand when you flop an ace with the worst kicker.
I pretty much agree with skp's recommendations, though I would seldom play suited connectors smaller than JTs. I would also be reluctant to raise (preflop) with hands other than AA/KK, unless it is very likely that the betting will be capped anyway (in which case I would not raise with AA/KK but would raise with other hands).
Hi,
In my experience, I have never been crushed by the blinds in games like this implementing the HPFAP strategy. However, I have tried implementing the second strategy you suggest, and not only was I crushed, I was obliterated!
It is possible to get a playing hand 6 or 7 times in a row in a wild game playing as you suggest. If you estimate you are putting in an average of 10 or 12 small bets per hand (remember, you are jamming even if you have a draw), you could wind up 70 or 80 small bets in the hole in a huge hurry. Of course, you could also be up 100+ small bets if you get hot - but that has never happened to me.
I'll stick to the premium hands in these games.
First of all, I'd like to offer up a big 'thank you' for all of the excellent postings on this subject. I'd like to share a few more insights that I've had.
First of all, I have to make it clear that I am NOT a big fan of suited connectors. I think most people who are in the habit of playing them a lot lose more money with them than they realize.
Now some insights:
First of all, when you are in a pot with 10 way action b4 the flop, it is going to be tough to win. We all know what this is like. The thing is, now you REALLY ARE against 9 random hands. Therefore, theoretically, ANY TIME you get a hand that stands better than a 10% chance of winning against this field, it is correct to raise with it, and you are raising for value.
All if the suited connectors 78 and higher, and all pocket pairs, stand at least a *12* percent chance of winning against 9 random hands. Therefore, raising preflop with any of these hands has positive EV and will make you money in the long run.
I will discuss position later.
Ok, now for the flop and beyond.
With the pairs you are an 8.5:1 dog to flop a set. You are getting better odds than this from all of the callers in the pot - 9:1. Of course, your set will not hold up all of the time, but this is counterbalanced by all of the implied odds you'll be getting when people call you with pairs.
As for suited connectors - you will flop made hands or draws (straights and flushes) around 20% of the time. When you flop a good draw, you have so many callers that you have fantastic odds to raise and reraise these draws on the flop and often on the turn. You also get a little equity from the times that you flop trips, 2 pair, and full houses that stand up.
In other words, you make money by raising with these hands preflop because you truly are against 9 random hands. And, you make money when you flop a set, or big draws respectively. You can PLAY these hands with positive ev and make money from these plays. That's the key - you PLAY the hands and you can manipulate the number of callers you let in and the amount of money going into the pot. With the big wired pairs all you can do is jam early and then hold on tight and pray that someone with 63 offsuit doesnt catch their second pair.
As for position - this is extremely important. If there is a bet in the SB and you have an open ended straight flush draw, and 8 people call, you can happily raise and even cap it if it comes back to you. So I would only play these hands in the last 3 positions or so. Also, you can raise for a free card here if a lot of players do get knocked out.
Furthermore, since I would like to avoid huge swings in my bankroll, I probably would like to sneak in cheaply with these hands if possible - and I'd also like to make sure I *DO* get lots of callers. So I'd only play this way in the last 3 positions or so.
Although I readily agree that sticking to AA, KK, QQ, and AK suited is a sound strategy for these games, I do not believe that you are coming anywhere close to maximizing your EV this way. Now obviously, in order to play this way, your bankroll must be HUGE because your swings will be enormous. So if your bankroll is 20,000 you might want to stay away from a wild 10-20 game if you planned to play this way.
But what if your bankroll were 1,000,000? I think you would be maximizing your EV by playing this way.
Another thing - might it not be better in the long run to play in wild 3-6 games than tougher 10-20 games?
Anyway, those are just my thoughts. Any further comments?
-SmoothB-
There's a reason game selection is at the top of most people's lists of what makes a good poker player. There are strategies that can reduce your variance or increase your win rate in wild games, but I think the best option is to avoid them altogether. Some people play poker to gambool, and when they get together, they create these wild chip-flying affairs. This is their ideal game; it's not mine. If you have the choice, don't play in them.
Now, if you don't have a choice, that's another matter altogether. You then have two choices: play, or don't play. Given that we're going to play, we must prepare ourselves mentally for the onslaught (don't get caught up in the action!), and we must prepare ourselves logistically (bring more chips than you normally would). With those two steps behind us, play the cards that will do well in THAT game. Are you up against 9 random hands? Play accordingly. Are you up against 7 semi-random hands? Play tighter.
The gist of this rambling is this: Play hands that will most likely turn into nut hands on the flop and on the turn. Axs, big pairs, even Kxs in the right situation. If you don't want variance, you need to play more selectively. There's no way around that.
GB
There is one other point I'd like to add, since the subject of playing Axs in wild games has come up.
First of all, as soon as that third flush card shows up (or especially the 4th one) the action tends to grind to a halt. Even someone who is playing for the first time knows to look for a flush board and be very cautious.
But straights are different. If I have AA and I bet the turn, and the turn is
J 8 5 T
and you raise me, I am going to have a much harder time putting you on a straight than I would a flush. If you had 97 in this example, you flopped a double gutshot straight draw.
I might think that you just made 2 pair - jacks and tens. I, and other pair type hands - will be much more likely to call you here than they would on a flush board. If you did make 2 pair, I can catch up to you with my AA. But I'm drawing dead against a straight or a flush.
In that sense, I think that you lose a little bit in equity with non nut flushes that either are beaten outright, or get made on the turn and drawn out on on the river. But what you gain in equity from the less obvious straights more than makes up for this.
But this is just my opinion, and I value all of the input I've received on this. I think learning to beat wild games is probably the most lucrative scenario in poker. I appreciate any insight you have to offer.
-SmoothB-
"First of all, as soon as that third flush card shows up (or especially the 4th one) the action tends to grind to a halt. Even someone who is playing for the first time knows to look for a flush board and be very cautious."
Perhaps the players in your wild games are a little more aware than the typical wild game. Where I play, players will bet into flush boards, either through unawareness, or just plain apathy. If the action dries up when the flushes hit, this gives more value to suited connectors, I agree.
However, the nice thing about a nut flush, is you can get calls from smaller flushes (sometimes even a raise!) and calls from made straights or sets. While these players may be aware of flushes, they will probably have a very hard time laying down their second best hands. Straights are easier to hide, but flushes will get calls from the 83s and 75o hands. And this is exactly what we want when we have the best hand. We can never be sure we want calls with non-nut hands in this type of wild environment. Loose aggressive players can get good hands too, unfortunately. :)
GB
'Loose aggressive players can get good hands too, unfortunately. :)'
Amen! I love this sentence! Here is a funny story along these lines.
I was playing in a wild game with one TOTAL maniac/bully whom I shall call Godzilla. (GZ for short.) This guy would make John Gotti look like a whimpering momma's boy.
Anyway, I was playing super super tight, like a good boy. He was in the BB with one hand - I limped in from late position with JT suited or something like that. Luckily for me it hadn't been raised yet. Lots of multiway action.
When GZ saw me limp in, he said 'Hey, Smooth is in the hand! Don't let him get in here for cheap! Let's cap it off! So, he raised, reraise, I called 2 bets, he capped.
Flop came rags, I mucked on the flop.
What do you think HE had?
AA!
He flopped a set and they got snapped off.)
Maniacs DO get great hands and when they do no one gives them credit for them.
Thanks for the post.
-SmoothB-
While I agree that there are scenarios where suited connectors can be better, the overriding consideration in such games is that you wnat to make nut hands and this consideration makes Axs much better than something like 98s.
The value of hands like 98s is high in a normal game that happens to have multiway action for that particular deal. It is not as high in games where there is constant multiway action because that means you are going to:
- Run into Hands like Axs, Kxs, Qxs in your suit
- Be outdrawn more often on the river if the 4th card of your suit hits
- Be outdrwan more often by goofy 2 pair hands which go on to fill up.
- Split the pot more often when you make a straight
- Have your straight beat by a bigger straight.
In other words, in such games, getting there with your 98s is only half the battle; making sure that they are not an expensive 2nd best hand is the other half. That's why I prefer Axs in such games. Most of the negatives set out above are positives when holding Axs.
I would add that a hand like 22 is way better than 98s because they are much easier to play postflop. It's hit or miss. With 98s, you will be required to make several tough decisions postflop and will often be paying lots of bets to try and make your hand which may or may not hold up. Don't forget that you will only rarely flop a flush or straight...a good flop for you still leaves you looking to hit on the turn or river. You will do that only once in 3 tries and you may not win even if you hit i.e. the chances of losing after hitting are greater in wild games as compared to sane games.
I just thought of another profound consequence of playing with this style.
Ok, so you are only going to be playing pocket pairs 7 or higher and suited connectors 78 or higher, and you'll be trying to stick to the later positions. Forget about AK offsuit - throw it away.
Think about this for a minute - since you are only going to stick with the hand when you flop
1) an overpair
2) a set
3) a straight, flush, or good draw
4) trips or 2 pair
you will ALWAYS be betting or raising for value against a large field. In fact, with enough people in the hand, you may even be correct to bet or raise the turn with good draws, and you may be able to bet and raise with gutshots on the flop.
Now let's say that that you play by the book and stick to AA KK etc.
You are in the SB. Flop comes Q 9 3 rainbow with 1 spade. I have JT spades - an open ender on a rainbow flop, and say a backdoor flush draw to boot.
You should probably try for a checkraise, but you know no one will drop after capping preflop. So you bet out. 3 callers. Some goofball with Q6 raises, 3 more callers. One drops, I raise on the button. 2 bets back to you. There is every indication that it is going to be capped on the turn too. What do you do with the best hand? Clutch your chest and pray?
You've seen me jam with everything all the way from top set down to a gutshot. And I was always betting or raising for value. What do you do? I WANT you to call because your call makes me money. You want all of us to drop because you don't want to have to pay to see the river with a hand that might already be beaten. And you don't want all those people drawing for a second pair against you.
Anyway, you have to sit back and pray. I get to PLAY the hand. I know where I am.
I think the key here is that, since some people will think you are crazy for jamming with gutshots (even when it's appropriate), they will not give you credit when you have a big hand like a set or AA. No one will ever know where you are unless they are REALLY astute.
But you'll still be playing tight - how many times will you get a pocket pair 8 or higher or suited connectors 78 and higher? Not very often. About 5.5 percent of the hands you're dealt.
So I'm not trying to describe a recipe for playing along with the other maniacs by trying to beat them at their own game. Just a way to try to squeeze a little more EV out of this potentially exremely profitable game.
-SmoothB-
might it not be better in the long run to play in wild 3-6 games than tougher 10-20 games?
One thing you forget to consider is that the rake is a huge factor in these 3-6 games. You can't cap it with a hand that wins 12% of the time because the rake is going to take away 5% of that. (I don't know what the percentage really is...don't feel like thinking of a way to calculate this effect)
The reason to move up is because the rake starts to take a smaller and smaller percentage of your EV.
The reason super-tight play is advocated is because you need a significant advantage over your opponents to overcome the fact that the rake is going to decimate your pot...
Don't discount The Rake...it always wins.
~DjTj
This isn't quite right. You don't take the 5% from the 12 % chance I have of winning against a full field.
If I bet 100, I should win 120. I am getting 1.2:1 odds on my money. Take the 5% from that 120 and that is 6. That leaves me with 114 in earnings from my 100 wagered.
Furthermore, they don't take a full 5%. The rake maxes out at 3 or 4 or whatever dollars depending on where you are. The pots can get huge - even in a 3-6 game they can be over 200 dollars easy.
In a 3-6 game, if it is capped 10 way action preflop the pot is already at 120. Add a live straddle and it's 150.
So let's say the average pot in one of these games is 100 dollars. If the rake is 5% up to 3 then they are really raking only 3%. So if I have a 12% chance of winning I win 117 when I risk 100. (Ok so I rounded up.)
Ok, snide comment - don't they teach you guys math at Caltech? Heh heh no offense intended.
:)
-SmoothB-
(snooty MIT boy)
Heheh, so I got lazy...I suppose I could try to do some math then.
Truth is, around LA the rake is much bigger than that - the 5% I threw in was just something that I felt was right. The usual rake at 3-6 at Indian Casinos is something like $2.50+$1 jackpot - and the rake starts when the pot hits like $20 or something...but the wildest games are definitely in the big LA card clubs where you're paying a $3 dead drop on the button...and in reality, the average pot size is nowhere near $100 - but whatever, that's just real life clouding the issue at hand...
Let's take a look at this 1.2:1 advantage. I assume you got this from 0.12*9-0.88=0.2...assuming 9 people are calling the bet. You should realize that this is not possible at any live cardrooms since there are only 9 seats at a table...So the best odds you can actually get are 0.12*8-0.88=0.08...and any less callers sends you into -EV.
The other issue is that this 12% advantage is definitely a preflop phenomenon and you can only really consider the money that's going in preflop. So, with a $3 dead drop coming out of every hand regardless of pot size, this is going to require $3/0.08 = $37.5 to go into the pot preflop from all 8 other players, which means they'll all have to call a raise...bottom line, 12% really isn't enough of an advantage.
MIT huh....you must've had to drive pretty far to find a casino to play at...
~DjTj
Normally the games I play in are fairly tight, so I will make these kinds of plays:
KQ offsuit in the BB. One limper. All fold - heads up.
Flop comes K 9 8. I'll do differnet things here. If the opponent is aggressive I may check call the flop and checkraise the turn. If he is passive I will probably just bet the flop and turn. That's not really important.
On the river, if I haven't improved, my usual play is to check the river and call if there is a bet. I do this for a couple of reasons -
1) I might get him to bluff if he was drawing, and thought I missed my draw.
2) If he made his draw or hit 2 pair I don't want to be faced with a raise and have to pay it off.
I think this strategy is pretty sound. Of course, I will pretty much always bet very strong hands (flushes straights sets) on the river, and I will occasionally bet weaker ones for variety. (IE if I ONLY bet straights or higher on the river I won't get called by top pair as much.) And I will occasionally bluff the river when I miss.
I think this strategy is pretty sound. Sometimes I will even check very strong hands if I am pretty sure I will only get called/raised by a better hand.
My question deals with what to do when there are several other people in the pot. I have been experimenting with wild games lately and this has been coming up more often.
Example:
I'm in a pot that is capped preflop. I have QJ of hearts.
Flop comes Jc Js Ts.
I am in early position - the pot is huge - and no one is going anywhere - so I bet out. I don't want to risk a free card to the flush and straight draws or to an overpair. And I want to get a third bet in if I'm raised.
Turn comes 7 c.
Once again I bet out. 3 callers.
River comes 2c.
Now a runner runner flush could be out there. This has been happening all night - people will never fold for one bet on the flop in this game when they paid 4 bets before the flop.
I checked. It was checked around and I won the pot.
Now I think it might have been incorrect to check. I think second pairs would have called even if busted draws would not.
Even though I could have been beaten and might have faced a raise, it is not that likely that I would be raised by the flush because of the paired board. Depends on the player.
Anyway, now, since I have more callers, is it correct to bet on the river? It seems that the three bets I might collect when I win by betting should more than outweigh the one or possibly 2 bets I could lose when I'm beaten.
-SmoothB-
I favour value betting in both scenarios that you speak of.
Checking to induce bluffs ion the river is a play that I rarely use mainly because it rarely works. If you bet the flop and turn and then checked the river, your opponent usually will not put you on a "check and fold" play at this point. Thus, he will not usually be induced into bluffing. On the other hand, if you make a bet on the river with your top pair, your opponent will usually call you with 2nd pair or worse particularly if the flop had 2 of a suit as he may suspect that *you* are bluffing.
In addition, continuing to bet with a good hand on the river will provide better cover for your real bluffs. i.e. you bet when you bluff and when you have a hand. Your way of checking the King at the end will signify that a bet from you on the end probably represents a monster hand or a bluff. And since, the poker gods don't often bestow us with monster hands, I would take your bet to be a bluff more often than not.
In short, IMO, the positives of betting outweigh the positives of checking.
Yes, you could be raised if your opponent hits some kind of fluky 2nd pair but that will happen only 1 in 9 times if he had just a 5 outer on the turn. Not enough to worry about.
If you garner the reputation as someone who will not bet on the river with a King (in your example), you will be called more often by marginal hands on the turn. In today's game where the pots are generally quite big by the turn, you don't want that.
On the other hand, players are going to think twice about calling the turn against someone who will value bet the river because they know that they will have to call twice.
Thus, garnering the reputation as a value bettor on the river makes it easier to steal pots on the turn.
I am relatively new to the game of Hold'em. My experience is some table time at the Taj and some home games, plus about 150 hours at TTH with a $13.50 per hour win rate vs. loose lineup at $3 - $6. I am playing a home game soon with 5 others: 2 people who hardly play cards, let alone Holdem, 1 person with some experience, and 2 others who only played Holdem with me once before and never since. Therefore their understanding of good starting hands is much less than mine. My booklearning consists of Lee Jones Low Limit book.
Enough background. Anyway, since the competition is pretty green (or at least greener than I am), I would like to jam the pots when I have the better or best of it. I am thinking I can raise pre-flop with pairs down to 77, suited connectors to 9-10, Axs, K-big suited, AKo, AQo, and AJo. I base this on the fact that the flop will play 5 and 6 handed often, and many times the others will stay in much longer than they should. My post-flop play is probably mediocre, but better than theirs. (Using Advisor 35 in TTH, my post flop is about an 80 rating - if that means anything at all).
Any advice on starting hands that are raise-worthy (or if I am being too maniacal)? The format of the game will be $1-$4-$8-$8.
Raising a lot is great if you get there or they will fold on the flop.
IME low limit players will call you down with bottom pair so i would be carefull how much you bluff on the river.
what difference does it really make if you raise pre flop since that betting round is only a dollar compared to that of 4, and 8 dollars. i wouldthink a better approach would be to slow play and make them really pay for their draws, since they are getting such horrible pot odds.
either way good luck
OK, you are in the big blind.
UTG raises, 5 guys call (wow, loose 80/160 game...geez!)
what hands do you fold with, if any?
Should not your question be "what hands do you call with?". Surely, the fact that there are 13 small bets in the pot does not mean that you now have the green light to play crap like Js3h etc.
Having said that, I would probably play 2 gapper suited cards and possibly Kxs bearing in mind that hitting a King could get me in trouble.
I would obviously play all pairs.
I would probably play most offsuit connectors and some one gapper offsuit cards.
what about two gappers offsuit like T7o or even munchie? I think those are playable too...I also think any A, and any K is playable, regardless of the other card (obviously you need to play well post-flop and have a good handle on your opponents)...btw, the rephrased question is the same question, isn't it? just silly semantics.
I would play any 2 cards that would stretch to a str8, any pair, and A K Qxs suited cards, not any Ax and Kx.
I wouldn't play T7 offsuit. I would also specifically not play offsuit weak Aces or weak Kings as those can only get me in troubel. If you play Ah6c and the like, you are trying to make 2 pairs which will only happen once in 50 times or so. The way more common occurrence is that you flop an Ace or 6 and now have to peel another one off etc which could lead to chip bleeding.
"btw, the rephrased question is the same question, isn't it? just silly semantics."
Yes. But I took your question to imply that you felt that there are very few hands that are not playable. In fact, I believe that the vast majority of hands are unplayable.
Assuming most of these 80-160 players are fairly reasonable (including the raiser) and this hand is anomalous, I would call (or raise) with all pairs and all suited cards, as well as offsuit connectors from 45 to AK, and offsuit one-gappers from 46 to AQ. I'd also probably play AJ and KT unless most of the opponents were solid players.
Doc,
I did an analysis of a very similar situation about a month ago. Formerly, I was of the opinion that you could call with any 2 suited cards in this spot. But after the analysis, I determined that this is not the case. I would play any suited A or K, all suited no-gaps and 1-gaps, and hands like 96s.
I would play any unsuited connector above 56 or so, and some higher unsuited one-gappers.
If you would like to see the analysis, I may still have it on my computer and can post or email it to you.
Regards,
Puggy
sure, I'd like to see the analysis....my email is kenny98z11@yahoo.com
thanks
I was playing in a 5-10 game with a kill at Mohegan Sun last night. We were playing a kill pot for 10-20 and I was one seat to the right of the buttom. Two early limpers to me and I call with the 8h, 8d. Button raises. Both blinds fold, limpers call. The four of us see the flop for two bets. Flop comes 8s, 8c, 10s. Does it get any better than this? First two limpers check and I check. Button bets. All call. Turn is the Js. This is getting even better as there is now a flush and straight possibility on board. First two players check and I check with the intention of check raising and trapping the first two players for two bets, but the button also checks and we all see the river card for free. (Was my check and reasoning correct here?) River is the 6s. There are three parts of a straight flush on board, four spades and three parts of a straight and here's where I got really pissed off.
Player 1 checks. Player 2 fires in $20. I make it $40 and before the button and player 1 have an opportunity to act, player 2 throws in $40 (reraising me) out of turn. The button had the Ks for a flush and the number 1 seat had his straight. They both would have called (well, perhaps not the straight in the #1 seat...it was a rather loose game) my $40 had the #2 seat not acted out of turn. Instead they both folded. I reraised and beat an ace high flush to take down a pretty good pot. However, IMO the pot should have had at least another $40 (or perhaps $80) if not for the idiot in the #2 seat acting out of turn.
Comments?
so? that happens sometimes when you play poker. only thing you can do is ask the dealer to do their job and maintain control of the game. sometimes a player acting out of turn can be an advantage for you also, though it obviously was not in this case. BTW, I would have bet the turn...
Splitting the Hold'em Forum into so many categories is a poor approach. It makes navigation and participation more awkward and finding specific threads difficult. How suttle the difference between 'General Theory' and Hold'em 'General [Theory]'. Must be particularly hard on Schizophrenics.
Nick,
I do think the holdem forum needed to be split since good threads were getting buried so fast. But it has been split a little too much and maybe not the right way.
I've posted some original ideas a week ago but I forget what forum I put it on! Anyway, maybe we can start a thread that suggests some improvements but still achieves the goals of the split.
Regards,
Rick
nt
If this is done can we make $30-$60 high limit and $20-$40 and below low limit?
I would still prefer a seperate thread for pot/no limit betting structures. There's so little of this discussed I'd hate to split it between high and low limits.
From a selfish viewpoint I'd like to learn more about big bet poker, and analyzing hands with good players is the GREATEST thing about these 2+2 forums. I suspect the good big bet players won't be reading the low limit forum where I'd have to post hands from a $1-$2 blind pot limit game at the Plaza.
Fat-Charlie
In the current Poker Digest, Mason described his play with AA in a late position against (I think) 3 or 4 other players. As he stated, his most curious play was his check on the flop of Kxx rainbow. Part of his reasoning was that the pot was of sufficient size (It was 3-bet before the flop) to give someone with a hand like a pair to draw to trips.
My question: If they would have sufficient odds to call a bet to draw, is not giving them the same draw for free even worse for his aces?
I haven't read the article but I assume Mason thought that everyone would call his flop bet and then check to him on the turn. Essentially, his opponents get 2 cheap cracks to chase their outs. While each of his opponents' outs may be slim, from a collective standpoint, Mason may be an underdog to the field if his opponents only have to call single bets on the flop and turn. By checking the flop, Mason is hoping to induce a bet from his right on the turn which will enable him to raise and shut out the field. This has the effect of increasing his chances to win the pot.
It is a play designed to ensure that his opponents do not see the river card. The check on the flop removes any chance of his opponents not seeing the turn card but his thinking was probably that they were going to see the turn card even if he bets.
This play and others like it have been the subject of comment on several previous threads. To be sure, there are some negatives to the flop check. However, at times, the positives can outweigh the negatives.
I agree.
If he bets the flop most or all of them will call. If Mason is not beaten on the turn they will check to him and at least one and maybe more will call. He charges each player 1 1/2 BB to see the river card.
The other way, he checks the flop, induces a bet on the turn, and raises. This should knock out some people behind, and he charges everyone 2 BB so see the river card.
I am not so sure that I agree with this move although I understand it's merits.
I would never assume that EVERYONE will pay off one bet on the flop to see the turn card. If the flop misses me, I certainly do not chase runner runner straights and flushes. I will fold my 2 spades with 1 spade on the flop for 1 small bet, and I am correct to do so. (3 bet preflop with 4 players = about 6BB.)
But if I can see the turn card for free, I might pick up a flush draw or an open ender. Now, if the BB bets out, I call because I have the odds to do so, and if Mason raises, I call that bet too, even though he doesn't want me to. He wants me to fold, but he missed that chance on the turn.
In short, the flop would have to be REALLY ragged before I would try this. Something like Q 7 2 rainbow.
-SmoothB-
I think you are arguing that Mason increases his EV by waiting until the turn to push out opponents. Although, I can see how this play may allow you to win the pot more often and/or increase EV. I believe betting the flop probably has higher EV, generally. Here are some of the drawbacks I see to this play:
-As Jim Brier pointed out, you may get a pocket pair to incorrectly fold.
-Even if a two outer does call your bet on the flop, he will most likely fold on the turn for just one bet (i.e. you don't need to setup a turn raise to push out a two-outer, but this play may work against 4-6 outs). Infact, you would rather have him call one bet on the turn, than fold for two.
-It is very possible that an early position player is waiting to check-raise top pair, thus allowing you to gain even more EV on the flop.
-Some players may have even less than 2 outs, but still have a slim chance to win (runner-runner flush or straight draw). You may be giving them a free card, when they otherwise would have folded.
"While each of his opponents' outs may be slim, from a collective standpoint, Mason may be an underdog to the field if his opponents only have to call single bets on the flop and turn."
It doesn't matter if you are an underdog or not. If you have 3 opponents, you only have to be a >25% favorite to be making money on your bet. Just because it is correct for your opponents to call, does not mean it is correct for you to check (of course). As long as the odds of you winning are larger than the number of callers, a bet has +EV that could be lost by checking. In Mason's example, I am guessing he is giving up at least 1.5 to 3 bb by checking the flop. He must make up for this on later rounds, with the aide of deception caused by checking the flop with AA.
"In Mason's example, I am guessing he is giving up at least 1.5 to 3 bb by checking the flop. He must make up for this on later rounds, with the aide of deception caused by checking the flop with AA."
First, I think you mean small bets. Your point however is probably true assuming I win the pot. But suppose by playing the hand the way I did I am able to win the pot a higher percentage of the time. Since the pot is already very large, this can make up for those bets that I lose on the flop.
I don't have the article in front of me so I'm going from memory...
I think what Mason really wanted was a raise or check raise to halve the odds that callers would get. If he ends up giving a free card it's not likely to be horrible since no overcard can fall and the board was not two-suited. If it checks around then 1) people wont have odds to draw for the big bet if they didn't hit the turn, and 2) no one would expect AA not to bet the flop and you have put yourself in a tremendously deceptive position. You may induce bluffs or get a weaker hand to call you on the big bets when he otherwise might have folded. I believe that an Ace fell on the turn or river and Mason won a lot of Money from AK who might have been a little more wary with bets and raises on the flop.
How did the flop get checked to Mason when someone had AK? If he thought they were behind him, wouldn't he bet hoping for a raise to narrow the field? Obviously, I haven't seen this article.
Fat-Charlie
I brought this play up a week ago. I think it's insane. Other experts agree. I did a little rough thought on it and if you assume that all will call a flop bet with crappy draws that are 21-1 dogs or worse then you're throwing away 4 small bets - 4/22 small bets. If you think someone will check raise your flop bet from early position then you are needlessly jeopardizing the entire pot. If you're right and no one backdoor's a draw then you'll win a minimum sized pot. Horrible poker at it's published best.
-Fred-
I have not read the article but I am familiar with the argument. It is a classic case of specious reasoning. The point is that when someone gets a free card you are giving them infinite odds. With a large pot and numerous opponents you need to protect what is out there by betting your hand. Furthermore, by betting your hand you give someone the opportunity to make a mistake by folding their two outer rather than giving them a free card to turn a set and take an entire pot away from you. There is too much money, too many opponents, too many turn card possibilities, and too many other variables for you to be trying to "manipulate the pot odds" or the other players for that matter. Occasionally this all works out anyway but from time to time you just end up "manipulating" yourself out of a big pot.
I have not read the article, but agree with Jim's statement on the play of AA. I've learned the hard way that not betting / raising will cost you! Getting AA cracked will leave a mark when something like 27o hits the flop hard because you didn't raise'em out. Tell me if I'm wrong. I want AA capped pre flop. After the flop I'm playing AA just like any other top pair. You AA is worthless when some yahoo hits the flop with a set of 2's, and you are stuck holding one pair.
"It is a classic case of specious reasoning. "
I say it is not.
"when someone gets a free card you are giving them infinite odds."
You think Mason or the rest of us that use this play are unaware of that?
"There is too much money, too many opponents, too many turn card possibilities ..."
Then what makes you so sure you are right? It is complicated and I don't think such simplistic arguments will prove anything.
From personal experience, I feel the play is right. I have many times experienced the drawouts as the field check calls me the 3-better. Instead with The-Play I feel I am doing something positive to win the (large) pot.
Now if anyone is going to prove that pot-winning move is not worth the other problems that can occur they are going to have to show me the math.
D.
Jim, I have my doubts about the play as well, but I don't think it's specious reasoning.
When I first commented about this hand I had not as yet had a chance to read the article. I since have read it, and it is indeed the same argument S & M make in HPFAP (21st c.) on page 171.
Mason recognized the drawbacks that you point out. In HPFAP, he specifically mentions the possibility of an opponent, who would have folded a small pair if you bet the flop, making a set on the turn because you didn't bet.
But I think the play merits consideration. With all that money in the pot, it is correct that a small bet on the flop will not get very many players to fold. So they're going to be there for the turn whether you bet or not. If you bet the flop, they're all then going to probably check to you on the turn and it's going to cost them only one big bet to see the river. But by checking the flop, they are now tempted to bet into you on the turn and you can raise, driving out at least some of the players who might have drawn out on you on the river.
Remember, Mason is talking about loose games where the players would call on the flop most of the time. So the advantage you mention, a player folding incorrectly on the flop, is somewhat reduced from what it would be in a tighter game.
Mason realizes that this strategy is somewhat counter-intuitive. In the section in HPFAP, he says that this type of play is "play[ing] a hand strangely," that "this may sound insane" and that the plays are not foolproof and are dangerous. But he feels that the positives outweigh the admitted negatives.
By the way, I think the example in the book is somewhat different than the hand in the magazine article becuase, in the book, Mason was on the button; but in the magazine hand, Mason had 3-bet the pot pre-flop from the cut-off and the button cold-called the 3 bets. I think if Mason had bet the flop (magazine hand), he might have been raised by the button, thus making it 2 bets to everyone else and possibly accomplishing what he was trying to accomplish on the flop instead of waiting for the turn, with the dnager that that entails. (As it turned out everyone again checked to him on the turn, he bet, and button raised, so it worked out perfectly for Mason; fortuitous, which he points out in the article.)
One thing not brought up by anyone else that I see as a problem is that when Mason Malmuth makes it 3 bets pre-flop and then checks on the flop, my suspicion antennae would go up to the penthouse. Were I in front of Mason, I wouldn't bet the turn unless I wanted to be raised.
Andy:
You probably did a better job of explaining why this play may be correct than I could do. The only comment I have to make is that after I bet the turn, the player on the button only called, and the player in the blind check-raised. I then made it three bets to eliminate the player on the button.
For those of you who are debating this hand, this play may only be correct when (1) the pot is very large, (2) you are fairly sure that most everyone will call your flop bet and then check to you on fourth street, and (3) your opponents are fairly aggressive and that your check may lure someone with a weaker hand -- perhaps even a bluff -- to bet into you on the next round.
Could you please comment on how the texture of the flop may affect the efficacy of this play?
i have been playing alot of 15/30 20/40 and 30/60 holdem and thru my study the pot odds have begain to confuse me.i take this in to consideration on all of my decisions and i belive that out of the fourty or so regular players i oppose in these games i would have to say less than five percent of them are concerned or aware of the importance over the long haul.it seems that lately it is costing me money due to the fact that they will call the bet with 6 to 1 pot odds when they are 13 to 1 against.my question is in these medium limit games on a scale of one to ten how many good players are in the games.i would think that at these limits people would understand at least at a limited basis these concepts.i am begaining to think that i am the one making the mistakes when i fold when the pot odds don't justfy a call and i see people call and win.i don't describe spacific hands but this is driving me crazy.any input and insight would be well apraciated.they have began to make me think i don't play as well as i think i due considering since i was sixteen years old i have played a over the country and not encoutered any think like this before.and yes my last four sessions have cost me $2200.can this just be bad cards,bad luck or worst of all bad playing?Please help?
If you have opponents who are calling bets when the pot odds don’t justify it for them, they are making a mistake and should lose money on this in the long run. When you have more than one opponent against you in a hand doing this, their combined chances of making the draw in increased over their individual odds.
Lets say you have two opponents and each is going for a gutshot on the river and each needs a different card to make it. There are 4 out of 46 cards that make each players straight. The individual odds against making it are 10.5:1. However, there are 8 out of 46 cards that will fill one of their straights. That reduces the odds to 4.75:1 against one of them filling their straight. If another opponent is on a flush draw, the odds go down to 2.3:1 against one of them making their hand. This is what Mike Caro (I think it’s Mike) refers to as "implied collusion".
It just appears that the gutshots are hitting more often than they should. If you have a set, you will win if no one hits the straight. You will lose if they do hit it. You are still the favorite. If one of them hits when I am in this situation, it sure can piss me off. Remember, you don’t see all the bad draws they miss when they throw their hands away. In the long run, you beat these jerks.
You ask: "My last four sessions have cost me $2200. Can this just be bad cards, bad luck or worst of all bad playing?" How could anyone but you know this without seeing your play?
15/30 game i play on the button K7c on the button against two fair players flop comes Kh 5d 9c one bet to me i call turn card is 6h first player bets 30 and second raises 30 it is 60 to me the pot has in it $180 and i don't know whether to call or fold? i figure a eight makes me the nuts 13 to 1 against i don't think a king helps me and i think a seven might be good to so i figure i have seven outs and am gettin 3 to 1 pot odds not including implied pot odds.what is the correct play call or fold or try to buy it with a raise i know that is wrong because the raiser i figure for K with big kicker.I folded the hand and the river brings the elusive 8d and it would have been the nuts.Did i make the right play or was it too pasive.please help.the rest of my session i questioned myself about that one play and ended up blowing four hundred and fourty dollars and had to leave out of disgust.All input would be great. thank you Tony
K7c should not be considered a playable hand in this situation. Your thought process should not dwell on whether you should have called 2 bets on the turn with only a gut shot straight as an out, but on why you got involved in this hand in the first place. You say you are involve against two players. Does this mean that there is one limper to you and then the big blind? That is my assumption from this post. My comments will reflect this assumption.
Quite often the most important decision anyone can make at the poker table is their first decision on whether or not to play a certain hand. All other decisions are a direct result of this one. Think about what someone is going to limp into a hand with. (More often than not it is considerably stronger than K7). You did not say what this persons position relative to the button was. This is an important detail. That aside, think about what you really consider a favorable flop for K7c. However I will not continue to dwell on your preflop decision.
The flop comes, and hits your hand. You state "one bet to you." You have top pair, Raise Now! There is one player yet to act, and you can find out exactly where you stand right now. You have position, use it to your advantage and take control of the hand. If the BB can call 30 cold, WARNING! If you are reraised you can fold.
Onto the turn card. It is now $60 to you, and you have top pair, no kicker, but a gut shot draw. Fold. You are beat, and drawing to a miracle eight will cost you more in the long run.
The error in this hand was preflop. Also, once involved, you played it passively. It is tough to survive at a 15-30 limit with passive play. I do not mean to sound overly critical, everyone makes plays we regret later. (I say oops on average 9.4 times per session). Do not regret your fold on the turn. However, rethink the steps that got you there. Hope this helps.
Matt
Your delema originated with your decision to call good players 1 or 2 with K7 - I am assuming you had atleast one limper ahead of you if not you compounded the problem by not raising the blinds.
You may only have the 8 as an out as the 7 might just make a straight for one of the blinds if you ler them in for free or 1/2 price.
I just don't like getting involved in a hand like this with only 2 callers that's assuming they were both ahead of you.
This one's so close that a call might be correct with this K956 board but wrong with a K986 board (the chance of a higher set is slightly greater). You're looking at 11-2 as your minimum implied odds, or 5.5-1, maybe as high as 7-1, and your draw is about 5.4-1 (sort of taking into account opponents' hands), but some of the time your set will be no good. (And once in a blue moon your straight will be no good). If the raiser can have a lot of hands besides 99 (AK, KQ, 2 hearts, a bluff set-up, TT), calling seems correct, but not if 99 is one of his most likely hands.
"I folded the hand and the river brings the elusive 8d and it would have been the nuts."
With a board of K9865, K7 is NOT the nuts.
Anthony,
If the preflop limpers are weak, predictable players you can clearly outplay, then calling pre flop with K7 suited is OK but not great. Otherwise this is a fold as others have noted.
Once you called preflop, outplaying your opponents means laying down top pair, no kicker, with weak or long shot backdoor draws. When there is a bet and an overcall to you, give it up then. You are likely beat or about to get beat with mediocre redraws and a small pot.
Regards,
Rick
This relates to a 10 handed game. IF you hold Kxs and there are 3 cards (but not the ace) of the same suit on the board by the river, what are the odds that someone else holds Axs of the same suit?
thanks,
Arrash
The chances that one of the other 18 cards dealt includes the ace is 18/45. The chances that the player with the ace has another of that suit when three are on board and you have two, is 7/44. Multiplying we get 126 out of 1980 or 6.4%
Actually DS is wrong the odds are 50/50 - they eigther do or they don't.
:-) Just kidding.
Thanks for the info, its always annoying for me when im not sure if i should raise on the river when a 3rd suit card arrives and i am unsure as to whether the guy was drawing or not.
Arrash
". . . its always annoying for me when im not sure if i should raise on the river when a 3rd suit card arrives and i am unsure as to whether the guy was drawing or not."
Ah, but when someone bets on the river, that changes the odds that they hold Axs. Usually to your detriment.
6.4% ?!
I believe you, but boy does it seem like my Kxs gets blown up by Axs a lot more than that.
Happened just today to me on 3/6 Planet Poker. Got Kxs on the button in an unraised family pot - which is about the only way I will play Kxs outside the blinds.
Flop was 3 of my suit. I figured someone had the Ace, and didn't want to see another heart fall. Turn and river were offsuit cards that put a gutshot straight on the board.
River is bet and raised. I make the crying call. 2 players had the nut straight and - Of course - someone had me on the flop with AQs. All day, I see people playing crap like 84s and that's the time I go against the nut.
ack.
I still think my 50/50 is closer.
:-)
It is alot more than that. Sklansky is just computing the odds of random holdings being Axs. By the time you have players on the river with 3 to a suit on board you can't count all all the possible hands equally anymore. You have to take into account prior betting and what your opponents could hold. Most of the hands have probability of about 0.
Game is 6/12 - loose passive some times aggressive. I have JTo on the button. It is 7 handed - flop is TTd9d - Passed to lady who bets I make it 2 bets and a player last to act, who is playing like a novice, puts in 3 bets. Dealer burns and turns a 3d very fast. I object lady who bet the flop says he put to much in the pot by mistake dealer was willing to let him take it back - I said to bad and called the floor.
Floor made the right decision to pull back the 3d and re-shuffel - turn was a J filling me up and I won a nice pot.
But you would have gotten the J anyway, since the river card was dealt as the turncard, right? So in this case it may even have cost you some money to know the rules.
Anyway, you were of course right in objecting
M.A.
The 3 was put back in the deck and shuffeled, then a new turn was layed down so the J was not emminent at all.
so did the river stay the same? i mean was it first placed face down and then the turn established. anyways wasn't the three coming off the board anyway, since the lady hadn't called your raise yet?
the 3 came off the board went back in the deckand the deck was "reshuffeled" get it - the entire deck was changed as a result of the pre mature burn and turn on the "turn".
nice to see you mixing it up and playin back at the recreational 3/6 table with the common folk feller... by the way did you come out ahead..
jg
Suppose you are in the big blind. There is a late position raise, and the small blind calls. You also call with something like QJ and end up flopping top pair.
Now suppose that the raiser is aggressive but not stupid (he will likely bet his hand no matter what if you check it to him on the flop), and the small blind is on the loose side. Is the better strategy to bet out or check-raise the flop?
My answer is that it depends on the flop. If it is something like J 5 3 rainbow, I would tend to checkraise since I like my hand much more than if it is a coordinated, dangerous flop. Also, with the J 5 3 flop, the risk of a free card is much less than if the flop is something like J T 7 with 2 suited cards.
So with an uncoordinated looking flop, I tend to checkraise. With a coordinated flop I tend to bet out and am not upset when I get raised. Comments on this strategy?
Puggy
Puggy,
The twist here is that the small blind is trapped between you and the raiser. So your checkraises (when he calls) will tend to be for value and not drive anyone out (unless the button reraises and now drops the small blind). Meanwhile, your bets will often force the small blind out (even when the button only calls).
Overall, I believe your thinking is pretty sound. However, note how things would be different if there was a limper, a button raise, and then the small blind folds while you and the limper call. Now you would tend to go for the checkraise with the coordinated flops and bet out on the uncoordinated flops.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
Thanks for responding. I agree with the checkraise in your example on the coordinated flops, although I would probably also go for the checkraise on an uncoordinated flop as well.
On the uncoordinated flop assuming you're ahead (and assuming the opponent will almost always bet - which I think most will), you gain an extra small bet by just checking to him where he might fold it if you bet. Also, you get to face the limper with 2 bets, and you get the same (or more) money in the pot by checkraising.
If you're behind, you lose an extra small bet by playing this way (i.e. the opponent will probably call the raise, then pop you on the turn). But when you flop top pair, you'll be ahead a lot more than behind. So I still think the checkraise is best.
Thoughts?
Puggy
I believe "kill pots" are a card room, management gimmick. Card rooms make money through time collections or raking each pot. Those involve the element of time. The room will extract it's "win", over a period of time. Over "time", kill pots keep "money in action", which would otherwise be kept by individual players. The phenomenon is simimlar to blackjack. The house knows the players will win sometimes. However, in the long run, the house will be the biggest winner. In poker, the players as an aggregate, will win money in killed pots, which will result in a LARGER percentage of that money, being returned to "action", than in a non-kill pot game.
As far as, the individual player is concerned, I don't believe a winning player increases his earn, in kill pot games. If you are a loose-type, losing player, you will be hurt more significantly, in a kill pot game. Those statements are not contradictory, because the "house", is the equalizer. The "house" is the ultimate recipient of the so-called "increased action".
I can't remember ever having seen an opinion on "kill pots", expressed by Mason Malmuth.
Well by golly I think you've got it. Kills are designed to increase action - sure the house benefits from increased action - that's why they have kill pots in the 1st place.
Your comment about a winning player not making money on kills is just wrong headed. A winning player will win as much of a percentage in these games as he does in the regular game. In some cased a winning player will win "more" in kill games than in regular games.
Rounder wrote: "A winning player will win as much of a percentage in these games as he does in the regular game."
A winning player will certanly have the "forced kill" post, X number of times. Some of those hands will be unplayable, thus the "forced kill" will be forfeited, in ADDITION to the regular forced blinds, which may be unplayable. "Percentage-wise", his earn will be LESS, than it would, in a game with regular blinds.
Rounder wrote: "In some cases a winning player will win "more" in kill games than in regular games."
If he wins more, it won't be "because" of the kill, it will be "despite", the kill.
I strongly disagree.
Playing in a killgame I rarely found myself in kill pots as I just don't play eneough hands to win 2 in a row to qualify for one - I know with the stakes doubled I have more leverage to out play the table which I was beating under the normal stakes. For example it is tough for a 6/12 player to call $48 raises when he doesn't have the nuts.
I find more players tend to see flops in kills but don't suck out as much as it is a lot more expensive. Since I am not someone who proceeds in a hand unless I hit the flop I think I have a clear advantage over looser players. Tight players just get tighter in kills.
I miss the kill pots as they don't play them in my "new" area.
If I kept stats on kills I know I would be way ahead.
Hello -- This might be a question that has been answered already, but has Jim McManus' article on the 2000 WSOP appeared yet in Harper's Magazine? If not, does anyone know when it is scheduled to run. Any info would be greatly appreciated.
I heard this on the internet poker forum. What's a beer hand? Supposedly it was in an odds discussion (odds of flopping set, straight draw, etc...)
Odds for beer hand is 82:1 or something???
Beer Hand is the name for 72 offsuit. By popular belief, this is the worst starting hand in hold'em. I don't know what those odds you specify should signify here... It's probably some urban legend crap.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
For 7-2 offsuit , someone at the Casino of Awkasasnee ever told me that this hand could be name a " rabbi "
do to the fact that many poker players have listened to loud music over their lives they can no longer function in society and hear things correctly. what i suspect you heard was a bear hand. since the air conditioning in many casinos is quite cold many players are forced to wear wool gloves. so when one removes a glove so as to pick his nose, his hand is now bear. thus the name bear hand. check back if you need to know any more things on terminology in poker. good luck.
thus a bear hand is a paw hand. paw hands do worse than grate hands but are easier to get. now whats a grate hand.
I was watching a game and saw the following.
Middle Position (MP) raises and gets 2 callers Late position (LP) and SB.
Flop comes A-10-10. SB checks, MP bets, LP calls, SB folds.
Turn is another A. MP checks, LP bets, MP mucks KK face up in disgust. LP takes it down without showing.
Did the MP make the right play?
What could LP have had? A-10? J-10s?
Ace magnets strike again - rule in poker is if you hold KK it is "guaranteed" (or seems that way) an A will hit the flop.
The flod is good assuming you know the player is not a hyper bluffing type.
No MP played the hand badly. He should have either bet the turn, or check called the turn and river. If he bet the turn and LP had raised, maybe he could just throw the hand away.
For all we know, LP could have had a smaller pocket pair (like 9's) or even something like KQ. He might even have thought he had the best hand.
It depends - was it a loose passive or loose aggressive player?
It also depends on your image. If the guy with KK is percieved as weak tight he will get a lot of pots stolen from him.
If I limp in with, say, KQ and it gets raised after me by some one that I percieve to be weak tight, I will do this play.
Ok say we see the flop 3 handed. BB, me, and weak tight raiser on the button.
There are not 3.25 BB in the pot. If the BB checks, I will bet my KQ. Now I will get a read on what the button does.
If he raises, I just muck my hand. If he calls, I try to figure out if he does in fact have AA or AK and is slowplaying. But normally I will not try this against types of opponents who will slowplay.
If he reluctantly calls, I bet the turn no matter what falls. Often times they will lay their hands down at this point.
Note that you have to be careful about who you try this against! It just won't work against calling stations. Try it against timid, tight players.
-SmoothB-
Are there many examples of spread limits games like 2-10, 5-20 or up, being spread by casinos? How popular are they? Why aren't they more popular? I'm going to try starting an interest list for spread limit in my casino. Any suggestions?
The authors have successfully demonstrated that spread limit games featuring relatively low antes/blinds are far too unballanced in favor of the selective players at the expense of the weak-loose players. There are therefore relatively few regular bad players since they win too rarely to keep interested. Normal fixed limit games offer the bad players enough luck to win often enough to keep interested and therefore play more often.
Low limit spread games survive since they are populated by lots of casual players who play infrequently and don't mind or notice the routine losses. Don't expect relatively high spread limits, such as $5-20, to survive long.
I conclude that in order for a spread limit game to survive it would need a relatively large ante/blind. But such games then become just ungraduated limit games: a $2-5 game with a single $2 ante is indeed "spread limit" since the first bet or two is often less than $5; but such a game with a $5 blind is really just a straight $5 game.
- Louie
.
Comments on this hand sought....
I have been offline for a while and at the moment have no internet access (moving). Anyone who feels that I MUST hear their comments please email me. I may or may not get back with you soon on this one, but I love to post stuff on 2+2!
3-6 Kill pot, stakes are 6-12. SB is the killer and is a semi-maniac. He has killed it 3 times in a row. All fold to me in middle position and I have KK so I raise to 12$. Everyone folds to the killer who calls.
Flop is 4c 9d 3s. SB bets out. I decide that since he will (99% certain) call ANY raise I make here, it is probably best for me to wait till the turn to raise. I call.
Turn is 8c. He bets 12$, I raise to 24$, he calls.
River is Jd. He checks, I bet, he calls.
I lose to 84o which made two pair....
Despite his poor call BTF, did I play OK? Anyone do anything different or have comments?
Dave in Cali
Dave,
I don't think there was anything different you could do here. The preflop raise was good play and your logic was good on the turn and river.
This idiot had made up his mind that he was going to play to the river before the cards were delt. I would avoid to many head to head encounters with this nut unless you have some strong cards and then make him pay like crazy.
Rich
Wrong, you want to isolate him and play him as much as possible with marginally better cards.
These guys are money waiting to be made.
Rich,
You don't avoid idiots like this. You send limos to get them. Isolate them and hope they keep playing 84o type hands forever.
Rounder and Tony, You two are absolutly correct. What was I thinking? I think with guys like this it is hard to have any expectation of their play and what you might put them on.
Thanks for the correction in my thinking.
Rich
Unfortunately, even at the time I knew that all of you are correct. I usually make it a point to have this guy at the table with me, preferably with him on my right since he is a frequent raiser. I would have the casino go get him in a limo any time. Plus I have followed him to different games several times.
dave in cali
The only way you could have won this hand would be to get him out before the turn. Given his personality, it just wasn't going to happen, raise or no raise. In fact, you were lucky not to lose more. If I were the maniac, I would have re-raised you on the turn!
Another 3-6 maniac strikes again, not much you can do. Better luck next time! :)
GB
I've been experiencing slowness between 20-30 seconds to load a page since last week or so. Is anyone else experiencing the same thing? I remember the forum used to be a lot faster. Thanks.
You are absolutly right. It has been very slow for a few days now.
/
I agree. It's awful.
OK, I have even called my DSL provider to get help. None so far. Any tips from a computer guy would be great.What causes this?
At my computer at home, most of the time I can´t read the messages since about one weak using Microsoft Internet Explorer. It´s something written, that my browser sends something wrong, or something like that. I don´t know it exactly, since I don´t understand nothing at all about computers. It only works for about 10% of the messages i wanna read.
Using Netscape it works.
Anybody has had this problem before?
M.A.
nm
We are aware that many of you have been experiencing forum slowness. Chuck is looking into it, and hopefully we can get the problem solved soon. Thanks for participating and please be patient in the meantime.
When I try to load the General Theory forum my machine (OK so it's a Mac, lay off :-)) locks up completely.
Thought you might like to know since I think these issues are related.
David
Also I do not seem to be able to access this forum from work any more. I suspect this might have something to do with the lads who man our firewall, although I can see other forums.
This does mean however that I am stuck with reading RPG during my lunch break :{(}, and only access 2+2 at home.
x
If you suspect this or any site is being filtered at work, try to access using the third party proxy technique (ahhhh….listen to the collective yelp of sys admins across the land!)
An example of using Akamai for this can be found at www.peacefire.org/bypass/Proxy/akamai.html
I know this is bad but I normally never know how much money is actually in the pot. I visually look at the pile and or piles and estimate. Due to a hand I mucked the other night I have come to realize that I need to know how much is in the pot and not just some estimate in order to determine if a bet is worth the odds.
My question is; what is the most common way to keep track of the money in the pot? I figured that if I just count the number of small bets as 1 and the big bets as 2 the total of these multiplied by the small bet amount would give me the pot amount. (minus the rake) Is this a good method? I have noticed that some posters here list exact amounts of the pot size.
I would appreciate any recommendations.
Thanks, Rich
Counting bets is clearly better than counting $$. Not only is it easier to count its easier to compare and its easier to discuss intelegently on the forum. Its easier to notice 12.5BB in the pot when it costs 2BB meaning you're getting 6.25:1 to call, than to notice $225 (or $150) when the bet is $36 (or $24).
I prefer to count "half bets" and "full bets" than "small bets" and "big bets" since it makes the transition from flop to turn a little easier. After the action is over I tend to count the number of players who invested this round times the amount of the bet and add it to the previous total. This tends to ignore those that called once but folded but heh, I've got much better things to do with my limited mental energy than to focus on exact pot size.
The difference between an exact pot size and a close pot size is very small: knowing its 6.25:1 rather than 6:1 only matters when your actual odds are between 6 and 6.25, AND you know your exact odds, AND such a mistake costs only pennies.
- Louie
PS: More power to those with sharper minds than mine who can keep an exact count without distraction.
I'm working on this right now, and I try to count each bet as it goes in, counting raises as 2, reraises as 3, etc. Then just before the turn I cut the number in half (since the bet doubles) and continue the same way. This way I always know the pot odds for a call.
I think I like Louie's method better - just go by the number of players. The blinds will often fold preflop when the pot is raised though so you would have to subract these off.
I keep track of the pot size exactly how you suggest. Since I play $10-20 it is very easy to do because I just multiply the number I get by 10. For instance if four people have come in BTF with one raise I will have a count of 8. Multiply that by 10 and the pot is $80. On the turn and river each bet is worth 2 counts. It is rather quite easy.
Rich,
Another reason to keep track of bets and not money is to simplify things when you change limits. For example, in the big Los Angeles card barns, I will sometimes switch between 15/30 and 20/40 four or five times in one day in an effort to stay in the best games.
Regards,
Rick
i read in this forum the other day about someone who was in the cut off seat. i've never heard of such aseat and was wondering what it is?
Just right of the button.
hock, like Rounder says it refers to the seat just to the right of the button. It got this nickname because the player in this seat can open with a raise or raise after someone limps in and frequently fold the button (hence, "cutoff" the button) allowing him to be the last to act for that hand. I believe poker pro Bob Ciaffone actually coined this term.
I just love having the "button" on consecutive hands.
:-)
hock,
The "virtual cut-off seat" is one seat to the right of the normal cut-off seat. You get this seat when the player on your left telegraphs his folds pre-flop. If you have a virtual cut-off position, you can apply normal, aggressive, cut-off seat strategy to two positions most every round.
Regards,
Rick
Recently, some players in my local room, approached management and requested a rule change, which was granted by management.
Upon the start of a Holdem game, a MAJORITY of the players would determine whether there would be "kill pots", in the game. Previously, upon the opening of a game, if just ONE PLAYER objected, there would be no kill.
Do you think an objection by one player, should be enough to stop the presence of a kill?
I will have to do a follow-up, and find-out from management, how their new rule effects requests for a "floating straddle".
Just moved out to California. Was a pretty regular 5-10 player (now extinct) at Foxwoods and occasionally visited the Taj. Well, I had my first experience at Commerce last night. Is the 6-12 game beatable by a great player? Which I certainly do not consider myself to be yet. I mean the 4 dollar button charge is rather incredible compared to anything I encountered in the East Coast. Granted the average player was quite bad, but still, can the button charge be beaten? What can a great player hope to average per hour? Thanks for any help. -Dan
sure as long as one plays in easy games with plenty of action. expenses are higher in cal. but more than made up for by the larger amounts that people lose in a seat per hour. there are so many games one never needs to get stuck in a bad spot. great players move up out of those limits but a great player for those limits makes easily over a big bet per hour. you really need to get up to the ten twenty type games to start making enough to get ahead. study and read the forums and you will be there.
dan, maybe a good player can beat the $6-$12 game at Commerce with its hideous $4 dead button charge but a good player would be better off playing $10-$20. The $6-$12 game is nine handed and frequently shorthanded so you will have the button about 4 times per hour on the average. So it is costing you $16 per hour to play in this $6-$12 game. Now at the Commerce, the $10-$20 game is a collection game at $6 per half hour so it only costs you $12 per hour to play in a game that is almost twice as large. I recommend that rather than beating your brains out trying to beat the $6-$12 game you simply switch to the $10-$20 game.
Is that how all the Cali casinos are? No rakes, just button charges and collections? How bad is it at the lowest limits (i.e. $3-$6)?
I believe in the large card barns of L.A. they use collections and button charges since this is what the California law requires. In low limit stud, I believe after everyone antes, they simply take what they need out of the antes before betting even begins! To play anything less than $10-$20 under this system I don't believe is worth a good player's time in the long run.
I play in the San Diego area. The house collection procedure varies from place to place, so I don't think that there is any state law that requires a certain method.
The smaller card rooms have a time charge, usually $3/half hour. The casinos use either a rake (Sycuan) up to $4, or a straight drop (Viejas $4), (Pechanga $3).
The highest limit I've seen spread at these rooms on a regular basis is 8-16. With the proper players in the game (1 maniac or 2+ calling stations), it can be profitable.
Jim,
At the Commerce they have many 9/18 games with the $4 dead button charge and 15/30 with a time charge of $7 per half hour which is the highest in town. The 10/20 game died at the Commerce when the 9/18 game took over. Hollywood Park has a 10/20 with a time charge of $10 per hour and it starts every day about 1:00 p.m. They are now getting a second game in the evening quite often.
Regards,
Rick
$9-$18? It most be a cumbersome game unless they use $3 chips. Playing $9-$18 with a $4 dead button charge is still no bargain. I would go to Hollywood Park and play $10-$20.
Jim,
They do use $3 chips in the 9/18. During the transition period when the Commerce had both a 10/20 time game ($6 per half hour) and the 9/18 with the $4 dead button charge the 10/20 became less and less popular despite the lower overall collection.
What happened was the tighter players gravitated towards the 10/20 and the action players leaned towards playing the 9/18. At one point the 10/20 was the tightest game in the house and the 9/18 played almost like a 6/12 or even 3/6. But even if you were in a great 9/18 game, if there was a lot of walking (they still collect $4 with seven players) it does suck. You really had to change tables to stay in the "big pot" games and accept the swings.
Despite the collection, some people did very well. Unfortunately, playing this game retards the development of tougher, tighter game skills you need to develop to move up. So now there is this giant gap in style between the 9/18 and 15/30 (really 20/40, since the Commerce tends to put down more 20/40's despite often having a longer board for the 15/30).
Anyway, that’s the story; at least in the way I saw it.
Regards,
Rick
Few would believe how much I've won per hour (on average) in 6-12 games. So many of the 6-12 players are incredibly bad! The 10-20 games tend to be much tighter and tougher. I have never played 6-12 where they charge $4, however. [I like the Normandie games, which charge $3 and offer jackpots.]
After reading the first couple of posts, I wondered how beginning HE players in SoCal were able to get some real table experience without getting killed by the limits ($10-$20) or the rake/button charge. After reading all of the posts, I think my question has been answered, especially by MJS -- they don't!!
Our $4-8 games at the local Albuquerque Indian casinos ($3 max rake) are often good, but never as soft as MJS's $6-12 games sound. Why are these $6-12 games so soft? New players/bad players/stupid players?
I´ve been doing some probability calculations and I´d like to know if I´m correct.
1) Probability of having an open end straight with connectors (45-TJ): 3*6(4*4*34)/(50*49*48)= 8.33%
2) Probability of having an inside straight on flop with connectors(45-TJ): 6*6(4*4*38)/(50*49*48)= 18.61%
Thanks in advance,
greg
I recommend you get "The Hold-Em Odds Book" by Mike Petriv and review Pages 138-150 covering unsuited connectors and the probability of flopping open ended straight draws, inside straight draws, and straights. To give a few examples:
If you have 65 offsuit the probability of flopping an inside straight draw is 21.6%.
If you hold JT offsuit, the probability of flopping an open ended straight draw (but not a double belly buster straight draw) is 9.8%
If you hold 87 offsuit, the probability of flopping a double belly buster straight draw is 0.65%. Note that this is the same as flopping a straight. Do you see why?
I recommend you perform your calculation with 65 offsuit, JT offsuit, and 87 offsuit and see if you get these percentages.
ok, I´ll analyze my way and see what I can find:
1) Probability of having an open end straight with connectors (45-TJ): 3*6(4*4*34)/(50*49*48)= 8.33%
let´s assume I´ve got 54. The flops that make me an open end straight are 32x, 63x and 76x. --> 3
there are six ways I can flop an open end straight with, say, 32x: 32x, 3x2, 2x3, 23x, x32, x23. --> 3*6
there are four treys and four deuces. --> 3*6(4*4
I found the mistake!!!!! it´s supposed to read 40 instead of 34. I forgot to add the three treys and the three deuces - 223 is still going to make you an open end straight.
new formula: 3*6(4*4*40)/(50*49*48)= 9.79592% ~ 9.8%
hugs and kisses Jim (though perhaps we´ll forget about the kisses;-))
BTW: It doesn´t matter if I take 67 or JT - for 45 to TJ the probabilities are all the same.
The problem, as I see it, is that the limit does not necessarily define the nature of the game. I´ve not played at $20/40 and $30/60, but I´m sure you´ve encountered $20/40 games that were tougher than $30/60, so we end up having to add AGAIN if the game was loose/tough/whatever.
My proposition: Divide the hold´em forum into three categories:
1) General (leave it just the way it is)
2) fixed limit
3) spread-, pot-, and no limit (These three are of course different, but due to the small amount of posts, you´ll have no problems in following a thread)
The Gambling Forum Archive
Hold'em
August 2000 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo