![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
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