![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
20-40 game. I had A-7c in the Big Blind. All folded to the button, an aggressive player who raised. Small blind folded. I called.
Flop came A-9-2 rainbow. I checked, button bet, I called. Turn was another 2. I checked, button bet, I called. River was a King. I checked, button checked. I showed my hand and button souped.
Questions:
1) Was a call pre-flop correct? In general, would you prefer an aggressive player as your opponent in this situation or a more passive one? Should A-xs suited be folded in this situation, especially against a tough opponent?
2) Is calling on the flop and turn correct, rather than raising? It seems if your opponent has an Ace, you are saving money and if she doesn't, you induce her to keep betting with an inferior hand to yours.
3) Shouldn't I have bet on the river? If my opponent had an Ace, the King most likely earned me a split; if she didn't, maybe she had something like K-Q and would have called.
This precise situation is covered in our book. In general against typical players, we say to check and call twice and then bet on the river.
1. Call in BB is OK - I'd have bet the flop. I don't worry about the aggressivness of the other player. A weak player would have checked with you and the pot would be just the pre flop size.
2. I also bet the turn. (my kicker is looking better)your check is OK.
3. I bet the river - My kicker is out and a split or win almost certain.
You probably played it better than I would have but I hate giving free cards away when I am probably on the lead.
Your pre-flop call was absolutely correct. Folding here would be terrible poker. The real issue is whether or not you should re-raise against a possible steal-raise by the button. Against aggressive players who like to steal with little suited connectors and other weak holdings, I would re-raise pre-flop. Against most players I would just call.
Calling on the flop and turn is correct against some players but in general I like to take control and bet out. A top pair of Aces is a good holding in these heads-up situations and I don't like having to rely on my opponent to bet my hand for me.
If you decide to play it like a little girl by just checking and calling, then you should definitely bet the river because players with a worse hand than yours won't normally bet on the end unless they were on some kind of busted draw and are trying to buy the pot. On the other hand, they will usually call your bet with a lower pair when you suddenly bet the river on the end out of fear that you are bluffing.
I think the "little girl" is the one who bets out here, checking and calling is the play that takes guts, risking a free card and all. I also agree that the river should be bet.
D.
the point is he will bet almost anything, so there will be no free cards. a preflop raiser angainst a blind will almosy always bet the flop and turn.
scott
I agree. All things considered, check and call, check and call, then bet the river seems correct. Check and call is usually bad poker, but in this case you don't fear the free card as there is no overcard to your pair of Aces, and you induce a worse hand than yours to bet by appearing meek. Thanks to all for the responses.
I WOULD PROBABLY BET THE RIVER FOR THE REASON U STATED (#3), U DON'T HAVE KICKER TROUBLE ANY MORE
I'm finishing my 1st read of HDAP.In th Q&A section pg294,In multiway pots,when is it correct to call with bottom pair? If there was a raise,but not if there was'nt.Please clarify the logic,I've been basically throwing away bottom pair if there are two overcards,and often one overcard,depending on the players and the cards.If you could give a specific example it would help.
Racking my brain I can't think of (outside of NL HE) a time when bottom pair unimproved won a hand. I'm sure it happens but I just can;t remember it.
You'll have a pair about 25% of the time on a flop that means someone else has a pair too. If you are bottom then they are bigger.
Getting out is a good idea.
Rounder,
You are on the button and there are four limpers to you. You have A4d and decide to raise it up. (C'mon now, you know you've thrown in a raise with this hand in this position at least once in your life) Both blinds call, as do the other four limpers. There are 14 sb's in the pot.
Flop comes Kd-8s-4h, and the sb bets out with everyone else folding to you. The pot is offering you 15:1 to call. If you would throw this hand away without calling, then I will give up trying to show you the error of your rationale. (If he flashed you his hole cards and they were Kh-8c, you should still make the call)
John in a ring game I'd be loath to raise with a A4s on the button - but I have done this - with that flop and me heads up to the sb I raise.
If callers before me I flat fold.
sb has to put me on AK AA KK or KQs since I raised pre flop. If a re-raise I call. I'm on a semi bluff now and I play it out to the river.
When the pots are very big you are frequently getting enough odds to call with bottom pair. When the pot is raised there will be approximately twice as much money to go for so your odds are twice as good.
We are not saying that you call because your hand is best. We are saying that given the size of the pot and the possible number of outs that you have it is worth it to take a card off when the pot was raised before the flop.
In a multiway pot, If it's raised pre-flop and if there is a bet and lots of callers on the flop, you are usually getting more than the correct pot odds to turn/river a set.
You don't necessarily have to make a set. Two pair might be good. If you knew that you had to make a set this call would usually become a fold unless the pot was huge.
If the pot is big and you are first to act with bottom pair, then David and Mason suggest you usually should bet out on the flop, even if you knew that you were beat. (See HPFAP-1999, p. 169.)
Some of us have questioned how frequently this advice should be followed.
Thought provoking question:
Action folds to the button, David Sklansky.
David looks at his cards and see's that he holds AQo.
The small blind (a tourist playing his 'A' game), has already indicated that he is folding.
The big blind is Mason Malmuth.
Though Mason doesn't know it yet, he holds AQo as well.
The questions are:
How much more frequently does David's positional advantage win him the pot?
Can this be expressed in bets/event?
What are the various scenerios that might unfold from this point? How do the players go about picking up the pot?
How often will the hand go to showdown?
You picked a bad hand for this discussion. In the example given the button will almost never lose the pot outright. Think about it.
Somehow I have the feeling that if David and Mason were in the same game they wouldn't be in that situation for long. I think they would reseat themselves to be about 4-5 seats apart.
One thing is for sure, the pot will rarely go to a showdown.
The simple answer to your principal question is that David will win the pot the vast majority of the time. Mason will have to make a 'play' at some point to take the pot away from David. Further, he will have to make that "play" on a pure bluff rather than a semibluff (an exception might be where the board on the turn has 3 of the same suit and Mason holds the trump Ace). But in most cases if Mason has a hand to semibluff with, David will have a hand to call Mason's semibluff with and may in fact have a hand to raise semibluff with.
There is something to be gained by your question. It is this: If you have a strong hand in the BB, you should routinely 3 bet a late position raiser rather than just calling the raise and falling into a check-call pattern post flop. Take the initiative at an early stage and drive the action.
Players being equal - I have no idea if they are in this scenario - but, position will rule out.
Johnny Hale in his new book says David is the best table selector there is - that being the case he probably is not at this table anyway.
'
Here is my guess ( NOT )
David: "Just you and me?"
Mason: "Yep, no grandmothers to check-raise"
David: "Check to the river?"
Mason: "sure"
after river.
Both in unison: "You play that garbage?"
This is the first hand I've had I felt worthy to post since I found this site about a month ago. 3-6 hold em in AC. I'm BB with AQo. Everyone folds to 2 right of button who calls. 9th seat, button and sb call, I raise. All call. Flop AQ5 all hearts. I bet out not wanting to give a free card to any one with the stiff K or J of hearts. 2 fold, button calls, small blind calls. Turn Tc. I bet. Both call. River 7d. I bet, button folds, SB raises. I call.
Comments?
I don't like your comment about the k or j of hearts. I'm worried as to whether you realize the more important reason to not give a free card is that you might get a smaller heart or a gut shot straight draw to fold.
Which did he have, pocket 7's, A7, or Q7? If he had none of the above, I'd be very surprised.
My guess is the small blind had K-J with the jack of hearts. He waited to raise until the river making sure the other player did not have a flush and he didn't get beat by a fourth heart.
I would have checked and called on the river.
I'm guessing he has the KhQo or KhJo- missed the nut flush and has no place to go but to raise and hope for a fold.
I think this guy mis played the hand.
JT:
As a fellow lowlimit (LL) player (5-10, 112 hours) I'll throw out the following.
1. I check pre-flop here. You have 4 callers and AQ can be one of those tricky hands to play against multiple opponents in LL. The only thing a raise out of the blind does in LL is scream (BIG HAND). I'd rather look at the flop, and if I like it, check-raise the flop.
2. I'd agree with the bet on the turn, but I probably fold to a raise there. now a straight and a flush is beating me with only 4 outs to the nuts.
3. I check-call the river here. If someones had a flush since the flop and is letting you bet his hand I don't need him to raise me here. Either I'm beat already and I now lose two bets OR He misses his Kh draw and folds to my bet in which case I gain nothing. This concept of "betting only when you want to be called" has saved me tons over my short time at the tables.
But what do I know?
Good post for us lowlimiters. Thanks.
Packerfan1
Be the flop... See the flop... You're not being the flop, Danny.
I would RAISE this hand. I want to drive out the middle limpers who like to play 67s 89s and the like. Make them pay to stay. This hand needs to be played with as few opponents as possiable.Heads-up would be best. After the flop bet out If it screams big cards well "I got'em" and hope not to see the 4th heart and if it comes your looking a very hard laydown or a crying call.
MJ
MJ:
Raising from the BB after 4 callers will not eliminate anyone preflop after they have already put in one bet.
On top of that, you actually make it correct for them to take a card off after the flop with a single big heart if you do raise preflop (10 small bets vs. 5 sb)and give them potodds.
By checking pre-flop, I can check raise the flop and now make them pay 2 bets to stay - PLUS on this particular hand it represents a small flush - If a rock re-raises I don't feel as bad getting away from the hand early.
But what do I know?
Packerfan1
Be the flop... See the flop.. You're not being the flop, Danny.
I forgot this was 3-6...but I still would raise.
MJ
I like your raise pre-flop with AQ offsuit from your big blind with only three opponents. With everyone limping and no one raising you probably have the best hand. Make the limpers pay to play.
You should play the top two fast especially when the board flops all of one suit. You will get played with and can re-raise if someone raises. You don't want to give free cards or cheap cards to someone with a singleton Heart or a gutshot.
I like your bet on the turn because unless someone has specifically K-J or two Hearts, you probably have the best hand. When no one raises, it sure looks like you have the best hand.
On the river, I would bet given the lack of raising on the turn since the card is a blank. When raised you have to call and pay off. I think you played the hand correctly.
Thank you Jim. I've read your posts with great interest and it was because of your post about magnifying mistakes that I chose to raise preflop. It makes such perfect sense when you're playing against weak opps.
BTW the small blind had T7o. All you guys who guessed KJ and the like haven't played with the 3-6 crowd in a long time.
Sometimes people on this forum react to a name rather than a question.
I am not sure I agree with preflop raise, 5 people take the flop right? I would do this with maybe 3 and especially with the SB putting in 1/2 or 2/3 blind. Big suited cards for sure though.
Call on the river.
This hand happened in a very loose agressive 12-24 game in Northern California. I'm in BB w/89s. Play-anything raise-any-draw maniac opens, one call, raise, I call, we see the flop 4-handed. Flop is Q99. I check, hoping the raiser will bet out and I can raise out the other calls. Maniac bets instead, raiser just calls. My thinking now is that the raiser certainly doesn't have the other 9, and probably doesn't even have a Q. Maniac might have anything, and raiser knows that too. I certainly can't fold here, but a raise seems to shout "I have the 9, go away", while if I just call, I'll probably get more bets from the maniac and more calls from the raiser, and since the 8 is no good for the obvious straight draw, free cards aren't as much of a danger. Am I making a big mistake just calling here?
I think there are more dangerous cards to come than you might suspect. The raiser probably has a big pair or something like KQ. The maniac could have a nine or queen or small pair. In any case, it sounds like the maniac is going to stay in the hand anyway. (Isn't why they call them maniacs). Why not bet for value here? I wouldn't want to give the pre-flop raiser a cheap card here.
I sense from your post that you were disappointed that the bet on the flop came from the maniac rather than the preflop raiser. That puzzles me. The maniac is closer to your left. It would seem to me that you would rather have a player close to your left bet so that you can trap players between you and the bettor for 2 bets.
Generally, I would checkraise the maniac on the flop given that you have 2 opponents unless I were very sure that the maniac would fire again on the turn. It would be a shame if you check-call the flop and check the turn only to have it checked through (maybe an Ace comes off on the turn which might cause the maniac to check and then the button just checks his JJ, a slowplayed KK or something).
Given your position in relation to the preflop raiser, you may also wish to consider just flat out betting the flop.
Yes, I would rather have seen the raiser bet so my check- raise might drive out the gutshots; I wasn't thinking about pot-building at the time, and I didn't want to put myself in the position of leading out the turn and river just to be called down by 9-10 or 9-J. But in retrospect I probably should have been stronger here. (As it turned out, maniac checked behind me on the turn, raiser bet, and I raised there; raiser then shows and mucks 10-10). My weak play here probably didn't make much difference this time, but I suppose there are more situations than I was thinking of at the time where it might have cost me.
I think that this is taking too pessimistic an attitude into the game. With 98 and a flop of Q99, my initial thoughts are "how the hell do I make this pot huge?" not "geez, I have to get the gut shot artists out".
Now that's not to say that I advocate slowplaying - I don't. I am going to play it fast but I do so because the natural tendency of most players when they see me playing it fast this early is to assume that I *don't* have the 9. This belief of theirs leads them to play hands against me with which they are nearly drawing dead. Sometimes, they get frisky and reraise with such hands as well.
In your hand, I would be delighted that the flop bet is coming from the maniac rather than my neighbour to my right.
Post deleted at author's request.
Let me put it this way. If the maniac checked and the button bet, I would still raise. However, I would prefer to have the maniac bet, the button call, and then I raise.
In other words, I think we agree that the hand ought to be played fast but we disagree on why.
You wrote: "Any 9, T, J, Q or K can beat us."
Slight innocuous error: a 9 can't beat us. As well, if a King or Queen are going to beat us, it will beat us no matter what we do (i.e. J,10 and KK are going nowhere on this flop and neither probably is Queen/ decent kicker). I agree that we ought to charge these hands and I will raise on the flop but my raise will be for that purpose - not because I am scared of losing to a straight.
You wrote: "You have a weak hand".
IMHO, that is overstating it. The hand is clearly not invincible but obviously we all have seen worse flops that were nevertheless playable.
IMO, if I was guaranteed a bet from the maniac on the flop, I would go for the checkraise without hesitation rather than betting and have his raise kill my action.
Lastly, you will note that my suggestion to Lee was to BET the flop! Thus, while we may have differing thought processes on why one should bet, I am happy to know that I would have played it the same way as you would have.
Post deleted at author's request.
I would check-raise and keep firing until I get fired back at.
If the other player called the maniac, there could be as many as 8 cards that could beat you if there is an over pair, an open end staight draw (with the 8 being dead) and 2 remaining queens.
To me that means your hand is in jeopardy and should be played as fast and as strong as possible.
I agree - when one plays an 89 I wonder what they are looking for from a flop if they can't play out trips.
read my lips: you hit the flop big time - now play it like that.
Moron - please do something about your handle you are obviously not a moron.
I think you are costing yourself money by not raising. A maniac will be a contributor regardless and so might the other player. In fact, I would bet the flop and hope the maniac raises so I could re-raise. These guys will play to take off a card.
I think you bet out here and hope the maniac raises. Your bet does not scream trips in this situation with this flop. You called one bet from the big blind. You could have 10 J, a big Q, Q9s etc. Check-raising the flop screams set, smooth-calling is more subtle but I still prefer to put pressure on the pre-flop raiser. If the maniac does raise three seat has got to suspect the betting will be capped before you're through. His response to this pressure should tell you volumes, eg did he flop a boat...
A couple of nights ago, a friend of mine played this hand:
He has 7c5c in the sb and calls. UTG and button had limped. BB raps. They take the flop 4 handed.
Flop: AcAd6h
Button bets.
My friend calls.
BB and UTG fold.
Turn: 4d
My friend bets. Button calls.
River: 5s
My friend checks. Button bets. My buddy calls.
Button shows Jd10d. Rather than losing $5 on the hand, my pal wins $85.
Results oriented? Maybe..but this type of scenario presents itself time and time again.
Here's how my friend explained the hand to me:
"On the flop, I am known not to slowplay too many hands so a bet here should not signal to my opponents that I don't have an Ace. Nevertheless, for a variety of reasons, I checked.
The button bet. I know that the button is a player who is highly unlikely to limp in from the button with an Ace or any kind of decent sized pocket pair. He would have raised preflop and tried to shut out the blinds. He further knows that I and the bb aren't too fussy about defending our blinds. If we have crap, we have no problems folding.
Thus, I reasoned that the button is almost surely bluffing.
My options were therefore to raise or call with the intention of betting the turn.
I chose to call because I wasn't entirely sure that I wouldn't run into an Ace behind me. I also figured that given the texture of the flop, the 2 players would fold even if I just called UNLESS they had an Ace in which case they certainly will not fold even if I raise.
I called and the 2 players folded.
I got a little bonus on the turn in that I picked up an open-ender but I was going to bet regardless of what card appeared.
The rest of the hand is pretty straight forward."
In any event, the purpose of this post is to once again drive home the point that post flop play is where the money is at in hold 'em. You have to get in on the action (within reason) to give yourself an opportunity to win the pot.
Comments?
you know i agree with you.
scott
I think you're both one person. τΏτ
Interesting hand. Limping in from the small blind with 7-5 suited is not a bad play. I would do it routinely if the small blind were 2/3 of a bet as in a $15-$30 or $30-$60 game. I would fold if the small blind were 1/3 of a bet but it is close. Pre-flop the button limping in when someone comes in under the gun does not deny a decent hand. This was not a steal situation due to the presence of the UTG limper. Therefore, the button would not usually raise unless he had a good hand.
Checking the flop makes sense when you have nothing. The big blind and UTG also checked. The button betting could be a bluff but he probably has something like a Six or a pair or something that beats the board. He could even have an Ace. The other problem is that this is not a heads-up situation but it involves two other opponents. The UTG checking does not deny an Ace since he would do this routinely hoping someone else would try to bet and take the pot. Therefore, I don't think calling here is correct. If you want to run a bluff, then check-raising might be a better play followed by a bet on the turn. The check-raise might drive out better hands held by the big blind and the UTG as long as neither has an Ace.
I like the bet on the turn. Your friend has a real chance of winning the pot outright and he has outs if he is called.
On the river, check-calling is okay but I prefer to follow-through with a bet because I feel that trip Aces has been represented at this point and I want my opponent to fold a pair of Sixes, Sevens, etc.
I agree that it is important to play well post flop and take your share of small pots.
Jim,
I read your posts often, and at first I do not usually agree. I have copied them to my wp and read them at my leisure only to find that after looking them over, I agree 95% of the time (I sometims need a calculator). What reference books do you use or have used? Can you really think that fast? Experience or on the fly calcs in your head? No BS or brown nosing, just observation.
I like the books by 2+2 publishing. When I first starting playing hold-em about two years ago I had the Lee Jones book and Lou Krieger books but I gave them away after playing for a few months. I like Gambling Theory and Other Topics, Theory of Poker, Poker Essays, Hold-em Poker for Advanced Players, and Ciaffone's Improve Your Poker (Not a 2+2 book). I also cut out all of Roy Cooke's and Bob Ciaffone's Cardplayer articles that interested me and study them. I do have a couple of degrees in Engineering and I took some statistics in college. I play 20 hours a week and I write down a lot of hands and send them to people for comment. I then study the comments from all the hands that I misplayed. Many of the problems being posted on this forum I have encountered before in my own playing experience. I am also learning a lot on this forum because I am getting a wide diversity of opinion on things I use to take for granted.
I agree with the call preflop, I'm not sure it's a consistant call, but whatever.
If you have the button pinned on a bluff, I understand the check-raise on the flop, but not the call. At this point your best bet is winning the pot right there, you can't count on your cards hitting anything worth staying in for the showdown. Out of your three opponents, someone is favored to beat you. You need to narrow the feild with these cards so you raise. That and the check raise is beutiful for representing the third ace. I can't agree with this call at all.
Yes, I tend to agree with you that folding or raising is probably better than calling in this spot on the flop.
One can't really argue with your suggestion to check raise the flop if sb wanted to bluff. However, given the texture of the flop, I think his play warrants consideration.
Firstly, a call rather than a raise saves him money in case bb or UTG has an Ace. Secondly and more importantly, if neither bb nor UTG has an Ace, it is unlikely that either has a hand with which they can call. In particular, it's unlikely that either has a 6 or a pocket pair such as 77, 88 etc. This is because:
a. They probably would bet these hands on the flop; and
b. They probably would not call in the face of the button's bet and sb's call (it would take either a moron or an expert to overcall with a 6. Arguably, 77 or 88 would call but once again I think that these hands would have bet the flop).
Plus, by just smooth-calling the flop and betting the turn, my friend mimics the perfect slowplay. Button has to think "hmm...sb calls the flop to try and suck in the other 2 guys. The other 2 guys fold. He now bets. Sure looks like he's got an Ace."
I like your point about the River play and in fact said the same thing to my buddy. His reply was that if the button called on the turn with a hand like 76 or 88 or whatever, it would be because the button did not believe sb had an Ace and that he would therefore call again on the river. The advantage of checking therefore is that my pal saves a bet when beat and gains a bet if his check induces the button to bluff.
How does the call save him money? The only way this play saves money is if there's a check raise, in which case he can fold immediately.
Trusting that the other players will read slowplay is bad. As you can see by the way the hand played out, he was seen to the river. The odds of his making a hand at all were lousy. The fact that he caught the five was luck. The talk about clever play postflop making money is correct, and the clever play here is the checkraise. How can you argue that you want more people in the pot right now? That kind of play is wrong. The mimicking the slowplay makes a little bit of sense, but as before, any one of the other players might have the ace. You need the information, and the information will only come with the checkraise.
James, you wrote:
"How can you argue that you want more people in the pot right now?"
I am not arguing that at all. What I am saying is that given the texture of this flop, the players behind sb will either:
a. stay in even if sb checkraises because they have an Ace; or
b. fold even if sb just calls.
In other words, what I am saying is that given that the pot is small and given that the button has bet and sb has called, bb and UTG can't play unless they have an Ace. And if they have an Ace, they will not fold even if sb raises.
Thus, my friend saves money by just calling. The call is not, as you have assumed, made to entice more players into the pot. The premise here is that the call is enough to make sb go heads up with the button.
You further wrote:
"Trusting that the other players will read slowplay is bad. As you can see by the way the hand played out, he was seen to the river."
He was seen to the river because the button caught a flush draw. If the button had caught a 10 for example, he would be hard pressed to call.
Lastly, you wrote:
"The odds of his making a hand at all were lousy. The fact that he caught the five was luck."
Sure, that was luck. But had the river card been a deuce or something, sb would have bet and taken down the pot...that would not be luck.
A checkraise bluff rather than a "call" bluff would clearly be the better play by sb if the flop was 442 or something because with that flop, sb can no longer be sure that his call will be enough to knock out bb and UTG; bb and UTG may call even if they don't have a 4 because they surely will have overcards which they may decide to call with.
your quotes should be around the bluff. but you are otherwise correct.
scott
...but of course...good point...
I am suprised no one has brought this up yet (maybe they have I haven't read quite all the threads) but I think that your friend should have probably bet into the flop instead of checking since the board is rainbow, only 3 opponents and since it is unlikely that there is an ace out there in an unraised pot.
The reason I would bet here is because it is very likely that the flop will check, assuming that the button is a typical player. If the flop checks then it is quite likely that someone will make a pair, and you will have lost the chance to bluff them.
Also if I had checked the flop I would have gone for a checkraise for fear that the button would hit a pair on the turn.
Shawn
I like calling on the turn rather than raising. 1) You risk only one bet instead of two in case one of the other players has an Ace behind you. 2) To the bettor, it appears your call was designed to lure the other players in; if you had an Ace, why raise to chase them out? Your bet on the turn is then awfully difficult for the original bettor to call without an Ace.
If you make this exact play sometimes when you actually do have the Ace, it's a tough play to defend against.
"You have to get in on the action (within reason) to give yourself an opportunity to win the pot."
Sounds very much like "You have to be in it to win it." So where are the lotto tickets sold?
keep playing the small gapped suited cards and you'll be spending more time at the ATM than the tables.
You can't use one hand to make a point - your friend played the hand real bad only to win from a worse player.
I hope this was an anomoly.
Where do you think he went wrong?
In low-limit games where the players are totally unpredictable this may not be a correct play, however I think you have to make moves like this in 15-30 type games or else you will be the one getting moved on all the time.
D.
Dave,
I agree it is best to mix it up and I do but I do it IN position and not with gapped baby cards. sb is worst position and to call a bet with 7-5s with only a runner runner possibility is pure folly - pot was not really big eneough to warrent this play.
If he is bluffing he should have bet out on the flop check call here is not good eigther.
I think there was 4 sb pre flop 8 sb post flop not eneough to go for a real dodgy hand. Sure he won $85 but I'll just bet this guy is a losing player.
That's what I thought he did wrong.
The play made by skp's friend looks to be the same as the "mimic a slowplay with a paired flop" play mentioned in HPFAP. It won't always work, but neither will check-raising. The latter will sometimes cause players to decide that you *don't* have the trips, and play back at you. I think it's a valid option against the right players under the right sircumstances.
Without having been there it's hard to say, but my impression is that the hand was well played. Other ways of playing it could have been valid too. Very situational.
...show how post-flop play is where it's at.
Yes it does. But it's a lot easier to play well post-flop with good cards than with 6-4s.
skp,
I like the play and the thinking of your friend. I do believe you need to be up against farily weak opponents to call with this hand pre flop and they must have some fear of your play. Then your ability to outplay opponents postflop on these smallish pots is amplified.
Regards,
Rick
P. S. Are you also starting to think we are among the loosest players who post here or have we been reading Rounder too long?
i am not sure if i am as loose as you two crazies, but i am pretty loose. i love suited gappers. they can make straight flush! that's all i'm looking for.
scott
I like this play. It is ok to play fancy in middle limit holdem provided you have a good handle on your opposition, which it seems your friend has. However, I don't know if this type of a play is an example of "where the money's at" in middle limit holdem. I still think you get most of your advantage playing good cards preflop and getting the most out of clueless opponents post flop. These plays may contribute to your EV somewhat, but depending on the strength of the game in you can often times find yourself being the bamboozlee, if one is not too careful. You better have a good handle on both your game and your opponent's games if you want to be successful in the long run using such strategies.
Undoubtedly, what you say is true. I merely used the play as an example in support of my proposition that an experienced player should be able to play 75s from the sb in an unraised pot for a profit. The point I was making is that you don't necessarily have to flop a big hand to win which is what Rounder et al. seem to think.
While 75s is certainly not a very good hand, it is more than enough to call from the sb.
'
In my experience, you have to be up against a pretty weak readable field to be able to get away with playing 64 off from the sb. There are times when I do call depending on who is in the pot and then again there are times that I fold for the same reason.
The key considerations for me are these:
1. Will my opponents let me steal the pot if it looks like the flop missed everyone?
2. Will my opponents give me unreasonable action if I hit a very good flop.
Criterion No. 1 is more important than Criterion No. 2 as it is tough to get a very good flop for 64 off.
Note that all of the above relates to play out of the sb in an unraised pot. Despite its positional adavantage, it is highly unlikely that I will play 64 off from the button (although I would never say never)
I asked because in your original post in this thread your friends 57s did not have to be suited and would have produced the same results, maybe even better results than had he flopped a flush draw and had odds to eventually lose $85 or more instead of $5. Many times out of the blinds there are opportunities when the field shortens up a bit. And although you can't play it exactly like heads-up it still stands to reason that if you bet when your opps have nothing you can take the pot with nothing. I'd still rather fold and wait for the hand 2 minutes away.
Exactly my point...have to be in it to win it...but that doesn't mean that I now have the green light to play 72 off from the sb. While my pal would probably have won the same $85 with 72 off in the hand that he played, to play that hand, he has to go into it thinking that's about the only way to win the pot. He can't reasonably expect to flop anything..not even a good semibluffing situation. That's not the case with 75 suited.
In other words, one has to strike a balance. Don't play 72 off. However, don't also keep mucking until you get KQ suited or something.
Hi,
I am 15 years old, and play hold'em on a regular basis. I play with people from my high school, and can dominate any single person in my school. My weekly winnings average about $50 during a slow week of about or 2 sessions.
Despite all of this, I feel very intimidated by older players who might have the exact same skil level as I do. In some cases I know that I am better than them, I have a difficulty adjusting to the situation, and therefore shy away for simple 1-2 games with people my own age.
I would like to move onto eventually being a professional, and I know that I have the potential to do so under the right guidance.
Could any of you give me some tips? or perhaps the name of a book/URL that would be helpful to a player of my age, who has been playing for a year or so?
Thankyou,
Jeff
run, don't walk to columbia and seek out this guy who calls himself scott. you'll like him, he's even younger than you are and he'll sure put you on the right track. as a matter of fact he's a frequent poster right here on this forum. he's bright, intuitive and funny as hell. his heroes are ray zee and e. e. cummings.
good luck
thanks, i could always use another date. but, just so you know, i like girls. (alexB likes guys) so in the future, tell girls how great i am and don't bother guys with your bullshit.
scott
well he does, ask THEM out on dates for him
alex
Vegan doesn't rhyme with eat meat but that's what it means in middle French.
Peace to all and to all a good night.
I like your attitude about feeling inferior to "older" players and I for one wish all you young wipper snappers felt the same way.
Seriously: Read all you can and learn patience and dicipline.
small caps scott is <15????? no way.
check out my post to jaguar on gen theory.
get a good computer card game like turbo (~$80). play some games in safe environments. that is important. I played in college (Rutgers) and one night the game was robbed by some dudes with shotguns. scary stuff.
don't be a geek. have fun and do thing in addition to poker. enjoy life
i had to respond to this one. a kid my age, or thereabouts.
i tried to email you, but i could not get through. to get better just read books and use the forum and play when you get the chance. to help your confidence, just watch some old(er) people play. it is heavily likely that they are not any good. understand how they percieve you, and adapt to it. take their money. the cards don't know who is of age. get tough!
i just reskimmed your post. if you want to know how to adapt, just think about it. if they think that since you are young you could have anything, bet marginal hands for value. if they think that you are scared and try to overpower you, pick you spots and take their money. when they start respecting you, steal some pots. always be aware of your images. and change your play accordingly.
email me.
scott
Is it true that "scott" is only 15 years old?
I must say you are far more articulate than the typical whaz-zup teenager of today! I enjoy your posts on this forum, keep up the good work. By the way you are not invited to my poker game!
Dave in Cali
no, not quite. i am 18. which is quite close to 15 on the scale of posters. i would bet that 35 to 55 has the majority and that 55 to 75 is next. even with the recent onslaught of the former members of my high school game, i figure the under 20 demographic to still be rather small. i am not, in fact, remotely as precocious as our new friend jeff here. i did not even start playing until i was 16.
it's a shame i'm not invited to your game. i would love to play. but it's not as if ny is next door to cali. so even if i were allowed, my actual arrival would not be likely. however, jamesh and djtj (two high school friends of mine that have begun to post) go to caltach, so they might be affected by your non-invitation.
scott
Scott
Are they any good?
If not then they are invited!
actually, I had a younger friend in college who started playing in our home games when he was 14 (actually we had him playing rummy, hearts, spades, and pinochle from when he was 7). He graduated up from nickels to quarters then before you know it on to dollars (once he got a little older and got a JOB!). He was a fairly strong intuitive player, but unschooled in the proper strategies for poker. He played the wild crazy games well, but lost his composure on acey-duecy and GUTS. If we simply never played these two games I think he would be a long term winner. Even unschooled he improved greatly over a period of time.
The problem this guy faced is that he never got any respect due to his age. He still has a baby face so he still probably gets no respect, even though he is now over 21.
Stereotyping players based on age can be a big mistake. But face it, not many people your age are even remotely strong at poker. When I see a game full of very young men I almost always take a seat as fast as possible.
Actually I am only 31 and I have a baby face so often the older players don't give me any respect either. When this happens I just play along with their little game and then show down the winning hand. If I can get a free play in the bb or something and win with a trashy hand I am even happier, as this reinforces their ideas that I am young and therefore stupid. Now it's time to play premium hands and my best game (and no doubt take the $$).
Dave in Cali
they are pretty good. they read 2+2 books and have begun post on the forum, but they wouldn't be a threat to someone of your reknown (which is no longer merely self-proclaimed). maybe they can come to a game during the first half of january. someone of no consequence might be visiting his friends in california around then. i am sure that he, whoever he is, would like to learn how to play poker. you wouldn't deny him that, would you? and quickly before they get those pictures up.
"When I see a game full of very young men I almost always take a seat as fast as possible."
and, yet, you won't allow me, a very young man, to play in your game? let's just hope that one day you walk into my whole high school game (including posters alexb, niels, jamesh, djtj, joe, maniac mark) sitting at a seemingly harmless table. we'll see if we can't cure you of your narrow-mindedness.
the score in poker is not respect. the score is money. the fact that the old people don't think i'm good won't bother me at all when i am illegaly buying liquor with their money.
scott
Talk to Babaloo Mandel. He'll straighten you out.
Jeff:
As a player who has been playing underage in a casino for the last year or so, my advice is to see if you can get into a cardroom. Just act like you belong. Get a bottled water or juice from the bar, go to the desk, tell them your name and ask to be put on the waiting list.
If you do manage to get in, eventually you'll see that a lot of these older players, while more experienced, are probably just as weak as your high school buddies. (At least at low-limit.) Soon you'll start feeling totally comfortable and be right on your "A" game.
And if not, the worst that can happen is that they kick you out, right?
Jeff,
Stay out of the Casinos - at 15 you will just be embaressed when they throw your butt out.
I suggest you study hard so you can get into the college of your choice and get a good education. So IF you do turn pro (don't let your success with the local kids go to your head) you have something to fall back on.
As far as poker hone your skills and learn all you can there too, between pool, poker and pinball (for money) I paid most of my tuition at DePaul University so there is hope but don't try to enter a casino - there kids giving you the advice are all in college and working on their degrees. Do what they do not what they say OK.
...he asked for poker advice, specifically how he could get over being intimidated by older, more experienced players even though he might be more skilled than them. He asked for tips at the end of his post. I think you'd agree there is no way to "ease" into professional or semi-professional play; all the TTH-playing or book-reading isn't going to make him feel any less intimidated. Jumping into the pool feet-first in the deep end might.
And like I said in my first post, the worst thing that can happen is that they throw him out. Personally, the first time I walked into a casino underage (playing blackjack) I was a nervous wreck and they still didn't figure me.
Jeff,
Stay in school, get good grades, go to a good college and get a carreer (BTW, I think the world neads more lawyers). Most of us who ended up in poker screwed up our resume at some time in our life.
In all seriousness, don't be intimidated by the experienced. There are many long time players in the cardroom that a student of the game will be on par with after a week or so of cardroom experience. Most regulars never study, develop bad habits, and lose most of the time.
If you have no experience but are a good student, I'll put my money on the fairly decent experienced player who is not a student of the game. But once the student of the game gets a little experience, I'll take the student. This assumes you don't have any tilt problems.
Regards,
Rick
Poker is a game.. It's a hobby..If you are VERY serious about being a Pro then find a pro and walk up and ask him/her what it's like. If they will not talk to a you then this could be *you* in the next 10 years. Go to school and get a good job. You will make more money in the job market and then can persue the fun and thrills of poker. Ask any pro.
MJ
I considered dropping out of UC Berkeley to play poker full time until I started snooping around Commerce Casino during summer and winter breaks. The pros there are nice enough people for the most part but they don't seem too happy. It's a lonely life I think all in all. Your living is based on playing probably 40+ hours a week of poker, you meet very few people who have the potential to be friends compared to what you would at most jobs, and the swings of bad luck (it happens) are brutal when your living is based on it. I make about $45,000 a year playing part time (15-20 hours a week) but I certainly will make more in my real job when I finish college. You're far too young in my opinion to consider this as an option. Wait until college!! If you decide after a year or two to play poker more power to you. Also, college is fun.
why would you take the decent experienced player over the dedicated student? assuming the student does not get flustered and plays to the best of his ability, it think he would be the favorite. the first thing a student learns is hand selection. the next is to tend towards aggression. these two things alone will allow the student to beat weaker tables. and if the student is dedicated i see no reason that he could not learn all the more subtle concepts away from the table. and be the heavy favorite, even against tougher tables. other than adjusting to the speed and the atmosphere of the casino, what disadvantage does he have? this should be gone within an hour, not over a week. and a student could have made second nature all the basics the same as any experiences player. well, i guess what i mean is that i have never played in a casino. would you take the decent experienced over me? why?
scott
Post deleted at author's request.
I am going to assume that since you asked for advice that you will consider what has been posted here on your behalf.
Playing poker for a living is a very, very tough proposition. In addition, there are no fringe benefits. Playing for a living is just like a job - you will earn dollars per hour based on your ability.
The problem with success at poker at an early age is that you can lose sight of what your priorities should be. The money can be easy but it is a trap. Your teenage years are the most valuable learning years of your life. They shouldn't be wasted trying to learn how to beat people out of their money at a poker table.
You should concentrate on getting an education and having fun. If fun means an occasional weekend poker game, that's fine. You need to develop a career with a future before the responsibilities of being an adult descend upon you. Once you have done this and can afford to play poker, then decide if you want to spend your life in smoke filled card rooms (except in California).
Moron - once again you belie your handle. Maybe genius is a better one except DS might object to that. :-)
Before you get it set in your mind about how cool it would be to be a professional, all I can say is "watch out." There is no glamor. The game starts to turn into a grind. You have to be vigilant 100% of the time. Sex is fun, but ask a prostitute what they think of it.
Although I am a bit older (25), I would like to how I overcame the same problem several years ago.
***** STORY BEGIN *****
When I started playing poker in my city, it had just been legalized in card rooms. I was 21, but still very intimidated, as everyone else was in their forties and played a lot longer than I did.
So, I read the books as best I can, and one day coughed up some courage and some $$ and dove in head first.
When I started, I was raising Q9o from anywhere (hey, when your only holdem experience is 11-handed 25-50 cent holdem with all 10 others calling, Q9o is a power hand!) and making ill-timed bluffs. I played bad. A guy in his 30's (call him JC) is openly laughing at me one day and looks my way after another blunder and says "Stupid kids".
I look to him and the magic words flow out of my mouth: "I'm not scared of losing, sir - I'm scared of never trying." (or something like that).
One of the resident experts (call him GS) noticed my attitude and started giving me little tips. GS gets a beer, Mooselini gets some pointers. Maybe he saw a bit of himself in me, many moons ago. Or, maybe he just liked the beer :)
5 months later, on May 10 1995, GS, JC and I are the last 3 in a tournament, and it's NL. For the first few tournaments, the casino was using their old chips for the poker room, so these tournaments had 20+ railbirds on the final table, many people not knowing much about poker and still thinking that the chips are real cash - I even overhear a guy saying "How the hell does a kid get that kind of money??"
Now, I'm in my BB with 92o, GS is on the button, and JC is in the small blind. GS folds, and JC simply completes his bet (Stupid adult! :). Flop comes 8x2. JS checks, I check. Turn is the Ad, putting 2 diamonds on board. JS bets 1k, and has 1k in front of him. I reraise, put him all in, and sure enough, he had Q9d. River is a 9, but I make 9's up. People are murmuring as "kid" scoops up several thousand "real" dollars on his stack. I turn to GS, whom I out-chip 3:1, and tell him that out of respect, I will split with him, but he's buying the beer this time :)
That trophy I got still sits on top of my dresser, in front of my diploma.
***** STORY END *****
Bottom line:
Don't be scared to lose. Play your A game, and be prepared to point the finger at yourself when you lose. In time, you will prosper, and before long, you'll have them bagged like trophy animals.
Oh, when you first go play in the casino, dress as young as you can. I looked like I just crawled out of a mosh-pit when I started playing. Talk dumb. Don't talk about Sklansky and Malmuth. Talk about sports, leer at girls, act like they expect a stereotypical "kid" to act.
Good luck in your quests!
M.
I just wanted to say that I loved this post.
Also, to the young guy in a dilemma, listen to the other guys telling you to stay in school and finish your education. Play on the side until then, and when you get your diploma, then consider how badly you want to play professionally. If you decide to play pro, then change your mind, you will have a college degree to fall back on for a living. Otherwise, this game can become your life, and that is not much of a life.
Poker is great fun, but you have to realize that although poker is a great game, it is just a card game. There is so much to learn about in this world, and a university is often the only practical place and time to learn about science, mathematics, statistics, english, finance, business, liberal arts, history, social studies or whatever floats your boat. If you can get a college degree, I am pretty confident that it won't hurt your poker skills, and it will improve your life profoundly. Dude go to school and become an excellent student at the university, and then you will be an excellent student for all your life(including your poker game). Don't be a fool stay in school.
1. Mooselini, great post and I loved your story!
2. Get your college education there son.... Play poker on the side for extra $$ the whole way. When I went to college I had about 3-4 home games per week I would play in. At times, I made more $$ playing poker than I did delivering pizzas. After college I could afford to play in a casino. Since then I simply do the same thing as I did in college (but make more $$). I play poker on the side. I am not a pro poker player, I just think I am! All kidding aside, I think this is a more realistic goal for a young player. I can always decide to go full time pro if I want to, but I'm content for the moment to be a part-timer.
Good job Jeff on your original post to this thread, it certainly generated some responses.
Dave in Cali
.. since I had a couple email requests wanting to know why, I thought I'd just post it here:
The primary reason I put him all in is because he bet the ace, and if his hand had an ace in it, he would SURELY have raised pre-flop (he was quite an agressive player) and since his call (ugh) preflop indicates a weak drawing hand, and a draw (diamonds) hit, I put him on the draw.
M.
Whenever I see a young, intelligent person sit down in a poker game, I cringe. Because I have seen too many of them destroy their lives that way.
Poker can bring 'easy money'. That makes it hard to work for real money. I've seen young guys come along, hit it big for a while, and quit their jobs or school to become a pro. But once you've raked in a few $1000 pots, it becomes really hard to go to work for $10/hr. So they become trapped in the lifestyle. Most of them bust out of the game for reasons other than playing ability. It's very hard for a young person to handle money, especially when it comes and goes so easily. So they spend it when times are good, hit a losing streak, and bust out. Now they have no bankroll, no resume, and no education. Welcome to the grind. Many of them wind up trying to claw back playing 3-6, but that's damned near impossible if you have to build a bankroll and pay living expenses. So they drive cab, or work construction, or do whatever. But the lure of poker keeps bringing them back, usually with inadequate bankrolls or other problems that make it impossible to stay in the game, and they cycle through it all over again. In the meantime, age and lack of work experience is making you unemployable should you ever decide you don't like poker.
Later on, you'll meet a woman, and she'll think your being a poker pro is pretty cool. But she won't think so when you're never available in the evenings, and when you're living together and suddenly can't make the rent because of a series of bad beats. I know very few poker pros who have managed to juggle a long-term relationship and a poker career.
But if you do, you'll want to settle down. But guess what? No one is going to give you credit to buy a house based on your poker income. Your wife will be embarrased to tell people what you do, because she'll enevitably get the speeches from concerned friends about her being married to degenerate gambler who's going to lose everything she has. And she'll start sweating the losses more than you do, and give you a hard time.
If you manage to make it through all these minefields, there will come a time when you'll find that doing nothing but playing poker is a pretty empty existance. The type of player who's smart and resourceful enough to be a poker pro is usually the kind of person who will ultimately be unhappy once the grind settles in and it all becomes routine. Why do you think people like David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth do things other than play poker? Not because they have to - poker provides plenty of income. But because they have ambition and intelligence, and poker is never enough to fulfill that. You may notice that both of them have good educations as well.
Bottom line: Go to school. Get a career. Build a resume. Find a job that gives you some satisfaction. Later on, if you want to try going 'pro', great. Because you have something of substance to fall back on if it turns out you don't like it, and you'll have the maturity to keep it all in perspective, and the financial resources to see you through some bad times.
Dan,
All I can say is, that is 100% of the truth, although there were a couple things you didn't touch on.
The psychological taxation on a poker player is immense. If you have "Bad Beat Syndrome", but you have a day job to fall back on, you can take the time off to let the blood cool off, and get back at it at your leisure. When you're a pro and you have bills to pay, you have to grind out double-time.
I can only imagine what it would be like working hard for 8 hours a day for two weeks, and having your "boss" (Mr. Standard Deviation) go to you and say "Good work kid, your paycheck is -$1500. You better work triple-overtime to make the rent!"
*** TALES OF TWO BUSTED PROS: ***
I've seen two "pros" come and go. One of them (Mr. DA) I had taught poker to. He has a bit of an ego, and would be upset when I would chastise him for calling a 5-way pot with T5s even though "he won, so it couldn't be that bad." He'd think it was fun to "play stupid" in our friendly 1-2 game, despite any attempt I could make to convince him that his A-game was mandatory 100% of the time. After a few hits, he thought he'd be a pro. He was flunking out of school anyways, so he went and became a club regular. His poker career now has him raising a child on a poker dealer's salary.
The other one, Ms. ST, was mediocre at best. She could put on some flash and some razzle dazzle, but couldn't bear down and play even 2 hours of solid, S&M-type percentage poker. Eventually, she got an arrangement to move to Michigan to live with 2 pros, to get lessons and to get bankrolled for 3 months. I told her to her face that she wasn't good enough (and it's not an ego thing - I don't think I'll EVER be good enough!) and she was convinced I was just being bitter because she "ignored my overtures", as it were, to play an overture with Mr. DA above.
3 months later, she sent email talking about how her life was hell, and that she busted out twice, and she was living with an abusive BF who was keeping her sustained while she made any attempt to get back in the game.
Think about that the next time you have a +6SD day and think you could do this forever :)
M.
Oh, I left out lots of potential pitfalls. The lure of other games is a big one, and I know more than one supposed 'pro' who busted out because of losses at the baccarat table or the craps table.
Then there's the tilt factor, and I'm not talking about going on tilt one night because of a bunch of bad beats. I'm talking about slowly tilting off because the cards have been running badly for several months, and the perspective is just gone. I know some former pros who played professionally for years, then suddenly 'couldn't win' and haven't been able to win consistently for years since.
I just returned from a self-imposed poker exile for similar reasons. Horrid luck for a while wiped out about 20% of my year's income, and during that time I realized how little fun I was having, and how far I was falling behind in my former profession. So I took some time off, got back into my technical journals, spent a lot of time with my daughter, and now I'm back playing. But I'm also doing contract work on the side, because I realized how damaging it can be to the psyche to spend years doing nothing but looking at cards.
I can't imagine how I'd feel if I had no education and no job experience, and realized I was trapped into that lifestyle. Pretty damned unhappy, I'm sure.
This is my first post on your forum. Interesting scenarios and philosophy being discussed, as well as some humor. That aside, I was playing 10-20 holdem at our local casino in Canada the other night. Eleven handed, action table, with 3 cannons and two tourists from out of town. I'm on the puck with 6d8d. Before I get a chance to decide whether to play or fold, it comes capped to me, 8 handed already, I,m in!
Flop comes 4h5d7d, BB bets, seat 3 raises, seat 6 reraises and I cap (seat 9). I flopped the nuts and no one folds! There must be diamonds galour out there as well as a few over pairs and maybe a set or two. Turn card is 4d (now how to play the absolute nuts). BB bets, seat 2 calls, seat 3 calls, but his hands are shaking, is he cold or is he huge!, seats 4 & 5 call, seat 6 raises, I look over to seat 3 and his hands are still shaking, so I decide to reraise to see how good his hand really is and maybe intice him to do something foolish like cap (he's the tourist). Sure enough he caps. Now I lost BB and another player but, my thinking was try to maximize the pot now as well as perhaps go heads up with this player on 5th street, assuming he's holding quads. Plus, I assumed that there were some strong hands still out there and that the attraction of the pot would intice them to call, even though it was cold 40 and maybe 60 to some of the hands.
I would like your comments as to my decision to raise at this stage after what I had seen from seat 3.
Your comments are welcome.
As far as I can see, there is very little to comment on the play of this hand. You enter a loose aggresive pot with a marginal hand, you flop the nuts and then the turn card is a miracle. Next you have a guy who may or may not have quads on the hook and he (and a few others) are obviously going to play (and pay)all the way to the river.
I have a question, when you say you would like comments about your decision to raise at this stage (on the turn), when did you think a raise would be reasonable, in your car on the way home? The play of a hand takes so little time that if you do not raise here you may not have enough time to get the best of this situation on the river card, anyway the players are there to play and they may think you just have a flush. And if the quads guy has it, he will probably go all in on the river heads up.
Also, when you speak of the guy with possible quads doing something foolish like capping the pot, put yourself in his position, if you had quads you would'nt cap it? I sure as hell would, quads and straight flushes are rare, I also would be looking to see if there was a bad beat jackpot in the club, and then I would not care if I went all in.
I do not mean to be harsh with you in this post, but there is nothing really to say than when you have the nuts get all the money you can as soon as you can get it in the pot. Post some more hands that require some consideration
Also, David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth would be tourists in Canada so watch that ego.
Thanks Joe
But its not a ego problem, I posted this question to understand what other players would do in this scenerio because as it turns out the player in question only had a tight, pocket 7s, but BB folded with KK and the river was a K. Obviously I misread the players hand and knocked out a potential live hand. Perhaps trying to read to much into the tell of the player sometimes cost you.
you played a bad hand, and should be slapping your hand on the wrist more then discussing the way to extract the extra bet in the quad vs. straight flush situation. although i'm not sure what poker in canada is all a-boot.
alex
AlexB,
Who is Mark? Anyway GT wrote in the lead post: "Eleven handed, action table, with 3 cannons and two tourists from out of town. I'm on the puck with 6d8d. Before I get a chance to decide whether to play or fold, it comes capped to me, 8 handed already, I,m in!"
You are saying he played a bad hand. Now I know Rounder wouldn't play it and I wouldn't if I was playing a little high for my BR, but if the pot was capped in such a way that I would probably keep the eight opponents (e.g., raise, several cold callers, reraise, cap, then me), I think this hand is very playable (BTW, I love the thought of an eleven handed mid limit game).
OK, you lose the implied odds but from a pure pot odds stand point a suited single gapper seems pretty strong. So I would play it and wonder who else would or wouldn't.
By the way, I think there could be two answers here if it is close. One answer would be for a loose game where nine way action was common and one for a game that is normally only fairly loose but suddenly you get this nine way pot. In one case you might be up against stronger hands but perhaps less likely to be up against Qx or Jx suited in your suit. In the other the possibility or losing value on your flush (you aren't going to make the straight flush that often) is greater but people are in with weaker hands.
So anyway, am I a maniac too?
Regards,
Rick
PS: I just ran 100,000 hands on Poker Probe and this hand won slightly more that it's share (12% versus 11.11% average).
i'm not sure. You see, you have to assume you are up against at least a couple of stand up hands in so large a field. A flop that would almost give you your straight or flush ( a much less sure investment) would have to look rather attractive to someone with AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, AK, 99....etc. Or even people with two overcards might play agressively in order to buy a pot at this point. Regardless, it is likely you will have to call a significant number of bets on the flop. So, effectively, you are not only losing the implied odds, but you are drawing yourself into a hand where you will have a pay a bad draw against an agressive field the whole way down.
alex
AlexB,
But don't you see? If all players are in in a capped raised preflop, what cards do you think they have? Definitely, they have overcards and high pairs so there is more chance of the flop coming out with middle cards giving you a straight draw or 2 middle pairs.
I'm not saying that your odds aren't good. All I'm saying is that if you're going to stick around for the turn and river, count on it being expensive with a middling board, because the big pairs will try to knock you out. So although you might be drawing easier, you are also paying more.
That's why it's called gambling. The pot is worth the money you are going to put in and count how much it is!!!
Could you explain what your previous post meant. It makes no sense at all and leads me to believe you have no idea what you are talking about.
Look at the pot! There are 8 players and it was capped raised before the flop. Your chances of drawing a straight, a flush or two pairs are higher now because the other players would not have called a raise or re-raise before the flop if they don't have overcards or high pairs in their hands. Eliminate all those cards they have in their hands and middle suited cards have now a higher chance to flop. It is worth a call and it can easily be the winner. That's all I am trying to say. It's worth the gamble.
Playing poker up here in Canada is getting a few guys together, sitting up on the ruff of our houses, and discussing whether to go to Worshington for the weekend, y'all.
Alberta is straight north of Montana, Edmonton has over 750,000 people, I don't live in an igloo, and NO, I don't know your cousin in Toronto. Thank you, I feel better now.
Is there any interest in Canada in being annexed into the U.S.A.? I've thought for a long time that if we made Canada into five new states and Mexico into three states, it would be better for all concerned.
About Hold-em.......... I seldom play preflop with 6-8 suited when it is capped before it gets to me. Even with great position, I'd have to flop perfect to stand up to the kind of betting pressure that I'm sure I'd have to take.
If my question about annexation has offended anyone from Canada or Mexico, let me say now that I look at these things from an economic and ecuminical point of view. We could call it Canamerico. I'm not some jingoistic, nationalistic, evil-empire builder. Of course, if it did happen, Canadians and Mexicans would have to learn to speak English. ;-)
Tom Green came from canada, and he is awesome. Do you know him Dunc? Maybe he lives in the igloo down the street, eh? Anyway, I hear Tom Green burned a canadian flag on his show, eh? Once he left, the capital lettering went with him.
alex
You can't be too sure that you knocked out the KK in this situation. There are a a lot of hands to beat him on the turn. Anyone holding a four, straights and flushes and full houses. Also, he may not have called the raise in front of you if you had only smooth called. He only has two outs against the other hands I mentioned before and only real fish want to stick around for those. You made the right raise, he made the correct fold. Fortunately for you the guy in the 3 seat had filled up otherwise you probably would not have had any action on the river. All I meant about ego is that even though someone is a tourist does not automatically make them a bad player, you still have to be on guard. Good hand.
Joe, I think you might be taking the term tourist a bit too literally. The connotation is not someone from another country, it refers to the type of player that rarely visits a casino and therefore is somewhat at a disadvantage when it comes to the quite competitive world of casino poker.
Pre-flop, you should not be cold-calling in a capped pot with 86 suited. See the "Wild Games" section of "Hold-em Poker for Advanced Players-New edition" for the kinds of hands you need in a capped pot. Your implied odds are horrible when you pay 4 or 5 bets to see a flop with this kind of hand.
All that being said, when you flop the nuts and a straight flush draw I would play the way you did against a large field. You will get plenty of action from the big flush draws and the other hands all these players might have.
I also agree with your decision to keep raising on the turn. The pot is huge and they guys will stay and pay so don't miss a lick. You might get the entire stack from the guy with quads.
This is not an interesting question at all. When the 4 hits you bet and raise all you can. People marry their hands with all that action.
This will be very useful information next time you make a straight flush against quads with everyone capping the bets. silly
--Charlie
AA in a 3-6 game with 7 people seeing the flop for two or three bets....you should have mucked hand,aces are trap cards!no ,i just wouldn't have reraised preflop and then on river with a big pot see showdown as cheaply as possible.i don't know if a check raise on turn would've worked assuming you just call preflop to disguise your hand.as i have read many times ,it is better to waste one big bet than let a big pot go.i really think the more imporant thing is ,did it cause tilt and did you store in memory that he is capable of this move?
AA in a 3-6 game with 7 people seeing the flop for two or three bets....you should have mucked hand,aces are trap cards!no ,i just wouldn't have reraised preflop and then on river with a big pot see showdown as cheaply as possible.i don't know if a check raise on turn would've worked assuming you just call preflop to disguise your hand.as i have read many times ,it is better to waste one big bet than let a big pot go.i really think the more imporant thing is ,did it cause tilt and did you store in memory that he is capable of this move
AA in a 3-6 game with 7 people seeing the flop for two or three bets....you should have mucked hand,aces are trap cards!no ,i just wouldn't have reraised preflop and then on river with a big pot see showdown as cheaply as possible.i don't know if a check raise on turn would've worked assuming you just call preflop to disguise your hand.as i have read many times ,it is better to waste one big bet than let a big pot go.i really think the more imporant thing is ,did it cause tilt and did you store in memory that he is capable of this move?
AA in a 3-6 game with 7 people seeing the flop for two or three bets....you should have mucked hand,aces are trap cards!no ,i just wouldn't have reraised preflop and then on river with a big pot see showdown as cheaply as possible.i don't know if a check raise on turn would've worked assuming you just call preflop to disguise your hand.as i have read many times ,it is better to waste one big bet than let a big pot go.i really think the more imporant thing is ,did it cause tilt and did you store in memory that he is capable of this move
AA in a 3-6 game with 7 people seeing the flop for two or three bets....you should have mucked hand,aces are trap cards!no ,i just wouldn't have reraised preflop and then on river with a big pot see showdown as cheaply as possible.i don't know if a check raise on turn would've worked assuming you just call preflop to disguise your hand.as i have read many times ,it is better to waste one big bet than let a big pot go.i really think the more imporant thing is ,did it cause tilt and did you store in memory that he is capable of this move?
AA in a 3-6 game with 7 people seeing the flop for two or three bets....you should have mucked hand,aces are trap cards!no ,i just wouldn't have reraised preflop and then on river with a big pot see showdown as cheaply as possible.i don't know if a check raise on turn would've worked assuming you just call preflop to disguise your hand.as i have read many times ,it is better to waste one big bet than let a big pot go.i really think the more imporant thing is ,did it cause tilt and did you store in memory that he is capable of this move
AA in a 3-6 game with 7 people seeing the flop for two or three bets....you should have mucked hand,aces are trap cards!no ,i just wouldn't have reraised preflop and then on river with a big pot see showdown as cheaply as possible.i don't know if a check raise on turn would've worked assuming you just call preflop to disguise your hand.as i have read many times ,it is better to waste one big bet than let a big pot go.i really think the more imporant thing is ,did it cause tilt and did you store in memory that he is capable of this move?
AA in a 3-6 game with 7 people seeing the flop for two or three bets....you should have mucked hand,aces are trap cards!no ,i just wouldn't have reraised preflop and then on river with a big pot see showdown as cheaply as possible.i don't know if a check raise on turn would've worked assuming you just call preflop to disguise your hand.as i have read many times ,it is better to waste one big bet than let a big pot go.i really think the more imporant thing is ,did it cause tilt and did you store in memory that he is capable of this move
I was playing in a relatively loose/weak 10-20 game and had 2 red Jacks in the cutoff. 4 limped in, I raised. My raise was primarily for value and control. Was this faulty reasoning?
The button (kinda weak player) re-raised. He may have had a bigger pair, but I thought it was just as likely he had suited connectors, or a lower pair. Everyone called, I capped. My capping was for value AND deception. If an A or K flopped, I thought it would be easy to determine if I was beat. Everyone called. Was capping a bad play?
The flop came Q,9,3 all hearts. It was checked to me and I bet. I have second pair, a flush and runner-runner straight draw, none of which I can feel great about. But I want somebody to tell me I'm beat or even that they have a better draw. No one did, and everyone called. Is this a bad bet?
The turn was a 6c. It was checked to me and I bet. I still have a flush draw and possibly the best hand. The pot is big and I want someone to tell me I'm beat. I also want to get any freak hand that can beat me such as a non-heart A or K outa there. The button and 2 others fold. It's 3-way going to the river. Is this a bad bet?
The river is 5h. It is checked to me and I check. My jack high flush wins. Was this a bad check? I kinda hit the hand I wanted,(flush) but never really felt good about. I thought there was the possibility that the Ah,Kh may be out, but in hindsight, how could they have risked a check/raise on the river? Did I miss a bet? Overall, how poorly/correctly did I play this hand? Some people thought I played it like a maniac. I'd appreciate honest critisism. Thanks. Ken.
Your pre-flop raise is correct with pocket Jacks against 4 limpers. You probably have the best hand and you want to put pressure on the remaining players to call 2 bets cold or fold.
When the button re-raised and all those players call a double raise back to them, you should just call and not cap. Your hand is significantly de-valued given the presence of a pre-flop re-raiser and all those callers. The re-raiser could easily have bigger pair making you a huge underdog. If not, you are only a small favorite.
I like your bet on the flop because the top card is a Queen and not an Ace or a King. You need to find out where you are at on this hand and you might as well do it on the cheap street. When no one raises you are probably not up against a pair of Aces, Kings, or a set of Queens. You may be up against a top pair of Queens or a bigger Heart flush draw.
It was good follow-through for you to bet the turn since no one has shown any strength. I am not comfortable with your 3rd nut flush draw but the combination of your pocket Jacks and flush draw make your plays correct so far.
I think you are correct in checking the river. You could easily lose to an Ace high or King high flush. These guys figure to be staying on something.
Overall, you played the hand well except for the capping the betting pre-flop.
i agree except for betting the turn. I think he should have checked and called on the turn, because of the number of possible draws which could beat him. A queen (bad player) could possibly have been intimidated by the all-heart board and would not have bet it out on the flop. They could have then felt comfortable on the turn, and he might have been raised.
Now, assuming he was raised, he is put into a super tricky position on the turn, wheras on the flop he would have known what he was up against. So, I guess it makes more sense to just check it there, give the free card (an acceptable move, because you are possibly sandwiched between the higher pair(?) and a better flush draw. then check the river.
alex
Alex what you say is certainly possible, but the presence of draws encourages me to want to charge them more money when I may have the best hand. I don't want to give a free card to guys who are drawing against me plus my turn bet might well chase out a weak Queen, especially since I showed such strength pre-flop and followed that up with bet on the flop. If I get raised on the turn by the button I might fold depending upon if any of the other players call. Similarily, if I get check-raised, I would probably fold.
Jim wrote: -I don't want to give a free card to guys who are drawing against me plus my turn bet might well chase out a weak Queen, especially since I showed such strength pre-flop and followed that up with bet on the flop.-
Jim, This is what I meant by capping pre-flop for deception. If the button does not have AA,KK, I have represented it. Given this flop, it is very hard for a lone Q to coninue. So by showing more strength pre-flop than I actually had, I may have gotten a better hand (a Q) to fold. Given this scenario, (and the fact that JJ may have been the best hand pre-flop)does this make capping pre-flop an Ok play?
It certainly strengthens your case for capping it pre-flop and it worked out well here. It can also be correct if the button is a weak player who re-raises on insufficient values which many players do. I guess I like to believe that players adhere to the same high standards I do for 3 betting pre-flop (AA,KK,QQ,AK suited) but obviously they don't.
Jim,
You wrote: "Overall, you played the hand well except for the capping the betting pre-flop."
I agree that the hand was well played but I don't think capping was that bad a play (or course the cap was for only one more bet - in Las Vegas it would have been for two). A late postion or button three bet (after several limpers and a late raise) is usually no where near as strong as an early position three bet. So I think it is much more likely you are up against overcards than a bigger pair.
The other benefit is that your hand becomes a little easier to play post flop. By easier I mean you have represented a ltttle more strength than you really have so if you get raised or messed with on the flop laying it down (or slowing down) becomes a much less difficult decision. But then again, I mostly play in LA.
Regards,
Rick
Rick against typical players I am learning that you are probably right. I see guys throw in frivolous re-raises because they are on the button with their suited stuff and connecting crud and they want to make a big pot if they get lucky. These creatures need to be punished with another raise when you have a good hand. It is probably very player dependent. Personally, I am going to have a real hand when I put 3 or more bets into a pot against a crowd regardless of my position. A pair of Jacks will normally be a huge dog against the kinds of hands I will 3 bet with in these circumstances.
Jim,
Like I said, I mostly play in Los Angeles. Capping a three bet bettor puts in only one more bet. (Note: This is one reason why Mason and I believe capping is more prevalent in Los Angeles then in Las Vegas.)
I understand from your posts that you travel to Las Vegas and play the Mirage/Bellagio. If memory serves me, your home base is in the Southeast (Gulfcoast?, Tunica?). Anyway, I'm guessing the games are tighter there and they have the four raise limit. Am I right?
Regards,
Rick
Yes, the games are tighter on the Gulfcoast than in California but looser than in Vegas and some places do have a four raise limit instead of the more traditional three raise limit.
Jim wrote: -Personally, I am going to have a real hand when I put 3 or more bets into a pot against a crowd regardless of my position. -
And Jim, rest assured that if I ever find myself at your table, I just call you with JJ!
AK - The cap was marginal but ok with JJ and since the Button who raised pre flop had not acted yet your bet on the flop was bold which is usually good poker - turn is a good bet and I would have bet the river - I almost always bet the river. To many players like to call with junk just to see if you "have it". Not betting the river can cost you a lot of money in the long run.
I think you played the hand well. So long as you were willing to muck if someone told you you were on a loser. There was a lot of ways you could have lost this hand. I don't think you showed any maniac tendancys - looks like solid poker to me.
i don't understand mathematically why it makes sense to bet the river here, roundie. I mean what would your opponent call down with the four hearts on board unless they had a flush. Also, because everyone stayed (emphasis here on lack of action) based on the flop, it is not only possible but would have been likely that someone had a single overcard plus over-flush draw.
What if you bet and were raised, would you throw it away? The system is much simpler if you just check it.
alex
Getting in the habit of "just checking" the river is costly and it will cost you money - bet the river and you will disapoint your opponent something I think you want to do.
With the J high flush I may be looking at some guy who palyer 64s and had a flush he couldn't get away from.
I bet here - and make one more BB or don't have to show my cards. I call a raise here too.
I understand your concerns here. It is a borderline decision that I would normally check with. However, it still depends on how well you know your opponents. I would think that the betting might indicate: an overpair, pair of queens (maybe even trips). I think the flush may be his only out. In this case, I would bet it a higher percentage of the time than in normal cases with so much pre-flop action.
I am not sure about the raise on the flop. As HFAP says you want to play JJ against 1 or 2 players or as many as possible. Now this is most certainly true for early position.
With 5 players you are usually going to need to flop the set. With more players the raise is OK because you almost have the odds and players will stick arround if you get there ( a play I don't make much anyway BTW).
Would the raise be right against 3 limpers?
I can see here that buying the button, having good position, being aware that some blinds are going to call anyway, would all make the raise favorable.
D.
is not a good reason to bet into big pots. There is nothing wrong with playing your hand the way you did but this idea that you need to find out now where you are at is wrong. Presumably you do this to save a bet later on but the pot is too big to make this play right. Not only because of your large pot odds but also because big pots sometimes entice players to make desperation plays. Similar fallacious reasoning was brought up in an earlier post involving two tens, a flop of 983 and a multiway three bet hand. The truth is that many of you who claim to bet to find out won't actually throw the hand away anyway, even if you are raised. But if you do, I can tell you that they would make mincemeat of you in almost all games 15-30 and above and 9-18 or below. Yes the concept may work OK specifically in predictable 10-20 games but that is about it.
I agree that betting the flop with pocket Jacks in this case and with the pocket Tens in the earlier post with a flop of 983 is not done solely to "find out where you are at". In addition, I am not planning to fold my hand because someone raises. I will still call and take off a card. My reason for betting the flop is because I may have the best hand and a secondary benefit is that against some players I do gain information when they don't raise. I just don't like being in a check-calling, reactive mode in these situations. I like confronting my opponents with a bet so they have to make decisions about what they will do.
It could be the button held AKs in one of the other suits. Capping it preflop might have sold the others on the notion that our hero had AA with the heart ace. If that's what he was representing then checking the river with a possible scared Kh out there certainly makes sense. I think if he bets and is called he's beaten. All in all quite profitable an ace or king never hit early enough to cause our hero to fold.
Interesting hand.
6 players go the distance and nobody has the A or K of hearts.
This game definitely had some loose weak players in it - except the winner.
I personally would not have capped the flop. All I would accomplish would be to make the pot odds better for whatever draws are created on the flop. However, having capped the flop, you obviously played the hand correctly from that point on representing strength which discouraged whoever flopped a queen to not play back at you.
Good things happen when you raise.
I would have checked at the river as well and thanked the hold'em god that no one had the A or K of hearts.
I find J-J a very difficult hand to play. You feel like you've got to play it strong pre-flop, yet the possibility of an overcard coming on the flop is over 50% (55.2%: Sklansky, Fighting Fuzzy Thinking in Poker, Gaming & Life, page 37) And if the flop is all undercards, they're usually bunched up, making a straight more likely.
I generally agree with Jim Brier's analysis. You should raise pre-flop to eliminate any weak Aces, Kings or Queens held by the button or the blinds. I don't like the cap because it creates too much of a pot for weak hands to continue post-flop. I think you have to bet both the flop and turn when there's no bet to you and you can't bet the river.
Sitting in the sb with black 88. UTG calls, seat 4 raises, all fold to button who calls, I call, BB calls.
5 in the hand. Flop Ah3d3c. Thinking back to the T9s debate with a big pot and A65 flop I figured if there was an ace or a three out there there was nothing I could do about it. A bet in this position might get QJ, KT, JT to fold. I bet. All fold. I love this forum.
When you bet good things happen - let's see how many would have you "slow play" these monsters. :-)
With four opponents your bet is risky but correct. It is very likely that someone has an Ace. However, if they don't have an Ace you probably have the best hand and you can represent an Ace anyway. Note also that the pair of Threes on the flop helps your hand. Not only do your opponents have to worry about you having a Three since you were in the blind but it limits the number of overcards that can hurt you. In other words a flop of A33 is much better for you then a flop of AQ3.
By the way, this situation is different than the T9 suited versus a flop of A65. I believe there were more opponents in the T9 suited debate plus your pocket pair of Eights is probably the best hand if no one has an Ace whereas in the T9 suited situation you don't have hand just a draw.
Thank you, Jim, and yes I realize it wasn't a true analogy. It was more the thought of getting over cards to my eights to fold that made the comapsrison with the T9s situation come to mind.
I guess I'm too tight again, but this game wasn't described as loose-aggressive. UTG calls and the next player (still in early position) raises. Don't one or both of these players have an ace about 90% of the time? If the raiser doesn't have an ace, he should have a bigger pair. He hates the board and may give it up on your bet, but I don't see you getting +EV in most games with this bet.
Fat-Charlie
when the board comes rainbow-nostraight-paired like that, once someone calls a bet, it's almost a dead giveaway as to what they have, depending on how well you know the player.
M.
Sammy B,
Some of the other hands that will often raise pre-flop but fold post flop with this type of board include KK, QQ, JJ, and TT. This "squeeze play" works best when you bet out of the blinds on medium size pots where the pre flop raiser is predictable and somewhat tight and he has to fear a cold caller or two behind also having the ace (of course you need to have a sense of how often the cold caller(s) have an ace and will hang in there).
Note that you want to win the pot right there because if raised you usually don't have odds to chase and may be drawing dead or up against redraws even if you hit an eight on the turn. Also keep in mind this play will fail much more often then not but it should work enough to give you a positive expectation.
Regards,
Rick
They take the flop 5 x 2. (10 sb in the pot)
"Also keep in mind this play will fail much more often then not but it should work enough to give you a positive expectation."
I just don't see how this could be a +ev play. The pots just are not going to be that big. 8-10 sb at most. Any more opponents and the odds of an Ace or higher pair are much greater. I think it's close but still ~ev.
Best of it!
MJ
The key here is whether an ace will raise you. If not, your two outs could easily make the difference to the profitability of this play.
I would argue that a player with a weak Ace is unlikely to raise given the open pair of Threes on board and the flop bet coming from the blind.
David,
You answered here as if you think the bet the poster made was only correct if, in the case where an Ace is out, the player with the Ace would not raise. This would require the original bettor to be more than an expert. A mind reader would have a tough time with that. In a passive game you may be somewhat confident of the play of an Ace but not that sure. I believe that the play is correct on it's own merits without consideration of a raise. Of course in this case, with a pocket pair and only two outs you are probably correct. I also do not feel that a check call is a bad play. Fickle huh. Now I wonder why I bothered to respond in the first place.
Vince.
I would be scared if a solid player just called me here. In bad position, I think I would have to check if an 8 doesn't come on the turn. How about instead of betting, you go for a check-raise? This would represent a 3 or AK or something. What are the chances someone might try to represent an A behind you (like we wanted to represent one). If it checks all the way around, we get important information. If we are re-raised (or even called by tight players), we also get important information. It doesn't seem like we get any information from betting and just being called.
With more cards to come, when you bet with a hand that if clled almost certainly means you are beaten, it means that a bet with nothing is almost as profitable. The only difference is that you have outs if you are not raised out. Thus if you think that an ace or three will always raise, betting two eights is the same as betting 72. If however they might not raise, it is a different story. This could swing the proper play when the pot is medium size. Notice that if you don't expect to get called with hands less than two eights you would be more inclined to bet 42 in this spot than you would those two eights.
There is a minor fish whom I often see across the poker table. He once played 95o in early position, saw the flop come 955, and pulled down a nice pot. Ever since that day, he claims to play 95o from any position.
I love opponents who formulate playing strategies based on small sample sizes. :-)
playing in my favorite no-foldem-holdem 3/3/6/12 game, I find myself 2 shy of the button. The two blinds are in, and 3/5 call. I raise JhTh. Button calls, both blinds call and an older, solid player who had just called earlier 3-bets - he is the